10 ms·

We likely won't see any real effects of this until the next generation of consoles, but I think in 3-4 years it is going to be very interesting to see what happ

We likely won't see any real effects of this until the next generation of consoles, but I think in 3-4 years it is going to be very interesting to see what happens with gaming. Putting Nintendo aside since they really don't compete, they are kinda just in their own "Nintendo" space and that isn't a bad thing. But Sony having some real competition is a good thing. Sony has a bad tendency of anti-consumer tendencies in their gaming space when they are the leader and they get cocky. They did it with the PS3 and they are repeating some of that with the PS5 generation. Not that Microsoft hasn't engaged in some of their own practices, but at the moment we have a basically unchecked Playstation and that is bad for the gaming industry. We need real competition in the gaming space. We can argue all day that Microsoft could have built their own studios, but IP is also very important. So are established developers with a certain style of game associated with them. Will this actually be good for the gaming industry? I don't know. But I know that the current situation isn't good either.

manuelabeledo 3y ago
> But Sony having some real competition is a good thing. Sony has a bad tendency of anti-consumer tendencies in their gaming space when they are the leader and they get cocky. They did it with the PS3 and they are repeating some of that with the PS5 generation. I'm curious about which "anti-consumer practices" Sony is responsible for, that Microsoft isn't. So far it seems to me that Sony did acquire some gaming studios, but mostly smaller ones. Microsoft has recently bought two big studios with massive franchises, of which some are already not available for Sony platforms.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  PS2Linux, the way PS3 Linux was a downgrade to PS2Linux, and later removed via firmware update, for example.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    That's hardly on their "gaming space", like OP said.
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      I disagree, in any case, publishing deals offering money to studios for them not to publish on XBox like came up on the trials.
      - manuelabeledo 3y ago
        > I disagree Have you played many games on PSLinux? > in any case, publishing deals offering money to studios for them not to publish on XBox like came up on the trials. If you suggest that buying exclusives is a bad thing, then you should agree that buying large independent studios is, too.
        pjmlp 3y ago
        As owner of a PS2 Linux, I have, from those indie folks you might have heard of, shared via the PS2Linux SCEE forums. PS2Linux was the successor of Yaroze. Exclusives are great for studios. The bad practice is placing bad behaviours on the contract fine print like not allowing for feature parity after the exclusivity deal runs out, or suffering the risk of a lawsuit.
        manuelabeledo 3y ago
        > The bad practice is placing bad behaviours on the contract fine print like not allowing for feature parity after the exclusivity deal runs out, or suffering the risk of a lawsuit. Are you suggesting that e.g. Square-Enix executives didn't know what they were signing? They signed away exclusives in exchange for money. How is that worse than acquiring big studios with large IP portfolios and lock them to your own platforms?
        pjmlp 3y ago
        It is a nice business you have here, it would be a shame if something happened to it...
        3y ago
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- nerdjon 3y ago
  A few things, and I am likely forgetting others: Backwards compatibility: It was a mess on the PS3 with different launch models having different levels of compatibility. They later removed this functionality completely on the PS3. The PS4 had no backwards compatibility for PS3 instead you had to purchase (or subscribe) to play games in the cloud, games you may already own. Compared to Xbox which the Xbox One did not launch with backwards compatibility once the leadership was changed they started a project to bring backwards compatibility to Xbox 360 and OG Xbox games (admittedly on a limited basis but you could stick in your original disks and it worked, no extra charge). This carried over to the Series consoles. Related to this Sony has re-released their games many times and been able to thanks to the lack of proper backwards compatibility. The price of the PS3. The cell processor of the PS3, Sony thinking that devs would bend over backwards to support their architecture. Paying developers either for exclusive content or for exclusive third party games. The content is the one that really drives me insane because if you buy a game on another platform you are getting less content for the same money. Blocking cross play with other consoles for a long time and then only allowing it in certain situations (I don't actually know if this has improved yet or not). There are likely a few others that I can't remember right now but I am about to hop into a meeting. But has Microsoft done some of these things? yes, but before Phil Spensor came in and changed Xbox.