[HN Gopher] Xbox has accused Sony of paying Game Pass 'block fee... ___________________________________________________________________ Xbox has accused Sony of paying Game Pass 'block fees' to developers Author : thesuperbigfrog Score : 84 points Date : 2022-08-11 18:50 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.videogameschronicle.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.videogameschronicle.com) | sylware wrote: | where are the glibc/linux native builds of the games from the | studios microsoft owns? | ccouzens wrote: | A lot of double fine games are on Linux. Hopefully Linux | support continues for games funded post MS purchase. | | https://www.doublefine.com/news/mac-and-linux-baby | andrewia wrote: | Linux builds are nice, but they are a ton of work. It basically | doubles the workload testing for PC, which is already complex | due to the thousands of hardware configurations out there. It's | one of a few reasons why Nvidia GeForce Now has more games than | Google Stadia - Stadia requires porting the game to Linux (and | they are an "easier" target since devs only have to support | Google's hardware configurations). Valve gave up on convincing | studios to port their games to Linux and just forked Wine to | make Proton. | Andrex wrote: | Proton (and SteamOS) are the bootstraps that will lift native | Linux gaming ever higher. | | Yes, I've metaphorically had my face stepped on over and over | for this thought, but I do see some winds of change blowing. | | Steam Deck is an inflection point. | chmod775 wrote: | > It basically doubles the workload testing for PC, which is | already complex due to the thousands of hardware | configurations out there. | | This is only true if your engine is abstracting nothing away | and there wasn't any common denominator in APIs across | systems. | | Given that neither is the case for popular game engines, the | statement is wrong. You also don't have to test gameplay | related things on both systems, only technical aspects, and | only a small subset of them. | KerrAvon wrote: | A recompile doesn't mean it works. You have to test the | result. | BoorishBears wrote: | This is completely wrong and doing the bare minimum of | research will show you the nightmare native linux support | has been for some games | | The most high profile case I recall is Rust, but there've | been others | adanto6840 wrote: | Proton is very good. | | The current reality is that it really does increase the | testing surface area by a substantial amount. Even if it's | only +10-20%, the addressable market on Linux is nowhere | near that size, so it is really difficult to make a good | business case for supporting Linux natively. Large studios | could certainly do it, though it'd basically be getting | "subsidized" by other target platforms; small studios | though, not so much, the math just simply doesn't make | sense currently. | | The engine abstractions only do so much for you - at the | end of the day, it's another thing you have to test and | provide support for, with the latter being the most | troublesome and resource-intensive, in my experience. | initplus wrote: | At the same time though, building a game that is easy to | port is good engineering in the first place. Even if you | only release on mainstream platforms, writing platform- | agnostic code can save you so many headaches down the | line when you want to release on console/mobile etc. | [deleted] | norwalkbear wrote: | Sony needs to be broken up. They are trying become a an ultra | mega corp on anime, videogames, streaming, etc Everything they | touch goes to shit with censorship. | PostOnce wrote: | Microsoft's list of faults would make this comment several | megabytes. Sony is not without fault either: they're already | selling a PlayStation with no game slot for a disk or cartridge, | it's download only. They're killing the secondhand market, and | probably the long-term availability of many titles, which in the | future will not be playable (since they'll be lost), only | watchable on YouTube. | | In the game industry specifically though, Microsoft has many | faults: | | Microsoft made Halo an Xbox exclusive when people were waiting | for it on PC, so how can they complain about anyone blocking | anything? This wasn't the only time: | | Halo 2 was a Windows 7 exclusive because they soft-locked it to | some version of DirectX they wouldn't release on XP, and it took | the pirates 5 minutes to make it work on XP, clearly that was | artificial. | | Microsoft promised that Rare's upcoming game Kameo would be on | the Xbox, but they converted it to a 360 exclusive to try to drum | up sales for 360. | | They started charging people to use their own internet | connections with Xbox live, so we all played on VLANs with the | games on LAN mode, now every game company charges to play online. | | Anyway, Microsoft is a terrible company, always has been, always | will be. | | They also invented Pluton, put ads in the start menu, blah. Don't | give them money. | | This push to move to subscription may ruin gaming as an artform, | and the more these companies fight and fuck that up, the better. | Hopefully if they bicker enough it'll ruin the whole concept of a | subscription. | [deleted] | Andrex wrote: | > Microsoft's list of faults would make this comment several | megabytes. Sony is not without fault either: they're already | selling a PlayStation with no game slot for a disk or | cartridge, it's download only. They're killing the secondhand | market, and probably the long-term availability of many titles, | which in the future will not be playable (since they'll be | lost), only watchable on YouTube. | | You lost me here. The solution is to improve library | portability and backwards compatibility, not clinging to | increasingly-obsolete physical formats. | | Imagine putting a cartridge in your phone for every app. | Insanity. | xyzzy_plugh wrote: | This is all a race to the bottom and we're all going to be worse | off for it. These subscription services started off innocuous | enough by recycling old content, injecting life and cash into | nearly dead (but good!) titles. And the subscriptions ate and ate | and ate. And now they sign deals with studios before the game is | even off the ground. Don't even get me started on all the | acquisitions. | | In the modern world of the internet, providing both a platform | and a service ultimately stifles competition which ultimately | harms consumers. | | It's great that small studios are reaping the wild cash | injections due to Game Pass, or PS+ or Apple's thing. It can be a | life changing amount of funding. I'm happy for them. But it can't | continue indefinitely without extinguishing the entire industry. | | It's getting harder and more expensive to publish, whether | bootstrapped or otherwise. And the publishers are rapidly | conglomerating. | | The early 21st century was ripe with rampant piracy and | unbundling. And now we're practically worse than where we | started. We own less, nothing is portable, we are slaves to the | recurring subscription, and we must sell ourselves to the | platform to put food on the table. | | It's all so depressing. | [deleted] | thrwyoilarticle wrote: | Companies paying for exclusives so customers will pay to access | exclusives feels like bad economics. It's reduces the number of | people something can be sold to. My best explanation is that | it's developers and content creators selling potential upside | in return for reducing their risk - Microsoft can diversify | between multiple games. | | I suppose it's a bit like advertising a platform that makes | money via advertising, which hasn't collapsed yet. | Victerius wrote: | I haven't bought a new game since 2021. At this point, I'm | prepared to give up on video games completely. Once the | multiplayer servers of the 2-3 games I still play[1] are shut | down. | | Now I'm growing my book collection instead. No subscriptions, | DLC or microtransactions for those at least. | | [1] Star Wars Battlefront II (2017), Ace Combat 7, and Mass | Effect Legendary Edition | eertami wrote: | > Now I'm growing my book collection instead. No | subscriptions, DLC or microtransactions for those at least | | No subscriptions, DLC, or microtransactions... yet. | thesuperbigfrog wrote: | > > Now I'm growing my book collection instead. No | subscriptions, DLC or microtransactions for those at least | | > No subscriptions, DLC, or microtransactions... yet. | | Hopefully not the future: | https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html | blargey wrote: | "You see, your honor, it would foster more competition if we | owned the developers/publishers outright and decided their | distribution platforms unilaterally, instead of having to price | our distribution platform to compete with other company's | exclusivity deals" | blargey wrote: | Legal slap fights aside, it's interesting to hear about these | "block fees" that target this specific subset of Microsoft's | platform. Since it isn't involved in the big launch sales, and | feels more common among smaller budget / indie games, it may be | much cheaper for Sony to offer this deal to many prospective | Games Pass games. | | (Though the laissez-faire answer to Microsoft's frustrations | remains "well Microsoft's publishing platform should pay more | than a figment of Sony's marketing budget if it's actually a | profitable/sustainable business unit") | [deleted] | daoist_shaman wrote: | Shhh, don't point fingers at their anti-competitive | acquisitions and mergers. It's clearly the people paying fair | wages in a free market who are at fault. /s | prvit wrote: | Did Xbox spin-off from Microsoft? | [deleted] | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | When it suits them: "exclusive deal" | | When it doesn't: "IT'S A BLOCK FEE" | aardvarkr wrote: | I recommend that you read the article. Sony is trying to block | the activision merger on grounds that Microsoft could block | Sony from having access to Call of Duty on their platform. | Microsoft is countering by submitting evidence that Sony | actively employs the very same strategy of blocking games from | being played on rival systems that they're claiming is | anticompetitive, demonstrating the hypocrisy of their claim. | [deleted] | causi wrote: | Look I love Game Pass as much as anyone but it's a true act of | cuntery for Microsoft to do things as heinous as making Elder | Scrolls 6 a