Microsoft is talking to japanese publishers about acquisitions. Let's guess the next big Xbox acquisition.

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

The GTA VI hack/leak was from someone stupid who'll probably be facing years in prison which isn't the same as insiders and whatnot. Someone like Grubb does what they do for a living and isn't just a tweeter or youtuber. He's far more credible than most regardless of who likes him or not.

That may be technically true but for most people these leakers/insiders are all cut from a similar cloth, and one can transiently influence others through indirect means, or help reinforce or enable aspects of leaker/insider culture.

That GTA VI leaker may be out of the picture but that just opens the door for someone else to take their place, maybe even grow it.

Insiders aren't the same as leakers. Leakers will post copyrighted stuff or post pictures. Insiders are those who go based on their sources depending on if the percentage of probability is high enough for them to report/mention it. Someone like Grubb probably has a shit ton of info but if the percentage is low, he most likely just sits on it and keeps it to himself which is the smarter thing to do.

I get that they aren't 1:1 the same thing, but there's a lot of crossover and that can't be denied. Sometimes one can be both simultaneously. Grubb could be one or the other, it doesn't necessarily matter. Personally I think both do some type of harm to discourse in affecting the planned rollout of new games information, and taking the spotlight away from the actual people who have been spending years working on the games.

The news getting out there, the hype that comes from it...those moments should 100% belong to the actual game development team members IMHO.

Gaming industry is so secretive which it's borderline ridiculous. I have no issues with insiders who'll mention stuff based on info that they have. Hackers though, well that's up to them and chances are, they'll always get caught which proves that they're not that good of a hacker to begin with and if anything, shows how poor most companies security really is.

Well now you're creating arbitrary distinctions. How much is really separating an insider from a hacker or leaker? Don't you feel that one feeds off what the other enables?

As for the games industry being secretive, well I think it's justified depending on the type of game especially. A story-heavy game should not be spoiled or leaked ahead of its official release IMHO. It's like a new film you're highly anticipating, getting spoiled by leakers. If you happen to accidentally stumble across any of those leaks, part of that hype dies. The element of surprise (and the wonderment that can come from it) is removed.

No need to apologize bud. I don't see what Microsoft is doing as consolidating because they're not going into companies and taking over, the companies are going to them because they want to be acquired and you're not going to go to a company that has little money. You're going to go to the big companies that are rich because if you're going to sell like ABK did, you want as much money as you can possibly get in return.

True, it's a two-way street, and companies that want to sell are going to look to sell regardless. But I still think the buyers need to understand their part in it; it's the fact they exist and want to buy period which encourages certain companies to sell. We can't forget about that part of the equation.

Everyone blames Microsoft yet no one blames ABK. Why? ABK went to Microsoft which is a fact and wanted to sell which is another fact. Why would Microsoft pass on this opportunity? Why, because little Jimmy who loves his PlayStation is going to be upset? Oh well. ABK being sold off to Microsoft is better for literally everyone excluding Sony and only because of money.

I actually agree with this part; it's similar to the people who complain about Sony getting so many 3P exclusivity deals and blame them, but never the actual developer or publisher of those games.

Again, it's a two-way street with all these kinds of deals, but I guess when a platform holder's involved, they're the only ones who get all the attention.

Like you said, you don't care about companies bottom lines. Why do you think Sony is trying so desperately to get the ABK deal blocked? Do you truly believe it's for anything but their bottom line because it isn't. Sony didn't care about Nintendo or Sega fans back in the day when they were money hatting a shit ton of games. Sony didn't and still don't care about the Xbox gamers but Microsoft is what, supposed to care about PlayStation gamers? I don't fucking think so.

Again, agreed, but also some context is needed here. You're right, Sony is only trying to complicate (I wouldn't necessarily say they're trying to stop) the ABK deal because of what it might mean for their bottom line into the long-term future. But referencing Sony's prior decisions that impacted Nintendo & Sega can't be done without also acknowledging what Nintendo and especially Sega did to make that as EASY as possible for Sony to capitalize on.

Yes, Sony got Square to PS1, exclusively. But if Nintendo didn't screw Squaresoft over with cartridge print runs, high licensing fees, ostracizing/belittling JRPGs as a genre (Yamauchi's infamous quote) or sticking with cartridges in the age of CDs...maybe they could've retained Square all along. If Sega didn't split their focus on a bajillion peripherals, pushing quantity out the wazoo with software publishing (especially in 1995...155 games published between Genesis, Sega CD, 32X, Pico, Nomad, Game Gear, PC, and arcade!), and had a more elegant design for the Saturn alongside more robust SDK support sooner...maybe they could've swooned over Squaresoft, Enix, Namco etc. instead of Sony.

We can't just pretend Sony did everything in their power to screw over Microsoft, Nintendo, Sega etc. and not acknowledge the roles those companies played in screwing themselves over first.

It's kind of difficult to be industry leading in anything when you only have 5 studios. I mean come on. You're excluding the big three of Halo, Gears and Forza so what's left? They had nothing.

Not if you have the right creative leadership it isn't. Realistically, when Sony got around to putting out marquee hits like Uncharted 2, 3, TLOU and so, most of their teams were still at a "good, not great" status and very few outside Naughty Dog were able to put out those caliber of games during the PS3 generation. But they still found a way, they still also found a way to work with talented 3P devs like From Soft to make games in Demon's Souls that would go on to redefine gaming through perfecting a burgeoning subgenre.

It's Microsoft's fault they "only" had Halo, Gears & Forza, but that wouldn't have been a problem if a sense of stagnation didn't set in with the IP. When most people think of Nintendo, they only think of Mario, Zelda, MK and Smash, but look at the sheer creativity in different concepts each new mainline Mario and Zelda game go for. That's down to creative leadership being excellent. It's not about quantity; it's about quality.

I disagree with not needing 30+ studios because their business model isn't the same as Sony's or Nintendo's. Microsoft needed to change their business model. Staying as is would have been stupid for them as a company and for Xbox. They needed to do something that separates them from their competition and that something is Game Pass which is subscription based and in order to keep your subscription at the level of paid consumers that you want, you need a lot of content and that's why they acquire publishers and studios and will continue to acquire more regardless of who likes it or not.

IMO I still think it's a run-before-you-walk solution. What's the point of shifting your business model to a subscription service when you still need a good amount of high-quality varied games, the same thing you would need without a subscription service?

The answer should've been to focus on the content, THEN focus on the business model.

Sony's direction and business model if anything is the complete opposite. They believe that selling consumers a $70 game once or twice a year is the way to go for them. For Microsoft, that doesn't work with what the company does and looking back to even Xbox 360, has never really worked for Microsoft. Do they even have a single exclusive first party game selling at least 10m?

No, not now they do..but they used to. The name's Halo, you might remember it

And I'm glad you did point out that Sony & Microsoft have differing business models, this is something I've been saying for a while. Sony's gaming model is closer to Nintendo's than it is Microsoft's, which makes sense considering Sony worked closely with Nintendo on the SFC/SNES and Play Station, and looked to emulate their model for success.

Sony may not just rely on gaming, but gaming makes up a much bigger chunk of their revenue & profits than it does for Microsoft. So when I see people suggesting stuff like Sony could "easily" put all their big AAA marquee games in PS+ Day 1 as part of the subscription service, I like to remind them of stuff like the differences in their business models, as to why what MS can get away with, Sony may not be able to.

Changing the perception of gamers and consumers outside of their eco-system is something that won't happen until next generation. As I have said before, this generation is a transitional generation where everything Microsoft is doing and setting up isn't for today, it's for tomorrow.

Okay but here's the thing: Microsoft could've made this generation, the one you're saying the next generation's going to be, by having better management and vision at the end of the 360 gen/start of XBO generation! That's the rub, here. MS already had opportunities to do the thing you're claiming they're trying to do going forward, without heavy-handed 3P acquisitions, over a decade ago.

Instead they had momentum and mindshare that they simply did not care or have the wherewithal to solidify. And now they're making certain moves you'd expect an outright new entrant to make, but MS are entrenched in the market as a platform holder for over 20 years and are still here for mistakes smaller competitors would've folded for, simply due to their sheer financial strengths in segments OTHER than console gaming.

Building studios to have great talent and whatnot doesn't happen overnight. It took Sony generations to do this and I might add, their best studios outside of Santa Monica were all acquired. Majority of Microsoft's studios excluding ABK since they're not acquired yet are in a good or better place.

Right, it did take Sony a while, and they did acquire most of their teams. But the vast majority of those acquisitions outside of arguably Bungie and Nixxes, they had been working with for years prior in some way of significance or another, to the point those teams were almost exclusively associated with the PS brand anyway.

