I don't play COD, but when did I say I was okay with timed exclusivity? You're welcome to go through my post history.
If that makes you feel better about corporate consolidation, but it's still not comparable to simply not coming to other platforms.
-
If you have been following the news, you should be aware that the people of Lebanon have been under a violent bombardment that has recently escalated. Please consider donating to help them if you can or trying to spread word of the fundraiser.
-
Asheville and Western North Carolina at large are in crisis after Helene, please consider contributing to these local organizations and helping the people whose lives have been destroyed.
The official opinions from Sony, Ubisoft, WB, BN, Apple, Riot, Google and more about the Activision Blizzard acquisition
- Thread starter Idas
- Start date
- Activision/Blizzard
I don't play COD, but when did I say I was okay with timed exclusivity? You're welcome to go through my post history.
If that makes you feel better about corporate consolidation, but it's still not comparable to simply not coming to other platforms.
It is comparable because the result is essentially the same - some people won't be able to play those games (or will be able to play them when the overal community around those games died out).
I give Sony a credit with their smart moneyhat - they have a good insight on what games they should moneyhat. Granted it seems it becomes more difficult for them to do.
It's not essentially the same, and it's not comparable.
You can play it, just have to wait vs. you can't play it, are not comparable. If I didn't have an Xbox, I could at least get Cuphead eventually on other platforms. The same can't be said for Starfield.
Microsoft Says There Is "Nothing Unique" About Activision Blizzard Games - STEAM PLAYERS
Microsoft has informed New Zealand regulators that there’s “nothing unique” about Activision Blizzard titles, in its newest bid to get its dear merger authorised. In a document offered to the Business Acquisitions and Authorisations Commerce Commission, Microsoft says that the gaming big does...
steamplayers.com
When you are the market leader these "lame" deals as you call them can have huge impacts on the mainstream who see one platform as the one that gets most games.
If Microsoft didn't go on a spending spree to get more studios while Sony was going after titles from Bethesda this ripple effect would be even more compounded. Microsoft already lost its Call of Duty advantages it had during the Xbox 360 era.
Starfield was another game they were rumored to be going after. A year or longer is a huge get even if it's timed, especially if you are already the market leader. The sales on Starfield would have been minimal at best if it came to Xbox a year after.
A lot of things are meaningless to everyone here. Even COD itself is meaningless to a lot of people here (some people even think it's the worst game ever). From that perspective, it shouldn't be a problem. What is your point exactly?
Destiny will remain multiplatform because Bungie told you so, just like Microsoft told you Call of Duty would remain multiplatform. Again, what's your point? The asterisks? We really don't know for either cases.
You are also the one equating playstation exclusives to xbox exclusives, that can virtually be played everywhere.
What compounded effect? Fewer and fewer devs are doing anything exclusive; if anything, they'll start doing something on one or two platforms (usually console/PC hybrid) and then branch out once they've done justice to those versions. That's been the trend for 20-something years with no signs of slowing.
Nobody here actually cares about the "mainstream." All of us played any third party game we wanted on either console last gen because few third party games showed up on only one platform. We can stretch and contort this all we want, but we can't get away from that simple fact.
Why are we assuming sales would be bad considering you have games such as Crash N'Sane Trilogy and Crash 4 that see a surge in sales when released to another platform?
And profits for a corporation are meaningless to me and you. We're stretching to make it seem like MS's pockets or Sony's pockets are equivalent to whether a consumer can still play games on a platform.
This seems more like you're playing debate chicken than talking about corporate consolidation's effect on consumers and industries.
Marketing deals have no effect on you or me. It just seems like people secretly want games on one platform to brag or feel good, but they don't want to admit it openly so they stretch to make corporate consolidation seem the same as a timed deal or marketing rights. And it's really transparent.
I personally think that Microsoft quietly sold everyone the biggest crowdfunding project ever with gp. I get the feeling that they use it to offset the running costs of their studios/game development. That is why all of their studios talk about less risk involved with their games. The risks are massively reduced if the funding is upfront and coming from the subscribers.
