The only quirk this has is that you can't literally stream to your closest friends, unless you let them know in advance what Discord server you're doing it on.
Discord might have made Activities able to be done on private messages, but I don't see how you can set this up on a person to person message.
Microsoft, with the quiet partnership they have with SEGA/Atlus, and this very public one with SquEnix, show that the acquisition of ABK was about smacking Sony on the hand over their use of exclusivity to push them out of the market, while also making attempts to have a Japanese presence.
If this works out, I see that they'll not gain more market strength overall, but they'll stop losing momentum, and titles, to an implied release embargo.
@ArcadeGamer1929 Either way, I have to say that it's a good idea to skip XBOX One. Short/instant load times are a godsend with anything that already needs the game to synchronise people all over the planet.
I'm glad to see that the comments by Yoshi-P and others, not denying it would happen, but saying it was always planned...
The fact that it's skipped XBOX One tells me that we'd not have it at all if it wasn't for the Series X|S. That, in a few months from now, I'll be able to boot my account back up after one too many dead Playstations (Their design makes falling on the floor lethal) is the greatest news ever.
I know that, if Skylanders rereleased all the titles on XBOX One/Series as 'No Portal' versions, with a unlock system similar to the digital version of Ubisoft's Starlink, I'd consider it a nice deal. The only reason Skylanders failed was that the bubble burst on Toys To Life, since the concept itself had a lot of untapped potential.
@SilverGrey1 Spyro and Crash were effectively dead in the water due to Activision being 'the Call Of Duty studio' already. And Diablo, well, that won't matter to anyone if they do keep it off Playstation for another few years at least, and Sony themselves shot themselves in the foot over Overwatch [2].
Now, either Microsoft are a bunch of incompetent nincompoops who'll not do anything with ABK's properties, meaning they'll languish in obscurity, or Microsoft may well reshuffle what studios are given Call Of Duty duties.
Getting the Gears Of Wars devs to work with Infinity Ward might well help free up Toys For Bob, for example. But no, since they're a bunch of idiotic thieves, they'll just sit on this massive purchase and give Sony the bare minimum, because that's what Microsoft does.
@SilverGrey1 You keep ignoring one part of my comments.
You're effectively saying that Sony =/= The Industry. Sony, who own over half the market, who have a stranglehold over Japan, who have had many more games exclusive to their system than Microsoft, will be 'harmed' by Microsoft's 'theft'. The same Sony who made an agreement with Microsoft over Call Of Duty only this week, meaning that Microsoft stole nothing. But you're not looking at that. You're making it out that Microsoft are a bunch of hacks and thieves that should just leave the industry to Sony and Nintendo. And maybe even just Sony.
They're 'stealing' the games from Playstation. What about Sony 'stealing' the entire Final Fantasy series from everyone else? What about the fact that XBOX can't seem to get any game, day and date, from Japan?
Oh right, that's perfectly fine, since Sony ARE the industry, no-one else, and what Sony says is right... Is right.
@SilverGrey1 So, In 2024, Nintendo and Microsoft should bend at the knee and give Sony full access to their libraries for a massive Playstation library that's unequalled and unparalleled. No more of this competition crap, it's all Sony all the way down.
The whole fact you're saying that 'there's competition if [Sony] buys something, but there isn't if Microsoft do'... Would you rather have Sony have 99.9% of the market, or would you rather Microsoft and Nintendo be allowed to compete?
@InterceptorAlpha I suspect that the reason that it's such an odd situation is that Microsoft, up until now, assumed Console players were subscribed to both. Which is why Ultimate is automatically both.
Course, when PC got it's own Game Pass, it didn't need XBOX Live for anything, which caused this oddity.
You have three 'entry level' paths... Core, Console and PC. You play online, you get Core, You want the massive game library, you get Console or PC. You want both, you get Ultimate, which includes all three.
Sony and Microsoft have always had a policy of giving with one hand while taking with the other unless you pay top dollar. And this hasn't changed.
The even more galling thing... The CMA were already investigating Microsoft over the cloud monopoly. There's a Ofcom probe going on into Amazon, Google and Microsoft having almost absolute control over it. They just jeopardized the Ofcom probe to do a hail mary play to get Microsoft to choose divestiture.
Sony just did the inevitable and signed. Even they know that the only reason the deal isn't going through is the CMA bundling the ABK deal with the Ofcom investigation into the cloud, which could ruin that investigation and the CMA's credibility.
The CMA are pushing, really pushing hard for divestiture as a resolution, either of xCloud or Call Of Duty.
If Microsoft sell off Cloud, I could see the CMA trying to force concessions like it being removed from Game Pass, requiring an additional fee on top of XGP Ultimate, with no change to Game Pass's own price. The 'consumers' are protected at that point, aren't they?
If they sell off Call Of Duty, things like the planned Nintendo Switch builds get quietly cancelled and whatever company buys it gets equally quietly approached by Sony to restore the golden handshake that gave them preferential treatment. Again, The 'consumers' are protected. Honest.
The EU deal pretty much closed the deal for everyone except the FTC and CMA, since it promised, going forward, everyone sharing their subscriptions with everyone else, Well, unless you're Sony, who want to own everything for minimum effort.
The CMA seem to be pushing HARD for the divestiture strategy, despite the only people it benefits at this point being Sony, while being aware, from the FTC's loss, that any court case would result in them losing big.
This will be closed this weekend, and the CMA, when they try to use the courts to break them apart, will end up in a worse state than the FTC.
@elpardo1984 Just like it wasn't 'feasible' for them to reach a resolution in nearly two years other than 'No, because Cloud', when every other regulatory body has already said 'Yes' well within the deadline?
The FTC already lost the case, they're pulling at straws to try to force a last minute appeal. The CMA, in declaring 'We need more time' is exactly the same thing as they said to the court during the FTC case, and the judge went 'No you don't, motion denied'.
The CMA want to make their resolution in 6-7 days, and declare that renewing the deal counts as a forbidden action according to their block, as is removing ABK from the UK 'pending a resolution', effectively killing the deal stone dead by litigating it out of existence. And Microsoft likely are ready, in 4 days, to tell the CMA to shut the f- up or just let them do either of them or settle.
The FTC would not be able to do anything. The CMA however are trying to do a very insidious thing in HOW they blocked the deal. The fact they declared intent to block, THEN trotted out a regulatory statement that the CMA would find Microsoft (and ABK) in breach of said intent if they made any motions to acquire part of the other, which is both incredibly broad and incredibly narrow.
The CMA could literally take Microsoft to court for the act of withdrawing ABK games from the UK, because it's in breach of that regulatory order, which is, in reality, purely the CMA throwing an epic tantrum that Microsoft, otherwise, has the deal in the bag, since their case could easily, without that order, be thrown out as 'Not related to the acquisition'.
@S1ayeR74 The CMA, and to a lesser degree, the FTC, are bending the law as much as possible to make it look like they're going with legal means. However, as said further up, the CMA are literally going 'OK, We'll talk with you, see if you have a hail mary idea... but we're not going to lift the block and we're not going to allow anything until August'.