-Psygnosis: Helped developed the PS1 SDK
-Naughty Dog: Worked with Sony on the Crash Bandicoot trilogy before buying them
-Insomniac: Were practically PlayStation-exclusive for 20+ years outside of a single game for Xbox platforms over 20 years after being PS-exclusive.
-Housemarque: Worked closely with Sony in the PS3 & PS4 generations
-BluePoint: Had done several prolific remakes for Sony prior to acquisition
-Haven: Sony literally looked into their project, invested in it, and liked what they saw. Plus they have worked with several of its team members closely in the past, such as Jade Raymond

...there are others I'm forgetting to mention for sake of brevity. But that has been the trend with most of Sony's acquisitions. The only ones among Microsoft's that fit a similar trend, IMO, are Playground Games and Zenimax (the latter specifically in relation to Bethesda). MS had no genuine history with Ninja Theory before buying them, outside of a mediocre OG Xbox game. Didn't really have that close a working relationship with Obsidian or Double Fine prior to acquiring them, either. Their relationship with ABK was nothing much more special than it is with Sony or has been with Sony over the years, either.

Granted, there's a few that have their issues but not every studio is going to run like a well oiled machine. We all know that currently, they have minimal to no exclusives. We know this already. But let's say for argument sake that 2023 brings Redfall, Forza Motorsport, Starfield and a few smaller AA titles and are all at least an 80+ on Open Critic. Then what? What's the narrative going to be then? 5 exclusives in a year isn't somehow enough?

Well I have my own feelings on MC I'll leave out of this, but if you look back to my previous statements when it's come to MS's output, I've personally NEVER said they haven't put out quality games. FH5, Flight Sim, Killer Instinct, Ori 1 & 2 etc. are all very good quality games, even if some are technically not from internal 1P teams.

MY thing is, how many of these games command cultural cache within the gaming zeitgest, majority mindshare among gamers and non-gamers (or very casual/mainstream gamers) alike? Are industry-leading in some way of significance or another? I'll be honest: out of the 2023 games you mentioned, only arguably one of them has a really solid chance of meeting the thresholds I just mentioned, and that's Forza. But it's also...Forza, again. It's a known quantity, and the IP just isn't super-popular, each entry is maybe 2 million and some change at best when it comes to copies sold.

Microsoft simply don't have a lot of output or IP that fulfill the things I mentioned above and I think they recognized that which is why they've actually gone to getting Zenimax and now ABK. They need IP that can have cultural cache, mindshare, and industry-leading qualities similar to a GOW, Spiderman, Mario, Zelda etc. and they're hopefully gonna get that with TES, COD etc. And yes they would need to make these games explicitly associated with them in the gaming space to have a similar effect so I actually can understand the arguments saying those IP should go exclusive to Xbox console-wise; those arguments make some sense.

My bigger point though is that I feel at this point, MS have enough of such resources to be competitive, so where is this anxiety from people for them to buy yet another major publisher so quickly? Who's pressuring MS to do this? It's not Sony. Google's folded. Amazon's not making any huge buys, neither are Apple. Maybe the Saudis? If the threat was other companies buying up 3P publishers, MS should notice that they're the main ones doing that and Sony's buying Bungie was mostly out of reaction.

MS have all the resources they need, now. So they should simmer down and really focus on what they have. It's more than enough for Xbox, it's more than enough for GamePass. It's time.

when I see what they're doing and their investment into Xbox at the level of what the last three generations combined couldn't even come to close to

I mean we'll have to disagree on this because I think some of the investments MS did with OG Xbox gen with key Western devs and Japanese publishers like Sega, and 360 gen with MANY Western devs and some Japanese devs, VASTLY outweigh what they are doing at current in several ways.

But that could be nostalgia talking for me.

I look at Sony and outside of Naughty Dog for PS3, they didn't give me anything of worth until 2016 (Ratchet & Clank, Uncharted 4 and Alienaton) with PS4. The first 26 months of PS4 was mediocre at best for me when it comes to Sony's first party games. Sony gave me 4 exclusives in that time period. Microsoft will only give me 1 exclusive being Halo Infinite but it's worth much more than the combination of Knack, Infamous First Light, The Order 1886 and Until Dawn because agree or not, Halo Infinite campaign was and is the far better game of far better quality. It was also my 2021 game of the year and currently my #1 game of the generation based on how I rate my completed games.

Well I'm not gonna say that Sony's 1P AAA output for PS4 from 2013 to 2015 excluding Bloodborne was magnificent. It was a slow build-up, for sure, and MS did have them beat in terms of 1P & 3P AAA exclusives for most of that period in terms of just 8th-gen systems.

But there are probably a few parts to your opinion a lot of people would disagree with xD. It's cool though; you have your opinions on those games comparatively, other people have theirs.

2023 will be the equivalent of 2016 for me. If I get Redfall and Starfield to just hit my own personal 8.5/10 rating scale, then they already matched what Sony gave me in 2016. The point of this is that like Sony with the PS4 generation, I was never expecting anything great for the first half or so of the generation but their second half was excellent. I see Microsoft being the same.

It's fine to have personal expectations and in fact that's kind of what ultimately matters I suppose, but we can't pretend that if RedFall & Starfield fail to capture a large chunk of the cultural mindshare & zeitgeist, or Starfield in particular fails to really be industry-leading in some objectively measurable way, that they won't be disappointing games in some capacity.

I think as a platform holder, MS (and Sony & Nintendo as well) need to be held to some higher standards when it comes to their software output. And I think Sony & Nintendo have objectively met those standards quite a bit more often than Microsoft. The PS3 started getting those kind of games with Demon's Souls, Uncharted 2 & 3, TLOU etc. The PS4 started getting them with Bloodborne, Uncharted 4, SFV, GOW etc. The Switch was getting them with Mario Odyssey, BOTW, etc.

The XBO never really got those type of games outside of Ori, Cuphead, and Forza Horizon 4. And if you're talking about scale of impact, those games probably didn't have the reach that the ones I mentioned for PS4 & Switch have had. I think that's very important for a platform holder to aspire to.

But I do want more acquisitions because the issue we both have now which is lack of great first party games will be taken care off as the years and generations go by. Microsoft can't ever get in a position me and you want them in if they don't have the studios and man power in place to make that happen. I don't want to see them stop acquiring because in my mind, once they do, that tells me that they could take their foot off the gas so to speak

I think that's an unfounded fear on your part TBH. At some point the growth phase has to end, and a phase focusing on what you already have has to take hold.

My thing isn't so much about lack of 1P exclusives, just if you have enough exclusives in general that are preferably pushing the industry forward in some way. Those could be 1P, they could be 3P, it doesn't necessarily matter to me. But I think platform holders should have some type of involvement in either case because that enables the best chance of those types of marquee games to manifest and help push forward concepts and things that can help shape the industry in a big way.

And I don't think you need to keep buying up developers and publishers to do that, obviously. But I guess on that specific point you and I will differ.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

None of it is guaranteed. Their gaming division already makes them money and once you add in King with their mobile shit and Blizzard with their mobile shit, hell, they'll make a fucking shit ton of cash. Even if they weren't making money, in order to do so, you have to spend it first which Microsoft rarely did when it came to Xbox. The people in charge never cared about Xbox or gaming. Spencer cares about Xbox and especially Game Pass since it's his vision and he has the backing of Nadella. Even Peter Moore never had the level of backing from Microsoft that Spencer has right now. And because of that, he needs to take advantage of that and is doing so which any intelligent business person would because who knows how things are going to go years and decades from now. No one knows.

Okay, gotta hard disagree here. MS has always cared about Xbox to some degree. They took a way bigger loss on OG Xbox than they were originally willing to do, this is in their six-part documentary. But they did it because they saw the potential for going forward. They basically provided lifetime insurance on most 360s due to RROD, simply to maintain goodwill, and made MANY deals with 3P developers and publishers for exclusive games and content. Not to mention the investments into Xbox Live, Kinect, the extra RAM due to Epic's suggestions...you don't think those were indicative of Microsoft being serious about gaming in the past?

I think it's a bit wrong to try claiming that Seamus Blackley, J Allard, Peter Moore, hell even Don Mattrick, never cared about gaming or Xbox and that Phil Spencer stepping into bigger shoes is when anyone actually gave a crap. Give Phil his flowers if you want, but those other guys deserve just as much if not more credit for what they helped Xbox evolve to over the years. Phil has more money behind him, because Microsoft has more money now than they ever had during OG Xbox and 360 years. Phil has more money behind him, because he's basically trying to transform Xbox into something that fits into Microsoft's services-orientated business strategy with Azure, Office, and Windows. Phil has more money behind him, because through gaming Microsoft can possibly net a lot of big-time Azure clients for long-term retention, satisfying their growth plans for cloud.

Those are the real reasons Phil has so much money behind him. It's not because his vision is necessarily better than those of previous leaders in the past. It just compliments Microsoft's total corporate strategy at a higher synergetic level.

