Rob Fahey of GameIndustry.biz writes: A fair bit of attention has been focused, in the last day or two, on an article which appears in this month's Esquire magazine. Penned by one Scott Stein, it suggests that the billions of dollars which Microsoft is proposing to spend on Yahoo! would be better spent on a tactical acquisition of Sony - which he views as the best way for the two companies to step up to the challenge presented by Nintendo's Wii.
Let's dismiss the possibility from the outset. It's a ludicrous concept, one which totally ignores the fact that Microsoft's entire business is threatened by the rise of Google and other similar Internet firms. It's not that the Xbox isn't important to Microsoft, but right now, its battles with Sony and Apple over home media pale in comparison to the fight with Google over the future of computing - a future which threatens to be independent of operating systems and software platforms, the markets which are the basis for Microsoft's success.
Moreover, it ignores the fact that Sony is, of course, a lot bigger than Sony Computer Entertainment. It incorporates the world's largest movie business, one of the world's largest music businesses, and a vast consumer electronics business - not to mention the countless closely associated subsidiaries and partner companies which make up the ecosystem that surrounds any large Japanese corporation.
Microtransactions have gotten ridiculously overpriced in recent years, with titles now offering cosmetic skins worth more than some games.
The elephant in the room tho is personal accountability. It’s easy (albeit basic) to blame the big, bad corpo, but microtransactions wouldn’t be where they are if gamers didn’t spend money on them. As it stands the MTs usually make more than the game. Publishers know raising game prices will cause backlash, so they do MTs to compensate. But the adult conversation is consumers determine the success of products with their wallets. So if MTs are a huge thing, it’s because we as consumers told them we like them by giving them a lot of money for them. So if you don’t want them to be a thing, convince your fellow gamers to stop buying them and expect that games will be decently more expensive. You all can disagree all you want, but reality is a bitch, and eventually you have to live in it.
Trying to convince people is the least realistic thing. If we are trying to be adults, actual action is what changes things not "convincing campaigns" on platforms owned by the people 'you' are going against. It's madness and idealistic.
There never was, the only time I paid for a microtransaction was on Blacklight Retribution (PS4) and it was because I enjoyed the game a lot so I felt the devs should get something for all that entertainment (€5 "membership")
The devs wouldn’t get that though, that shit goes straight to the higher ups who do f*** all let’s be honest.
Probably, but I wasn't as cynical back then and €5 wasn't a big ask to get the guns with grinding instead of renting them, and the game was good (still is on the PS5/4)
I couldn’t believe what Blizzard charged for horse armor and cosmetics in Diablo 4…
I remember back in the day when a season pass was $15 and you got everything included in it. Now, I see them at $60 and you still don’t get everything.
As soon as gaming wasn't deemed nerdy anymore, and reached the casuals this happened. We're smart, but casuals play mobile games and other stuff, and don't really have anything to compare. They think gaming is supposed to be like this and pay for in game purchases.
A famous actor from Starship Troopers has showered praise on Helldivers 2 and said he is open to the idea of playing General Brasch.
Discover how to acquire the iconic Cantina Band Jam Track in the Fortnite x Star Wars collaboration. Gear up for an intergalactic musical journey in Fortnite's latest event.
Lame. It's never going to happen. And something like this has been posted before.
i've just found out that i can't comment on the gamer zone for some reason, beats me.
just want to point out some very important things that the article didn't stress.
first off, Sony owns the Previous gen, so technically, their footprint on the gaming industry is second to none. BENEFITS?
1. I believe the wii sold mostly to hardcore nitendo fans and casual gamers. so let's assume that its a 50/50 split. so 20 at 20 million, that put us at 10 million casual gamers.
a) that most likely affects the 360, why? because of two factors, the ps2 is one of the hottest selling systems still, and secondly, the 360, even after a year alone as a " next-gen console" on the market,and its biggest games, fail to regain its previous user base.
2.the ps3 outsold the xbox 360 after on its first year, despite the 360's best software line up. EVEN MORE ALARMING
a) the ps3 had zero proven franchise games out for the entire year
b) the xbox 360 sold close to 3 million less consoles its second year then it did on its first year.
c) hardware problems, out of the 17 million 360s sold, at least 5 million of them were defective, and that trend will only continue as time goes by.
Therefore, the article is a careless in putting SONY in the same boat as Mirosoft.
and to finish this of.... the article states that : "For instance, the PS3 is seen as sporting an abundance of features players don't need - although equally, I've recently seen indications that consumers are starting to rail against Microsoft's hidden costs, which it dresses up as "choice" by offering overpriced peripherals for Wi-Fi or for recharging controllers while you play."
Huhhhh.......?!?!?!? i've never seen a more self-destructing paragraph of this calibur. If you add the first sentence to the second one, you end up with NOTHING.....lol, just amazing. So let me explain what he's saying, SONY gives you for free What microsoft is making you pay for, and you happilly buy, but somehow you dismiss it as un-necessary? ok...kewl.....
i guess the point i'm trying to make is that, the media still can't really admit that they've actually fell in love with Hating on Sony. DO Sony deserve it? i'm sure they do, but to ignore facts such as a 30% failure rate from microsoft and say that remote play on and wifi on a ps3 is not really needed, clearly shows your true colors, and clearly you're GREEN all over, and that little stinch of sony you've tried to show, dont worry, its just BLUE balls, it'll go away.
Firstly Since when was Sony up for sale???
Last I heard, business was looking very good for them....its seems some reporters forget there is more to Sony that consoles...and even electronics for that matter. sony own one of the major Hollywood studios don't forget.
I think it would cost a lot more than a search engine thats on a downward spiral.
When Sony is once again poised to trounce the XBOX brand with the PlayStation. Not to mention they would inherit MS's reputation for inferior hardware. I don't think this would happen, Sony would have too much to lose with MS's dead weight.
Now Sony buying Nintendo would be a match made in gaming heaven.
It'd be really nice..
For comments 2 and 3: Last I checked Sony was a stock company.. just buy 51% of the stocks and you basicly control it.