By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Phil Spencer is a fraud, (cross play)

I'm curious how much money they have made back in profit off minecraft since they bought mojang for billions? I doubt they have made back that investment yet.



Around the Network

If I have to speculate, I think MS give Sony the raw end of the deal. ex: "if you want crossplay then pay us half a billion" a deal like that would force anyone to refuse.

all just speculation of course. I doubt it has anything to do with player behavior tho.



Neodegenerate said:
potato_hamster said:

Sony might need to pay MS a fee to support the feature. As I said, this might explain why Nintendo might be charging for online play on the Switch.

Multiple devs have already said they can code their games to allow cross play without any monetary requirements from any of the online service providers.  Its a policy situation, nothing more. 

Last I checked, those devs weren't using Xbox Live to host everything:

http://gadgets.ndtv.com/games/news/minecraft-cross-platform-xbox-live-sign-in-ps4-xbox-one-pc-nintendo-switch-e3-2017-1712395

Something tells me that MS isn't going to let Nintendo players with Nitnendo accounts and a paid online subscription play cross-play online using Xbox Live's infrastructure out of the goodness of their hearts. I thought everyone paid $60 a year to MS for XBL Gold because the experience was so good, and required a steady investment from MS to maintain, and now they're going to let Swtich users get effectively the same experience for free? That doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Sure, some devs have implemented solution that essentially has hosting and handshaking between the two networks done on neutral, third party servers that the developer hosts meaning that expense rests on the developer. But this time the developer is Microsoft, so MS is going to use their own hosting infrastucture, which is Xbox Live. Rest assured, Switch has cross play because Nintendo decided to play by Microsoft's rules.



potato_hamster said:
Neodegenerate said:

Multiple devs have already said they can code their games to allow cross play without any monetary requirements from any of the online service providers.  Its a policy situation, nothing more. 

Last I checked, those devs weren't using Xbox Live to host everything:

http://gadgets.ndtv.com/games/news/minecraft-cross-platform-xbox-live-sign-in-ps4-xbox-one-pc-nintendo-switch-e3-2017-1712395

Something tells me that MS isn't going to let Nintendo players with Nitnendo accounts and a paid online subscription play cross-play online using Xbox Live's infrastructure out of the goodness of their hearts. I thought everyone paid $60 a year to MS for XBL Gold because the experience was so good, and required a steady investment from MS to maintain, and now they're going to let Swtich users get effectively the same experience for free? That doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Sure, some devs have implemented solution that essentially has hosting and handshaking between the two networks done on neutral, third party servers that the developer hosts meaning that expense rests on the developer. But this time the developer is Microsoft, so MS is going to use their own hosting infrastucture, which is Xbox Live. Rest assured, Switch has cross play because Nintendo decided to play by Microsoft's rules.

No they werent, because they dont have to.  If Sony, MS, and Nintendo all tell the devs "go ahead" then we have cross play across all fronts.  If MS is initiating cross play for their game (Minecraft) then of course they are going to try to position themselves in the best light with it.



Neodegenerate said:
potato_hamster said:

Last I checked, those devs weren't using Xbox Live to host everything:

http://gadgets.ndtv.com/games/news/minecraft-cross-platform-xbox-live-sign-in-ps4-xbox-one-pc-nintendo-switch-e3-2017-1712395

Something tells me that MS isn't going to let Nintendo players with Nitnendo accounts and a paid online subscription play cross-play online using Xbox Live's infrastructure out of the goodness of their hearts. I thought everyone paid $60 a year to MS for XBL Gold because the experience was so good, and required a steady investment from MS to maintain, and now they're going to let Swtich users get effectively the same experience for free? That doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Sure, some devs have implemented solution that essentially has hosting and handshaking between the two networks done on neutral, third party servers that the developer hosts meaning that expense rests on the developer. But this time the developer is Microsoft, so MS is going to use their own hosting infrastucture, which is Xbox Live. Rest assured, Switch has cross play because Nintendo decided to play by Microsoft's rules.

No they werent, because they dont have to.  If Sony, MS, and Nintendo all tell the devs "go ahead" then we have cross play across all fronts.  If MS is initiating cross play for their game (Minecraft) then of course they are going to try to position themselves in the best light with it.

This is the strangest, most combative way of agreeing with all of my points I have ever seen.



Around the Network
potato_hamster said:
Neodegenerate said:

No they werent, because they dont have to.  If Sony, MS, and Nintendo all tell the devs "go ahead" then we have cross play across all fronts.  If MS is initiating cross play for their game (Minecraft) then of course they are going to try to position themselves in the best light with it.

This is the strangest, most combative way of agreeing with all of my points I have ever seen.

I never claimed to be a wordsmith.  I meant no aggression though.  :)



Neodegenerate said:
potato_hamster said:

This is the strangest, most combative way of agreeing with all of my points I have ever seen.

I never claimed to be a wordsmith.  I meant no aggression though.  :)

All good!



Indeed. And people are falling for those devious snakes. Microsofts startegy to dominate the console hardware business failed with their always on one box for everything. Now they re trying the same method as with their operating systems. Control via software. Thus it begins. Minecraft players who want to play the game on a Nintendo console have to log in XboxLive. So next time Microsoft can boast how much Live User Numbers have grown. Now they block the next Minecraft PS4 update because Sony defends its territory against hosile invasive actions. And people are actually so incredibely naive to applaud them and berate Sony for not giving in.

Yea right. Because the update wouldnt be possible without crossplay. Just as XboxOne couldnt be seperated from kinect.



Hunting Season is done...

Dulfite said:
I'm curious how much money they have made back in profit off minecraft since they bought mojang for billions? I doubt they have made back that investment yet.

It's not about making back all the money they paid.

Had they left that money in the bank, it would have sat there accruing interest. So for MS the question becomes, can they generate more profit off of Minecraft every year than those billions would have made sitting in the bank. Last I remember the answer was yes, they were making more off of Minecraft, but don't quote me on that.



LudicrousSpeed said:
Dulfite said:
I'm curious how much money they have made back in profit off minecraft since they bought mojang for billions? I doubt they have made back that investment yet.

It's not about making back all the money they paid.

Had they left that money in the bank, it would have sat there accruing interest. So for MS the question becomes, can they generate more profit off of Minecraft every year than those billions would have made sitting in the bank. Last I remember the answer was yes, they were making more off of Minecraft, but don't quote me on that.

I just don't get how. Hasn't everyone that is going to buy this game already purchased it? I can see the hd pack bringing in a bunch, but honestly Lego Worlds looks a lot better to me (haven't tried it yet).