By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zippy6 on 28 April 2023
Edit Thread
Ryuu96 said:
Zippy6 said:

Yes the bigger question than the boosteroid/gfn deals etc is if the 100% revenue deal was for cloud streaming services like PS+ or if they made a deal with someone like Luna and it was still 100%.

Considering "the third party" was likely PlayStation? Then it would seem they wanted 100% from in-app purchases on PS+. E.G Someone cloud streaming warzone. But perhaps not.

Wouldn't Luna be the same? Just thinking about Ubisoft...Luna + Ubisoft allows you to Stream your "Ubisoft Connect" library so Amazon surely can't take any cut from Ubisoft transactions either and only make their money from the users subscribed to Luna?

So Microsoft in this case = Ubisoft and Luna wouldn't be entitled to 100% there either?

Honestly it was almost definitely PlayStation but the fact that they mention GeForce Now only (even though it's completely wrong to mention them as they take nothing either way) it makes me think it was just Sony trying to poison the well and confuse regulators, Lol.

Luna has a subscription to access a pack of games, previously they had a "ubisoft channel" specifically for Luna that you had to pay for but got all their games. Now you can link your ubisoft account and play the games you own as well as play them with ubisoft+ or the new ubisoft+ anywhere subscription. 

Ubisoft+ Sub can be purchased directly through Luna so I'm sure they must get a cut there. Also the Ubisoft+ Anywhere subscription must compensate platform holders in some way otherwise there's no way it would be allowed on Xbox and in the future PlayStation which is already confirmed as coming.

Unlike GFN/Boosteroid You do not need a subscription to Luna to play your owned Ubisoft titles so they must be receiving compensation in some way for those outside of ubisoft+ also. Otherwise they have literally zero incentive to allow it.