Sony worries Microsoft will only give it a “degraded” Call of Duty

"Our business would never recover," Sony exec says of potential substandard version.

See full article...

 

[agony]

JFC Sony! you sounds like a petulant bitchin' whining child. Stop it FFS.

 

[TVPaulD]

But Sony says the long-term results of this kind of "degraded" PlayStation version would be the same as a full PlayStation ban: Call of Duty players abandoning Sony and moving to Microsoft's platforms.

Such a move would "seriously damage our reputation," Sony Interactive Entertainment CEO Jim Ryan told the CMA in a recent hearing. "Our gamers would desert our platform in droves and network effects would exacerbate the problem. Our business would never recover."

Jim Ryan should have been laughed out of the room for saying something like this. If the entire PlayStation business would be materially damaged by one game series being slightly better on Xbox (which…Call of Duty was for much of the Xbox 360/PS3 generation anyway, back when Microsoft had the co-marketing and maps deal), then the PlayStation business is worthless and Sony deserve to lose in the marketplace.

Of course that isn’t the case, but the point is anyone (particularly regulators) taking Sony’s arguments seriously after this must either have been born yesterday or be relying entirely on motivated reasoning.

It's not Call of Duty that matters, it's all the later games that Microsoft won't bring to the Playstation. Example: Starfield, which would absolutely be on Playstation if Microsoft didn't own Bethesda. There's no reason for it to be exclusive other than being anti-competitive.

Sony blocked Marvel’s Avengers, a third party multi-platform game, from featuring Spider-Man - the Mickey Mouse of the Marvel brand - on Xbox (and PC), even though they already had a first party Spider-Man game series published by them.

But yeah, no, market* leader Sony are the victims of third placed Microsoft’s “anticompetitive” practices.

^{*Autocorrect initially changed this to racket, which is just objectively very funny in context}

 

[TheGuyWithANickname]

Jim Ryan should have been laughed out of the room for saying something like this. If the entire PlayStation business would be materially damaged by one game series being slightly better on Xbox (which…Call of Duty was for much of the Xbox 360/PS3 generation anyway, back when Microsoft had the co-marketing and maps deal), then the PlayStation business is worthless and Sony deserve to lose in the marketplace.

Of course that isn’t the case, but the point is anyone (particularly regulators) taking Sony’s arguments seriously after this must either have been born yesterday or be relying entirely on motivated reasoning.

Sony blocked Marvel’s Avengers, a third party multi-platform game, from featuring Spider-Man - the Mickey Mouse of the Marvel brand - on Xbox (and PC), even though they already had a first party Spider-Man game series published by them.

But yeah, no, market* leader Sony are the victims of third placed Microsoft’s “anticompetitive” practices.

^{*Autocorrect initially changed this to racket, which is just objectively very funny in context}

It’s not Sony that decided this but Square Enix, in a contractual agreement. Microsoft could had easily outbid the offer. With an acquisition that possibility isn’t more feasible, so why MS is under scrutiny and not Sony.

And where is the argument into denying the possibility for MS - getting advantage from a position - by saying that Sony did the same in the past ? That moral view is again irrelevant, it’s not a trial and not the objection here (that the CMA already dismissed btw).

 

[TVPaulD]

It’s not Sony that decided this but Square Enix, in a contractual agreement. Microsoft could had easily outbid the offer. With an acquisition that possibility isn’t more feasible, so why MS is under scrutiny and not Sony.

And where is the argument into denying the possibility for MS - getting advantage from a position - by saying that Sony did the same in the past ? That moral view is again irrelevant, it’s not a trial and not the objection here (that the CMA already dismissed btw).

Did you not think to read the comment that I quoted and was responding to? It made no reference to the CMA, Call of Duty or the matter at hand in general other than to brush them aside in order to complain that an unrelated game being an exclusive is “anticompetitive.” I also made no reference to the CMA discussion about the Microsoft/Activision Blizzard merger in that response, precisely because it is unrelated.

