Jim Sterling criticizes Microsoft's role in normalizing microtransactions (see staff post)

[MarvelousIntent]

no one wants skins to show off to themselves.

that's why they show up in mp games.

mtx keeps paying the bills for the expected years of maps and support for the mp part of games

Click to shrink...

They are but why would anyone care if someone wants to spend their money on stupid shit? It has pretty much no bearing on the game so it's a stupid complaint. You can play any title he mentioned from the MS side and just ignore the Micro transactions.

Click to shrink...

Well, now, hold on a second. I for one remember a time when skins and cosmetics were earned through gameplay and challenges, not sold at a premium. One of Marvel's Spider-Man's best features is the abundance of skins to choose from. I'm madly in love with the Future Foundation, Spirit Spider, 2099 White, Scarlet Spider, and many more. It isn't even a multiplayer game, yet the amount of options is staggering. I love being able to customize my look and take pictures. Hell, the Batman Arkham games did the same thing before Spider-Man. Frankly, I'd love for more single-player games to have unlockable skins. I'd love to play through the entirety of Kingdom Hearts 2 with the Halloween Town or Valor Form skins. I don't want these skins to show off to others. I want them for myself, to make my character look fan-fuckin'-tastic. Alt costumes are also great for covering abysmal costumes like Velvet from Tales of Berseria.

 

[oni-link]

I know, it's kinda like owning your own mistakes and not blaming others, but in corporate world.

Click to shrink...

Yeah and that's why it's a weird take. Corporations are not moral, they're legally obligated to make money for their shareholders while not breaking the law

The soon as one company does something shitty, but legal, and people opt to lap it up, that companies competitors can't really justify not making the same move when their investors demand it

You can't really tell your investors you are going to refuse to do something that will make you easy money on moral grounds, unless you can leverage that moral high ground into positive PR

They probably could do that, but PSN makes billions a year, so it's not worth forgoing that in lieu of a minor PR advantage

Now there are clearly issues around the entire system, but because of how the financial system we live under works, it 100% means the first company to popularise a shitty move deserves more of the blame than those who follow suit. MS are more to blame for normalising paid online than anyone else

You ignoring that because you feel like companies act more like individual people, is a weird take

 

[More Butter]

Well, now, hold on a second. I for one remember a time when skins and cosmetics were earned through gameplay and challenges, not sold at a premium. One of Marvel's Spider-Man's best features is the abundance of skins to choose from. I'm madly in love with the Future Foundation, Spirit Spider, 2099 White, Scarlet Spider, and many more. It isn't even a multiplayer game, yet the amount of options is staggering. I love being able to customize my look and take pictures. Hell, the Batman Arkham games did the same thing before Spider-Man. Frankly, I'd love for more single-player games to have unlockable skins. I'd love to play through the entirety of Kingdom Hearts 2 with the Halloween Town or Valor Form skins. I don't want these skins to show off to others. I want them for myself, to make my character look fan-fuckin'-tastic. Alt costumes are also great for covering abysmal costumes like Velvet from Tales of Berseria.

Click to shrink...

That's a fair point. I'm talking out of my ass. Just cause I'm not into most MP cosmetics doesn't mean that visual upgrades aren't important to game progression.

 

[jviggy43]

In fairness, with Amiibo you at least get something tangible for your money. Whether they're worth what you pay is a different question.

Click to shrink...

While true the fact they still have mtxs tied to them, and maybe the worst form of mtxs given you can never know which ones will have content in future games and are shipped in such low numbers that it becomes a shit show knowing which ones to get, the emphasis on the video was on first party mtxs and leaving them out and categorizing nintendo first party games as only having mostly dlc level expansions is a point Jim either completely didnt think about or intentionally left it out of the argument to make his case stronger.

 

[watdaeff4]

But they certainly aren't mtx when You consider what they offer. A physical item, not locked to a single game, transferrable. Etc. And it's about the price of a Funko pop that you probably also have one of somewhere

Click to shrink...

