| SvennoJ said:
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. |
No those things doesn't equate to each other. Saying other already make aquisition is only setting the context that acquisitions are allowed, it's in the rule of the game every actor plays with. Saying you should disallow X to make an acquisition so others wouldn't do what they are already allowed to do is only wishful thinking, even if this deal does/does not succeed, nothing prevents other actors from making acquisitions of their own and each would and should be scrutinized independently.
If your position is that you are against each and every acquisition that's a perfectly valid political position but it isn't reflected in the current context and laws.
| SvennoJ said:
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 answered the op's question: acquisitions are not objectionable practices. Nor do I think money-hatted time exclusives are. Maybe the practice of paying to specifically exclude 1 competitor is but I haven't thought this through since only rumors of this practice exists as of now.
| SvennoJ said:
(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) |
I just don't see how those issue is related to GP at all. MCC had a way worse release than infinite and was release prior to GP. Halo Infinite campaign length ain't different from previous entry and I even found it to be even longer than most. Both Infinite and GH5 were released to critical acclaim from both critics and gamers despite few issues here and there so it is clear both title qualities were high overall. So no those were not using GP reputation to get away with their flaws.
| SvennoJ said:
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. |
Many games are also life service and are not related to subscriptions at all (diablo, PUBG, Fortnite +thousands of others). Games have followed that trend of becoming more and more life service for more than 2 decades some even used this approach in the 90s. I just don't see how Gamepass somehow has an influence on this. In fact, you can even argue to the contrary, service games tend to attract gamers that will sometimes play them for thousands of hours, so for them buying the game outright and ditching game subscription service may be the better choice.
Last edited by EpicRandy - on 30 January 2023