For what it’s worth, it is laughable to suggest that Sony bears no responsibility for a contractual agreement they entered into simply because there was another party to it. The fact that it involved engaging with a third party doesn’t absolve them of responsibility for its market impact, if anything it makes the move more detrimental to the competitive marketplace as such deals are literally the heavyweight first parties exerting influence on external businesses to their own competitive advantage.

Now for what it’s worth as much as I dislike such deals, I don’t think they rise to the level of anticompetitive (anti-consumer in a way, certainly, but nothing actionable, just frustrating), which was my point. As others have said, exclusives are not inherently anticompetitive, they are a competitive edge. There is no legal right to deny your competitors a valid competitive advantage. Complaining that Microsoft making content from IP it owns exclusive to its own platform is “anticompetitive” against a Sony who routinely engage in denying other people’s IP to Xbox customers is plainly ludicrous.

 

[Oliver Weichhold]

Seriously, STFU Sony! You are pathetic.

 

[LosAngelesPandas]

When a person makes such an excuse it makes you wonder if Sony was pushing degraded versions of PC ports intentionally.

"We can't allow good ports on PC - make sure all our PC ports are criminally bad!"

I don't actually think it's intentional, I just think they get some other studio like Iron Galaxy to do it because Nixxes is busy or something.

They just don't care enough, in other words.

 

[YdenMkII]

It's not Call of Duty that matters, it's all the later games that Microsoft won't bring to the Playstation. Example: Starfield, which would absolutely be on Playstation if Microsoft didn't own Bethesda. There's no reason for it to be exclusive other than being anti-competitive.

While it would be likely Starfield would come out on PS if the company were still independent, there was never a guarantee it would. Basically at any point before release, MS or hell even Nintendo could have given Bethesda enough money to stop a PS release just as Sony could have stopped an MS release. What I wonder is how much it would have cost to keep it off the PS compared to how much MS paid for the company?

 

[Jiggers]

As long as SONY continues to have their own exclusives, they need to STFU, and any judge with brains should tell them so.

 

[Chodax]

Classic Sony gaslighting.

 

[BloodWolfe]

You guys are late on this as I read this around a week ago or so on other sites.

That aside, Sony is a bunch of whiny brats. The way they go about snagging up, and in some cases strong arming developers to get exclusives, so they have no right to oppose this. Especially with lies and ridiculous BS claims such as this.

I've never seen a company behave in such a childish manner. I'm glad I don't own a PS5 and I will now never buy another Sony product. The fact that it was also commented by someone at Sony (forget who said it) but said it's not about Call of Duty and just about blocking the acquisition for the sake of blocking it.

Sony needs to just eff off already. I'm not even buying their games anymore that get ported to PC.

 

[WhiskersWithClaws]

Reading the comments is depressing, and proves people do not understand the situation here. Not surprising when the majority are either PC or XBox gamers.

Let me break this down for you so you can understand, because you've proven to the world you don't know how to think.

Activision is a stand alone company, a publisher in control of several studios. One of its biggest products is Call of Duty, which isn't platform specific, although past releases have garnered specials to specific platforms.

This means it's playable on every platform, and the game is a massive seller on these platforms. It doesn't matter what YOU think of the game, millions out there contrast your ignorance.

Sony, despite its exclusives, makes millions through the Activision licensing of CoD. It's one of the best selling games on their platform, and yes, surpasses even their own exclusives.

It was the 2022 best selling game and it continues to dominate sales in 2023.

"But Sony is being hypocritical with its exclusives!" This argument is fucking stupid.

This isn't an exclusive situation. It's a buyout, a method in which competition is destroyed because one company enjoys flexing its billions against another to dominate control because its console sales suck so bad, even the Switch beats it, and this is a console which doesn't brag about 4K specs at 120 frames per second.

Microsoft is taking a nuclear approach by purchasing all publishers who sell top selling games.

Their last acquisition, Zenimax, will net them billions in licensing revenue in the years to come. Just wait until Starfield is released, let alone the next Elder Scrolls game. This is the long term plan for Microsoft? Buy out the competition in order to compete?

