Markus "Notch" Persson, the creator of Minecraft and founder of Mojang, has echoed Valve and Blizzard on the negative repercussions of Windows 8 for developers.
The FTC has officially dropped its case against Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard.
"The sweet smell of tax dollars burning"
They never stood a chance. It was a lost cause from the start. And yet, still, they´d decided to go ahead and double down on their bs to bleed the taxpayer even more.
@slate: “ The sweet smell of tax dollars burning “
The smell of political donations endorsements under the table.
There I fixed it it for you
We all knew Microsoft plan of “10 years of all systems publishing “ and some of its supporters happy that after all the games would be “exclusive to Xbox “ now that things have changed and Microsoft got humbled by the lost of money from CoD going down from OVER A BILLI🤑N to
MILLI😩NS the sales failing of games that would released on PlayStation and be forced by INVESTORS asking for their M🤑NEY to grow faster than the next 10 years it is obvious that it would be a waste of money to continue this litigation.
Edit:@obscured: “ They never stood a chance. It was a lost cause from the start “
Same as your grievance stages.
Have you passed the bargaining stage yet ? Or are you still on the anger stage 🤣
I think they're convinced now that MS won't (and can't) withhold releases from conpeting platforms. MS on the street corner now like, "Who wants a taste?!"
That's how it always starts, "I'll just work this street corner for a short while until I get caught up on my bills..."
Oh yeah, they're totally gonna make Xbox exclusives again, with the hardware they're totally committed to selling and making available lol
As far as I'm aware, the only 'deal' that was discussed was for Call of Duty. Xbox had no obligation to make any of their other games multiplatform. They did that of their own accord.
**btw, I'm talking about street food vendors, just in case there's any confusion!
https://external-content.du...
I've seen videos and talk a online speculating MS long game. Some think that MS multiplat move is use to appease the FTC so they can buy more and is somehow a move that could get Sony to open up their platform. In other words them going third party and letting their games go everywhere. MS possible scheme and ulterior motives, speculated by Jeff Grubb is that putting Xbox store on PS via regulation Which would hurt PS buissness very badly because that 30% cut would be even less or not a cut at all. MS buys more because they're "playing nice" by opening up its platform to Epic store and steam which would force Apple and Sony to open up their ecosystem to other stores like MS.
If that's the case that'll mean as I said before, PS fans buying Cod on PS via MS store would give 100% maybe even 90% of the money being pocketed by MS while Sony's store front wanes when it comes to third party because guess what? MS is buying more third party and preying off the extreme ignorance of the FTC. Manipulation of the FTC and MS overtaking the PS store and customers
My thing is this. I know it's a opinion and speculation but why does Sony have to open up its store or force them to go multiplat? If they still believe in selling their freakin console then let them do it. If they want to provide the best games and the best content for its fans then let them do it!? Why because the competition is trash at selling games and consoles for 14 years now Sony has to change? MS using the ignorance of the FTC to overtake gaming as we know it?
Again it's just talk and opinion but man this seems very, very possible imo.
Well, at the time, I actually did think the FTC and CMA did a poor job in court. But also the judge.
Having said that - it is what it is.
If 75bn mergers in any industry ain't a threshold to deny them, then I don't know what is.
As far as your thoughts about other 3rd parties getting taken over in the future go:
I think publisher buyouts are off the list now. I think it would be reeeeally difficult for MS to win another trial try taking over any other publisher.
But smaller studios ... maybe.
However, right now I can't see studios out there advocating for a buyout from Microsoft.
That isn't to say an announcement of such couldn't drop on Monday already. Because we today know that Microsoft had approached a plethora of other studios in 2018 to 2021, such as IOI, CD Project, etc.
We'll see. And we can't do anything about it. It's up to trade commissions and then probably courts to decide.
"I think publisher buyouts are off the list now. I think it would be reeeeally difficult for MS to win another trial try taking over any other publisher."
That's the thing MS is ticking all the boxes by not have anything be exclusive so the CMA/FTC see that they're doing "fair practice" in games and content distribution. Which technically greenlits more aquisions or it makes it easier for acquisitions because MS is a mega publisher now.
"However, right now I can't see studios out there advocating for a buyout from Microsoft."
Hopefully not but them going multiplat could entice Studios to join MS because nothing is not longer exclusive which means more money for them, studio and teams.
We can't do nothing about it but Sony can. They can block xbox games on their console (lose that 30% cut) but Sony won't do that because that's money that will be lost and Sony runs a buissness. That's the only way to hurt or slow down Xbox.
I'm probably over thinking it as I do these things but it's something we shouldn't just ignore and be weary of MS motives here. I'm keeping an eye on them.
The idea that Microsoft is manipulating the FTC and forcing Sony to open its platform is silly and has no evidence to back it up. Microsoft’s multiplatform approach is 100% due to past failures and its laughable position in the gaming industry. Their best attempt was a fluke and a lie, brought on by Sony’s missteps and a poorly made machine that broke down too often.
Sony would never allow themselves to be "forced" to do anything; they control their platform and storefront perfectly fine without the need or desire to add an unnecessary Microsoft storefront. Even if, by some flaw on Sony’s part, Microsoft were able to introduce its store on PlayStation, Sony would adapt rather than collapse. Digital storefront competition already exists (Steam, Epic Games Store, Xbox Store), and PlayStation’s business won’t suddenly "wane."
Also, regulators like the FTC don’t operate on ignorance—they actively assess market behavior to prevent monopolies. Microsoft isn’t secretly overtaking gaming with some ultimate scheme. The industry might be changing or shifting (for the worse, in my opinion), but Sony will continue evolving based on market trends, not because of alleged schemes.