Their Price relative to Pops are irrelevant

Yes or no question are they marketed that buying one haves extra in game bonuses or content that you wouldn't get without spending the money. My sons have all wanted amiibo and all for the reason for the ingame content

If you don't want to consider them a MTX for whatever reason. Ok. I'm not going to keep back and forth as there is nothing either one of us will say to change the mind of the other

 

[Trey]

Yeah and that's why it's a weird take. Corporations are not moral, they're legally obligated to make money for their shareholders while not breaking the law

The soon as one company does something shitty, but legal, and people opt to lap it up, that companies competitors can't really justify not making the same move when their investors demand it

You can't really tell your investors you are going to refuse to do something that will make you easy money on moral grounds, unless you can leverage that moral high ground into positive PR

They probably could do that, but PSN makes billions a year, so it's not worth forgoing that in lieu of a minor PR advantage

Now there are clearly issues around the entire system, but because of how the financial system we live under works, it 100% means the first company to popularise a shitty move deserves more of the blame than those who follow suit. MS are more to blame for normalising paid online than anyone else

You ignoring that because you feel like companies act more like individual people, is a weird take

Click to shrink...

"More to blame" for paid online in a general sense, sure. Xbox Live has done more to standardize the modern online experience on console, for better or worse, than anything Sony and nintendo did combined. Microsoft definitely blazed that trail. But the "blame" for deciding to charge for online is solely owned by the platform holder, because they're the only ones who can make that unilateral decision, regardless of the market pressures from competitors.

 

[watdaeff4]

While true the fact they still have mtxs tied to them, and maybe the worst form of mtxs given you can never know which ones will have content in future games and are shipped in such low numbers that it becomes a shit show knowing which ones to get, the emphasis on the video was on first party mtxs and leaving them out and categorizing nintendo first party games as only having mostly dlc level expansions is a point Jim either completely didnt think about or intentionally left it out of the argument to make his case stronger.

Click to shrink...

Well said

 

[Dekuman]

Their Price relative to Pops are irrelevant

Yes or no question are they marketed that buying one haves extra in game bonuses or content that you wouldn't get without spending the money. My sons have all wanted amiibo and all for the reason for the ingame content

If you don't want to consider them a MTX for whatever reason. Ok. I'm not going to keep back and forth as there is nothing either one of us will say to change the mind of the other

Click to shrink...

They are toys. The price is in line with equivalent toys so it is relevant in that regard.

The charge that amiibos are mtx have always struck me as salty during the period amiibos were doing really well and as deflection of actual terrible mtx practices. Note that in this whole discussion you haven't really clarified why Jim is wrong, just dragged Nintendo in for no reason

 

[oni-link]

"More to blame" for paid online in a general sense, sure. Xbox Live has done more to standardize the modern online experience on console, for better or worse, than anything Sony and nintendo did combined. Microsoft definitely blazed that trail. But the "blame" for deciding to charge for online is solely owned by the platform holder, because they're the only ones who can make that unilateral decision, regardless of the market pressures from competitors.

Click to shrink...

I think we agree, I'm not saying the others are blameless. I just think it's weird to give them all equal blame when MS set the precedent

Your first 10 words are essentially what I'm arguing

 

[jviggy43]

They are toys. The price is in line with equivalent toys so it is relevant in that regard.

The charge that amiibos are mtx have always struck me as salty during the period amiibos were doing really well and as deflection of actual terrible mtx practices. Note that in this whole discussion you haven't really clarified why Jim is wrong, just dragged Nintendo in for no reason

Click to shrink...

Honestly arguing the mtxs aren't mtxs because you get a toy on top of them is an awful take. Jim is wrong because they are mtxs, the games nintendo ships have mtxs tied to toys. The fact you get a toy on top of it doesn't change the fact that they are mtxs tied to nintendo first party games (and third party games), which is an argument Jim was making (that nintendo is largely devoid of mtxs when theyre not).

 

[uncledonnie]

Has Xbox ever led a generation? I find it unconvincing to give them credit (or blame) for other platform holders adopting their practices from an equal or leading position.

 

[Trey]

I think we agree, I'm not saying the others are blameless. I just think it's weird to give them all equal blame when MS set the precedent

Your first 10 words are essentially what I'm arguing

Click to shrink...

I think it's less blaming all three for paid online in general, and more blaming MS for charging for XBLG, Sony for charging for PSN+, and Nintendo for NSO.

 

[watdaeff4]

Note that in this whole discussion you haven't really clarified why Jim is wrong, just dragged Nintendo in for no reason

Click to shrink...

Jim implied that Nintendo didn't have MTX. I stated pretty clearly why I disagree. you are just acting like I didn't clarify because you don't agree (or like?) that amiibo also serve as MTX. So that's just another disparaging remark that I "dragged Nintendo in for no reason" Read through the posts (some who have even quoted you) it seems I'm not the only one who view amiibo as MTX.

