By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian on 28 April 2023
Angelus said:
Machiavellian said:

Not sure if that would really make a difference.  Think about it this way, if they say its a bug, people would still say hold the release until you fix it.  In gamers mind its still an L no matter what but for a business, its money.  I am sure if they are shipping at 30 its one of those bugs that takes a hell of a lot of development time or it would be a day one bug release.  When you do not have a clear understanding how long it will take to reach 60fps and hopefully rock solid which I am going to doubt because most games do not ship with a rock solid 60fps mode.  They probably just have to take that L and make sure the rest of the game performs rock solid at 30fps.  If the game dips a lot and run like crap at 30fps, there is going to be hell to pay with the negative feedback.  They probably pouring all their dev time in making the 30fps rock solid as that needs to be tight.

Obiously, the fanboy reaction will always be the fanboy reaction, but I do think that for reasonable gamers, it makes a difference whether you simply blurt out into the wind "ok this is the way the game launches, c ya..." vs "listen, here's what our plan/intention was, here's what happened, it's unfortunate, but at this point in the process it's too late to pull back the release, we'll work hard to bring you this ASAP once X is resolved, etc."

The thing is most reasonable gamers already was reasonable so you not really gaining any mindshare.  Instead, once you give out the details then it's the main source of conversation and it continue to promote negative feedback.  Also, once you start down that road then gamers get entitled and feel you always need to tell them everything that's happening during development.  Its best to just drop the bad news and move on.  To linger on bad news keeps it in the news.  Maybe it's just me but I have not found it very profitable to engage in the community to much.  I have gone on too many community forums and they are a hot mess of bitching.



Around the Network
Ryuu96 on 28 April 2023
Zippy6 said:
Ryuu96 said:

"As Patrick Klepek pointed out in his reporting on GeForce Now, some EULAs specifically forbid using a cloud service to stream the game. Blizzard bans cloud computing along with selling your account or exploiting bugs to duplicate game items. Blizzard also claims ownership over mods, which is pretty shitty."

That's really shitty lol. Ideally these services shouldn't need per-game approval at all. If anything they are a benefit to the publishers as it increases the audience they can sell to, those without a console or gaming pc. They still get paid so not sure why any third party would have an issue with it unless they were running their own cloud service. Having control like this opens the door for publishers to accept money-hats from cloud services like GFN, Boosteroid etc for exclusivity. So them making even more money. Charging you for the game as normal still and then charging the cloud provider too.

If you pay $70 for a PC game you should be allowed to play it on any PC, even a remote one.

All bout money.

This will end up the same way as the Console industry...I don't know if it will stand up in court but GeForce Now wouldn't dare to annoy any of their partners, Lol. Boosteroid shouldn't care but they'd be drowned in legal fees and maybe lose if it's in the EULAs. These publishers want to be paid for the special right to stream your titles in the Cloud.

If Cloud Gaming ever does become big, we'll be where we are today in the Console industry, they'll only be a few very rich Cloud providers fighting over the exclusive rights to stream certain publishers games, resulting in all the small companies unable to compete and having to close up shop and nobody new being able to enter the market.

Wouldn't put it past Bobby to yank ABK titles from Boosteroid after the deal fails, he's that much of a dick, Lol.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 28 April 2023

the-pi-guy on 28 April 2023
Ryuu96 said:

1.) Kind of a weird point to bring up. Casual markets don't seem to be interested in the same titles that others are.

2.) This seems like a bizarrely bad deal. Of course anyone would still take them up on that offer, because they can keep people attached to their platform, but a bizarrely bad deal.  

3.) I think Sony is exaggerating massively. It would be a hit for sure, but I am pretty sure Sony's blockbusters would be fine...



AJNShelton on 28 April 2023
trunkswd said:
havoc00 said:

The more I read the more annoyed I get about this decision.

Welcome to VGChartz! 

Microsoft is appealing the deal. While the odds the CMA ruling is overturned are very low, it's not impossible. What we do know is this will drag on for many more months. 

What did Pachter say about the odds ?



Machiavellian on 28 April 2023
the-pi-guy said:
Ryuu96 said:

1.) Kind of a weird point to bring up. Casual markets don't seem to be interested in the same titles that others are.

2.) This seems like a bizarrely bad deal. Of course anyone would still take them up on that offer, because they can keep people attached to their platform, but a bizarrely bad deal.  

3.) I think Sony is exaggerating massively. It would be a hit for sure, but I am pretty sure Sony's blockbusters would be fine...

Sony is right.  At this time they probably cannot put their first party games on their service day and date like MS because MS has deeper pockets, own the majority of the servers used for GP and are trying to decouple dependance on hardware.  Sony on the other hand need those console sales as they are not a streaming service company like MS and probably have not built up their service to go full hog like MS. While putting their 1st party games on their service would see huge uptake it would come at a cost to the game selling at retail.  Its a much risker prospect for Sony compared to MS because MS is looking to shake up the industry and Sony want to keep the status quo.



