Tag Archives: Gaming

Microsoft’s New Xbox Mobile Gaming Store Is Launching In July

Microsoft,

Microsoft has been talking about plans for an Xbox mobile gaming store for a couple of years now, and the company plans to launch it in July. Speaking at the Bloomberg Technology Summit earlier today, Xbox president Sarah Bond revealed the launch date and how Microsoft is going to avoid Apple’s strict App Store rules, The Verge reported.

“We’re going to start by bringing our own first-party portfolio to [the Xbox mobile store], so you’re going to see games like Candy Crush show up in that experience, games like Minecraft” says Bond. “We’re going to start on the web, and we’re doing that because that really allows us to have it be an experience that’s accessible across all devices, all countries, no matter what and independent of the policies of closed ecosystems.

Although Bond alluded to games and an actual store in her statement during her interview at the Bloomberg Tech Summit, a statement provided to The Verge paints a slightly different picture. “This year we will debut our first mobile offering where mobile players can find deals on our firs mobile offering where mobile game players can find deals on their favorite in-game items and discover new games, starting on the web so players can access it anywhere,” Bond says, “This web-based store is the first step in our journey to building a trusted app store with its roots in gaming.”

The store will be focused on first-party mobile games from Microsoft’s various studios, which include huge hits like Call of Duty: Mobile, and Candy Crush Saga, Bond says. The company will extend this to partners at some point in the future, too.

TechCrunch reported reported that by launching the store on the web, as opposed to an app, Microsoft would present an alternative to Apple and Google, which charge a 30% fee on sales.

The official announcement comes as Microsoft has been talking about launching an Xbox mobile gaming store for quite some time now. Last December, Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer said the company was in discussions with partners about launching an Xbox mobile store, and noted that it would arrive sooner than later.

Microsoft first hinted at a mobile store back in 2022 when it announced deal to acquire Activision Blizzard. Microsoft had said in filings that one of the major reasons it wanted to acquire Activision Blizzard was to build out its mobile gaming presence. In October 2022, Microsoft’s filings with the CMA revealed that it planned to create a new “Xbox Mobile Platform” that includes mobile games by Activision and King.

GameSpot reported reported Microsoft stated that it planned to launch a gaming storefront last year after the European Union’s Digital Markets Act made it easier for tech companies to start their own direct-to-consumer stores, eschewing Apple’s dominant “walled garden” approach. Bond said that the store will initially feature games from Microsoft-owned studios, such as Candy Crush Saga.

The storefront marks Microsoft’s latest attempt at entering the lucrative mobile gaming space, a market segment that Xbox is not usually associated with. The platform holder’s $69 million acquisition of Activision Blizzard helped set up this move, as the publisher includes Candy Crush developer King, one of the biggest players in the mobile space.

In my opinion, Microsoft is likely to attract players that might not have had access to Activision Blizzard King’s games. This could open a whole new world of mobile gaming for everyone.

A Recap Of Epic Games VS Google

Gaming, ,

The first day of the Epic Games vs. Google antitrust trial ended after both sides gave opening statements and two witnesses testified, VentureBeat reported.

According to VentureBeat, Epic’s lead attorney Gary Bornstein opened with a chart that showed the Google Play Store accounted for 90% of app installs in the year the lawsuit was filed, 2020, despite the fact that Google “will say” that the Samsung app store is installed on 60% of all Android smartphones. But Bornstein noted that a tiny sliver of the market share belongs to Samsung.

Bornstein argued that Google pays actual potential competitors not to compete and gives them money and other things of value. Bornstein says this is anti-competitive.

Epic also said it knows that Google will argue that it allows “sideloading” of apps as an alternative to using the Google Play Store. But Epic Games said Google through hoops in the way of users who were considering sideloading. Epic said that Google’s 30% fee for its app store operating profit amount to $12 billion a year and carry a 70% margin, compared to 24% in 2014.

Bornstein said that Google’s codename for shady deals was Project Hug, where Google allegedly paid developers such as Riot Games not to compete with the Google Play Store.

Bornstein also said that because many of Google’s alleged anticompetitive acts started in 2019, Google didn’t need those things to protect its fledgling app store. Rather, it merely intended to protect its monopoly. He also said that Google doesn’t have a monopoly on making app downloading secure, and that side-loaded apps didn’t represent a real security threat.

CNBC reported that Google is headed back to court for its second antitrust trial in two months, this time in defense of its Android Play Store.

According to CNBC, while Google continues to argue against monopoly claims brought by the Department of Justice and a bipartisan group of states in Washington, D.C., District Court, the company now has to simultaneously face off against Epic Games in a federal court in San Francisco.

