EpicRandy said:
"It's easier to get away with fucked up practices or at least dial back on "pro-consumer" stuff when you have a massive catalogue of popular games that people will trade their testicles for, that's just common sense." Easier maybe but would also come with opportunities for competition. "MS's game lineup upon ABK's acquisition should beat Sony and even Nintendo's in popularity (potentially even if they left Playstation)" Yeah that's called competition, Ms saw an opportunity to up their game and took it. "I know enough about Microsoft's other divisions, the history of Xbox, and the market to form reasonable opinions or expectations." I know enough to know MS don't want to fuck up anymore and don't want to geopardise the success of GamePass on some short term gain anti-consumer practice. "Sony is capable of getting away with worse practices than before, because they over the years built a really strong lineup of 1st party content that complements the excellent 3rd party support which Microsoft acquisitions are now threatening to weaken" Yeah that's called competition "Then you've got Nintendo which doesn't even bother price dropping their hardware or software, never mind putting their new games on a subscription service. Both Sony and Nintendo could get away with things that MS didn't have the luxury to consider, because Xbox's software was decidedly inferior that they had to fall back on value/consumer-friendliness selling points or else they're fucked." So your against the deal because MS might in the future be able to do what Nintendo and Sony does right now? "The New MS with the smaller acquisitions + Mojang + Zenimax/Bethesda + ABK isn't the same small player whose entire selling point is for-the-consumer and value. They'll have "other options" to consider, and this is the part that's making Sony panic, and the part that could lead to more unnecessary "revenge-acquisitions" and wastes of money that could have gone to cultivating and establishing countless developers and talents." Sony's panic is due to its dominant position being challenged but that's how a competitive market is supposed to work. One actor gets a dominant position than an underdog react (propose a new business line, innovate, merge with other) and try to take the lead. That's just part of competition in action. "If I understood you correctly, you said Sony putting their games day 1 on PS+ is 99% more likely than MS toning down their day and date releases (or something along these lines). Starfield should be a good test to see what kind of impact being on a service day 1 does to the sales performance of a game with a great potential (I'm pretending/assuming Forza Horizon 5 and Halo Infinite never had potential). If the impact on sales is too significant (exiting most charts not long post release), Sony would be less eager to try out Microsoft's model. Microsoft's "number of players" are padded statistics that don't mean much to Sony or Nintendo. MS has to prove that their games are "selling" gangbusters despite being on GamePass, and only then will the idea of Sony putting their games on PS+ day 1 be feasible for them. They're not going to trade traditional sales for an increase in subs (and neither will Nintendo lol). Forza Horizon 5 and Halo Infinite both underperformed sales wise. If Starfield underperforms too, MS may consider other options, and Sony won't copy them. Just my opinion." I think Forza Horizon 5 and halo infinite sold better than you think outside of GamePass, also your to dismissive of the value they bring through GamePass by the way of new subscriptions and retention of current users. Even if Starfield sold 0 copies outside of GamePass but bring value that MS estimated as greater than the title's budget through GamePass it's still a success. |
That part was golden "So your against the deal because MS might in the future be able to do what Nintendo and Sony does right now?" this right here sums up pretty much every Sony fan thats against this deal imo. Its pure gold.