The CMA could go the extra-ordinary length, and prove their block is anti-consumer, and say 'Oh, and by the way? Renegotiating the deal also breaches the block. Toodles.' Effectively telling Microsoft and ABK they need to pay the penalty fees and let the deal die, or the CMA will force the issue.
Now, if they did that, Microsoft can, and would, have a good reason to sue, for the entire cost of the penalty fee, especially if they DO say that they would have been willing to accept concession X or Y if Microsoft had been 'more willing'.
It's been two years, and the CMA are, right now, umm-ing and ahh-ing and finding every reason to make sure they can't close in any way next week.
Both the FTC by 'appealing' the decision, and the CMA by effectively sitting back and saying 'we can't decide in that time' are looking at that deadline and knowing that, unless Microsoft can get an extension, which they more than likely WILL, due to the fact it's obvious the regulators are stalling due to the fact the date isn't indefinite, they can just wait a week and then 'apologize' as they finally get their finger out of their ear and "approve" the deal too late.
What Microsoft did with Canada during the court case proved what the FTC/CMA are doing. The CMA keep pushing 'Not until August', 'It'll take too long' etc, since, and I'll be honest, if the deal falls through on the 18th, I bet you 10 of anyone's money they'll have a 'decision' come the 19th, and apologize for the delay.
As soon as the CMA heard that the FTC lost, they just accepted Microsoft closing down the appeal for one reason...
They don't need the appeal to know they've lost. They'll make some golden handcuff deal, where Microsoft are required to commit to having someone look at their business in 2030, but outside of that, the CMA's case is as solid a barrier as wet cardboard in a tsunami.
As I say somewhere else on here, and a few others mention...
Sony right now are using their market weight to get exclusivity for their system... when they don't even NEED exclusivity. They don't need to force you to buy a Sony system to play Spiderman or use Spiderman in Marvel's Avengers. Jim Ryan effectively declared that publishers prefer monetization and profits over Game Pass... when it's really that Sony want to be able to dictate the price of your games, where you play your games...
Imagine a world where you can buy a game for $100, or rent it for $5 a month if you're a Playstation Plus member, and if the game is more than six months old, you can even get it free... but you're not getting any kind of refund or price decrease for that rental. And if you want to get it on another platform? Tough. Sony strongarmed everyone else out of the market.
Those who support Jim's rhetoric are having problems with that it doesn't make sense. He seems to be living in a world where Sony have a monopoly and Nintendo's been developing handhelds for them for the past twenty years. Publishers in his world all hate XBOX and their way of selling games, and want Sony to go back to having an exclusive monopoly, where they buy Playstation for their high end consoles, and Nintendo for their portables.
@themightyant And without Nintendo going with the wrong deal a couple of decades ago, we wouldn't have the Playstation we have now.
@TropicalCarnage Oh right, Microsoft pretty much don't care about the market, they should just quit and stop harassing Sony about what they do. Sony having exclusivity in Japan, yeah, that makes sense. But Sony's attitude towards the West is abysmal in one way. It might not be as widespread as Phil Spencer makes out, but, from the viewpoint of someone who has owned every type of console on the market, the big thing about this generation is that 90% of third party titles are on Sony, and every time I read about someone in the industry kicking up a fuss about implementing some kind of cross-platform synergy, it's Sony.
Microsoft bought Minecraft and explicitly called out that the delay in the fourth pillar of Better Together was a lack of Sony dev kits, with Sony going on record only a few days ago as denying Activision Blizzard dev kits if the deal goes through.
To the comment of 'Stop bringing up Final Fantasy', it is the Japanese equivalent of something like Elder Scrolls or Warcraft, yes, I do know what you're likely about to say on it. Now, tell me when we're going to see FFXIV, FF7R or FFXVI, and not as something like Dragon Quest XI S, which was very much a Switch port.
@neoxmahi @47AlphaTango Right, Microsoft is evil, Phil Spencer is Satan's right hand, yadda yadda yadda.
Would we be in the same situation if Sony bought Zenimax and ABK? Yes and No.
Sony would pretty much, outright, be able to foreclose on the market. They have no need for more exclusives, for more studios, except to ensure Microsoft can't rely on them. They have Japan accepting anything they do, giving them exclusivity without question. Microsoft has to fight to get a foothold there.
By 2040, Microsoft will have shuttered their console division, and Sony would be poised to make a takeover or merger deal with Nintendo, with it's market dominance unstoppable.
Microsoft have gone on record as saying that, if they keep losing games to Playstation like this, they'll have to shut down their console division, and Phil has gone on oath as saying they're losing badly in the console market. Sony doesn't need it's six month exclusives. Sony doesn't need to celebrate that it's got Final Fantasy XVI. MLB The Show was a cheap trinket compared to something like Ratchet And Clank Rift Apart. And we know for a fact they'll never share Rift Apart.
Quantum Break is a 2016 action-adventure third-person shooter video game developed by Remedy Entertainment and published by Microsoft Studios for Windows and Xbox One.
Dead Rising 3 is a 2013 action-adventure game developed by Capcom Vancouver and published by Microsoft Studios.
Do you want me to keep checking, because they were published by Microsoft themselves, same as Street Fighter V. I'm asking about third party games, where they weren't literally paid for and published by Sony or Microsoft. A 'third party' game, as I understand it, means that they were not involved.
@UltimateOtaku91 And this is the kind of questioning which is why the FTC were told to shut up. You're saying that it's all about Sony and them buying up exclusivity within Japanese studios...
Well, I'll give you one game, straight away, that's got rave reviews but is still Playstation exclusive, and is also a non-Japanese publisher... Stray.
But you're likely to say that's an indie game, and not a AAA title. The big reason why the Zenimax and ABK deals are massive were the studios that weren't on the ticket. And Sony has quite a few studios that you need to look really hard to realise they own them.
Changing the subject for a moment, Marvel's Avengers and Spiderman's exclusivity. Why can Spiderman appear in Fortnite, but you have a AAA title with him in, and gee, Sony start asking for him to be exclusive, and it WAS NOT a timed exclusive.
You clearly have a different idea on what AAA titles are. I can list several games, and not from Japanese development teams, which aren't on XBOX, and got announced by Sony.
But no, the entire industry revolves around Call Of Duty and Final Fantasy.
@47AlphaTango Look at it from Microsoft's perspective. A considerable amount of companies are dragging their feet over XBOX versions of games, to the point there's zero commitment after 3-4 years of talks.
Now, the judge was right to tell the FTC to shut up and stop badgering them to commit to Elder Scrolls 6, putting Call Of Duty on Playstation Now etc.
To say that Microsoft is innocent, yes, that's pushing it, but looking at the games I play, there's an annoying amount of times where, to play the games I want to play, I need to get a Playstation, and not because it's the better version, but because it's the ONLY version.
Tales Of Vesperia was a game that started out XBOX 360 exclusive. Namco Bandai made it multi-platform and gave us more than just a remaster. When P3, P4 and P5 were announced for XBOX, within days, they announced them for all current systems.