I'm not sure that it is the money sink that people think that it is.
It's interesting how many of the companies questioned couldn't be bothered or seemed indifferent to it all. I completely understand why Sony responded the way they did and why MS feels the way they do but those two have the most vested interest.
Of course the redacted sections could tell us much more but it doesn't sound like many of them are particularly bothered outside of Sony.
Of course the redacted sections could tell us much more but it doesn't sound like many of them are particularly bothered outside of Sony.
You keep downplaying the impact timed deals have and I'm not sure why. Look at how Final Fantasy for example went from a Nintendo known franchise to almost exclusive with the Playstation brand. Same thing happened with GTA, Tomb Raider, Metal Gear Solid, Street Fighter to name a few. Well established franchises that have been synonymous with the Playstation brand. That is marketing very well spent. This is why Sony is being so vocal about Call of Duty, it is potentially lost revenue because they as the market leader get the bulk of those sales. We have seen how this type of leverage has played out in the past too with titles like Fortnite.
They do marketing deals because they know they work. It is also disengenous to talk about games like Crash when we all know that Switch is a different beast. I was specifically talking about games like Starfield and how sales would be drastically reduced if it came out a year after Playstation and onto Xbox. The reason is simple, both systems are very similar. Sony can get people to double dip on the PC because they are not directly competing either. People are not going to double dip buying it a year later on Xbox.
You're not answering the proposal, you just said Sony already said Destiny games will remain multiplatform, Microsoft said the same about Call of Duty. So what's the big deal like the other user said?
@OP Microsoft has submitted responses
EDIT
first set of responses is to questions about gamepass and eaplay integration, can other services do deals with ea? All redacted. Microsoft does point out that Sony has announced Ubisoft plus for psplus has already been announced
Second response is to cod. MS brings up that it's unfair to say that players will only flock to one type of game in a genre given that there are many successful entries of games in each genre and ABK games face fair competition in the market for their top games "genre". Also some wordplay about emerging subgenre and cross genres added to games mean you can't and shouldn't put each game in narrow pillars like rpg and shooter etc.
they spend many pages on genres. Bringing up past case law precedent about other deals where genres were not recommended to be looked at when evaluating deals. They submitted more charts redacted apparently to show spending habits of users between genres and that gamers don't stick to one specific genre, I think to show that cod isn't a dominant force but simply a successful product. They call out grand theft auto as being a very successful product with shooting, simulation, driving and multiplayer and how can you categorise that game into one genre
theres lists of games which they say are competing with call of duty, candy crush and wow specificall. General lists of mmo, multiplayer games and mobile games. Some make sense and some seem to be there to pad the numbers
next part is the regulator essentially asking about Microsoft and their exclusive deals with regard to publishing on gamepass and how that affects consumer choice and how activision will affect consumer choice, ms redacts their data and says that many different factors go into consumer choice and that abk don't make hardware or run mobile stores thereby not reducing consumer choice on how games are purchase. Specifically keep talking about purchase choices for cod, candy crush and wow. microsoft stresses they only make console hardware and not specific mobile devices for games or pc devices for games
regulator brings up Sony had previously a 2:1 console lead last generation and asks Microsoft how Sony did this, Microsoft redacted all their answers
microsoft closes by reminding the regulator that blizzard purchased proletariat of their own accord and thats it really
Last edited:
beat me to it; i was about to ask to confirm that and ask if OP could do his great work.
They do mention the fact that Sony signed up Ubisoft for their new PS+ service.
I am laughing at one of the games that MS lawyers has put as a competitor to candy crush. Monument Valley.
Or, hear me out, developers from a country where the Xbox One barely sold any units, decided a port was not profitable. The JRPG genre is landing in Xbox now thanks to gamepass deals that makes the port process almost instantly profitable, so any unit they sell is already going straight to their wallets.