Even if those claims are true, what difference would it make? It's THEIR money. Not ours. Not Sony's. Or anyone else's. Price fixing their own subscription service? WTF? This is every company because it's THEIR own subscription service. Why wouldn't it be fixed for what they want it to be? I don't understand this at all. Game Pass will increase in price eventually but I don't see it happening until next generation.

I just mentioned the price-fixing stuff because if it's something that can be attestable to hardware, then it should be attestable to software as well. If a company can be proven of pfixing a piece of hardware by pricing the MSRP at a point significantly lower than the BOM, assembly & distribution costs, AND do it undercut rivals AND not bleed out into the deep red as a company by doing so...then I don't see why similar things can't be proven if it involves software, such as utility productivity software or a subscription service, even.

Although, that isn't actually price-fixing; that would involve competitors agreeing to a certain price among their offerings collectively to benefit the all of them at the potential disadvantage of the customer. So maybe I flew off the handle too quickly with that one. I don't think MS are colluding with any other games subscription providers to rig a price in the market beneficial to them but inconsiderate of the customer.

Even so, amassing a sea of content through acquisitions mainly being funded by non-gaming sides of the company, that can be leveraged for a subscription service to help keep its costs to the customer artificially low, to starve out and pressure competitors through using acquired content as bargaining chips and sustaining any losses on the subscription through your much more profitable other segments...well that's the kind of thing regulators want to ensure doesn't happen.

Xbox consoles have stayed as is like they should. Microsoft SHOULD eat any extra cost in other regions and whatnot as opposed to being like Sony that despite saving money on console revisions decided to pass it on to their consumers. SMH. There's always discounts for Game Pass and games. How is this an issue? It's what they should be doing.

Yes but the reality is MS can keep Xbox console prices as-is in spite of component costs increases (due to currency flux due to semi-recession factors), because for them Xbox revenue, let alone profit, is a drop in the bucket compared to their REAL breadwinners in Azure, Windows and Office. Nintendo can keep the MSRP for the Switch the same, because the hardware is super cheap to make and they already make a big surplus in hardware profits off each unit sold.

Sony's model with the PS5 is not similar to either of those. PlayStation actually accounts for a sizable chunk of their revenue and profit as a company, so just "tanking" the increasing costs due to a recession and weakening currency isn't going to cut it for them. They don't have three other divisions that absolutely dwarf PlayStation in revenue & profit. The PS5 isn't some outdated piece of kit like the Switch, it's packing some rather serious hardware in there which means it comes at a cost.

Regulators have expressed concerns over Microsoft bundling services in other regions in order to increase the total price ... If there's any concessions, it's going to be cloud/mobile/services related which I can easily see happening.

We shall see.

Wait, do you think I meant all three combined? I meant WB with all of DC, EA OR Ubisoft in that order instead of ABK.

Well okay, that's more reasonable xD. I mean you're still talking about cases where it's just the same multiplat games Xbox would've gotten anyway, you're just getting them for "cheap" now through a subscription service. I can understand the desire to save money; for me though that's not the chief benefit of an acquisition I want to look at.

For me it's about what new games or vaulted legacy IP can come about, how games in certain IP can be bigger and better than they've ever been. If that happens to come at a costs benefit to me, fine that's a nice bonus. But it's not the chief thing I want out of such a deal.

The hopes of seeing dormant IP get resurrected is at 50/50 in my eyes depending on the IP, the genre and how successful it was back then. But even if not successful, could always come back because of Game Pass. The reason why games like Pentiment, Grounded and a few upcoming smaller AA titles exist is because of Game Pass.

But the truth is games like Pentiment and Grounded would've still had a strong chance of existing because the indie scene exists. Those games could've gone for crowdsourcing, or Steam Early Access, or just through a different publisher like Devolver or Annapurna. GamePass is just one of many options for games like those, it happened to be a very beneficial one because it's owned by a platform holder.

It's not just about gamers though. Those who work at ABK will be far better off under Microsoft than Kotick by far. They'll also have to do less work due to them eliminating the PlayStation platform which again benefits all of those who work at ABK. It's literally better for everyone excluding Sony.

I dunno man, we REALLY gotta see about how workplace issues improve. Microsoft's got a lot of skeletons in their closet too; you'd think they would lead by example when it comes to certain types of reform but if so they're being extremely downlow about it. You can say that getting rid of optimizing for PS platforms is a benefit but is it really? They still have to make those games for two very different Xbox Series specifications AND a gamut of PC configs, ALL for Day 1 support.

Take COD for example; they'll now need to prioritize PC for Day 1 and if Phil's words are true, bringing COD to Switch and all that, now they have to also optimize for that system Day 1 too. At which point, what's the real benefit in removing the PS5 out of the equation? You surely won't need near the amount of hardcore optimizing for that as you would the Switch, and they're both platforms owned by other companies both of whom don't have GamePass support on their systems.

That's just kind of the way I see it, anyway.

I hope EA offers their games day one for consoles but they probably won't. WB could do that after their merger with Discovery but who knows if they want to. .....

Well for EA, their business model just doesn't call for it. That may change with them losing the FIFA license tho, if only for that specific IP.

Whether these publishers want to compete with MS or not isn't really the question to ask; if they feel the move is best for their bottom line versus what arrangements they currently have with Microsoft, then they'll make that move.

 

[ksdixon]

I expect SEGA tbh at this point. Selling off a portion to GENDA, the arcade side I believe after previously saying they were going to double-up as cloud server banks across Japan (can't remember the full details) seemed like a weird move. Last few pieces of SEGA news seem to paint a company trimming the fat before a sale.

I'd hate for it to be CAPCOM. I want Sony securing CAPCOM talent and better supporting it way more than I personally want the same for SE. It's not the usual IP speil like RE, DC, DMC, SF, MH etc, But also Sony's involvement in EVO, or want to push further into eSports. Or RE7/8 being stand-out 'full/real games, with optional VR modes, even if released as DLC modes later'. I don't want PSVR2 to lose CAPCOM's future library due to a MS buyout, simillar to PSVR1, Facebook and RAD.
But it looks like Sony are willing to pay for just half of SE based mostly on FF liscense and SE's prior mobile/online experience (unless the talent behind those are now owned by Embracer, I'm not sure exactly what want where.)

As for MS... at this point I'm surprised they haven't had at least one proper "Surface/Duo/Xbox" by now. I would imagine they at least see the mobile money after purchasing AB-King etc, so maybe MS will steer more that direction when window shopping in Japan?

 

[ethomaz]

You're giving me a lot of stuff to look into, that's for sure. I appreciate bringing these developments to the forefront. If this M3 stuff is true, guess I'm going back to Opera or Firefox. No way in hell I'm using a web browser without the ability to sandbox it with uBlock, Adblock, Twitch video blocker etc.

If these companies want us to watch their ads so much, give us rewards. I remember when you used to be able to earn bits on Twitch for watching a certain number of ads per day. That actually wasn't such a bad incentive, considering they limited you to only a certain number of ads rewarding with bits anyway.

There a lot of conversation about Manifest 4 on web but the quote I like more for the simplicity is…

“Nearly all browser extensions as you know them today will be affected in some way: the more lucky ones will "only" experience problems, some will get crippled, and some will literally cease to exist.”

Manifest V3 is coming to kill your favorite browser extension | AdGuard

Manifest V3, a new API for Chrome browser extensions, is creeping up on us. It will change your favorite extensions for before you know it — and probably for the worse.

adguard.com

There is a video that I didn’t watch posted few days ago… I found it by title:

BTW Opera is based on Chrome too.
The only company that said that will support both Manifest 2 and Manifest 3 is Mozilla with Firefox… Microsoft Edge already released a roadmap to shutdown Manifest 2 and support only Manifest 3.

I just find amusing an focused Ad company (Google) trying to block 3rd-party extensions that do Ad block in a product that basically has the monopoly in the market (over 90% market share).

It is a clear example of EEE.
They first Enbraced as blocks extensions, after Extented and blocks extensions and now with the monopoly in hands are eliminating Ad block extensions.

Chrome reached monopoly due it successful extension model… Firefox at first failed to the point they had to reword all their extension model in version 70 or something like.

 

[Darth Vader]

You're giving me a lot of stuff to look into, that's for sure. I appreciate bringing these developments to the forefront. If this M3 stuff is true, guess I'm going back to Opera or Firefox. No way in hell I'm using a web browser without the ability to sandbox it with uBlock, Adblock, Twitch video blocker etc.

There are M3 adblock extensions already. Even UBlock iirc has an alpha / beta that released a few days ago.

 

[ethomaz]

There are M3 adblock extensions already. Even UBlock iirc has an alpha / beta that released a few days ago.

