Haha, no he's absolutely not. As someone mentioned before, the businesses are totally different models.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Tweaktown: Microsoft's ZeniMax buyout complete, listed as 'realized' by investor
- Thread starter Alucardx23
- Start date
- Status
Hurrah, you get it. And, that's what happened with Bungie or IO.
Steam currently has relatively hard control on geo location but games themselves are "region free". For example lets say you buy a game on a region lock lcoation. If you physically move to other country you still have acess to your games.
by offering a better service than those competitors?
People need to stop calling anyone that does not view this utopian game market as a corporate apologist. You have been wrong on so many things.
It happens every freaking year with developers branching out or more commonly, leaving and starting their own studios. And guess what, there is someone calling the shots even at those new studios, thus employee interest is dictated from above.
It is not as strange a concept as you might imagine.
Do people experience that service before or after selecting and buying a console?
Consumers didn't push back and that's why online subscription exist. When the push back (always online, 600$ second job console, ...) things get changed.
Let's use those examples. Imagine a world without PC, PS and Nintendo consoles. Imagine only Xbox were in the business from 2013 onwards. Do you think they would've reversed their stance of always online? Nope, because consumers wouldn't have any leverage against them. Because without competition the choice is either take the L and buy the console or not be gaming at all. How many do you think would've been willing to stop gaming forever to defend their stance?
Steam is different than console, though. Because they are not in the business of selling you a 300-500$ product and leverage the established PC user space to their advantage, instead.
Let's do another example... What do you think would happen to steam if they changed their stance and established 60$ online subscription and all the stuff? Wouldn't epic gain a lot of users, because they are competing with Steam? Could competition on PC be one of the reasons Steam isn't doing this? Because if they screw over their 100 million users, they'll just switch and on PC it's as easy as downloading another app. No hardware purchase needed. So that's dangerous for companies like Valve and great for consumers.
Try to sell a 500$ product just with services.
i suspect many of the same arguments will be rehashed in the formal announcement thread
Weren't you one of the person saying cloud on console costs? Well, Xbox providing a better service with their free cloud saves service surely didn't convince you, because you didn't even know about it. Service is not enough to convince anyone spending 500$ for, don't be ridiculous.
The only utopia is your definition of competition in the gaming industry. It's as much of a competition as the ISP situation in the USA.
If anything, gaming companies seems to get along really well when it comes to screw up customers.
Every. Single. Exemple given here about how competition made things better for the gaming industry came not from a competitor, but from customers complaining.
Xbox always online ? There was a huge uproar online.
Steam refunds ? EU and Australia lawsuits.
Xbox Live price increase ? Online uproar.
Steam paid mods ? Online uproar.
On the other hand, your so-called competition brought you:
All 3 manufacturers getting along with online paywall.
Sony increasing game prices to 79.99 fucking euros.
Other publishers following suit for the 70 dollars price tag.
I disagree. The idea that specific hardware shouldn't be used to control software access only seems absurd because people have experienced nothing else but this status quo so far. Console makers themselves agree, which is why you see both of them releasing games on PC and looking for more customers through streaming. The hardware lock-in model is archaic and its days are numbered, streaming will end it once and for all.
I read the whole post but I quoted this part specifically because it is the most relevant to this discussion, as it is true that people who play only on Playstation are the ones that got the short end of the stick this time. Not being to play games because of your choice of platform is nothing new for gamers but Playstation owners have had it pretty good these last few years with very few big releases skipping the platform. Potentially losing access to huge Bethesda franchises is a shock. I don't think that the reactions are surprising.
Steam and PC are competing with consoles in the sense that those publishers could choose to simply not develop for PC. Additionally Epic wants 12% and Steam in the past wanted 30% from developers. I dunno if that changed. Competition is good, because it puts pressure on each and every company.
Remember Sony openly said they thought about going beyond 80$, but ultimately decided against it. Without competition, consumers would have no way to pressure Sony or any other company and they would be able to sell games for 90-120$. It's as simple as that. Competition is important. Always was, always is and that goes for every industry.
So you rather have those games not existing than others "reaping those benefits". No offense, but that reminds me heavily of this attitude.
By the way you are wrong, that nobody can reap the benefit. If Dreams, Flight Sim, Xenoblade for example only exist, because a platform holders can take the risk, due to the additional revenue streams (services, consoles), then consumers who own the respective consoles benefit, because they can play games that otherwise wouldn't have happened. You don't need to own all consoles for that.
