4 ms·

People aren't going to see lower prices, no matter who acquires who. Video game prices are effectively set industry wide, similar to music and movies. They effe

People aren't going to see lower prices, no matter who acquires who. Video game prices are effectively set industry wide, similar to music and movies. They effectively set the price collectively, which is why you see articles mention things like: > Xbox is preparing to join other major games publishers in raising the prices of its major new first-party titles from $60 to $70. https://www.ign.com/articles/microsoft-raising-prices-new-first-party-games-xbox-series-70-2023-redfall-starfield https://www.ign.com/articles/microsoft-raising-prices-new-fi...

crazygringo 3y ago
The Series S console came out at $299. GamePass is $10.99/mo. If that's not lowering prices, then I don't know what is.
- Capricorn2481 3y ago
  We're talking about game prices, which are indeed industry set (worked in the industry). The Xbox Series S has cheaper hardware, that's why it's cheaper. You might as well say video games are getting less expensive because the 3DS isn't $500. While GamePass is great value, it's just temporary to keep everybody on Microsoft store. You can't mod games, you can't open your game files even, and your progress in live service games will not be transferred to other platforms even if you're on PC still. It's hard not to acknowledge the fact that Microsoft is getting perfectly positioned to clamp everyone down into their ecosystem harder than ever, and there's nothing we could do about it. They have Github, they have a close partnership with ChatGPT, they have a crazy amount of game studios and IPs. I don't think the attitude of "let's let them get as big as possible and hope they don't abuse that power" is healthy.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    > We're talking about game prices No we're not, we're talking about the total cost of console gaming, because that's what actually matters when you're discussing the effect on consumers. > It's hard not to acknowledge the fact that Microsoft is getting perfectly positioned to clamp everyone down into their ecosystem harder than ever No, it's hard to imagine where you're getting that from at all, if you're talking about their gaming arm. Microsoft isn't positioned to clamp down on anything in gaming. They're simply trying to compete against their more successful competitor Sony. > I don't think the attitude of "let's let them get as big as possible and hope they don't abuse that power" is healthy. I don't think the attitude of "let Sony's gaming business be as big as it already is, but don't allow Microsoft's gaming business to try to expand to match Sony's" is healthy. That's literally anti-competitive.
    - Capricorn2481 3y ago
      I don't like Sony either so it's a bit weird to find out you're turning this into a "console war" thing. I find that mentality really embarrassing. My beef is with Microsoft essentially owning the planet. - Microsoft dwarfs Sony as a company, so I don't know why you're painting them as an underdog with their back against the wall. - The amount of gaming IP Microsoft owns also dwarfs Sony. The concern is not that one or the other will make things exclusive but that the options of who game developers can work for will get smaller, which makes unionization harder, which makes our games shittier. > No we're not, we're talking about the total cost of console gaming, because that's what actually matters when you're discussing the effect on consumers. The poster you responded to was talking about gaming prices. That's great if you can save a hundred dollars buying a cheaper console though. > No, it's hard to imagine where you're getting that from at all. From all the things I said, and in addition, Microsoft pretty much having it's hand in every pot in the world (Even WHO). > They're simply trying to compete against their more successful competitor Sony. > I don't think the attitude of "let Sony's gaming business be as big as it already is ...How big do you think Sony is? You vastly overestimate how worried Microsoft is about Sony. Activision is as big a publisher as Sony and Microsoft just bought them.
      - crazygringo 3y ago
        Please don't call my point of view embarrassing -- that's uncalled for. You can disagree, but let's not make it personal. Of course it's a console war thing, it's always been a console war thing. That's literally the definition of the market we're talking about here. What the rest of Microsoft's business does, or the rest of Sony's business does, outside of gaming, has nothing to do with anything here. Buying Activision isn't helping Microsoft with Office 365, nor is Office going to bring people to Call of Duty. The same as having "The Last of Us" as a PS exclusive isn't helping Sony sell cameras or TV's. Edit: I mean, if you think Microsoft ought to be forced to spin off its Xbox division as a totally separate company, as part of breaking up the tech giants into 50 different companies, then that's a totally different conversation, and Activision is neither here nor there. But as long as we're accepting that Microsoft is allowed to compete in gaming in the first place, then purchasing Activision is simply what it needs to be allowed to do in order to compete fairly against Sony.

crazygringo 3y ago

The Series S console came out at $299. GamePass is $10.99/mo. If that's not lowering prices, then I don't know what is.