Then I look at Sony's exclusives... and they ARE exclusives, with many of the biggest games of the 2020's all being Playstation exclusive, with token releases on Switch and/or PC.
Before you say that Microsoft keeping Starfield and Indiana Jones is anti-competitive, ask yourself this...
How many of the AAA titles released, third-party, have been Playstation console timed or absolute exclusives and/or released only on Playstation and Switch?
@themightyant It's like if a film company announced a film releasing to 'Streaming First', and then you see it come out on Blu-Ray but not on DVD. DVD is still a formet, some people still use it.
By saying 'Play It First On Playstation 4', people's eyes immediately went to XBOX, since it's the other high end platform. Six months passed, no announcement, 12 months passed, no announcement, then they announce the PC version.
Compare that to, say, Street Fighter 5. That, from Day 1, was announced as 'Exclusively on PS4 and PC'. There was never any doubt that it was only going to come to Playstation and PC.
That's the thing. Show me any point where Sony advertised FF7 Remake as 'Exclusively for Playstation and PC' in it's early marketing.
@themightyant That's why it's a white lie. They seem to love pretending that XBOX isn't a format, and that Playstation First still meant that XBOX doesn't get it... is where it's dirty pool.
@Lastatopiny Timed exclusives isn't the big problem. Sony have outright white lied to the consumer. A good example is how Final Fantasy 7 Remake was 'First On Playstation', not 'Playstation Exclusive'... but where's the XBOX version?
Square-Enix has made plenty of excuses, like that the XBOX Series version is 'being developed', but they're 'working on [something else]', but far too many companies are failing to commit to an XBOX version.
If a title is a flagship title for any company, far too many times, Sony has bought Exclusion deals instead of Exclusivity deals.
The fact that you could replace FTC with 'Sony' and nothing would be different is why the ABK case is so polarising.
@Banjo- Yup. It's why I believe everything Phil's said to the FTC. Because it fits, that Sony would use every dirty trick possible to get rid of XBOX because they don't care about Nintendo at the moment.
Sony's ideal market would be them running, literally, the high end console market, while Nintendo runs handhelds, while, say, Apple are the only option for mobiles.
The problem with their idea of a market is that it's stagnant. Nintendo got to where they are by having the best product on the market. Sony know they don't have the best product on the market, so use deals like this to make their catalogue the best on the market.
ABK fails, Sony gives them a golden parachute for Call Of Duty six-month exclusivity ad infinitum, and, in 2030, the only things ABK will be developing will be Call Of Duty for Sony, Call Of Duty Mobile and Overwatch. Everything else will be swallowed up.
@Banjo- Most online games have voice chat, friend lists and guild functionality. According to an article on Gamerant:
According to Final Fantasy 14 game director Naoki Yoshida, a Final Fantasy 14 Xbox One port hasn't happened yet due to Microsoft's own rules about cross-play. Apparently Microsoft has a rule about players being able to chat with those on other platforms, as well as a rule against making a community with players on another platform, like a Guild, for instance.
Now, note that. Effectively, Yoshida-san in 2019 declared that Microsoft has rules about players interacting in a meaningful way with those on 'other platforms'. The Better Together update for Minecraft and Microsoft's support for SMITE and various other online games, with many of them being cross-play compatible out of the box, effectively renders that statement a flat lie.
Meanwhile, one of the reasons Microsoft gave for Minecraft delays on Playstation, and a known bug bear of Epic Games over Fortnite crossplay, was that Sony was blocking crossplay... since they didn't want to let XBOX Live or Nintendo Network into their walled garden. So, literally, Yoshida-san's complaint... was the exact thing Sony got blasted by several companies for.
@Banjo- Yes, but that's the whole point. Yoshida-san was saying Microsoft's terms and conditions block that and guild features.
When Monster Hunter, Fortnite, Smite and several other games all show that either Microsoft relaxed those terms, but Square didn't bite, or that he was doing similar to what the FTC are doing here, and using Sony's own practices as a litmus test for Microsoft's practices.
Hell, Naoki Yoshida said in an interview that Microsoft need to remove two regulations, blocking 'cross-platform' voice chat and guilds...
When I know that Fortnite, Phantasy Star Online 2, Minecraft, Smite... The list goes on and on... all support voice chat and friend lists without checking a 'white list' of approved account types, and it was SONY who was telling the companies that they can't let other companies onto Playstation's white list.
From the beginning of this situation, one thing has stuck out for me. Umpteen games releasing on, of all things, PS4/PS5 and Switch, with PC often following up, or games ONLY appearing on PS4/PS5 and PC.
Now, There's a saying, "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action..."
It's reworded on another more common phrase, but it's relevant. Far too many games that aren't pushing the envelope on technology levels, including some direct ports of PS1 and PS2 era games, aren't coming to XBOX because...
Far too often, the companies clam up or refuse to even mention the thought of an XBOX port, and with some games, like Final Fantasy XIV, they claim 'They're working on it' when, right now, they've quite literally finished the main story(!), meaning they're clearly lying to hide Sony's exclusion deals.
The FTC were effectively sounding like they were ready to go 'Right, can you promise that, six month down the line, Starfield will be on Playstation consoles?' then 'And Elder Scrolls 6 will be multiplat?' and 'Can you promise you'll look into Indiana Jones going multiplat again?' Until by the time the Stadia guy has come on, he's tried to demand Microsoft give Sony Day 1 access to every unannounced game Microsoft develop till 2026.
No wonder the judge told the guy to move on TWICE.
What Sarah Bond is trying to point out is simple...
The CMA: XBOX are poised to overly control cloud gaming globally for years to come. XBOX: Everyone who goes into cloud computing/gaming, including us, loses money hand over fist. It would be a massive white elephant for us if we tried to foreclose the market.
This is the cornerstone of Microsoft winning in both territories. That they will lose bigger than they win trying to foreclose on the cloud market.
Microsoft know that, if the FTC and CMA continue to block the deal until August, Microsoft can just pack up and the two companies prepare to write the severance cheques.
If the CMA hadn't turned around and gone 'Oh yes, and before you start final negotiations on the deal, No means No. We're blocking it until... August. Gee, Doesn't the deal run out in July?'
The FTC speeding up their court case is just what Microsoft want right now. If, this time next week, the courts decide in favor of Microsoft, they could push for the CMA to accept the majority decision, and the deal scrapes through.
But if this time next week, Microsoft have another failed attempt to avert the deal being blocked, the deal is DEAD.
I can see that this could hurt both the FTC and CMA's chances of getting them to the appeal court. Both organizations know one important thing...
If Microsoft and Activision miss the deadline, they've successfully protected the industry (Playstation) from such a massive merger, and that Activision Blizzard will be able to accept offers from more suitable companies [like Sony].
They're throwing everything they can at ensuring Microsoft can't get the contract processed before the final due date. The sheer level of blocking this one deal is getting is excessive in the extreme, especially since the rest of the world is looking at both organizations and asking one simple thing...
If Microsoft had a hand in development for a game, it will come off Game Pass if, for some reason, they discontinue active support for the title and/or it's delisted.