I highly doubt Sony paid anything beyond certain marketing rights for DQ11, Nier Automata or the Yakuza series at first, to quote a few high profile examples, and also, there are tons of JRPGs not coming to Xbox that came to Switch, which is arguably even stronger in the JRPG genre and it can truly damage Sony's console as a stronghold outside of Japan.
Sony absolutely paid for exclusivity for big things like Final Fantasy 7 Remake and games like that (XVI next summer, etc), but I find also quite obvious someone (either Nintendo or MS) paid SE to not get Octopath on PS4. It's just how things work in all the ways, and people acting like Sony are the only ones dumping money on temporal things are quite gullible and oblivious for dozens of games.
Right, but we probably won't see a major shift until after the gen is over. Sony still has the marketing rights and perks for at least 3 more games IIRC.
MW2, Warzone 2, and 2024 game. So the Xbox X COD marketing will be full force in 2025/2026.
Completely agree, MS will let the existing contracts run out then change things up. When that happens I don't know. if the contract doesn't strictly forbid Gamepass then CoD will show up ASAP. Since I don't know what the contract states though I have no idea when that happens.
I've summarised as best I can in an edit but there's a whole lot of redacted
Great thank you for that.
"regulator brings up Sony had previously a 2:1 console lead last generation and asks Microsoft how Sony did this, Microsoft redacted all their answers"
This is where they rake Don Mattrick across the coals.
I would have loved to see their answer to this. 🤔 "They money hatted many 3rd party titles and got timed exclusive deals for full games and dlc's"🤣🤣
Re reading the question it seems more like Sony submitted in their submission "we always beat Xbox in the console sales battles" and they feel this deal may threaten that? I dunno the translation gets a bit whiffy but the phrase "over double the units sold last generation" lol
It really isn't less transparent than talking about herpes and chickens.
Again, Xbox is not one platform and the company already told you Call of Duty will remain on Playstation. Not sure why you're trying to hide certain facts and turn it into consolidation concern, when all of your experience in gaming that you love is and always has been the product of consolidation and power. Like any other industry.
Yeah now, but it isn't their entire business model, far from it.
What about FF7? FF14? People end up with something worse, uncertainty. No guarantee things will turn up, and the market position of the leader makes it cheaper to continue with these tactics. With an acquisition the company takes on all the risk and is responsible for the improvement in environment for the devs they inherit, long term that is much more healthy for those involved.
Idas looks like your insight will be todays talking point for youtubers and industry news reporters: https://www.videogameschronicle.com...of-duty-could-influence-users-console-choice/
Microsoft is several dozens of time larger than Sony and has been for years. Xbox isn't. But the Xbox business division can still withdraw from its parent's literally-bigger-than-oil-baron-company-sized bank account to subsidize its ventures, so long as it promises market control. This is an M.O. for Microsoft.
The reason why Microsoft CAN afford those deals is because they are investing (read: losing) monumental amounts of money that no other publisher can afford. The aim is market control via undercut. It's a common strategy MS has used with Windows before.
But like I said in my original post, they're not going to do that forever, so stay tuned for that one.
We have literally no idea how much, or even IF, Microsoft is losing "monumental amounts of money" in gaming.
Last edited:
Yeah they clearly do - suggest it's only MS doing 'pay to win' tactics is clearly disingenuous though.
Both companies do, in the long term MS will be better at it if they want to be - just because they've got more money.
No, they have as well. But people are acting like Microsoft is the only guilty party with this when Sony has been doing it longer and more aggressively. It's part of the reason they have the biggest market share in console gaming.
Nope.
The receipts from the Xbox 360 are the gold fucking standard of aggressive third party spending.
No one is saying this isn't a common play, but the bad faith argument of Microsoft having to do this since Sony kept paying for temp exclusivity completely misses the point.
As does equating Sony's internal studio expansions to buying fucking Zenimax and Activision Blizzard.
Exclusives/content acquisition is a part of the media business.