This is false. For instance Obsidian and InXile can now build AAA games that nobody of the third party was willing to fund. Those these studios had to either crowdfund their games or work with the tiny AA budget. Now thanks to a exclusive and a platform holders, they can hire world class veterans like the lead combat designer from GoW, they have a big AAA budget, new buildings and a own motion capture studio, .... . At the end we as consumers benefit, because they will make AAA games with a quality standard that nobody was willing to fund them. Except a platform holder.
Nah, that meme isn't applicable at all because you're ignoring the fact that the thing that you're advocating for, which allows these additional games to exist, is preventing the vast majority of people from experiencing most video games that get released. These are linked. One causes the other.
The same thing which allows Flight sim to exist, gatekeeps all sony games from being on xbox. So no one who just owns one platform can talk about "gaining more games through exclusivity" because many more games have been prevented from reaching your platform than you will ever receive. And this process is only accelerating. The only person winning here is someone who owns all/most platforms, and that's not the vast majority of people.
I see we've now just devolved into the Airing of All Gaming Grievances portion of the topic....
You dont sell something solely on service. No one said that. But you distinguish yourself with service from another competitor having the same content.
For the record, not only the biggest budget titles are multiplatform... But the best selling ones too. What a twist !
I did. You're wrong too. These are not comparable businesses. Blu-Ray and TV manufacturers are not in the content creation business (except Sony). And there are no hardware differences between Blu-Ray players that require extra work.
I hear the points you're making, but it seems like you're missing some pretty obvious contradictions.
Sure competition will adopt strategies that are successful to increase revenue, but it's all regulated by consumer choice. And competition allows another game to offer a more compelling value proposition.
While consoles do provide exclusive content, they are fairly open platforms for games. Indie developers publish content regularly on Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo, and game development engines open these platforms to all developers.
Probably. I would expect it to be a bit more uhh busy especially with whatever Xbox and Zenimax announce in regards to exclusivity or lack there of with games.
I think it's time to put the topic on ignore. Some of ya'll have completely lost the plot and are just ranting and raving about everything that pisses you off in games and Capitalism as a whole 😂
Let's not forget what happened when MS tried to introduce online subs on PC....
...what? So people in a given region of the US only have the choice of one console, and the console vendors carefully invest only in areas where they're going to be the sole option on store shelves? That's straight-up nonsense.
Sony tried differentiating their product by not having an online paywall. For two entire console generations. That didn't really seem to make the PS3 a more desirable product over the Xbox 360 to consumers, so they stopped.
...and Microsoft hasn't, yet. Huh. Sounds like they're not all moving in lockstep!
The crucial part is games like Flight Simulator, Dreams and Xenoblade wouldn't exist and that's something you keep ignoring. Let's make a example then...
Bob is a Nintendo gamer:
- Without exclusives he would've no possibility to play Xenoblade. Infact nobody would.
- With exclusives he now got Xenoblade for Christmas. Bob is happy, because he could play Xenoblade.
Heck, many fans of Forza Motorsport benefited from Microsoft deciding they need a exclusive to compete with Gran Turismo. Where is the FM/GT like game from third party? They don't exist. So the choice is zero racing games like GT/FM or having those two. How is having two more games not a win compared to having none of those?
Alright, I acknowledge that this is a valid point. Let's see how the industry develops and we can revisit this a few years later.
But I want games made for my platform of choice by whatever dev I want and none of the additions that allow devs to make money and fund their next game shouldn't be included because I think game prices are too high already and the services that support those games should be free.
Did I get everything?
before buying the console.
their online store should be offering reason on which of their hardware to buy and what experience is availabe to each hardware and what they offer that is different tot heir competitors.
I'd say they would simply stay on older generation and devs would mostly still release on old generation as the adoption would have been much slower and microsoft would have to eventually change their business model. IF they didn't it would be easy for a new opponent to join the market, specially if they had big capital like google and amazon.
Yeas let's pretend that VR doesn't exist and valve has a 1000€ VR HMD that stays on top charts all the time. Am i suposed to believe valve is losing money on index sales?
Personally if steam applied online subscription i don't see much changin except decreasing the market size and pushing many people into piracy. I doubt that people would move to other stores with the exception of GOG. I imagine GoG would increase in popularity for being the only palce where your library can't be access can't be directly screwed with.
The main reason is that steam features are HUGE because they heavily decrease on the hassle of PC gaming. without steam you have to install 20 or so programs to do the same thing and hope you are smart enough to configure each one perfectly.
You mean the change that only happen in xbox series X launch? that is probably more related with series S having small amount of space instead of just competition.
The reason microsoft doesn't allure me is not because their consoles cost 500€ it is because they cost that AND offer worse service than my steam machine.
