Right. Sony and Microsoft have the same motivations in this industry. They both have a pursuit for market dominance.
-
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.
Microsoft responds to Sony's claim that Call of Duty is unrivaled & unique (Claims Sony is paying to block games from Gamepass)
- Thread starter Idas
- Start date
- Activision/Blizzard
Really weird why Sony wouldn't just say this then in their own response.
Sony never undercut the competition to the extent MS is doing right now -- they could never afford to. At the end of the day they still offered the same product at the same price.
Almost every exclusive Sony's had for two or three generations was entirely funded by them; it wasn't a question of paying the keep a game away, it was a question of paying to make the game in the first place. No different than what Nintendo did with Bayonetta 2 basically. Those games would not have been made otherwise.
It's silly to compare paying like FromSoft or whatever, like 100 million bucks to make a Soulslike exclusive, and buying one of the biggest PC gaming publishers in gaming history for 69 billion dollars. I mean it's self-evidently silly.
loooool
The domino meme where the little domino is "Is Gamepass legal?" and then the last domino is "Yeah you get 'em Phil, look at how Sony Brazil is getting destroyed"
How is what you say any different than what Sony is doing since as MS says they are paying for blocking rights.
The problem here is the intentional misreads from folks where they see this as people "celebrating" the situation to establish a position of moral superiority. These hyper capitalist acquisitions are made with or without Era's input, and we're here reacting the fallout of the decisions. Some of the fallout is disgusting. Some of the fallout is juicy. Some of the fallout is downright entertaining. But nobody is in this thread like "yeah, FUCK YEAH, let's go Microsoft!"
My thoughts are Yes, Yes, No. Wumpa League will probably be multiplatform but mainline games won't.
Currently a single company completely dominates and controls the gaming scene, and it's not Microsoft. At least in reference to the present, this is an increase in competition within this market.
Also, this is mostly unrelated to workers owning the means of production. Acquisitions and merges would still happen even if every company was run as a co-op.
Do we have hard evidence that ms also prevents games from releasing on Ps plus btw? I'm not saying they don't, but I don't think we've seen documentation yet that they do. If we have though, then please ignore.
As for this, I'm sorry but I don't equate the exclusivity deals the three of them do. I know people here love to pretend otherwise, but unknown exclusivity times for deathloop, ff7re/16, sfv, TGW, Forspoken, Destiny 2 and more are not the same as a few months for deaths door, rogue legacy 2, the medium, Stalker 2, Ashen, and most id@Xbox games.
You can't create a COD Killer. COD is a brand that has to die on its on, there won't be a game people drops COD for.
There is clearly no comparison to be made between a one-time arrangement for temporary limitations about how a game can be offered on other platforms and a permanent purchase of a major publisher and permanently locking many of the previously multiplatform games they make to your own platform. Like Sony buying a year of exclusivity for Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo are obviously in no way comparable to Microsoft buying Bethesda and permanently ensuring that Starfield will never be available on Playstation
I dont understand what Microsoft why Microsoft needs to buy ACTBLIZZ when they can just get smaller studios that put out better games than what ACTBLIZZ has put out in the recent years. Microsoft is just buying a whole publisher is mad silly and lazy too me
It's not that simple. None of their first parties bar Insomniac and Guerilla even have experience developing fps. Their player base primarily buy online third party games like COD, GTA, FIFA etc before first party games. A serious attempt at COD would take at least 3-6years while Activision have set up a rotation around 3 developers to have COD developed efficiently. Sony have far less experience with Gaas than Activision. And even if everything goes to plan and it's a success, as long as that year's Cod entry isn't complete garbage, people will still buy it in droves and it will still outsell Sony's attempt because most of Playstation's base are there for the third party games first and foremost.
I don't know why you're laughing. They do not sell personal data. They aren't one of the new upstarts that were desperately looking for profitability. They've been incredibly profitable their entire existence off of services and software.
They're also an enterprise focused company, meaning data security/integrity is incredibly important in attracting their clients.
I believe they're specifically talking about a subscription business model that gives you access to games day one.
In video games… they absolutely are.
INB4 people start saying Stadia is bigger than PlayStation because its owned by Google.
my guy this is THE biggest acquisition EVER in gaming history
WTH is this?
Sony is on top 1-2 of the gaming industry. Even after AB buyout, Xbox will be like #3.
They do console exclusive deals (Death's Door, Tunic, Rogue Legacy 2) that last for like 6 months or so nowadays, but I don't think Game Pass has any sort of exclusivity clauses. For example, the entire Yakuza series has been on Game Pass for quite some time, with some getting readded like a month ago. Now those same games have been announced for PS+. I don't think there has been enough time to really see how the two services will affect each other.
I believe their argument is in the Game Pass model, which was only brought about with PS+ Extra. Not the claim 2 games per month style brought in with the PS3 era. Accessing a full library of games via sub. And their argument is the threat is amplified with the inclusion of first party day 1 titles threatening their buy-to-own dominance.
Yeah.
It reminds me a lot of "Oh I guess acquisitions are good now" comments when Housemarque was bought in relation to Bethesda. As if they are in anyway comparable.