Imagining a FRAND licensing structure for media (although it doesn't really work for gaming or anything with multiple parties getting revenue for an item although patent lawyers feel free to correct me)
Imagining a FRAND licensing structure for media (although it doesn't really work for gaming or anything with multiple parties getting revenue for an item although patent lawyers feel free to correct me)
It's most certainly not the money sink people think it is, which is why Xbox is profitable despite the investment into GP.
What about 7 and 14, with 14 originally coming to PC while Playstation owners waited four years? Because we're again at the same point -- Crash, Call of Duty, are not available on your product, whereas at least users could play something like Crash even if there was timed exclusivity.
The healthiest thing for the industry is no mass consolidation. Many of us were sounding the alarms after Bethesda, and now among Sony, MS, Amazon, and Facebook, there's been no shortage of consolidation of big developers and big publishers. Square Enix, if rumors are true, will get two reactions: either people complaining who didn't complain about Activision, or, "Phew at least it wasn't Amazon!" But nothing is going to stop Amazon/Facebook from gobbling up
The sooner you come to terms and stop pretending like mass corporate right-wing consolidation is good for the industry and that somehow consolidation gives us more "certainty," the better you'll feel because no one actually believes corporate suits with yachts actively gobbling other businesses is somehow good for an industry.
Wait what? Where are the receipts on platform holders or publishers being undercut? MS is still selling games for $60. Still charging for online play. And paying for licenses to rent 3rd party games to customers who pay an additional fee.
Where are the receipts that other platform holders or publishers can't afford to offer competing services? EA and Ubisoft already started their own. Also PSnow exists…
Last edited:
Post your sources please. Otherwise this is baseless speculation founded in ignorance and little else.
I'm not very pro-sony, but with this I think they are right. Sony could create a FPS way better that COD in every possible sense, and even with that COD will sell hundreds more, and of course can determine platform choice. It's not about the quality here, it's about the name. Even the worst COD has sold a lot.
Last edited:
it was actually rare for them to do
microsoft was more likely to pay for development and publish the games.
why? Simply put they weren't in a dominant position. When paying for exclusivity, the lower your user base is relative to the broader market, the more expensive it gets. So exclusivity deals were very expensive for Microsoft but on the other hand for Sony they're much cheaper. It's also a lot harder to gain market share when you have none as opposed to upkeeping.... so on top of the deals being more expensive, it ends up having a lot more risk associated to it and that's not even accounting for the cost.
As with 99% of these business threads, all behaviors can be explained by (a) the size of the firm; (b) what the firm principally does; (c) the firm's goals in the gaming space. The big tech companies (I'll include MS here, Apple too, even though especially Apple does in fact also want you to buy their physical products) principally care about stuff like this acquisition entirely outside the gaming space: Amazon, Google, etc. are far more concerned that anti-trust policies particularly in the United States remain largely toothless and even at that unenforced. All those companies are (a) giant; (b) mostly focused on software (I'm excluding everyone's financial services as that's too complicated and everyone but Nintendo does it); (c) want to eventually have a fully digital platform economy for gaming a la TV/film streamlining services. The day MS gets GamePass on every new smart TV, phone, tablet, etc. they're gonna ramp down production and emphasis on Xbox. I wouldn't be surprised if they dumped the (kinda very 90s/00s) Xbox brand altogether in favor of the more neutral "Game Pass" as their gaming division. That's their path; whether it's currently profitable or not is immaterial. As I've pointed out before, Xbox is miniscule to MS; it brings in less revenue and profit than some of the tiniest bits of MS like LinkedIn which costs next to nothing to run and keep up. Apple, Google, Amazon would all like a piece of an eventual streaming market and are more than happy to let MS - Netflix style - lead the way. (I'm glossing genuine antipathy and competition between these firms but no one at Amazon, Google, Apple etc. is under any illusions about overtaking MS in what is basically the MS game (summarized here) in the near or even probably midterm.
