Very interesting stuff. Can't wait to see what the future holds. I have to say though, this gen is definitely more competitive than last gen which was not very competitive. I'm glad MS is giving Sony something to mull over this gen.
Which one of their studios was going to create a GaaS? Sony doesn't force their studios to create a specific type of game so which studio showed they wanted to create that?
If timed exclusives and marketing deals are scummy, then buying a publisher at 70% of the value of their top competitors parent company for full control of their staff and IPs has to be on a whole different level of scum.
Yeah. Any attempts to draw an equivalence to these acquisitions with the occasional timed exclusive (which people on this forum have been seething over) is crazy.MS spent like 90 billion dollars for gaming in like last 3 years. That's more than Sony earned from gaming since existence of PS. They are not an "underdog". Also when this deal comes through if they will start adding AB revenue to MS revenue they will get close if not pass Sony.
Cool. Another thread of dumbass fanboys cheering on their favorite corporation.
Why beat around the bush here? Why not just say Sony locking out Destiny content for two plus years on Xbox?The things we're seeing now with entire levels, characters, or whatever being held up for years between coming out on one system to the other
Microsoft can certainly get deals with gamepass by making their own deals. The cost to add a game to gamepass is likely more than it costs to keep a game off of it.Well, Microsoft also can't get deals for Gamepass because Sony pays to keep games away from it. I guess they made their onw bed here.
Thanks! Even just admitted that their consoles haven't been successful is kind of huge but both Sony and Microsoft have a very clear agenda with their responses here. Microsoft is laughably trying to downplay their own company and success and the success of Call of Duty here. At the end of the day, it's the largest company in the world acquiring the largest video game publisher. That is going to turn heads no matter how Microsoft tries to downplay it. Calling their console business unsuccessful or a failure is part of that spin for sure.
Yes but you have to realize that both are playing the same game here. Microsoft is trying to belittle itself to not appear as the largest, but perhaps least successful, player in the space. Microsoft is still a company that could just buy Sony itself and we shouldn't let the corporate back-and-forth make us lose sight of that. Don't take these statements at face value because there's a clear agenda behind them.
I'd assume it's the opposite. What studio in their right mind would take less money and less potential consumers experiencing their products?The cost to add a game to gamepass is likely more than it costs to keep a game off of it.
Microsoft can certainly get deals with gamepass by making their own deals. The cost to add a game to gamepass is likely more than it costs to keep a game off of it.
Microsoft can certainly get deals with gamepass by making their own deals. The cost to add a game to gamepass is likely more than it costs to keep a game off of it.
Selling an IP they own on another platform is not charity, and it certainly isn't done for your convenience. Also just gonna just point out that Microsoft wasn't caring that much about "pushing for less walls between platforms with cross-play initiatives" until they found themselves at the end of a noose in the last generation.
Final Fantasy XIV is extremely profitable and given Xbox's acquisition of ABK, they could now be the de facto MMORPG console, but the reason why the game isn't on Xbox consoles yet is because they've denied Square the opportunity to release the game on their ecosystem without demanding the player pay the additional Xbox Live cost on top of the game's own subscription, which Sony never asked them to do, and Square wasn't willing to budge on. Game could've been there for years now, and perhaps if it had, the newer Final Fantasy games wouldn't be Sony "exclusives", because Square would have had an established playerbase on that platform. Nowadays, yes, they've reversed that opinion, and that's a good thing, but that has nothing to do with my point at all. The moment it stops being profitable or useful for their image, they'll reverse it again, as did Sony, and as has Nintendo before.
I wanted to respond to this particular bit because people have a very selective memory when it comes to console manufacturers.
You can have an extremely monopolistic antagonistic takeover of an industry, while that company still providing perceived short or mid term benefits for those who opt in. It's pretty obvious that a business will at the very least play the part. The world has a few shades of grey in it.
Comparing any of the studios Sony's acquired with ABK is more than a little silly. Please see at not only how much those studios (emphasis on purpose here) cost, and how much money they were and are now making, versus ABK or any of its IPs. You're comparing a guy buying a Toyota Camry to go to work, to a guy window-shopping a Porsche Panamera and still being loaded after the fact.
Microsoft is several times larger than Sony. Of course their acquisitions are going to be more costly, but that's exactly what I mean when I say they're undercutting the competition with their massive bank accounts.