As one who does own an XBox, I am not happy with the company and its decisions in using the money it forces me to pay for online access to make anti-consumer purchases, or deals which literally waste millions of dollars, including the buyout of a game streaming service (now defunct) or trying to buy Ninja from Twitch because "He's a star", also now defunct and Ninja is back on Twitch.

Every one of you should be more concerned about the approach Microsoft is taking with gaming than complain about Sony's exclusives, which are no different than Nintendo's first party games (which always seem to be left out of these conversations, conveniently).

Microsoft's inclusion into gaming has, so far, been benign, but it's clear the executives and stock holders are getting pretty pissed off the company continues to reside in 3rd place.

You need to understand how problematic this merger is.

Sony is right. Microsoft will abuse its ownership of their new franchises.

You all also forgot how Microsoft also went on a studio buying spree years ago in order to make exclusives such as Fable.

Where are those studios now? They're gone, because Microsoft purchased studios to make games on the worst selling console. What did anyone expect was going to happen.

Microsoft isn't about the games. They're about the control of the games.

This, coming from a company which introduces a monthly fee just so people could play with each other online, and was gleefully picked up by the other two console makers given how much they didn't hesitate to spend money for an option we once had for free for years.

All you have to do is look at Microsoft's history to realize this isn't about competing in the exclusives market.

It's about controlling the best games that ARE NOT exclusives.

For that, I have to ask: What the hell is wrong with you to think Microsoft should be allowed this merger.

 

[bspence11]

I just never understood this series. It’s just a run of the mill shooter. There’s plenty more out there just like it.

 

[ispshadow]

It is just astonishing to see Sony complain they might get a "degraded version" of Call of Duty considering that is exactly what they have been doing to Microsoft. I know the last two versions that have come out had exclusive game modes, weapon blueprints, and xp incentives (PS gets extra "Double XP" days that Xbox doesn't). I wouldn't be shocked if Microsoft has done the same, but I don't know of any so I can't comment on that.

This is coming from someone that owns both consoles and prefers Playstation for first person shooters. If Sony's Playstation division literally can't survive without doing these things, then their business is in serious trouble.

 

[HungryBadger]

Reading the comments is depressing, and proves people do not understand the situation here. Not surprising when the majority are either PC or XBox gamers.

Let me break this down for you so you can understand, because you've proven to the world you don't know how to think.

Activision is a stand alone company, a publisher in control of several studios. One of its biggest products is Call of Duty, which isn't platform specific, although past releases have garnered specials to specific platforms.

This means it's playable on every platform, and the game is a massive seller on these platforms. It doesn't matter what YOU think of the game, millions out there contrast your ignorance.

Sony, despite its exclusives, makes millions through the Activision licensing of CoD. It's one of the best selling games on their platform, and yes, surpasses even their own exclusives.

It was the 2022 best selling game and it continues to dominate sales in 2023.

"But Sony is being hypocritical with its exclusives!" This argument is fucking stupid.

This isn't an exclusive situation. It's a buyout, a method in which competition is destroyed because one company enjoys flexing its billions against another to dominate control because its console sales suck so bad, even the Switch beats it, and this is a console which doesn't brag about 4K specs at 120 frames per second.

Microsoft is taking a nuclear approach by purchasing all publishers who sell top selling games.

Their last acquisition, Zenimax, will net them billions in licensing revenue in the years to come. Just wait until Starfield is released, let alone the next Elder Scrolls game. This is the long term plan for Microsoft? Buy out the competition in order to compete?

As one who does own an XBox, I am not happy with the company and its decisions in using the money it forces me to pay for online access to make anti-consumer purchases, or deals which literally waste millions of dollars, including the buyout of a game streaming service (now defunct) or trying to buy Ninja from Twitch because "He's a star", also now defunct and Ninja is back on Twitch.

Every one of you should be more concerned about the approach Microsoft is taking with gaming than complain about Sony's exclusives, which are no different than Nintendo's first party games (which always seem to be left out of these conversations, conveniently).

Microsoft's inclusion into gaming has, so far, been benign, but it's clear the executives and stock holders are getting pretty pissed off the company continues to reside in 3rd place.

You need to understand how problematic this merger is.

