Rooster Teeth, or more specifically their representative Meg Turney, has been banned from the growing streaming juggernaut following a crackdown on inappropriate clothing, or lack of clothing entirely.
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.
"Antstream Arcade is proud to announce its collaboration with Xbox to launch Retro Classics, a collection of over 50 iconic games now available for Game Pass members worldwide." - Antstream Arcade and Xbox.
DFC Intelligence has big expectations for the Nintendo Switch 2. They estimate over 100 million units sold by the end of 2029.
dont think itll happen because of COQ. it costs as much as gaming consoles that are way better in a lot of ways and nintendo normally thrives on selling cheaper hardware than the competition. i believe that because the switch 2 and the games are so expensive and are far inferior to better versions available for the same price or cheaper on better gaming consoles that gamers would rather get a better value for their money and buy something better than the switch 2. the switch 2 can do a lot better if it isnt expensive and the games are cheaper.
don't worry, they'll tell you to buy a $300 accessory on top of the console so you can "stream" it to play it. (subject to network capabilities of course)
@Neonridr
The Playstation Portal is amazing, but if you don't want to spend the 300$, just use your phone or tablet that you probably own already
@jznrpg
Might be, I just answered to his bullshit comment.
As I live in Sweden, I paid way more for my Portal, around 350$ at release, but still use it daily at work and in my bed, so well invested 👍
However, the Switch 1.5's capabilities do not compare to those of the PS5 Pro; in fact, the Series S is more powerful.
The PlayStation does offer an accessory that provides a similar function, but many other handheld devices offer superior capabilities. Essentially, you are purchasing a device primarily for playing Mario games, with some niche features that Nintendo cleverly markets to its loyal customer base.
Also remember Switch 2 is now bigger than Switch. People don't like to carry as much stuff these days.
*costs as much currently.
We've already seen MS have to adjust the price of their consoles, and it's possible Sony could follow suit.
And your definition of "far inferior" is subjective to the end-user. Can I take my PS5 Pro version of the game with me on the go? No.
Inferior according to who? You may not like Nintendo because they don’t have the most updated graphics but they do well when it comes to fun games. What’s the point of a game that looks beautiful but is boring to play. There’s a reason why they keep selling millions every generation.
Silver, I disagree.
Nintendo sells consoles primarily off of their exclusive content that you can't get anywhere else ever. I will add that that content is regarded by many as some of the best in gaming, if not the best, along with a super loyal fanbase, nostalgia, and the most popular IPs ever created. The system will run exclusive 3rd party games as well as playable ports of current and future games for the next 4-5 years, the majority of casual gamers don't care about tech specs or FPS, and even some hardcore fans don't care that much, and will choose a very playable portable port for the versatility of playing on the T.V or on the go...
I think the price will have a small impact, but 100M in 4 years is totally doable. Where else can you play the next Zelda, Mario Kart, Metroid, and Pokemon games? It will sell.
Pretty ambitious... it could be done so long as they lower the price of the games and the system to something more reasonable.
Because of everything Switch 2, I am very impressed with what I am seeing so far. And because 3 of my friends who I play Helldivers 2 with will also get it. We will all be getting the Mario Kart World bundle.
For me...I beg to differ it's an important launch knowing it's not launching with any interesting exclusives except the $80 Mario Kart & I'm not into racers. Until I see some interesting Switch 2 exclusives that I think are a must play I can wait as long as possible before obtaining a Switch 2.
While I'm getting MK at launch, I'm actually most interested in Donkey Kong. I love the destructible environments.
I'm most interested in trying out cyberpunk with mouse controls. If they work really well, Switch 2 may be my console of choice for shooters.
^ I don't game at a desk and am not interested in using one of those lap desk things. My only "gaming computer" is a steam deck.
I’ve seen a lot of people projecting that the Switch 2 will sell over 100 million units by 2029. While I understand the optimism—especially considering the original Switch’s success—I think those numbers might be overlooking the current state of the market and how much it’s shifted.
First off, we need to stop using early sellouts or pre-order hype as a reliable indicator of long-term success. Every major console that’s launched in the last 25 years has sold out during its pre-order window. Even consoles that were ultimately considered commercial disappointments—like the Wii U—sold out at launch. The PS3, which launched at a hefty $600 back in 2007, still had people lining up. That early rush is almost always driven by the core gaming audience, not the mass market. The real test comes after that honeymoon phase, when sales depend on casual gamers and broader adoption.
And that’s where things get trickier now.
The gaming landscape has changed dramatically. Mobile gaming has completely taken over in terms of both revenue and number of players. It’s bigger than console and PC gaming combined, and it's still growing. That makes sense when you think about it: everyone already has a phone, and many have tablets too. Pair that with a Bluetooth controller and you’ve got a portable, high-quality gaming experience with almost no extra cost.
Consoles and gaming PCs, on the other hand, require a substantial investment just to get started. When money is tighter for a lot of households and the average consumer is more price-conscious, it becomes harder to justify spending $400–600+ on a single-use gaming device—especially when they already own something that plays games well enough.
I’m not saying the Switch 2 won’t be successful. Nintendo has a strong brand and a loyal fanbase. But I do think people are underestimating how much harder it is today to move that kind of hardware volume. The market’s more competitive, more fragmented, and more mobile than ever before
I fully expect the Switch 2 to sell 100M units. But to say it'll do it within 4 years is a big ask.
Bit OTT?
I agree with Twitchs statement, there is no reason to dress inappropriate while you stream games. There are plenty of other places for stuff like that if that is what your into.
She was ban for being a attention ho.. twitch is for gaming only