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    Most of these grievances are more about changes in the architectural direction than anything else. I don't see how using the Cell processor could be considered "anti-consumer". After all, we are talking about a time when consoles didn't generally use "off the self" processors - Nintendo had a customized PowerPC, too. Using more generic architectures is a quite recent development. > Paying developers either for exclusive content or for exclusive third party games. Both Microsoft and Nintendo do this, in different ways. Let's not forget that some of Microsoft exclusives came from Rare and Bungie, studios with a relatively long independent history. > There are likely a few others that I can't remember right now but I am about to hop into a meeting. But has Microsoft done some of these things? yes, but before Phil Spensor came in and changed Xbox. Spencer was the GM all the way back to 2014, so I don't think that's true. On the other hand, I honestly cannot believe that we are discussing if Microsoft is more anti-consumer, or more monopolistic, than Sony.
- r00fus 3y ago
  This one was pretty bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    That's not Sony Interactive Entertainment.
SpaceManNabs 3y ago
> But Sony having some real competition is a good thing. Sony has a bad tendency of anti-consumer tendencies in their gaming space when they are the leader and they get cocky. They did it with the PS3 and they are repeating some of that with the PS5 generation. PS5 is widely regarded as the best playstation experience since the PS2. Great backwards compatibility and third-party support.
- enumjorge 3y ago
  I don't think the parent comment is referring to PS5's success, but rather things like their recent significant price increases[0] to their PS Plus service, which is required for multiplayer for a lot of their games. [0] https://www.ign.com/articles/sony-raises-price-of-playstation-plus-12-month-subscriptions-across-all-tiers https://www.ign.com/articles/sony-raises-price-of-playstatio...
  - nerdjon 3y ago
    Exactly this, Yes the PS5 is successful and they are now making some cocky decisions because of it. I also believe that they made some cocky decisions with the PS5 given how well the PS4 was. In the same regard they made some decisions with the PS3 because of how well the PS2 did. The exception then was gamers reacted negatively so they were forced to change. This time that is not happening.
    - nebula8804 3y ago
      They have earned the right to be cocky. XBOX only ever was in the lead for like what maybe 1-3 years in the 360's lifespan? They got that by shipping an incorrect design(360 RROD) to market and consumers paid the price in lost gaming time and lots of frustration due to that mistake. Every other instance of Microsoft being in this industry is either themselves being cocky (Xbox one launch), releasing a non compelling product, or just plain incompetence.
  - lapetitejort 3y ago
    Just a reminder of who is ultimately responsible for having to pay for multiplayer in the first place: Microsoft. The PC remains the final holdout for for free multiplayer. Since Microsoft owns a sizable portion of the PC tech stack, that may not last forever.
WhereIsTheTruth 3y ago
You just repeat Microsoft's arguments, that's flawed and biased A little reminder: https://twitter.com/shinobi602/status/1712869694833643528 https://twitter.com/shinobi602/status/1712869694833643528 Since 2018: - Sony: 10 acquisitions - Microsoft: 15 acquisitions + 12 with this one, total: 27 How many 1st party games Microsoft have released this gen? How many for Sony? Yeah right.. Don't you think that's where the problem lies? Is "Sony cocky", or is Microsoft lazy and incompetent? Sounds like it's the latter + hardcore lobbying (or corruption at this point) all around the world, yet again.. Nintendo "don't compete"? Nintendo "is just in their own 'Nintendo'" space? Oh come on.. https://www.ign.com/games/the-legend-of-zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom https://www.ign.com/games/the-legend-of-zelda-tears-of-the-k...
- bogwog 3y ago
  The internet discourse around this topic has been awful since it naturally attracts the console wars crowd, and people with an axe to grind against one of the console makers. Personally, I think the entire "console" industry is just a bunch of predatory anti consumer bullshit, and all 3 of those companies should be forced to end a huge list of harmful business practices. The part that always confuses me is why the heck does the government keep deciding to protect Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo's monopolies? These 3 companies always seem to get special treatment, such as with the DMCA exception and the recent California right to repair exception for game consoles. This literally only protects 3 nonessential entertainment companies, two of which aren't even from the US. The piracy argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny, so I don't get it. ESA lobbyists are probably really good at their jobs I guess.
  - sosull 3y ago
    I think there's a reasonable case to be made that consoles (and the vertically integrated business structure that they represent) inherently encourage more diverse kinds of games development while also attracting new buyers. Their business practices aren't ideal, granted. But it's not entirely clear to me that a walled garden constitutes a true monopoly. That is to say that the console makers aren't using their control over their own systems to force their way into adjacent, unrelated markets. Also, the standard for what constitutes anti-competitive behaviour is different in the Americas, Europe, and Asia. The US uses higher pricing as the prime signal, whereas the EU uses a lack of viable competitiors.