Sony is right. Microsoft will abuse its ownership of their new franchises.

You all also forgot how Microsoft also went on a studio buying spree years ago in order to make exclusives such as Fable.

Where are those studios now? They're gone, because Microsoft purchased studios to make games on the worst selling console. What did anyone expect was going to happen.

Microsoft isn't about the games. They're about the control of the games.

This, coming from a company which introduces a monthly fee just so people could play with each other online, and was gleefully picked up by the other two console makers given how much they didn't hesitate to spend money for an option we once had for free for years.

All you have to do is look at Microsoft's history to realize this isn't about competing in the exclusives market.

It's about controlling the best games that ARE NOT exclusives.

For that, I have to ask: What the hell is wrong with you to think Microsoft should be allowed this merger.

You can't really have it both ways. If Microsoft will ruin the studios by making them produce Xbox exclusives, then this will have next to no effect on Sony - it'd kill off some franchises like Call of Duty, but someone else will just make another first person shooter which dethrones it. It's not like that hasn't happened before or couldn't happen again.

On the other hand, if they buy up all the best studios and fund them to make top tier games on Xbox, then they really aren't doing anything Sony didn't already do for PlayStation. All those Sony first party exclusives are precisely the result of buying up successful studios. Nintendo are really the only ones left who built up the development teams organically and that's simply a result of having been in the game longer than anyone else.

Fwiw, I'm not in favour of this much vertical integration in the gaming market, but it has been the way things are going for a very long time now. I'm old enough to remember when there were a multitude of gaming platforms and an abundance of different publisher's. The sheer spiralling cost of games development, plus the benefits of being able to influence the next generation of hardware (and get better early access to it) has benefited companies that span the whole hardware and software stack. And the likes of Apple in the phone market have shown this is an across the board thing, so I think we're inevitably going to see more of this unless we force a separation between hardware and software development across the industry, which I'm not convinced benefits consumers necessarily either .

 

[ispshadow]

Let me break this down for you so you can understand, because you've proven to the world you don't know how to think.

I have no comment on the rest of what you screeched about, but telling a forum "I'm smarter than you, so listen" is unlikely to get a positive reaction.

 

[RickRoyLeonPrisZhoraRacha]

CoD isn't the market its hyped to be. From n00bs to aimbots/wallcheats to rampant cheaters to teams that wipe maps...I've not found it fun since Infinity Ward's best version CoD2 and Modernwarfare 2. We all know Treyarch's versions sucked. Now its just copying what management thinks is good (Fortnite, Casino-royale style maps, ...) Perhaps a VR version of DayZ where, you die, you can't play. Again. Ever. Lulz.

Move on Sony. There are newer and future IP to focus on. Might I suggest that you lower the PS5 price about 10%, port PSN exclusives to Xbox, and get more content out for the PSVR2. Activision-Blizzard isn't a concern as gaming will wane. People will care more about where their next paycheck comes from (1.5Million layoffs coming Summer 2023)

 

[Snarky Robot]

Like Microsoft becoming the biggest publisher and developer for traditional gaming

Even with the merger going through, that won't be the case.

 

[sword_9mm]

Can we just copy paste comments from the last 5 threads?

Same shit.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

That is pretty fucking dumb, friend.

Indeed. This isn't a binary thing. We don't have to pick a side. They're both corrupt and too powerful as it is.

 

[Snarky Robot]

Let me break this down for you so you can understand, because you've proven to the world you don't know how to think.

I'll take your claims of superior intellect more seriously when you google what "paragraph" means and have mastered the art of making them.

 

[Humour]

It's not Call of Duty that matters, it's all the later games that Microsoft won't bring to the Playstation. Example: Starfield, which would absolutely be on Playstation if Microsoft didn't own Bethesda. There's no reason for it to be exclusive other than being anti-competitive.

Dude, Microsoft at least makes games for two different platforms. Sony ain’t do that. When an Xbox “exclusive” comes out, I can get it on PC. Keep your pretentiousness to yourself until Sony does the same.

 

[ardent]

I believe that Sony's future viability does hinge on having CoD on platform in unadulterated form.