Quantum Break had some licensing issues, causing it to be delisted from both the store and Game Pass for a few days while they fixed it. Super Lucky's Tale got temporarily delisted from both when New Super Lucky's Tale was released, until Microsoft were able to make it so an ownership perk, that gave you the original and it's DLC for free, applied to the Game Pass version of New. Forza Motorsport 7 was reaching the end of it's licensing period and Microsoft made it practically free to buy, telling everyone to purchase every piece of the game possible before it was gone forever.
And over the 'Day 1 on Game Pass' tag, that refers to the final release, not the final 'open beta' that all the premium edition players get. Games get Day 1 patches all too often. I'd rather wait a few days, let those early adopters find those last bugs, than celebrate getting the biggest title of the year... and find myself falling through a planet when landing.
This game got quietly killed months ago when the courts effectively told them to cease development due to a legal battle over who owned the rights, with the court making the block absolute on continuing.
It would be like if Disney and Sony got into a dispute over Spiderman and they preemptively delisted Marvel Vs Capcom 3 from all storefronts... then Disney refused to allow even Sony to relist Marvel Vs Capcom 3.
All I want is to have the event content be set up similar to Crash Nitro Kart, where you can get it long after the event's ended, since the first game is perpetually 90% complete for everyone as a result.
@Cashews
Even worse, and I'll say this...
The big draw for SF6 PS5 fans was that Super SF2 Turbo would be 'exclusive' to former players of Street Fighter 5. Capcom released an offer for SF5 owners on Capcom ID, allowing them to link ANY account to a Steam or PS5 account with a Street Fighter 5 profile.
Ergo, when SF6 comes out, I'm going to be playing 2 Turbo, and I don't even own a PS5. Never have.
The CMA since the start has been suspected to be 'in bed' with Sony. Their rhetoric was Sony's rhetoric, and Sony explicitly said they want to bury the deal. Not that they didn't like it, they wanted it D-E-A-D.
The CMA are literally going 'Nothing's wrong here, Everything's going as usual', when, and I'll be honest, the behavioural remedies are nothing to do with Activision Blizzard AT ALL.
It's similar to how Big West finally defeated the Macross Monopoly Harmony Gold had. They literally told them 'Yes, you will continue to own the english rights to the original Macross until Hell freezes over, but these rights that are nothing to do with it, we'll take them off your hands entirely.'
The EC knew cloud gaming was nothing to do with the ABK deal, so accepted it and gave Microsoft a minor smack on the hands and encouraged them to allow more than just xCloud to host Microsoft content. Even the FTC allowed Microsoft to fast track elements of the process and is willing to let them sign, because the primary concerns aren't related to the merger itself.
It's only the CMA that equate Microsoft acquiring the CMA to their xCloud monopoly. If this deal was about Microsoft putting money on the table to acquire Shadow S.A.S or one of the other major cloud producers, yes, that would be a concern related to cloud gaming.
The CAT could easily tell the CMA 'Right, you can make your decision again, but we're taking cloud gaming off the table, there's zero concerns in that market related to this acquisition.' Now, tell me that the CMA's decision would still be the same 'No'.
@Wheatly The EC outright said, right there, that the remedy that's in place, and partially active, is the best way to solve this. The CMA's solution is not just locking the stable door, it's putting it under 24 hour surveillance, protecting three horses that are in need of TLC, while the prize stallion of Cloud Gaming, that they claim is safe... ...We already know has already bolted. Microsoft's 10 year deals without ABK are doing exactly what the CMA claim needs fixing, while ABK are losing money and consumer trust under Kotick.
CMA, admit that you're wrong, or you'll be sending ABK to the glue factory.
What the CMA pretty much did was the foolish part of blocking Microsoft, effectively locking the gate after the horse has bolted.
CMA: "By blocking the ABK deal, we're stopping Microsoft growing their cloud gaming monopoly." Reality: Microsoft, making deals WITHOUT ABK being on the table at the moment, is growing the 'cloud monopoly' anyway.
Literally, if this was about Cloud Gaming, the CMA shouldn't have put an injunction in place to stop them going ahead with the merger, they should have filed a suit to cancel the 10 year deals that are now going ahead without any restrictions.
Comments 381
Re: Discord Is Getting A Huge New Feature On Xbox Consoles
The only quirk this has is that you can't literally stream to your closest friends, unless you let them know in advance what Discord server you're doing it on.
Discord might have made Activities able to be done on private messages, but I don't see how you can set this up on a person to person message.
Re: Square Enix Is Bringing Final Fantasy 14 Online To Xbox In Spring 2024
Microsoft, with the quiet partnership they have with SEGA/Atlus, and this very public one with SquEnix, show that the acquisition of ABK was about smacking Sony on the hand over their use of exclusivity to push them out of the market, while also making attempts to have a Japanese presence.
If this works out, I see that they'll not gain more market strength overall, but they'll stop losing momentum, and titles, to an implied release embargo.
Re: Square Enix Is Bringing Final Fantasy 14 Online To Xbox In Spring 2024
Final Fantasy XI was an experiment that, in various places, failed.
Final Fantasy XIV 1.0 was a dumpster fire.
Final Fantasy XIV Realm Reborn made both the others bow their heads in shame.
Re: Square Enix Is Bringing Final Fantasy 14 Online To Xbox In Spring 2024
@ArcadeGamer1929 Either way, I have to say that it's a good idea to skip XBOX One. Short/instant load times are a godsend with anything that already needs the game to synchronise people all over the planet.
Re: Square Enix Is Bringing Final Fantasy 14 Online To Xbox In Spring 2024
I'm glad to see that the comments by Yoshi-P and others, not denying it would happen, but saying it was always planned...
The fact that it's skipped XBOX One tells me that we'd not have it at all if it wasn't for the Series X|S. That, in a few months from now, I'll be able to boot my account back up after one too many dead Playstations (Their design makes falling on the floor lethal) is the greatest news ever.
Re: Xbox Extends Activision Blizzard Takeover Deadline To October
I know that, if Skylanders rereleased all the titles on XBOX One/Series as 'No Portal' versions, with a unlock system similar to the digital version of Ubisoft's Starlink, I'd consider it a nice deal.
The only reason Skylanders failed was that the bubble burst on Toys To Life, since the concept itself had a lot of untapped potential.
Re: Xbox Extends Activision Blizzard Takeover Deadline To October
@SilverGrey1 Spyro and Crash were effectively dead in the water due to Activision being 'the Call Of Duty studio' already.
And Diablo, well, that won't matter to anyone if they do keep it off Playstation for another few years at least, and Sony themselves shot themselves in the foot over Overwatch [2].
Now, either Microsoft are a bunch of incompetent nincompoops who'll not do anything with ABK's properties, meaning they'll languish in obscurity, or Microsoft may well reshuffle what studios are given Call Of Duty duties.
Getting the Gears Of Wars devs to work with Infinity Ward might well help free up Toys For Bob, for example. But no, since they're a bunch of idiotic thieves, they'll just sit on this massive purchase and give Sony the bare minimum, because that's what Microsoft does.
