3 ms·

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 m

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.
    - Capricorn2481 3y ago
      > Please don't call my point of view embarrassing -- that's uncalled for. I'm not calling your position embarrassing, I'm calling the position you think I have embarrassing. What's uncalled for is reducing what I'm saying to this > 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. And then getting pissy when I point out that you tried to make it sound like I'm some shill for Sony. I'm literally in other parts of this thread also criticizing Sony. The reality is you're saying untrue, uneducated things about the state of the gaming market. Again Microsoft is already much bigger than Sony's gaming market. Christ, Activison is almost as big as Sony's gaming market. > 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. Again, Microsoft > Microsoft Gaming > Sony Gaming. And why would we pretend other parts of Microsofts business don't exist just because Sony isn't also doing it? Who has their operating system on billions of computers, where they can sell games? Who has the best capacity to use AI in their businesses? AI is the next step for effective anticheat, which is otherwise a losing battle. Who is the only feasible steward of the language that lots of games are developed on? Who owns LinkedIn, where game developers look for jobs? Who owns the highest selling game ever and has already filled it with microtransactions, essentially printing money? I don't see how we can ignore any of those things. I look at all of this and it's alarming how fucked we are if Microsoft decides to make all our lives worse, and that's just in gaming. The worst Sony could do has already been done cause Sony are shitheels in their own way.

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.
  - Capricorn2481 3y ago
    > Please don't call my point of view embarrassing -- that's uncalled for. I'm not calling your position embarrassing, I'm calling the position you think I have embarrassing. What's uncalled for is reducing what I'm saying to this > 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. And then getting pissy when I point out that you tried to make it sound like I'm some shill for Sony. I'm literally in other parts of this thread also criticizing Sony. The reality is you're saying untrue, uneducated things about the state of the gaming market. Again Microsoft is already much bigger than Sony's gaming market. Christ, Activison is almost as big as Sony's gaming market. > 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. Again, Microsoft > Microsoft Gaming > Sony Gaming. And why would we pretend other parts of Microsofts business don't exist just because Sony isn't also doing it? Who has their operating system on billions of computers, where they can sell games? Who has the best capacity to use AI in their businesses? AI is the next step for effective anticheat, which is otherwise a losing battle. Who is the only feasible steward of the language that lots of games are developed on? Who owns LinkedIn, where game developers look for jobs? Who owns the highest selling game ever and has already filled it with microtransactions, essentially printing money? I don't see how we can ignore any of those things. I look at all of this and it's alarming how fucked we are if Microsoft decides to make all our lives worse, and that's just in gaming. The worst Sony could do has already been done cause Sony are shitheels in their own way.