And you seem to understand this, because you noted it right here:
Unless you think Call of Duty games will suddenly be free to develop once ABK's acquisition concludes, then that is literally the definition of a market undercut, because games of that magnitude aren't developed at 15 bucks a pop. And so market undercuts, especially when done at a loss, are done with the specific intention to bleed the competition, which can't afford to provide the same kind of offer at all, so they either shift focus to a less profitable segment of the market (which can fuck them over), or they concede and try to compete and go bankrupt in the process.
This isn't a new thing, it's not a new strategy that the Xbox division just came up with. In fact it's not even the first time Microsoft has done this.
Sony failed to prove that this would be a substantial blow to their business, because they failed to show how doing this with Call of Duty specifically would have a significant effect on their storefront. But add all of ABK's IPs, on top of Game Pass itself, and you can clearly see how this adds up to a massive blow.
The part where it affects you, because I know a lot of people understand things better in those terms, is that they will not operate Xbox at a loss forever, and at some point, someone is going to have to be paying them to go back to the massive profits they envision given these investments and planned losses. That someone is you, in case it isn't obvious! lol And the way that will be expressed is either in a significant price hike, a significant lower payout for games on the service, or a significant drop in quality of games being offered -- sometimes even all three. We've seen similar things with Netflix as well.
And if they have their way, at that time you won't have an alternative anymore. That is how the strategy works. It's a strategy older than gaming is, and MS has done this before with Windows.
I'm not saying MS is bleeding the competition now. I'm saying these market decisions were done with that intention, and since neither Nintendo nor Sony have the funds to combat such a hostile takeover, this is effectively monopolistic.
If Sony starts doing the same shit, I'd say the same shit about them. My issue is people not seeing this happening in front of their eyes.
Microsoft can certainly get deals with gamepass by making their own deals. The cost to add a game to gamepass is likely more than it costs to keep a game off of it.
Well, Microsoft also can't get deals for Gamepass because Sony pays to keep games away from it. I guess they made their onw bed here.
I don't agree. I think there's a difference between purchasing an entire studio, meaning you take on their debts and all development costs, and paying another studio a few million dollars to prevent a game releasing somewhere else.If timed exclusives and marketing deals are scummy, then buying a publisher at 70% of the value of their top competitors parent company for full control of their staff and IPs has to be on a whole different level of scum.
The idea that Microsoft were forced into their hyper aggressive acquisition strategy because of Sony locking down third party content is bizarre, not least because Microsoft repeatedly engage in the practice themselves.
That's fairIt's fun watching the inside baseball, I don't think anyone really thinks Sony is wrong for doing what they're doing nor Microsoft this is all normal stuff. We don't see this sort of stuff often and it is cool to see.
What's bizarre about it?
Your competitor is cutting away possibilities for your new found strategy, then MS adjusted their methods.
Now Sony needs to adjust their strategy again to keep competing, that's how this works and will continue to happen time and time again.
Absolutely a valid concern and the backbone that underpins our capitalistic society but at the same time Game Pass' success of shaking up the distribution model in the gaming industry will, at least in the short term, benefit consumers by spurring competition and necessitating the market to adapt to them.I think it's because of the certainty that MS will increase prices at some point. It's a valid concern, but the continued success of $70 games has shown that companies are happy and brave enough to raise prices to screw the customer, streaming success or not. No one is on the consumer's side perpetually, so settling for the 'one right now' is the only thing you can do really.
Through the XB1 generation Sony had such a strong market position they were able to exploit it to make these deals far more cheaply than MS could because of the respective cost of cutting out or restricting the opposing platform.The idea that Microsoft were forced into their hyper aggressive acquisition strategy because of Sony locking down third party content is bizarre, not least because Microsoft repeatedly engage in the practice themselves.
A few of the points are actually pretty damning for Sony and not the other way around comparing the two threads (with understanding we are looking at this with a certain POV).
Using your position to lock out products of a competitor's market (aka locking out games from being on Gamepass) is much more anti-competitive than purchasing a non-direct competitor or a supplier in the chain. I'll point to Microsoft and Internet Explore/Windows. One a surface level it's almost the same thing. If Microsoft can prove that is the case with Sony, that would be the nail in the coffin if I was on any of the board reviews.
Maybes it's been mentioned within this thread, but I found it interesting that Microsoft made sure to say the CoD would still be available in a buy-to-play format on PlayStation consoles.
It is like Microsoft is saying, hey you can have my bishop right now, but I just confirmed taking your queen next move.
