Kevw2006

@BAMozzy You really need to learn to get your point across in waaaaay less words.i already said that it wasn't really am issue and it was Microsoft's right to make any games they own exclusive. All I'm saying is that
Surely you can understand how people would be upset when MS goes and buys up a publisher and games they were expecting to be able to play would no longer be available where they want to play them. You need to look at things from other people's perspective and not just from Microsoft's. You know the little people that are the ones that are going to lose out through no fault of their own.

@Tharsman Fair point as I forgot Redfall wasn't actually announced until after the acquisition. However it has since been announced that they were working on a PS version, which they could have just kept quiet on and it wouldn't have been a problem.

@BAMozzy I don't think anyone is trying to claim that Microsoft didn't have the right to make Redfall or Starfield exclusive, and you're right that neither of those games were announced for any platforms yet. However, people were aware of them and there was an expectation that they would release on PlayStation because Bethesda's recent games had all been multiplatform and I'm sure even you can understand why some people would feel aggrieved about that. While it was Microsoft's every right to make these exclusive you have to at the very least have a bit of compassion for people that are now going to lose out on a game that it is highly likely that they would have had access to before. What you are suggesting would be like Sony buying EA and making next year's iteration of its football game exclusive to PlayStation. It's its own standalone game but everyone would have expected it to release on Xbox if it weren't for Sony buying them and making it exclusive.

@BAMozzy I noticed you conveniently sidestepped the questions I asked at the start of my post...

@ironcrow86 A lot of the time the money paid for exclusivity directly helps to fund the game being developed, especially with a lot of smaller indie games.

@BAMozzy Two simple questions:
1. If could isn't a concern when why have Microsoft been very publicly making 10 year deals with other cloud services? Because it isn't out of the kindness of their hearts.
2. Why have the EU only approved the merger with concessions that they are going to regulate if cloud isn't/shouldn't be an issue?
You're missing a very key point in only focusing on a single aspect of the CMA's decision as there is a combination of points that they blocked the merger on and it is the combination of factors, and not any one of the single factors that they have blocked it for. If there was only one concern then it is possible that they would have allowed it.
The point you seem to be neglecting is Microsoft's current market share of cloud infrastructure was flagged as a concern, this along with the other concerns they have is why it was blocked.
To further elaborate on your example it would be like Disney being reliant on Netflix to host their streaming service.
That, plus having control of the single biggest money maker IN GAMING (before you try and even attempt to say Spider-Man is a bigger IP) is why the CMA has blocked the deal. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean their concerns aren't valid.

@Somebody According to Microsoft's own figures around 10 million people have used cloud streaming through game pass. At the last estimates that's around 40% of subscribers. Granted, these people might not be using it on a regular basis but the figures do show that there is a market for it and it is growing as the previous stated figure was 4 million the previous year.

@Somebody Just because it is speculative at the moment that doesn't mean it should be dismissed. It's MS that have been pushing the cloud side of things and the fact they went out and offered deals to other cloud providers shows that they were aware that it would be somewhat of a problem for the acquisition to go through. If you read the CMA ruling it wasn't just MS's own offerings for cloud through game pass that they were concerned about, it was their market share for cloud infrastructure too and having them be in control of so many areas in regards to cloud streaming was a concern.

@NEStalgia The CMA decision does make perfect sense though. It doesn't matter that CoD doesn't exist on cloud at the moment, MS have made their intentions clear that they will make it available over the cloud so that does bring the cloud argument into play. The very fact that MS have been making deals with other cloud providers highlights two things. 1. They have every intention of placing CoD on the cloud, and 2. They will have control over where it is available on the cloud. The concessions they have made don't prove that they won't have control of CoD, they prove that they very much will want control of CoD as they basically say if you want CoD on your platform you need to do a deal with MS. The regulators need to look long term so they will be looking past these initial 10 year deals. They also had access to a lot more data than we do so can make a more informed decision around this.
To dismiss one regulator's ruling as nonsensical or irrational simply because it doesn't agree with your opinion is disrespectful, I don't agree with the EU's ruling but I do respect it.
Quite simply if cloud is not an issue like you say then why are MS making all these deals as 'concessions' and the EU accepting these concessions, while also setting up a body to make sure the concessions are being adhered to? This wasn't a clear pass from the EU, there are stipulations attached to the deal being approved so there are clearly some concerns that they have too.