Not.
Re: Xbox Extends Activision Blizzard Takeover Deadline To October
@SilverGrey1 You keep ignoring one part of my comments.
You're effectively saying that Sony =/= The Industry. Sony, who own over half the market, who have a stranglehold over Japan, who have had many more games exclusive to their system than Microsoft, will be 'harmed' by Microsoft's 'theft'.
The same Sony who made an agreement with Microsoft over Call Of Duty only this week, meaning that Microsoft stole nothing. But you're not looking at that.
You're making it out that Microsoft are a bunch of hacks and thieves that should just leave the industry to Sony and Nintendo. And maybe even just Sony.
Re: Xbox Extends Activision Blizzard Takeover Deadline To October
@SilverGrey1 WHAT?!?
They're 'stealing' the games from Playstation. What about Sony 'stealing' the entire Final Fantasy series from everyone else? What about the fact that XBOX can't seem to get any game, day and date, from Japan?
Oh right, that's perfectly fine, since Sony ARE the industry, no-one else, and what Sony says is right... Is right.
Re: Xbox Extends Activision Blizzard Takeover Deadline To October
@SilverGrey1 So, In 2024, Nintendo and Microsoft should bend at the knee and give Sony full access to their libraries for a massive Playstation library that's unequalled and unparalleled. No more of this competition crap, it's all Sony all the way down.
The whole fact you're saying that 'there's competition if [Sony] buys something, but there isn't if Microsoft do'... Would you rather have Sony have 99.9% of the market, or would you rather Microsoft and Nintendo be allowed to compete?
Re: Xbox's New Game Pass Tiers Are Causing Confusion Around Online Multiplayer
@InterceptorAlpha I suspect that the reason that it's such an odd situation is that Microsoft, up until now, assumed Console players were subscribed to both. Which is why Ultimate is automatically both.
Course, when PC got it's own Game Pass, it didn't need XBOX Live for anything, which caused this oddity.
Re: Xbox's New Game Pass Tiers Are Causing Confusion Around Online Multiplayer
I see it this way...
You have three 'entry level' paths... Core, Console and PC. You play online, you get Core, You want the massive game library, you get Console or PC. You want both, you get Ultimate, which includes all three.
Sony and Microsoft have always had a policy of giving with one hand while taking with the other unless you pay top dollar. And this hasn't changed.
Re: UK CMA Delays Decision On Xbox ActiBlizz Deal Until August
The even more galling thing...
The CMA were already investigating Microsoft over the cloud monopoly. There's a Ofcom probe going on into Amazon, Google and Microsoft having almost absolute control over it.
They just jeopardized the Ofcom probe to do a hail mary play to get Microsoft to choose divestiture.
Re: Microsoft & Sony Sign Binding Agreement To Keep Call Of Duty On PlayStation
Sony just did the inevitable and signed. Even they know that the only reason the deal isn't going through is the CMA bundling the ABK deal with the Ofcom investigation into the cloud, which could ruin that investigation and the CMA's credibility.
Re: Microsoft Activision Blizzard Acquisition Given Greenlight In US After FTC Loses (Again)
The CMA are pushing, really pushing hard for divestiture as a resolution, either of xCloud or Call Of Duty.
If Microsoft sell off Cloud, I could see the CMA trying to force concessions like it being removed from Game Pass, requiring an additional fee on top of XGP Ultimate, with no change to Game Pass's own price. The 'consumers' are protected at that point, aren't they?
If they sell off Call Of Duty, things like the planned Nintendo Switch builds get quietly cancelled and whatever company buys it gets equally quietly approached by Sony to restore the golden handshake that gave them preferential treatment. Again, The 'consumers' are protected. Honest.
The EU deal pretty much closed the deal for everyone except the FTC and CMA, since it promised, going forward, everyone sharing their subscriptions with everyone else, Well, unless you're Sony, who want to own everything for minimum effort.
Re: UK CMA Delays Decision On Xbox ActiBlizz Deal Until August
The CMA seem to be pushing HARD for the divestiture strategy, despite the only people it benefits at this point being Sony, while being aware, from the FTC's loss, that any court case would result in them losing big.
This will be closed this weekend, and the CMA, when they try to use the courts to break them apart, will end up in a worse state than the FTC.
Re: UK CMA Delays Decision On Xbox ActiBlizz Deal Until August
@elpardo1984 Just like it wasn't 'feasible' for them to reach a resolution in nearly two years other than 'No, because Cloud', when every other regulatory body has already said 'Yes' well within the deadline?
The FTC already lost the case, they're pulling at straws to try to force a last minute appeal. The CMA, in declaring 'We need more time' is exactly the same thing as they said to the court during the FTC case, and the judge went 'No you don't, motion denied'.
The CMA want to make their resolution in 6-7 days, and declare that renewing the deal counts as a forbidden action according to their block, as is removing ABK from the UK 'pending a resolution', effectively killing the deal stone dead by litigating it out of existence. And Microsoft likely are ready, in 4 days, to tell the CMA to shut the f- up or just let them do either of them or settle.
Re: UK CMA Delays Decision On Xbox ActiBlizz Deal Until August
The FTC would not be able to do anything. The CMA however are trying to do a very insidious thing in HOW they blocked the deal. The fact they declared intent to block, THEN trotted out a regulatory statement that the CMA would find Microsoft (and ABK) in breach of said intent if they made any motions to acquire part of the other, which is both incredibly broad and incredibly narrow.
The CMA could literally take Microsoft to court for the act of withdrawing ABK games from the UK, because it's in breach of that regulatory order, which is, in reality, purely the CMA throwing an epic tantrum that Microsoft, otherwise, has the deal in the bag, since their case could easily, without that order, be thrown out as 'Not related to the acquisition'.
Re: UK CMA Delays Decision On Xbox ActiBlizz Deal Until August
@S1ayeR74 The CMA, and to a lesser degree, the FTC, are bending the law as much as possible to make it look like they're going with legal means. However, as said further up, the CMA are literally going 'OK, We'll talk with you, see if you have a hail mary idea... but we're not going to lift the block and we're not going to allow anything until August'.
The CMA could go the extra-ordinary length, and prove their block is anti-consumer, and say 'Oh, and by the way? Renegotiating the deal also breaches the block. Toodles.'
Effectively telling Microsoft and ABK they need to pay the penalty fees and let the deal die, or the CMA will force the issue.
Now, if they did that, Microsoft can, and would, have a good reason to sue, for the entire cost of the penalty fee, especially if they DO say that they would have been willing to accept concession X or Y if Microsoft had been 'more willing'.
It's been two years, and the CMA are, right now, umm-ing and ahh-ing and finding every reason to make sure they can't close in any way next week.
Re: UK CMA Delays Decision On Xbox ActiBlizz Deal Until August
Both the FTC by 'appealing' the decision, and the CMA by effectively sitting back and saying 'we can't decide in that time' are looking at that deadline and knowing that, unless Microsoft can get an extension, which they more than likely WILL, due to the fact it's obvious the regulators are stalling due to the fact the date isn't indefinite, they can just wait a week and then 'apologize' as they finally get their finger out of their ear and "approve" the deal too late.
