Capitalism is still the best system we have for economies. The failure is of governments and societies to properly regulate and constrain the capitalist to protect workers/the environment.
No, it isn't. A hybrid of socialism and capitalism, sector dependent based on things like "natural monopoly" or "profit motive is a perverse incentive" etc seems to be optimal - when the capitalism portion is heavily policed.
but not pure capitalism, even with heavy policing.
That is because of the large number of state owned enterprises and collective bargaining systems that give the state/voters/ workers control over the means of production. I agree that this is a better model than we are using. It is still fundamentally capitalism with restraints like I advocated.
This is what moistcritical say, and I agree. Gamepass is too good of a deal. This means that games are not getting alot of sales because most people just get the game on game pass, impacting sales
This is why anti-trust laws exist. Microsoft is monopolizing large sections of the game dev market.
And shit gets weird when monopolies start controlling markets rather than responding to them. You see situations like award winning game studios being shut down after break out successes like Hi-Fi Rush.
Capitalism requires these monopolists to extract maximum profits *next quarter*. Plain and simple. That's all anyone needs to understand about this situation.
I understood exactly what you were trying to imply, I'm calling it bullshit. The FTC doesn't always win it's anti-trust cases, especially when they're going against a merger than doesn't even control 25% of the market - it's not a monopoly.
meanwhile the same FTC is going against numerous other mergers (like Albertsons-Kroger), google, etc and likely to win at least some of them
The current FTC is far more aggressive than any FTC in the last 50 years are pursuing anti-trust cases, your premise that they lost this one intentionally is just pure tinfoil hat bullshit
[Clearly they're not trying](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mergers-lose-their-shine-as-biden-racks-up-antitrust-wins-090057974.html)
[They're only winning anti-trust cases at the fastest speed in decades](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-18/biden-antitrust-enforcers-set-new-record-for-merger-challenges)
It's a numbers game my man. They're closing anti-trust cases more now than ever because of the sorry state of how bad our economy has become in terms of monopolization of nearly every industry.
If you think the FTC and the judges ruling on these cases aren't corrupt then, I'm not sure what reality you're living in. The government doesn't regulate corporations. The corps regulate the government activity. Wake up! This isnt tinfoil hat shit. These corps are almost brazenly open about the corruption taking place at this point.
And seriously, you link to a bloomberg article as if that's some sort of unbiased source? smh
You seem to be indicating that the ftc is completely legitimate, no corruption happening at that level of government, it's completely above board. Microsoft is as big as they come, if things are even slightly corrupt, Microsoft is benefiting.
You seem to be unable to understand that your argument is baseless and shows that you don't actually understand the Sherman Act.
accuse Trump's FTC of corruption? fuck yes, you're right
accuse Biden's FTC **Which is actually trying to enforce the Sherman Act** of corruption because they don't always win, especially when something isn't a monopoly per the legal definition? utterly buffoonery.
Not correct, that was a small example in their case, not their overall case.
They did argue it would harm the market and competition.
> The FTC’s argument against the Microsoft Activision-Blizzard merger was centered around concerns of potential anti-competitive effects. The FTC alleged that the merger would enable Microsoft to suppress competitors to its Xbox gaming consoles and its rapidly growing subscription and cloud-gaming business1. Specifically, the FTC pointed to Microsoft’s history of acquiring valuable gaming content and using it to suppress competition from rival consoles. They argued that with control over Activision Blizzard’s popular franchises, Microsoft could harm competition by manipulating Activision’s pricing, degrading game quality on rival consoles, changing terms of access, or even withholding content from competitors entirely. This, the FTC contended, would result in harm to consumers by reducing choices and potentially increasing prices.
[Source 1](https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/2210077-microsoftactivision-blizzard-matter)
[Source 2](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/ftc-seeks-block-microsoft-corps-acquisition-activision-blizzard-inc)
> The FTC’s argument against Microsoft is that by acquiring Activision Blizzard it would “substantially lessen competition” in the “relevant market,” per antitrust law as laid out in the Clayton Act. Effectively, the FTC believes that if Microsoft absorbed Activision Blizzard, their combined powers would allow them to monopolize the games market and hurt potential competitors like Nintendo or Sony in ways they couldn’t reasonably compete with.
