Because this won’t give MS a monopoly in the slightest. There’s still tons of Devs and publisher’s out there on various states of first, second and third party relationships with MS, Sony and Nintendo and new indie Devs pop up almost weekly. It gives them a massive advantage having CoD as a first party Gamepass title, yes, but that’s not what a monopoly means.
3rd place in… What? I’m trying to search around to see what you’re referring to here, but I can’t find anything.
By total market cap, Microsoft already blows these companies out of the water. By just videogame divisions, Sony and Nintendo are way farther ahead because of hardware sales, but that doesn’t really make sense to include in the conversation about acquiring a publisher. I can’t find any solid numbers either way isolating publishing, other than that the top 5 in recent years seems to be Tencent, Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, and Activision/Blizzard (with EA hanging around too). Seems like any of those two merging is going to be bad for everyone other than shareholders.
Yes, third place in total gaming revenue. I agree it will be bad, but let’s not pretend this is going to shift the market in a big way, because it won’t.
How do you figure that 2 of the top 6 merging won’t shift the market in a big way?
Also, total gaming revenue wouldn’t be a good way to compare it because that includes revenue streams that’s are unrelated to Activision/Blizzard. Microsoft is hardly even competing with Nintendo at all considering they don’t have a handheld device. And Microsoft releases way more games on PC than Nintendo or even Sony, which further reduces the relevance of hardware sales.
It’s the developing and publishing industries specifically that are going to be impacted by this, because that’s what Activision/Blizzard does.
The impact to hardware sales will be indirect: I would guess a pretty small number amount of people might switch to Xbox or buy an Xbox in addition to a PlayStation just for version exclusives, but probably not a huge amount as long as Microsoft keeps COD on PlayStation.
Activision Blizzard was already about as anti-consumer as possible, so in this particular case at worst nothing will change, at best Microsoft might actually clean house and there might be some improvements for the consumers…
Microsoft will use this purchase to further restrict releases to non Xbox consoles, no matter when they agree to to industry bodies. It is in Microsofts interest to only release on their platforms as releasing to PS or Switch will cost them in Xbox purchases.
Yeah, sorry, I was thinking from a PC standpoint and sort of ignored the whole console perspective (though, frankly, the console market seems to have been absolutely fubared from its inception, from a consumer standpoint, so anything Microsoft does will probably be as relevant as farting into an ocean of shit…)
It shouldn’t be when they were talking about making that shit retroactive for games that were already released. Unity proved they cannot be trusted. Besides, developers should move to other engines for the sole reason of sending a message to the other guys in the industry like Epic’s Unreal Engine. Pull shit like this and you’ll lose out on the developers. Make them realize that Unity was a failed experiment and no one wants to be like them.
For anyone paying attention, it shouldn’t be. Anyone that goes back to business as usual fully deserves the rug pull when this or something worse is implemented again.
A scorpion wants to cross a river but cannot swim, so it asks a frog to carry it across. The frog hesitates, afraid that the scorpion might sting it, but the scorpion promises not to, pointing out that it would drown if it killed the frog in the middle of the river. The frog considers this argument sensible and agrees to transport the scorpion. Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence, to which the scorpion replies: “I am sorry, but I couldn’t resist the urge. It’s my character.”
I’m working on a 7 year old game with Unity. It will take me a long time and energy to port to Godot. I’m gonna carry on with unity, but I’m learning Godot at the same time. I really wish there was a porting button you could press.
A button to export project you mean? Amazon could definitely give Godot some love. There are exporting projects, but they break a bit on the code part apparently
I spent a week and really liked Godot, lightweight, amazing UX, very compatible with Linux, and the feeling of being part of a community is so good. C# support is great, but not as good as Gdscript, and coding in C# is so much faster for me. For instance there is no hot reloading on C#. Managed to get Vs code working and debugging after as while but broke the compatibility with unity of Vs code. So it’s tricky to work on both engines on Vs code simultaneously.
Yeah exactly, he left because he finished the job he was there to do. Now they are acting like this is some kind of move to placate their customers as if it wasn’t the plan all along.
I’m concerned with the state of consolidation in the gaming space (and just about every other market, I might add) but I also find it hard to argue they’re a monopoly. They’re number three in the console space and thanks to Proton Microsoft’s de facto stranglehold on PC gaming OS’s is weaker than ever. I could see cloud gaming being a problem in the future but it’s such a nascent market who knows what will happen there.
I hate to be the advocate of EA here but I’m convinced it’s because FIFA is not allowing them to use the trademark any longer and the mentioned loopholes are either permitted by FIFA or will be closed soon.
Nothing to do with previous titles. You could still purchase them. This is EA locking you into playing the current version of the game. Some people like the mechanics of the older games and don’t want to have to pay these games that are more store front than actual game.
theverge.com
Najnowsze