SS: Microsoft wants total control over console and PC gaming.

  • redcalcium@c.calciumlabs.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    If game companies would stop consolidating themselves into bigger and bigger corporations, that would be great. The bigger the company, the more profits they need in order to sustain themselves at their size. There is only so much you can profit from games without turning them into microtransaction mess. There must be a sweet spot for game company size so they’re able to produce AAA games without needing to add microtransaction to make the game profitable to pay their employees.

    • aksdb@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      It would also be great if game companies stopped trying to isolate themselves. Stop building your own launchers and shops and stop resisting GeForce Now and similar services.

  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    You only have to look at Microsoft’s squandered purchase of Rare to really understand where their motives lie.

  • themizarkshow@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    They did a real good job with Redfall after the last purchase. And Starfield keeps getting delayed… gotta release good exclusives to eliminate anybody lol

    • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      On the other hand, Psychonauts 2 was great, Pentiment was great, Hi-Fi Rush was great.

    • thunderbird32@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And Starfield keeps getting delayed

      To be fair to Microsoft, that was because (like most Bethesda games) it was a complete mess and needed a lot more QA work. I’d rather it get delayed rather than released broken.

  • cyd@vlemmy.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s Microsoft’s playbook. If you don’t offer a better product than your competitor, pull out every dirty trick in the book to undermine them.

    • Enitoni@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      God forbid companies actually improve their products? Seriously the greed that has amassed throughout the decades is insane.

  • sub_o@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Matt Booty made a stupid booty mistake. Also, every big company wants a monopoly.

  • CaffinatedOne@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, Microsoft would like to dominate the console market and leverage that to push people into the Microsoft PC ecosystem.

    Since they’ve done poorly with the “make a better console with games people want” strategy, they’ve pivoted to their strength, which is a huge pile of money that they can deploy to try and get control of the content which Sony can’t match.

    They’ll say what they need to in order to get this approved, but long term they’ll absolutely leverage their ownership to achieve their goals.

    • mPony@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes and they also want to dominate the “absolutely everything else” market ; if not now, eventually. If they could just own all the world’s data and all the worlds operating systems and all the world’s gaming platforms and all the world’s everything-else, that would be just ducky, I’m sure.

  • hybrid havoc@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    From the link:

    Yes, but: A Microsoft representative told Axios that the company cannot legally share the email’s contents, but that it was sent by Booty in 2019.

    That would mean that whatever Booty may have said about Xbox trying to beat PlayStation preceded the company’s early 2022 bid to buy Activision Blizzard.

  • Dee@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    TLDR: “Microsoft does a capitalism.”

    I get why it’s news, but also, isn’t this exactly what publicly traded companies are supposed to do in our current system?

  • Goronmon@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Without the text of the email how does this news mean anything other than “one side of a legal battle believes they are in the right”?

    And aside from the fact that I’m not sure how buying Activision would “eliminate” any gaming platform, how much does that differ from the stance any business has? Does anyone believe that Sony is not out to “eliminate” Microsoft, to borrow the term?

    • OfficialThunderbolt@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because Activision is the single most important third-party game maker in the world outside of Japan. You wouldn’t believe how many tens of millions of people buy PlayStations only to play CoD to the exclusion of everything else. If Microsoft gets CoD as an exclusive, then Sony will lose half their audience outside of Japan.

      And Microsoft is a two-bit company that can’t stand one bit of competition. Sony can’t eliminate Microsoft; a lot of their software was made for Windows.

  • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The Netscape playbook, I see.

    I look forward to all the nothing that will happen to Microsoft as punishment for this blatantly unlawful behavior.

  • monk@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I see we’ve already got to the comment without reading the article phase of the fediverse 😞

    Its an entirely redacted email…

    • Barry Zuckerkorn@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      In my experience, any sentence submitted in an appeal that starts with “The court also failed to consider” is usually a long shot. Especially if it’s about stuff like whether certain evidence should be considered or published, because appellate courts almost never modify the decisions of the trial courts.