I can list dozens of reasons i prefer steam. I was once a microsoft costumer during the xbox era. They lost me because of their service being, with due respect, greedy as fuck. Like all other console manufacturers.
If microsoft offered steam service during xbox 360 era i would still been an xbox gamer.
You have multiple ISPs in USA yet it's a shitshow. That's what it means, no need to be dense.
Also, what makes you think free online didn't make PS3 desirable ?
And while Microsoft hasn't yet, Sony didn't drop the price back, did they ? In fact Take Two said it's working. Curious.
In the future possibly but many prefer hardware. I'm looking around at just PC parts and the demand and limited stock is atrocious. You will always have your enthusiasts, whether it be those buying turntables (remember those?) or the new Super Nintendo Switch. People like tangible products so they have a sense of ownership. Only until game streaming is good enough will consumers adopt it and forget about hardware.
I find it rather comical and ironic to say PlayStation owners are getting the short end of the stick. There should be a desire for all products and it's about time Microsoft prioritized games. Sure it is at the expense of Playstation owners but let's be reasonable here, they will have plenty to play. We also see just in the first few months how PS5 is already looking to sell double Series Xbox systems, now just imagine if Microsoft had not done anything in regards to getting more studios? Be reasonable here, how bad off are PS5 owners compared to the other platforms including PC? You can't even get a PS5 in your cart, let alone purchase one. Yet they know about the Bethesda deal and possibly not getting future games. So is it really a big fuss? No it's not.
If Nintendo can flourish on its exclusive output why can't Sony? After all they too think they have enough valuable IP's, which is why they will not entertain something like Game Pass or Ubisoft +. They spent the last E3 also making the event all about a few titles, so surely Sony feels comfortable leading ahead with their own 1st party and now they also have Insomniac. Playstation owners need to get over themselves and stop acting like they are entitled to everything.
Shit happens. Studios close, studios amalgamate with another, games get cancelled, studios get bought, companies retract and downsize all the time. Sure it's unprecedented to pay 7.5 billion for something related to gaming but this has all happened before, just on a smaller scale.
Yet here we are with more platforms to choose from on how we play our games and hundreds of titles still keep coming out every year. There is plenty to play, we need a reality check here. We need to stop complaining about other options that exist out there just because they don't interest us.
Last edited:
User Banned (1 Week): Antagonizing Other Users Over A Series of Posts
Just my 2 cents, it's totally valid to be upset that the console you own won't be getting future games from a dev you like. That's a normal sentiment.
It's just weird to try to say that the reason you're upset is because "it's bad for the industry" or whatever. If THAT'S why you're so upset, then you should be keeping that same energy when Sony pulls this kinda thing right? I dunno, that's the part that rings hollow to me.
It's just weird to try to say that the reason you're upset is because "it's bad for the industry" or whatever. If THAT'S why you're so upset, then you should be keeping that same energy when Sony pulls this kinda thing right? I dunno, that's the part that rings hollow to me.
I...what? Competition doesn't mean that no one ever raises prices ever.
If you can't make your points without resorting to shit like this, it's really not worth discussing anything with you. I'm out.
What you don't seem to be grasping is that changes that result "from customers complaining" only have effect due to competition. The companies don't change course because they simply don't like to hear the complaints from customers. They change course because those complaints signify a present danger of losing customers to their competition. If there were no competing console to Xbox One, then no amount of complaining would result in MS changing the nature of its online requirements.
Even the examples of things you claim competition didn't change are inaccurate.
Take for example the online paywall. This only happened, and worked in the first place for MS, because they created an online gaming platform that was so ridiculously superior to the competition, that consumers were willing to pay to use it over the competition's free alternatives. Xbox Live in general completely caught Sony with their pants down, as lack of strong competition from Sega meant Sony were up to then free to ignore Sega's attempts to push online gaming on consoles forward. The PSN we saw even as far back as PS3, was only as featured as it was as a direct result of the efforts their competition had made into establishing an expected baseline. Had XBL had any real competition from the outset that wasn't charging a subscription fee, then competition would have likely dictated that charging an online fee wouldn't have worked. This is actually why the situation is different over on the PC side, where XBL actually didn't have a lack of competition (Steam), which swiftly forced them to abandon charging an online fee, and saw them fade into irrelevance there.
The most ridiculous thing about all this arguing over whether competition is inherently good... is that Steam as it current exists was only able to come into existence as a result of the power competition places in the hands of consumers.
The free cloud save service was introduced with Xbox One.