I'm also of the opinion Sony is approaching this all wrong at this point. Instead of trying to block the sale, they should be asking for enforcement clauses upon violation of the agreements. Immediate dissolution of Microsoft's gaming and Xbox divisions from Microsoft enforcement clauses. With those in place, assuming they were enforced, Microsoft would have no choice but to deal fairly.

Given that Microsoft has previously lied about plans and intentions in an acquisition, there's zero reason to trust them.

 

[Snarky Robot]

Dude, Microsoft at least makes games for two different platforms. Sony ain’t do that. When an Xbox “exclusive” comes out, I can get it on PC.

Don't worry, someone will be along to tell you that Windows counts as a Microsoft platform, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of games are sold on Steam. So much so that Microsoft themselves have to pay the toll and release their games on Steam. Make sure to ask them how much Microsoft controls the market and how much they make from game sales.

 

[just another rmohns]

I'm not in favor of the merger, but I also really have no sympathy for Sony on this one. The merger should be stopped because we don't need this massive consolidation into mega corps in the gaming (or any other) industry that control everything, not because Sony is crying about CoD.

Consolidation is indeed what we should be talking about, not any single deal. It appears that gaming is trending toward oligopoly, with fewer and fewer choices for gaming consumers. As the largest gaming publishers are swallowed up by the big two platform makers, consumer choice disappears.

We also should look back at Halo. When Microsoft acquired Bungie, Halo had already been announced as a cross-platform game. It was exclusive to Xbox for two years. And the one expansion pack was Windows-exclusive.

Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo 4, Halo 5, Halo: Reach… exclusive to Microsoft-controlled platforms: Xbox and Windows.

I have little love for any of these three companies – Activation are asshats of high order – but does anyone really think that Microsoft will make future COD titles for anything except PC & Xbox? Their history with Bungie demonstrates that Microsoft will absolutely honor their word… for now.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Consolidation is indeed what we should be talking about, not any single deal. It appears that gaming is trending toward oligopoly, with fewer and fewer choices for gaming consumers. As the largest gaming publishers are swallowed up by the big two platform makers, consumer choice disappears.

We also should look back at Halo. When Microsoft acquired Bungie, Halo had already been announced as a cross-platform game. It was exclusive to Xbox for two years. And the one expansion pack was Windows-exclusive.

Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo 4, Halo 5, Halo: Reach… exclusive to Microsoft-controlled platforms: Xbox and Windows.

I have little love for any of these three companies – Activation are asshats of high order – but does anyone really think that Microsoft will make future COD titles for anything except PC & Xbox? Their history with Bungie demonstrates that Microsoft will absolutely honor their word… for now.

Exactly, and here's the thing. I don't even honestly care if MS honors the deal with this franchise or not. It's irrelevant in the wider discussion on the trend towards monopolization the industry, and all industries, are facing right now. The regulative authorities that COULD be putting a stop to this are toothless these days. Even in the 90's MS got slapped into order regarding their web browser practices, but the idea that anyone would go after MS's anticompetitive practices in any sector at this point are laughable. That's why I said many times that I didn't really care about what Sony had to say. They're trying to do it too, but that's not an excuse to allow MS to do it, it's a reason to clamp down MORE.

 

[Snarky Robot]

Microsoft controls Windows gaming the way Microsoft controls whether you search "install Chrome" in Edge.

 

[lezmaka]

They're just afraid that Microsoft will do to Sony what Sony would do to Microsoft. All their arguments should be saved and replayed for the next time Sony wants to buy something.

 

[Ubersoldat19]

I'm surprised this attitude is so common in these comments.

This merger is terrible for the gaming industry. Ignoring the fact that I think Sony's concerns are reasonable, I don't know why anyone would want this unless they're a Microsoft investor. Microsoft absolutely will 100% do this. Yes: Sony would too, but that doesn't mean consumers shouldn't still say, "This is bullshit, it's bad for us and it's going to make one gaming company even more dominant and games overall shittier, more restricted, and more expensive in the long-run."

This merger obviously going to cause most of the harms that critics are warning, regardless of how unsympathetic Sony is.