@NEStalgia The key words in their ruling is "in the EEA". Bear in mind that each regulator is looking at their own markets when making their assessments, while also possibly taking the global market into account also. But their primary concern is their own market and in here they state that Call of Duty is less popular in the EEU than it is in the other markets. In the UK and the US Call of Duty is far more popular so this is why they may have come to a different conclusion. It's nothing. To do with them not reading or understanding anytjing, it's purely that they are all looking at different markets so have different considerations to make. If you read through the CMA's decision you can clearly see that they have thought things through and do have an understanding of the decision they have made. Just because you don't agree with their ruling it doesn't mean that they haven't read or understood anything.

@Belkan what a weird question. Their ruling itself answers the question on their views on that.

@Toot1st You're only going to have to pay what you always would have anyway. The deal being blocked would not chance the current situation so you aren't any worse off if the status quo remains. You just aren't going to get the benefit you would have if the deal goes through.

@Banjo- 10 minutes is probably just an exaggeration to make his point. For a slightly different example Wo Long was a game that had a roadblock of a first boss for many people, if you have bought the game at full price then you are more likely to persevere and try and get past the boss.

@Banjo- I think I get where he's coming from. I think he means that if you download a game on game pass if it doesn't instantly click with you then you're more likely to just give up and delete it. Whereas if you have paid money to buy the game then you're more likely to remain engaged with the game longer and find that you do enjoy it.
Obviously if it's just an outright bad game then you might just give up on it either way but I see where he is coming from

@Kaloudz I don't really understand what it means either but it sounds like they are maybe trying to close off a loophole that they have discovered somewhere.

The Zelda reviews just prove gameplay>graphics. I think other devs need to keep that in mind.

CoD has become an unashamed money grab now, everything is designed to get you to pay for mtx. It's a real shame what it has become as it used to be a lot of fun.

@Deshalu Your take on game pass on PlayStation is the exact opposite of what would happen. Microsoft would much rather have game pass on PlayStation rather than Sony having it on there. Why? Because if you're getting games that are included in game pass as part of your sub then you're not going to buy the native version on PlayStation and that would hit Sony's cut. Microsoft would also have full say over what is on game pass, I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that Sony would suddenly have control over game pass. That would never happen.

@Stocksy It's not Microsoft/Xbox that have hired him, it's ABK.

@Sol4ris I don't tend to look at such things on Twitter and other places so have missed some of the more vicious comments that had been made. My post was largely in reference to the comments I've seen on this site, which I think will be some of the more reserved comments.
Some of the backlash has been warranted as devs/publishers need to be aware that people won't accept sub standard games being released, but personal attacks on the devs themselves is never acceptable and sadly is becoming all too common. Hopefully this doesn't lead to anyone deciding that it isn't worth being in game development anymore.

Someone needs to come out and take the blame for making the call to release when it did. The devs themselves probably weren't happy with it releasing as it did but someone must have made the call knowing there would be backlash.

@BBB Punishing your customers because of a decision that was outwith their control wouldn't be a good look.

The irony is that it was Microsoft that really led the push on backwards compatibility that led to people being able to carry over their digital libraries across generations. Now they are saying that those very digital libraries being carried over are causing them issues.

This 'winning' and 'losing' mentality needs to stop, and I'm surprised Phil actually used the term "lost" considering his earlier comments on console wars. Just because something didn't sell as well as something else doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't successful in its own right.

@Sakai You're right, Microsoft do have great games out there but I don't think it's that people don't care, it's more that they're not really aware as for some reason Microsoft don't seem to promote them as well as others. Take Hifi Rush for example, it's one of the highest rated games of the year so far but outside of Pure Xbox I've barely heard anything about it. I don't think the shadow drop did it any favours either as outwith the hardcore enthusiasts that watch the showcases no one really knew anything about it. Releasing it that way just seemed like they had no faith in it. I know that Phil said it was Bethesda that wanted to release it that way but I think it was a misjudged attempt to look cool that has backfired a bit.
It's always slightly amused me coming into an Xbox site and seeing adverts for a PS game but it happens surprisingly often.

@Dezzy70 I was meaning in regards to games that they have in development that are maybe nearing release, I think they both may have been holding back in that regards to try and make themselves look 'weaker' to support their case.

@Dezzy70 I think it's fair to say that both MS and Sony have been distracted by the ABK deal this past year and both have perhaps held things back to hel their case there. Although Sony did also release the PSVR2 this year and, while it's a bit of a niche product at the moment, they may have wanted to give it a clear window where there were no other big first party releases competing with it to maximise sales.

@Dezzy70 Apologies, that was more of a general comment. I wasn't saying that's what you were suggesting.

