No, but you imply it via defense, "the best offense is a good defense".

Mirror retorts do not work here either, so drop those now while you still can.

Why don't you first?, you talk big now because I'm onto you after you jumping before, so why don't you calm it first for a change? ("I'm not the one acting like I've been paid by Valve here").

If you want competition proper, then you'd want MS to take the pages from GoG and Steam, rather than "we don't need those pages because I don't care about them".

It's odd to you, but your's is also just as odd.

The argument became about mods because you went on cramming in that "competition makes everything rainbows" speech. Something with the actual competition ignores (Which Bethesda is actually picking up on, but wants to control it, which kills it's general appearance of "caring"to begin with). Competition works when the rest want to compete and when they actually tackle what the others have been putting out. I made a thread specifically talking about the clients that are currently out there and the lack of Driving competition needed for the rest of those clients to get on Steam's level of factual features, not some poppycock "paid by valve" "opinion", get off that high horse bullshit. When someone has a feature and the other does not, that becomes a fact, not a "shills" sodding opinion.

I want actual brutal competition, but so far that's not been happening on PC for years. Definitely not in the way that the client data shows.

No I was not, but that would be made apparent if not for the "I'm annoyed at other people being annoyed" comment (because it comes off as being quite defensive and passive aggressive).

Going 5 for 5 isn't as good as doing 5 to 10 on your own. IF you want to settle for half, settle for half, but not me.

Creating new and interesting talent will take time, just like creating a new breathtaking animation. The very idea of trying to cut costs and time is nothing more than exec speak and thought. Things take time to perfect, and that's a very important part to take note on when you want to make something good. You shouldn't want to cut corners, it just produces bad results, especially when you end up repeating the same process each and every time.

I know this speech of "it's hard, MS thinks it's hard", well life is hard, even harder for some unfortunate people out there, but that doesn't stop them from trying, so why on earth should a multi billion dollar company give up on something that lesser rich people and companies can do by themselves?. They can do it if they truly and honestly care about the medium. They have the money, oh god do they have the money to do with what they want, but it's dedication and honest to god effort that they need the most to get new talent front and center.

Yes I have been paying attention, but this whole "if you paid' attention" business is just trotting around the main point, which is that MS has closed studios before, they buy up IP's and studios (they aren't the only one, so get that inkling of a thought outside the noggin that it's just MS that does this, but MS is the current subject matter) more than they create. Telling me "oh they created something new last year", will just have me asking "what's their `100% unique creative output vs buying anything they've never owned or thought up of?".

Yeah getting them bought out and "pumping" games out quicker is exactly what some of us don't like seeing. You shouldn't feel the need to spam a studio's creative output all the time. It's not really a healthy thought to think that because a studio is good, they must therefore give us a new game every single year. It makes me wonder if any of you people here know what it's like to be ans artist and know how they too can get burnt out and eventually trip and fall with their workflow and creative output. 

Yes, it seems like they are, but when you say it like that, you make it sound like a love letter, when in reality they are looking for *a* publisher, not *the* publisher. Yes it would be nice to see someone like THQN picking them up, because so far that publisher has shown that they aren't going to forget the lesser known IP's, and that they want to bring some IP's back from the ashes, which so far, all the other publishers have forgotten for years (with MS fucking finally deciding that now of all times is a good time to bring back AoE, only after the original studio was killed off by their own hand, bravo).

"MS isn't some bad guy in this transaction", yeah, not in the transaction, but what follows after it, so let's cut out the "they were never bad period" line of thought we're holding onto (and I know now that I've said this, you'll go "no I don't", because you wouldn't be making a fending off from mentioning them as the bad guy speech if you didn't already contain such a thought in the first place).

That last part, oh that would weasily paint MS as the good guy in practically any scneario, truly a classic "can do no wrong, as long as they do *good*" excuse. 

I'm not buying that excuse and I never quite frankly.

I'm sorry for that, it was a distasteful comment on my part. I'm sorry.