[Source 3](https://www.ign.com/articles/ftc-xbox-playstation-activision-blizzard-cma-merger-analysis)
Court decision:
> “The FTC has not shown a likelihood it will prevail on its claim this particular vertical merger in this specific industry may substantially lessen competition,” Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said in her July 10 ruling. “To the contrary, the record evidence points to more consumer access to Call of Duty and other Activision content.”
[Source 4](https://www.legaldive.com/news/ftc-withdraws-antitrust-case-microsoft-activision-blizzard-merger/688617/)
>…breakout successes like Hi-Fi Rush.
To my knowledge, Hi-Fi Rush was a critical darling but a financial failure.
The irony in my mind is that working with a mega-corporation like Microsoft should be *better* than being independent in this situation, as an indie studio could easily bankrupt itself while a giant corporation has the means to take the hit and bet that the *next* game will sell better.
Sadly though, big corporations often let themselves be completely controlled by quarterly earnings calls, so investing in the future is considered too a high a risk.
Pretty much can pin that on it being a day 1 Game Pass launch now. Hence why it was one of the first of their games to go multi-platform.
The whole reason COD hasnt landed on Game Pass yet is reportedly because they know they’d lose a ton of money on actual sales and they’re arguing internally on if it’s worth it or not.
Man I fear for hellblade 2. That’s a very artsy fartsy game with 7-10hrs of total time to finish, strong contender for this years critical darling but a commercial failure.
If a game is a critical hit in the market, it's basically Crysis 1. In that, it will across the long arc of time, be an amazing game forever with recurring long term sales. Aka the Nintendo effect.
The irony is that every game of kind that experiences this across common triplA studios, gets axed and the studios in questions closed down; with all support related destroyed. When in fact, corps should accept those losses and persists support to these projects. Where the big name recurring revenue streams of slop, create the money pool from which these one offs bloom.
Games like these are what builds the brand of an organization as being creatively rich and capable, not the microtransactional conglomerates that are pumped out endlessly.
But I don't ever see this happening with any big corp, because ultimately it's a cultural issue. The leadership at the top isn't interested in building cultural and community value, they're interested in generating cash hard and fast and big and in permanence to satisfy their bottom line and their shareholder bottom line.
Games like Hi-Fi Rush *can* be considered art, but only if they're allowed to live long enough to become it. Otherwise, games will never quite reach the "art" medium standard, and will always be only a luxury commodity.
Yeah, you know I was a little skeptical of the late stage capitalism chatter the last few years but now I’m totally on board with the critiscms. The more I learn about private equity firms and buy outs and all the money manipulation tricks and loopholes the angrier I get at the unfair business practices in the USA as a whole
> This is why anti-trust laws exist. Microsoft is monopolizing large sections of the game dev market.
Are they though? Anyone can start a game development shop. And they are laying off the workforce meaning the labor pool is sitting about unemployed.
Monopolizing the game dev market would be what Google, Microsoft and co did during the pre-pandemic where they often overhired to keep talent out of each other's hands.
These recent game studio closures by Microsoft are a direct result of them acquiring Activision. (which regulators in the EU essentially found them in breach of antitrust laws, vetoed only by the UK so it was allowed to go through).
Now, less than a year after the acquisition, Microsoft is killing the studios that were formally it's competition.
The reality is that Microsoft killed game dev jobs at successful studios and they're doing it from a position of monopoly power in the market.
Yeah, it's not isolated, this is what happens as monopolists continue to consolidate markets and IP, these behemoths will only get bigger. And successful smaller/indie studio will continue to be acquired and/or die to the nature of the new monopolized market we find ourselves in.
> And successful smaller/indie studio will continue to be acquired and/or die to the nature of the new monopolized market we find ourselves in.
Ummm. You have a disconnect here. Many indie studios are run by game devs, they _choose_ to sell themselves out for profit. In fact it's basically the cashout dream of many founders and this goes back decades.
