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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Phil Spencer: Xbox Series didn’t need a system seller at launch

eva01beserk said:
JWeinCom said:

Backseat modding is also moderation worthy.

If you're wondering why I responded to this and none of the salty remarks, the answer is simple. Someone reported this post. Nobody reported the salty comment. (Unless another mod hid it, but we try not to do that before bringing it up in modchat).

Mods aren't omnipresent dude. We try our best to keep an eye on things, but we don't read every word of every post. So, if you think something is an issue, you got to meet us halfway and flag it. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you expect.

Anyways, don't call anyone salty, and don't suggest someone should be modded. This seems to be a case of one relatively minor violation apiece, so we can call it even and move on. Anything further on this should be via PM.

lol

I find it hilarious that someone felt the need to flag my comment. I appreciate your response. It kind of gave me the win here as people are loosing so hard that they are resorting to flagging post cuz they have no proper response .

I will not flag post. Im a adult and the opinions of no one is going to send me crying to a mod. I get that it makes this one sided against me, but such is life. 

P.S. I had abandoned this thread as it was going nowhere. but this brought me back.

Who said the person that reported to the post was the person talking to you? Since I don't want people making assumptions, I will clarify that it was nobody involved in the conversation. Which of course, is perfectly allowed.

At any rate if you don't want to report posts, that's your choice, but if you don't flag them, then don't complain that they're not being moderated.

Again, I'll repeat, anything further about moderation should be via PM, and if not, it'll be deemed derailing. Same for anyone else.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 15 November 2020

Around the Network
Cerebralbore101 said:
sales2099 said:
ClassicGamingWizzz said:
sales2099 said:




sales2099 said:
eva01beserk said:
sales2099 said:

Imo calling Bethesda a “poached” developer warranted my response. Like the acquisition was without honour or something. It was done with mutual agreement with a premium that is unheard of in this industry. But sure that dastardly MS “poached” poor and innocent Bethesda. 

So that’s where I’m coming from and I hope the mods see that too. 

As a 3rd party dev, Bethesda existed in the wild. Any gamer that wanted to play a Bethesda game could play it on their platform of choice, with the exception of Nintendo. But even then there are a few Bethesda games on Switch. Now, if MS goes through with Bethesda exclusivity they will have removed all those Bethesda games from the wild, making them PC/Xbox only. I'm sure Bethesda is more than happy to be purchased, but that's beside the point. If MS does indeed plan on buying up even more studios simply to spitefully keep them off PS5, then they are insanely hypocritical, and damaging to gaming as a whole. MS can do whatever they want with their own home grown content. If you made a game you have every right to sell it however you want. But trying to moneyhat 3rd party games off of PS5, simply because you want to monopolize the gaming industry is a scumbag move. Anyway, call it whatever you want. Poaching, Scalping, Extreme Moneyhatting. Either way it goes against their previous PR spin nonsense that "Exclusives are evil. Sony is evil for making better games than us, and then not selling those games on our platforms!!!"

Both Sony and MS bought studios. What each studio made before hand is irrelevant. To me going 1st party takes the dev off the market. They objectively aren’t expected to make multiplat games because we know it’s a simple matter of ownership. But a dev staying 3rd party doing exclusive content...that’s dirty. 

But there really is no moral high ground you can take as a Sony fan, especially talking about “damaging gaming”. Sony drove Sega out of console gaming. The beat Nintendo so bad that they will never return to traditional consoles ever again. All their consoles have to be underpowered and have a unique hardware quirk to remain competitive. Sony almost drove out Xbox until Phil convinced MS to back them. 

You talk about MS trying to monopolize the gaming industry and scumbag moves...look no further then Sony having a rich history of choking out competition. As long as PS has more marketshare, Xbox should be buying and buying and buying and buying until Sony doesn’t have anybody left to moneyhat and we can finally have some long overdue equilibrium. 

Microsoft should buy everyone and everything to make things even !!!

If they buy everything they create a monopoly , do you even think before you write these...

Monopoly is dictated by marketshare, not assets owned. So taking Nintendo out of the equation as they are doing something different from Sony and MS, the marketshare Sony has tells me it is they who have a monopoly. Doesn’t matter what MS buys until their marketshare is at least over 50% they ain’t no monopoly, yet. 