Thanks for filling me on the situation of mods. I don't care for them but I fully well know that there are a lot who do care, I don't want corporations taking entire control of them. 

Although is Bethesda trying to get ALL mods to go through creation club? I always thought it was only for a select few mods, and the rest being free, making it harmless for the most part. 

Though I don't get how defending this acquisition makes me a ms "defend them to literal death". That would be ignoring when I heavily criticized MS for the launch of the X1, or for them making  Forza 5 a microtransaction-fest, or them forgetting past ip's like Project Gotham Racing and Banjo Kazooie.

5 for 5 is good with me, Thanks.

When I say, pumping out games, I don't mean any quicker than they already are. I mean, compared to starting from scratch. I have no problem with them spending 2-3 years developing a game. I like my games to be high quality, believe it or not. I know Obsidian can and will make great games. This is why I believe having a developer, like Obsidian, could change MS reputation into something positive on the first party front. 

 MS is neither a good guy or bad guy. They are a company, which has made made good and bad decisions before. Buying Obsidian can be looked at from both perspectives, even if you think there is only one. 

Chazore said:

Half full is fine for you, but for me, I'd rather the full glass since they can afford it.

No, pumping out in short time periods is what it is. If you want to assume that each game not under a publisher takes 10-20 years to make then you're underestimating indie devs and other studios entirely. 3-4 years is ample time to get a new game up and running, rather than 1-2. I like games to be of higher quality and of a higher standard, but we don't seem to get many of those these days (unless you aren't looking and judging technologies, physics, AI and texture details, which we do see people gloating with, yet not studying them deeply).

I don't believe it will change MS, it'll just become another studio MS paid to join their Xbox side of gaming, rather than MS creating something on their own and really trying to stand out from the crowd. I've already seen the disappointment from fans of NT when MS bought those guys, and yes that disappointment is and will always be validated, because not everyone likes one rich company buying up a smaller studio, not everyone has to agree and can judge and find fault with those deals, even if the smaller studio thinks it's amazeballs, even they can made a wrong decision as no human is perfect.

MS is not neutral, that;'s something I can never agree with and not in the  opinionated sense, I really mean they are not neutral due to their usage of their infamous EEE strategy, whether it be in the past present or future, they are not considered a neutral company. YOu think them as such because it makes it easier to argue and vouch for them.

Chazore I want to keep this civil between us, so I am going to ask you a few questions to the bolded parts to your post.

Chazore said:

You want to keep this civil?. How do you plan on doing that when you already drove Azuren with the constant looping back and forth and me with mirror retorts?.

I don't really think I'm going to answer those "questions", simply because I know that me answering them will further lead to another looped playback of counter-points. I'm well past playing that song and dance within this thread.

Our bouts have pretty much decided that we will always firmly disagree with one another and nothing on this earth is going to change that. Not even attempts at apparent civility. 

That's completely up to you. However you are still debating in this thread while I stopped awhile back. I agree our boats have definitely set sail in the opposite directions and same can be said with Azuren. My points still stand to me because opinions of gamers who argue simply because they don't like Xbox/Windows will obviously attract attention and those points to me will be taken as a grain of salt unless there is actual factual reasons as to why someone hates it, not assumptions of what happened in the medieval day. I look at these topics as a business move and benefits to those platforms, not because I simple hate this brand because of.. because.

Bottom line, this rumoured buyout seems to have attracted lovers and haters and it all comes down to the individual assumptions on what will happen under the buyout. I am not going to debate why you love or hate MS anymore as its clear your thoughts on it and its also obviously with the same old few in here also against the idea which isn't surprising at all, and lets not ignore those who simply don't care for the buyout and those who like the idea as well.