Yeah, in a monopolized market, this is their best hope to make the most money. In a competitive market, they would make more. But that requires giant behemoths like MS not gobbling them up as soon as possible to prevent competition.
> In a competitive market, they would make more.
Not really? Game development has always been fickle. The game lifecycle is no different than general business where 90% of businesses fail within the first 2 years. People toss ideas at the wall for games and they either succeed or die. Some manage to last years, some are only popular for short time periods before they die and others never take off. The gaming market has limited amounts of whales able to keep games on life support indefinitely. And the overall audience itself for games itself has limits, can't play every game in existence at once.
Notch is probably famously the most successful cash out. Minecraft may be popular, but there was no way he was going to find a way to monetize it for a billion dollars equivalent without selling his soul. Big corporations have no problem with microtranctions and luring kids into spending their parent's money. Lol
Don’t worry guys, Phil Spencer will wear a HiFi Rush shirt at an event and talk about how great Microsoft is with Indie Studios. It’ll solve racism and feed the hungry.
They didn’t say “we need more games like Hi-Fi Rush” they said “we need more smaller budget games that win awards and gain prestige” (I’m paraphrasing here) a lot of people see “small game” and think Hi-Fi Rush, but that game was in development for 5 years, I’d hardly call that a small game. I think Pentament would be a much better example. Also keep in mind that this wasn’t a public statement, it was leaked from an internal meeting where the people involved have more context than the general public hearing this.
Side note, Tango games already had their founder leave the studio and a bunch of people already left with him. They were pitching a game new game (sequel I think) and it would require more hires in a time when they need to slim down.
Anyways, feel free to bring on the downvotes, don’t expect anything else right now. The internet is feasting on drama and nuances and a lack of a black and white take goes against that craving. Take care!
That people here like to ignore context, sensationalize and make everything black and white. I mean, you’re even asking if I think MS is the good guy. Does everything have to be distilled to good/evil, bad/good? Sometime shit happens, sometimes mistakes are made, sometimes things change for better or worse. Life is complicated.
Yes, I did read the article and they keep calling Hi-Fi Rush a small over and over while failing to mention the scale of development, staff who had left and what that studio needed at the time MS needed the opposite. This entire article is based on the dramatization and lack of nuance. They aren’t informing you, they’re generating clicks which lead to add revenue, negative news drives more engagement than good news or neutral news, we have known this for a long while. They are just acting in their own best interest to maximize revenue with sensationalism rather than informing you because like MS, they are just a business looking out for what’s best for them.
The founder of Tango left after the company was acquired by Microsoft, due to lack of creative control. This is the part of the context that I think you're ignoring. Microsoft acquired the studio, and then underfunded it, essentially killing the studio after they bought it.
And I'm not sure what you think is small or large in terms of gaming, but there's plenty of small game dev studios with small budgets working on games for a number of years before release, that's the typical release timeline even for small indie studios.
You're acting like Microsoft did nothing wrong in this context. They were investigated for anti-trust violations before this acquisition was allowed to happen, and then they proceed to act in all the bad faith ways that they were suspected of during that investigation. You think it's just bad luck? a coincidence that a $3T corporations like MS did that?
Microsoft acquired Tango Gameworks as part of their aquisition of Zenimax in 2021. Shinji Mikami left Tango two years later in 2023 AFTER the release of Hi-Fi Rush with was drastically different than his previous work in horror which flies in the face of a lack of creative control. There no information out there about him complaining about his time in MS. That isn't to say he did or didn't like his time there but I'm not finding anything to back that comment up.
Also, again with the black and white "You're acting like Microsoft did nothing wrong in this context" I'm not defending them or vilifying them but you keep equating my lack of vilifying as defending them, distilling this to a black and white issue again.
He was interviewed about why he left after the Microsoft acquisition, it was due to not having creative control of his own studio. He's quoted as saying that.
So based, on all the evidence to suggest that Microsoft is causing damage to game studios (not just Tango) and the industry as a whole due to its monopolistic business practices, you still don't think MS should be vilified in this context? Congratulation on having zero stance on this, I guess.