The trial involving Epic, which began Monday, revolted around Google’s treatment of third-party developers, and will be closely watched by Apple, which operates the rival iPhone App Store. Both companies have been accused by developers of taking an unfair cut of revenue from in-app payments and for making it harder for app creators to communicate with their customers.

An Epic victory could force Google to make changes to Android, where it charges a 15% to 30% fee on digital goods and services purchases within the apps. It could allow Epic to get its store pre-installed on devices, potentially making it easier for users to bypass Google’s store to download games.

CNBC reported that at issue with the DOJ’s monopoly case, which went to trial in September, is whether Google violated the law through exclusive agreements with mobile phone manufacturers and browser makers to make its search engine the default for consumers. That case could determine whether Google is able to continue using its heft to keep its prime positioning on smartphones.

It seems to me that the Epic vs Google case is one that seems to keep ending up in courtroom battles. Eventually, we will know the outcome of this particular case. But that might not be the end of this battle.

Unity Temporarily Closes Offices Amid Death Threats Over Pricing Changes

Gaming,

Unity has temporarily closed its offices in San Francisco and Austin, Texas and cancelled a town hall meeting after receiving death threats, according to Bloomberg, as reported by Engadget. Earlier this week, the company announced a contentious change to its business model.

“Today, we have been made aware of a potential threat to some of our offices. We have taken immediate and proactive measures to ensure the safety of our employees, which is our top priority,” a Unity spokesperson told Engadget. “We are closing our offices today and tomorrow that could be potential targets for this threat, and we are fully cooperating with law enforcement on the investigation.”

Kotaku noted that, as reported by Bloomberg’s Jason Schrier, Unity CEO John Riccitiello said that a scheduled September 14 company town hall meeting has been canceled, while both the Austin Texas and San Francisco, California offices will remain closed for the day. This is due to a “credible death threat” that was made against the tech company, though the nature of this potential violence hasn’t yet been detailed.

The Hill reported that Unity, a game engine that serves as the foundation to tens of thousands of video game projects, announced Wednesday that it will charge a developer 20 cents every time a game with their engine is downloaded starting Jan. 1. The change garnered massive criticism from developers and gamers who fear the fees could bankrupt small developers and make free-to-play titles unprofitable.

According to The Hill, Unity originally planned a town hall to discuss the pricing decision with employee Thursday morning. The two offices under threat – in Austin, Texas and San Francisco – were closed Thursday and will remain closed, the company said, according to Bloomberg.

The Hill also reported that rival game software company Epic Games, developer of the Unreal Engine, only charges similar fees for projects that make more than $1 million in total revenue – exempting the smallest hobbyists and games entrepreneurs. Both software programs are free to use and feature assets and tools that can be purchased.

Some developers have already announced that they may avoid using the Unity engine in the future and opt for the company’s rivals, even if their games are not levied with fees.

The Verge reported that Unity CEO John Riccitiello himself became a central figure of the controversy over the pay-per-install pricing scheme, as some see him as the driving force behind the new model. He was the CEO of Electronic Arts when the controversial loot box monetization was added to FIFA 09.

According to The Verge, Unity has tweeted some clarifications about the new pricing structure and walked back several unpopular tenets. Developers will no longer be charged for demos or game re-installs but will be charged for installs on multiple devices. There will also be programs in place to protect against fraud or malicious activity, and games included in charity bundles will not be subject to fees.

I can understand why someone would be upset about newly-created pricing charges. That said, sending a death threat to someone is always going to be the wrong choice to make.

FTC Loses Appeals Court Bid To Temporarily Block Microsoft-Activision Deal

Microsoft, , ,

In a victory for Microsoft, the U.S. Appeals Court for the 9th Circuit late on Friday denied the Federal Trade Commission’s motion to temporarily stop Microsoft from closing its $68.7 billion acquisition of video game publisher Activision Blizzard, CNBC reported.

Microsoft is still working to resolve concerns about the transaction from the United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority. The two companies have been looking to close the deal by July 18.

“We appreciate the Ninth Circuit’s swift response denying the FTC’s motion to further delay the deal. This bring us another step closer to the finish line in this marathon of global regulatory reviews,” Brad Smith, Microsoft’s president and vice chair, said in a statement.

A federal judge in San Francisco, after five days of court hearing, ruled against the FTC on Tuesday, and the federal filed its appeal on Wednesday…

…In an emergency motion filed with the 9th Circuit on Thursday, the FTC said the district judge “denied preliminary relief, applying the wrong legal standard: the court effectively required the FTC to prove its full case on the merits with the court as the arbiter of the merger’s legality.” The agency requested a temporary injunction while the court considered an appeal of the district court’s conclusion, CNBC reported.

