honest question, why are the FTC/Sony so evil? the sheer amount of new players that would have access to free COD is surely beneficial to everyone?
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
honest question, why are the FTC/Sony so evil?
Sony hasn't made a pro-consumer policy in like 20 years. They don't give a frick.
Because xbox players have standards. Playing with people using objectively inferior controllers would ruin the experience because they're handicapped by their own moronation
Wtf is this moronic chart?
>xbox gamepass treated as separate platform from xbox
>All that cloud shovelware that literally no one uses especially for a multiplayer fps.
>Nintendo as if Bobby didn't already say that Activision was gonna make a cod for next gen if it's powerful enough
>implying playstation doesn't have bigger cod playerbase than everything under pc.
Some of those cloud services even have cod available right not
>xbox gamepass treated as separate platform from xbox
um, yes? you do realize that if you own Gamepass you can play on phone, tablet, applicable fridges like Samsung models, smart TV…Microsoft want everyone to have access to free games no matter where they play
>free
Might be a good idea to look up the definition of that word.
>Todds latest magnum opus
>2 decades in the making
>gifted for the princely sum of $1 through Gamepass
dunno what shithole you come from, but $1 is essentially free
>xbox gamepass treated as separate platform from xbox
It is semi different, since it is not tied to xbox. You can use it on pc as well or through cloud and you don't need an xbox for that.
yes because Gamepass is the subscription service that currently offers the best value and Xbox by itself is the legacy way of consuming games, like the outdated model that Sony currently employs where they expect their customers to actually buy the latest releases
its forward thinking for Microsoft to offer both options as when Sony customers eventually enter the Xbox ecosystem to enjoy traditionally multi-play titles like Starfield that are now exclusive to Xbox they might be confused
The FTC themselves claimed Xbox gamepass is a separate market to Xbox
>EE
Isn't that a bong mobile phone company?
appropriate because the Great Britain holds all the bargaining chips in this
Back to Twitter, ESL.
really gonna be upsetting that UK gamers won’t have access to free COD/Diablo if the CMA has their way, why the hell is Microsoft picked on so much, they’re fricking struggling help them ffs
what was stopping Activision from putting COD on these services before the merger?
sony throwing tantrums
The IP is so valuable Activision has no incentive to put them up in any service for cheaper.
What the frick are boosteroid, ubitus, nware and 8EE?
>honest question, why are the FTC/Sony so evil
Frick, I didn't save my answer to this from the other thread.
Basically, Sony is the Big Fish in a big pond. They are one of the most lucrative divisions within Sony that helps to buoy and support the other divisions when they're not doing so hot.
This means that Playstation's appetite is MUCH MUCH larger than Nintendo's or Xbox's. Because what does success mean to each of these entities?
For Nintendo, it's "Our gaming-oriented shareholders are happy enough and we're making enough money to keep making games"
For Xbox, it's "We're making a big enough profit that Nadella doesn't want to cut us and move our funds over to Azure. Our ROI is looking decent compared to the big boys like Windows or Office"
But for Sony? It's "We need to not only support the stockprice and profit expectations of a company with very large costs, we also need to maintain a strong position so we can do so in the future"
Out of the three major consoles, Sony is the one that desires a monopoly the most because it has the most to gain. Monopoly to nintendo or xbox is nice but not necessary for the survival of the parent company. The games industry could disappear over night and Microsoft would be fine. Nintendo would be relatively happy with just a 20% share of the overall pie, since even their shareholders are pretty chill about their metric of success (relatively speaking).
Sony sees monopoly as their best lifeline whilst all their other divisions oscillate between wastes of money and modest successes from year to year. Only really Playstation and Sony Financial Services are undisputed and consistent fiscal successes. But since Sony hasn't shed any of its less successful divisions (since they still bring in money and a diverse portfolio is good), it falls on Playstation to be successful enough not just for itself but to help support the entire conglomerate in the worst of times
seems a little unhinged, so Microsoft and Nintendo are the good guy underdogs versus the evil corporate entity that is Sony?
They're not good guys but they're not as aggressive as Playstation.
Corporations and companies aren't people and they're no such thing as a 'good guy' in these situations.
But question is why is Sony so much more aggressive than the others and it's because a lot more hinges on their success compared to Nintendo or Xbox.
If Xbox goes under, Microsoft will still exist.
If Nintendo goes under, it's JUST a game company that disappears.
If Playstation goes under or gets axed, the entirety of Sony will feel it and so there more pressure and incentive on Sony to expand their games industry market share and secure themselves more
The moment he thought you called them "good guy underdogs" you should have just stopped taking him seriously.
>unironically thinking that some corporations are the good guys
Fricking hell. They are the same. Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and other corpos. They all suck.
Good take. People rarely ask why the super successful Playstation feels they need to straight up block games that supposedly doesn't sell much on Xbox anyway? Final Fantasy sold better on Xbox when the PS3 was in the gutter and there is little chance this will ever change. The answer is because Sony is not content marginalizing Xbox and enjoying a competitor who struggles to stay relevant, never hoping to be able to actually compete. Sony is actually aiming for a monopoly because they want everything. The existence of Xbox and Nintendo - no matter how low are their sales is a life threatening situation for Sony. If Xbox will just stay as an underdog it means they take away people form the PS ecosystem and they need those sweet MTX slaves to be able to fund their vanity projects. Because those games are ultimately unsustainable and only exist because the brand could gain insane market power over the XBO and WIIU.