I hope you don't use almost every piece of tech, guess what this website is probably selling your data along with the other hundred websites you visit every week, that twitter,facebook,whatsapp,instagram,netflix,amazon prime,email address pretty much everything is collecting your data and selling it on. If something is free, you're the product after all.
This entire post is cringe, sorry and seems super reactionary.
How do you buy the largest video game company after 25 years in the business and still call your console business a failure, who you fooling?
And what arguments against the acquisition could google, nintendo and Apple make when one dont have COD on its platform and the rest can give 2 shits about the console space?
Also Sony, cut the shit out you gonna still literally dominate in the space.
And what arguments against the acquisition could google, nintendo and Apple make when one dont have COD on its platform and the rest can give 2 shits about the console space?
Also Sony, cut the shit out you gonna still literally dominate in the space.
Since 2009 through 2021, a different CoD has been the highest selling game every year except for 2 (both times a rockstar game took the spot). Yes, there are many genre/categories that probably cannot compete with just CoD year to year. If CoD is not big enough for a franchise to be a tipping point, absolutely nothing is. I am not saying that Sony is right and that he acquisition should be blocked, but other FPS are not really competing with CoD when it comes to value for platform holders.
Going out of your way to block content from being able to appear on competing subscription services is such a shitty and anti-consumer driven practice.
Glad it was referenced.
Glad it was referenced.
It's the same stuff. Microsoft pulled the same kind of deal with Rise of the Tomb Raider last generation, tried to pretend it was permanently exclusive, and then got caught. Literally all three companies have done major exclusivity deals on third party games. Sony is not an outlier in this regard.
Hell, in the PS3/360 generation, Microsoft got the exclusivity on all the DLC for GTA4 and used it as a MASSIVE selling point for their version of the game over the PS3 version for ages. The distinction is just that right now Sony appears to be doing it more frequently than Microsoft, but at the end of the day no console maker is innocent of this behavior.
Stunning rebuttal from the person making blanket statements about the entire forum in this thread.
Preposterous!
Consider for a moment that perhaps everyone inherently understands that corporate consolidation is bad and that this isn't a celebratory thread, but rather a thread finding entertainment where we can in getting a peak under the rock to see the worms writhe.
In short, big corporations suck:
You mean the Apple Store and Google Play? Because that's the vast majority of the slice of the pie as far as revenue goes in the gaming space. If you're talking about console gaming, all three platforms are doing phenomenal, so I have no idea what you mean here.
Quote from source: "Almost literal, MS says that: "In short, Sony is not resigned to having to compete with Microsoft's subscription service. Sony's public outcry on subscription games and the company's response are clear: Sony doesn't want attractive subscription services to threaten its dominance in the market for digital distribution of console games. In other words, Sony rails against the introduction of new monetization models capable of challenging its business model".
Right?? These comparisons are silly. Sony is tying up a few unreleased games here and there for X amount of time to strengthen their brand in specific segments. MS bought the biggest revenue driver in Sony's ecosystem.
![00Quan[T]](/data/avatar/31681832007/115484-m.jpg){kind=avatar}
MS aren't saying it's not important, they're saying it's not enough for them to come anywhere close to a monopoly.
And MS are spot on about Sony, theyre upset that pay-to-play model (which Sony dominate) will be impacted and are trying to raise issue with MS potentially changing how products are consumed not because they're being anti competitive.
So this is always the response that comes after someone points out the difference in timed exclusivty. First is tomb raider, which I fully agree was a stupid thing to do and ms got blasted for it, deservedly.
And then the second is bringing up tactics from near 10 years ago. Yes they did it a lot in the 360 days and it sucked then too.
A lot of hero shooters and Battle Royale games just passed Sony by when they were raking in the PS4 money. And it astounds me they did nothing to protect their competitive advantage by providing some kind of similar experience for their PlayStation customers that they wholely owned.
Sony aren't Microsoft big but they have experience and large amounts money, they had a very, very long time to respond to this risk, then build the GaaS/shooter capability that they seem to think is impossible for them to do. Even Blizzard managed to do this. whilst CoD was killing it.
Basically you're saying:
- Sony don't have the experience in FPS
- They don't have the GaaS experience.
- They don't have the time.
Last edited:
Sony has seemingly bought Final Fantasy exclusivity in perpetuity.
The moment you include Apple and Google, this comes even further away from the fantasy of MS bleeding the competition to death.
Sony wouldn't say "Hey you can't put this game on any sub including PS+!" lol. It's competitor services they block them from. See: Leaked Resident Evil 8 contract. When you make a deal to market a game on your platform you want it to be related back to your brand and services. Just makes business sense.
The new PS+ tiers are just a repositioning of the service they've been running for 8 years.
And for the past 3-4 years, the top selling console platform for those calendar years hasn't had a call of duty title meaning it's not a necessity to compete in the space of gaming.
Microsoft clapping back at exclusive content on Sony systems should really go back and take a look at how shitty MS was with exclusive content during the 360/ps3 days.
Edit: yes it's not as bad as it is now with year long deals but they still opened the Pandora's box on this bullshit.
Edit: yes it's not as bad as it is now with year long deals but they still opened the Pandora's box on this bullshit.
All console makers are guilty of doing this, it has been like this since the PS3/Xbox 360 era. This is not something that's entirely exclusive to Sony.