The Wall Street Journal reported that an appeals court on Friday denied a last-ditch bid by the Federal Trade Commission to halt Microsoft’s planned $75 billion acquisition of videogame publisher Activision Blizzard.

In a brief order, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the FTC’s request for a court order that would have blocked Microsoft and Activision from merging while the agency appeals a July 11 decision by a trial court judge.

Friday’s order helps clear the way for Microsoft and Activision to close the merger, and puts pressure on the FTC to drop its appeal of the July 11 ruling.

In the July decision, U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said the agency hadn’t shown that Microsoft’s ownership of Activision titles, including the hit shooter-game series “Call of Duty,” would hurt competition in the console or cloud-gaming markets.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the FTC declined to comment.

The Verge also reported the FTC appealed the decision by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, and now the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied its request for emergency relief to prevent Microsoft from closing the deal until the result of the FTC’s appeal is complete.

Microsoft welcomed the denial late on Friday. “We appreciate the Ninth Circuit’s swift response denying the FTC’s motion to further delay the deal. This brings us another step closer to the finish line in this marathon of global regulatory reviews,” says Brad Smith, Vice Chair and President of Microsoft, in a statement to The Verge.

According to The Verge, this means Microsoft is now free to close its Activision Blizzard deal after a temporary restraining order, part of Judge Corley’s order, expired at 11:59PM PT, Friday July 14. Microsoft has until July 18th to close its deal; otherwise, it may need to renegotiate terms with Activision Blizzard, pay $3 billion in breakup fees if Activision wants to walk away, or simply let the deal deadline naturally extend if both parties are happy to.

The Verge also reported that the UK’s Competitions and Market’s Authority blocked Microsoft’s deal earlier this year, citing competition fears in the emerging cloud gaming market. Both CMA and Microsoft have agreed to pause their legal battles to figure out how the transaction might be modified in order to address the CMA’s cloud gaming concerns.

In my opinion, I think Judge Corley, and the Ninth Circuit Court, made the right decision. Both appear to have determined that the FTC’s case was not enough for a judgement to be made in their favor, and have instead decided in favor of Microsoft.

The Frustration of Parental Controls on PlayStation 5

Gaming, Information, Sony,

Parents….if you are thinking about buying a PS5 and setting it up with a child account for your under-18, then I’ve some advice for you. Don’t. It’s a total nightmare that I bitterly regret because of the endless disappointment, wasted time and Sony’s poor information. If you want a child-friendly gaming console, buy a Nintendo Switch.

Last Christmas, Santa Claus brought my son a PlayStation 5 – he’s a lucky boy. As a good parent, I set up the PS5 in my name and added him as a family member. What a mistake! Sony makes parental controls an exercise in frustration. The main problem is that when you come up against a problem, you simply don’t know whether you are doing something wrong or whether it’s a parental control that you can (or can’t) tweak.

The basic parental controls on the PS5 are pretty straightforward. If my son wants to play a game within his age rating, he can go ahead and play the game straightaway. If the age rating is above his age, he can ask for approval to play. That request comes to me and I can accept or reject it.  Most of the time that works but it’s not frictionless – there’s too much mucking about with logging in or using the PlayStation app with 2FA.

On top of that, some game manufacturers seem to put on their own age limit, and prevent anyone from playing under their age guidance and there’s no option to request parental permission. But you don’t know that when you buy the game and it’s not made clear even in-game when you come up against the problem. Is it a setting that I have to tweak or is it a hard limit? Sony’s instructions suggest that he should be able ask for permission but Crew 2 doesn’t offer an option, even though he’s in their suggested age window. I currently have a call logged with Ubisoft for this one.

The biggest issue over the past while has been with in-game voice chat in Fortnite – every time you tried to enable the feature it gave an error, but there was no indication whether this was a technical fault or conflict with PS5 parental controls. It turns out it was a technical issue that Epic has finally fixed.

But here’s another example with Fortnite. On the Nintendo Switch, if my son wants to buy V-bucks in Fortnite, all I need to do is use my credit or debit card details to get the V-bucks. Once that’s done, the V-bucks are in his account and he can spend them as he likes. Compare this with the PS5, where we see this super helpful message on the V-bucks purchasing page.

The way around it for the PlayStation 5 is for me to buy V-bucks in Fortnite, then purchase the in-game items he wants and gift them to him but it’s a total waste of my time. You have to go through the same process if he gets a V-bucks card as a gift. Surely a V-bucks gift card is the ideal way to control a child’s spending?