That doesn’t do what it did before.

It is called “uBlock Origin MINUS” for a reason and after some not liking the name the developer changed to “uBlock Origin Lite” lol

“The experimental extension uBOMinus is compatible with Manifest V3. The minus indicates that it is not as powerful as uBlock Origin. Hill reveals that uBO Minus uses the declarativeNetRequest API exclusively, which Google introduced in Manifest V3 to replace more powerful APIs of Manifest V2.

The extension does not require any extra permissions, including the "read and change all your data on all websites" permission. The consequence of this is that certain features are not supported by it. Hill lists cosmetic filtering, scriplet injections, CSP, redirect and removeparam filters specifically.

The Chrome extension uBO Minus uses the same default filter set as uBlock Origin, but in optimized form to take into account the limitations of Manifest V3.”

 

[Darth Vader]

That doesn’t block 1% of what it did before.

It is called “uBlock Origin MINUS” for a reason and after some not liking the name the developer changed to “uBlock Origin Lite” lol

“The experimental extension uBOMinus is compatible with Manifest V3. The minus indicates that it is not as powerful as uBlock Origin. Hill reveals that uBO Minus uses the declarativeNetRequest API exclusively, which Google introduced in Manifest V3 to replace more powerful APIs of Manifest V2.

The extension does not require any extra permissions, including the "read and change all your data on all websites" permission. The consequence of this is that certain features are not supported by it. Hill lists cosmetic filtering, scriplet injections, CSP, redirect and removeparam filters specifically.

The Chrome extension uBO Minus uses the same default filter set as uBlock Origin, but in optimized form to take into account the limitations of Manifest V3.”

That's not the only one, you muppet. Please work on your reading skills before pretending you're very smart.

 

[ethomaz]

That's not the only one, you muppet. Please work on your reading skills before pretending you're very smart.

Wrong claim is wrong no matter my reading skills lol
Man you are really something but what you can expect from somebody that believes TLOU Part 1 is a new game lol

Every time I expose something against a company you try to say it is not true lol

I will left here from the ex-Opera team:

Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers

Vivaldi comes with its own built-in Ad and Tracker Blocker, tons of customization options, a built-in Mail and Calendar, and more. Will it follow Google’s strict reliance on Manifest V3?

vivaldi.com

They will try to workaround and modify how Manifest 3 limit but they are not sure if it is possible.

And they are talking about changing the Chromium Engine… because building an extension in Manifest 3 is impossible.

 

[Hezekiah]

If Sony were to buy say Capcom now, and suggest they would be Playstation exclusive going forward, would that impact how regulators look at the Activision deal?

 

[peter42O]

That may be technically true but for most people these leakers/insiders are all cut from a similar cloth, and one can transiently influence others through indirect means, or help reinforce or enable aspects of leaker/insider culture.

That GTA VI leaker may be out of the picture but that just opens the door for someone else to take their place, maybe even grow it.

I get that they aren't 1:1 the same thing, but there's a lot of crossover and that can't be denied. Sometimes one can be both simultaneously. Grubb could be one or the other, it doesn't necessarily matter. Personally I think both do some type of harm to discourse in affecting the planned rollout of new games information, and taking the spotlight away from the actual people who have been spending years working on the games.

The news getting out there, the hype that comes from it...those moments should 100% belong to the actual game development team members IMHO.

I agree that these moments should belong the development studios and whatnot but publishers are so secretive that insiders will try to get info and report on it. I love all the insider stuff because it gives me an idea of what's potentially coming and if the game is for me or not. If publishers would just announce what their studios are working on once the game is in full production, that if anything would be what lessens insiders and their impact because people would already know since it would be official. There's also always going to be people that work in a studio and whatnot that simply want the info out there. Who knows why but because of how the gaming industry is in regards to being so secretive then I believe there will always be insiders who report on stuff.

Hackers though is different as that's illegal and nowhere close to being the same thing as say Grubb or Moriarty who report stuff. There's nothing wrong or illegal about what they're doing. Besides, if people don't want to know stuff, then they have the option to not watch or follow those insiders. With the internet, everything is usually known ahead of time. It's just what it is. This is why companies should be more open and transparent as it would discourage insiders from reporting stuff because it would already be known publicly.

Well now you're creating arbitrary distinctions. How much is really separating an insider from a hacker or leaker? Don't you feel that one feeds off what the other enables?

As for the games industry being secretive, well I think it's justified depending on the type of game especially. A story-heavy game should not be spoiled or leaked ahead of its official release IMHO. It's like a new film you're highly anticipating, getting spoiled by leakers. If you happen to accidentally stumble across any of those leaks, part of that hype dies. The element of surprise (and the wonderment that can come from it) is removed.

I don't feel that one feeds off the other. Insiders are reporting on information given to them by their sources which is probably given to them by those inside a publisher or studio. It's simply free information and if they want to report on it, so be it. Besides, they're not 100% accurate. They do get things wrong at times. A hacker is someone who is illegally breaking into your company's security with the intent of doing harm. That's two very different things. If companies don't want insiders to have info, then honestly they need to tighten up their ship.

I agree with you in regards to story driven games but with the internet, it doesn't matter. Everything gets leaked and is known days before a game even gets released. Take Ragnarok for example, it's review embargo is a week in advance supposedly. Do you not believe that the game will get leaked in that week before release? I believe it will 100% but it's up to me and only me to avoid spoilers. Also, stores usually get the games the week before and sometimes, a few weeks before so there's always going to be employees that decide to post stuff on Reddit or YouTube or whatever. It's the player's responsibility to avoid all that because again, the internet exists and except for staying completely off-line, it's difficult to avoid spoilers but at the same time, not impossible. I rarely get spoiled on a game. Maybe one every few years and in some cases, actually worked out better for me.

Does it suck to get spoiled with anything? Of course it does but it's the internet, what do people expect? For everyone to be all nice and friendly? LOL. That's just not going to happen. If you want to avoid spoilers, the individual has to do it themselves and there's plenty of successful ways to doing so. My friend saw maybe a few minutes at most for GOWR and Gotham Knights. He'll go into both games like 99% blind and won't get spoiled because he knows how to avoid it all but he's not going to stay off-line or get mad because someone says stuff.

True, it's a two-way street, and companies that want to sell are going to look to sell regardless. But I still think the buyers need to understand their part in it; it's the fact they exist and want to buy period which encourages certain companies to sell. We can't forget about that part of the equation.

I agree with this but also brings me to that person you quoted from Resetera. You mentioned the timed exclusivity that Microsoft passed on in regards to some games or passing on a Marvel deal in 2014 which allowed Sony to get them. But just like you said in regards to the buyer when it comes to Microsoft acquiring studios and publishers, Sony as the company paying for timed exclusivity should also be aware of what it does to the other brand which obviously, they don't care about because they continue to do it over and over again when they don't have to at all. In my mind, it goes both ways and every company should do what they believe is best for their company. Too many people want to see it as well, if one company does it, it's okay but when the other company does the same thing, it's not. Microsoft doesn't do major timed console exclusive deals because they know they'll get a ton of backlash but yet, where's the backlash against Sony when they do it? It's literally non-existent. So Microsoft decided to buy studios and publishers that are willing to sell to eliminate for example, a COD MW 2 beta being exclusively on PlayStation a week earlier than Xbox. Why? So Sony can get people into PlayStation and NOT Xbox. Microsoft is doing the exact same shit but at a far higher level. And honestly, if Sony doesn't want to spend the money on acquiring a publisher or two, that's on them. If they don't have the money, that's also on them. None of it is on Microsoft. They're simply doing what is best for THEIR business, for THEIR fan base just like Sony has done for 25+ years. The only difference is money. That's literally it. I'm an average person. Am I supposed to get pissed off or angry because someone else has more money than I do and travels the world, owns a house, etc.? No im not. If I want that stuff, I need to do better and make more money in order to accomplish the same thing. If Sony concentrated on being a trillion dollar company, they would be after all this time and would be able to spend $70B on ABK. Instead, they can't and they don't which is 100% on them as a company. No one else.

I actually agree with this part; it's similar to the people who complain about Sony getting so many 3P exclusivity deals and blame them, but never the actual developer or publisher of those games.

Again, it's a two-way street with all these kinds of deals, but I guess when a platform holder's involved, they're the only ones who get all the attention.

This is why I look at it like I do - both companies can do whatever they want and feel is best for their platform and direction. I don't bitch about what either does because first, I can't change any of it even if I wanted to so what's the point and second, in all honesty, I want to see a pissed off Microsoft spending billions on Xbox. Like, about fucking time. Only took 19 years to do so. And I want to see Sony respond. If they acquire Square Enix, awesome. Let them acquire more.