On the other end of the spectrum is Nintendo: (a) for a multinational, it's tiny; (b) it is almost exclusively a game and toy maker [I don't mean toys pejoratively here, I just mean that's their lineage and still something the focus on, not just gaming peripherals but think Amiibos for example]; (c) it's goal is longevity, preserving recognition/domination of their existing IP, and selling both hardware and software. Nintendo is not in the big tech arms race really; they are in their own lane almost like pre-2000s Disney. They don't need to sell bleeding edge technology; they know that mass audiences (including many enthusiasts) who already recognize and have investment in their IP are perfectly happy with what they're putting out. They also know they have the handheld market basically locked down (don't really don't with Steam Deck, it's not a mass market device); they also have the sort of minor gaming market (what I mean by this is people who will only spend a moderate amount, want an unobtrusive device, low power draw, etc.) on lock except MS is at least competing there with the Series S. They know that Nintendo games can move their hardware but they can't just put out anything (Wii U) and they do need third party support but are happy for it to be specialty (think MH: Rise, or Octopath being timed exclusives for example) from major companies, or indies (huge PC/Switch pipeline). The Switch ticks all their boxes and I imagine the next Switch will too. CoD doesn't matter to them. If they get a down port or a special version great; if they don't, people who are principally CoD players are almost certainly buying something else or are multiplatform owners.
Stuck in the middle is Sony (and I say this as someone who loves their Playstation and thinks Sony is doing great things.) Sony is (a) a medium sized multinational; (b) it's a hardware company (not just gaming but of course all kinds of consumer electronics, a software company, an entertainment (outside of gaming) company; (c) Sony cannot lose all of its other arms but gaming is if I recall correctly their most profitable and largest share of profit division (again I'm doing from memory and excluding finance although I doubt in Sony's case that's much more than Sony lined credit cards, financing on hardware, etc.); thus their goal is to shockingly to sell hardware, software, and entertainment. Sounds not that tough? BUT Sony needs units to be profitable or at minimum loss whether we're talking hardware or software. They need - and are currently trying to link - all their divisions to push one another (e.g. you want God of War so you get a PS5 but Sony would also like you to be buying TVs, audio gear, that your PS5 is playing on, AND they'd like you to buy a ticket to God of War: the Film - I have no idea if this has been announced, but surely it will - starring, I don't know, the Rock, produced and distributed by Sony pictures. If Sony can thread this needle - which is hard but possible - that's their desired path to profitability. Their size means they have much less wiggle room than MS or big tech companies. Sony cannot afford to be in the streaming platform arms race but are too big / too multifacted to completely 'go their own way' a la Nintendo. Despite a dominant position in the current console market, even the most aggressive minded regulators don't looks at Sony as anything like a monopoly (since it isn't. Also, Nintendo really is close to handheld monopoly but they are so small that no one - in US gov I mean - cares.) So Sony doesn't have that concern; in fact if regulators were to start aggressive enforcement it might be to their advantage. But they are in direct competition in the gaming hardware space and NA/EU software space with MS. So the Activision acquisition, if it turns just a decent small percentage of PS users into Xbox/GP users that can actually hurt Sony quite badly. Now, I actually don't think it will happen too badly. MS might do some kind of timed exclusives or I bet more likely exclusive tie-in content or throw games for free on GP that Sony will have to charge list price for but recall that MS's goal is GP on everything; your phone, your TV, your toaster, doesn't matter, it's gotta have GP on it. At least for the time being, MS has much more to gain from just lightly adding friction to things like CoD than it does by locking out its now leading IP from a massive market.
FWIW, my pure economic reason brain on: MS is likely to get to the goal of Netflix-for-games on everything. If they want it, they have the capital, stability, size, and complementary software domination to make that happen. And Nintendo will continue it's thing (they are almost mercantile in their market approach, even in bad years - cough, again wii u - they're generally stockpiling cash. If it loses everything MS has to offer (which seems unlikely given their current relationship) it is not really affected. For everyone else (but Sony) this is a small potatoes fight until streaming or something very much like it becomes untethered from specific hardware (the MS goal.) For Sony if MS does this they will have to thread the needle above. It remains to be seen if it will work. If not I could imagine Sony spinning off into multiple companies.
