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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Where do you stand on Microsoft buying Activision/Blizzard?

 

For or against the acquisition?

For 58 41.43%
 
Against 54 38.57%
 
Neutral 28 20.00%
 
Total:140
zero129 said:
ConservagameR said:

Just look at XB One and you'll see what MS does once it believes it has the market cornered. Its harder to see when it's happening inch by inch since PC is far more open to begin with.

Why has Windows been the go to OS for PC with basically no competition for like 30 years now? Why did MS want to partner with Sony or Nin for consoles initially and what did they offer to the platforms? When MS couldn't monopolize console OS, what was their next move and what have they done since like with Game Pass most recently?

You don't need control over everything when you have control of enough things to basically control everything else, but then can use that strategic control to keep gaining more and more control.

Same thing Sony done when they couldnt own Nintendo software sales with the Nintendo CD... Make their own console...

Also look what Sony done with the PS3 at first when they thought they had the market cornered. They where lucky they had so many company's support them until they got their shit together. And now with the PS5 they are going back to their old ways. Raising console prices instead of lowering them etc etc.

SvennoJ said:

$499 in 2006 is worth $724 nowadays, so still a ways to go to reach PS3 launch price... If you want to look at disgusting price practices, look at NVidea :/

And erm it was Nintendo that screwed up...
https://nationalpost.com/entertainment/how-nintendos-massive-mistake-led-to-the-creation-of-the-sony-playstation-25-years-ago

“According to the contract, Sony could make and sell CD-ROM games without buying them from Nintendo. Nintendo wanted a monopoly on manufacturing games for its hardware.”

Rather than bring this disagreement to Sony directly — rather than attempt to work out a new arrangement that was more favourable on the terms Nintendo demanded — Nintendo elected to abandon their deal and strike a better one with a competing manufacturer, leaving Sony in the lurch. (Some have suggested that this may be chalked up to cultural differences and Japanese contract law that no one at Nintendo felt obligated to inform Sony of their decision to renege.) Nintendo felt it was better served focusing its efforts on a CD-ROM peripheral that could be manufactured by Philips without compromising their monopoly on first-party software. Nintendo was already trouncing its only major competitor, the Sega Genesis. No one seemed capable of threatening their dominion — and so, making decisions cavalierly, they felt they had nothing to fear.

So it was Nintendo believing they had the market cornered and doing whatever they wanted. It's also Nintendo that never lowers the price of their first party software... And also Nintendo that's the only one not bringing their games to PC. Nintendo have never left their old ways :/

This ^.  Also, the PS3 launch price was extremely generously subsidized by Sony considering the advanced hardware manufacturing cost.

What has PS ever done to get into MS dominated markets and cause them concern? The recent XB documentary shows MS was simply paranoid about what PS could become so they got into Sony dominated markets. Whatever concern PS seemed to be to them, no longer should've been a concern once PS4 was out, and yet XB now wants to gobble up that entire market with Game Pass.



Around the Network
ConservagameR said:

This ^.  Also, the PS3 launch price was extremely generously subsidized by Sony considering the advanced hardware manufacturing cost.

What has PS ever done to get into MS dominated markets and cause them concern? The recent XB documentary shows MS was simply paranoid about what PS could become so they got into Sony dominated markets. Whatever concern PS seemed to be to them, no longer should've been a concern once PS4 was out, and yet XB now wants to gobble up that entire market with Game Pass.

Yep, for MS it was all about getting into the living room. They tried before with media center
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/microsoft-enters-the-living-room/
And were indeed afraid Sony would corner that segment with the extended media capabilities of the ps2.
PS3 vs X360 was not just about games, it was a battle for the home media center as well. HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray, which basically came down to VC-1 vs H.264, an MS owned codec vs a more open standard. We got some excellent media capabilities during that generation.

And yep, since the PS4, or rather since smart TVs took over, that whole concern is gone. So now it will be about getting gamepass / game streaming on smart tvs. Their Roku stick didn't work out yet (too expensive still), but TV and mobile is where gamepass can grow.



ConservagameR said:
zero129 said:

This part has me scratching my head.. Did Ms stop users from installing whatever they want on their PC's?. Can you not install Linux or another OS on your PC. Honestly i would love to know how Ms acts like they own your PC hardware...