Gaming isn’t about one company "playing nice" or another being "forced" to change—it’s about making money with games, something Microsoft has yet to achieve in 25+ years.
"The idea that Microsoft is manipulating the FTC and forcing Sony to open its platform is silly and has no evidence to back it up."
That's why I said it was all speculation that's what Jeff Grubb opinion. I made that clear several times. You know what's funny? When Jim was in court ppl got mad at the FTC for protecting Jim Ryan instead of the consumer. Maybe he was right to worry about his business. Now look Releasing Xbox games on PS keeps MS studio an a float. Now Xbox games are all over PS now. Maybe Jim was onto something.
MS is still competing with Sony just in a very different way. The FTC back down mainly means they can buy more and MS next steps can proceed. We'll have to see what happens in the future but I wouldn't be so sure on your stance.
@Lightning77
MS putting games everywhere is the most consumer friendly thing I've seen a game company do.
@InUrFox
What does "putting everywhere" actually mean?
This book has so many pages.
• Xbox was dying in revenue
• Regulators put a 10 year deal on CoD
• Microsoft had to give away the streaming
• Spencer himself only offered 3 yrs initially
And most importantly
• Again, Xbox was dying in revenue
Xbox have the benefit of their actual financial situation giving regulators and courts the impression they release games everywhere, what they actually do.
But for reasons they can't be proven guilty of anything in court.
I'm not judging, it's just what it is.
IF the Series generation would have developed differently and was much more successful, I don't hesitate any second to believe in what Spencer had originally planned to do:
• Make everything Xbox exclusive
• We today know that Spencer had also approached Sega, From Software, CD Project, Nintendo, and even Valve was on their list of buyouts.
MS are playing a card here everyone knows why they are doing it.
Putting Doom "everywhere", which even was it already before it got bought, ain't a MS thing.
It would had hurt them in many ways if they'd put it exclusively to Xbox.
But, no matter what - it is what it is.
Xbox bought themselves back into the game. And I think many people just don't have very fond feelings towards this behaviour, wether on corporate nor private levels.
Let's see how they'll run with it.
In 2030, but most importantly after regulations will have expired we will learn better.
Seemed like a lost cause anyway. Microsoft gambled and it paid off big time. That's what you call a big boss move. Sony played a huge part in the success of that acquisition.
Valve gave a user Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 for free as compensation for the long wait during their Steam Deck repair.
I had a similar experience when I initially pre-ordered my Deck. There was an issue during shipping and they offered me a customer service perk for the hassle and let me pick any game on Steam. It was super nice of them. I got a copy of Rime.
There have been plenty of comparisons online between the Steam Deck and Nintendo Switch 2, but does Valve really need to compete?
Steamdeck plays Switch games better than the switch hardware.
I see no reason why this won't continue with the successors. Switch will sell more, sure. But those who game on PC always come out ahead both in enjoyment and value for their money.
you think a Steam Deck is going to emulate a Steam 2 when it's arguably more powerful than it?
Interesting..
We're going to have to wait and see. Currently, there's no technology that would allow a Steam Deck 2 to achieve a performance leap over the Steam Deck 1 similar to what the Switch 2 offers over the Switch 1, without sacrificing the device's portability.
We'll either need AMD to seriously improve the efficiency of their cores, so we can get something with the rasterization power of a Radeon 8060S but without the power consumption of an Xbox Series S, or Valve would have to invest heavily in a translation layer for ARM. Neither of these paths is easy to achieve, so we probably shouldn't expect a Steam Deck 2 for at least a 3 or 4 more years.
Considering that other companies have shat out multiple PC handhelds already while Valve hasn't even mentioned a successor tells me they aren't looking to compete with anyone. They went for a console experience and that includes holding off on new hardware til there's a generational leap.
None of those other companies can realistically compete with Valve either. Valve can sell the hardware for a minimal gain and still know they are for the most part, just having every user still use Steam.
Every other handheld has to make its profit entirely on the hardware, which is why most of them went for an even more PC enthusiast market/price point
That is the one point where Nintendo does compete with Valve, or Sony with their rumored handheld or even more so MS, if they release a first party handheld (with a decent version of handheld windows)
What many people don't get is that most of Steam Deck users have a high-end or at least a good enough PC alongside the Steam Deck. Yes, we like better graphics and higher refresh rates and we get them in our PC, we are not relying on the Steam Deck for them. We use the Deck for other reasons and in other eventualities, where we are willing to compromise on all these things, because we still get to enjoy them when we can/feel like it in the PC. Thus, a direct comparison with a sole device like the Switch is misplaced. Of course you need the Switch 2 to be strong if there is no stronger alternative to play your games in. By the way I got a Switch on day 1 and I loved it, it's just that I'm not really playing it anymore.
Cmon guys, wait until MS releases info on that, its got windows 7 underneath. Worse case you have to pay to make yours a metro app like you have to do on apple's appstore, anything else could still run under the os.
Flamebait title, not even the original title. Reading the article, Notch throws a big "if" out there.
what's going on here?! many devs are complaining.
How could that possibly be true because of the Windows Store? Wouldn't that make the indie scene actually thrive and not falter due to it being easily accessible to all or is the real reason because you have to take a cut of your profits and give them to Microsoft?
That isn't particularly bad for indie developers but possibly bad for big names who don't want to either share the spotlight with other games on the store or pay the money.
You're tearing me apart Windows 8!