Absolutely correct and as I said they leveraged the fact millions already had a PC. This and the reason you mentioned here is why it worked to just provide a awesome service and be basically done with it. This doesn't work for consoles, because their only purpose is gaming, while millions PC were already in people's home before steam stormed onto the scene.
Fair enough, they sell VR on PC. But it's not a mass market product like consoles are.
No, I just find baffling that you truly believe this shit that "microtransactions or online paywall are a necessity otherwise the industry cant sustain itself".
And you think that streaming is going to be better or bring about change?
The hardware lock in is a storefront in itself and this is the same as Steam. You are going to need to go through someone's app, someone's infrastructure and when that happens, a lot of these publishers will notice that they do not carry enough content to stand alone. They will thus go back to offering their goods and a commission for someone to carry their content or they will need to merge to form entities that can give enough content at reasonable timelines. You are going to get a very fragmented setup similar to what you now see in the video streaming space with game budgets only getting bigger.
Vote with your wallet. I do this every time and it is amazing. I am not be enough to turn the tide, but I do it either way.
On the issue of price, if we all refused to buy games at $70, what happens? The prices will begin to fall and these companies will notice that there is no demand at that price.
Companies can only put their product in the market, it is the consumer that determines whether there is enough demand for a product and at what price. In business, it is said that a good is only worth what people are willing to pay for and you seem to be missing this simple truth as you call people corporate whatever.
Apart from this, there are a lot of people that just want to have local hardware, and a there is still enough market demand for physical games to justify it still being a thing.
But I thought competition was working. Tell me again about the wonders of that competition which changed the course of the industry for the better.
I've acknowledged that multiple times already, as I have said, "no one who just owns one platform can talk about "gaining more games through exclusivity" because many more games have been prevented from reaching your platform than you will ever receive. And this process is only accelerating. "
Bob has gained access to Xenoblade due to exclusivity, but they have also lost out on playing any games exclusive to other platforms. They have lost something. We can't ignore that part of the transaction. Look at the entire industry, not just one game!
And it is only accelerating!
Games studios and franchises that used to make multiplatform games are slowly going to get divided between these platforms, that's a loss. And this only occurs because of this exclusives arms race.
So as I said, competition comes from the customer. Not the other companies.
They're ranting at evil capitalism and how things should exist as if we lived in a fantasy land where the consumer gets everything they could possibly ever want to happen exactly as they wanted, but then proceeds to get mad when people call them out that we somehow don't actually live in said fantasy and reality is different.
Are you trolling at this point or simply not understand how competition works and benefit consumers?
Amen. Discussion closed.
The problem is people try and rationalize it all and it sure makes it easier on them when they can personalize the product.
It's pretty easy to do while you sit at home contemplating whether that game or that hardware is worth it to buy or not thinking everyone providing these products is a billionaire. Meanwhile behind the black curtains are peoples future at risk, all while working hard to give us the content we crave. Yes, we have it so hard I agree.
But it's you who were saying that buying a publisher and a studio is the same thing. And now you've admitted that "A studio that is owned by a publisher has no interest apart from those the publisher dictates." Absolutely... and that includes closures.
Here none of these studios have been consulted or informed : that's the difference with a unique acquisition. And when owned, they still exist as independent creative entity : even you are using this argument to value the acquisition and the freedom offered with.
Maybe they are now all very happy of this I dunno, it wasn't even my point. And about speaking of this in Era, just ask collectively moderators to state something if it bores all of you, because after the deal all these discussions will become pointless.
That the so-called competition you people are clamoring for is BS and doesn't work. What works is people complaining.
The only fantasy is that industry where people will defend the worst shit coming out of their favorite companies. Stuff that wouldn't even exist in other industries.
I do understand how competition works. You just fail to provide an exemple of where a competitor brought something good for the customers on the table and that it changed the course of the industry.
If anything, I showed you how the industry aligns when it's to fuck up the customers. And how things changed for the better not because of competitors but people being vocal.
So you know what voting with your wallet means.
What are you on about? The competition is for the consumers wallet and time and this manifests itself as different offerings from different companies. If there are no competing companies, there is no choice.
So again you read things in a weird manner that makes absolutely no sense.
When did consulting studios become the standard for acquisitions? There are different types of acquisitions. Also, your argument would only work if studios themselves did not pick and choose platforms for whatever reason. For example, there are not many good fighting games on the Xbox but there are on PC which shares a similar platform?
I agree that this may be a new development for PS owners but lets not forget that the drumbeat for exclusives as a differntiator for consoles was beaten loudest by the gaming press and gamers themselves. Companies react to the market
- Status