FWIW 2: I think Sony is right (even if I don't believe for a second they really care beyond the bottom line) that in the long run GP will be incredibly bad for the quality of particularly single player games. Again Netflix should serves as a guide (and not their current crisis); Spotify is helpful too. As the platforms achieve desired market share, they decrease funding for production (if you think MS gaming will continue generous indie payouts for example once it's like Netflix or Spotify, I have a bridge to sell you) and increase subscription costs for consumers (cause they can.) Think of how Netflix, even before it's current crisis which is somewhat overblown, shifted to just buying up foreign IP and cutting original content short based not even on popularity but on when things like legally dictated or contractually obligated payments are to start. They will also probably (again just business logic) not only stop funding non-MS projects, and under-funding MS projects, but put the most meager payouts (like Spotify) for basically everything. I bet many indie studios can survive by going/returning to PC-only/ PC-Nintendo development but smaller corporate studios are really in a bind in such a situation. You'll see a lot of studios across the board cut even as the appearance of "content" will balloon because you can buy up global production for many years and many indies will still be desperate for the 'exposure'. (Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to see indie studios turning - as many already are - to pop-music-like methods, merchandising, etc. to make up for lost sales.) But ask any musician or actor and they'll say the same thing; that system is worse than even the old fashioned studio system which was already horrendous.
I really hope people don't take this in a console wars way. I have thought many times about starting a thread devoted just to cold business analysis because almost all non-game (play, criticism, discussion, etc.) threads that get into either business stuff or "why doesn't X company do what Y company does" can be explained through a more detailed version of the above. It's almost never about some kind of better or worse quality of a firm, or some kind of devotion to the medium, etc. It's almost always about firm size, structure, goals, and the short, medium, long term bottom lines.
On the other end of the spectrum is Nintendo: (a) for a multinational, it's tiny; (b) it is almost exclusively a game and toy maker [I don't mean toys pejoratively here, I just mean that's their lineage and still something the focus on, not just gaming peripherals but think Amiibos for example]; (c) it's goal is longevity, preserving recognition/domination of their existing IP, and selling both hardware and software. Nintendo is not in the big tech arms race really; they are in their own lane almost like pre-2000s Disney. They don't need to sell bleeding edge technology; they know that mass audiences (including many enthusiasts) who already recognize and have investment in their IP are perfectly happy with what they're putting out. They also know they have the handheld market basically locked down (don't really don't with Steam Deck, it's not a mass market device); they also have the sort of minor gaming market (what I mean by this is people who will only spend a moderate amount, want an unobtrusive device, low power draw, etc.) on lock except MS is at least competing there with the Series S. They know that Nintendo games can move their hardware but they can't just put out anything (Wii U) and they do need third party support but are happy for it to be specialty (think MH: Rise, or Octopath being timed exclusives for example) from major companies, or indies (huge PC/Switch pipeline). The Switch ticks all their boxes and I imagine the next Switch will too. CoD doesn't matter to them. If they get a down port or a special version great; if they don't, people who are principally CoD players are almost certainly buying something else or are multiplatform owners.