What Microsoft did with Canada during the court case proved what the FTC/CMA are doing. The CMA keep pushing 'Not until August', 'It'll take too long' etc, since, and I'll be honest, if the deal falls through on the 18th, I bet you 10 of anyone's money they'll have a 'decision' come the 19th, and apologize for the delay.
Re: Microsoft And UK CMA Agree To Pause Legal Battle Over Activision Blizzard Deal
As soon as the CMA heard that the FTC lost, they just accepted Microsoft closing down the appeal for one reason...
They don't need the appeal to know they've lost. They'll make some golden handcuff deal, where Microsoft are required to commit to having someone look at their business in 2030, but outside of that, the CMA's case is as solid a barrier as wet cardboard in a tsunami.
Re: Microsoft's CEO Isn't A Fan Of Console Exclusives, Blames Sony
As I say somewhere else on here, and a few others mention...
Sony right now are using their market weight to get exclusivity for their system... when they don't even NEED exclusivity. They don't need to force you to buy a Sony system to play Spiderman or use Spiderman in Marvel's Avengers.
Jim Ryan effectively declared that publishers prefer monetization and profits over Game Pass... when it's really that Sony want to be able to dictate the price of your games, where you play your games...
Imagine a world where you can buy a game for $100, or rent it for $5 a month if you're a Playstation Plus member, and if the game is more than six months old, you can even get it free... but you're not getting any kind of refund or price decrease for that rental. And if you want to get it on another platform?
Tough. Sony strongarmed everyone else out of the market.
Re: Jim Ryan: Publishers 'Unanimously' Do Not Like Xbox Game Pass
Those who support Jim's rhetoric are having problems with that it doesn't make sense. He seems to be living in a world where Sony have a monopoly and Nintendo's been developing handhelds for them for the past twenty years.
Publishers in his world all hate XBOX and their way of selling games, and want Sony to go back to having an exclusive monopoly, where they buy Playstation for their high end consoles, and Nintendo for their portables.
Re: Phil Spencer: Sony Uses Revenue From Our Games To Reduce Xbox's 'Survival In The Market'
@themightyant And without Nintendo going with the wrong deal a couple of decades ago, we wouldn't have the Playstation we have now.
@TropicalCarnage Oh right, Microsoft pretty much don't care about the market, they should just quit and stop harassing Sony about what they do. Sony having exclusivity in Japan, yeah, that makes sense.
But Sony's attitude towards the West is abysmal in one way. It might not be as widespread as Phil Spencer makes out, but, from the viewpoint of someone who has owned every type of console on the market, the big thing about this generation is that 90% of third party titles are on Sony, and every time I read about someone in the industry kicking up a fuss about implementing some kind of cross-platform synergy, it's Sony.
Microsoft bought Minecraft and explicitly called out that the delay in the fourth pillar of Better Together was a lack of Sony dev kits, with Sony going on record only a few days ago as denying Activision Blizzard dev kits if the deal goes through.
To the comment of 'Stop bringing up Final Fantasy', it is the Japanese equivalent of something like Elder Scrolls or Warcraft, yes, I do know what you're likely about to say on it. Now, tell me when we're going to see FFXIV, FF7R or FFXVI, and not as something like Dragon Quest XI S, which was very much a Switch port.
Re: Phil Spencer: Sony Uses Revenue From Our Games To Reduce Xbox's 'Survival In The Market'
@neoxmahi @47AlphaTango Right, Microsoft is evil, Phil Spencer is Satan's right hand, yadda yadda yadda.
Would we be in the same situation if Sony bought Zenimax and ABK? Yes and No.
Sony would pretty much, outright, be able to foreclose on the market. They have no need for more exclusives, for more studios, except to ensure Microsoft can't rely on them.
They have Japan accepting anything they do, giving them exclusivity without question. Microsoft has to fight to get a foothold there.
By 2040, Microsoft will have shuttered their console division, and Sony would be poised to make a takeover or merger deal with Nintendo, with it's market dominance unstoppable.
Microsoft have gone on record as saying that, if they keep losing games to Playstation like this, they'll have to shut down their console division, and Phil has gone on oath as saying they're losing badly in the console market.
Sony doesn't need it's six month exclusives. Sony doesn't need to celebrate that it's got Final Fantasy XVI. MLB The Show was a cheap trinket compared to something like Ratchet And Clank Rift Apart.
And we know for a fact they'll never share Rift Apart.
Re: Phil Spencer: Sony Uses Revenue From Our Games To Reduce Xbox's 'Survival In The Market'
@UltimateOtaku91
Quantum Break is a 2016 action-adventure third-person shooter video game developed by Remedy Entertainment and published by Microsoft Studios for Windows and Xbox One.
Dead Rising 3 is a 2013 action-adventure game developed by Capcom Vancouver and published by Microsoft Studios.
Do you want me to keep checking, because they were published by Microsoft themselves, same as Street Fighter V. I'm asking about third party games, where they weren't literally paid for and published by Sony or Microsoft. A 'third party' game, as I understand it, means that they were not involved.
Re: Phil Spencer: Sony Uses Revenue From Our Games To Reduce Xbox's 'Survival In The Market'
@UltimateOtaku91 And this is the kind of questioning which is why the FTC were told to shut up. You're saying that it's all about Sony and them buying up exclusivity within Japanese studios...
Well, I'll give you one game, straight away, that's got rave reviews but is still Playstation exclusive, and is also a non-Japanese publisher... Stray.
But you're likely to say that's an indie game, and not a AAA title. The big reason why the Zenimax and ABK deals are massive were the studios that weren't on the ticket. And Sony has quite a few studios that you need to look really hard to realise they own them.
Changing the subject for a moment, Marvel's Avengers and Spiderman's exclusivity. Why can Spiderman appear in Fortnite, but you have a AAA title with him in, and gee, Sony start asking for him to be exclusive, and it WAS NOT a timed exclusive.
Re: Phil Spencer: Sony Uses Revenue From Our Games To Reduce Xbox's 'Survival In The Market'
You clearly have a different idea on what AAA titles are. I can list several games, and not from Japanese development teams, which aren't on XBOX, and got announced by Sony.
But no, the entire industry revolves around Call Of Duty and Final Fantasy.
Re: Phil Spencer: Sony Uses Revenue From Our Games To Reduce Xbox's 'Survival In The Market'
@47AlphaTango Look at it from Microsoft's perspective. A considerable amount of companies are dragging their feet over XBOX versions of games, to the point there's zero commitment after 3-4 years of talks.
Now, the judge was right to tell the FTC to shut up and stop badgering them to commit to Elder Scrolls 6, putting Call Of Duty on Playstation Now etc.
To say that Microsoft is innocent, yes, that's pushing it, but looking at the games I play, there's an annoying amount of times where, to play the games I want to play, I need to get a Playstation, and not because it's the better version, but because it's the ONLY version.