Again, agreed, but also some context is needed here. You're right, Sony is only trying to complicate (I wouldn't necessarily say they're trying to stop) the ABK deal because of what it might mean for their bottom line into the long-term future. But referencing Sony's prior decisions that impacted Nintendo & Sega can't be done without also acknowledging what Nintendo and especially Sega did to make that as EASY as possible for Sony to capitalize on.

Yes, Sony got Square to PS1, exclusively. But if Nintendo didn't screw Squaresoft over with cartridge print runs, high licensing fees, ostracizing/belittling JRPGs as a genre (Yamauchi's infamous quote) or sticking with cartridges in the age of CDs...maybe they could've retained Square all along. If Sega didn't split their focus on a bajillion peripherals, pushing quantity out the wazoo with software publishing (especially in 1995...155 games published between Genesis, Sega CD, 32X, Pico, Nomad, Game Gear, PC, and arcade!), and had a more elegant design for the Saturn alongside more robust SDK support sooner...maybe they could've swooned over Squaresoft, Enix, Namco etc. instead of Sony.

We can't just pretend Sony did everything in their power to screw over Microsoft, Nintendo, Sega etc. and not acknowledge the roles those companies played in screwing themselves over first.

I agree with what you're saying but at the end of the day, Sony took advantage of the other companies screw ups to get to where they're at. Like that or not, it's what any business and company should do. This is exactly what Microsoft is doing. Bethesda was in money trouble. They were looking to sell and they did. ABK had a shit ton of legal issues, toxic shit and a bunch of other stuff. Kotick had to sell and again, it's Microsoft that's there bailing them all out. In short, Sony and Microsoft have both take advantage of situations and in all honesty, they should. My only issue is that whenever Sony does something, no one says shit but any time Microsoft does something, OMG, the world is coming to an end. It's bullshit. Either both companies STOP doing what they both do period or they both just continue to do what they do respectively. Can't just be one way.

Not if you have the right creative leadership it isn't. Realistically, when Sony got around to putting out marquee hits like Uncharted 2, 3, TLOU and so, most of their teams were still at a "good, not great" status and very few outside Naughty Dog were able to put out those caliber of games during the PS3 generation. But they still found a way, they still also found a way to work with talented 3P devs like From Soft to make games in Demon's Souls that would go on to redefine gaming through perfecting a burgeoning subgenre.

It's Microsoft's fault they "only" had Halo, Gears & Forza, but that wouldn't have been a problem if a sense of stagnation didn't set in with the IP. When most people think of Nintendo, they only think of Mario, Zelda, MK and Smash, but look at the sheer creativity in different concepts each new mainline Mario and Zelda game go for. That's down to creative leadership being excellent. It's not about quantity; it's about quality.

It was 100% Microsoft's fault but the higher ups never cared about gaming so what does anyone expect? Like, honestly? Sony always cared about PlayStation and even more so since it's basically what keeps their company alive and profitable. So they needed to care. For three generations, Microsoft's higher ups and whatnot didn't care and well, you saw the results with the Xbox One generation.

But now this generation, they do care. For the first time ever and even more so than Gates, the head of Microsoft Satya Nadella is all in with Xbox and gaming. And obviously, since E3 2018, he's proven it with their massive investments in Xbox and gaming.

This is why I say that this generation is a transitional generation for Microsoft and Xbox. It's where it all finally starts to come together and where the foundation is finally built and stable for future generations. I never expected Microsoft to ever do anything until E3 2018. At the point, I started to wake up and Bethesda cemented it. This is Microsoft all fucking in with Xbox and gaming which all I can say is, about damn time.

IMO I still think it's a run-before-you-walk solution. What's the point of shifting your business model to a subscription service when you still need a good amount of high-quality varied games, the same thing you would need without a subscription service?

The answer should've been to focus on the content, THEN focus on the business model.

Microsoft has already had quality games this generation and in fact, have two games that are 92, same as Demon's Souls. Flight Sim and FH 5 surpass all of the other Sony games. Sure, you don't have to like them or agree with their ratings or whatever but to say that there's no quality is bullshit. Has 2022 been empty and shitty? Absolutely but hey, so was 2013 launch, 2014 and 2015 for Sony. What can you do? Not everything is going to go according to plan.

The main reason I want more studios and publishers is because I don't want to see Microsoft let up. I don't want to see even a 1% chance of them possibly going back to what they were. So whatever they want to acquire even if the studio or publisher isn't for me personally, I say the more the better because it takes that 1% chance and decreases it to where there's no possible way that Microsoft changes course.

No, not now they do..but they used to. The name's Halo, you might remember it

And I'm glad you did point out that Sony & Microsoft have differing business models, this is something I've been saying for a while. Sony's gaming model is closer to Nintendo's than it is Microsoft's, which makes sense considering Sony worked closely with Nintendo on the SFC/SNES and Play Station, and looked to emulate their model for success.

Sony may not just rely on gaming, but gaming makes up a much bigger chunk of their revenue & profits than it does for Microsoft. So when I see people suggesting stuff like Sony could "easily" put all their big AAA marquee games in PS+ Day 1 as part of the subscription service, I like to remind them of stuff like the differences in their business models, as to why what MS can get away with, Sony may not be able to.

Looking it up, if accurate, Halo 3 was at around 15m while two other games were just under 10m. But point remains, compared to Sony and Nintendo, their games simply have never sold gangbusters which is why Spencer and Nadella changed their business model.

I can admit that Microsoft changed their business model for two reasons - first is that the company itself wants recurring revenue where the same product makes money from the same individual or company using that product as opposed to just a one time purchase. Subscriptions is how you accomplish this. Second, when it came to Xbox, their exclusives didn't sell. They just didn't. They still don't outside of Steam since majority of PC gamers would rather pay $60 for the game instead of using PC Game Pass via the Windows 10 Store.

Microsoft obviously has the money to make up any losses but the gaming division in general has been profitable for the last few years. Their gaming division is doing better than ever. Even if Game Pass individually doesn't make Microsoft money, the rest of the gaming division makes up for it. Either way, their gaming division breaks records ever year so I don't believe that the rest of the company has to make up for it. Pre-2020? Sure but since then, nah. Microsoft has simply done nearly everything right compared to 2013 and the one fuck up they did have which was the Gold price increase, they reversed before the day even ended. lol

As for Sony not putting their games day one on PS+, I don't think that it would be easy but it's not difficult either. Even if you take the 48m of PS+ subscribers and have them all at $5 a month ($60 a year), they would still rack in $2.880B a year. Even if a game costs $200M to make, their subscription service can carry the cost and those who want to purchase the game can still do so. I believe that Sony will put their games on PS+ day one when next generation starts IF they see Game Pass take off because they're not going to want to fall far behind. For right now, they're fine.

The main problem isn't the money but would PS+ see growth? That would be the real question. Game Pass started in June 2017 if I remember correctly and 2018 started their games being day one on Game Pass so they've had this model since nearly the start and can use exclusives day one to grow it. Where as with Sony, after merging PS+ with PS Now, they already have their fan base subscribed. On the Microsoft side, they didn't because it's separated from Gold.

I do agree that Sony's business model is definitely Nintendo like. The only difference though is that Nintendo doesn't truly have "direct" competition because they're outdated tech and hybrid setup isn't something that Sony and Microsoft competes with. The direct competitor for both Sony and Microsoft is each other. Nintendo is just there sitting in the corner doing their own thing.

Okay but here's the thing: Microsoft could've made this generation, the one you're saying the next generation's going to be, by having better management and vision at the end of the 360 gen/start of XBO generation! That's the rub, here. MS already had opportunities to do the thing you're claiming they're trying to do going forward, without heavy-handed 3P acquisitions, over a decade ago.

Instead they had momentum and mindshare that they simply did not care or have the wherewithal to solidify. And now they're making certain moves you'd expect an outright new entrant to make, but MS are entrenched in the market as a platform holder for over 20 years and are still here for mistakes smaller competitors would've folded for, simply due to their sheer financial strengths in segments OTHER than console gaming.

I agree with this but the reality is that this didn't happen. It's basically a "what if" and as we already know, none of this happened because the higher ups didn't care. Add in dumb ass decisions in 2013 and well, the rest as they say is history. It's a new regime now and Spencer finally has someone in Nadella who's obviously not shy about investing money into Xbox. So while I agree and understand your point about the past, it simply doesn't matter because their past isn't what their present currently is.

Sony almost went bankrupt during the PS3 generation and they rebuilt everything during the PS4 generation. Yes, the studios were basically the same but they had new leadership on top, focused more on being consumer friendly oriented and gave you a better more powerful console at a cheaper price which combined with Microsoft's 2013 fuck ups, allowed Sony to dominate with PS4.