This is a pretty tasteless method of you throwing in barbs at here and there. I think we are done here, have a good day.

 

[Wandu]

Has Xbox ever led a generation? I find it unconvincing to give them credit (or blame) for other platform holders adopting their practices from an equal or leading position.

Click to shrink...

It's more that as a first party publisher, Microsoft embraced more which in turn conditioned consumers that this is the future for the practice than Sony/Nintendo. Has nothing to do with leading a generation, but more to do with normalizing certain things that consumers do not like to pay for/accept that is the price to pay for things. An example would be "paying online console gaming". It doesn't matter what is going on in the back end or how you feel about the service, as a consumer, nowadays you know that is an expected price to pay in order to play MP games online when last gen Sony had that service for free.

In the context of this thread, MS did not start MTXs, but Jim's argument is at the start of this gen with XB1's original DRM policies and games were geared more towards having MTXs in them. Doesn't matter if they are optional or if you don't buy them or not, it's the fact that the games were designed around them as a first party publisher.

 

[Chronos]

Apparently he never played Last of Us or Uncharted 4 multiplayer..... transactions galore. I mean you were able to buy weapons in the Last of Us

Click to shrink...

I thought he should have mentioned this at the least for fairness and accuracy sake. It is worth noting that Naughty Dog games are the only one's that participate in mtx like this (I think). Overall though, I don't think it detracts from the strength of his thesis. I hadn't thought of it like this, but MS monetization practices are much more predatory than I had thought or perceived.

 

[Dekuman]

Honestly arguing the mtxs aren't mtxs because you get a toy on top of them is an awful take. Jim is wrong because they are mtxs, the games nintendo ships have mtxs tied to toys. The fact you get a toy on top of it doesn't change the fact that they are mtxs tied to nintendo first party games (and third party games), which is an argument Jim was making (that nintendo is largely devoid of mtxs when theyre not).

Click to shrink...

Even if I grant you they are mtx, what does it prove? Amiibos are actually decreasing in release slate since Switch so Nintendo isnt exactly embracing it.

This whole line of discussion is pretty dire tbh

 

[watdaeff4]

I think we agree, I'm not saying the others are blameless. I just think it's weird to give them all equal blame when MS set the precedent

Your first 10 words are essentially what I'm arguing

Click to shrink...

Yeah, MS opened the gates, consumers responded and the rest saw the 'easy money'

To act like MS wasn't the driving force is kinda interesting.

 

[Azerth]

the only ones to blame for mtx having a foothold are gamers. if gamers didnt spend money on them then pub wouldnt waste time putting them in. as we have seen in the past with online passes and now lootboxes.

 

[watdaeff4]

the only ones to blame for mtx having a foothold are gamers. if gamers didnt spend money on them then pub wouldnt waste time putting them in. as we have seen in the past with online passes and now lootboxes.

Click to shrink...

The "only ones to blame?"

C'mon now.......

 

[uncledonnie]

It's more that as a first party publisher, Microsoft embraced more which in turn conditioned consumers that this is the future for the practice than Sony/Nintendo. Has nothing to do with leading a generation, but more to do with normalizing certain things that consumers do not like to pay for/accept that is the price to pay for things. An example would be "paying online console gaming". It doesn't matter what is going on in the back end or how you feel about the service, as a consumer, nowadays you know that is an expected price to pay in order to play MP games online when last gen Sony had that service for free.

In the context of this thread, MS did not start MTXs, but Jim's argument is at the start of this gen with XB1's original DRM policies and games were geared more towards having MTXs in them. Doesn't matter if they are optional or if you don't buy them or not, it's the fact that the games were designed around them as a first party publisher.

Click to shrink...

Oh I understand his argument I just don't buy it. Games like Ryse and Crimson Dragon sold far less than other titles with micro-transactions in the same timeframe or earlier (including first party titles from Sony). Having never been the leading platform holder of a generation I think he's grossly overstating the influence Microsoft has on the customer base and industry. The adoption of these practices has very little to do with consumers being somehow conditioned to these things because Microsoft as a platform holder utilized them.

 

[BioDigital Jazzman]

I thought he should have mentioned this at the least for fairness and accuracy sake. It is worth noting that Naughty Dog games are the only one's that participate in mtx like this (I think). Overall though, I don't think it detracts from the strength of his thesis. I hadn't thought of it like this, but MS monetization practices are much more predatory than I had thought or perceived.

Click to shrink...

