Expect for everyone that has Gamepass Ultimate and streams the game on their Xbox One, Phone/Tablet or PC. "Not a lot of people use it" does not invalidate it as an option.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
There's no point if the FTC are going to be meeting today and maybe even voting.
I think if it hadn't gone well, we'd have had something. You know, Microsoft signals they did everything and commissioners won't budge on their decision.
But who knows?
No point commenting before the vote, it's just risk and no real rewards.
Ok but again who would think that an Xbox One would carry them for the duration of the Series X systems?
This topic sure is all over the place, people are scrambling and I'm not sure why.
A small portion of people using it doesn't change the fact that they can use it. Most people who would want to play those games are happier to do so on an Xbox.
The fact of the matter is that you don't need an Xbox to play their games. Purchasing the wrong bit of plastic doesn't prevent people from having access to their games.
Also Microsoft would love to put game pass on PlayStation. Sony are the ones who would never allow it. Microsoft have done a lot to make their games accessible to a larger group of people without needing to invest in their console.
We are hopefully coming to the end, so all the chaos is combining at the end 😂
This is what Idas said.
So yeah, if it gets approved today (if there is a vote) MS will say something, but we just have to wait and see if someone leaks really.
This is nonsense. It's a new and growing option… one that's that's continuously improving. Millions of people use it. we're just gonna pretend it doesn't exist because of some arbitrary "traction" requirements you've come up with.
A market survey used in the Brazil discoveries indicated that over 70% Game Pass Ultimate subscribers use the streaming service in some capacity. Over 50% them said they stream as much more more than they play on a local machine.
It's not "medicine for all ailments"… but nothing is. Not even buying a new console or a PC… those are options too.
Last edited:
I see the thread has been raided again in the last few pages haha, I wonder if we'll see anything about FTC soon. As much as the drama is fun and all, I would like it to just be over already.
I stream to a tablet all the time, even when at home. I love it.
I assume that the meeting was in DC? So close of business today in Washington is tonight here in the UK. So we should know more by this evening.
Imagine if the vote goes in Xbox's favour a couple of hours before the game awards. If anyone from Xbox comes onto the stage to speak, they'll be swinging their bits all over the place.
I certainly can't imagine all three platform holders doing a kumbaya speech like they did a few years ago under Shawn, Phil and Reggie.
Imagine if the vote goes in Xbox's favour a couple of hours before the game awards. If anyone from Xbox comes onto the stage to speak, they'll be swinging their bits all over the place.
I certainly can't imagine all three platform holders doing a kumbaya speech like they did a few years ago under Shawn, Phil and Reggie.
OP
OP
I saw a couple of new articles about the case (from The Information and Fortune), but same old, same old. At least if by the end of they day there is no new info, we'll know that the FTC didn't vote yet.
I think that for Sony it would be worse to change course so late into the game. If regulators approve the deal, they can always say that they accept the decision but wholeheartedly disagree. And who knows, maybe in 5 years cloud gaming/subscription services are so dominated by MS that Sony can say: "See! I told you that you were wrong".
Something like that could generate a new investigation in the future. After all, mergers aren't forever.
But if now they agree to the offer, after building a case for so long, that would burn a lot of goodwill from the parties that helped them/listened to them and generate bad reputation. Besides, they don't have an incentive in the short - mid term, maybe in the long term (but that won't be before the next generation). And one more thing, they have made MS say soooo many times (in public and private) that they won't remove COD from Playstation that if that changes someday (even in the distant future) Sony is going to hit them with that non stop.
So, for Sony is better to wait until the end (trying to negotiate with MS, but with no real intent to agree) and see what happens.
The agreements with Nintendo and Valve are obviously good for MS. They are trying to downplay again the importance of COD ("See? If I thought that COD was so important, why would I shared it with my competitors?") and it's also useful to show that they don't have an incentive to make it exclusive ("I'm not buying COD to make it exclusive, I'm going to share it even on more platforms"). It also helps them to fight the arguments from Sony.
The followup questions from regulators should be: but are you going to share the game with Nintendo and Steam only on the buy-to-play model or also on any future cloud/ subscription service? Because if you are sharing it only in one scenario maybe you do have an incentive to make COD exclusive. :s MS will say that cloud gaming is irrelevant and not a real market yet and that subscription services are just another means of payment, not a market (and even in that case, they aren't the biggest one), and back to square one :p
In any case, those agreements are good for MS.
I just thought it was funny that she said that on the same day that MS was meeting with her to approve a deal where cloud is an important issue :p
By now the FTC must have a pretty good idea of the case and where they stand. Now they have to asses pros and cons and make a decision.
I think that for Sony it would be worse to change course so late into the game. If regulators approve the deal, they can always say that they accept the decision but wholeheartedly disagree. And who knows, maybe in 5 years cloud gaming/subscription services are so dominated by MS that Sony can say: "See! I told you that you were wrong".
Something like that could generate a new investigation in the future. After all, mergers aren't forever.
