Currently Online 
Alby_da_Wolf said:
PC main advantages are wide freedom of HW, SW and services choice, OS only is ruled by a near-monopoly (Office is the strongest office suite, but many users can replace it with alternatives), but MS always tried to extend its power on the platform and to push users from periodic licence purchases, typically together with new HW or major upgrades, to a lifetime rent. It isn't for 3rd parties willing to be on GP either, unless MS grants that their share of the fees won't be touched by the overwhelming increase of 1st party games weight Bethesda and Activision brought. |
That the owner of the only monopoly on PC tries
Even if Windows have the lion share of OS market share, it ain't a monopoly per say, MacOS is still competitive enough so to keep Microsoft in check from any malpractice or abuse. So no monopoly there. Also funny how you label it as the only monopoly on PC when Nvidia actually have more share of the discrete GPU market share than Windows have of the OS market share.
to expand its power too much in other parts of PC market isn't good for competition
It's actually good for competition, steam has about 75% of the pc market share https://comparecamp.com/steam-statistics/ which conveniently enough is about the same as Windows OS Market share, the one you refer to has being a Monopoly. Microsoft Bolstering is distribution on PC through GamePass should therefore simulate reaction from competition and we as gamers stand to gain.
even less that it tries to turn Game Pass into a de facto mandatory service.
We have no indication whatsoever this is the case, in fact indications tends to point the other way, even if Microsoft actually does win the looming subscription based game distribution services war they always benefits from also distributing all their titles in standalone format.
Yes, Activision acquisition can be very good for Game Pass users, it isn't for everybody else.
For me that's more akin to fear mongering, else you would have to define more who you're referring to by 'everybody else'. For me, this acquisition as great potential to be good for everybody that:
- want to see newer addition in franchise practically abandoned by current Activision blizzard such as Starcraft.
- want to see a true and profound culture change at Activivision Blizzard workplace.
- Is tired of yearly CoD
- Wants Activision Blizzard to even dare innovate.
Neither it will be for GP users, if MS will raise the fee
Inevitable but if Xbox Live is any indication (and by all mean, it is the best indication we can look upon ) raise in fee will be scarce, far apart and won't even raise to the effect of compounded inflation. Also competition is looming for GamePass so Microsoft would want to keep GamePass competitive and attractive. So I have absolutely no worry here.
It isn't for 3rd parties willing to be on GP either, unless MS grants that their share of the fees won't be touched by the overwhelming increase of 1st party games weight Bethesda and Activision brought.
If the user base grow sufficiently enough than it will still be. Also the idea that Microsoft just gives share of the monthly subscription fee as always been kind of oversimplification to me. It is way more likely that EA get a predetermined amount every month based on metrics and formula of some sorts. Maybe something like:
A = Amount, P = Total GP profit for a particular time frame(likely month), M = Microsoft cut's in % ex: 0.3 for 30%, TP total time played by gamer during the time frame, TT total time spent on a particular title and or collection
A = P * (1 - M) * (TT / TP)
With this simple formula Every one with a title/collection of title on GP could get the fare share of the revenue. Of course Microsoft probably don't conclude deal with a formula like this, but I'll bet something similar is used when deciding whether it is worth it to keep or not titles/services on GP
Last edited by EpicRandy - on 24 January 2022