Microsoft has proven to be a much better curator of content then Activision, and much more consumer friendly. I'm more optimistic about the state of Blizzard now that they will have oversite by a company not run by Bobby Kotick.

The sky isn't falling. The vast majority of people probably won't even notice that Call of Duty is now a Microsoft product. And many more won't notice because they don't play Call of Duty. It may be one of gaming's most popular franchise, but it's far from ubiquitous. From a consumer perspective, this entire acquisition has been very overblown.

 

[flunk]

Why not just buy EA and make Battlefield competitive again?

 

[flunk]

Microsoft controls Windows gaming the way Microsoft controls whether you search "install Chrome" in Edge.

You're confusing what they do now with what they have the ability to do. Microsoft could lock down the ability to install software on Windows whenever they went and it would take a lot of lawsuits to get it back and even that isn't assured.

Apple still gets away with locking down iPhones despite their powerful market position.

 

[Snarky Robot]

You're confusing what they do now with what they have the ability to do. Microsoft could lock down the ability to install software on Windows whenever they went and it would take a lot of lawsuits to get it back and even that isn't assured.

That isn’t going to happen. It wasn’t going to happen a decade ago when the panic about that gripped everyone, either. Are you seriously going to argue that Microsoft is going to kill the golden goose for the sake of a few game sales? That they’ll lose half of their OS customers (businesses) for the benefit of App Store sales? You think gamers will flock to the Windows Store if Microsoft prevents Steam from installing? You think the tens of thousands of companies that install outside the store will rush to the store? That regulators won’t salivate at the lawsuits and fines they’ll levy, despite the fact that they’re investigating this and Azure? That they’d WIN those lawsuits despite the fact that they’ve lost less egregious ones?

No. It is STUPID at this point to believe this would happen, outside of a product made for very specific, very niche uses, where customers would want the lockdown, such as education.

 

[hestermofet]

Reading the comments is depressing, and proves people do not understand the situation here. Not surprising when the majority are either PC or XBox gamers.
Let me break this down for you so you can understand, because you've proven to the world you don't know how to think.

"You guys are a bunch of idiots, so let me mansplain it for you with my dumb hot take".

I'm sure you convinced a lot of people with your unhinged rant, bub.

 

[hestermofet]

Don't worry, someone will be along to tell you that Windows counts as a Microsoft platform, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of games are sold on Steam. So much so that Microsoft themselves have to pay the toll and release their games on Steam. Make sure to ask them how much Microsoft controls the market and how much they make from game sales.

On top of that, a lot of MS published games run just fine on Linux because of the work Valve put into Proton.

 

[hestermofet]

You're confusing what they do now with what they have the ability to do. Microsoft could lock down the ability to install software on Windows whenever they went and it would take a lot of lawsuits to get it back and even that isn't assured.

Apple still gets away with locking down iPhones despite their powerful market position.

Microsoft has published Windows for 38 years. To think they will obliterate the core reason people use Windows (backwards compatibility going back almost four decades) just to prop up a tiny portion of of their overall business that by many accounts loses money is ... I dunno, arrogance? Gamers often lose perspective. Sorry, your hobby is just not that important to the trillion dollar company known as Microsoft. Xbox means almost nothing to MS' overall business, and they are not going to neuter and destroy Windows for it. It's not worth killing their cash cow for.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Microsoft has proven to be a much better curator of content then Activision, and much more consumer friendly. I'm more optimistic about the state of Blizzard now that they will have oversite by a company not run by Bobby Kotick.

The sky isn't falling. The vast majority of people probably won't even notice that Call of Duty is now a Microsoft product. And many more won't notice because they don't play Call of Duty. It may be one of gaming's most popular franchise, but it's far from ubiquitous. From a consumer perspective, this entire acquisition has been very overblown.

No one cares if MS would be a better "curator", they're still in control. Things are growing more vertical and that alone should concern you. They're bad actors in a number of ways, and they could become worse at any point. We don't yet know the full extent of things and we have no reason to believe A-B will treat it's employees better under MS. Historically, corporations growing bigger don't bode well for employees caught in a merger.