Microsoft went into this generation like they did with 360 and Sony did with PS4. Being far more consumer friendly oriented, two console options, one expensive high end and one cheaper low end console. All their games day one on Game Pass. You buy one copy, you get the PC and console version. Microsoft has simply played this generation to near perfection especially when you compare it to 2013 when they had no fucking clue.

Right, it did take Sony a while, and they did acquire most of their teams. But the vast majority of those acquisitions outside of arguably Bungie and Nixxes, they had been working with for years prior in some way of significance or another, to the point those teams were almost exclusively associated with the PS brand anyway.

-Psygnosis: Helped developed the PS1 SDK
-Naughty Dog: Worked with Sony on the Crash Bandicoot trilogy before buying them
-Insomniac: Were practically PlayStation-exclusive for 20+ years outside of a single game for Xbox platforms over 20 years after being PS-exclusive.
-Housemarque: Worked closely with Sony in the PS3 & PS4 generations
-BluePoint: Had done several prolific remakes for Sony prior to acquisition
-Haven: Sony literally looked into their project, invested in it, and liked what they saw. Plus they have worked with several of its team members closely in the past, such as Jade Raymond

...there are others I'm forgetting to mention for sake of brevity. But that has been the trend with most of Sony's acquisitions. The only ones among Microsoft's that fit a similar trend, IMO, are Playground Games and Zenimax (the latter specifically in relation to Bethesda). MS had no genuine history with Ninja Theory before buying them, outside of a mediocre OG Xbox game. Didn't really have that close a working relationship with Obsidian or Double Fine prior to acquiring them, either. Their relationship with ABK was nothing much more special than it is with Sony or has been with Sony over the years, either.

I actually agree with most of what you're saying but there is one major difference that PlayStation fans seem to ignore and that's the fact that the gaming landscape is far different this generation than in previous generations. Sony has Microsoft to compete with but Microsoft also has Amazon, Facebook, Tencent, now Saudi Arabia getting into gaming, Apple and formerly had Google which is just under a $2T dollar company. When you have this level of competition that all have the same amount of money that you do or are very close to it, you can't stay idle and do nothing. The only reason why Sony hasn't acquired a publisher and most likely won't isn't because they don't want to or wouldn't, it's because they just don't have the money to invest into an acquisition the scope and size of say ABK. Could they get a Bethesda level acquisition, probably but are they going to? Probably not.

The main issue I disagree with is making the "relationships" seem more important than what they actually are. This is business. It doesn't matter if you worked with a company for a decade or not at all. If a company is looking to sell and Microsoft is looking to buy and they reach a deal in order to make the acquisition happen, the past and any relationship or lack there of simply doesn't matter. In the case of Obsidian or Ninja Theory, both were having money issues and Obsidian were crowdfunding their games as was InXile and Double Fine. At this point, they would be horribly run businesses if they didn't accept being acquired by Microsoft especially when no one else came knocking.

 

[MayorReynoldsTV]

The only Japan based publishers
that I can actually see becoming part of Microsoft are SEGA or Bandai Namco, personally. There would likely be more developers up for acquisitions and I know it’s been discussed before but I’d put Platinum as the most likely as they always seem cash starved. I think it would allow them to slow down and produce more consistent quality games again. And MS could actually make their games exclusive to the Xbox platform as their games aren’t dependent on multiplatform release.

 

[peter42O]

Well I have my own feelings on MC I'll leave out of this, but if you look back to my previous statements when it's come to MS's output, I've personally NEVER said they haven't put out quality games. FH5, Flight Sim, Killer Instinct, Ori 1 & 2 etc. are all very good quality games, even if some are technically not from internal 1P teams.

MY thing is, how many of these games command cultural cache within the gaming zeitgest, majority mindshare among gamers and non-gamers (or very casual/mainstream gamers) alike? Are industry-leading in some way of significance or another? I'll be honest: out of the 2023 games you mentioned, only arguably one of them has a really solid chance of meeting the thresholds I just mentioned, and that's Forza. But it's also...Forza, again. It's a known quantity, and the IP just isn't super-popular, each entry is maybe 2 million and some change at best when it comes to copies sold.

Microsoft simply don't have a lot of output or IP that fulfill the things I mentioned above and I think they recognized that which is why they've actually gone to getting Zenimax and now ABK. They need IP that can have cultural cache, mindshare, and industry-leading qualities similar to a GOW, Spiderman, Mario, Zelda etc. and they're hopefully gonna get that with TES, COD etc. And yes they would need to make these games explicitly associated with them in the gaming space to have a similar effect so I actually can understand the arguments saying those IP should go exclusive to Xbox console-wise; those arguments make some sense.

My bigger point though is that I feel at this point, MS have enough of such resources to be competitive, so where is this anxiety from people for them to buy yet another major publisher so quickly? Who's pressuring MS to do this? It's not Sony. Google's folded. Amazon's not making any huge buys, neither are Apple. Maybe the Saudis? If the threat was other companies buying up 3P publishers, MS should notice that they're the main ones doing that and Sony's buying Bungie was mostly out of reaction.

MS have all the resources they need, now. So they should simmer down and really focus on what they have. It's more than enough for Xbox, it's more than enough for GamePass. It's time.

Just like you said earlier is regards to Sony and Microsoft's direction and business model being different, how both look, develop and release games is also different. Sony goes after the big name games, licenses and whatnot. Microsoft really doesn't. What you're judging the games on is not what Microsoft goes after. Look at Sea of Thieves for example. It has over 20M players or whatever the hell it is. Do you think Microsoft cares if it's not mainstream or whatever like Spider Man for example? If anything, you could argue that Microsoft is going in a more casual and original direction. When you have games like Pentiment, Grounded and Sea of Thieves, there's really nothing like them out there. Forza Motorsport will sell only a few million copies but if it ends up with say 20M active players, im sure Microsoft will be very pleased and happy because they want high player counts and engagement.

I think it's Microsoft pressuring Microsoft. I think that because they're finally all in, they're just not going to let up because they don't want to ever be anywhere close to what they were the last three generations. Plus, they know not every studio and whatnot will succeed so the more the better. Google is done but you still have Amazon, Apple, Tencent, Facebook, Saudi Arabia, etc. out there. Microsoft simply isn't going to "wait and see" what these companies do if anything. They're going to stay on offense and be aggressive.

Not only that but people need to understand, their money sitting in a bank is literally making them next to nothing so why not invest it into acquisitions that could potentially bring in more money long term? You already know how I feel personally.

I mean we'll have to disagree on this because I think some of the investments MS did with OG Xbox gen with key Western devs and Japanese publishers like Sega, and 360 gen with MANY Western devs and some Japanese devs, VASTLY outweigh what they are doing at current in several ways.

But that could be nostalgia talking for me.

Their investments while good don't outweigh what they're doing now for one simple reason - they're no longer relying or depending on third parties to develop games for them like they used to. Sure, they'll still have a few deals but once they're at the level they want to be internally, I don't those deals happen anymore unless it's just one hell of an opportunity. Always better to bring studios in house and be yours.

Well I'm not gonna say that Sony's 1P AAA output for PS4 from 2013 to 2015 excluding Bloodborne was magnificent. It was a slow build-up, for sure, and MS did have them beat in terms of 1P & 3P AAA exclusives for most of that period in terms of just 8th-gen systems.

But there are probably a few parts to your opinion a lot of people would disagree with xD. It's cool though; you have your opinions on those games comparatively, other people have theirs.

I bring this up because I simply look at what Microsoft doing and releasing now similar to Sony between 2013 launch and 2016. Only difference is that Microsoft has higher quality between 2020 launch through 2022, they lose in quantity. Point is that it took time for them to get going. Sony's second half of PS4 was excellent and allowed them to carry their momentum into this generation with PS5. This is why I say transitional all the time. I believe the second half of this generation will be excellent for Microsoft and they'll be able to carry that momentum into next generation.

Personally, I use this as a point of reference because I gave Sony the benefit of the doubt as PS3 excluding Naughty Dog and Dead Nation literally had no games of interest for me. Basically, 5 exclusives for PS3. I had 5 exclusives for Xbox One. I gave Sony the entire generation to win me over with their studios and their exclusives for PS4 and they did. I'm simply doing the same for Microsoft and Xbox this generation which is why I don't go nuts that 2022 has sucked. I didn't go nuts when I had two 7/10 games in 2015 for PS4 so while go nuts now? Besides, if it all the goes the way I believe it will, I would be getting mad and upset for nothing. lol

It's fine to have personal expectations and in fact that's kind of what ultimately matters I suppose, but we can't pretend that if RedFall & Starfield fail to capture a large chunk of the cultural mindshare & zeitgeist, or Starfield in particular fails to really be industry-leading in some objectively measurable way, that they won't be disappointing games in some capacity.