Just look at XB One and you'll see what MS does once it believes it has the market cornered. Its harder to see when it's happening inch by inch since PC is far more open to begin with.

Why has Windows been the go to OS for PC with basically no competition for like 30 years now? Why did MS want to partner with Sony or Nin for consoles initially and what did they offer to the platforms? When MS couldn't monopolize console OS, what was their next move and what have they done since like with Game Pass most recently?

You don't need control over everything when you have control of enough things to basically control everything else, but then can use that strategic control to keep gaining more and more control.

MS was dominate on the PC because they succeeded in getting a solid OS for a long period of time. Windows 98 and second addition pretty much solidified MS position as the OS of choice.  During that time there were a lot of challenger but none came close. After that it was more consumer not wanting to change more than MS doing any real dirty tactics.  You can blame users not wanting to try something new or different more than MS, at least when it comes to the OS on PC.

Nothing you have stated actually changes Zero statement.  People were giving choice back in the day and and they continue to have choice today but they continue to chose Windows.  So MS did not act like they owned the PC space, they continued to keep a product that provided all the tools needed to run a PC including legacy devices which many business and users needed for their daily life.

Just being an alternative is not enough for most users, you clearly have to be above the reigning champ in order to claim marketshare.  Its the same thing in the console space.  MS cannot just offer an alternative against Sony and Nintendo since they are the leaders in that space.  MS must offer something above what the competition is doing in the market. 



KratosLives said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

How in the world does this deal make it worse? It literally gives them a large catalogue of games they can make exclusive if they choose. 

Yeah if your on a tight budget and can't afford games, it's good to have gamepass, but having all those multiplats come as exclusive, for the serious gamer out there who has no problem buying games, it means less overall exclusives compared to if there is no aquisition.

Picture this. There is no acquisition,  and with microsoft already getting questioned over the lack of exclusives, and needing to step it up,  will have to invest and push out exclusives to keep up with sony and the complaints. So ontop of microsoft putting out exclusives, you then have all these multiplat games coming from activision /blizzard, on top, for a bigger count.

If the aquision goes through, more of the multiplat titles will now take the place of some of the " would have arrived" exclusives from xbox. So that's less overall potential exclusives in the end. 

Microsoft will have to market the exclusives from the aquisition,  as their own games.  And with that 68 billion spent, what incentive would they have to go out and spend more money on exclusives.

No offense intended but like.. what in the actual fuck are you talking about? Goopy is that you? 

Here’s what you said: please please someone give me a reason this deal is good if you hate Xbox has no exclusives 

And I replied: this deal gives them loads of potential exclusives 

And to that you reply: but GamePass is for poor casuals and REAL gamers will see there are less exclusives and MS won’t spend money on exclusives if the deal goes through!!!

Yes, MS won’t need to spend money to moneyhat third party games as much if the deal goes through… because ABK will provide them with many. 

Feel free to call my bluff but what games has MS signed up recently that compete with CoD, Diablo, Elder Scrolls, or Starfield? “but those games were coming anyway!!” Yes, and now they’re coming to GamePass, and now I don’t have to deal with Sony signing exclusive content from the games. 

AND

Youll still have games like Bleeding Edge, Pentiment, and Grounded, which only happened because of Bill Gates money. 

Complete win/win for Xbox gamers.



They are firing 10k while spending 70 billion to acquiree the IPs and a company that have like 9500 employers. Want to see next interviews phill and nadella give, lets hope the people interviewing them have the cojones to ask hard questions and not doing what they keep doing that is allow them to lie and give BS responses. Also just read what fired devs are saying about the management of those studios, if they can barely run what they have imagine how it will be when they have ANOTHER publisher. No regulation org in their right minds shiuld allow microsoft to aquire more publishers and big companies.



 

Around the Network
SvennoJ said:

$499 in 2006 is worth $724 nowadays, so still a ways to go to reach PS3 launch price... If you want to look at disgusting price practices, look at NVidea :/

And erm it was Nintendo that screwed up...
https://nationalpost.com/entertainment/how-nintendos-massive-mistake-led-to-the-creation-of-the-sony-playstation-25-years-ago

“According to the contract, Sony could make and sell CD-ROM games without buying them from Nintendo. Nintendo wanted a monopoly on manufacturing games for its hardware.”