To clarify, Call of Duty will continue to be available to buy on PlayStation consoles. But since Microsoft is envisioning a sub-to-play future that is not tied to a single device, they still have essentially tied up CoD exclusivity for Gamepass as consoles slowly fade away from the equation. So not only will the get that sweet sweet CoD PlayStation purchase revenue in the short-term, they have also essentially cut off one of the biggest IP in America from their biggest competitor in the long-term.
The idea that Microsoft were forced into their hyper aggressive acquisition strategy because of Sony locking down third party content is bizarre, not least because Microsoft repeatedly engage in the practice themselves.
Isn't Era like one of the most capitalist-critical gaming-oriented spaces on the Internet?
Why is there such a tacit celebration of the American supergiant literally personal data-selling company Microsoft buying everything and undercutting every competitor to bleed the competition to death?
I swear I feel like I'm being gaslit by the entire planet; surely someone can see through this bullshit?
Then that's Sony's problem, if they can't keep up with this, they need to find a way to keep afloat.
Nintendo is doing just fine.
I mean thats literally what competition is?
Microsoft is right and it's been clear since the day this deal was announced.
The biggest thing this deal has regarding Sony is that their #1 market position is in trouble. It's not anticompetitive to disrupt markets and Sony's not even innocent in using it's actual clear market advantage to stifle Xbox's growth.
I'm personally in favor of the acquisition because it literally benefits me. I don't care about MS financials, I care that as someone who subscribes to Game Pass for a very low price, I'll get access to previous and future Acti-Blizz titles free of additional charges.Isn't Era like one of the most capitalist-critical gaming-oriented spaces on the Internet?
Why is there such a tacit celebration of the American supergiant literally personal data-selling company Microsoft buying everything and undercutting every competitor to bleed the competition to death?
I swear I feel like I'm being gaslit by the entire planet; surely someone can see through this bullshit?
I'll champion when Sony buys Square as well. I think acquisitions/exclusives are good, lead to more competition, and better games for consumers. But thats a whole other topic…Equally hilarious and sad to see people hyped and championing this stuff with gif reactions...
The idea that Microsoft were forced into their hyper aggressive acquisition strategy because of Sony locking down third party content is bizarre, not least because Microsoft repeatedly engage in the practice themselves.
I don't agree. I think there's a difference between purchasing an entire studio, meaning you take on their debts and all development costs, and paying another studio a few million dollars to prevent a game releasing somewhere else.
If you don't, then hey that's okay. Different opinions and all that.
The idea that Microsoft were forced into their hyper aggressive acquisition strategy because of Sony locking down third party content is bizarre, not least because Microsoft repeatedly engage in the practice themselves.
Why is the effect on consumers worse?Purchasing a very publishing arm carries some risk, but ultimately, it gives them infinite more leverage to wield against the competition than an occasional timed exclusive.
At the end of the day, the effect on the competitors and consumers is worse.
"Hey, that's different"INB4 people start saying Stadia is bigger than PlayStation because its owned by Google.
Who knows? With COD we have Warzone 1, Warzone 2, F2P zombie and a bunch of contractually obligated COD games...Those are certainly not exclusive for sure. Everything else is up in the air.
I am pretty sure that Xbox does not operate in the loss and the acquisitions do not count as Xbox expenses either. Microsoft makes 200b in revenue per year. Xbox is at 8% of their revenue right. Literally invisible for shareholders to care.
In gaming space - they are.
Yeah. That's where I was like…oh, Sony's just real upset that the sub service will look too attractive for the average gamer.
Worse effect on consumers? Which consumers?Purchasing a very publishing arm carries some risk, but ultimately, it gives them infinite more leverage to wield against the competition than an occasional timed exclusive.
At the end of the day, the effect on the competitors and consumers is worse.
So you are trying to undermine the damage that Sony's moneyhats did?Didn't you know Microsoft bought Activsion Blizzard to combat Final Fantasy 7 Remake and the Spider-Man DLC in Avengers exclusivity.
They won't be able to pay those juicy 70$ and 10$ for upgrades /s
Don't forget exclusive modesDo you mean Ps consumers who have been used to getting exclusive cod deals like early access maps, or possibly even the entire campaign this year.
Right.I own both. Still think it would suck if call of duty got exclusived on Xbox platforms. Still think Sony's point is weird or at the very least poorly worded.
Exclusivity on traditionally multi platform releases only hurts consumers.