| EpicRandy said: So the answer still is, but others do it too / are just as bad or worse, so it's ok? No, where in my reply do you get this, it is not my point. I guess that's an answer to how is the solution to objectionable practices is an even bigger objectionable practice? It's not my point either, my answer to this specific question is that the question in itself is biased it's a leading question that try to get a specific answer and you can see why that is through my previous thread posts. Where are they though, XBox had more (AAA) games coming out before gamepass... Really when? and also handling more /less release does not make handling them differently. Also they are much more life service now instead of complete day 1, that's different since GP. Games have followed that trend for more than 2 decades now and I don't see how it is related to GamePass at all. Both last end year's AAA XBox releases have/had problems as I said, not a good track record. Unless you specify those games an issues it's hard to discuss, High on life for instance had release issue for some but it wasn't related to the quality of the title and were fix pretty quickly hardly noteworthy. Anyway enough whataboutism, this escalation of buying up bigger and bigger studios / publishers needs to stop. Well I can agree to that but that's politics, we needs laws that apply to every industry and clear context as to when an acquisition can be greenlit and not. Right now MS is simply playing by the rules set by the current context. My 'fear' is that if this gets green lit, what's Google/Amazon/Apple/Sony going to gobble up next... As I said many time, yes this is a valid fear but this deal cannot be blocked because some other actor might do one of it's own afterward, that's not legally valid argument. |
Yet it seems to be a valid legal argument, or at least the leading argument in this thread, that other companies do it to, do it worse, so the deal can go through.
That's the same as "this deal cannot be blocked because some other actor might do one of it's own afterward" This thread has turned into, this deal cannot be blocked because others did the same.
Anyway you choose not to answer the OP's question "my answer to this specific question is that the question in itself is biased it's a leading question that try to get a specific answer and you can see why that is through my previous thread posts." Attacking the question instead of giving an opinion on the matter.
(I had issues with Halo Infinite and Forza Horizon 5, played both on PC. Halo Infinite had a really short campaign, bad performance outside and no split-screen co-op (which wasn't promised for release but was promised to come shortly after)
Forza Horizon 5 had online issues, missing traffic in open world (really boring driving without any traffic, yet start a race and suddenly traffic is everywhere) and AI that had some severe issues)
You don't see how life service games are related to subscription services? They started as subscription based games... Life service is as old as mmorpgs, subscription required. The whole point of subscriptions is to keep people subscribed, life service is married to that. Hence the drip feed content to GT7 for example, got to keep people signed up to ps+ to check out the monthly updates, which means they must be relevant mostly to the online part. And yep, broken split-screen mode has been ignored since release in GT7, still broken.
@Machiavellian You replied to my post that begun with "There's a lot of hypocrisy in the console wars. When 'your' side does crappy stuff on their platform, it's all fine, just business. Or never as bad as a competing business. You can never discuss MS, Sony or Nintendo alone, and if that's not enough, drag Google Amazon and Apple into it as well." with "Edge integration into Windows is no different then Safari within Mac OS".
"You fear MS grabbing ABK/Blizz but probably do not really care that much about Sony locking out MS on AAA games."
I already said, my fear is more and more acquisitions until there is nothing left. Amazon and Google jumping in to gobble up publishers to make another Stadia, this time backed with a big portfolio of established studios.
And no I do think Sony buying Bungie was not a good move either. Helping upcoming studios, or buying studios that have been exclusively working for the system already, I don't see that as a big problem. If the studios want the extra financial security, access and help in trade of staying independent, that's their choice. Buying up publishers of multiple studios, that's completely different.
@Zero "No where did anyone say 1 thing makes another right." Then what's up with all the, X did this, that, etc. Is it because your favorite company is now under the loop for making the biggest buyout in gaming history?
Anyway, I don't know him. I simply agree with the point that this discussion is not going anywhere as long as people keep attacking the question and derailing the thread by bringing up other companies' skeletons.
Maybe try it in a different way. Would you all be fine if it was Tencent buying up Acti/Blizz/King? Or NetEase, or Electronic Arts and Take Two merging and buying up Acti/Blizz/King in the merger.
A common complaint about Sony first party games is, that they all feel kinda similar in formula. I tend to agree with that. Is that because all their studios think that's what the audience wants or maybe they do all lose some of their identity by integrind Aating together. Do we want a world where we just have Sony, MS and Nintendo AAA games, or get more variety, warts and all, from independent studios. Fyi, I didn't find Activision and Blizzard Entertainment merging a good idea either.