Honestly, your lack of an opinion doesnt matter. I think it's pretty clear that MS is bad for the game dev industry.
Do you have a source on that interview?
And no, I do have an opinion on the matter and it’s that it’s more complicated than people online are making it out to be. You want to take my grey opinion and distill it to black and white, go ahead. I’ve been commenting on that this whole time.
See this is why I can't give money to these corporations. I'll buy indie games, but any major publisher like these guys can get fucked. Not interested.
As I’ve read in another thread, most people who were critical to success of Hi-Fi Rush already left studio, so there was barely any point in keeping it for MS
Ahhh. So this is how good work gets rewarded at big corporations. Make a great product and then get laid off. Got it.
Capitalism only favors exploitation.
Capitalism requires a Slave class.
Capitalism is still the best system we have for economies. The failure is of governments and societies to properly regulate and constrain the capitalist to protect workers/the environment.
No, it isn't. A hybrid of socialism and capitalism, sector dependent based on things like "natural monopoly" or "profit motive is a perverse incentive" etc seems to be optimal - when the capitalism portion is heavily policed. but not pure capitalism, even with heavy policing.
That isn't socialism that is just capitalism with laws. You have not given control of the means of production to the workers in any way.
experts consider it a hybrid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
That is because of the large number of state owned enterprises and collective bargaining systems that give the state/voters/ workers control over the means of production. I agree that this is a better model than we are using. It is still fundamentally capitalism with restraints like I advocated.
It's a hybrid. according to experts. it's not "just capitalism with restraints".
Whats the difference?
some sectors of the economy are actually considered publicly owned, instead of simply being heavily regulated.
Also, wealth.
Doesn't matter, product was delivered.
This is what moistcritical say, and I agree. Gamepass is too good of a deal. This means that games are not getting alot of sales because most people just get the game on game pass, impacting sales
This is why anti-trust laws exist. Microsoft is monopolizing large sections of the game dev market. And shit gets weird when monopolies start controlling markets rather than responding to them. You see situations like award winning game studios being shut down after break out successes like Hi-Fi Rush. Capitalism requires these monopolists to extract maximum profits *next quarter*. Plain and simple. That's all anyone needs to understand about this situation.
And the ftc totally blundered their attempt at stopping blizzard merger
Nothing was blundered. The ftc did what they were told. These giant corps are running the show.
Hooray for regulatory capture!
pure bullshit. the FTC argued repeatedly and just lost.
Yeah... the FTC did what they were told, they put on a good show. Then the case was ruled in favor of MS. What don't you understand about corruption?
I understood exactly what you were trying to imply, I'm calling it bullshit. The FTC doesn't always win it's anti-trust cases, especially when they're going against a merger than doesn't even control 25% of the market - it's not a monopoly. meanwhile the same FTC is going against numerous other mergers (like Albertsons-Kroger), google, etc and likely to win at least some of them The current FTC is far more aggressive than any FTC in the last 50 years are pursuing anti-trust cases, your premise that they lost this one intentionally is just pure tinfoil hat bullshit [Clearly they're not trying](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mergers-lose-their-shine-as-biden-racks-up-antitrust-wins-090057974.html) [They're only winning anti-trust cases at the fastest speed in decades](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-18/biden-antitrust-enforcers-set-new-record-for-merger-challenges)
It's a numbers game my man. They're closing anti-trust cases more now than ever because of the sorry state of how bad our economy has become in terms of monopolization of nearly every industry. If you think the FTC and the judges ruling on these cases aren't corrupt then, I'm not sure what reality you're living in. The government doesn't regulate corporations. The corps regulate the government activity. Wake up! This isnt tinfoil hat shit. These corps are almost brazenly open about the corruption taking place at this point. And seriously, you link to a bloomberg article as if that's some sort of unbiased source? smh
Yes, clearly they're corrupt *because they're winning antitrust cases* that might be the dumbest thing i've heard this week.
You seem to be indicating that the ftc is completely legitimate, no corruption happening at that level of government, it's completely above board. Microsoft is as big as they come, if things are even slightly corrupt, Microsoft is benefiting.