I think as a platform holder, MS (and Sony & Nintendo as well) need to be held to some higher standards when it comes to their software output. And I think Sony & Nintendo have objectively met those standards quite a bit more often than Microsoft. The PS3 started getting those kind of games with Demon's Souls, Uncharted 2 & 3, TLOU etc. The PS4 started getting them with Bloodborne, Uncharted 4, SFV, GOW etc. The Switch was getting them with Mario Odyssey, BOTW, etc.

The XBO never really got those type of games outside of Ori, Cuphead, and Forza Horizon 4. And if you're talking about scale of impact, those games probably didn't have the reach that the ones I mentioned for PS4 & Switch have had. I think that's very important for a platform holder to aspire to.

True. We have to see what Redfall and Starfield end up being. My own personal expectation is that Redfall will be an 80+ or so great game from Arkane because they rarely miss. Them and Obsidian are like Insomniac. They rarely miss. I see Redfall having a massive player count because while it's a looter shooter, it's world isn't realistic like Division or sci-fi like Destiny. Instead, it's more supernatural and has Vampires!!! Games rarely have Vampires and even more rare, are the main enemy in the game. Starfield I believe will be what Skyrim was. A masterpiece for what it does but personally, not 100% for me. I think I will like but not love the game. It's also not my type of game and I have never been a fan BGS itself.

I don't hold Microsoft to the same standards as I do with Sony or Nintendo because both of them have just for the most part, consistently rolling out great games the last 5+ years but the first half of say, PS4 generation outside of Bloodborne wasn't all that great at all. The expectations only came once 2016 and especially 2017 hit. With Microsoft, it's more like a reset and thus far, they've hit on the quality aspects, they just need to hit on the quantity aspect and on a consistent basis which let's be honest, will eventually happen and when it does, I don't see it stopping.

Of course, the direction for both Sony and Microsoft as of now is the opposite. Sony wants the single player premium experience and expects 90+ because of the investment in the game where as Microsoft just wants to be in the 80's and build on it as the years progress and care about player counts and engagement. Sea of Thieves in 2018 was a 68 rated game. It's probably closer to an 8 or a 9 depending on the player because of all the content and quality of life changes added to the game in the last 4+ years so it's definitely different directions and priorities.

In short, I see Microsoft being consistent in regards to releasing high quality games but outside of a perhaps 3-5, I don't see them hitting the Sony/Nintendo level this generation. Personally, all im expecting is for them to be better than last generation which I do believe they will easily and by far accomplish but am I expecting 95+ rated games or something? Nah. Outside of a few, no way. At this point, all im expecting is for their games to at least be 80+ to show that their quality is improving compared to last generation and can only get better as we get to next generation.

Like you said, Sony/Nintendo are similar with their business model. They want their games to be talked about and mainstream where as Microsoft would probably prefer their games to be quiet but yet still have 20M people playing the damn thing. lol. Both sides are simply different.

The main issue for a lot of people and this was me years ago is that you have to accept what Microsoft's direction and strategy is. If you're someone who wants the Sony type games on Xbox, yeah sure, you'll get a handful but the vast majority of their games aren't going to be for you.

I think that's an unfounded fear on your part TBH. At some point the growth phase has to end, and a phase focusing on what you already have has to take hold.

My thing isn't so much about lack of 1P exclusives, just if you have enough exclusives in general that are preferably pushing the industry forward in some way. Those could be 1P, they could be 3P, it doesn't necessarily matter to me. But I think platform holders should have some type of involvement in either case because that enables the best chance of those types of marquee games to manifest and help push forward concepts and things that can help shape the industry in a big way.

And I don't think you need to keep buying up developers and publishers to do that, obviously. But I guess on that specific point you and I will differ.

Perhaps. I just don't ever want to see a repeat of the Xbox One generation and if that means, Microsoft overdoes it, so be it because I would obviously prefer 100 studios over 5 any day of the week. Granted, this is an exaggeration but you get my point.

The more studios and teams they have, the more exclusives they will have. I don't know about pushing the industry forward. I personally believe that consumers and gamers drive that, not companies. For example, Sony's games sell great but once they're done, they're done where as if you're playing a Sea of Thieves for example, almost 5 years and 20M players later, it's still being talked about because it's still being played.

I love my single player games but take HFW for example, outside of you and my friend, I haven't talked about this game since it released because there's no reason for me to do so. On the flip side, as someone who plays The Division 2, I will talk about this at least on a monthly basis, more so when the season is complete and I can play through it completely instead of target by target every three weeks.

There's a reason why Sony is pivoting to having more live service games. They want to stay in the conversation and single player one and done games simply aren't going to accomplish that regardless of how good they are.

The last part with Microsoft continuing acquisitions is also because of Game Pass. I believe that they want quality consistent exclusive content on a monthly basis so instead of going to publishers to put their games on Game Pass, those publishers can go to them because they really wouldn't need them as much as they do now. Also, the more they have, the more leeway studios will have if they need more time. If a game isn't ready, delaying it is always the better option and the more studios they have, the easier this decision becomes.

 

[peter42O]

Okay, gotta hard disagree here. MS has always cared about Xbox to some degree. They took a way bigger loss on OG Xbox than they were originally willing to do, this is in their six-part documentary. But they did it because they saw the potential for going forward. They basically provided lifetime insurance on most 360s due to RROD, simply to maintain goodwill, and made MANY deals with 3P developers and publishers for exclusive games and content. Not to mention the investments into Xbox Live, Kinect, the extra RAM due to Epic's suggestions...you don't think those were indicative of Microsoft being serious about gaming in the past?

I think it's a bit wrong to try claiming that Seamus Blackley, J Allard, Peter Moore, hell even Don Mattrick, never cared about gaming or Xbox and that Phil Spencer stepping into bigger shoes is when anyone actually gave a crap. Give Phil his flowers if you want, but those other guys deserve just as much if not more credit for what they helped Xbox evolve to over the years. Phil has more money behind him, because Microsoft has more money now than they ever had during OG Xbox and 360 years. Phil has more money behind him, because he's basically trying to transform Xbox into something that fits into Microsoft's services-orientated business strategy with Azure, Office, and Windows. Phil has more money behind him, because through gaming Microsoft can possibly net a lot of big-time Azure clients for long-term retention, satisfying their growth plans for cloud.

Those are the real reasons Phil has so much money behind him. It's not because his vision is necessarily better than those of previous leaders in the past. It just compliments Microsoft's total corporate strategy at a higher synergetic level.

Okay, I can agree with all that to a point but it doesn't matter because it's the Xbox One generation and the 2013 disaster that everyone remembers and still talks about. Last generation, Mattrick didn't care and left shortly after E3 2013. Phil Harrison was a fucking disaster and Terry Myerson was another pain in the ass. So while there were people that cared during Xbox and 360, they still didn't have the level of backing that Spencer has right now. It's not even close.

I agree that Spencer has more money now then they did back then and Microsoft has more money now then they did back then, however, just because they have it doesn't mean it was guaranteed that they were going to spend it on Xbox and gaming. Phil still had to convince Nadella that Xbox was worth keeping which based on Xbox One generation wasn't an easy thing to do. If Phil goes to Nadella with a plan of being like Sony and Nintendo, I truly believe that Xbox would be dead right now and not exist because first, I don't believe that they would be able to match Sony/Nintendo in game sales especially when outside of a few games, they never have and second, the non-subscription, non-recurring revenue that Microsoft wants wouldn't have been part of Spencer's plan and thus, I believe that Nadella would have shut it all down which is what he was originally going to do.

Spencer's vision and direction is what allowed Xbox to still exist. I always go based on 2018 with Spencer because when he was promoted in late 2017, it was finally with no one above him who was against him and Xbox. The only people above him are Nadella and Amy Hood, both of which agreed with Phil's long term vision and direction. Look at the results of this. Just six months later at E3 2018, you get four studio acquisition and one studio being founded. Later in the year, they added Obsidian and InXile. 2019 they added Double Fine. And of course, between 2020 and now, they added Bethesda and ABK. In no way, shape or form does any of this happen without Phil convincing Nadella to keep Xbox alive and that it can be very profitable and successful for Microsoft. I believe Phil's vision is the best because it's not the same shit as the previous generations of Xbox. His vision also fits in perfectly with Microsoft as a company and Xbox as a brand.

I just mentioned the price-fixing stuff because if it's something that can be attestable to hardware, then it should be attestable to software as well. If a company can be proven of pfixing a piece of hardware by pricing the MSRP at a point significantly lower than the BOM, assembly & distribution costs, AND do it undercut rivals AND not bleed out into the deep red as a company by doing so...then I don't see why similar things can't be proven if it involves software, such as utility productivity software or a subscription service, even.

Although, that isn't actually price-fixing; that would involve competitors agreeing to a certain price among their offerings collectively to benefit the all of them at the potential disadvantage of the customer. So maybe I flew off the handle too quickly with that one. I don't think MS are colluding with any other games subscription providers to rig a price in the market beneficial to them but inconsiderate of the customer.

