Epic's claim had nothing to do with market competition. They simply wanted to circumvent the 30% publishing royalty for their own benefit. It is laughable if you think they would pass that savings to the customer.
Videogame console and computer platforms together form a market. Games are not utilities (e.g. phones) or a basic need. No court is going to meddle in the royalty structure of an entertainment industry.
There are some poor comparisons made between this and the Epic v. Apple case. This suit appears to focus on consumer-facing pricing. I don't see any reason why a platform's ecosystem can't be closed. You can choose to buy and play 3rd-party titles on other platforms; therein lies the market element of competition.
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.
That's untrue. I have only one account!
Yeah---all of my above comments were deleted too (marked as spam)! WTF.
It's pretty clear that you know nothing about corporate finance and accounting. The leaked FTC slides showed no metric of net income. "Accountability margin" is a made-up term that MS uses for their own intenal purposes, but has no meaning or relevance in the real world, as in, to stockholders or financial analysts. In particular, that margin does NOT take into account fixed costs of operation. There has not been a single documented record of income from the Xbox business, only ...
Sure it is. But for how long will MS continue to bail out an unprofitable business before shutting it down?
You don't know what you're talking about. After you subtract the recent $80B in acquisition expenses, the Xbox division is so deep into the red, it won't break-even on that expense alone for at least a decade---probably much longer. Xbox, having subsumed ABK, is certainly going to take in more revenue---but Xbox has operated at and will continue to operate at a loss for so long, who knows if it will ever see a net profit.
You don't know what you're talking about. After you subtract the recent $80B in acquisition expenses, the Xbox division is so deep into the red, it won't break-even on that expense alone for at least a decade---probably much longer. Xbox, having subsumed ABK, is certainly going to take in more revenue---but Xbox has operated at and will continue to operate at a loss for so long, who know if it will ever see a net profit.
[deleted]
His comment makes perfect sense. There are both storefront and end-user licenses. You are referring to the end-user license. Platform-holders must also be licensed (via contract) in order to sell another company's product.
Does it make sense to you now?
But this "Atari" is just a holdings company that bought the Atari name many years ago. They have no relation to the original company.
Take-home message about modern game development: "We only devote significant effort to optimization if a platform-holder provides assistance".
I wish all of these studios would show more class by releasing finished products.
@FinalFantasyFanatic
If you go on eBay, you can find legal physical distributions of Office Professional. I have bought both disc and usb-drive releases of Office 2016 and 2019. Usually, these distributions originate from developing countries where subscription models and/or digital downloads are not yet mainstream.
Perhaps after they recoup their operating loss from their recent $80B of expenses...
That'll take a decade or two...
They are not interested in being a game-maker. They only want to sell services (like the rest of their businesses).
The "Xbox Tax" movement is an attempt to positively spin/vacate the strong philosophical distaste most of the console gaming community feels for MS' strategic approach to IP acquisition, game management, monetization, distribution, and ownership.
Sony does disc replication itself whereas MS has to contract a third-party to manufacture its discs. That third-party contract constrains MS' choice of disc capacity via cost. MS doesn't give a flying F about physical media, so it picks the cheaper discs. Xbox Series consoles may also use lower quality disc drives.
Great!
You can't police how any company chooses to spend its own money when the market is rich with product from other companies. Acquisitions are an exception because they may constrain the market of the product.