4 ms·

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

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.

nerdjon 3y ago
Maybe the cell processor was not anti-consumer but I also mentioned Sony being cocky which it very much was. As far as Bungie, they were bought by Microsoft by the time Halo was made exclusive. I am not remembering any exclusive games from Rare before being bought by Microsoft? You are right that Phil Spensor was the GM in 2014. That is a year after the Xbox One release ate, after many of the past mistakes were made. I don't know of examples of Microsoft engaging in many of these behaviors and in fact doing the opposite since he came in (existing contracts that was made before him being an exception). If I am wrong I would love examples, but I am not aware of them. I am not necessarily saying that Microsoft is more or less anti consumer as a whole. But their gaming devision has done things (often in direct counter to what Sony is doing) that are more consumer friendly behaviors. At the end of the day. It is Sony vs Microsoft here. The chance of us getting another serious contender in the gaming space is basically zero due to the cost, risk, and long term planning required.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  > Maybe the cell processor was not anti-consumer but I also mentioned Sony being cocky which it very much was. What does cocky even mean? These are corporations! > I am not remembering any exclusive games from Rare before being bought by Microsoft? You need to go back to the Super Nintendo and Nintendo 64 era, then. Golden Eye, Donkey Kong Country, Killer Instinct, Banjo-Kazooie, among others. > I am not necessarily saying that Microsoft is more or less anti consumer as a whole. But their gaming devision has done things (often in direct counter to what Sony is doing) that are more consumer friendly behaviors. Right, but where are those examples? I'm of the opinion that Sony Entertainment paying for exclusivity deals with Square-Enix, is not remotely comparable to Microsoft buying a massive studio (Bethesda Softworks), with incredibly popular franchises (Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Doom), and locking them to their platforms barely three years after. I'm also old enough to remember how Microsoft essentially killed any chances of open standards in videogames with their DirectX API, a move with massive consequences to other platforms, so much so that even nowadays, your best chance to run games on Linux is to use a DirectX translator.
  - nerdjon 3y ago
    > Right, but where are those examples? I gave other examples in my post that you have not responded too. > What does cocky even mean? These are corporations! Not sure that changes anything. Cocky in this sense is Sony thinking they can get away with something because they were running high after the PS2 era. > You need to go back to the Super Nintendo and Nintendo 64 era, then. Golden Eye, Donkey Kong Country, Killer Instinct, Banjo-Kazooie, among others. Ok? What exactly does that have to do with Microsoft? They bought rare in 2002. I am completely missing the point you are trying to make. > I'm of the opinion that Sony Entertainment paying for exclusivity deals with Square-Enix, is not remotely comparable to Microsoft buying a massive studio (Bethesda Softworks), with incredibly popular franchises (Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Doom), and locking them to their platforms barely three years after. I strongly disagree. However as I mentioned my key problem is paying for exclusive content. It is indefensible that I pay the same amount for a game on Xbox with LESS content than on PS5 because Sony paid money to try to boost the sales of their consoles. Yes Microsoft has made mistakes, but Sony has made their own mistakes and every time they do its because they are cocky going into a new generation with a significant market advantage. That is why I feel like Sony needs strong competition and we need these consoles to be much much closer in marketshare for both companies to actually have to fight for consumer dollars instead of Sony just getting away with whatever they want because they have the big splashy exclusive games.
- TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
  > Maybe the cell processor was not anti-consumer but I also mentioned Sony being cocky which it very much was. What you call "cocky" I call confident and maybe overambitious. The Cell was a radical departure from processors of its day. Sony tried to bring heterogeneous computing to consumers on its dime. Unfortunately it didn't work out. From a R&D point of view, old Sony was way more interesting. Today's Sony, the "non-cocky" Sony according to you, just slap the latest AMD APU into a box and call it a day.
- mathgeek 3y ago
  > I am not remembering any exclusive games from Rare before being bought by Microsoft? Although not universally, most Rare games were exclusive to Nintendo consoles from 1986-2002.
- Macha 3y ago
  > You are right that Phil Spensor was the GM in 2014. That is a year after the Xbox One release ate, after many of the past mistakes were made. I don't know of examples of Microsoft engaging in many of these behaviors and in fact doing the opposite since he came in (existing contracts that was made before him being an exception). If I am wrong I would love examples, but I am not aware of them. Most of your Sony examples are from the PS3 generation which predates the Microsoft Xbox One debacle. So we may as well bring up the Games for Windows Live and years of trying to push PC gamers to Xbox instead of investing in PC for Microsoft.

nerdjon 3y ago

Maybe the cell processor was not anti-consumer but I also mentioned Sony being cocky which it very much was. As far as Bungie, they were bought by Microsoft by the time Halo was made exclusive. I am not remembering any exclusive games from Rare before being bought by Microsoft? You are right that Phil Spensor was the GM in 2014. That is a year after the Xbox One release ate, after many of the past mistakes were made. I don't know of examples of Microsoft engaging in many of these behaviors and in fact doing the opposite since he came in (existing contracts that was made before him being an exception). If I am wrong I would love examples, but I am not aware of them. I am not necessarily saying that Microsoft is more or less anti consumer as a whole. But their gaming devision has done things (often in direct counter to what Sony is doing) that are more consumer friendly behaviors. At the end of the day. It is Sony vs Microsoft here. The chance of us getting another serious contender in the gaming space is basically zero due to the cost, risk, and long term planning required.

manuelabeledo 3y ago
> Maybe the cell processor was not anti-consumer but I also mentioned Sony being cocky which it very much was. What does cocky even mean? These are corporations! > I am not remembering any exclusive games from Rare before being bought by Microsoft? You need to go back to the Super Nintendo and Nintendo 64 era, then. Golden Eye, Donkey Kong Country, Killer Instinct, Banjo-Kazooie, among others. > I am not necessarily saying that Microsoft is more or less anti consumer as a whole. But their gaming devision has done things (often in direct counter to what Sony is doing) that are more consumer friendly behaviors. Right, but where are those examples? I'm of the opinion that Sony Entertainment paying for exclusivity deals with Square-Enix, is not remotely comparable to Microsoft buying a massive studio (Bethesda Softworks), with incredibly popular franchises (Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Doom), and locking them to their platforms barely three years after. I'm also old enough to remember how Microsoft essentially killed any chances of open standards in videogames with their DirectX API, a move with massive consequences to other platforms, so much so that even nowadays, your best chance to run games on Linux is to use a DirectX translator.
- nerdjon 3y ago
  > Right, but where are those examples? I gave other examples in my post that you have not responded too. > What does cocky even mean? These are corporations! Not sure that changes anything. Cocky in this sense is Sony thinking they can get away with something because they were running high after the PS2 era. > You need to go back to the Super Nintendo and Nintendo 64 era, then. Golden Eye, Donkey Kong Country, Killer Instinct, Banjo-Kazooie, among others. Ok? What exactly does that have to do with Microsoft? They bought rare in 2002. I am completely missing the point you are trying to make. > I'm of the opinion that Sony Entertainment paying for exclusivity deals with Square-Enix, is not remotely comparable to Microsoft buying a massive studio (Bethesda Softworks), with incredibly popular franchises (Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Doom), and locking them to their platforms barely three years after. I strongly disagree. However as I mentioned my key problem is paying for exclusive content. It is indefensible that I pay the same amount for a game on Xbox with LESS content than on PS5 because Sony paid money to try to boost the sales of their consoles. Yes Microsoft has made mistakes, but Sony has made their own mistakes and every time they do its because they are cocky going into a new generation with a significant market advantage. That is why I feel like Sony needs strong competition and we need these consoles to be much much closer in marketshare for both companies to actually have to fight for consumer dollars instead of Sony just getting away with whatever they want because they have the big splashy exclusive games.
TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
> Maybe the cell processor was not anti-consumer but I also mentioned Sony being cocky which it very much was. What you call "cocky" I call confident and maybe overambitious. The Cell was a radical departure from processors of its day. Sony tried to bring heterogeneous computing to consumers on its dime. Unfortunately it didn't work out. From a R&D point of view, old Sony was way more interesting. Today's Sony, the "non-cocky" Sony according to you, just slap the latest AMD APU into a box and call it a day.
mathgeek 3y ago
> I am not remembering any exclusive games from Rare before being bought by Microsoft? Although not universally, most Rare games were exclusive to Nintendo consoles from 1986-2002.
Macha 3y ago
> You are right that Phil Spensor was the GM in 2014. That is a year after the Xbox One release ate, after many of the past mistakes were made. I don't know of examples of Microsoft engaging in many of these behaviors and in fact doing the opposite since he came in (existing contracts that was made before him being an exception). If I am wrong I would love examples, but I am not aware of them. Most of your Sony examples are from the PS3 generation which predates the Microsoft Xbox One debacle. So we may as well bring up the Games for Windows Live and years of trying to push PC gamers to Xbox instead of investing in PC for Microsoft.