Even so, amassing a sea of content through acquisitions mainly being funded by non-gaming sides of the company, that can be leveraged for a subscription service to help keep its costs to the customer artificially low, to starve out and pressure competitors through using acquired content as bargaining chips and sustaining any losses on the subscription through your much more profitable other segments...well that's the kind of thing regulators want to ensure doesn't happen.

Only problem is that their gaming division is actually profitable. Keeping prices low when you're 3rd in gaming and coming off a bad generation and using their money to finally be able to compete at a high level is exactly what they should be doing. Also, instead of Sony or other companies crying, maybe oh I don't know, they should offer more value to their fan base instead of charging the more and more for a bullshit premium experience that doesn't actually exist. Sony revised their consoles to save more money since they were already turning a profit and yet, they charge the consumers, their fan base more money to buy a console. Like, wow. Microsoft doesn't do the same and people want to act as if they're not playing fair. Sony should be eating an additional costs period.

Game wise, Sony decided to go higher instead of staying as is or going lower. That's on them. Game Pass day one games started in 2018 an it's funny, pre-Bethesda and ABK, everything was fine because it didn't hurt Sony. Didn't affect Sony. Now that it does, everyone wants to cry and it's like, maybe Sony shouldn't waste money on VR or Cars or any other shit that they don't really need and instead, use that money by not increasing their console and game prices and eating the additional cost themselves.

Even without ABK and Bethesda, Sony has been going in a PS3 like direction this entire generation. $10 upgrade fees. Like, why? $70 games. $30-$50 price increase on a console they were already profitable on before the revisions. Again, why?

Why is Microsoft always the one company that everyone wants to go against when everyone else has done the exact same shit repeatedly for years and decades? Sony uses Final Fantasy as a bargaining chip to try to get you into their eco-system. They sure as hell aren't doing it for the gamers. It's just because it's Microsoft and because they're on a higher level, everyone wants to cry. My response is that instead of crying, Sony should put their fan base and consumers first. Stop trying to rip them off every chance they get and instead, maybe perhaps compete by offering value and substance that even Game Pass wouldn't be able to match.

So while I see and understand your point of view, I disagree because as the past years and decades have shown, whenever Sony does anything, no one including their own fan base says a word but Microsoft takes a shit and holy hell, all hell breaks loose.

Yes but the reality is MS can keep Xbox console prices as-is in spite of component costs increases (due to currency flux due to semi-recession factors), because for them Xbox revenue, let alone profit, is a drop in the bucket compared to their REAL breadwinners in Azure, Windows and Office. Nintendo can keep the MSRP for the Switch the same, because the hardware is super cheap to make and they already make a big surplus in hardware profits off each unit sold.

Sony's model with the PS5 is not similar to either of those. PlayStation actually accounts for a sizable chunk of their revenue and profit as a company, so just "tanking" the increasing costs due to a recession and weakening currency isn't going to cut it for them. They don't have three other divisions that absolutely dwarf PlayStation in revenue & profit. The PS5 isn't some outdated piece of kit like the Switch, it's packing some rather serious hardware in there which means it comes at a cost.

Even if Microsoft couldn't keep the consoles at the same price, they should because you don't raise the price of a two year old console. Sony was already making a profit before their revisions so all of a sudden they're losing money? Well, like you and others say with Microsoft, let Sony show me the numbers. I want to see an itemized list of every expense for every component. Even if by chance Sony is losing money by staying at $500, it doesn't matter because as someone here like to point out with Microsoft never doing the right thing, maybe Sony should do the right thing for their fan base and potential customers.

This is also an example of what im always saying - no matter what Sony does, no one ever says a word. Instead, they go right to Microsoft and start trying to blame them for Sony increasing the cost of their consoles. It's fucking pathetic. Everyone should be calling out Sony for them trying to nickel and dime their fan base and potential future customers. But nope, Microsoft has more money so let's blame them.

Well okay, that's more reasonable xD. I mean you're still talking about cases where it's just the same multiplat games Xbox would've gotten anyway, you're just getting them for "cheap" now through a subscription service. I can understand the desire to save money; for me though that's not the chief benefit of an acquisition I want to look at.

For me it's about what new games or vaulted legacy IP can come about, how games in certain IP can be bigger and better than they've ever been. If that happens to come at a costs benefit to me, fine that's a nice bonus. But it's not the chief thing I want out of such a deal.

I'm getting the games I want to play for a $10 monthly rental but im also getting games that I would never buy for a $10 monthly rental to tryout. Also, I am heavily in favor of exclusives and I don't care how it's done, so the more I get for my primary gaming console, the better.

I agree with the second part as that applies to me as well but it's secondary. Even though a WB with all of DC would also be to combat all the first person games from Bethesda and COD since they mainly stay with third person. A Ubisoft would be because maybe Microsoft could get them out of their horrible direction with trying free to play game one after the other with the hopes of finding their Fortnite.

So while there's other reasons for me, being able to play/try games for a $10 monthly rental is number one.

But the truth is games like Pentiment and Grounded would've still had a strong chance of existing because the indie scene exists. Those games could've gone for crowdsourcing, or Steam Early Access, or just through a different publisher like Devolver or Annapurna. GamePass is just one of many options for games like those, it happened to be a very beneficial one because it's owned by a platform holder.

In no way, shape or form should Microsoft ever have a game up for crowdfunding. Hell no. I don't even like the Early Access shit. In general, another publisher would have to fund these games but there's no guarantee where as with Microsoft, their mantra for studios is, make the game you want to make. If there was no Game Pass, I don't believe that Microsoft would be as nonchalant as they currently are.

I dunno man, we REALLY gotta see about how workplace issues improve. Microsoft's got a lot of skeletons in their closet too; you'd think they would lead by example when it comes to certain types of reform but if so they're being extremely downlow about it. You can say that getting rid of optimizing for PS platforms is a benefit but is it really? They still have to make those games for two very different Xbox Series specifications AND a gamut of PC configs, ALL for Day 1 support.

Take COD for example; they'll now need to prioritize PC for Day 1 and if Phil's words are true, bringing COD to Switch and all that, now they have to also optimize for that system Day 1 too. At which point, what's the real benefit in removing the PS5 out of the equation? You surely won't need near the amount of hardcore optimizing for that as you would the Switch, and they're both platforms owned by other companies both of whom don't have GamePass support on their systems.

That's just kind of the way I see it, anyway.

Eliminating PlayStation lessens the amount of optimizing and developing that they have to do. It's still less work which in general, is still a positive for those working there.

I don't see COD going on Switch. Phil said that he would like to see it. I would like to see a lot of things too but that doesn't mean it will happen. Even if it does, it would be via cloud streaming so I don't see much optimizing being necessary since it would be the Series X version most likely running through the Switch.

The workplace stuff, yeah it all remains to be seen how it all goes and plays out. But I can't imagine that it would be the same or worse than what it currently is under ABK and Kotick.

Well for EA, their business model just doesn't call for it. That may change with them losing the FIFA license tho, if only for that specific IP.

Whether these publishers want to compete with MS or not isn't really the question to ask; if they feel the move is best for their bottom line versus what arrangements they currently have with Microsoft, then they'll make that move.

Agreed. Just sucks that EA puts their games day one on PC but not console. Oh well.

 

[Darth Vader]

Wrong claim is wrong no matter my reading skills lol

My claim was that there are adblocks built for M3 already, that's all.

UltraBlock blocks ads, trackers and remove cookies

UltraBlock is a adblock and privacy protection browser extension for Chrome, Edge and FireFox. It makes websites load super-fast and prevents third-parties from tracking you online.

ultrablock.org

The first prototype of AdGuard MV3 extension is here

We put a lot of effort into developing an experimental browser extension that could meet all the requirements of Manifest V3 (Chrome's new extension API) and block ads properly within its tight confines. Read the article to find out what we went through and what we achieved.

adguard.com

And there are. Some functionality may be lost, but for the common user there are pretty much no changes.

Man you are really something but what you can expect from somebody that believes TLOU Part 1 is a new game lol

Irrelevant to this conversation, but you needed to bring it because you're a slimmy cunt.

Every time I expose something against a company you try to say it is not true lol

And who's saying your "exposure" is without merits? Again, learn how to read. It should be mandatory to have the reading skills of a 6 year old before joining this forum.

 

[Bryank75]

I genuinely hope no Japanese developer agrees to join Microsoft, only to get managed into the ground, with troubled gaming development and delays because that would be sad to see if that happens only because they fall for the money!

I don't think they will. If they did, the company would be ruined...the sales would turn to nothing and I could see all the staff leaving eventually.

But there are safeguards in place to protect the bigger companies at least.