Capricorn2481 3y ago
We're talking about game prices, which are indeed industry set (worked in the industry). The Xbox Series S has cheaper hardware, that's why it's cheaper. You might as well say video games are getting less expensive because the 3DS isn't $500. While GamePass is great value, it's just temporary to keep everybody on Microsoft store. You can't mod games, you can't open your game files even, and your progress in live service games will not be transferred to other platforms even if you're on PC still. It's hard not to acknowledge the fact that Microsoft is getting perfectly positioned to clamp everyone down into their ecosystem harder than ever, and there's nothing we could do about it. They have Github, they have a close partnership with ChatGPT, they have a crazy amount of game studios and IPs. I don't think the attitude of "let's let them get as big as possible and hope they don't abuse that power" is healthy.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  > We're talking about game prices No we're not, we're talking about the total cost of console gaming, because that's what actually matters when you're discussing the effect on consumers. > It's hard not to acknowledge the fact that Microsoft is getting perfectly positioned to clamp everyone down into their ecosystem harder than ever No, it's hard to imagine where you're getting that from at all, if you're talking about their gaming arm. Microsoft isn't positioned to clamp down on anything in gaming. They're simply trying to compete against their more successful competitor Sony. > I don't think the attitude of "let's let them get as big as possible and hope they don't abuse that power" is healthy. I don't think the attitude of "let Sony's gaming business be as big as it already is, but don't allow Microsoft's gaming business to try to expand to match Sony's" is healthy. That's literally anti-competitive.
  - Capricorn2481 3y ago
    I don't like Sony either so it's a bit weird to find out you're turning this into a "console war" thing. I find that mentality really embarrassing. My beef is with Microsoft essentially owning the planet. - Microsoft dwarfs Sony as a company, so I don't know why you're painting them as an underdog with their back against the wall. - The amount of gaming IP Microsoft owns also dwarfs Sony. The concern is not that one or the other will make things exclusive but that the options of who game developers can work for will get smaller, which makes unionization harder, which makes our games shittier. > No we're not, we're talking about the total cost of console gaming, because that's what actually matters when you're discussing the effect on consumers. The poster you responded to was talking about gaming prices. That's great if you can save a hundred dollars buying a cheaper console though. > No, it's hard to imagine where you're getting that from at all. From all the things I said, and in addition, Microsoft pretty much having it's hand in every pot in the world (Even WHO). > They're simply trying to compete against their more successful competitor Sony. > I don't think the attitude of "let Sony's gaming business be as big as it already is ...How big do you think Sony is? You vastly overestimate how worried Microsoft is about Sony. Activision is as big a publisher as Sony and Microsoft just bought them.
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      Please don't call my point of view embarrassing -- that's uncalled for. You can disagree, but let's not make it personal. Of course it's a console war thing, it's always been a console war thing. That's literally the definition of the market we're talking about here. What the rest of Microsoft's business does, or the rest of Sony's business does, outside of gaming, has nothing to do with anything here. Buying Activision isn't helping Microsoft with Office 365, nor is Office going to bring people to Call of Duty. The same as having "The Last of Us" as a PS exclusive isn't helping Sony sell cameras or TV's. Edit: I mean, if you think Microsoft ought to be forced to spin off its Xbox division as a totally separate company, as part of breaking up the tech giants into 50 different companies, then that's a totally different conversation, and Activision is neither here nor there. But as long as we're accepting that Microsoft is allowed to compete in gaming in the first place, then purchasing Activision is simply what it needs to be allowed to do in order to compete fairly against Sony.