I do not live and breath MS. I game on other systems as well. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but 4 of MS first party developers (5 if you include MS Casual Games) were created and 5 were picked up. I would say that is pretty good on them. I'm all for MS creating new studios, but which is more time consuming, cost more, and will take longer to get a product out? Creating a new studio of course. If you have been paying attention, you would know MS just created a new studio, but we likely won't see anything from them in the next 3-4 years. In the mean time, MS can purchase a studio such as Obsidian and get games pumped out quicker and with general knowledge of knowing it will likely be high quality.

It seems like Obsidian is looking for a publisher to pick them up. Would it be cool if some 3rd party publisher got them? Sure. I would have zero problems with that because they will get more exposure on more platforms. If they decide to become a first party developer for MS, this was their choice. MS didn't hold a gun to their head and force it. MS isn't some bad guy in this transaction, which you make it seem like they are the ones running the show. Obsidian could easily decline to MS. 

Btw, MS will not shut down Obsidian if they release good games for their platform or waste valuable resources with no results. 

No, but you imply it via defense, "the best offense is a good defense".

Mirror retorts do not work here either, so drop those now while you still can.

Why don't you first?, you talk big now because I'm onto you after you jumping before, so why don't you calm it first for a change? ("I'm not the one acting like I've been paid by Valve here").

If you want competition proper, then you'd want MS to take the pages from GoG and Steam, rather than "we don't need those pages because I don't care about them".

It's odd to you, but your's is also just as odd.

The argument became about mods because you went on cramming in that "competition makes everything rainbows" speech. Something with the actual competition ignores (Which Bethesda is actually picking up on, but wants to control it, which kills it's general appearance of "caring"to begin with). Competition works when the rest want to compete and when they actually tackle what the others have been putting out. I made a thread specifically talking about the clients that are currently out there and the lack of Driving competition needed for the rest of those clients to get on Steam's level of factual features, not some poppycock "paid by valve" "opinion", get off that high horse bullshit. When someone has a feature and the other does not, that becomes a fact, not a "shills" sodding opinion.

I want actual brutal competition, but so far that's not been happening on PC for years. Definitely not in the way that the client data shows.

I'm sorry for that, it was a distasteful comment on my part. I'm sorry.

Thanks for filling me on the situation of mods. I don't care for them but I fully well know that there are a lot who do care, I don't want corporations taking entire control of them. 

Although is Bethesda trying to get ALL mods to go through creation club? I always thought it was only for a select few mods, and the rest being free, making it harmless for the most part. 

Though I don't get how defending this acquisition makes me a ms "defend them to literal death". That would be ignoring when I heavily criticized MS for the launch of the X1, or for them making  Forza 5 a microtransaction-fest, or them forgetting past ip's like Project Gotham Racing and Banjo Kazooie.

It's fine, it's just that firing that back at me is going to end up with me firing back at you.

I didn't specifically call you an exec hat, I meant that for people that care only for the company in mind, that what the company can do and what it can do for others.

As much as I like Steam and it's features and mod support, I care very little if the company gets wounded in any way, simply because they are not my friend and they do not see me as one (no company ever does), it's what the company has done that gets my attention. The feature set and mod support is an action and a service that really resonates with an open platform, something that is really important for others to make use of and to also see it flourish. The competition doesn't want any of that and that is honestly what I feel would breed honest and healthy competition, not the kind where one rich guy buys out a load and says "look at what I got guys!". I want to see each and every client working towards what Steam has laid out, I mean they did after all take a page from Origin with the refund system, yet Origin hasn't taken anything from Steam, nor has Blizzard, Ubisoft or anyone else. GoG made a client and are very, very slowly improving it, but it still has to serve a specific goal in mind, which is for it to remain 100% optional, because GoG are to be DRM free, and obv trying to make their client a must have would go against that, since the client is a client.

At least you admit you don't care for them and acknowledge their existence. Most out there don't care for them and wouldn't care if the competition simply ignored what that community and talent was doing. 