Microsoft platform exclusive and then cry foul when | Sony does the same. "Cries out as he strikes you" indeed. | PretzelPirate wrote: | Isn't it the other way around? Sony pushes hard for platform | exclusivity and deals that work against Xbox and now Gamepass. | It's only natural that Microsoft will want to compete and get | leverage. | 015a wrote: | Everyone has been doing this since forever. Halo was | originally supposed to be released on MacOS (!!); then | Microsoft bought up Bungie and made it an Xbox exclusive. | Sony paid Call of Duty / Activision millions to get exclusive | content (like maps, cosmetics, marketing, etc) on | PlayStation; before Microsoft bought up Activision. Epic is | infamous for their massive spend to gain exclusive | distribution of PC games; in only one example, it was | revealed that they paid ~$10M USD for one year of exclusive | distribution of Control (the game's budget was only ~$36M | USD, if that's any indication of how insane these deals are, | but oftentimes they're structured in-part as a pre-payment of | sales, not just a big free check). | | All of this is shitty, but its like two pigs arguing who is | more covered in mud. | ace2358 wrote: | Halo was released on Mac OS X though. I have the game on | dvd. | lilyball wrote: | 2 years later though. | | Bungie used to make games for macOS. The predecessor | Marathon Trilogy was originally released on macOS (and | only Marathon 2 was ported to Windows). Halo was supposed | to be originally released on macOS too, and then | Microsoft bought the studio and turned it into an Xbox | game, leaving all of the existing macOS userbase out in | the cold. | | Their purchase of Bungie also screwed up the IP rights to | Oni. Wikipedia says that when Microsoft acquired Bungie, | negotiations with Take-Two Interactive (which owned a | share of Bungie) left Take-Two with the rights to Oni, | and the sequel was eventually canceled. I don't have a | citation on this but from what I understand, nobody is | willing to touch Oni again (not even for an HD remake) | because something about the IP rights is so messy that | nobody wants to (or maybe nobody is even able to) | untangle it. Which really sucks because it was a great | game. | 015a wrote: | Right yeah, that's my mistake; it was showcased for | release on both OSX and Windows at a MacWorld conference | in the late 90s; Microsoft purchased Bungie in like 2000, | and after that acquisition they added on an Xbox release. | flutas wrote: | Realistically, didn't most of this _start_ when MS paid | massive amounts for time exclusive DLC in the 360 era for | some of the biggest games like Skyrim[0] or COD (5 years in a | row)[1], or flat out exclusive content in GTA IV[2]? To me | this seems like MS is crying that Sony stole their playbook | and is doing it better. Granted either of them doing it is | bad for consumers in general. | | [0]: https://www.eurogamer.net/skyrim-dlc-timed- | xbox-360-exclusiv... | | [1]: https://www.eurogamer.net/after-five-years-of-xbox- | exclusivi... | | [2]: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2007/06/gta-iv- | downloadable-c... | girvo wrote: | No, Sony has always had exclusive agreements with certain | studios properties (and then purchased those studios later | on) going back to the late 90s, before Microsoft ever | entered the console market. | | This sort of behaviour was well established in the | industry. | [deleted] | cammikebrown wrote: | As a big PlayStation fanboy who pretty much hates Microsoft... | Sony aren't saints either. The stuff Microsoft attempted with | the Xbox One being online only, Kinect only was really bad | though | henriquecm8 wrote: | I think Microsoft is claiming that Sony is paying for third | parties not to go to Game pass, while Microsoft bought | Bethesda, so now it will be first party. | gjs278 wrote: | partiallypro wrote: | The complaint is against paying 3rd parties though, not owning | your own first party and doing it. I guess it would be like if | Apple paid Uber, Whatsapp etc to only make their apps for the | AppStore and not Android. I don't know if that's a good | argument though because music streamers do it all the time. | xyzzy_plugh wrote: | Do you believe that Apple does _not_ participate in this sort | of behavior? Because they do. | [deleted] | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | It is "exclusive" to Xbox and PC. | Rackedup wrote: | PC/Windows? or PC/Linux? | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | Unless they only distribute it on the Microsoft store does | it matter? I play a lot of Windows "exclusives" on my Linux | desktop. | smoldesu wrote: | Should work just fine on Proton, previous-gen Creation | Engine games worked fine with Wine and DXVK. A few games | even have Linux-exclusive patches to prevent crashing on | alt-tab, as well as a few performance improvements under | the hood. | BudaDude wrote: | It really depends on much more locked down the engine | will become with ES6. Fallout 4 was notoriously hard to | mod for and the modding community suffered for it. | | Of course modding difficulty doesn't translate directly | to how well Proton will run it, but I fear it will make | it difficult for it to be