Please start a thread called Sony Has A Monopoly on the Console Industry!

Then please explain how Sony has used unfair business practices according to the FTC. Here's their page defining what a monopoly is. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined Seriously though, please read that page.

I merely have to look at the front page of this site to see a case for Sony monopolizing the console industry. Take out Nintendo for not being as direct a competitor as Xbox and it’s even more so evident. 

What MS is doing is no different then Sony. Half of Sony’s studios are bought. MS just doing it on a grander scale, again, to boost marketshare to prevent another monopoly next gen. 

You can’t look at Xboxs marketshare and tell me MS is monopolizing the industry...it’s blatantly contradictory. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Eh, when Sony bought Naughty Dog is in an era when THQ, Majesco,Midway,Agetec's of the industry were around. There were more publishers and dev studios than grains of sand. Gaming costs so much to make all those kinds of studios are gone now. ND was just another small fish an in endless sea. Insomniac always was close with Sony. The landscape today is a handful of large publishers who own about every significant studio. Then fans asking MS to buy SEGA. SEGA is not a developer. It's a publisher. MS buying entire publishers isn't great. Some smaller studios is fine. Remember Nintendo tried to buy Namco? If that happened,imagine all the great games the published the last 15 years likely missed out on. What few Namco IP games we would have gotten be severely gimped on Wii. Maybe no Dark Souls series if they didn't publish it. I wasn't happy when Sony used to own 20% of Square. Glad they don't now.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
sales2099 said:
ClassicGamingWizzz said:
sales2099 said:




sales2099 said:
eva01beserk said:
sales2099 said:

Imo calling Bethesda a “poached” developer warranted my response. Like the acquisition was without honour or something. It was done with mutual agreement with a premium that is unheard of in this industry. But sure that dastardly MS “poached” poor and innocent Bethesda. 

So that’s where I’m coming from and I hope the mods see that too. 

As a 3rd party dev, Bethesda existed in the wild. Any gamer that wanted to play a Bethesda game could play it on their platform of choice, with the exception of Nintendo. But even then there are a few Bethesda games on Switch. Now, if MS goes through with Bethesda exclusivity they will have removed all those Bethesda games from the wild, making them PC/Xbox only. I'm sure Bethesda is more than happy to be purchased, but that's beside the point. If MS does indeed plan on buying up even more studios simply to spitefully keep them off PS5, then they are insanely hypocritical, and damaging to gaming as a whole. MS can do whatever they want with their own home grown content. If you made a game you have every right to sell it however you want. But trying to moneyhat 3rd party games off of PS5, simply because you want to monopolize the gaming industry is a scumbag move. Anyway, call it whatever you want. Poaching, Scalping, Extreme Moneyhatting. Either way it goes against their previous PR spin nonsense that "Exclusives are evil. Sony is evil for making better games than us, and then not selling those games on our platforms!!!"

Both Sony and MS bought studios. What each studio made before hand is irrelevant. To me going 1st party takes the dev off the market. They objectively aren’t expected to make multiplat games because we know it’s a simple matter of ownership. But a dev staying 3rd party doing exclusive content...that’s dirty. 

But there really is no moral high ground you can take as a Sony fan, especially talking about “damaging gaming”. Sony drove Sega out of console gaming. The beat Nintendo so bad that they will never return to traditional consoles ever again. All their consoles have to be underpowered and have a unique hardware quirk to remain competitive. Sony almost drove out Xbox until Phil convinced MS to back them. 

You talk about MS trying to monopolize the gaming industry and scumbag moves...look no further then Sony having a rich history of choking out competition. As long as PS has more marketshare, Xbox should be buying and buying and buying and buying until Sony doesn’t have anybody left to moneyhat and we can finally have some long overdue equilibrium. 

Microsoft should buy everyone and everything to make things even !!!

If they buy everything they create a monopoly , do you even think before you write these...

Monopoly is dictated by marketshare, not assets owned. So taking Nintendo out of the equation as they are doing something different from Sony and MS, the marketshare Sony has tells me it is they who have a monopoly. Doesn’t matter what MS buys until their marketshare is at least over 50% they ain’t no monopoly, yet. 

Please start a thread called Sony Has A Monopoly on the Console Industry!