manuelabeledo 3y ago

> But Sony having some real competition is a good thing. Sony has a bad tendency of anti-consumer tendencies in their gaming space when they are the leader and they get cocky. They did it with the PS3 and they are repeating some of that with the PS5 generation. I'm curious about which "anti-consumer practices" Sony is responsible for, that Microsoft isn't. So far it seems to me that Sony did acquire some gaming studios, but mostly smaller ones. Microsoft has recently bought two big studios with massive franchises, of which some are already not available for Sony platforms.

pjmlp 3y ago
PS2Linux, the way PS3 Linux was a downgrade to PS2Linux, and later removed via firmware update, for example.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  That's hardly on their "gaming space", like OP said.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    I disagree, in any case, publishing deals offering money to studios for them not to publish on XBox like came up on the trials.
    - manuelabeledo 3y ago
      > I disagree Have you played many games on PSLinux? > in any case, publishing deals offering money to studios for them not to publish on XBox like came up on the trials. If you suggest that buying exclusives is a bad thing, then you should agree that buying large independent studios is, too.
      - pjmlp 3y ago
        As owner of a PS2 Linux, I have, from those indie folks you might have heard of, shared via the PS2Linux SCEE forums. PS2Linux was the successor of Yaroze. Exclusives are great for studios. The bad practice is placing bad behaviours on the contract fine print like not allowing for feature parity after the exclusivity deal runs out, or suffering the risk of a lawsuit.
        manuelabeledo 3y ago
        > The bad practice is placing bad behaviours on the contract fine print like not allowing for feature parity after the exclusivity deal runs out, or suffering the risk of a lawsuit. Are you suggesting that e.g. Square-Enix executives didn't know what they were signing? They signed away exclusives in exchange for money. How is that worse than acquiring big studios with large IP portfolios and lock them to your own platforms?
        pjmlp 3y ago
        It is a nice business you have here, it would be a shame if something happened to it...
        3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
nerdjon 3y ago
A few things, and I am likely forgetting others: Backwards compatibility: It was a mess on the PS3 with different launch models having different levels of compatibility. They later removed this functionality completely on the PS3. The PS4 had no backwards compatibility for PS3 instead you had to purchase (or subscribe) to play games in the cloud, games you may already own. Compared to Xbox which the Xbox One did not launch with backwards compatibility once the leadership was changed they started a project to bring backwards compatibility to Xbox 360 and OG Xbox games (admittedly on a limited basis but you could stick in your original disks and it worked, no extra charge). This carried over to the Series consoles. Related to this Sony has re-released their games many times and been able to thanks to the lack of proper backwards compatibility. The price of the PS3. The cell processor of the PS3, Sony thinking that devs would bend over backwards to support their architecture. Paying developers either for exclusive content or for exclusive third party games. The content is the one that really drives me insane because if you buy a game on another platform you are getting less content for the same money. Blocking cross play with other consoles for a long time and then only allowing it in certain situations (I don't actually know if this has improved yet or not). There are likely a few others that I can't remember right now but I am about to hop into a meeting. But has Microsoft done some of these things? yes, but before Phil Spensor came in and changed Xbox.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  Most of these grievances are more about changes in the architectural direction than anything else. I don't see how using the Cell processor could be considered "anti-consumer". After all, we are talking about a time when consoles didn't generally use "off the self" processors - Nintendo had a customized PowerPC, too. Using more generic architectures is a quite recent development. > Paying developers either for exclusive content or for exclusive third party games. Both Microsoft and Nintendo do this, in different ways. Let's not forget that some of Microsoft exclusives came from Rare and Bungie, studios with a relatively long independent history. > There are likely a few others that I can't remember right now but I am about to hop into a meeting. But has Microsoft done some of these things? yes, but before Phil Spensor came in and changed Xbox. Spencer was the GM all the way back to 2014, so I don't think that's true. On the other hand, I honestly cannot believe that we are discussing if Microsoft is more anti-consumer, or more monopolistic, than Sony.
r00fus 3y ago
This one was pretty bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  That's not Sony Interactive Entertainment.

