Cloud (Azure) concern is not just about streaming games remotely, It is the data centers and cloud computing infrastructure that MS has in pace that Sony can't compete with. (As the CMA pointed out)
Sorry Dalaibomba I respect you as a community member here and love your passion on gaming but there is nothing you can say to make me disregard the words and filings of the regulators themselves. It matters more than you think.
That's cool, you don't have to agree. It isn't logically consistent to state that the CMA references this issue, so it's a legit complaint, but the other issues *also referenced by the CMA* are hogwash, though.
Cloud (Azure) concern is not just about streaming games remotely, It is the data centers and cloud computing infrastructure that MS has in pace that Sony can't compete with. (As the CMA pointed out)
Sorry Dalaibomba I respect you as a community member here and love your passion on gaming but there is nothing you can say to make me disregard the words and filings of the regulators themselves. It matters more than you think.
That's cool, you don't have to agree. It isn't logically consistent to state that the CMA references this issue, so it's a legit complaint, but the other issues *also referenced by the CMA* are hogwash, though.
It isn't hogwash but them buying COD+ does not make them number one in the market place. Sony is well ahead of them for years now. Nintendo is outselling both of them. Microsoft is trying to be competitive not eliminate the competition. They all know that. This is more than just the publishing and IPs Sony is concerned with that for sure. CMA is concerned about that and those otherthings. To them? Cloud is a huge advantage they have and it concerns them. (As it does Sony without them saying it publicly)
Your previous posts certainly seemed to indicate you thought it was. Thanks for clarifying!
Monopolistic rules were put in place so that commodities essential for living could not be monopolized by one company (expanded to group of companies) and hold the population hostage.
Games are not essential (queue no-lifer comments), Microsoft isn't in a position (yet) to buy and control all games, and games are not commodities (almost the exact opposite).
THIS is an example where regulation is intrusive and regulators are wasting tax dollars. Don't they have more important fish to fry than get in the middle of competition of the entertainment industry? I know you do not believe me, but if games disappeared today, you will find something else to do.
Monopolistic rules were put in place so that commodities essential for living could not be monopolized by one company (expanded to group of companies) and hold the population hostage.
Games are not essential (queue no-lifer comments), Microsoft isn't in a position (yet) to buy and control all games, and games are not commodities (almost the exact opposite).
THIS is an example where regulation is intrusive and regulators are wasting tax dollars. Don't they have more important fish to fry than get in the middle of competition of the entertainment industry? I know you do not believe me, but if games disappeared today, you will find something else to do.
No. Monopoly rules were put in place for all businesses. They are there to protect competition - and ultimately in an attempt to drive prices down - for all goods and services equally.
Some essentials like water and electricity have their own specific laws meant to ensure that everyone can buy them at reasonable price.
Monopolistic rules were put in place so that commodities essential for living could not be monopolized by one company (expanded to group of companies) and hold the population hostage.
Games are not essential (queue no-lifer comments), Microsoft isn't in a position (yet) to buy and control all games, and games are not commodities (almost the exact opposite).
THIS is an example where regulation is intrusive and regulators are wasting tax dollars. Don't they have more important fish to fry than get in the middle of competition of the entertainment industry? I know you do not believe me, but if games disappeared today, you will find something else to do.
No. Monopoly rules were put in place for all businesses. They are there to protect competition - and ultimately in an attempt to drive prices down - for all goods and services equally.
Some essentials like water and electricity have their own specific laws meant to ensure that everyone can buy them at reasonable price.
Short sighted. The Sherman Anti-trust act was created in response specifically to oil trusts and other essential industries that had monopolized. This was the intent, and partly because of this assumption of intent, the drafters did not carefully craft law, as with many others. For example, the case to bust the sugar monopoly, which at the time was 96%, was struck down in court. The application of the law has certainly been expanded in practice since then though.
The original intent was to prevent individual trusts from controlling the market of essential goods and instead allow market factors dictate the price. The government generally does not (and should not) want to drive down or otherwise affect the prices of goods in none essentially industries, though there are always people who wish for that.
Monopolistic rules were put in place so that commodities essential for living could not be monopolized by one company (expanded to group of companies) and hold the population hostage.
Games are not essential (queue no-lifer comments), Microsoft isn't in a position (yet) to buy and control all games, and games are not commodities (almost the exact opposite).
THIS is an example where regulation is intrusive and regulators are wasting tax dollars. Don't they have more important fish to fry than get in the middle of competition of the entertainment industry? I know you do not believe me, but if games disappeared today, you will find something else to do.
No. Monopoly rules were put in place for all businesses. They are there to protect competition - and ultimately in an attempt to drive prices down - for all goods and services equally.
Some essentials like water and electricity have their own specific laws meant to ensure that everyone can buy them at reasonable price.
Short sighted. The Sherman Anti-trust act was created in response specifically to oil trusts and other essential industries that had monopolized. This was the intent, and partly because of this assumption of intent, the drafters did not carefully craft law, as with many others. For example, the case to bust the sugar monopoly, which at the time was 96%, was struck down in court. The application of the law has certainly been expanded in practice since then though.