Then please explain how Sony has used unfair business practices according to the FTC. Here's their page defining what a monopoly is. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined Seriously though, please read that page.

I merely have to look at the front page of this site to see a case for Sony monopolizing the console industry. Take out Nintendo for not being as direct a competitor as Xbox and it’s even more so evident. 

What MS is doing is no different then Sony. Half of Sony’s studios are bought. MS just doing it on a grander scale, again, to boost marketshare to prevent another monopoly next gen. 

You can’t look at Xboxs marketshare and tell me MS is monopolizing the industry...it’s blatantly contradictory. 

No, you don't need to just look at the front page of a website to determine when that Sony is monopolizing the console industry... There's a reason there are whole books and courses devoted to anti-trust law. You can't just go to court and say "Your honor, I present exhibit A, the frontpage of VGChartz. I rest my case. Mic drop."

The first thing you'd have to do is establish that "console industry" is a valid antitrust market. If I were Sony's lawyer I would argue that is not a proper market in terms of the Sherman Antitrust Act. For instance in United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co, the Supreme Court ruled that a company that controlled 75% of the cellophane market did not have a monopoly, because you had to include any reasonable substitute product in the market. I.e. any sort of flexible plastic wrapping. In the videogame industry there are several products one could substitute for a PS4.

The Switch serves the same function as the Playstation 4. It plays videogames. It even plays many of the same videogames. It is sold at the same specialty retailers. This site tracks them in the same place, as does NPD or Famitsu, and fans constantly bicker over which is better. By your own words it is a competitor, even if it's "not as direct" as XBox. You can't chuck it out because it's inconvenient. It doesn't have to do the exact same thing, just has to be close enough. The fact that I can play Zelda on one and Horizon on the other doesn't mean the products are in a separate market. Maybe to a gamer the difference is significant enough to classify them separately, but not in a court.

And of course, there is the XBox One. The fact that it is not selling as well as the PS4 right now is immaterial. It is an option that people have available to them. Unless you want to argue that the XBox One is so vastly inferior that nobody can reasonably choose it over a PS4. And, even if you did limit the console market to just PS4 and XBox One, Xbox has nearly a third of that market. That's not an insignificant part. Being the best seller in your market does not mean you have a monopoly. 

In addition to the Switch and XBox One, there is the fact that PCs are a potential substitute for a PS4, offering the ability to play the majority of games available on the PS4. That includes a sizeable chunk of Sony's first party titles through PSNow. You of course would claim that PCs are not consoles, but console market is not legally a thing. Trying to convince a court that a machine that can play almost all of the same games, is not in the same market would be an uphill battle.

The important thing is that there are at least three replacement products people turn to if they don't like what Sony is doing. The PS3 is the perfect example of this. Sony completely dominated the console market with the PS2, and they thought that they were so dominant that they could sell their next machine at vastly above the market standard. Tons of customers said "nope fuck that" and bought an XBox 360 or a Wii instead, or got a better PC.  Obviously, Sony did not have a monopoly of the gaming market, and they were far more dominant back then.


Which brings us to the second thing you'd have to prove, that Sony is somehow preventing competition. If people by and large decide that the PS4 is better than the XBox One, then that's not a monopoly, that is competition. It's only a monopoly if Sony is doing something unfair to prevent other companies from competing. And, I can't see anything that qualifies. Clearly as the Switch and PC markets show it is perfectly possible for other companies to thrive in the market. And, Microsoft clearly believes that competition is still possible, as shown by the fact that they're still making consoles.

The basic question you have to ask is "Does Sony get to do whatever the fuck they want?" And clearly they do not. If Sony decided that they were going to charge 90 dollars for the standard edition on all PS5 games, I think it's pretty clear that the XBox Series X/S would outsell it. Competing and winning doesn't mean you have a monopoly. Preventing anyone else from competing through unfair practices makes a monopoly.



JWeinCom said:
sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
sales2099 said:
ClassicGamingWizzz said:
sales2099 said:




sales2099 said:
eva01beserk said:
sales2099 said:

Imo calling Bethesda a “poached” developer warranted my response. Like the acquisition was without honour or something. It was done with mutual agreement with a premium that is unheard of in this industry. But sure that dastardly MS “poached” poor and innocent Bethesda. 

So that’s where I’m coming from and I hope the mods see that too. 

