3 ms·

I honestly do not care about that, if it was the case. Competition can be a very bad thing in this field, because it decreases the quality of the games by limit

I honestly do not care about that, if it was the case. Competition can be a very bad thing in this field, because it decreases the quality of the games by limiting compatibility with other, often older, established platforms, and forces people into a vendor lock-in. There should be a law that required platform compatibility. Games released on playstation and xbox should also be available on the Windows and Linux PCs – it's not because Microsoft can't do it, it is because they want to keep users locked-in. As an old gamer I'd hate to see Blizzard on Microsoft's hands, but as a Microsoft shareholder I would not mind it. Surely there must be a middleground. Microsoft could buy half the shares. I just fear what will happen with the ecosystem of games playable on battle.net, support for old games. Etc. If you look at EA Games, then many of the titles released through them is full of bugs that causes crashes, and games might not even be playable on modern systems. Not so with Blizzard titles.

shkkmo 3y ago
> There should be a law that required platform compatibility. Games released on playstation and xbox should also be available on the Windows and Linux PC That seems like it would ruin indy devs. I'd much prefer a law that prohibits or severely limits the terms of exclusivity agreements.
- JacobSeated 3y ago
  I would not mind that actually, because games developed my so-called independent developers are usually not that good. Creating quality games requires a large amount of cash reserves to pay for a creative team, including programmers; independents usually do not have that luxury. If Microsoft got to buy Blizzard it might actually cement Blizzard's future, securing the old titles and ensuring future ones. But, it might also get shut down because of lack of focus. I'd much rather have Blizzard remain independent to some degree, because then they may remain undisturbed. Having said that, however, the arguments presented by regulators are pretty much ridiculous. They seem to only care about competition, and not about what is best for the future of Blizzard and gaming. Too much competition can ultimately degrade and obstruct the end users – I'd also hate to see that.
  - Zpalmtree 3y ago
    I really have to question what indie games you have played if you say they are not that good... Why on earth would you want to crush indie developers in favor of large ones? Some great examples include Super Meat Boy, Minecraft, Terraria, Audiosurf, Risk of Rain, Hotline Miami, Don't Starve, Noita
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    > I would not mind that actually, because games developed my so-called independent developers are usually not that good. Sure and the majority of indie developers lose money on their games. However sometimes indie studios produce amazing games and we don't want to prevent that from happening or we'd miss out on games that are some of my all time favorites like FTL and Minecraft (not to mention dozens of others.) > Creating quality games requires a large amount of cash reserves to pay for a creative team, including programmers; independents usually do not have that luxury. Only for certain types of games. Indie games don't have the funding to produce massive amounts of assets, but they have the freedom to take risks that larger studios can't. Without that innovation, we'd see even more stagnation in the AAA game market.
doodlesdev 3y ago
> Competition can be a bad thing in this field, because it decreases the quality of the games Where did you get that from? Some of the best games I have ever played were Xbox or PlayStation exclusive and probably wouldn't have happened the way they did without funding from Microsoft/Sony for the exclusivity deal. The value for Sony selling an exclusive game is not just the box price, but the price of the console itself too, so they are willing to accept projects that won't be full of microtransactions, shitty overpriced DLCs, or buggy botched releases since a successful release of a long awaited game could be the difference between someone going for PC/Xbox or getting the new Sony console.
riddley 3y ago
How would a monopoly/no-competition increase compatibility with other platforms?

shkkmo 3y ago

> There should be a law that required platform compatibility. Games released on playstation and xbox should also be available on the Windows and Linux PC That seems like it would ruin indy devs. I'd much prefer a law that prohibits or severely limits the terms of exclusivity agreements.

JacobSeated 3y ago
I would not mind that actually, because games developed my so-called independent developers are usually not that good. Creating quality games requires a large amount of cash reserves to pay for a creative team, including programmers; independents usually do not have that luxury. If Microsoft got to buy Blizzard it might actually cement Blizzard's future, securing the old titles and ensuring future ones. But, it might also get shut down because of lack of focus. I'd much rather have Blizzard remain independent to some degree, because then they may remain undisturbed. Having said that, however, the arguments presented by regulators are pretty much ridiculous. They seem to only care about competition, and not about what is best for the future of Blizzard and gaming. Too much competition can ultimately degrade and obstruct the end users – I'd also hate to see that.
- Zpalmtree 3y ago
  I really have to question what indie games you have played if you say they are not that good... Why on earth would you want to crush indie developers in favor of large ones? Some great examples include Super Meat Boy, Minecraft, Terraria, Audiosurf, Risk of Rain, Hotline Miami, Don't Starve, Noita
- shkkmo 3y ago
  > I would not mind that actually, because games developed my so-called independent developers are usually not that good. Sure and the majority of indie developers lose money on their games. However sometimes indie studios produce amazing games and we don't want to prevent that from happening or we'd miss out on games that are some of my all time favorites like FTL and Minecraft (not to mention dozens of others.) > Creating quality games requires a large amount of cash reserves to pay for a creative team, including programmers; independents usually do not have that luxury. Only for certain types of games. Indie games don't have the funding to produce massive amounts of assets, but they have the freedom to take risks that larger studios can't. Without that innovation, we'd see even more stagnation in the AAA game market.

doodlesdev 3y ago

> Competition can be a bad thing in this field, because it decreases the quality of the games Where did you get that from? Some of the best games I have ever played were Xbox or PlayStation exclusive and probably wouldn't have happened the way they did without funding from Microsoft/Sony for the exclusivity deal. The value for Sony selling an exclusive game is not just the box price, but the price of the console itself too, so they are willing to accept projects that won't be full of microtransactions, shitty overpriced DLCs, or buggy botched releases since a successful release of a long awaited game could be the difference between someone going for PC/Xbox or getting the new Sony console.

riddley 3y ago

How would a monopoly/no-competition increase compatibility with other platforms?