If that's his opinion, then they've already failed. Just ask yourself this: what 3P publisher tells a platform holder how long they intend to publish games on their system? And tries signing a legally-binding contract to enforce that? When the deal is literally just the 3P publisher bringing the game to a system they were already intending to bring to that system anyway?
If Microsoft weren't trying to play both sides of the same coin, they could have just came out and said to regulators "We are acting on behalf as a third-party, multiplatform publisher and will be bringing all ABK games to all existing platform brands, under all the terms and conditions in which ABK games currently operate on various platform brands. ABK will function as a fully independent subsidiary under Microsoft Gaming, in perpetuity. We will also ensure that ABK games find their way onto even more platforms, including Nintendo Switch and Nvidia GeForce Now."
Now THAT'S probably a behavioral remedy regulators would probably be okay with, because they know there are things Microsoft would have to legally perform in order to honor that type of statement. But the reason Microsoft didn't say that, is because they want to kind of be a third-party publisher, but also kind of want to compete as a platform holder against Sony, and kind of compete as a cloud & subscription-based provider against Google & Amazon (two companies they did NOT provide a contract with similar to what they've done with Nvidia), all simultaneously.
They don't want to commit to one path so they're giving the bare minimum of promises in soft behavioral remedies and hoping that'll be enough.
Maybe they'll get the real Game Pass numbers from them
This is really making me wonder if Microsoft's way of doing MAUs is similar to how companies talk about player counts in GaaS titles. You know, when they always give cumulative lifetimes, but the concurrent amounts are always significantly lower?
TBF it slightly makes me wonder how Sony calculates theirs in ways but at least Sony have actual transparency on PS+ sub counts, so we know their MAUs are at least whatever the PS+ sub counts are in the fiscal reports. And that is a metric ton more transparency than anything Microsoft provides when it comes to sub counts (because even when they did give Game Pass numbers, they never gave Game Pass revenue
)And I guarantee you 100% those same people don't do this with Nintendo. The same Nintendo, that's been dominating Japan with the Switch....why do these same people downplay any talks of a new Sony portable? Don't they want Nintendo to be humbled?
They did the same thing with Steam Deck too; Nintendo's been having a ton of success in gaming and has too many games with the Switch but, you won't hear these hypocritical idiots argue about Nintendo needing "competition" to be humbled, and if you do, it's never in the manner of a competitor buying up publishers like Sega, or companies with IP that could counter Nintendo's (such as Disney) to "compete" with them, the way they're more than fine with MS buying up 3P publishers that generate the majority of their revenue on PlayStation to "compete" with Sony.
These people have gaming opinions worth less than used toilet paper stuck to someone's ass, they don't need to be seriously considered. Merely entertained for being laughed at. It's their sheer hypocrisy and double standards simply to bend flimsy logic one way for another at a moment's notice, that makes them this way.
Last edited:
