• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Kavalier_Clay

Alt-Account
Banned
Nov 16, 2021
301
There is no way. At that point there were be solid grounds for an anti-trust case against them.

Perhaps with EA, but definitely not with Take Two. A new GTA game hasn't been released in two generations. It would be hard/impossible to make a legal argument about the monopoly power of that franchise, even though most folk on this forum know what that would mean for the Playstation brand.
 
Oct 29, 2017
13,470
They're making GamePass a mandatory service if you wanna play AAA games.

No, they're not. You can still buy AAA games if you don't have/want gamepass.

You just need an Xbox or PC to play the ones that MS owns (obviously).

But like, why would you have an Xbox and not have one of the Gamepass subscription models at this point? It's the best deal in gaming these days.
 

HououinKyouma

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,366
I'm curious how indie devs feel about this. Specifically, I'm referring to the continual growth of Game Pass. Does the growth help the devs by getting more eyes on their indie titles? Or is there a risk of "over saturation" where these games will just be skipped on?

Although I guess it doesn't really matter in the end since MS will pay them some type of number regardless?
 

srtrestre

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,972
Sony readying up a new KNACK game to counter!

ps4-knack.gif
 

nib95

Contains No Misinformation on Philly Cheesesteaks
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
18,498
Are people upset that Sony might get less revenue in the future or that Microsoft might one day be in the position Sony is in right now where they become the leader in revenue? Neither case points to a monopoly.

I was merely responding to the post that was talking about combined revenue, I didn't personally mention anything about this causing a monopoly, only that it could cause a "dramatic shift in market share dominance", in that in the long term I can absolutely see a scenario where Microsoft potentially lead in market share.

I'd agree that it doesn't mean Microsoft have a monopoly, though in terms of other anti competition arguments regarding keeping more tentpole multi-platform titles permanently off of the very platform they owe a vast majority of their growth and revenue to, well that's a different discussion. Don't get me wrong, I don't think such points would have the relevant traction in anti-competitive considerations, then again I'm not in antitrust or anti competition law. I can't see this acquisition failing.
 

JCreasy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
482
Well yeah, they aren't going to come out immediately after announcing this acquisition and say that the person leading the business they just dumped massive dollars into is a sack of rotten assholes. Instead of immediately reacting to this post, we should take the "wait and see" approach. I feel comfortable in saying that once the purchase is completed, there will be changes. They will remove anyone that is seen as problematic from their post.
As an aside, this is insanely big news. It's going to be a good change for a company that has become aimless and a shell of what they previously were.
There are many dormant IPs that can be brought back and yes, everyone will be able to play them. We can buy a Series s/X, 2nd hand One S/X, or use gamespass on iOS, Android, and PC. If a person that only has access to a Playstation is unable to play any exclusive games, then yeah that's rough for that person. BUT Microsoft is already doing incredible work on making their games playable everywhere, let's wait and see what happens next.
I don't own an Xbox or sub to Gamepass, but will likely resub or purchase one once the new titles start coming out.


No.

They don't have to praise Kotick. They could really just say nothing at all about him. Praising him for the exact thing he's guilty of is peak gaslighting by Microsoft.
 

Iron Eddie

Banned
Nov 25, 2019
9,812
Only being available on the console with its lowest share of sales is the best that could happen to it?
Bro, obviously buying exclusivity and devs studios individually gives gamers more options and is clearly the opposite of what MS just did.
How so? Playstation has universally gotten the most support, what transpired was the idea that I will buy a Playstation first and maybe something else second. Is it really that terrible to have Xbox (or PC) as a first choice instead?

People have been very vocal throughout the years (and rightfully so) that Microsoft did not have exclusivbe content they wanted, this led to less marketshare. These games they got were not exclusive content so why will there now be a huge shift and if there is why is it now bad?
 

Phendrift

Member
Oct 25, 2017
32,310
This move honestly makes me think that the "Sony ceding the Japanese market is bad in the long run" doom posters were right.

They really did hedge their bets on the western market and MIcrosoft is REALLY coming for them there, whilst Nintendo already pretty much won Japan.
 

ornery

Member
Nov 15, 2017
625
Super-silver lining - Battlefield has the opportunity to really tighten up ship and get their shit together. After 2023, it may be the premier multi-plat FPS
 

Gloomz

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,415
They've bought some big companies, but they still don't own...

Sony, Nintendo, Valve, Apple, Tencent, Epic, EA, Take-Two, Sega, Ubisoft, Bandai-Namco, Square-Enix, etc.

They're far from a monopoly, even when just looking at the big players, to say nothing of all the indie studios and smaller companies.

Which one of these would cost the most besides Apple?

Sony > Nintendo > Tencent?
 

t67443

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,806
The reason why Sony stopped developing was to avoid pissing off Activision and EA. Now Activision is gone, Sony going to go back to their FPS/3rd person shooter ips and bring them back. Won't be surprised if Sony bring back Socom in one way or form as well as Killzone FPS.
Was it really? Or did Sony just see that those games weren't competing with CoD, Battlefield and Halo so they cut that funding and pushed towards ad deals and other game franchises.
 

Coyote Starrk

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
53,190
Care to elaborate ? I'm not an expert when it comes to antitrust laws.
Think about it this way.


Think back to the last time we had a genuine E3. The biggest shows were always Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, EA, Activision, Ubisoft, and Bethesda. So if Microsoft was allowed to buy EA as well then Microsoft would own basically half of all of the output from E3. All of that would be exclusive to Xbox only. That would basically be the end of console gaming as we know it. We would be a handful of PlayStation exclusives and Ubisoft away from a one console future. It would be the death of competition and most likely the death of innovation as well.



Worst of all Entire IPS could be shelved in favor of the more popular and more profitable ones that Microsoft wants to push instead of allowing the consumer to make the decision of what is popular it will be done for us.
 

Sectorseven

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,560
With acquisitions like this, is someone purchasing Sony (Interactive) a realistic possibility in the near future?
 

JCreasy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
482
User Banned (5 Days): Console wars
Because Microsoft is not a good company. They don't care about you, me, their customers, or their new employees at Acti-Blizz.


They care about their money and their shareholders. That's it. Same goes for all the other huge companies as well.

Classic perspective by Steve. Holds true today.

 

EntelechyFuff

Saw the truth behind the copied door
Banned
Nov 19, 2019
10,228
We'll never know. Our opinions are just speculation. I absolutely think that Sony's aggressive stance on securing exclusives forced MS' hands. At least forced them to acquire much faster.

On the subject of monopoly and anti-trust, some of these posts lead me to believe that most people have no idea what they're talking about in the context of this acquisition. Can't stop people from being emotional though.
MS didn't need to spent 70 billion dollars because Sony got a 3 month exclusive beta, come on.

The only thing that forced MS hand is that they didn't think they could reach the subscription milestones they have in mind with they content they had already secured.
 

Gareth

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,466
Norn Iron
My work colleague, who has been utterly loyal to PlayStation since the PS1, was asking me about Xbox and Game Pass today upon hearing the Activision news. Never thought I'd see the day!
 

RedRum

Newbie Paper Plane Pilot
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,365
Bro, obviously buying exclusivity and devs studios individually gives gamers more options and is clearly the opposite of what MS just did.

I'm not fucking saying that what Sony and MS are doing is the same. I'm saying that these companies don't think on the same level as the sole individual. It's not about your opinion on whether Sony's exclusive practices was so small that it didn't warrant this big of a response. The fact is that MS thought it warranted some kind of response and a company with the wallet of MS is going to go big in their responses. It's absolutely irrelevant what you think is "small peas" compared to "big peas".

I'm more about you guys being so surprised that you didn't see this coming since last generation than it actually happening.
 

jelly

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
33,841
I would guess they won't buy another big publisher until this goes through so safe until 2023.
 

Raigor

Member
May 14, 2020
15,149
Because Microsoft is not a good company. They don't care about you, me, their customers, or their new employees at Acti-Blizz.


They care about their money and their shareholders. That's it. Same goes for all the other huge companies as well.

No company selling you a product cares about you, they only want your money lmao
 

Kavalier_Clay

Alt-Account
Banned
Nov 16, 2021
301
Think about it this way.


Think back to the last time we had a genuine E3. The biggest shows were always Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, EA, Activision, Ubisoft, and Bethesda. So if Microsoft was allowed to buy EA as well then Microsoft would own basically half of all of the output from E3. All of that would be exclusive to Xbox only.



That would basically be the end of console gaming as we know it. We would be a handful of PlayStation exclusives and Ubisoft away from a one console future.

LOLLLL. PLEASE READ UP ON ANTITRUST LAW BEFORE POSTING THINGS LIKE THIS.

A good and brief read is The Curse of Bigness by Tim Wu. It's only like 160 pages and will dramatically increase your knowledge on how the American jurisprudence system views antitrust law.

curse-of-bigness-book-main.png
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
I'm not fucking saying that what Sony and MS are doing is the same. I'm saying that these companies don't think on the same level as the sole individual. It's not about your opinion on whether Sony's exclusive practices was so small that it didn't warrant this big of a response. The fact is that MS thought it warranted some kind of response and a company with the wallet of MS is going to go big in their responses. It's absolutely irrelevant what you think is "small peas" compared to "big peas".

I'm more about you guys being so surprised that you didn't see this coming since last generation than it actually happening.
MS's moves have nothing to do with any Sony exclusive game deals.
 

gothmog

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,434
NY
MJ used to work at Sierra, it's wild how many IPs MS scored with this deal

I think nothing big is going to come of that. Best case is probably them allowing easy licensing of the IP for indie studios in the area. Or at least not sending C&D letters if source code and other assets want to be released to the public.

Alternatively, Gabriel Knight might become the next Lara Croft or Nathan Drake. I would love to see a modern take on GK.
 

Josh378

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,521
Was it really? Or did Sony just see that those games weren't competing with CoD, Battlefield and Halo so they cut that funding and pushed towards ad deals and other game franchises.

It Can also be the argument as well. But at the end of the day, comma Sony no longer has any Call of Duty game on their console. Something's going to have to cover that empty space of revenue. So either EA is going to come out with a similar franchise like Call of Duty to cover or Sony will have to reinvest back into their company using their IP's that they stashed and make profit there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.