Rather than bring this disagreement to Sony directly — rather than attempt to work out a new arrangement that was more favourable on the terms Nintendo demanded — Nintendo elected to abandon their deal and strike a better one with a competing manufacturer, leaving Sony in the lurch. (Some have suggested that this may be chalked up to cultural differences and Japanese contract law that no one at Nintendo felt obligated to inform Sony of their decision to renege.) Nintendo felt it was better served focusing its efforts on a CD-ROM peripheral that could be manufactured by Philips without compromising their monopoly on first-party software. Nintendo was already trouncing its only major competitor, the Sega Genesis. No one seemed capable of threatening their dominion — and so, making decisions cavalierly, they felt they had nothing to fear.

So it was Nintendo believing they had the market cornered and doing whatever they wanted. It's also Nintendo that never lowers the price of their first party software... And also Nintendo that's the only one not bringing their games to PC. Nintendo have never left their old ways :/

So like i said. Sony wanted to get the royaltys from Nintendo first party games that would of been using the CD and Nintendo was like f*** that im out who does Sony think they are?, and went their own way and thats how the PS came to be. Not much different then with MS entering the console market.



zero129 said:
SvennoJ said:

$499 in 2006 is worth $724 nowadays, so still a ways to go to reach PS3 launch price... If you want to look at disgusting price practices, look at NVidea :/

And erm it was Nintendo that screwed up...
https://nationalpost.com/entertainment/how-nintendos-massive-mistake-led-to-the-creation-of-the-sony-playstation-25-years-ago

“According to the contract, Sony could make and sell CD-ROM games without buying them from Nintendo. Nintendo wanted a monopoly on manufacturing games for its hardware.â€Â

Rather than bring this disagreement to Sony directly — rather than attempt to work out a new arrangement that was more favourable on the terms Nintendo demanded — Nintendo elected to abandon their deal and strike a better one with a competing manufacturer, leaving Sony in the lurch. (Some have suggested that this may be chalked up to cultural differences and Japanese contract law that no one at Nintendo felt obligated to inform Sony of their decision to renege.) Nintendo felt it was better served focusing its efforts on a CD-ROM peripheral that could be manufactured by Philips without compromising their monopoly on first-party software. Nintendo was already trouncing its only major competitor, the Sega Genesis. No one seemed capable of threatening their dominion — and so, making decisions cavalierly, they felt they had nothing to fear.

So it was Nintendo believing they had the market cornered and doing whatever they wanted. It's also Nintendo that never lowers the price of their first party software... And also Nintendo that's the only one not bringing their games to PC. Nintendo have never left their old ways :/

So like i said. Sony wanted to get the royaltys from Nintendo first party games that would of been using the CD and Nintendo was like f*** that im out who does Sony think they are?, and went their own way and thats how the PS came to be. Not much different then with MS entering the console market.

Nintendo and Sony had agreed on their terms and signed a contract. Nintendo broke the contract.

Nintendo had pursued Sony, aggressively, to work with them to develop a new console that could use compact discs instead of the cartridges familiar from its Super Nintendo Entertainment System; they had consented to the deal, if somewhat reluctantly, and had been working on the hardware under the terms of a contract agreed to by both parties. Sony’s executives turned up to the Consumer Electronics Show expecting to listen to Nintendo’s promised presentation of the partnership. When Sony’s then-president Olaf Olaffson heard Yamauchi announce on stage that Nintendo would be working with Philips, it was the first he had heard of it. “We view this as a very serious matter,” was all he could tell stunned journalists after the announcement. He said it was “not clear” whether Nintendo had breached their contract.

But sure, keep blaming Sony for Nintendo shooting themselves in the foot.

“According to the contract, Sony could make and sell CD-ROM games without buying them from Nintendo. Nintendo wanted a monopoly on manufacturing games for its hardware.

How do you come to the conclusion that Sony wanted royalties from Nintendo first party games???




Did MS have a deal with Sony to work together before making the original Xbox? Very different situation.