As a 3rd party dev, Bethesda existed in the wild. Any gamer that wanted to play a Bethesda game could play it on their platform of choice, with the exception of Nintendo. But even then there are a few Bethesda games on Switch. Now, if MS goes through with Bethesda exclusivity they will have removed all those Bethesda games from the wild, making them PC/Xbox only. I'm sure Bethesda is more than happy to be purchased, but that's beside the point. If MS does indeed plan on buying up even more studios simply to spitefully keep them off PS5, then they are insanely hypocritical, and damaging to gaming as a whole. MS can do whatever they want with their own home grown content. If you made a game you have every right to sell it however you want. But trying to moneyhat 3rd party games off of PS5, simply because you want to monopolize the gaming industry is a scumbag move. Anyway, call it whatever you want. Poaching, Scalping, Extreme Moneyhatting. Either way it goes against their previous PR spin nonsense that "Exclusives are evil. Sony is evil for making better games than us, and then not selling those games on our platforms!!!"

Both Sony and MS bought studios. What each studio made before hand is irrelevant. To me going 1st party takes the dev off the market. They objectively aren’t expected to make multiplat games because we know it’s a simple matter of ownership. But a dev staying 3rd party doing exclusive content...that’s dirty. 

But there really is no moral high ground you can take as a Sony fan, especially talking about “damaging gaming”. Sony drove Sega out of console gaming. The beat Nintendo so bad that they will never return to traditional consoles ever again. All their consoles have to be underpowered and have a unique hardware quirk to remain competitive. Sony almost drove out Xbox until Phil convinced MS to back them. 

You talk about MS trying to monopolize the gaming industry and scumbag moves...look no further then Sony having a rich history of choking out competition. As long as PS has more marketshare, Xbox should be buying and buying and buying and buying until Sony doesn’t have anybody left to moneyhat and we can finally have some long overdue equilibrium. 

Microsoft should buy everyone and everything to make things even !!!

If they buy everything they create a monopoly , do you even think before you write these...

Monopoly is dictated by marketshare, not assets owned. So taking Nintendo out of the equation as they are doing something different from Sony and MS, the marketshare Sony has tells me it is they who have a monopoly. Doesn’t matter what MS buys until their marketshare is at least over 50% they ain’t no monopoly, yet. 

Please start a thread called Sony Has A Monopoly on the Console Industry!

Then please explain how Sony has used unfair business practices according to the FTC. Here's their page defining what a monopoly is. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined Seriously though, please read that page.

I merely have to look at the front page of this site to see a case for Sony monopolizing the console industry. Take out Nintendo for not being as direct a competitor as Xbox and it’s even more so evident. 

What MS is doing is no different then Sony. Half of Sony’s studios are bought. MS just doing it on a grander scale, again, to boost marketshare to prevent another monopoly next gen. 

You can’t look at Xboxs marketshare and tell me MS is monopolizing the industry...it’s blatantly contradictory. 

No, you don't need to just look at the front page of a website to determine when that Sony is monopolizing the console industry... There's a reason there are whole books and courses devoted to anti-trust law. You can't just go to court and say "Your honor, I present exhibit A, the frontpage of VGChartz. I rest my case. Mic drop."

The first thing you'd have to do is establish that "console industry" is a valid antitrust market. If I were Sony's lawyer I would argue that is not a proper market in terms of the Sherman Antitrust Act. For instance in United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co, the Supreme Court ruled that a company that controlled 75% of the cellophane market did not have a monopoly, because you had to include any reasonable substitute product in the market. I.e. any sort of flexible plastic wrapping. In the videogame industry there are several products one could substitute for a PS4.

The Switch serves the same function as the Playstation 4. It plays videogames. It even plays many of the same videogames. It is sold at the same specialty retailers. This site tracks them in the same place, as does NPD or Famitsu, and fans constantly bicker over which is better. By your own words it is a competitor, even if it's "not as direct" as XBox. You can't chuck it out because it's inconvenient. It doesn't have to do the exact same thing, just has to be close enough. The fact that I can play Zelda on one and Horizon on the other doesn't mean the products are in a separate market. Maybe to a gamer the difference is significant enough to classify them separately, but not in a court.