optimized. | kistaro wrote: | The article suggests that Microsoft is attempting to defend | against a lawsuit by Sony attempting to block an acquisition | here, in which Sony is suggesting it would be anticompetitive | because it would make a popular franchise platform-exclusive. | This doesn't look to me like Microsoft is "crying foul" at all | - instead, they're "crying fair", arguing that they should be | allowed to do it because Sony is doing something similar. | thesuperbigfrog wrote: | "Sony's desire to impede such growth has prevented Microsoft from | expanding Game Pass. To stop content creators from adding to Game | Pass and other rival subscription services, Sony pays for | 'blocking rights.'" | | "These kinds of platform agreements are common in the games | industry, and in documents made public as part of the Epic vs. | Apple lawsuit last year, PlayStation was even mentioned as | blocking the appearance of third-party games on Game Pass." | | How are "blocking rights" legal? | | Don't they violate anti-trust / competition laws? | kmeisthax wrote: | Yes, they do violate antitrust. But there are two problems with | enforcement: | | 1. The arrangement in question relates to trade of copyrighted | works; which means that any antitrust lawsuit has to jump over | the hurdle of not restraining the copyright monopoly. | Separability of copyright and exclusive licensing are also | considered to be well-established components of the copyright | monopoly. | | 2. The consumer welfare standard is so high a bar to antitrust | enforcement that a lot of clearly illegal behavior is never | prosecuted. | | That last one deserves more explanation. In the 1980s a bunch | of federal judges decided to repeal US antitrust law from the | bench. They argued - with scant evidence - that antitrust | action had to prove that consumers were harmed by monopolistic | action. This is the exact same argument Apple and console | vendors use to justify locking down their products; that it | actually benefits consumers to have to buy their software from | sources authorized by the hardware manufacturer. | | In practice, there is no monopoly that does _not_ improve | consumer welfare. Monopolies are the most stable business | arrangement and can bully the rest of the economy into doing | what the customer wants. The whole point of antitrust is that | we don 't want to live under privately-owned government, not | that avocados could be 2 cents cheaper. | jfim wrote: | Are they really a violation of antitrust? They're not really | different from exclusive supplier relationships or | exclusivity deals in other industries. | | As you point out, it's pretty accepted in the copyright | industry to have exclusivity deals. If I want to get Katy | Perry's album, then I buy the Capitol records one, I can't | get it from Sony. Or I can only stream on services where that | artist is available, so if it's not on Tidal, then tough luck | for users of that service. | BolexNOLA wrote: | Music is a little different because you don't need | proprietary hardware in order to listen to music. | Everything plays an MP3. A CD is a CD and all CD players | play CD's. | | With console video games, you can't just pop the game disc | into any disc tray that plays games. You can't run your | downloaded Xbox game on the PlayStation. The thing you | licensed (since we don't own them technically) is tied to | proprietary hardware. | | Imagine if you had to own a Mac in order to listen to your | music you bought on iTunes/Apple Music | Animats wrote: | Microsoft tried that with Zune.[1] It was unpopular. | | [1] https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/support- | for-rights... | blargey wrote: | In the videogames industry, it's fundamentally the same | category of competition (or stifling thereof) as an | acquisition. | | When Sony or Microsoft acquire game studios or publishers, both | the goal and method is the same - giving their platform an | advantage by paying a lump sum for control over the target | platforms and storefronts of one or more games. | | So it's presumably also a case-by-case thing, like other big | acquisitions / cumulative patterns of acquisitions. | | So far, the industry seems to be "healthy enough" in spite of | these sorts of deals. The big storefront/console competitors | that are attacking each other are all huge and evenly matched, | so none of them can exert this sort of control over anywhere | near a majority of the market. | kahrl wrote: | Probably, but do laws actually matter in white-collar America? | As long as the right groups get the right cut, the system will | continue. | [deleted] | EMIRELADERO wrote: | Yes, laws do matter. Were it otherwise civil courts would | have lots of free time. The legal system isn't known for | being the corruption oasis that movies make it out to be. | Judgmentality wrote: | > Were it otherwise civil courts would have lots of free | time. | | Laws don't have to matter for you to waste a court's time. | In fact dragging out court cases is a common legal tactic. | | > The legal system isn't known for being the corruption | oasis that movies make it out to be. | | Your experience differs from mine. It also differs from | most lawyers I