crazycoconuts, that's probably true, but you can get PC game pass for ~$5 on various sites. Paying $4 more for a month isn't really much difference at the end of the day.
The $1 start up is really negligible at the end of the day and wasn't the real "abusive" part of the deal. The abusive part was loading up on Live Gold for cheap and converting it, which you can still do. It's just now it will cost you $14 more to convert. So instead of saving $345, you're only saving $359. Not a big deal at the end of the day. You're still getting a hell of a deal. That's all if you're paying full price for Gold to begin with. A lot of peopl...
MrDead, that was before they did it themselves. Again, MS has been operating under multiple divisions/brands for many years. It's no different than Meta or Alphabet having multiple divisions/brands.
Again, the calls didn't really come from regulators. That doesn't mean there wasn't one. You happen to be referencing the ONE TIME a regulators did and it failed because there was no legal reason for them to break up. All the other dozens of times it was called ...
Microsoft has been broken up for many years already. They've been broken up into independent divisions for some time now. Also, you clearly didn't following the calls for the break up closely. Because the calls didn't really come from regulators for being too influential. They come from investors and shareholders wanting them to operate with more modern standards and methods to better compete with the likes of Alphabet.
Trade law and regulation all fall under the same umbrella and go through the same organizations. And no, precedence doesn't get set. Not sure where you heard that, but it's simply not true. MS can't buy Activision and then turn right around and buy EA because a precedent had been set. Neither could anyone else. That's simply not how it works. The situation would be looked at the same way. What effects would it have on the current market and future market. It's true they wi...
This is no way sets any legal precedent or opens any roads for Tencent or any other company to buy anyone else. That's now how trade law works. Each situation is different and dependent on the current market. Tencent can't turn around and use the argument, "Well you all let MS do it, so we can too." MS has a lesser market share and still will after this merger. You think the FTC would have let Verizon buy AT&T just because they allowed the T-Mobile/Sprint merger? Not a c...
Petebloodyonion
FTC used that metric because that's what Sony used in their response against the merger. Now it looks like it may come back to bite Sony in the ass.
The CMA asked Microsoft for more information on the subject, so they are providing it. They aren't spinning anything, they are simply providing what was asked for. The biggest people spinning things are you Sony fanboys in these comments. 😂
There is a difference between a publisher being the largest game supplier and a single franchise being the best-selling. While COD may sell the most, by time you add up FIFA, The Sims, Madden, Need for Speed, Star Wars, etc. etc. EA is supplying more games than Activision.
If the goal was to block PS6 out of content, then why did Microsoft offer the same deal to Sony? That would guarantee content parity on PS6, assuming it comes out within 10 years. Which I think it's safe to assume it will.
No major business would do a lifetime deal for anything and 10 years is a reasonable amount of time for such a deal.
If that were the case, why is Sony on board with UK's idea of only allowing the deal through if COD is sold off? This is all about COD.
I played It Takes Two and Unraveled once the service hit Game Pass Ultimate. So I'm not complaining.
There are already apps like this that link to workout equipment either directly or indirectly. Directly meaning they connect through a device (usually Bluetooth) and read the data to control the game. Indirectly meaning they track headset movement to control it, mostly used in the case of rowing for obvious reasons.
You clearly haven't been paying attention to current tech news. There are mass layoffs happening all over because revenue is down across the board. Of course sales are lower. How the hell do you think this works. Sales up, revenue up. Sales down, revenue down. Game Pass could not be affecting the revenue because it could be generating MORE revenue than the amount of revenue from sales it's cannibalizing. Also, again there is no way to tell if the majority of the cannibalization is fro...
Not sure why you're saying "you guys" as I've expressed nothing about Game Pass being any sort of savior. Also, there is no known correlation that revenue is down due to Game Pass. Revenue is down across the board in tech industry. So it most likely has nothing to do with Game Pass and more to do with the general covid rebound a lot of companies are facing right now.
Which has nothing to do with the current situation of him trying to get the deal through nor anything I said at all. So not sure why you even brought any of that up.
Even so, he would have gotten a huge payday if ousted.
Lots of people don't seem to understand that "cannibalizing sales" doesn't mean it's cannibalizing revenue.
It wasn't in the fine print. It was made clear right on the cover letter. The winner also implies that Microsoft had no intention of filing paperwork with the IRS to report the situation (they are not obligated to), but that the winner should be prepared to report the winnings. I'm willing to bet most people would have just not reported the winnings on their taxes, as it would have been difficult to track if MS never filed.
Obviously there is a debate on if this is...