Actually they did work together earlier on the MSX but that never caught on in the US https://tedium.co/2019/01/29/microsoft-msx-history/ Sad as console history would have been very different with an open platform where manufacturers can compete on the hardware as well as the software. MSX was made by National, Sony, Pioneer, Panasonic, Samsung, Sharp, Philips, Canon, Yamaha, Toshiba, Mitsubishi, Sanyo, JVC, Fujitsu, Spectravideo, GoldStar, Hitachi, Kyocera, Yashica, Daewoo, Dragon MSX, Casio and developed by ASCII Corporation, Microsoft.


From Google

"Concerned about Sony's successful PlayStation console damaging the personal computer market, Microsoft initiated plans in 1999 to create its own console gaming system to both diversify its product line and capitalize on the thriving gaming industry."

Pretty different from

"Sony began developing the PlayStation after a failed venture with Nintendo to create a CD-ROM peripheral for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System in the early 1990s."


MS is now eyeing the thriving mobile games industry and inroads onto your smart TV with game streaming. Google and Apple are MS' competitors.



SvennoJ said:
zero129 said:

So like i said. Sony wanted to get the royaltys from Nintendo first party games that would of been using the CD and Nintendo was like f*** that im out who does Sony think they are?, and went their own way and thats how the PS came to be. Not much different then with MS entering the console market.

Nintendo and Sony had agreed on their terms and signed a contract. Nintendo broke the contract.

Nintendo had pursued Sony, aggressively, to work with them to develop a new console that could use compact discs instead of the cartridges familiar from its Super Nintendo Entertainment System; they had consented to the deal, if somewhat reluctantly, and had been working on the hardware under the terms of a contract agreed to by both parties. Sony’s executives turned up to the Consumer Electronics Show expecting to listen to Nintendo’s promised presentation of the partnership. When Sony’s then-president Olaf Olaffson heard Yamauchi announce on stage that Nintendo would be working with Philips, it was the first he had heard of it. “We view this as a very serious matter,” was all he could tell stunned journalists after the announcement. He said it was “not clear” whether Nintendo had breached their contract.

But sure, keep blaming Sony for Nintendo shooting themselves in the foot.

“According to the contract, Sony could make and sell CD-ROM games without buying them from Nintendo. Nintendo wanted a monopoly on manufacturing games for its hardware.

How do you come to the conclusion that Sony wanted royalties from Nintendo first party games???




Did MS have a deal with Sony to work together before making the original Xbox? Very different situation.

Actually they did work together earlier on the MSX but that never caught on in the US https://tedium.co/2019/01/29/microsoft-msx-history/ Sad as console history would have been very different with an open platform where manufacturers can compete on the hardware as well as the software. MSX was made by National, Sony, Pioneer, Panasonic, Samsung, Sharp, Philips, Canon, Yamaha, Toshiba, Mitsubishi, Sanyo, JVC, Fujitsu, Spectravideo, GoldStar, Hitachi, Kyocera, Yashica, Daewoo, Dragon MSX, Casio and developed by ASCII Corporation, Microsoft.


From Google

"Concerned about Sony's successful PlayStation console damaging the personal computer market, Microsoft initiated plans in 1999 to create its own console gaming system to both diversify its product line and capitalize on the thriving gaming industry."

Pretty different from

"Sony began developing the PlayStation after a failed venture with Nintendo to create a CD-ROM peripheral for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System in the early 1990s."


MS is now eyeing the thriving mobile games industry and inroads onto your smart TV with game streaming. Google and Apple are MS' competitors.

Thats a nice way to twist history.

"Using the same Super Disc technology as the proposed SNES drive, Sony began development on what was to eventually become the PlayStaion. Initially called the Super Disc, it was supposed to be able to play both SNES cartridges and CD-ROMs, of which Sony was to be the "sole worldwide licenser," as stated in the contract. Nintendo was now to be at the mercy of Sony, who could manufacture their own CDs, play SNES carts, and play Sony CDs. Needless to say, Nintendo began to get worried."