know. Lawyers aren't famous for drinking | heavily because they think they're making the world a | better place. | | Why do you think the court system works? What country do | you live in? | ineedasername wrote: | >How are "blocking rights" legal? Don't they violate anti-trust | / competition laws? | | Unfortunately it doesn't seem like it. It's not uncommon in the | pharmaceutical industry either: When a drug patent expires the | company will sometimes pay generic manufacturers _to not_ | manufacture the drug for a period of time. | rexf wrote: | I don't see a problem with Sony (or MS/Nintendo/Apple/etc) | _paying_ game developers to keep their games exclusive to a | platform. Game creators make decisions on where to put their | games and how to monetize. | | Epic Games is notorious for giving "free games" where consumers | get the game for free, but EG is paying the publisher/developer | behind the scenes. So the game creators are getting paid. | breakingcups wrote: | Amazon does it for their K&P / Kindle Unlimited offering to | authors. If you want your book to be available in this program | (and you _do_ want it because it accounts for a huge chunk of | your income on Amazon, depending on genre) you need to agree to | not have your book be available _anywhere_ else. Not on Apple, | not in Barnes and Noble, nowhere. | ChadNauseam wrote: | I think the exclusivity only applies to the eBook versions. I | know Will Wight is able to sell hardcover copies of his books | on Kickstarter, but mentioned he couldn't give eBook versions | because of his Kindle Unlimited deal. | swatcoder wrote: | Assuming Sony is paying the publisher some _fairly negotiated_ | compensation for what they'd have otherwise project earning | from GamePass presence, what's the anti-competitive element? | | Just that the game is available through some channels and not | others? Because that's normal in retail. There are exclusivity | deals _everywhere_. | | Or is there some reason to believe Sony is somehow pressuring | publishers to take an unfair deal? It's possible, but I haven't | read about that yet. | EMIRELADERO wrote: | I don't think it is per se. Exclusive dealing is a common | practice in many sectors. | | Circumstances can make it illegal, however. | Kukumber wrote: | Microsoft is choosing the wrong enemy to fight | | Nintendo is the only winner, and i suspect Apple in the coming | years will be the only one competing with Nintendo, since Sony | abandoned the handheld market, and Microsoft has no interests in | the mobile market | | GamePass is the bastardisation of gaming, that'll end up killing | gaming as we know it, and the Xbox brand, it is not even | profitable for game studios, it's just an attempt for Microsoft | to pump a meaningless number, and it doesn't even help their | earning reports | | EU is moving to force Apple/Google to open up their ecosystem for | 3rd party stores, Sony/Microsoft have 0 presence there, if steam | doesn't try, then it's game over for all 3 of them | | I suspect in the mid-long term, Apple, Google, Epic will be the 3 | main actors of the gaming industry | | Microsoft will give up and focus on their cloud gaming | infrastructure | | Looking at console and game sales, it is clear that Microsoft is | not a strong gaming brand; even when their competitors are | struggling with supply chain issues, they fail to capitalize on | that | | https://www.vgchartz.com/ a great website to gain some precious | knowledge about their individual performance | AJRF wrote: | > I suspect in the mid-long term, Apple, Google, Epic will be | the 3 main actors of the gaming industry | | - Apple - the perennial "also-ran" name in gaming fundamentally | don't get gaming. Never had, never will. | | - Google - Stadia will die within the next 2 years. Wager my | house on that. | | - Epic - Yeah they will be around. | | I don't want to sound offensive but you sound like you know | close to nothing about the game industry. You've not even | mentioned Valve and you discount the fact that Microsoft have | bought up multiple huge gaming studios in the past few years - | deals worth multiple billions. Anyone with even a brief | interest in the market would likely find your prediction | nothing short of delusional. | pandemicsyn wrote: | > Nintendo is the only winner, and i suspect Apple in the | coming years will be the only one competing with Nintendo, | since Sony abandoned the handheld market, and Microsoft has no | interests in the mobile market | | Valve? MS will compete that way indirectly. I snagged a | SteamDeck - I haven't played games this much in a long time. | Since getting it I've played through a bunch of triple A games | (God of War, replayed the mass effect trilogy, etc), and a | whole host of Nintendo exclusives via emulation. | | The fact that Nintendo lawyers are working overtime taking down | youtube SteamDeck videos that barely even mention emulation | feels like an admission that they know the steamdeck is a | threat. They sure didn't seem to work as hard to take down | videos showing emulation for other platforms like the Aya Neo. | [deleted] | PaulHoule wrote: | I think you're right that Game Pass is a terrible idea. | | It reminds me of what happened to