@Dezzy70 The thing I don't get is people talk about 50 million like it's a small number, it's not. 50 million is a huge install base in its own right. Sure it's not as big as the other two but I don't think Xbox should be seen as a failing brand by any means. There is enough space for PlayStation, Nintendo and Xbox to all be successful in their own right.

@Dezzy70 Not that I would encourage it to happen but I do think that Microsoft would have a lot more success as a third party publisher than as a third party publisher than a platform holder. But if that happened you'd effectively be giving Sony (and Nintendo) free reign, and I think that they do need someone else there to keep them in check.

@Dezzy70 The only way I could see that happening is if it was for a specific tier that only included Microsoft's own first party games. I can't see Sony allowing a competing service that also offers multiplatform third party games on PlayStation.

@Fenbops You're right, they are probably less likely to mark down for a niggly bug they come across, or be so particular about finer details. I've seen enough people say there is a fun game in there if you look behind some of the issues so can see why they might have scored it higher.

I'm really beginning to think that Phil has taken his eye off the ball being caught up with the ABK saga and has let the day job slip.

@UltimateOtaku91 The existing IP's don't even need to be abandoned altogether, they could just be put on hiatus for a while so that need ip's are created and then brought back after a sufficient break. Out of the ip's you listed I would love to play a new Killzone or Infamous now that there hasn't been any for enough time.

@Tharsman I'm not saying people saying that are wrong, and they could well be right in thinking that. Interestingly elsewhere in the interview he says that they do internal mock reviews and the scores from those reviews were noticeably higher, I wonder if they will be speaking to those internal reviewers to see why they didn't pick up on the issues that others have.

@Sol4ris I definitely agree that it would have been a good decision. But for me Phil's comments don't really fit with that being the case as he said that "We left them to go work on the game" after the acquired ZeniMax. Perhaps the buyout and the security that came with it just left to an internal change of direction rather than it coming from MS.

What Phil said doesn't really fit with what some people are saying that the game was originally supposed to be live service filled with mtx and MS made them change the design.
The most worrying part though is it sounds like even after the initial delay where they must have been aware that there were issues, they didn't offer any assistance or expertise from elsewhere to help with optimisation etc.

@theduckofdeath We don't really know what the exact setup is with Bethesda/ZeniMax. While it seems like they do work with a degree of independence, how do you know for sure that Phil, or someone else under his watch hasn't signed off on Redfall as good to go? They were happy to accept it when Hifi Rush got unanimous praise so they should rightly accept some of the blame when something isn't up to standard.

@PsBoxSwitchOwner If people are genuinely enjoying the game then that's fair enough. Everyone has different tastes and there will always be people out there that like something that others don't. My question to anyone that is enjoying it though would be, would you pay full price for it if it wasn't on game pass?

The silence from Phil Spencer and the rest of the Xbox execs is concerning. If Redfall had been reviewing well they would have been all over Twitter but so far there has been nothing. They should at least be acknowledging the issues and assuring people they are being worked on. It really does feel like the game has just been sent out to die.

I'll never get why input response isn't set at the lowest possible setting by default.

@Belkan That does sound promising but we don't really know much about it at the moment so it's hard to say either way.

@Tharsman And that's entirely their choice. Although my comment just said they could do it if they wanted to, they have just actively chosen not to. Which poses the question of why they are so desperate to be bought by Microsoft if they are so dead against these things.

@GamingFan4Lyf I guess that's the gamble that the publishers have to take in allowing their games on to a sub service. Although they may have a deal that was structured where they got paid depending on the player base and whenever it hits a certain target it triggers a bonus payment.

As someone that was stuck there until they nerfed it I wonder how many people actually got past the first boss before giving in. Great game otherwise though and I definitely need to get back to it.

@Stocksy It's not just the xenophobic comments that are a bit far. Claims of corruption just because a decision hasn't gone your way is taking things too far too.

@JayJ But you could argue that without PS Now game pass might never have existed, we'll never know. They're both the same concept but one was initially streaming and the other was download. Like I said they just expanded and improved the concept. Truth is they all copy off each other and try and improve on improve things.
I'm still waiting on a true innovation that MS has made, paying for online? Yeah we can all thank them for that one.
Saying everything Sony has done is copied off MS is inherently false.

@JayJ PS Now pre-dated game pass by around three years. MS just improved on the idea, made it more of a focus and added first party games but it wasn't an innovation.

@Romans12 I'm curious now, what constant innovations have MS brought to the gaming market?

@Sebatrox you're absolutely correct because, let's face it, 80-90% of the population simply don't care.