Next in the bad books was Spotify. We have a family subscription and there are profiles for everyone. The PS5 had a new native app, replacing the PS4 version. I downloaded the app, logged in as myself and played my tunes – everything was working. When my son tried to start the app, an error appeared saying that Spotify couldn’t start while he was logged in. And that’s it. No explanation as to what parental control was preventing the app from running, no opportunity for him to request access. It’s a complete joke. Eventually, it was fixed without explanation.

And Sony is almost impossible to get hold of for any queries. The Playstation Support pages are about as useful as a chocolate teapot, although there’s an online assistant that will connect you with community experts. TBH, they’re not much use. Any time I’ve used them, it’s “I think you can’t do that” or “Have you checked the online help?”

There is nothing worse that the disappointment of your child when he rushes home with a new game only to find it doesn’t work and Dad has to spend hours on-line trying to sort it out. Santa won’t be buying a PS6.

OnePlus Nord 2 x PAC-MAN Goes On Sale

Gaming, smartphone, ,

Announced last week, the OnePlus Nord 2 x PAC-MAN has now gone on sale so we have some tasty pictures of the new phone in all its dot-powered glory, and there’s a few surprises too. OnePlus has gone to town on the cross-over.

The packaging has received the full PAC-MAN treatment with a custom box and inside, there’s the Nord 2 x PAC-MAN phone plus a case featuring the famous ghosts from the game: Blinky, Pinky, Inky and Clyde. The back of the phone has been given a light PAC-MAN design and I’m hoping that the back of the phone and the case itself all line up to give a special 3D effect.

OnePlus Nord 2 x PAC-MAN package

During the day, the Nord 2 x PAC-MAN has a subtle back with a few dots and a yellow muncher but at night the rear comes alive with a glow-in-the dark maze with nods to both PAC-MAN and other 80s video games. In a further mod, the alert slider of the phone is now the same dark blue colour as the ghosts when they try to run away from the PAC-MAN after he eats a power pellet. The slider is just about visible in the night shot on the right.

And if ordering direct from OnePlus, there’s a further PAC-MAN bonus – a construction brick-based phone holder that mimics Penrose stairs as seen in designs by Escher. Build it yourself, hold it just right and you’ll have a never-ending staircase complete with ghosts and PAC-MAN. Hours of fun by itself.

In addition to the exterior changes, OxygenOS (that’s OnePlus’ version of Android) has been given a retro makeover. Icons have pixelated for an 80s vibe, wallpapers show off the PAC-MAN game, the camera app has a custom filter and there are a series of challenges to unlock a selection of new content, from wallpapers to ringtones and photo stickers.

And of course, PAC-MAN 256 comes pre-installed for instant gaming action. What did you expect?

The OnePlus Nord 2 × PAC-MAN Edition goes on sale on Tuesday, 16 November, at 1100 GMT for £499 in the UK. A single variant of the device will be sold with 12GB RAM and 256GB storage on oneplus.com and amazon.co.uk.

Yes, it’s £30 more expensive than the standard Nord 2 for the same hardware, but it’s so much cooler.

Gaming Limitations Could Threaten China’s eSports Dominance

Gaming, ,

Recently, Financial Times posted an article titled: “Gaming crackdown threatens China’s esports dominance, warn players”. In the article, it says that Beijing introduced gaming regulations last week that limited players under 18 to only three hours of online games per week.

The article astutely points out that the limitation is going to blunt China’s professional eSports teams because they will have less time to play games than their competition from other countries (such as the United States, South Korea, and Europe). According to Financial Times, eSports is big business in China and widely popular.

The Financial Times also reported that China is set to host esports first appearance as a medal event in at the 2022 Asian Games in Hangzhou. They have set up a stadium dedicated entirely to competitive video gaming in Chongqing with more than 7,000 seats.

In August of 2021, South China Morning Post reported that that gamers in China who are under the age of 18 would have their playing time limited to one hour on regular days and two hours on public holidays, which was announced by Tencent.

It appeared to be a response to a game called Honour of Kings, (created by Tencent) which was the first video game in the world, on any platform, to average more than 100 million users a day. Teens will also be prohibited from playing the game between 10pm and 8am.

On August 30, 2021, BBC reported that Tencent announced it was rolling out facial recognition to stop children playing between 10pm and 8am. According to BBC, the move followed fears that children were using adult ID’s to circumvent rules.

Personally, I can’t see how eSports players in China are going to be able to compete against players from other countries – who don’t have the limitations that China imposed upon young gamers. To me, the severe limitations on gameplay is going to stifle China’s eSports players.