But if now they agree to the offer, after building a case for so long, that would burn a lot of goodwill from the parties that helped them/listened to them and generate bad reputation. Besides, they don't have an incentive in the short - mid term, maybe in the long term (but that won't be before the next generation). And one more thing, they have made MS say soooo many times (in public and private) that they won't remove COD from Playstation that if that changes someday (even in the distant future) Sony is going to hit them with that non stop.
So, for Sony is better to wait until the end (trying to negotiate with MS, but with no real intent to agree) and see what happens.
The agreements with Nintendo and Valve are obviously good for MS. They are trying to downplay again the importance of COD ("See? If I thought that COD was so important, why would I shared it with my competitors?") and it's also useful to show that they don't have an incentive to make it exclusive ("I'm not buying COD to make it exclusive, I'm going to share it even on more platforms"). It also helps them to fight the arguments from Sony.
The followup questions from regulators should be: but are you going to share the game with Nintendo and Steam only on the buy-to-play model or also on any future cloud/ subscription service? Because if you are sharing it only in one scenario maybe you do have an incentive to make COD exclusive. :s MS will say that cloud gaming is irrelevant and not a real market yet and that subscription services are just another means of payment, not a market (and even in that case, they aren't the biggest one), and back to square one :p
In any case, those agreements are good for MS.
I just thought it was funny that she said that on the same day that MS was meeting with her to approve a deal where cloud is an important issue :p
By now the FTC must have a pretty good idea of the case and where they stand. Now they have to asses pros and cons and make a decision.
I don't see Xbox mentioning it at TGAs since there will be Playstation folks in attendance.
As for have the 3 heads on stage that will never happen again since Shawn, Phil and Reggie were like by everyone, no one cares for Jim Ryan even on the Playstation side. If Hermen replaced Jim I could see it happening again maybe.
I thought this clip with Pachter was interesting.
Idas what do you think about his comments on the matter?
View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1600691271034490880
Idas what do you think about his comments on the matter?
View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1600691271034490880
I couldn't help but laugh at the last 15 seconds of that, but he seems very confident the FTC won't sue.
It is the machine for all ailments though? You can't say cloud gaming isn't an answer to the issues of upgrading when it quite literally offers exactly that without barrier of entry. Gauging it's ability to answer those ailments based on usage is not valid, as usage does not matter but the actual ability to allow anyone to play Xbox games does.
I won't say Sony is acting like 2 year olds, but they are holding back the transformation of the market until they are ready, but there is nothing in the rule book saying the industry can only jump forward when Sony says it's ok to do so.
We have services be the dominant delivery method for TV, movies and music.
It's only natural for gaming to follow that as well. Honestly, Sony has only themselves to blame, they were first to the market with PSNOW and they…..idk dropped the ball and completely lost it? They could have been gamepass before Microsoft. They can win the subscription war if they adopted the gamepass model due to their gaming library and exclusive line up alone. But they are dragging their feet, like they did with cross play and cross save. (Something they also did first but then stopped) At what point do they adapt? Jim Ryan puts his foot in his mouth constantly but the Crossplay thing was rectified when he came into power and it was a smart move because it kept people locked into their playerbase. No reason to buy a Nintendo or Xbox if you could play with your friends from your PlayStation.
One could argue and say Nintendo is never talked about adapting to the changing market, but Microsoft's moves don't impact Nintendo in a negative light like they do Sony. if anything it's impacts them in a positive way seeing how they are getting a 10 year deal for a title that's been missing from their portfolio for almost a decade now. Nintendo and Microsoft have been having success without depending on COD as the main money driver and console selling device, where Sony has depended on it to the point they are very vocal on that going away. Their GaaS catch up strategy can alleviate that, but again they been SO single player focused they were caught a step behind, again.
Last edited:
"It's great having people being wrong all the time". How ironic lmao
Can you imagine Sony not signing this 10 year deal and for whatever reason it ends up mattering 7? Years from now that they didnt
and he may be right about this one too...let's wait and see what happens..
yup.. that got me 😆
Isn't Pachter wrong about the FTC not going to court if they think they can't win? Isn't losing in court kinda their thing?
I don't see any scenario where Sony comes out of this undamaged. Must be quite a concern for the industry that if a merge of this this kind happens it needs Sony blessing. Them making it difficult for two entities to merge does signal their lack of readiness for the changing landscape and unwillingness to adjust and hold everyone back. Based on Phil's comments and ATVI I absolutely think they're going to make it a priority to be more aggressive towards them. It's clear they didn't expect Sony to be this dirty.
I mean Sony is only fighting this because it is MS. Any other entity in the industry would have gone through without a whisper from them. I am pretty sure the other companies can see that. The only folks upset would be any other large publishers that would want to be bought by MS.
I'm pretty sure Sony is fighting this so much because Microsoft with cod and minecraft under their belt have the power to destroy the cross play tax
This only happens because PlayStation had so much dominance last gen, maintained by the marketing deals they struck and emboldened
The tax on cross play for Fortnite and warzone alone are probably big business
This only happens because PlayStation had so much dominance last gen, maintained by the marketing deals they struck and emboldened
The tax on cross play for Fortnite and warzone alone are probably big business
I do think this will blow up enormously in Sony his face based on all the latest information we got.
