Thats a poor argument. I dont know how you equate to paying monthly for a sub for years on end .... on top of a console+ accesories and proably a new TV and monthly internet..... is equal to begging a free starbucks.... and waaaay too much assertive assumption in your post... for a start you cant say or proclaim to know who plays what or what their financial status is. You dont know peoples responsibilities or the order they place those priorities in. They are no less a gemer than you just because they want to sub it instead. There are more important things to spend money on than $70 games every month, but maybe thats where adults priorities differ..... there are people who pay into subs because its cost effective gaming. ...hows it free if they still pay a monthly sub in addition to monthly internet and the cost of a console and TV...in addition to mortgage/rent, car, utilities, kids who want games too! Its simply another cost but its the least important thing. gamepass, like netflix and itunes is simply where things are going...subscription based. It saves money for the average household while giving access to a lot... and it makes sense to most bill paying people. because they are already doing it with every other form of entertainment they consume. gaming might be the only time they pay 70 bucks for a piece of entertainment. and maybe thats not sustainable to everybody when they have more important things to spend money but still wish to be entertained...
Look, here's the thing. There are even things I currently want gaming-wise but can't justify for one reason or another, whether because I have to budget money, or see if I'd even have the time to get enough use out of it. PSVR2 is one them. But what I'm
not doing, is calling companies anti-consumer just because myself
specifically may not be able to get something. If that's the case, then I just have to wait until I can get it, simple as that.
Some of the people who want this deal to pass just to get things for "free" in Game Pass, genuinely feel they are entitled to those games, even if they don't want to pay for them Day 1 or even wait a bit until they drop down in price for a sale. No one is entitled to entertainment, but I think the current environment surrounding subscription services, or better I should say the current narrative, has deluded some people into believing it. And I can say with certainty that there is at least some portion of people in favor of the acquisition specifically because it means they get all that content in Game Pass Day 1, let's not pretend otherwise.
No problem if they would like that as a perk; it's the select ones among them who demonize paying for games, or demonize other companies for not putting all their games Day 1 into a subscription service, as being anti-consumer, or worst yet trying to make a case for subscription gaming to empower "marginalized people" to have more access to games (as if all minorities are poor or haven't been able to buy games before...and yes this was actually a talking point with some pro-Game Pass people on Twitter last year, especially with some Ambassadors), when it's really about themselves, who poison the well.
Also no the industry is not going the Game Pass route. You do know that subscription services in gaming are like 5% of all gaming revenue, right? Game Pass has been here since 2017; PS Now before that. It might be the big talk but it's not pulling in that much money compared to direct sales in gaming; even Microsoft have said this (and they've probably used it in talks with regulators to try downplaying worries around subscription services in gaming).
"Why is gaming the hobby they don't want to pay for despite supposedly loving it? "
subscribing does not make you less of a gamer. you still pay for something if thats what makes a 'real gamer', to you. people have spotify and HBO max accounts... They are no less music or movie fans if they dont go to concert or the cinemas every weekend. And im a vinyl junky, saying that!
I didn't say paying for a subscription makes you less of a gamer; that's conflation. What I said is, some of these people who want this deal to pass, seemingly care about these games so much yet don't seem willing to pay for them. And personally, I think that's kind of funny. I want a Ferrari, doesn't mean I can't expect to get one for cheap if I
REALLY want one. I'm also not out here hoping they get acquired by someone who can promise to give me Ferraris for free/super cheap, because that would just be dumb. I know that business model can't really work, just like how we're getting proof from the court documents that Game Pass as it currently is, doesn't really work as a business model.
And ultimately who's going to pay the price for that? Microsoft, because they lose money on it. The industry, because even if Microsoft get ABK, if they still want to push Game Pass aggressively with that content they either bleed more money or scale back funding or even fire employees to save costs. And us, the customers, because companies like Microsoft aren't going to spend $70 billion on a huge acquisition and not make up the costs down the line; that's what services price increases are for.
They'd probably look to cut down or eliminate the loopholes, too. Then we can see how much the diehards who champion Game Pass (the ones saying the most extremely stupid and aggressive things and literally praying the deal gets approved) actually value the service.
. Look, there's still a good chance the deal is approved, but it's not 100%. It depends on how good Microsoft's concessions are on the behavioral remedy front. If that fails, then there will be structural remedies. If Microsoft doesn't like those, they'll probably bail on the deal.
www.axios.com
SenjutsuSage
got confused by the same thing in the other doc. So neither was right, and we were both wrong at the same time, and the judge has yet to make the decision.Heisenberg007 's screenshot is from Sony's submission. I have no idea where