Tales Of Vesperia was a game that started out XBOX 360 exclusive. Namco Bandai made it multi-platform and gave us more than just a remaster.
When P3, P4 and P5 were announced for XBOX, within days, they announced them for all current systems.
Then I look at Sony's exclusives... and they ARE exclusives, with many of the biggest games of the 2020's all being Playstation exclusive, with token releases on Switch and/or PC.
Before you say that Microsoft keeping Starfield and Indiana Jones is anti-competitive, ask yourself this...
How many of the AAA titles released, third-party, have been Playstation console timed or absolute exclusives and/or released only on Playstation and Switch?
Re: Phil Spencer: Sony Uses Revenue From Our Games To Reduce Xbox's 'Survival In The Market'
@themightyant It's like if a film company announced a film releasing to 'Streaming First', and then you see it come out on Blu-Ray but not on DVD. DVD is still a formet, some people still use it.
By saying 'Play It First On Playstation 4', people's eyes immediately went to XBOX, since it's the other high end platform. Six months passed, no announcement, 12 months passed, no announcement, then they announce the PC version.
Compare that to, say, Street Fighter 5. That, from Day 1, was announced as 'Exclusively on PS4 and PC'. There was never any doubt that it was only going to come to Playstation and PC.
That's the thing. Show me any point where Sony advertised FF7 Remake as 'Exclusively for Playstation and PC' in it's early marketing.
Re: Phil Spencer: Sony Uses Revenue From Our Games To Reduce Xbox's 'Survival In The Market'
@themightyant That's why it's a white lie. They seem to love pretending that XBOX isn't a format, and that Playstation First still meant that XBOX doesn't get it... is where it's dirty pool.
Re: Phil Spencer: Sony Uses Revenue From Our Games To Reduce Xbox's 'Survival In The Market'
@Lastatopiny Timed exclusives isn't the big problem. Sony have outright white lied to the consumer. A good example is how Final Fantasy 7 Remake was 'First On Playstation', not 'Playstation Exclusive'... but where's the XBOX version?
Square-Enix has made plenty of excuses, like that the XBOX Series version is 'being developed', but they're 'working on [something else]', but far too many companies are failing to commit to an XBOX version.
If a title is a flagship title for any company, far too many times, Sony has bought Exclusion deals instead of Exclusivity deals.
The fact that you could replace FTC with 'Sony' and nothing would be different is why the ABK case is so polarising.
Re: Phil Spencer: Sony Uses Revenue From Our Games To Reduce Xbox's 'Survival In The Market'
@Banjo- Yup.
It's why I believe everything Phil's said to the FTC. Because it fits, that Sony would use every dirty trick possible to get rid of XBOX because they don't care about Nintendo at the moment.
Sony's ideal market would be them running, literally, the high end console market, while Nintendo runs handhelds, while, say, Apple are the only option for mobiles.
The problem with their idea of a market is that it's stagnant. Nintendo got to where they are by having the best product on the market. Sony know they don't have the best product on the market, so use deals like this to make their catalogue the best on the market.
ABK fails, Sony gives them a golden parachute for Call Of Duty six-month exclusivity ad infinitum, and, in 2030, the only things ABK will be developing will be Call Of Duty for Sony, Call Of Duty Mobile and Overwatch. Everything else will be swallowed up.
Re: Phil Spencer: Sony Uses Revenue From Our Games To Reduce Xbox's 'Survival In The Market'
@Banjo- Most online games have voice chat, friend lists and guild functionality. According to an article on Gamerant:
According to Final Fantasy 14 game director Naoki Yoshida, a Final Fantasy 14 Xbox One port hasn't happened yet due to Microsoft's own rules about cross-play. Apparently Microsoft has a rule about players being able to chat with those on other platforms, as well as a rule against making a community with players on another platform, like a Guild, for instance.
Now, note that. Effectively, Yoshida-san in 2019 declared that Microsoft has rules about players interacting in a meaningful way with those on 'other platforms'. The Better Together update for Minecraft and Microsoft's support for SMITE and various other online games, with many of them being cross-play compatible out of the box, effectively renders that statement a flat lie.
Meanwhile, one of the reasons Microsoft gave for Minecraft delays on Playstation, and a known bug bear of Epic Games over Fortnite crossplay, was that Sony was blocking crossplay... since they didn't want to let XBOX Live or Nintendo Network into their walled garden.
So, literally, Yoshida-san's complaint... was the exact thing Sony got blasted by several companies for.
Re: Phil Spencer: Sony Uses Revenue From Our Games To Reduce Xbox's 'Survival In The Market'
@Banjo- Yes, but that's the whole point. Yoshida-san was saying Microsoft's terms and conditions block that and guild features.
When Monster Hunter, Fortnite, Smite and several other games all show that either Microsoft relaxed those terms, but Square didn't bite, or that he was doing similar to what the FTC are doing here, and using Sony's own practices as a litmus test for Microsoft's practices.
Re: Phil Spencer: Sony Uses Revenue From Our Games To Reduce Xbox's 'Survival In The Market'
Hell, Naoki Yoshida said in an interview that Microsoft need to remove two regulations, blocking 'cross-platform' voice chat and guilds...
When I know that Fortnite, Phantasy Star Online 2, Minecraft, Smite... The list goes on and on... all support voice chat and friend lists without checking a 'white list' of approved account types, and it was SONY who was telling the companies that they can't let other companies onto Playstation's white list.
Re: Phil Spencer: Sony Uses Revenue From Our Games To Reduce Xbox's 'Survival In The Market'
From the beginning of this situation, one thing has stuck out for me. Umpteen games releasing on, of all things, PS4/PS5 and Switch, with PC often following up, or games ONLY appearing on PS4/PS5 and PC.
Now, There's a saying, "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action..."
It's reworded on another more common phrase, but it's relevant. Far too many games that aren't pushing the envelope on technology levels, including some direct ports of PS1 and PS2 era games, aren't coming to XBOX because...
Far too often, the companies clam up or refuse to even mention the thought of an XBOX port, and with some games, like Final Fantasy XIV, they claim 'They're working on it' when, right now, they've quite literally finished the main story(!), meaning they're clearly lying to hide Sony's exclusion deals.
Re: Xbox Boss Promises To Keep Call Of Duty On PlayStation (Again)
The FTC were effectively sounding like they were ready to go 'Right, can you promise that, six month down the line, Starfield will be on Playstation consoles?' then 'And Elder Scrolls 6 will be multiplat?' and 'Can you promise you'll look into Indiana Jones going multiplat again?'
Until by the time the Stadia guy has come on, he's tried to demand Microsoft give Sony Day 1 access to every unannounced game Microsoft develop till 2026.
No wonder the judge told the guy to move on TWICE.
Re: Sarah Bond: Xbox Game Pass Ultimate's Least Popular Feature Is Cloud Gaming
What Sarah Bond is trying to point out is simple...
The CMA: XBOX are poised to overly control cloud gaming globally for years to come.
XBOX: Everyone who goes into cloud computing/gaming, including us, loses money hand over fist. It would be a massive white elephant for us if we tried to foreclose the market.