MLB the show had MTX up until last year's game. And GT sport just recently implemented them in their game

 

[uncledonnie]

I also think this sort of thinking is just toxic in general. All companies, software publishers, etc. make their own decisions about what they put out. It's easy to look back at history and come up with all kinds of theories to try to place blame but it's pointless, impossible to prove, and in this case very clearly was just going to lead to console warring.

 

[Deleted member 32018]

the only ones to blame for mtx having a foothold are gamers. if gamers didnt spend money on them then pub wouldnt waste time putting them in. as we have seen in the past with online passes and now lootboxes.

Click to shrink...

Games companies hire people specifically who are experts in gambling psychology among other things.

Sure consumers have played their part in this but to say they are the only one's to blame is extremely dumb. Especially when a lot of these consumers are children.

 

[Joe White]

Yeah and that's why it's a weird take. Corporations are not moral, they're legally obligated to make money for their shareholders while not breaking the law

You ignoring that because you feel like companies act more like individual people, is a weird take

Click to shrink...

Metaphysics, company actions can be judged in moral terms. As such, company obligations to stakeholders or precedence of said actions doesn't reduce their accountability.

 

[Trey]

the only ones to blame for mtx having a foothold are gamers. if gamers didnt spend money on them then pub wouldnt waste time putting them in. as we have seen in the past with online passes and now lootboxes.

Click to shrink...

those are just different exercises in the same dance routine: making gamers hold on to their game licenses with the promise of more content in order to get more money out of them. The ethos behind online passes and lootboxes are embedded into the modern game economy.

 

[GamerForever]

the only ones to blame for mtx having a foothold are gamers. if gamers didnt spend money on them then pub wouldnt waste time putting them in. as we have seen in the past with online passes and now lootboxes.

Click to shrink...

Blaming gamers for ms is wrong. They took out content that was normal in a game behind a paywall, off course gamers will pay.

 

[oni-link]

Metaphysics, company actions can be judged in moral terms. As such, company obligations to stakeholders or precedence of said actions doesn't reduce their accountability.

Click to shrink...

I'm happy to agree to disagree

 

[Wandu]

Oh I understand his argument I just don't buy it. Games like Ryse and Crimson Dragon sold far less than other titles with micro-transactions in the same timeframe or earlier (including first party titles from Sony). Having never been the leading platform holder of a generation I think he's grossly overstating the influence Microsoft has on the customer base and industry. The adoption of these practices has very little to do with consumers being somehow conditioned to these things because Microsoft as a platform holder utilized them.

Click to shrink...

Yeah I get what you are saying. I was just saying that you don't have to be the leading platform holder in order to influence the industry. XBL alone proves that. It just depends on what a platform holder produces that other holders do not have or started yet can be an influence to the industry and consumers. That's what I think anyway.

 

[Cipherr]

How well do you think amiibo would sell if they were not tied into in game bonuses?

Click to shrink...

Extremely well. As do all other Nintendo action figures based on their popular franchises. But that aside, equating Amiibo with the shit we see in todays games like lootboxes is a humongous joke that noone without an agenda will take seriously. Hell I remember on these very boards (or GAF) this community complaining that Amiibo didn't give ENOUGH in game stuff to be worth buying outside of the toy factor. Its not even remotely the same.

 

[watdaeff4]

Extremely well. As do all other Nintendo action figures based on their popular franchises. But that aside, equating Amiibo with the shit we see in todays games like lootboxes is a humongous joke that noone without an agenda will take seriously. Hell I remember on these very boards (or GAF) this community complaining that Amiibo didn't give ENOUGH in game stuff to be worth buying outside of the toy factor. Its not even remotely the same.

Click to shrink...

agree to disagree. Thanks for the classy response.

 

[Voke]

I agree with most of what he's saying. I also believe MS is mostly responsible for all of the times exclusive deals we see these days. All annoying stuff but I'm not sure why he gave Sony a pass here. I know you guys remember Online Pass lol

 

[Pretendo Switch]

Has Xbox ever led a generation? I find it unconvincing to give them credit (or blame) for other platform holders adopting their practices from an equal or leading position.

Click to shrink...

I'm right there with you. The Xbox One is mostly irrelevant in most parts of the world. Who is looking to them for ideas? And saying video games suck because Microsoft put microtransactions in their exclusives is a wild conclusion to make.