 

[sword_9mm]

Don't worry, someone will be along to tell you that Windows counts as a Microsoft platform, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of games are sold on Steam. So much so that Microsoft themselves have to pay the toll and release their games on Steam. Make sure to ask them how much Microsoft controls the market and how much they make from game sales.

Don't worry; you still forgot MS get's money for every Windows copy sold.

Till they give Windows away free a'la Linux it's an MS platform.

But don't let that get in your way of the console wars.

 

[Grimmash]

Last I checked... Sony and Nintendo are the console makers that make it hard to play their games via exclusivity. When Sony starts releasing day and date versions of TLOU, GoW, Horizon, Etc on PC and MS platforms, I'll listen to this nonsense.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Last I checked... Sony and Nintendo are the console makers that make it hard to play their games via exclusivity. When Sony starts releasing day and date versions of TLOU, GoW, Horizon, Etc on PC and MS platforms, I'll listen to this nonsense.

Agreed. Sony want to do all the things MS are doing, and to a lesser extent they already are. In fact, there's reasons to start denying their acquisitions too. Nintendo for their part aren't in the business of buying up studios left and right. They still DO it, but it isn't their strategy. They normally just keep doing what they're doing with what they have.

And yes I'm still just a BIT bitter about MS buying Rare from Nintendo, but frankly I don't want Rare returned to them, I want it independent.

Oh and there's this:
https://kotaku.com/xbox-series-x-s-emulation-ps2-wii-gamecube-piracy-1850309874I actually really liked that MS allowed custom software within rather strict limitations on their console. It was something that put them a hair above the other's tyrannical restrictions (which in at least Nintendo's case are rather easily subverted due to lax security but still...). Them ending it out of fear of misplaced retaliation from the other console makers seems like a mistake to me. Emulation is legal, full stop, and MS of all companies can afford the legal defense. Personally I'd really love to see this established in a courtroom, since Nintendo has been VERY disingenuous going after flash card makers for the DS/3DS and getting rulings saying that they're illegal because they "enable piracy" (all computers "enable piracy"). I for one use mine just the same way I use all the still-legal flash carts for consoles Nintendo wasn't currently making money on, for keeping all my games in one easy to use place as well as being able to run fan translations of imports, ROM hacks, and homebrew.

Anyway, I drifted a little from my point, which is that I do approve of some of the things MS does, but more and more they seem to want to stop doing those things, just like yanking away the Xbox file explorer and thus curtailing a lot of the modding people liked to do.

 

[disarmyouwitha]

I'm never gonna financially recover from this...

 

[Snarky Robot]

Don't worry; you still forgot MS get's money for every Windows copy sold.

Tell me, exactly how much of that is directly connected to the GAMING MARKET. You know...the thing you're insisting Microsoft controls because of Windows?

This continues to be one of the stupidest arguments advanced. Microsoft's power on Xbox is the STORE. The market in question, the one that is actually relevant to the discussion of how much power Windows has over gaming is...gaming. Game sales. Microsoft has fuck-all power in PC gaming.

Till they give Windows away free a'la Linux it's an MS platform.

Once again, Microsoft has power over the PC gaming industry in the exact same way that Microsoft has power over the browser market.

"DURR, Windows owns Microsoft" remains a pointless fact. Here, simple question time:

Microsoft currently controls the hardware, the operating system, and the store on Xbox. Regulators force Microsoft to choose one to open to others. Do they choose:

• exclusive control of the hardware;
• exclusive control of the operating systems; or
• exclusive control of the store front

Calling Windows a platform owned by Microsoft in the same way that Xbox is remains stupid. It's like saying that Flight Simulator is the same as Office. If you think Microsoft would give up control of the store, I don't know how you function in life. If Microsoft is so powerful in game sales, why do they sell on Steam?

But don't let that get in your way of the console wars.

Yeah, I mean, I've owned every console from every manufacturer since the PS2 (except the Wii U), and I spent more on my PS5 and the PSVR2 than I did on my Series X, but you go ahead and insist that your arguments being stupid means I'm biased, sugarplum.