The original intent was to prevent individual trusts from controlling the market of essential goods and instead allow market factors dictate the price. The government generally does not (and should not) want to drive down or otherwise affect the prices of goods in none essentially industries, though there are always people who wish for that.
Sherman Anti-trust law originally failed to tackle monopolies because in that sugar monopoly case: "The court ruled 8 to 1 against the government, declaring that manufacturing (i.e., refining) was a local activity not subject to congressional regulation of interstate commerce"
Word of advice to the Playstation "Boss": Microsoft has PC and Xbox players, as well as a sizeable chunk of mobile, with Activision alone being a $1 billion a year chunk of that mobile space. They quite frankly do not need to care about you or "your" gamers. You sat on your ass while MS made themselves the largest force in gaming. You can try to fight with Nintendo for what's left in your corner of the consoles space, if you really need something to do. Although I don't advise it, Nintendo would eat you alive. Don't see them having to release Mario and Zelda on PC to survive.
MS has strategically bought companies that give them the control over what were once your "exclusives", such as Activision with CoD. They can flat out deny you best selling titles like The Elder Scrolls and Fallout after buying Zenimax. They have taken over enough of the market that you are having to release your first party exclusives to PC to survive ( Uncharted, Last of Us, etc ) so even though you may keep them off Xbox you're still feeding MS via PC. They have made it financially unsound to be loyal to your consoles ( I remember when I had to buy a PS3 for Final Fantasy XIII, that was the last time FF was your exclusive and also the last time I bought one of your consoles lol ).
Face it, in the gaming world, you got outplayed. Quite frankly, I'll be shocked if there is ever a PS6. Take a note from SEGA's fall. Make the PS5 the last and switch to making games for the other platforms. At least you can cut your total demise off at the pass, instead of having to crawl back to mediocrity years later like SEGA.
Could be true, but competition is good for the consumer. While I love my Gamepass I hope Sony thrives as well.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Word of advice to the Playstation "Boss": Microsoft has PC and Xbox players, as well as a sizeable chunk of mobile, with Activision alone being a $1 billion a year chunk of that mobile space. They quite frankly do not need to care about you or "your" gamers. You sat on your ass while MS made themselves the largest force in gaming. You can try to fight with Nintendo for what's left in your corner of the consoles space, if you really need something to do. Although I don't advise it, Nintendo would eat you alive. Don't see them having to release Mario and Zelda on PC to survive.
MS has strategically bought companies that give them the control over what were once your "exclusives", such as Activision with CoD. They can flat out deny you best selling titles like The Elder Scrolls and Fallout after buying Zenimax. They have taken over enough of the market that you are having to release your first party exclusives to PC to survive ( Uncharted, Last of Us, etc ) so even though you may keep them off Xbox you're still feeding MS via PC. They have made it financially unsound to be loyal to your consoles ( I remember when I had to buy a PS3 for Final Fantasy XIII, that was the last time FF was your exclusive and also the last time I bought one of your consoles lol ).
Face it, in the gaming world, you got outplayed. Quite frankly, I'll be shocked if there is ever a PS6. Take a note from SEGA's fall. Make the PS5 the last and switch to making games for the other platforms. At least you can cut your total demise off at the pass, instead of having to crawl back to mediocrity years later like SEGA.
Could be true, but competition is good for the consumer. While I love my Gamepass I hope Sony thrives as well.
Not only that, but his starting premise is wrong.
Microsoft has made great strides with PC gamers using Game Pass, but it's done almost nothing to put a dent in Sony's console advantage. The gap for console unit sales has only grown in favor of Sony over the past few years. And Sony's exclusives continue to sell well, while Microsoft makes their nut in monthly subs by adding attractive games to Game Pass.
It's quite confusing, to me, why folks think a company that's had a monopoly on software for decades now (one a judge already called anti-competitive decades ago) is somehow going to take good care of them in comparison to big bad Sony.
Neither company gives two shits beyond how they can profit off of us. That's the reality.
Comments
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Games are not essential (queue no-lifer comments), Microsoft isn't in a position (yet) to buy and control all games, and games are not commodities (almost the exact opposite).
THIS is an example where regulation is intrusive and regulators are wasting tax dollars. Don't they have more important fish to fry than get in the middle of competition of the entertainment industry? I know you do not believe me, but if games disappeared today, you will find something else to do.
Some essentials like water and electricity have their own specific laws meant to ensure that everyone can buy them at reasonable price.
"The court ruled 8 to 1 against the government, declaring that manufacturing (i.e., refining) was a local activity not subject to congressional regulation of interstate commerce"
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica,
https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-v-E-C-Knight-Company
So that didn't have anything to do with whether sugar was essential or not.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Microsoft has made great strides with PC gamers using Game Pass, but it's done almost nothing to put a dent in Sony's console advantage. The gap for console unit sales has only grown in favor of Sony over the past few years. And Sony's exclusives continue to sell well, while Microsoft makes their nut in monthly subs by adding attractive games to Game Pass.
It's quite confusing, to me, why folks think a company that's had a monopoly on software for decades now (one a judge already called anti-competitive decades ago) is somehow going to take good care of them in comparison to big bad Sony.
Neither company gives two shits beyond how they can profit off of us. That's the reality.