 

[DerpHause]

I disagree as it would have been better and right thing to do for Sony and Nintendo to keep MP free and not blocking it behind subscription walls. (Also, and I don't blame Nintendo for Kinect or Move). Corporations choosing and actively doing bad things against their consumers wishes should get 100% of the blame for those actions, even when they are not original things. No need to deflect and shift blame elsewhere.

Click to shrink...

Sometimes what it takes for anti-consumer practices to proliferate is someone conclusively demonstrating you can get away with it.

 

[watdaeff4]

Has Xbox ever led a generation? I find it unconvincing to give them credit (or blame) for other platform holders adopting their practices from an equal or leading position.

Click to shrink...

IDK, I don't think we can dismiss the notion just because they never are a market leader. To act like only market leaders (in any industry) have ideas/practices/etc that competitors also adopt is a pretty narrow view IMO.

If anything needs to be proof is Sony (and now Nintendo) also charging for online MP.

 

[Watership]

While I'm sure some will hope this will spark debate and discussion about MS and microstransactions in general, it's really just fuel for the dumpster fire that is going to be added to the 'talking points' for console War BS.

 

[N.Domixis]

Gamers chose wrongly, if everyone would have ignored paying for Xbox live and went ps3. We'd have free online. Now the same thing is going to happen again with f2p games. Sony will charge next gen because MS got away with it this gen.

 

[EdgeXL]

I thought he should have mentioned this at the least for fairness and accuracy sake. It is worth noting that Naughty Dog games are the only one's that participate in mtx like this (I think). Overall though, I don't think it detracts from the strength of his thesis. I hadn't thought of it like this, but MS monetization practices are much more predatory than I had thought or perceived.

Click to shrink...

The Last of Us was particularly bad as there were loadouts that could only be purchased through mtx. Jim gave Sony a pass on that though. There were some Sony titles that had mtx on Vita too. In Uncharted Golden Abyss you could pay $3 to have hidden items marked on your treasure map. In Motorstorm RC you could pay to unlock all areas of the park and a long list of DLC cars. And let's not forget Gran Turismo 6 and the Jaguar XJ13 which would cost 120 GBP to unlock if you didn't want to grind for it.

But mentioning instances like those would weaken the narrative that this is Microsoft's fault so we will let Sony slide on these.

 

[uncledonnie]

IDK, I don't think we can dismiss the notion just because they never are a market leader. To act like only market leaders (in any industry) have ideas/practices/etc that competitors also adopt is a pretty narrow view IMO.

If anything needs to be proof is Sony (and now Nintendo) also charging for online MP.

Click to shrink...

I just don't see the link he is trying to make to assess blame based on Microsoft's limited capability to control the industry. It's just fueling fanboy nonsense. Sony and Nintendo make their own decisions.

 

[jviggy43]

Even if I grant you they are mtx, what does it prove? Amiibos are actually decreasing in release slate since Switch so Nintendo isnt exactly embracing it.

This whole line of discussion is pretty dire tbh

Click to shrink...

Its dire because you seem to not be able to follow the conversation Jim was having nor what other people have been saying. Acting like you have to grant anyone the argument that Amiibos are mtxs is frankly flat earth levels of argumentation. They are mtxs, the games they link to have in game mtxs (cosmetic and gameplay effecting items). Theres nothing to grant because its just the reality of what they were made to do.

The amount of amiibos on the market and being released changes nothing about the conversation being had and I have no idea why you think it does. The fact of the matter is Jim is wrong to say Nintendo first party games only have DLC and level packs for the majority of their games when the majority of their games have amiibo comparability that contain mtxs. Since Jim is hyper concerned about mtxs being in games and wants to paint MS as the arbiter of the mtx phenomenon its best suited for his argument that he leaves amiibos out of the conversation. The fact he has a video on amiibos from a year or two earlier shows how disingenuous hes being with the argument hes making.

 

[watdaeff4]

I just don't see the link he is trying to make to assess blame based on Microsoft's limited capability to control the industry. It's just fueling fanboy nonsense. Sony and Nintendo make their own decisions.

Click to shrink...

Ok. I understand your point better now.

I don't necessarily agree (my xbox live example again). but it doesn't mean you're wrong.
Thanks for the response.

 

[watdaeff4]

Since Jim is hyper concerned about mtxs being in games and wants to paint MS as the arbiter of the mtx phenomenon its best suited for his argument that he leaves amiibos out of the conversation. The fact he has a video on amiibos from a year or two earlier shows how disingenuous hes being with the argument hes making.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much wraps it up.