And of course, there is the XBox One. The fact that it is not selling as well as the PS4 right now is immaterial. It is an option that people have available to them. Unless you want to argue that the XBox One is so vastly inferior that nobody can reasonably choose it over a PS4. And, even if you did limit the console market to just PS4 and XBox One, Xbox has nearly a third of that market. That's not an insignificant part. Being the best seller in your market does not mean you have a monopoly. 

In addition to the Switch and XBox One, there is the fact that PCs are a potential substitute for a PS4, offering the ability to play the majority of games available on the PS4. That includes a sizeable chunk of Sony's first party titles through PSNow. You of course would claim that PCs are not consoles, but console market is not legally a thing. Trying to convince a court that a machine that can play almost all of the same games, is not in the same market would be an uphill battle.

The important thing is that there are at least three replacement products people turn to if they don't like what Sony is doing. The PS3 is the perfect example of this. Sony completely dominated the console market with the PS2, and they thought that they were so dominant that they could sell their next machine at vastly above the market standard. Tons of customers said "nope fuck that" and bought an XBox 360 or a Wii instead, or got a better PC.  Obviously, Sony did not have a monopoly of the gaming market, and they were far more dominant back then.


Which brings us to the second thing you'd have to prove, that Sony is somehow preventing competition. If people by and large decide that the PS4 is better than the XBox One, then that's not a monopoly, that is competition. It's only a monopoly if Sony is doing something unfair to prevent other companies from competing. And, I can't see anything that qualifies. Clearly as the Switch and PC markets show it is perfectly possible for other companies to thrive in the market. And, Microsoft clearly believes that competition is still possible, as shown by the fact that they're still making consoles.

The basic question you have to ask is "Does Sony get to do whatever the fuck they want?" And clearly they do not. If Sony decided that they were going to charge 90 dollars for the standard edition on all PS5 games, I think it's pretty clear that the XBox Series X/S would outsell it. Competing and winning doesn't mean you have a monopoly. Preventing anyone else from competing through unfair practices makes a monopoly.

THANKYOU! I tried to get him to objectively define why Sony was a monopoly, and he just dodged the question. I was all ready for him to make his case. I wanted some real discussion. Instead he just says "Sony is doing way better therefore MONOPOLY!!!". By his definition Netflix has a monopoly on streaming TV shows with 183 million subscribers. Nevermind that that entire market has too many profitable competitors to list off the top of my head. :P

Anyway, sorry for derailing the thread.

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 16 November 2020

Around the Network
sales2099 said:




sales2099 said:
eva01beserk said:
sales2099 said:

Imo calling Bethesda a “poached” developer warranted my response. Like the acquisition was without honour or something. It was done with mutual agreement with a premium that is unheard of in this industry. But sure that dastardly MS “poached” poor and innocent Bethesda. 

So that’s where I’m coming from and I hope the mods see that too. 

As a 3rd party dev, Bethesda existed in the wild. Any gamer that wanted to play a Bethesda game could play it on their platform of choice, with the exception of Nintendo. But even then there are a few Bethesda games on Switch. Now, if MS goes through with Bethesda exclusivity they will have removed all those Bethesda games from the wild, making them PC/Xbox only. I'm sure Bethesda is more than happy to be purchased, but that's beside the point. If MS does indeed plan on buying up even more studios simply to spitefully keep them off PS5, then they are insanely hypocritical, and damaging to gaming as a whole. MS can do whatever they want with their own home grown content. If you made a game you have every right to sell it however you want. But trying to moneyhat 3rd party games off of PS5, simply because you want to monopolize the gaming industry is a scumbag move. Anyway, call it whatever you want. Poaching, Scalping, Extreme Moneyhatting. Either way it goes against their previous PR spin nonsense that "Exclusives are evil. Sony is evil for making better games than us, and then not selling those games on our platforms!!!"

Both Sony and MS bought studios. What each studio made before hand is irrelevant. To me going 1st party takes the dev off the market. They objectively aren’t expected to make multiplat games because we know it’s a simple matter of ownership. But a dev staying 3rd party doing exclusive content...that’s dirty. 

But there really is no moral high ground you can take as a Sony fan, especially talking about “damaging gaming”. Sony drove Sega out of console gaming. The beat Nintendo so bad that they will never return to traditional consoles ever again. All their consoles have to be underpowered and have a unique hardware quirk to remain competitive. Sony almost drove out Xbox until Phil convinced MS to back them. 