By this point, Nintendo had had just about all it could take. On top of the deal signed in 1988, Sony had also contributed the main audio chip to the cartridge-based Super NES. The Ken Kutaragi-designed chip was a key element to the system, but was designed in such a way as to make effective development possible only with Sony's expensive development tools. Sony had also retained all rights to the chip, which further exaserbated Nintendo.Link https://www.ign.com/articles/1998/08/28/history-of-the-playstation

The SNES CD-ROM all started with Ken Kutaragi, a young engineer at Sony who’d later become known as the “father of the PlayStation.” Kutaragi struck a deal with Nintendo to create the sound chip for the Super NES—a decision he apparently made without the knowledge of Sony’s board of directors. The project was a success—the SNES’ sound hardware is one of the most widely praised aspects of the machine’s design—and for the next step in what was looking like a fruitful partnership between Nintendo and Sony, Kutaragi proposed that Sony be allowed to create a Super Nintendo that had a CD-ROM drive built in. Nintendo agreed. (Much different from Nintendo begging Sony)

The behind-the-scenes of this deal are mostly shrouded in Japanese corporate secrecy, but in late 2016, we got some rare insight into how it all went down—from one perspective, that is. Shigeo Maruyama, the former head of Sony Computer Entertainment, discussed it with the Japanese site Denfaminicogamer, translated by Nintendo Everything. (Straight from someone who worked at Sony)

Kutaragi “was a strong advocate for pursuing CD-ROM support over cartridges,” Maruyama said. “But Nintendo wanted to stick to [cartridges] for games. CD-ROMs can take 10-15 seconds to load, after all. They probably didn’t think users would want to wait that long. But Kutaragi wouldn’t let up his arguments, so eventually Nintendo told him, ‘Alright. We don’t think it will be successful, but you can do your CD-ROM thing.’”

It was, by all accounts, Nintendo’s skepticism in the viability of CD-ROMs that caused it to give away too much in the contract it signed with Kutaragi. Sony got the rights to create and sell CD-ROM software that would run on the Super NES-compatible machine, which it called the “Play Station.” It wouldn’t have to pay Nintendo any royalties or get its approval for CD-ROM games. This meant that if developers and consumers did embrace CD-ROM gaming on the Super NES, Nintendo wouldn’t get a dime off any of those game sales—only the hardware sales.

Why would Nintendo allow this to happen? Maruyama said it was because Sony “explicitly told them we were going to focus on everything but video games.” In other words, Sony’s position was that it would make encyclopedias, home karaoke software, and other non-gaming applications using CD-ROMs, and leave all the gaming to Nintendo. But apparently this was not in the contract itself, and once the ink was on paper, Sony had carte blanche. (Pretty much Sony tricked Nintendo and wanted to make them a 2nd party using their own software. When nintendo found this out they clearly didnt want the deal.)

The Summer Screwjob

If you’ve heard any story about the Super NES CD-ROM, it’s probably this one: At the Summer 1991 Consumer Electronics Show, the entire world expected that Nintendo would stand up at its press conference and reaffirm that Sony would provide the CD-ROM drive for its upcoming Super Nintendo. Instead, Nintendo betrayed its partner and shocked the world by announcing that it had instead decided to partner with Philips for the SNES CD, delivering a stunning insult to Sony that caused the company to go it alone and develop what we now know today as the PlayStation.

It’s a riveting story, but it’s not entirely true. What really happened is much more complicated. (as you can see what you posted isnt exactly true, but nice try to paint Sony as the good guy Nintendo as the bad)

It is true that, until very shortly before the Summer CES, the Nintendo-Sony joint venture was still on. A Nintendo Power article about Super NES in its June 1991 issue made reference to “the CD-ROM unit currently being developed jointly by Nintendo and Sony.” And it is also true that things fell apart rather quickly. But it was not, as the oft-told story goes, that Sony executives were sitting in the audience for Nintendo’s conference expecting to hear the word “Sony” and instead heard “Philips.”

Sony executives, wrote David Sheff in his 1993 book Game Over, “had learned about the pending press conference forty-eight hours earlier, and were… stunned.” Howard Lincoln, then a Nintendo of America exec, told Sheff that Sony had sprung into action when it heard the news, trying to put the kibosh on the whole thing. “There were tremendous efforts on a worldwide basis to keep that press conference from happening,” he said.

