Charlietus
Regular
Oh absolutely, the deal is done. It was just fantasy land what if.Oh there is no chance they were ever gonna be brought up even for questions about it. What's done is done. The chance to stop the deal is long over.
Oh absolutely, the deal is done. It was just fantasy land what if.Oh there is no chance they were ever gonna be brought up even for questions about it. What's done is done. The chance to stop the deal is long over.
If MS have violated their conditions of sale, wouldn't (and shouldn't) the regulators pull them up on it and force their hand/penalise them?Oh there is no chance they were ever gonna be brought up even for questions about it. What's done is done. The chance to stop the deal is long over.
I dont think you could tie any company down with a 'you can never raise prices' condition for something like this. Microsoft were simply making an argument, not making a promise. I'd be absolutely shocked if any regulators felt this was enough to pull them back into court over, even just for a big fine.If MS have violated their conditions of sale, wouldn't (and shouldn't) the regulators pull them up on it and force their hand/penalise them?
They can still be forced to divest it at their own loss. It depends on how they run the division over the next few years. Something similar was done to Meta yet they didnt even do anything anticompetitive with their acquisition. Here MS has actually gone back on a guarantee. If they continue like this, they could get in troubleOh there is no chance they were ever gonna be brought up even for questions about it. What's done is done. The chance to stop the deal is long over.
actually, that's a good move. People used to call it the poorpass -meaning it was something for the poor-.Rat bastards I swear. Just straight up lied to regulators to get their deal through.
Lmaoactually, that's a good move. People used to call it the poorpass -meaning it was something for the poor-.
Microsoft has not, in a purely legal technical sense, lied a single time in a recent anti trust case. They pay their lawyers way too much for that too happen."No your honour, we are totally not raising the price for COD, but because we just feel like it". If they were pressed on the issue, they would totally say that they are raising it because of "market conditions outside of our control" totally dodging the question and covering themselves legally.
I didn't say they lied. Just that even if they are clearly upping the price because of it, they can literally say that Spencer saw a black cat and so he decided to do it. Regulators can't really prove it either way, unless they launch an investigation.Microsoft has not, in a purely legal technical sense, lied a single time in a recent anti trust case. They pay their lawyers way too much for that too happen.
That doesn't prove your point. It drives up the value of the higher-tier sub and will prompt more users to upgrade to the more expensive option. At that level, the subscription platform might be worth far more money.In gaming it should be treated as a secondary source of income, and Microsoft agrees now, since they have removed day one games from the base tier.
They "hope" more users will upgrade to the more expensive option but in reality people are getting tired of the "nickel and dime" strategies designed to empty your wallet, and IMO is the true nature of the subscription scam approach.That doesn't prove your point. It drives up the value of the higher-tier sub and will prompt more users to upgrade to the more expensive option. At that level, the subscription platform might be worth far more money.
Those are not the moves of a company that wants to expand it's userbase.That doesn't prove your point. It drives up the value of the higher-tier sub and will prompt more users to upgrade to the more expensive option. At that level, the subscription platform might be worth far more money.
If you look at other products that have become subscriptions, like Office and Adobe, they have done very well, far better than selling standalone software. Of course, they production costs are far lower than populating games or TV, but it shows that subscriptions can generate far more revenue. Heck, even Sony's financial are only as amazing as they are now because of ongoing subscriptions. Subscriptions == consistent, reliable wonga.
I'm not saying it's going to work, only that it doesn't prove Charlietus's point that MS agrees subs should only be seen as a secondary income. There are other possible outcomes and we don't know MS's expectations. We don't know whether those who used the lower subscription were (and will be) willing to pay the higher amount as still great value or not. Before this change, there was no reason to buy the higher tier so consumers would choose the lowest price that gave them the day 1 titles.They "hope" more users will upgrade to the more expensive option but in reality people are getting tired of the "nickel and dime" strategies designed to empty your wallet, and IMO is the true nature of the subscription scam approach.
I doubt it ever is. I expect it's always the cheapest tier that's most popular and then decreasing from there. Maybe the 2nd tier will be most common in some situations where the lowest tier is really quite limited, like, say, one user only versus tier 2 being a household with 3 concurrent devices.I'm not entirely certain in the current subscription setup the largest subscriber percentage is in the highest tier,
yeah, I am not that happy with paying a couple of euros extra a month for PC gamepass, but I don't understand why people are getting angry over this, the value proposition is still incredible.Those are not the moves of a company that wants to expand it's userbase.
And increasing the cost for day one games by almost 100% means that it wasn't viable to offer at those prices anymore.
Subscriptions services have stagnated:
So users have made their choice, unless cod somehow miraculously brings subscriptions back to growth.
Well Office and Adobe are industry standard software and get by hugely on business deals, knowing that they have little choice but to fork over the money.That doesn't prove your point. It drives up the value of the higher-tier sub and will prompt more users to upgrade to the more expensive option. At that level, the subscription platform might be worth far more money.
If you look at other products that have become subscriptions, like Office and Adobe, they have done very well, far better than selling standalone software. Of course, they production costs are far lower than populating games or TV, but it shows that subscriptions can generate far more revenue. Heck, even Sony's financial are only as amazing as they are now because of ongoing subscriptions. Subscriptions == consistent, reliable wonga.
Only if you were already on GPU. If you were on XB GP Core, you had Day 1 games for £8/$10 a month, and now access to those Day 1 games is £15/$20. The cost of the service has effectively doubled.yeah, I am not that happy with paying a couple of euros extra a month for PC gamepass, but I don't understand why people are getting angry over this, the value proposition is still incredible.
Core never had day one games. Gamepass and (now just) ultimate had them.Only if you were already on GPU. If you were on XB GP Core, you had Day 1 games for £8/$10 a month, and now access to those Day 1 games is £15/$20. The cost of the service has effectively doubled.