cable TV. Back in the 1980s | cable channels all had definite brands to uphold. The cable | bundle meant, however, that you had to take them all or leave | them all. You couldn't pick your favorite news channel, you had | to get all of them. Like the Discovery Channel? You pay for the | Hallmark Channel. | | Cable channels thus don't have any motivation to be any good. | They get paid whether or not you like them, whether or not you | watch them. So why bother? | | The cable industry "thrived" for many years by simply jacking | up the price, something that people tolerated for a while but | each time they increase the price they lose a few subscribers, | every time there is a funeral a cable TV subscriber is gone and | they don't get replaced by anyone new. | | It irks me that young people who didn't live through this think | anything is going to be different with GAME PASS. Each time I | see that logo on my Xbox it makes my blood boil -- I am | thinking about getting rid of it since it doesn't play music | well, doesn't play HEVC videos at all, and there aren't that | many games I want to play on it. I still keep it though because | it plays Blu-Ray. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | > still keep it though because it plays Blu-Ray | | You pay a monthly subscription fee in order to watch your | Blu-Ray movies? You know you can pickup a used Blu-Ray player | at goodwill and friends for like $20? | PaulHoule wrote: | I don't pay a subscription to watch Blu-Ray movies, it is | just Microsoft advertises GAME PASS so hard it's like they | are trying to shove that logo up my nostrils. (Microsoft | has a long history of killing products by selling them too | hard; for instance everybody thinks that "OneNote has to be | awful because Microsoft shoved three links to OneNote in | the taskbar" whereas if you'd actually tried OneNote you | might have liked it.) | | For a while my main use for the XBox has been as a media | client for Jellyfin but it's pretty annoying because it | doesn't play HEVC files. Microsoft changed something about | its music player and it doesn't work with Jellyfin anymore. | | I haven't played games on the XBox for a while. It's not | like I might not play games on it again but I still have a | Nintendo 3DS, Steam, both of which have a considerable | backlog for me. | glitchc wrote: | Well except advertising dollars did flow to viewer eyeballs, | and it's cable advertising, not subscription fees, that came | to dominate the revenue model. | gengear wrote: | you are forgetting the largest gaming company is tencent. | ineedasername wrote: | The Steam Deck-- at least among PC gamers-- is an extremely | attractive option over Nintendo. Bring your existing game | library with you, play much more demanding games, benefit from | deep discounts on PC games that almost never make it to | Nintendo versions. | | I bought a switch to play portable versions of PC indie games | but since I got the Deck I haven't touched it. | | Production of units has picked up so the order bottleneck is | easing up, which is part for the course with Nintendo as well: | I couldn't find on OLED model anywhere for months & months | after it's release for my kid. | | The downside of course is significant bulk. Battery is less of | an issue, despite what some people say. If I'm playing a | demanding game away from a power source I just tweak the power | settings, sometimes lower the resolution and let FSR (which | works great) help improve the visuals, and getting 2-3 hours on | even the most demanding games is then not an issue. 4-5 hours | on less demanding games. And carry a battery pack that will | supply an extra charge. But yeah, definitely it doesn't work so | well if you _have_ to have something that will fit in a pocket. | marcodiego wrote: | Posted yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32418130 | [deleted] | pvg wrote: | These make sense when there's discussion to read at the | previous post and there isn't in that one. | Ekaros wrote: | At least Microsoft has good grace to buy the entire studio... | yoyohello13 wrote: | Exactly! I find if funny that Microsoft is complaining about | Sony buying "blocking rights" when Microsoft is doing | effectively the same thing. It just costs them more money. | girvo wrote: | You know Sony has also been purchasing studios left right and | centre for... well, literally forever? And each one of their | exclusive games from other studios has money behind the | scenes to convince them too? Microsoft absolutely does the | same shit, of course. None of these companies are our friends | lol | sylens wrote: | I'd much prefer Microsoft buying a studio right now than | Sont. When Sony buys a studio, I'm required to buy a $500 box | and pay $70 to play future games from them. | | Microsoft lets me play it on PC or stream it for $10 or $15 a | month. The lower barrier to entry has let me try out and | discover a bunch of new titles I actually enjoy. | cma wrote: | Sony has been doing PC releases recently of many former | exclusives from studios they own, like with Horizon: Zero | Dawn and God of War. | Narishma wrote: | The entire publisher even. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-11 23:00 UTC)