How did Sony’s spies find out that Nintendo was planning on announcing a partnership with Philips? Likely by the time-honored espionage technique of… reading the newspaper. “Nintendo, Philips Join In Games On CD,” read the headline of a Seattle Times story dated May 31, 1991, exactly two days prior to Nintendo’s June 2 event. “Japan’s Nintendo Co. Ltd. has agreed... with Dutch electronics maker Philips Electronics NV to put its popular video games on compact discs, a Nintendo spokesman said today,” the story read.

So a Nintendo spokesperson had already told the media that the company planned to go with Philips as its partner, notwithstanding the deal it already had in place with Sony. That meant that when Sony had its own press conference on June 1, 1991 and announced its “Play Station” device, it already knew what Nintendo planned to do the next day.

Perhaps that’s why the media came out of Sony’s conference with the impression that Sony was planning on using its contract with Nintendo to try to back-channel its way into game publishing.

“Sony, Nintendo’s Partner, Will Be a Rival, Too,” read the headline of a New York Times piece on June 1, following the conference. “While Sony and Nintendo have collaborated on the machine, Sony will clearly become a competitor of Nintendo,” read the piece. “Sony confirmed yesterday that it had retained all licensing rights for any compact disk game developed for the new system.”

“By that oversight, Sony ended up with a very important business advantage,” Larry Probst, then the CEO of Electronic Arts, remarked in the story. “I heard they gave the store away,” said one analyst. Sony made it clear that it planned to leverage its new holdings in the music and movie businesses, noting that it planned to release a game based on the movie Hook and floated the possibility of a Michael Jackson game as well.

So, while the shift from Sony to Philips did all happen in whirlwind fashion, the fact is that when Nintendo finally made it official on June 2, nobody was surprised. Once all the dust had settled, Sony still planned to release the Play Station, which was simply a Super Nintendo with a CD-ROM drive attached to it, and create CD-based game software for it. Separately, Nintendo and Philips would team up to create an add-on for the Super Nintendo that would add CD-ROM capability and be compatible with the standalone machine that Philips was going to release later that year, called the CD-i.

“Our engineers reached the conclusion that from a technical standpoint that it was better for Nintendo to work with Philips,” Howard Lincoln told the New York Times. “There is a dispute between Sony and Nintendo as to the terms of the agreement.” Meanwhile, the Super Nintendo itself had not even been released yet, and the Times correctly noted that all of the backstabbing had taken away attention from the actual, really cool, games that Nintendo was showing off at CES.

“It’s easy to say that Sony was 100% the victim, and Nintendo 100% the wrongdoer,” said former Sony Computer head Shigeo Maruyama in the 2016 Denfaminicogamer interview. “In fact, that’s the story the company gave all of us while I was working there.” But he wasn’t so sure that Sony had no culpability. “I get the feeling something was going on behind the scenes. After all, there had to be a reason Sony wasn’t able to go after them.

Link: https://kotaku.com/the-weird-history-of-the-super-nes-cd-rom-nintendos-mo-1828860861

You can read all the story there.

Anyway as you can see things wasnt as black and white as you tried to say.

Sony wanted to get into the video game market long before they made the deal with Nintendo. Also they tried to trick Nintendo by holding all the rights to any game that was released on CD by stating they didnt plan on making games and would leave that up to Nintendo. They pretty much wanted to release their own console that could also play Super nintendo games not the other way around being a Super Nintendo that could also play Nintendo CD based games with Nintendo getting royalty's. When this didnt work out for Sony they waited for when the next gen would start and released the PlayStation anyways and went for the kill on Nintendo.

Back then in the video game market Sony was the Microsoft compared to Nintendo and Sega, they had much more money, had their hands in much more then just video games, could afford to offer lower license fees and buy exclusives etc.

So pretty much nothing changes with my original statement. Its just some Sony fans dont know or want to know the history of Sony while they are shitting on everyone else.

Last edited by zero129 - on 20 January 2023

SvennoJ said:

I'm starting to swing to against again after this news, following TV streaming :/
https://www.eurogamer.net/microsoft-may-be-introducing-cheaper-ad-supported-xbox-game-pass-tiers

The hypothetical family plan looks to be offering the full benefits of the current Xbox Game Pass service for five users across consoles and PC for €22 a month, whilst the €3 plan would essentially give a single individual an Xbox Live Gold-like plan that delays access to Microsoft's first-party games for six months after release and would run adverts before you play a game from the XGP library.

I have no doubt this is just to soften up the incoming price hike and loophole closures for game pass. I also have no doubt it won't stay at just a few adverts before the game starts (so much for fast loading advantage of SSD lol). A couple additions to the SDK and publishers can insert their own ads on a timer, play when you access the map or inventory. Or like on TV, on the side or bottom during a cut scene.

It's a slippery slope we all know too well. When I was young, we only had ads before and after programs on tv, not during. 3 hour movie, no ads in the movie. Nowadays it's 8 minutes between ads... So we started recording everything, never watch live, always ffwd.

Then streaming came along, yay no more ads. Well they're in TV streaming now to for a lower price. The kicker, Netflix add tier (SD 1 tv) is the same price as Netflix was at the start, while the HD tier (2 tvs) is now well over double the price of what it was at the start and 4K is even more.

You tube has become unwatchable. It started with a single add, click off after 15 seconds before a clip. Now it's multiple unskippable ads before and after every x minutes. I can't watch concert videos on you tube anymore, effing ads. But for CAD 12 a month you can get rid of the ads...

Thus not happy MS is now considering pushing more ads into gaming (Series X already has enough of em on the dashboard) It never stops at just a couple. And with Acti-Blizz King acquired, more ammunition to push ads into gaming.

Youtube has basically become what TV broadcasters wanted it to be, a place full of ads up the wazoo and it's content creators working for them (via sponsor ads that bypass ad blocks, because they know that we know we don't like seeing ads, so getting a content creator to vocally advertise is the best solution to this). 

That being said, seeing the price hike for GP is pretty bad and a sign that they are feeling confident that ppl will keep paying, and as I know ppl do in life, the price will only go higher and you'll just see more ads being added over time.

it's not just MS that does this though, virtually every other company out there desires to test the waters and the fine lines drawn in the sand, and it's not to our benefit, it's to theirs. They only do this every time because the reality of it all, is that they want the biggest benefits with little possibility of them losing out, even if we lose out it's still a win for them, and this is why I don't like any company "testing the waters", because it almost always means "we're making adjustments that benefit us, but fool you into thinking you're getting the bargain of a lifetime". 

The buyout does bother me, because I know MS still like many other corps out there, continues to hold onto past ideals (online DRM on their consoles is still a thing, they want to inject more ads like the console is a TV, meaning they still hold that stupid dream of theirs at that blunder Xbox showing years ago), and those ideals haven't really evolved with time, but we have.

At the end of the day though, there isn't much to stop a billion/trillion dollar corp from growing even larger, but I am still far more concerned about the holding's companies getting more pies in the games industry, and I know decades prior, not a single one of them ever had an interest in gaming, but they only do so now because of profit margins and to me that screams pure toxic cancer, so I'd rather Tencent/Embracer not get further involved with the games industry. 

I am also of the old belief that we do not need ads in our faces. I know my step-dad loved to play devil's advocate and say "how would you know about something you wanted without an ad?", and I always respond "I simply look for it myself, because I actually ask questions and wonder if X/Y product exists, instead of having it needlessly shoved in my face by random chance that I may/may not want it". I do not think that we need ads at all, and that ad companies are as fake as they come, because before tv/newspaper ads were a think, people simply spoke with words and passed knowledge along, and I see no problem going back to those days, I mean we see streamers and friends talking about how awesome X/Y game is, and they don't have to be paid to advertise or shove a logo in our faces like cable companies and the like do on a 24 hr basis.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Chazore said:
SvennoJ said:

I'm starting to swing to against again after this news, following TV streaming :/
https://www.eurogamer.net/microsoft-may-be-introducing-cheaper-ad-supported-xbox-game-pass-tiers

The hypothetical family plan looks to be offering the full benefits of the current Xbox Game Pass service for five users across consoles and PC for €22 a month, whilst the €3 plan would essentially give a single individual an Xbox Live Gold-like plan that delays access to Microsoft's first-party games for six months after release and would run adverts before you play a game from the XGP library.