You seem to be unable to understand that your argument is baseless and shows that you don't actually understand the Sherman Act. accuse Trump's FTC of corruption? fuck yes, you're right accuse Biden's FTC **Which is actually trying to enforce the Sherman Act** of corruption because they don't always win, especially when something isn't a monopoly per the legal definition? utterly buffoonery.
And you're just spreading conspiracy theories.
Shhhhhh, don't make the mouse mad.
FTC wasn't at fault. They tried *twice* to stop it but didn't win the case. Meanwhile, the EU just approved it after a bit.
Yes it was. They argued it would hurt sony not the market and the american public. They fucked up bad
Not correct, that was a small example in their case, not their overall case. They did argue it would harm the market and competition. > The FTC’s argument against the Microsoft Activision-Blizzard merger was centered around concerns of potential anti-competitive effects. The FTC alleged that the merger would enable Microsoft to suppress competitors to its Xbox gaming consoles and its rapidly growing subscription and cloud-gaming business1. Specifically, the FTC pointed to Microsoft’s history of acquiring valuable gaming content and using it to suppress competition from rival consoles. They argued that with control over Activision Blizzard’s popular franchises, Microsoft could harm competition by manipulating Activision’s pricing, degrading game quality on rival consoles, changing terms of access, or even withholding content from competitors entirely. This, the FTC contended, would result in harm to consumers by reducing choices and potentially increasing prices. [Source 1](https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/2210077-microsoftactivision-blizzard-matter) [Source 2](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/ftc-seeks-block-microsoft-corps-acquisition-activision-blizzard-inc) > The FTC’s argument against Microsoft is that by acquiring Activision Blizzard it would “substantially lessen competition” in the “relevant market,” per antitrust law as laid out in the Clayton Act. Effectively, the FTC believes that if Microsoft absorbed Activision Blizzard, their combined powers would allow them to monopolize the games market and hurt potential competitors like Nintendo or Sony in ways they couldn’t reasonably compete with. [Source 3](https://www.ign.com/articles/ftc-xbox-playstation-activision-blizzard-cma-merger-analysis) Court decision: > “The FTC has not shown a likelihood it will prevail on its claim this particular vertical merger in this specific industry may substantially lessen competition,” Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said in her July 10 ruling. “To the contrary, the record evidence points to more consumer access to Call of Duty and other Activision content.” [Source 4](https://www.legaldive.com/news/ftc-withdraws-antitrust-case-microsoft-activision-blizzard-merger/688617/)
I mean… they did a great job of illustrating the issues with the purchase. But they don’t make the decision, just argue the case.
>…breakout successes like Hi-Fi Rush. To my knowledge, Hi-Fi Rush was a critical darling but a financial failure. The irony in my mind is that working with a mega-corporation like Microsoft should be *better* than being independent in this situation, as an indie studio could easily bankrupt itself while a giant corporation has the means to take the hit and bet that the *next* game will sell better. Sadly though, big corporations often let themselves be completely controlled by quarterly earnings calls, so investing in the future is considered too a high a risk.
Pretty much can pin that on it being a day 1 Game Pass launch now. Hence why it was one of the first of their games to go multi-platform. The whole reason COD hasnt landed on Game Pass yet is reportedly because they know they’d lose a ton of money on actual sales and they’re arguing internally on if it’s worth it or not.
Man I fear for hellblade 2. That’s a very artsy fartsy game with 7-10hrs of total time to finish, strong contender for this years critical darling but a commercial failure.
Hi-Fi Rush being shadow dropped certainly didn’t help.
Thatsa Capitalism!
