Haha, no he's absolutely not. As someone mentioned before, the businesses are totally different models.
Haha, no he's absolutely not. As someone mentioned before, the businesses are totally different models.
Hurrah, you get it. And, that's what happened with Bungie or IO.A studio that is owned by a publisher has no interest apart from those the publisher dictates. If they are incompatible, they can buy themselves out or find a buyer that meets the asking price.
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.Didn't the whole geo-blocking thing go hand-in-hand with regional pricing? I seem to recall something cropping up recently about the EU finding the former practice to be inappropriate, as Valve were employing it to ensure people couldn't just switch to a different region and buy the game cheaper or somesuch. I may be mistaken, admittedly.
As far as the Microsoft x ZeniMax acquisition goes; it's an interesting situation, and I'm curious to see the long term outcomes as a result of it. There's certainly been some interesting talking points raised by both supporters and detractors over the course of the last few months since this was announced.
by offering a better service than those competitors?...and how do they increase the share of those third party multi-platform titles that they receive a cut of?
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.No, you're arguing through the lenses of a company (or a corporate apologists).
Yes, what I'm saying doesn't suit a company's needs. But it doesn't mean their business model is okay when it's non-sensical. It's not because you're used to get the short end of the stick that it's a desirable situation.
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.Hurrah, you get it. And, that's what happened with Bungie or IO.
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.IF sony and microsoft competition was mostly good for costumers, practices like online subscription wouldn't exist
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.Steam on the other hand while it wants to get as much money as possible they aren't too concerned to getting all the money. it is clear valve's leaderhsip assumes that as long as steam is at the forefront of video game tech, users will keep on their platform
Try to sell a 500$ product just with services.By having people buy those games on their platform. Which doesn't require exclusivity but good service.
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.
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.
He stopped making viable points long ago. He is now arguing the absurd.
Ask yourself, as a PS5 owner (not saying you are, just hypothetically) what is there to be upset about? In this case really nothing because nothing is being taken away from you. Only this idea that a game that was teased years ago (Starfield and Elder Scrolls) may have come out. In the meantime Sony is going to be providing hundreds of games for you anyways. They are already actively going after their own things like making sure Insomniac stays, games like Final Fantasy and so on. There will be no shortage of games but some people have it in their DNA to complain about anything.
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.
Haha, no he's absolutely not. As someone mentioned before, the businesses are totally different models.
Consumers didn't push back and that's why online subscription exist. When the push back (always online, 600$ second job console, ...).
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.
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.
Try to sell a 500$ product just with services.
We are still in the denial stage of griefI see we've now just devolved into the Airing of All Gaming Grievances portion of the topic....
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.
Competition isn't a great thing per se. If anything, competition taking place in gaming is a huge pile of fuming shit that is about finding new ways to milk customers.
That kind of competition is only a great thing for companies.
True competition takes place on grounds where customers have the possibility to make a choice of where to buy and when to buy and base their decision on their own preferences or service quality.
Not because x company decided to pay money to be the sole provider of y content.
i suspect many of the same arguments will be rehashed in the formal announcement thread
Let's not forget what happened when MS tried to introduce online subs on PC....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.
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.
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.
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...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.
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 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 😂
before buying the console.Do people experience that service before or after selecting and buying a console?
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.Consumers didn't push back and that's why online subscription exist. When the push back (always online, 600$ second job console, ...).
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?
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?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.
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.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.
Try to sell a 500$ product just with services.
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.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.
More or less xDBut 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?
...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!
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.
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?
Yes. The boots are now well polished thanks to your help, soldier !
And while Microsoft hasn't yet, Sony didn't drop the price back, did they ? In fact Take Two said it's working. Curious.
Yes. The boots are now well polished thanks to your help, soldier !
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.
The free cloud save service was introduced with Xbox One.X launch? that is probably more related with series S having small amount of space instead of just competition
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.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.
Fair enough, they sell VR on PC. But it's not a mass market product like consoles are.Yeas let's pretend that VR doesn't exist and valve has a 1000€ VR HMD that stays on top charts all the time
And you think that streaming is going to be better or bring about change?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.
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.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...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.
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:
So Uhm, how does he not win? There was the option of "no game" or "a game". Sure as you mentioned, not everyone benefits from exclusives and I've never said otherwise. But each console has exclusives and thus consumers of said console benefit, because they can play the likes of Xenoblade, Dreams, Flight Simulator, which otherwise wouldn't have existed.
- 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. A consumer can always make the purchasing choice themselves, unless games don't get made.
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.
I honestly don't understand what you're even arguing.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.
Are you trolling at this point or simply not understand how competition works and benefit consumers?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.
Amen. Discussion closed.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.
The problem is people try and rationalize it all and it sure makes it easier on them when they can personalize the product.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.
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.
Amazing concept for a game!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.
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.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.
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.
So you know what voting with your wallet means.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.
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 as I said, competition comes from the customer. Not the other companies.
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.