 

[DerpHause]

I just don't see the link he is trying to make to assess blame based on Microsoft's limited capability to control the industry. It's just fueling fanboy nonsense. Sony and Nintendo make their own decisions.

Click to shrink...

No one "just makes their own decisions" at that level. Every company looks at what its counterparts are doing.

MS isn't some unknown. They were a market leader in the US last gen and trailed mostly by the momentum of their own hubris this gen.

Basically they had their PS3 launch moment.

Pretty much wraps it up.

Click to shrink...

Does it? I'm not really convinced with the "others had MTs" defence. The "pervasive use of MTs in lauch titles from a first party" is a distinct complaint from "being the first to place or abuse MTs in first party titles".

 

[Cokie Bear]

They are but why would anyone care if someone wants to spend their money on stupid shit? It has pretty much no bearing on the game so it's a stupid complaint. You can play any title he mentioned from the MS side and just ignore the Micro transactions.

Click to shrink...

Where did I say I cared?

 

[Watership]

Gamers chose wrongly, if everyone would have ignored paying for Xbox live and went ps3. We'd have free online. Now the same thing is going to happen again with f2p games. Sony will charge next gen because MS got away with it this gen.

Click to shrink...

People didn't chose wrongly at all. Xbox Live was 4 years old when PSN launched. The things that Xbox Live introduced into gaming, good and bad, spread to every other platform eventually. Unified userlists, voice chats, messaging friends lists, sharing data/stats, gamerpoints, achievements etc. Yes, you had to pay for it. Some of those things existed for free on PC, but even back then Steam wasn't as unified and simple as Xbox Live was. Charging for it allowed MS to build it as a service, and it set a standard. PSN's big addition here was the free games, which MS then adopted too. Then came cloud saves, etc. It all builds.

Consoles had to dragged kicking and screaming online in the early 2000s, and MS has lead, and probably still leads the way.

 

[uncledonnie]

No one "just makes their own decisions" at that level. Every company looks at what its counterparts are doing.

MS isn't some unknown. They were a market leader in the US last gen and trailed mostly by the momentum of their own hubris this gen.

Basically they had their PS3 launch moment.

Click to shrink...

Sure they do but that's not the same as assessing blame. Last gen both Sony and Nintendo were market leaders ahead of Microsoft. These practices weren't adopted because Microsoft somehow preconditioned customers industry-wide into accepting them.

 

[DerpHause]

They are but why would anyone care if someone wants to spend their money on stupid shit?

Click to shrink...

Aside from protecting those vulnerable to being manipulated by those systems, no one cares. The arguments against MTs aren't based on not wanting other people to spend on them.


People just want to use the features of the games they paid for rather than only parts of it regardless of whether you consider them important or not.

 

[brinstar]

Pretty much wraps it up.

Click to shrink...

I don't know. I don't think Jim is trying to say only MS does this and Nintendo and Sony are squeaky clean, but that MS' use of MTX in their games have set the stage and normalized the model for other publishers. Amiibos are definitely a way of squeezing more revenue out of a game for Nintendo, but how much of an influence has it had on the rest of the industry?

 

[DerpHause]

Sure they do but that's not the same as assessing blame. Last gen both Sony and Nintendo were market leaders ahead of Microsoft. These practices weren't adopted because Microsoft somehow preconditioned customers industry-wide into accepting them.

Click to shrink...

The PS3 trailed the Xbox 360 in US market share at end of gen. The Wii wasn't positioned as a direct competitor to either in terms of market demographic and focus.

Not really sure why that matters though since they demonstrated things working while getting sell through on hardware on top of software. And that was after bad initial reception, which is what the video claims. Not being #1 at a very early point this gen has nothing to do with that.

Title is clickbait, actual thesis of the video is more nuanced, give it a watch.

 

[Yearsoflurking]

Gamers chose wrongly, if everyone would have ignored paying for Xbox live and went ps3. We'd have free online. Now the same thing is going to happen again with f2p games. Sony will charge next gen because MS got away with it this gen.

Click to shrink...

Considering majority of 360 games servers are still up and ps3.. well you know I think console gamers chose the right decision. Ms never charged for online passes and stupid shit like that either

 

[gaogaogao]

platforms holders should show by example what kind of business models should be in games, and nintendo and sony have done a much better job of resisting microtransactions than microsoft. where gears 5 may not be as overtly consumer hostile as say halo 5, it is now a lot more confusing as to how do you get what content, etc.