You talk about MS trying to monopolize the gaming industry and scumbag moves...look no further then Sony having a rich history of choking out competition. As long as PS has more marketshare, Xbox should be buying and buying and buying and buying until Sony doesn’t have anybody left to moneyhat and we can finally have some long overdue equilibrium. 

There is a lot of high ground to be taken comparing buying small studios at a rhythm of like 1 or 2 per gen that only made exclusives and building those up over time and showing the results versus buying over 15 studios over a 1-2 year spam with some of them being big and making multiplatform with not really a good historic of what was done with those they purchased. Don't be disingenuous.

EDIT: And on your monopoly claim. Just because Sony have far more threads dedicated to it in VGC than Xbox doesn't show it is a monopoly, and even you wanted to only focus on sales and take out switch to have only direct competition if you have 2 competitors and one sells the double that can't be decided a monopoly because well with 2 competitors some would certainly have something above 50% of the marketshare. Mindshare dominance isn't monopoly. And well if number of threads could be used to determine monopoly then the number of interviews that Phil Spencer do that generate more reports on the front page than all other gaming related news combined that is a monopoly of the discussion.

Last edited by DonFerrari - on 16 November 2020

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

JWeinCom said:
eva01beserk said:
sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
sales2099 said:

If someone only plans on owning a single non-nintendo console, and  hasn't bought a next gen non-nintendo console yet, then they are up for grabs from either Sony or MS. If Sony grabs them first, then MS just lost a customer and vice versa. You can't look at last gen and assume that everyone is going to stick to the same brand they had. Sure, most will, but there's enough swing consumers that will go either direction at the start of a new gen. A new generation is supposed to be a total reset anyway. Right? 

It is a reset, though the odds are stacked against Xbox. I won’t re open the Bethesda debate, just that they did say the reason they can’t outright brag is because the deal won’t go through until next year. Seems to be a legal issue to being vague is all they can do. Once the deal goes through officially they better get more clear fast is all I’ll say. It would go a ways if people knew definitively. 

And technically Xbox games aren’t exclusive. It’s Xbox One, Series S/X, Windows Store, Steam, Game Pass, and Android mobile devices. PS not having future games is still insanely pro consumer based on the variety and low barrier options. 

So MS expects people that don't have a PC or Xbox to play their poached studios' games on their phone? Yeah, that'll go down well.

It’s an option, that’s kinda the whole thing with Xbox. I can see Xcloud breaking out in Asia if marketed properly. But it is also used to supplement console and PC gaming.

But hey, if you got a really loyal PS only gamer, your options are to stay salty, buy a Xbox or play the game on their current phone by subbing to Xcloud Game Pass. 

Playing on a phone with input lag, and a screen smaller than a Switch is so inferior of a gaming option that you shouldn't even bother with it. If MS seriously thinks this is a realistic option then they've lost their minds. If they are going to keep their poached games off PS5, then they should just admit that their "Pro-Consumer" stance was all a bunch of spin to cover up the fact that they needed to expand their market outside of console gaming to survive.

The lag has been improving steadily, and shouldn’t be a problem with a strong home wifi signal. The small screen is funny considering many Nintendo handhelds had screens smaller then modern smartphones...I wonder if you complained their screens were small back in the day. 

I think we all know they had to expand beyond consoles to survive, but what’s your point? Seems salty that Xbox expanding its reach where Sony stuck in the old ways. 

Also your use of poached is a little salty. They were 3rd party. Now they are 1st. Sony buys studios too ya know...but in their case I bet you’d think they were “uplifted” in a warm embrace :p

Runing a little fast and loose with the salty remarks. As far as I remember that is a moderation worthy insult. Somehow seems fine for you to spam it. 

Backseat modding is also moderation worthy.

If you're wondering why I responded to this and none of the salty remarks, the answer is simple. Someone reported this post. Nobody reported the salty comment. (Unless another mod hid it, but we try not to do that before bringing it up in modchat).

Mods aren't omnipresent dude. We try our best to keep an eye on things, but we don't read every word of every post. So, if you think something is an issue, you got to meet us halfway and flag it. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you expect.

Anyways, don't call anyone salty, and don't suggest someone should be modded. This seems to be a case of one relatively minor violation apiece, so we can call it even and move on. Anything further on this should be via PM.

