stuff like this is always the same with "older" people. you only need to look at what most adults in their 50's and 60's think is unreasonable behaviour and a problem with society, but go back to when they were that age and they will of generally done worse, but back in their time you just got a smack round the ear from a copper and told to sod off.
this is the biggest problem with society they look on the past with blinkers and ignore the fact that what happened back in the even the 80's wouldn't be allowed today. or an even closer example Friends a much loved comedy goes up on Netflix and people are slating it for fat shaming and other stuff, honestly when did people get so sensitive? this is why I would actually go the other way, with how sensitive people are getting now, you actually have a greater chance of offending people and a company getting slated or protested again, so if anything I would say the louder group is actually way more prudish than the old generations.
most only act as if they understand because it has became cool to stick up for minority groups and that is why nearly every day on news sites there is some random person pointing out something is offensive that pretty much no one else in the world would notice. like the complaint lego is sexist because sets in blue boxes are superheroes and city building, while sets in pink boxes are stuff like salons and such, we ignore the fact that no where does it say boy or girl on either box, now isn't the person complaining being the one causing the problem as they are using blue means boy and pink means girl.
so yeah that's my rant over, but I would honestly say sex in games now would offend more than it would of 15-20 years ago.
Welcome to the generation of outrage where any sensitive topic will spark a wildfire and the past is forgotten.
Ah yes, the "GPU guy" who until recently worked at AMD. It's hard to say what intel's long term plan will be. For one, the discreet GPU market is probably hard to hard to crack into. But on the other hand, if any major company out there was to do it, Intel seems the most logical, since they're already making integrated graphics chipsets. And then on the third hand If you look at products like the Hades Canyon NUC, you see that Intel really has no qualms about just purchasing discrete hardware from competing manufacturers. Interesting time to be alive.
Actually my money would be on Samsung, their CPU/GPU chips used in the international versions of their mobile devices that are made in house actually out perform the chips used by most other firms and their US variants.
Let's not forget they are a leader in memory chips with them being in most devices.
So I would put Samsung as the most likely contender, as they are already a chip maker and one of the most common sources of memory chips meaning they could also likely reduce bottle necks in production.
they need a win, if they can tap a big market with a high turnover they are going to do it.
but it's true, the majority of livestock animals are grown purely for food, take away the ability to sell the meat why would people keep them? you honestly think someone will have a field of "pet" cows?
Around the world forests get burned down, which threatens the existence of the entire biosphere, for the sake of livestock farming.
Arguing that farming for cows and chickens is the moral thing to do for species and the Biosphere is disingenuous and it gives the impression that you haven't actually thought over your proposition.
because there is more profit in the console version, they sell the game, the studio pays for a licence to make the game, then you pay monthly to play online.
on PC a the firm makes the game, they release they game you buy the game, the end.
Also, on console, a portion of the initial sale goes to M$ / PS, which helps subsidize the console cost.
Reading into the examples, I realise you're right. MS did hold problems with Square Enix before now, refusing FF11 back in 2002 and messing about with FF14 in 2010. Wording seems to be centered around the idea that MS weren't happy with giving S.Enix access to the XBLive servers at the time. Either way, MS do seem to have changed with the latest itteration of console, allowing Psyonix to run Rocket League (2015) and Ripstone to run Chess Ultra (2017) on their own servers separate from XBLive.
Maybe the servers weren't built to share information with other companies at the time and the infrastructure has improved since then. Maybe S.Enix demanded too much private information about XBLive users and MS weren't willing to offer it. Maybe XB just had a vendetta against S.Enix and the Final Fantasy series for holding it as a console exclusive against them so long. I can only guess why they didn't offer cross-platform before, but it's clear that XBLive is no longer a problem.
I know Sony fans don't like people focusing on this example, but to go back to Rocket League both sides are connected to the same 3rd party server, both running the same way and able to play cross-platform along with PC. Xbox have dropped their restrictions giving Psyonix permission to connect the platforms (so you can currently play PC vs XB) but Sony have held up a wall saying no. Nothing to do with servers or private information (they're all connected already). This is just Sony deciding they don't want cross-platform to happen.
From Sony's perspective, I understand why they want to reject cross platform too. Currently they hold the largest share of the console gaming platform. There are far more PS owners than there are XB owners. When it comes to buying a gaming platform, many choose the console not by exclusives or performance, but by where their friends play. With most owning a PS4, more people will decide to buy a PS4 rather than an XB simply so they can play together, whether or not its the console they prefer. To make cross-platform a common occurrence is to remove that decision and cut profits for them. More people will choose XB on the basis they can still play with their PS friends. From the companies perspective, there's no benefit to themselves for opening cross-platform with their competition.
This is the main reason why I'd look forward to a MS/Valve combination. Because if cross-platform between XB and PC became commonplace, Sony would be shooting themselves in the foot to stay excluded. There'd finally be a gateway for consumers to use and play with people who chose differently, and platform competitiveness could start to reduce from its current toxic state.
but Rocket League could random match make PS4 and PC users in multiplayer, the problem was on PC it used Steam, on PS4 it used the PS4 user system, Steam didn't want to allow Sony access to Steam users, so they couldn't come to a compromise where both sides could see and choose who they play.
had the game had a third party user system secondary to Steam/PSN it could of had true cross play, rather than random chance cross play. but most developers unless they are running an MMO (or are EA/Ubi) wont add a second layer of authentication that could get round the cross system matchmaking.
so in a way Rocket League is on the developer, they put cross play in the game but didn't make a way for players of different systems to interact, unlike Square who built their own user system outside of PSN to allow true interaction despite the system.
this is the main problem with cross play, without a unified user system a secondary user layer is needed, either that or some miracle where Sony, MS and Valve sit down in a room and find a way to share functionality across their user bases. at the moment the 3 systems physically can't recognise each others users.
PC to Xbox only has a hope because of the legacy left by games for windows live, they left the MS shop in that is directly linked into the Live servers, so you are using the same account in the MS shop and on an Xbox, basically you get cross play by being in the same walled garden.
it was tried when Steam launched for the PS3 (yes valve actually made it so you could use a steam account on PS3 with the orange box) but again developers didn't embrace the system so ultimately it got no support outside of the handful of Valve games that it just became a secondary layer hinderance.
as for the toxic state of the platform wars, it has been going since the 80's the internet just made it easier and it's good publicity and a good source of revenue for sites like this so those flame will be fanned long after we are all gone.
MS is the main one holding cross play back, PSN doesn't need to rely on Sony servers Live has to be on MS servers.
This is why games like FF11 came out on PC and PS2 with shared servers, but it took till the 360 to even get MS to allow the use of Square servers, it's why the game launched so much later for Xbox.
Truth is the gaming industry only has 2 walled gardens and they are Steam to a lesser extent and to live taking it to the extreme with every server and node being in house in MS owned data centres.
Valve don't own Steams games, and pretty much all of EAs games are already on both consoles. Buying either company would be from a financial standpoint rather than an addition to their platforms. At least for the next generation (XB2 and PS5) there wouldn't be room for the public to accept any change. It would allow them to own more than half the AAA gaming market though (controlling the largest PC front too), giving them a lot of power when it comes to setting the requirements for games to become commercially successful.
It could build a bridge between console and pc which would lead to cross-platform coming faster (forcing Sony to stop holding out and be excluded), but that monopoly would be quite something to fear.