I have no doubt this is just to soften up the incoming price hike and loophole closures for game pass. I also have no doubt it won't stay at just a few adverts before the game starts (so much for fast loading advantage of SSD lol). A couple additions to the SDK and publishers can insert their own ads on a timer, play when you access the map or inventory. Or like on TV, on the side or bottom during a cut scene.

It's a slippery slope we all know too well. When I was young, we only had ads before and after programs on tv, not during. 3 hour movie, no ads in the movie. Nowadays it's 8 minutes between ads... So we started recording everything, never watch live, always ffwd.

Then streaming came along, yay no more ads. Well they're in TV streaming now to for a lower price. The kicker, Netflix add tier (SD 1 tv) is the same price as Netflix was at the start, while the HD tier (2 tvs) is now well over double the price of what it was at the start and 4K is even more.

You tube has become unwatchable. It started with a single add, click off after 15 seconds before a clip. Now it's multiple unskippable ads before and after every x minutes. I can't watch concert videos on you tube anymore, effing ads. But for CAD 12 a month you can get rid of the ads...

Thus not happy MS is now considering pushing more ads into gaming (Series X already has enough of em on the dashboard) It never stops at just a couple. And with Acti-Blizz King acquired, more ammunition to push ads into gaming.

Youtube has basically become what TV broadcasters wanted it to be, a place full of ads up the wazoo and it's content creators working for them (via sponsor ads that bypass ad blocks, because they know that we know we don't like seeing ads, so getting a content creator to vocally advertise is the best solution to this). 

That being said, seeing the price hike for GP is pretty bad and a sign that they are feeling confident that ppl will keep paying, and as I know ppl do in life, the price will only go higher and you'll just see more ads being added over time.

it's not just MS that does this though, virtually every other company out there desires to test the waters and the fine lines drawn in the sand, and it's not to our benefit, it's to theirs. They only do this every time because the reality of it all, is that they want the biggest benefits with little possibility of them losing out, even if we lose out it's still a win for them, and this is why I don't like any company "testing the waters", because it almost always means "we're making adjustments that benefit us, but fool you into thinking you're getting the bargain of a lifetime". 

The buyout does bother me, because I know MS still like many other corps out there, continues to hold onto past ideals (online DRM on their consoles is still a thing, they want to inject more ads like the console is a TV, meaning they still hold that stupid dream of theirs at that blunder Xbox showing years ago), and those ideals haven't really evolved with time, but we have.

At the end of the day though, there isn't much to stop a billion/trillion dollar corp from growing even larger, but I am still far more concerned about the holding's companies getting more pies in the games industry, and I know decades prior, not a single one of them ever had an interest in gaming, but they only do so now because of profit margins and to me that screams pure toxic cancer, so I'd rather Tencent/Embracer not get further involved with the games industry. 

I am also of the old belief that we do not need ads in our faces. I know my step-dad loved to play devil's advocate and say "how would you know about something you wanted without an ad?", and I always respond "I simply look for it myself, because I actually ask questions and wonder if X/Y product exists, instead of having it needlessly shoved in my face by random chance that I may/may not want it". I do not think that we need ads at all, and that ad companies are as fake as they come, because before tv/newspaper ads were a think, people simply spoke with words and passed knowledge along, and I see no problem going back to those days, I mean we see streamers and friends talking about how awesome X/Y game is, and they don't have to be paid to advertise or shove a logo in our faces like cable companies and the like do on a 24 hr basis.

Not much to say about the rest but so far the has been no price hike. If you mean that €22 price thats for the new family plan and allows you to share your game pass ultimate sub with 5 other people, pretty good deal imo as if you get 5 friends to sign up with you it works out at like €3.50/€4 per month for game pass ultimate. However the standard game pass for PC is still €9.99 and the ultimate sub for both console and PC is still €12.99 per month. So nothing has changed on the pricing so far (Not saying that it wont in the future as its already a great bargain for what it offers).

Im also not really for ads in games, but if they keep it to its own plan and dont bring it into the main sub i dont really mind if some users want to switch over to a cheaper ad support tier and wait 6 months to play new games. I know i defo wouldnt be one of the users this is aimed at.