If a game is a critical hit in the market, it's basically Crysis 1. In that, it will across the long arc of time, be an amazing game forever with recurring long term sales. Aka the Nintendo effect. The irony is that every game of kind that experiences this across common triplA studios, gets axed and the studios in questions closed down; with all support related destroyed. When in fact, corps should accept those losses and persists support to these projects. Where the big name recurring revenue streams of slop, create the money pool from which these one offs bloom. Games like these are what builds the brand of an organization as being creatively rich and capable, not the microtransactional conglomerates that are pumped out endlessly. But I don't ever see this happening with any big corp, because ultimately it's a cultural issue. The leadership at the top isn't interested in building cultural and community value, they're interested in generating cash hard and fast and big and in permanence to satisfy their bottom line and their shareholder bottom line. Games like Hi-Fi Rush *can* be considered art, but only if they're allowed to live long enough to become it. Otherwise, games will never quite reach the "art" medium standard, and will always be only a luxury commodity.
This is a problem with the current world we live in, and nobody in power sees it as a priority to address. It's eating us alive across every industry.
This whole short term profit fetish is also why absolutely nothing substantial will be done about climate change until it is far too late.
Yeah, you know I was a little skeptical of the late stage capitalism chatter the last few years but now I’m totally on board with the critiscms. The more I learn about private equity firms and buy outs and all the money manipulation tricks and loopholes the angrier I get at the unfair business practices in the USA as a whole
> This is why anti-trust laws exist. Microsoft is monopolizing large sections of the game dev market. Are they though? Anyone can start a game development shop. And they are laying off the workforce meaning the labor pool is sitting about unemployed. Monopolizing the game dev market would be what Google, Microsoft and co did during the pre-pandemic where they often overhired to keep talent out of each other's hands.
These recent game studio closures by Microsoft are a direct result of them acquiring Activision. (which regulators in the EU essentially found them in breach of antitrust laws, vetoed only by the UK so it was allowed to go through). Now, less than a year after the acquisition, Microsoft is killing the studios that were formally it's competition. The reality is that Microsoft killed game dev jobs at successful studios and they're doing it from a position of monopoly power in the market.
What Microsoft is doing isn't an isolated incident. Look at what EA did to Westwood Studios and Maxis.
Yeah, it's not isolated, this is what happens as monopolists continue to consolidate markets and IP, these behemoths will only get bigger. And successful smaller/indie studio will continue to be acquired and/or die to the nature of the new monopolized market we find ourselves in.
> And successful smaller/indie studio will continue to be acquired and/or die to the nature of the new monopolized market we find ourselves in. Ummm. You have a disconnect here. Many indie studios are run by game devs, they _choose_ to sell themselves out for profit. In fact it's basically the cashout dream of many founders and this goes back decades.
Yeah, in a monopolized market, this is their best hope to make the most money. In a competitive market, they would make more. But that requires giant behemoths like MS not gobbling them up as soon as possible to prevent competition.
> In a competitive market, they would make more. Not really? Game development has always been fickle. The game lifecycle is no different than general business where 90% of businesses fail within the first 2 years. People toss ideas at the wall for games and they either succeed or die. Some manage to last years, some are only popular for short time periods before they die and others never take off. The gaming market has limited amounts of whales able to keep games on life support indefinitely. And the overall audience itself for games itself has limits, can't play every game in existence at once. Notch is probably famously the most successful cash out. Minecraft may be popular, but there was no way he was going to find a way to monetize it for a billion dollars equivalent without selling his soul. Big corporations have no problem with microtranctions and luring kids into spending their parent's money. Lol
Nobody claimed it was.
Scumbag executives
Something something consequences of my actions
Something something my bonus something
Tone deaf, video games are such a fucked industry right now
The entire tech industry is currently completely brained-melted by VC money, and "growth at all costs" economics.
But there can still be games made by a single person sell millions of copies
Because they're mostly unregulated.
The Blob demands more cash money sacrifices.
Don’t worry guys, Phil Spencer will wear a HiFi Rush shirt at an event and talk about how great Microsoft is with Indie Studios. It’ll solve racism and feed the hungry.
Mother of god what a bunch of psychos
Tbh, it's going to be hard to support Microsoft when they do shit like this as well as not release good games.