I know that I got mods message for "spamming report", basically the message said that if you reported one post in the thread you shouldn't report others because the moderation team would review THE WHOLE thread. So yep responding to him but not to the "salty" remarks seems in contradiction with the message I received from mod.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

It's true that the Xbox was going to sell out 2020 regardless of launch lineup but maintaining momentum into the new years is important. You need consistent releases to maintain demand, Holiday 2021 is too long to wait, launch momentum won't keep you going a whole year.

By July 2021 the PS5 may have potentially already released Miles Morales, Demon's Souls, Sackboy, Destruction All-Stars, Returnal, Gran Turismo 7 and Ratchet & Clank.

PS5 is going to keep up it's momentum and keep demand high, Xbox by summer 2021 is easily going to have the capacity to produce far more consoles than demand requires.

Consistent Releases Matter.



I got 3 generations of games to play, i'm good

Been playing the Gears of War-series since i got Series X now



Cerebralbore101 said:
JWeinCom said:
sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
sales2099 said:
ClassicGamingWizzz said:
sales2099 said:




sales2099 said:
eva01beserk said:
sales2099 said:

Imo calling Bethesda a “poached” developer warranted my response. Like the acquisition was without honour or something. It was done with mutual agreement with a premium that is unheard of in this industry. But sure that dastardly MS “poached” poor and innocent Bethesda. 

So that’s where I’m coming from and I hope the mods see that too. 

As a 3rd party dev, Bethesda existed in the wild. Any gamer that wanted to play a Bethesda game could play it on their platform of choice, with the exception of Nintendo. But even then there are a few Bethesda games on Switch. Now, if MS goes through with Bethesda exclusivity they will have removed all those Bethesda games from the wild, making them PC/Xbox only. I'm sure Bethesda is more than happy to be purchased, but that's beside the point. If MS does indeed plan on buying up even more studios simply to spitefully keep them off PS5, then they are insanely hypocritical, and damaging to gaming as a whole. MS can do whatever they want with their own home grown content. If you made a game you have every right to sell it however you want. But trying to moneyhat 3rd party games off of PS5, simply because you want to monopolize the gaming industry is a scumbag move. Anyway, call it whatever you want. Poaching, Scalping, Extreme Moneyhatting. Either way it goes against their previous PR spin nonsense that "Exclusives are evil. Sony is evil for making better games than us, and then not selling those games on our platforms!!!"

Both Sony and MS bought studios. What each studio made before hand is irrelevant. To me going 1st party takes the dev off the market. They objectively aren’t expected to make multiplat games because we know it’s a simple matter of ownership. But a dev staying 3rd party doing exclusive content...that’s dirty. 

But there really is no moral high ground you can take as a Sony fan, especially talking about “damaging gaming”. Sony drove Sega out of console gaming. The beat Nintendo so bad that they will never return to traditional consoles ever again. All their consoles have to be underpowered and have a unique hardware quirk to remain competitive. Sony almost drove out Xbox until Phil convinced MS to back them. 

You talk about MS trying to monopolize the gaming industry and scumbag moves...look no further then Sony having a rich history of choking out competition. As long as PS has more marketshare, Xbox should be buying and buying and buying and buying until Sony doesn’t have anybody left to moneyhat and we can finally have some long overdue equilibrium. 

Microsoft should buy everyone and everything to make things even !!!

If they buy everything they create a monopoly , do you even think before you write these...

Monopoly is dictated by marketshare, not assets owned. So taking Nintendo out of the equation as they are doing something different from Sony and MS, the marketshare Sony has tells me it is they who have a monopoly. Doesn’t matter what MS buys until their marketshare is at least over 50% they ain’t no monopoly, yet. 

Please start a thread called Sony Has A Monopoly on the Console Industry!

Then please explain how Sony has used unfair business practices according to the FTC. Here's their page defining what a monopoly is. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined Seriously though, please read that page.

I merely have to look at the front page of this site to see a case for Sony monopolizing the console industry. Take out Nintendo for not being as direct a competitor as Xbox and it’s even more so evident. 

What MS is doing is no different then Sony. Half of Sony’s studios are bought. MS just doing it on a grander scale, again, to boost marketshare to prevent another monopoly next gen. 