This is the cornerstone of Microsoft winning in both territories. That they will lose bigger than they win trying to foreclose on the cloud market.
Re: Microsoft Is Literally Now Saying That Xbox Has 'Lost The Console Wars'
Microsoft know that, if the FTC and CMA continue to block the deal until August, Microsoft can just pack up and the two companies prepare to write the severance cheques.
If the CMA hadn't turned around and gone 'Oh yes, and before you start final negotiations on the deal, No means No. We're blocking it until... August. Gee, Doesn't the deal run out in July?'
The FTC speeding up their court case is just what Microsoft want right now. If, this time next week, the courts decide in favor of Microsoft, they could push for the CMA to accept the majority decision, and the deal scrapes through.
But if this time next week, Microsoft have another failed attempt to avert the deal being blocked, the deal is DEAD.
Re: FTC Requests Temporary Restraining Order Against Microsoft & Activision Blizzard
I can see that this could hurt both the FTC and CMA's chances of getting them to the appeal court. Both organizations know one important thing...
If Microsoft and Activision miss the deadline, they've successfully protected the industry (Playstation) from such a massive merger, and that Activision Blizzard will be able to accept offers from more suitable companies [like Sony].
They're throwing everything they can at ensuring Microsoft can't get the contract processed before the final due date. The sheer level of blocking this one deal is getting is excessive in the extreme, especially since the rest of the world is looking at both organizations and asking one simple thing...
Who Bought You?
Re: Special Xbox Game Pass 'Upgrade' Bundles Confirmed For Starfield & Forza Motorsport
If Microsoft had a hand in development for a game, it will come off Game Pass if, for some reason, they discontinue active support for the title and/or it's delisted.
Quantum Break had some licensing issues, causing it to be delisted from both the store and Game Pass for a few days while they fixed it.
Super Lucky's Tale got temporarily delisted from both when New Super Lucky's Tale was released, until Microsoft were able to make it so an ownership perk, that gave you the original and it's DLC for free, applied to the Game Pass version of New.
Forza Motorsport 7 was reaching the end of it's licensing period and Microsoft made it practically free to buy, telling everyone to purchase every piece of the game possible before it was gone forever.
And over the 'Day 1 on Game Pass' tag, that refers to the final release, not the final 'open beta' that all the premium edition players get. Games get Day 1 patches all too often. I'd rather wait a few days, let those early adopters find those last bugs, than celebrate getting the biggest title of the year... and find myself falling through a planet when landing.
Re: Friday The 13th Game Being Delisted As Rumours Of A New Entry Circulate
This game got quietly killed months ago when the courts effectively told them to cease development due to a legal battle over who owned the rights, with the court making the block absolute on continuing.
It would be like if Disney and Sony got into a dispute over Spiderman and they preemptively delisted Marvel Vs Capcom 3 from all storefronts... then Disney refused to allow even Sony to relist Marvel Vs Capcom 3.
Re: Hot Wheels Unleashed 2: Turbocharged Loops Onto Xbox This October
All I want is to have the event content be set up similar to Crash Nitro Kart, where you can get it long after the event's ended, since the first game is perpetually 90% complete for everyone as a result.
Re: Talking Point: What 'Dream' Reveal Would You Like To See At The Xbox Games Showcase 2023
@Deshalu Just Microsoft announcing that 'in the coming months' they expect to add ABK games would be fine.
Pie in the sky? Mihoyo to declare they're bringing their games to XBOX.
Re: Reaction: PlayStation's Showcase Was A Win For Xbox, Whichever Way You Slice It
@Cashews
Even worse, and I'll say this...
The big draw for SF6 PS5 fans was that Super SF2 Turbo would be 'exclusive' to former players of Street Fighter 5. Capcom released an offer for SF5 owners on Capcom ID, allowing them to link ANY account to a Steam or PS5 account with a Street Fighter 5 profile.
Ergo, when SF6 comes out, I'm going to be playing 2 Turbo, and I don't even own a PS5. Never have.
Re: European Commission Explains Why It Disagreed With UK CMA Over Xbox ActiBlizz Deal
The CMA since the start has been suspected to be 'in bed' with Sony. Their rhetoric was Sony's rhetoric, and Sony explicitly said they want to bury the deal. Not that they didn't like it, they wanted it D-E-A-D.
The CMA are literally going 'Nothing's wrong here, Everything's going as usual', when, and I'll be honest, the behavioural remedies are nothing to do with Activision Blizzard AT ALL.
It's similar to how Big West finally defeated the Macross Monopoly Harmony Gold had. They literally told them 'Yes, you will continue to own the english rights to the original Macross until Hell freezes over, but these rights that are nothing to do with it, we'll take them off your hands entirely.'
The EC knew cloud gaming was nothing to do with the ABK deal, so accepted it and gave Microsoft a minor smack on the hands and encouraged them to allow more than just xCloud to host Microsoft content.
Even the FTC allowed Microsoft to fast track elements of the process and is willing to let them sign, because the primary concerns aren't related to the merger itself.
It's only the CMA that equate Microsoft acquiring the CMA to their xCloud monopoly. If this deal was about Microsoft putting money on the table to acquire Shadow S.A.S or one of the other major cloud producers, yes, that would be a concern related to cloud gaming.
The CAT could easily tell the CMA 'Right, you can make your decision again, but we're taking cloud gaming off the table, there's zero concerns in that market related to this acquisition.'
Now, tell me that the CMA's decision would still be the same 'No'.
Re: European Commission Explains Why It Disagreed With UK CMA Over Xbox ActiBlizz Deal
@Wheatly
The EC outright said, right there, that the remedy that's in place, and partially active, is the best way to solve this. The CMA's solution is not just locking the stable door, it's putting it under 24 hour surveillance, protecting three horses that are in need of TLC, while the prize stallion of Cloud Gaming, that they claim is safe...
...We already know has already bolted. Microsoft's 10 year deals without ABK are doing exactly what the CMA claim needs fixing, while ABK are losing money and consumer trust under Kotick.
CMA, admit that you're wrong, or you'll be sending ABK to the glue factory.
Re: Xbox Has Much Weaker Brand Momentum Than PlayStation, Claims New Sony Document
Sony pretty much told the CMA one thing and the rest another, knowing that the CMA would do what they did, and it was mildly successful.
Microsoft could sue the CMA for effectively rendering the deal impossible to complete 'while they deliberate over it'.
Re: Boosteroid Joins Nvidia GeForce Now In Getting Access To Xbox Cloud Titles, Starting Next Month
What the CMA pretty much did was the foolish part of blocking Microsoft, effectively locking the gate after the horse has bolted.
CMA: "By blocking the ABK deal, we're stopping Microsoft growing their cloud gaming monopoly."
Reality: Microsoft, making deals WITHOUT ABK being on the table at the moment, is growing the 'cloud monopoly' anyway.
Literally, if this was about Cloud Gaming, the CMA shouldn't have put an injunction in place to stop them going ahead with the merger, they should have filed a suit to cancel the 10 year deals that are now going ahead without any restrictions.