SpaceManNabs 3y ago

> But Sony having some real competition is a good thing. Sony has a bad tendency of anti-consumer tendencies in their gaming space when they are the leader and they get cocky. They did it with the PS3 and they are repeating some of that with the PS5 generation. PS5 is widely regarded as the best playstation experience since the PS2. Great backwards compatibility and third-party support.

enumjorge 3y ago
I don't think the parent comment is referring to PS5's success, but rather things like their recent significant price increases[0] to their PS Plus service, which is required for multiplayer for a lot of their games. [0] https://www.ign.com/articles/sony-raises-price-of-playstation-plus-12-month-subscriptions-across-all-tiers https://www.ign.com/articles/sony-raises-price-of-playstatio...
- nerdjon 3y ago
  Exactly this, Yes the PS5 is successful and they are now making some cocky decisions because of it. I also believe that they made some cocky decisions with the PS5 given how well the PS4 was. In the same regard they made some decisions with the PS3 because of how well the PS2 did. The exception then was gamers reacted negatively so they were forced to change. This time that is not happening.
  - nebula8804 3y ago
    They have earned the right to be cocky. XBOX only ever was in the lead for like what maybe 1-3 years in the 360's lifespan? They got that by shipping an incorrect design(360 RROD) to market and consumers paid the price in lost gaming time and lots of frustration due to that mistake. Every other instance of Microsoft being in this industry is either themselves being cocky (Xbox one launch), releasing a non compelling product, or just plain incompetence.
- lapetitejort 3y ago
  Just a reminder of who is ultimately responsible for having to pay for multiplayer in the first place: Microsoft. The PC remains the final holdout for for free multiplayer. Since Microsoft owns a sizable portion of the PC tech stack, that may not last forever.

WhereIsTheTruth 3y ago

You just repeat Microsoft's arguments, that's flawed and biased A little reminder: https://twitter.com/shinobi602/status/1712869694833643528 https://twitter.com/shinobi602/status/1712869694833643528 Since 2018: - Sony: 10 acquisitions - Microsoft: 15 acquisitions + 12 with this one, total: 27 How many 1st party games Microsoft have released this gen? How many for Sony? Yeah right.. Don't you think that's where the problem lies? Is "Sony cocky", or is Microsoft lazy and incompetent? Sounds like it's the latter + hardcore lobbying (or corruption at this point) all around the world, yet again.. Nintendo "don't compete"? Nintendo "is just in their own 'Nintendo'" space? Oh come on.. https://www.ign.com/games/the-legend-of-zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom https://www.ign.com/games/the-legend-of-zelda-tears-of-the-k...

bogwog 3y ago
The internet discourse around this topic has been awful since it naturally attracts the console wars crowd, and people with an axe to grind against one of the console makers. Personally, I think the entire "console" industry is just a bunch of predatory anti consumer bullshit, and all 3 of those companies should be forced to end a huge list of harmful business practices. The part that always confuses me is why the heck does the government keep deciding to protect Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo's monopolies? These 3 companies always seem to get special treatment, such as with the DMCA exception and the recent California right to repair exception for game consoles. This literally only protects 3 nonessential entertainment companies, two of which aren't even from the US. The piracy argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny, so I don't get it. ESA lobbyists are probably really good at their jobs I guess.
- sosull 3y ago
  I think there's a reasonable case to be made that consoles (and the vertically integrated business structure that they represent) inherently encourage more diverse kinds of games development while also attracting new buyers. Their business practices aren't ideal, granted. But it's not entirely clear to me that a walled garden constitutes a true monopoly. That is to say that the console makers aren't using their control over their own systems to force their way into adjacent, unrelated markets. Also, the standard for what constitutes anti-competitive behaviour is different in the Americas, Europe, and Asia. The US uses higher pricing as the prime signal, whereas the EU uses a lack of viable competitiors.