Seems like yesterday where I actually believed Sony and the others where content with a market where everyone strived
But now with MS buying Sony they are maybe for the first time really treatment by MS. Because lets be honest this is the first time Sony will get a direct challenger in this form with Bethesda and now Activision
I do see why they fight this so hard and they have every right to do so.. Because I think they see what enthousiast like me see for years already, Xbox has enormous potential
Own all consoles but Microsoft future is the most interesting for me
There is a bunch of little things like this, well they're not little but you get the idea. Microsoft can use COD to negotiate a ton of things, with COD being big on PS that's probably not a good thing for Sony. Hopefully Microsoft uses it for stuff like removing crossplay tax for all games, which is probably something they'll do and why they say stuff like it'll help thousands of game devs and such. I honestly think this is the biggest worries for Sony is having this be used over them.
Regulators wouldn't give a fig about Sony's feedback if they didn't independently have their own wariness about the way in which the industry could transition to that new landscape you mention, along with a large dose of big-tech skepticism.
It flatters Sony's position too much to make this so much a MS vs Sony thing. And I know it's superficially appealing, but I don't think it's really the primary underlying mechanic at all. Sony could be much quieter about all of this and I think we'd still more or less be talking about the same obstacles as we are today.
How has Sony gotten smaller?
Surely MS and Activision are not paying that. They certainly won't be going forwards.
If epic and Fortnite are paying I'm gonna assume they all are, this all came out in the epic papers
Is that man Edward Baldwin :')ready to post this at a moments notice
Lmfao Pachter with the cheeky "I'm well compensated and have a career because my colleagues are often wrong" made me laugh out loud. Especially in lieu of the PachterPrediction meme lol
OP
OP
A new internal report from MLex says this:
Microsoft's Call of Duty deal with Nintendo is misleading, Sony argues
Sony has criticized Microsoft's deal to make the game Call of Duty available on Nintendo — should its $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard be approved by regulators — as smoke and mirrors, MLex has learned.
Activision Blizzard could supply Call of Duty to Nintendo today, but doesn't, because Nintendo's younger audience is not interested in the first-person shooter and a previous version of the game on its console was a commercial flop, the arch critic of the deal says, MLex understands.
Instead of being a logical business decision, the licensing agreement is a tactic designed to make Microsoft — whose acquisition has drawn concerns in the EU, UK and US — look cooperative with regulators, the argument goes.
Furthermore, Nintendo's Switch could not run Call of Duty easily and may never be able to, Sony argues, MLex understands. Developing a version of the game compatible with the Switch could take years, making a 10-year licensing deal meaningless.
It is easier for Nintendo to enter into such an agreement, Sony says, MLex has learned. Nintendo doesn't need to worry about equal treatment for its subscription service or cloud gaming service as those are not areas where it currently competes aggressively, the argument goes.
Microsoft's Call of Duty deal with Nintendo is misleading, Sony argues
Sony has criticized Microsoft's deal to make the game Call of Duty available on Nintendo — should its $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard be approved by regulators — as smoke and mirrors, MLex has learned.
Activision Blizzard could supply Call of Duty to Nintendo today, but doesn't, because Nintendo's younger audience is not interested in the first-person shooter and a previous version of the game on its console was a commercial flop, the arch critic of the deal says, MLex understands.
Instead of being a logical business decision, the licensing agreement is a tactic designed to make Microsoft — whose acquisition has drawn concerns in the EU, UK and US — look cooperative with regulators, the argument goes.
Furthermore, Nintendo's Switch could not run Call of Duty easily and may never be able to, Sony argues, MLex understands. Developing a version of the game compatible with the Switch could take years, making a 10-year licensing deal meaningless.
It is easier for Nintendo to enter into such an agreement, Sony says, MLex has learned. Nintendo doesn't need to worry about equal treatment for its subscription service or cloud gaming service as those are not areas where it currently competes aggressively, the argument goes.
Waaaaaahhhh Jesus christ Sony. Would love if Nintendo responded to this (if true)
Sony is making terrible arguments.
I think most of us first played call of duty when we were probably like.. 7 years old lmao. Kids love their military shooter. Even still, there are a ton of adolescent and adults on Nintendo platforms. The last version was a commercial flop BECAUSE THE WII U WAS A FLOP.
Switch may not be able to run COD mainline (despite being able to run COD Mobile/Warzone Mobile most likely), but cloud versions exist and would NOT take years to develop. That's the whole point of Cloud games. Future titles with the engine flexibility would mean a COD Switch 2 would be feasible but they don't address a future platform from Nintendo getting access here.
Sony saying Nintendo doesn't compete aggressively in subs/cloud is silly because they are growing it and Sony is more than able to compete more aggressively with their own subs/cloud service if they wanted to.
FOH
"Their younger audience"
For gods sake man get lost with that bullshit already.
COD Ghost was a flop on all systems and the wii-u wasn't a great system.
Is Sony seriously going to burn bridges just because of Call of Duty? WTF are they thinking? For God's sake, this is embarrassing.