Stuck in the middle is Sony (and I say this as someone who loves their Playstation and thinks Sony is doing great things.) Sony is (a) a medium sized multinational; (b) it's a hardware company (not just gaming but of course all kinds of consumer electronics, a software company, an entertainment (outside of gaming) company; (c) Sony cannot lose all of its other arms but gaming is if I recall correctly their most profitable and largest share of profit division (again I'm doing from memory and excluding finance although I doubt in Sony's case that's much more than Sony lined credit cards, financing on hardware, etc.); thus their goal is to shockingly to sell hardware, software, and entertainment. Sounds not that tough? BUT Sony needs units to be profitable or at minimum loss whether we're talking hardware or software. They need - and are currently trying to link - all their divisions to push one another (e.g. you want God of War so you get a PS5 but Sony would also like you to be buying TVs, audio gear, that your PS5 is playing on, AND they'd like you to buy a ticket to God of War: the Film - I have no idea if this has been announced, but surely it will - starring, I don't know, the Rock, produced and distributed by Sony pictures. If Sony can thread this needle - which is hard but possible - that's their desired path to profitability. Their size means they have much less wiggle room than MS or big tech companies. Sony cannot afford to be in the streaming platform arms race but are too big / too multifacted to completely 'go their own way' a la Nintendo. Despite a dominant position in the current console market, even the most aggressive minded regulators don't looks at Sony as anything like a monopoly (since it isn't. Also, Nintendo really is close to handheld monopoly but they are so small that no one - in US gov I mean - cares.) So Sony doesn't have that concern; in fact if regulators were to start aggressive enforcement it might be to their advantage. But they are in direct competition in the gaming hardware space and NA/EU software space with MS. So the Activision acquisition, if it turns just a decent small percentage of PS users into Xbox/GP users that can actually hurt Sony quite badly. Now, I actually don't think it will happen too badly. MS might do some kind of timed exclusives or I bet more likely exclusive tie-in content or throw games for free on GP that Sony will have to charge list price for but recall that MS's goal is GP on everything; your phone, your TV, your toaster, doesn't matter, it's gotta have GP on it. At least for the time being, MS has much more to gain from just lightly adding friction to things like CoD than it does by locking out its now leading IP from a massive market.
FWIW, my pure economic reason brain on: MS is likely to get to the goal of Netflix-for-games on everything. If they want it, they have the capital, stability, size, and complementary software domination to make that happen. And Nintendo will continue it's thing (they are almost mercantile in their market approach, even in bad years - cough, again wii u - they're generally stockpiling cash. If it loses everything MS has to offer (which seems unlikely given their current relationship) it is not really affected. For everyone else (but Sony) this is a small potatoes fight until streaming or something very much like it becomes untethered from specific hardware (the MS goal.) For Sony if MS does this they will have to thread the needle above. It remains to be seen if it will work. If not I could imagine Sony spinning off into multiple companies.
FWIW 2: I think Sony is right (even if I don't believe for a second they really care beyond the bottom line) that in the long run GP will be incredibly bad for the quality of particularly single player games. Again Netflix should serves as a guide (and not their current crisis); Spotify is helpful too. As the platforms achieve desired market share, they decrease funding for production (if you think MS gaming will continue generous indie payouts for example once it's like Netflix or Spotify, I have a bridge to sell you) and increase subscription costs for consumers (cause they can.) Think of how Netflix, even before it's current crisis which is somewhat overblown, shifted to just buying up foreign IP and cutting original content short based not even on popularity but on when things like legally dictated or contractually obligated payments are to start. They will also probably (again just business logic) not only stop funding non-MS projects, and under-funding MS projects, but put the most meager payouts (like Spotify) for basically everything. I bet many indie studios can survive by going/returning to PC-only/ PC-Nintendo development but smaller corporate studios are really in a bind in such a situation. You'll see a lot of studios across the board cut even as the appearance of "content" will balloon because you can buy up global production for many years and many indies will still be desperate for the 'exposure'. (Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to see indie studios turning - as many already are - to pop-music-like methods, merchandising, etc. to make up for lost sales.) But ask any musician or actor and they'll say the same thing; that system is worse than even the old fashioned studio system which was already horrendous.
I really hope people don't take this in a console wars way. I have thought many times about starting a thread devoted just to cold business analysis because almost all non-game (play, criticism, discussion, etc.) threads that get into either business stuff or "why doesn't X company do what Y company does" can be explained through a more detailed version of the above. It's almost never about some kind of better or worse quality of a firm, or some kind of devotion to the medium, etc. It's almost always about firm size, structure, goals, and the short, medium, long term bottom lines.