Around the Network
Ryuu96 on 28 April 2023
the-pi-guy said:
Ryuu96 said:

2.) This seems like a bizarrely bad deal. Of course anyone would still take them up on that offer, because they can keep people attached to their platform, but a bizarrely bad deal.  

This is how GeForce Now and all other Cloud providers already work, no?

GeForce isn't selling the consumer content, none of these Cloud Gaming Providers are. The transactions are made via the relevant stores (E.g. Microsoft Store/Steam) and they are the ones who get the 30% cut. If you want to play a game via GeForce Now then you have to buy it on a storefront (I.E. Steam) who take a 30% cut, the publisher gets the rest and Nvidia gets nothing.

So I don't think this would or even could apply to PS Plus? Because you'd still be playing the PlayStation version of the game and any transactions made would be via the PlayStation store where Microsoft has no way of taking 100%. Nvidia, Boosteroid, Ubitus, etc, are simply using your Steam library and all content purchased there so they aren't entitled to a cut.

Their business model is Subscriptions to their Cloud service, not transactions via a store, because they have no store.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 28 April 2023

Zippy6 on 28 April 2023
Ryuu96 said:

So I don't think this would or even could apply to PS Plus? Because you'd still be playing the PlayStation version of the game and any transactions made would be via the PlayStation store where Microsoft has no way of taking 100% Nvidia, Boosteroid, Ubitus, etc, are simply using your Steam library so they aren't entitled to a cut.

We know that some publishers/titles get improved rates the 30% isn't completely universal and can be lowered for certain deals. It is possible MS said "Yes we will put it on PS5 and PS+ but we want 100% of the revenue."

But yes there isn't anyway that MS couldn't take 100% from GFN/Boosteroid as these services don't even offer game or inapp purchases.



the-pi-guy on 28 April 2023
Ryuu96 said:

This is how GeForce Now and all other Cloud providers already work, no?

GeForce isn't selling the consumer content, none of these Cloud Gaming Providers are. The transactions are made via the relevant stores (E.g. Microsoft Store/Steam) and they are the ones who get the 30% cut. If you want to play a game via GeForce Now then you have to buy it on a storefront (I.E. Steam) who take a 30% cut, the publisher gets the rest and Nvidia gets nothing.

So I don't think this would or even could apply to PS Plus? Because you'd still be playing the PlayStation version of the game and any transactions made would be via the PlayStation store where Microsoft has no way of taking 100%. Nvidia, Boosteroid, Ubitus, etc, are simply using your Steam library and all content purchased there so they aren't entitled to a cut.

Their business model is Subscriptions to their Cloud service, not transactions via a store, because they have no store.

Good point.

Seems like a strange point for CMA to bring up in that case. 



Ryuu96 on 28 April 2023
Zippy6 said:
Ryuu96 said:

So I don't think this would or even could apply to PS Plus? Because you'd still be playing the PlayStation version of the game and any transactions made would be via the PlayStation store where Microsoft has no way of taking 100% Nvidia, Boosteroid, Ubitus, etc, are simply using your Steam library so they aren't entitled to a cut.

We know that some publishers/titles get improved rates the 30% isn't completely universal and can be lowered for certain deals. It is possible MS said "Yes we will put it on PS5 and PS+ but we want 100% of the revenue."

But yes there isn't anyway that MS couldn't take 100% from GFN/Boosteroid as these services don't even offer game or inapp purchases.

Yeah, so it's weird to mention for GeForce Now/Boosteroid as a complaint from the CMA.

I think only the Tweeter added in PS+, I've massive doubts that Microsoft would even DARE say to Sony that they want 100% of the cut, Lmao.

In fact, it was actually revealed that Sony is taking less from Activision than the 30% standard so if Microsoft went back to offering the standard 30% cut then Sony would actually make more money from each CoD transaction than they did before, Lol.



Zippy6 on 28 April 2023
the-pi-guy said:
Ryuu96 said:

This is how GeForce Now and all other Cloud providers already work, no?

GeForce isn't selling the consumer content, none of these Cloud Gaming Providers are. The transactions are made via the relevant stores (E.g. Microsoft Store/Steam) and they are the ones who get the 30% cut. If you want to play a game via GeForce Now then you have to buy it on a storefront (I.E. Steam) who take a 30% cut, the publisher gets the rest and Nvidia gets nothing.

So I don't think this would or even could apply to PS Plus? Because you'd still be playing the PlayStation version of the game and any transactions made would be via the PlayStation store where Microsoft has no way of taking 100%. Nvidia, Boosteroid, Ubitus, etc, are simply using your Steam library and all content purchased there so they aren't entitled to a cut.

Their business model is Subscriptions to their Cloud service, not transactions via a store, because they have no store.

Good point.

Seems like a strange point for CMA to bring up in that case. 

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.