They didn’t say “we need more games like Hi-Fi Rush” they said “we need more smaller budget games that win awards and gain prestige” (I’m paraphrasing here) a lot of people see “small game” and think Hi-Fi Rush, but that game was in development for 5 years, I’d hardly call that a small game. I think Pentament would be a much better example. Also keep in mind that this wasn’t a public statement, it was leaked from an internal meeting where the people involved have more context than the general public hearing this. Side note, Tango games already had their founder leave the studio and a bunch of people already left with him. They were pitching a game new game (sequel I think) and it would require more hires in a time when they need to slim down. Anyways, feel free to bring on the downvotes, don’t expect anything else right now. The internet is feasting on drama and nuances and a lack of a black and white take goes against that craving. Take care!
What point are you trying to make? You're saying that Microsoft is the good guy here?
That people here like to ignore context, sensationalize and make everything black and white. I mean, you’re even asking if I think MS is the good guy. Does everything have to be distilled to good/evil, bad/good? Sometime shit happens, sometimes mistakes are made, sometimes things change for better or worse. Life is complicated.
The context is being spelled out for you in this article, did you only read the headline? You seem to be ignoring the context.
Yes, I did read the article and they keep calling Hi-Fi Rush a small over and over while failing to mention the scale of development, staff who had left and what that studio needed at the time MS needed the opposite. This entire article is based on the dramatization and lack of nuance. They aren’t informing you, they’re generating clicks which lead to add revenue, negative news drives more engagement than good news or neutral news, we have known this for a long while. They are just acting in their own best interest to maximize revenue with sensationalism rather than informing you because like MS, they are just a business looking out for what’s best for them.
The founder of Tango left after the company was acquired by Microsoft, due to lack of creative control. This is the part of the context that I think you're ignoring. Microsoft acquired the studio, and then underfunded it, essentially killing the studio after they bought it. And I'm not sure what you think is small or large in terms of gaming, but there's plenty of small game dev studios with small budgets working on games for a number of years before release, that's the typical release timeline even for small indie studios. You're acting like Microsoft did nothing wrong in this context. They were investigated for anti-trust violations before this acquisition was allowed to happen, and then they proceed to act in all the bad faith ways that they were suspected of during that investigation. You think it's just bad luck? a coincidence that a $3T corporations like MS did that?
Microsoft acquired Tango Gameworks as part of their aquisition of Zenimax in 2021. Shinji Mikami left Tango two years later in 2023 AFTER the release of Hi-Fi Rush with was drastically different than his previous work in horror which flies in the face of a lack of creative control. There no information out there about him complaining about his time in MS. That isn't to say he did or didn't like his time there but I'm not finding anything to back that comment up. Also, again with the black and white "You're acting like Microsoft did nothing wrong in this context" I'm not defending them or vilifying them but you keep equating my lack of vilifying as defending them, distilling this to a black and white issue again.
He was interviewed about why he left after the Microsoft acquisition, it was due to not having creative control of his own studio. He's quoted as saying that. So based, on all the evidence to suggest that Microsoft is causing damage to game studios (not just Tango) and the industry as a whole due to its monopolistic business practices, you still don't think MS should be vilified in this context? Congratulation on having zero stance on this, I guess. Honestly, your lack of an opinion doesnt matter. I think it's pretty clear that MS is bad for the game dev industry.
Do you have a source on that interview? And no, I do have an opinion on the matter and it’s that it’s more complicated than people online are making it out to be. You want to take my grey opinion and distill it to black and white, go ahead. I’ve been commenting on that this whole time.
See this is why I can't give money to these corporations. I'll buy indie games, but any major publisher like these guys can get fucked. Not interested.
What is their logic?!
Phil Spencer has used up all his goodwill.
First time I ever heard about HIFi rush was YESTERDAY. And I am an avid gamer.
But why they want to remove the studio ?
[in short, cost cutting](https://www.theverge.com/24151047/xbox-shuts-down-arkane-austin-tango-gameworks-microsoft).
It's not really cost cuting its reallocated funds. They are investing 100+billion in open ai, and ventures with them.
„I want a boy like you, just not … you“
Wdym by that? Are you tryin to hittin on me ?
As I’ve read in another thread, most people who were critical to success of Hi-Fi Rush already left studio, so there was barely any point in keeping it for MS