I am so sick of arguing the point of being a gamer on the wrong side of timed-exclusivity. It didn't just extend to whole games, but it happened so much that Sony even marketed the advantage it was having with its exclusive content. Content. Content can include a whole slew of things. Early-access, easier in-game progression, and even modes. Xbox players were paying the same as Playstation players for less of a game, because modes were locked as console exclusives.
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com
Im not sure if anyone expressed this opinion yet. But COD is bigger then anything Sony or Microsoft has published. Huge win for Microsoft first party.
I would of been more surprised if Sony took Microsofts stance on Activision that the games arent a big deal.
But in the grand scheme of things when a deal needs to be approved from worldwide governing bodies…
Wouldnt it make sense for Microsoft to downplay the acquisition and Sony who is the direct competitor to overplay the acquisition?
Anyone who thinks Sony would want this deal to go through is bonkers. Same would be true for Microsoft if Sony pulled the trigger.
I really believe people are taking the quotes and running with them as the internet does… but nothing has changed since Microsoft was approved to buy Activision.
This is just hyperbole during a slow news cycle.
As a community lets focus on the games & not console wars cuz COD will still be on every console/pc available for the time being at least.
No fan base will be effected. Microsofts pockets will just get bigger.
Maybe buying some stocks in Microsoft will be more valuable then arguing or stroking fires.
Guerilla were clear why they changed direction. They were fatigued and it was hurting their creativity. If anything it was good that Sony didn't put any pressure on them.
It was golden time for people like me who enjoy SP games. Sony was (still is) raking money off third party so could leave the first party free to do their thing. I don't expect that to change overnight but Sony is clearly feeling the pressure, the moves over the last year seems to indicate that.
I understand that people are cheering because it provides more value for money with gamepass, which itself will be sustainable with high sub numbers. Some are also happy that Sony would need to be more price friendly and have their own sub or such to compete. But personally I am worried that this may affect the output Sony's studios. Sony had the unique position (well, any platform holder really) where they could give their studios freedom, something which third party (like Ubisoft, or even the Activision we are debating here) have a tough time and one can see the difference in creativity.
OP
OP
I was taking a quick glance at the notification that Microsoft sent originally (118 pages 😅).
It's almost the same as the one from New Zealand (excluding specific arguments for local markets) but I think it's funny that Microsoft "throws some shade" at Sony when talking about the risk of the deal blocking content from other platforms:
Paragraph 285: "Sony and Nintendo have strong and differentiated offerings (including their own exclusive titles). For example, IDC has identified that key Sony-exclusive titles in 2018 include God of War and Marvel's Spider Man, in addition to other prominent titles such as Last of Us and Uncharted. These titles partly reflect Sony's vertical integration (for example, Sony's film studio owns the rights to Spider-Man), but also its broader strategy of obtaining rights that make "third-party" games exclusive to its console".
In fact, in Paragraph 205 they mention Final Fantasy VII as an exclusive from Sony and surprisingly it includes a redacted note from Microsoft. 👀
Anyway, a little bit of console warring even in legal documents :p xD
It's almost the same as the one from New Zealand (excluding specific arguments for local markets) but I think it's funny that Microsoft "throws some shade" at Sony when talking about the risk of the deal blocking content from other platforms:
Paragraph 285: "Sony and Nintendo have strong and differentiated offerings (including their own exclusive titles). For example, IDC has identified that key Sony-exclusive titles in 2018 include God of War and Marvel's Spider Man, in addition to other prominent titles such as Last of Us and Uncharted. These titles partly reflect Sony's vertical integration (for example, Sony's film studio owns the rights to Spider-Man), but also its broader strategy of obtaining rights that make "third-party" games exclusive to its console".
In fact, in Paragraph 205 they mention Final Fantasy VII as an exclusive from Sony and surprisingly it includes a redacted note from Microsoft. 👀
Anyway, a little bit of console warring even in legal documents :p xD