Bethesda's earned good rep from the modding community, and as such they've decided to now control it via Creation club. Yes it is meant to be a club designed for the modding community to pay modders, but in essence it becomes a system where it's pay or you don't get access to the mod, which is effectively charging to gain access to the mod itself, not making it free and thus becoming yet another horse armor piece of content (which has been proven by the modding community vs CC's lack of quality mods vs free mods). What they are doing is controlling that side of the community that has given them free ideas and free fixes for years. Now they want to control how it works and make money off it while appearing like modders make the most change out of it. That itself is something I don't really agree with and it has fractured the modding community as a result, all again because one company wanted to filter and control a community which should not be controlled (just like an open platform).

Well so far, each and every turn that has been given and thrown towards MS has been deflected each and every time. I haven't seen one person who loves MS to bits admitting that it might not be the best idea to purchase them, but instead it's been met with defensive counter-points, which in the end show that the side that likes MS thinks it's good all the way and that nothing bad can come from it versus the group that just wants Obsidian to remain as they are (free from control and ownership). If there was some middle ground or an agreement with the purchase being bad, that would have showed itself by now, but all I've seen is one group arguing against another, not one group arguing against the other and the other side putting down the counter-points.

Half full is fine for you, but for me, I'd rather the full glass since they can afford it.

No, pumping out in short time periods is what it is. If you want to assume that each game not under a publisher takes 10-20 years to make then you're underestimating indie devs and other studios entirely. 3-4 years is ample time to get a new game up and running, rather than 1-2. I like games to be of higher quality and of a higher standard, but we don't seem to get many of those these days (unless you aren't looking and judging technologies, physics, AI and texture details, which we do see people gloating with, yet not studying them deeply).

I don't believe it will change MS, it'll just become another studio MS paid to join their Xbox side of gaming, rather than MS creating something on their own and really trying to stand out from the crowd. I've already seen the disappointment from fans of NT when MS bought those guys, and yes that disappointment is and will always be validated, because not everyone likes one rich company buying up a smaller studio, not everyone has to agree and can judge and find fault with those deals, even if the smaller studio thinks it's amazeballs, even they can made a wrong decision as no human is perfect.

MS is not neutral, that;'s something I can never agree with and not in the  opinionated sense, I really mean they are not neutral due to their usage of their infamous EEE strategy, whether it be in the past present or future, they are not considered a neutral company. YOu think them as such because it makes it easier to argue and vouch for them.

Chazore I want to keep this civil between us, so I am going to ask you a few questions to the bolded parts to your post.

*No, pumping out in short time periods is what it is.* Where do you assume that MS buying Obsidian means games will be rushed out the door in short bursts? Halo Infinite has been in the making for more than 3years as well as Sea of thieves 3years, State of Decay 2 3years, Halo Wars 2 3years, Halo 5 3years, Crackdown 3 20years etc. I don't see the short term approach here, not with there track record lately. 3 Years is more than enough time to make a good game, unless.. you want to use the Forza series as the only example of games put out on the regular.. but even Forza games take at least 2 years to make and there building upon the foundations from there previous games.

*I've already seen the disappointment from fans of NT when MS bought those guys, and yes that disappointment is and will always be validated* Why are fans from NT disappointed? We haven't seen a game from NT under the MS banner yet so how can there disappointment be validated? have you also seen the amount of fans that are happy for the purchase? That also goes both ways. Not that it matters.

*MS is not neutral* Why do you assume MS is not neutral? They allow cross play with Nintendo, they brought Minecraft and allow that game to continue to sell on rival platforms, MS offer there own games on Steam, how do you see them as not neutral? They seem to share more in the gaming industry than any other platform maker.

If Nintendo or Sony brought Minecraft, you can bet your life that those brands would force lock there games on there own platforms. How do we know that NT or Obsidian might not be the next Naughty Dog under MS? Instead of looking at it as a pure negative, lets look at the positives as well, funding, Job security, access to company assets etc. NT and Obsidian might be struggling we don't know for sure, they are the ones that choose to sign the agreements. MS are rebuilding there Xbox brand, these purchases are set for the long term not the short quick fix. That's why MS are going for the talent not so much size or quality.