You can’t look at Xboxs marketshare and tell me MS is monopolizing the industry...it’s blatantly contradictory. 

No, you don't need to just look at the front page of a website to determine when that Sony is monopolizing the console industry... There's a reason there are whole books and courses devoted to anti-trust law. You can't just go to court and say "Your honor, I present exhibit A, the frontpage of VGChartz. I rest my case. Mic drop."

The first thing you'd have to do is establish that "console industry" is a valid antitrust market. If I were Sony's lawyer I would argue that is not a proper market in terms of the Sherman Antitrust Act. For instance in United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co, the Supreme Court ruled that a company that controlled 75% of the cellophane market did not have a monopoly, because you had to include any reasonable substitute product in the market. I.e. any sort of flexible plastic wrapping. In the videogame industry there are several products one could substitute for a PS4.

The Switch serves the same function as the Playstation 4. It plays videogames. It even plays many of the same videogames. It is sold at the same specialty retailers. This site tracks them in the same place, as does NPD or Famitsu, and fans constantly bicker over which is better. By your own words it is a competitor, even if it's "not as direct" as XBox. You can't chuck it out because it's inconvenient. It doesn't have to do the exact same thing, just has to be close enough. The fact that I can play Zelda on one and Horizon on the other doesn't mean the products are in a separate market. Maybe to a gamer the difference is significant enough to classify them separately, but not in a court.

And of course, there is the XBox One. The fact that it is not selling as well as the PS4 right now is immaterial. It is an option that people have available to them. Unless you want to argue that the XBox One is so vastly inferior that nobody can reasonably choose it over a PS4. And, even if you did limit the console market to just PS4 and XBox One, Xbox has nearly a third of that market. That's not an insignificant part. Being the best seller in your market does not mean you have a monopoly. 

In addition to the Switch and XBox One, there is the fact that PCs are a potential substitute for a PS4, offering the ability to play the majority of games available on the PS4. That includes a sizeable chunk of Sony's first party titles through PSNow. You of course would claim that PCs are not consoles, but console market is not legally a thing. Trying to convince a court that a machine that can play almost all of the same games, is not in the same market would be an uphill battle.

The important thing is that there are at least three replacement products people turn to if they don't like what Sony is doing. The PS3 is the perfect example of this. Sony completely dominated the console market with the PS2, and they thought that they were so dominant that they could sell their next machine at vastly above the market standard. Tons of customers said "nope fuck that" and bought an XBox 360 or a Wii instead, or got a better PC.  Obviously, Sony did not have a monopoly of the gaming market, and they were far more dominant back then.


Which brings us to the second thing you'd have to prove, that Sony is somehow preventing competition. If people by and large decide that the PS4 is better than the XBox One, then that's not a monopoly, that is competition. It's only a monopoly if Sony is doing something unfair to prevent other companies from competing. And, I can't see anything that qualifies. Clearly as the Switch and PC markets show it is perfectly possible for other companies to thrive in the market. And, Microsoft clearly believes that competition is still possible, as shown by the fact that they're still making consoles.

The basic question you have to ask is "Does Sony get to do whatever the fuck they want?" And clearly they do not. If Sony decided that they were going to charge 90 dollars for the standard edition on all PS5 games, I think it's pretty clear that the XBox Series X/S would outsell it. Competing and winning doesn't mean you have a monopoly. Preventing anyone else from competing through unfair practices makes a monopoly.

THANKYOU! I tried to get him to objectively define why Sony was a monopoly, and he just dodged the question. I was all ready for him to make his case. I wanted some real discussion. Instead he just says "Sony is doing way better therefore MONOPOLY!!!". By his definition Netflix has a monopoly on streaming TV shows with 183 million subscribers. Nevermind that that entire market has too many profitable competitors to list off the top of my head. :P

Anyway, sorry for derailing the thread.

I happened to study the subject a bit cause I was writing a brief article about the Epic/Apple Lawsuit. A big point of contention was whether the App Store is actually a market for anti-trust purposes. So I had to look into that issue a bit to write it. Pretty sure that XBox+Playstation can't be considered a market in itself.

As for derailing, it's fine. It's not like you have to be laser focused on exactly what the title says. Side conversations happen. Just has to still be reasonably tied to the topic at hand.