>Xbox is doing bad
>its Snoys fault
look, I agree Sony is aggressive but so are Microsoft in their attempt to have everyone sign a lifetime contract to Gamepass, they are literally giving games away for free to get people into their ecosystem, something Sony could never do as they don’t have the same financial might. I guess my argument against Microsoft is that they seem parallel to the banks in that they are ‘too big to fail’, why does Xbox deserve all this charity? they have a shit ton of devs/studios yet don’t produce any games, and the recent ones they do like Halo and Redfall are fricking terrible, for a consumer minded company they sure are taking a long time to provide that Redfall 60fps patch. how many fricking publishers does Microsoft deserve to aquire because Blue Man bad? and lets be very honest, the more they do acquire the more they put them behind Gamepass, eventually offering them only through that service because why wouldn’t they, and then vidyas transformation into Netflix is complete…fricking soulless
It is not Microsofts fault they have money. It is not Microsofts fault Gran Turismo is online only but it doesn't matter if Sony does it. Their recent games are Forza and Hifi Rush as well and people weren't seething about Starfield if it was looking bad. Isn't it interesting people are never worrying about the Playstation monopoly despite they were always closer to it at any given time than Xbox.
What a company deserves and what doesn't is a fever dream for manchildren. Business is business and the ABK deal is Microsoft proving people just want to play games for cheap. The legend of "PS got where they did because of muh first party" is coming to an end.
And yet Microsoft repeatedly tried to steamroll everyone else during 7th gen and the inception of 8th gen before they fell flat on their face. They completely axed controller compatibility because of Xinput gimping everything.
Microsoft's policy of embrace, extend, extinguish applies to all fields they are involved in and leverages their marketshare across multiple areas, it doesn't matter if one division isn't pulling the full weight of the company.
>whataboutism
>forgetting about Sony's nigh monopolistic practices in avenues like the European music industry, or anime distribution.
>They completely axed controller compatibility
The only reason i cant use 360 controller with series x is because it needs a separate transmitter and doesn't use BT. On pc it works the same way as series controller minus the share button, because it is physically not present. The frick are you talking about.
what the frick are all these literally who services?
>what the frick are all these literally who services?
millions of users denied access to COD because of Snoy
Who are any of those below Nvidia?
Nintendo fans don't play cod and no one uses any of those other services
because Snoy blocked them
Microsoft's Anti-Consumer Practices
List of Microsoft anti consumer behavior
Forced Windows 10 upgrades: When Windows 10 was released, Microsoft faced backlash for aggressively pushing users to upgrade from previous versions of Windows, often without explicit user consent. This resulted in some users feeling forced into the new operating system.
Data collection and privacy concerns: Microsoft has been criticized for its data collection practices, particularly with Windows 10. The operating system collects various types of data, which some users have argued infringes on their privacy.
Windows Store exclusivity: Microsoft has faced criticism for its policies that promote the use of the Windows Store for app distribution. The company has been accused of creating a closed ecosystem that limits user choice and restricts developers from distributing their apps through other channels.
Limited cross-platform support: Microsoft has been criticized for its lack of cross-platform support in certain cases. For example, some users have expressed frustration over the limited availability of Microsoft Office applications on platforms other than Windows.
Subscription-based services: Microsoft has shifted towards a subscription-based model for some of its products, such as Microsoft Office 365 and Xbox Game Pass. This move has been viewed by some as an attempt to lock users into ongoing payments rather than providing a one-time purchase option.
Exclusivity deals and acquisitions: Microsoft has faced scrutiny for exclusivity deals and acquisitions that have limited consumer choice. For example, the acquisition of certain game studios by Microsoft has led to games being exclusive to the Xbox platform, potentially alienating players on other platforms.
>Forced windows 10 upgrades
Windows offers automatic reversion to 7 in the BIOS boot screen
>Data Collection
I don't suppose you have any social media, do you?
>Windows store exclusivity
Blatantly false, considering you can download programs from the internet in every single windows PC and every game is on steam, people don't whine about apple store though, how odd.
>Limited cross-platform support
They're the single most pro cross-platform company in the industry, meanwhile Sony holds games ransom for cross-platform support
>Subscription services
You can still buy office, either from Microsoft themselves or from a keysite, you just own a single version of office instead of having perpetual updates, if anything, 365 makes it easier for institutions and the like to provide free access to students and workers
>Exclusivity deals
Projection
ChatGPT is awful at constructing arguments.
they are in the right.
dont forget that ps gamers are bigger than both pc and xkek combined.
so, good for sony = good for consumers.
do not fret, the court of appeals will fix what that paid judge has ruined.
the world will heal soon..
>good for sony = good for consumers.
Except Sony regularly frick over consumers and abandon their audiences the moment something more lucrative comes along.
>sad poorgay noises.
be on the right side next time then ;^)
Shit on me for the twitter screencap if you must, just wanted to say I was right when I said Activision was going to fix all of the CoDs so they could be put on Game Pass.