Support NeoGAF

[Leyasu]

Because it could weaken PlayStation and their ability to stay competitive.

Sony have been leveraging their position for a number of years to do exactly that to Microsoft/Xbox.

Unfortunately for them Microsoft now has a subscription service that needs lots of content and the money/determination to provide the content. But even worse for Sony is the fact that Microsoft doesn’t see the value in moneyhatting games for their service that won’t be theirs or won’t be exclusive. So they opened the treasure room to get what they need.

If those things that I wrote above never happened, then Sony would have been quite happy to strangle Microsoft and make them less and less competitive as each year passed. They would certainly have never even considered buying a multi-platform Bungie. They would have locked everything down if they could have.

Now they are potentially going to reap what they have sown. They will have to adapt and overcome. I am not cheerleading acquisitions, but I certainly won’t shed a tear for poor Sony when they lose every acti blizzard/Bethesda game that doesn’t yet have an announced platform etc.

The market will look decidedly different in 10yrs. Sony will have to deal with it

 

[supernova8]

I generally agree with the sentiment of "Haha Sony butthurt because Microsoft is buying up studios too", and of course if Microsoft has the money for it and wants to buy ActivisionBlizzard and regulators allow it, of course I would if I were Microsoft.

Then again.....
While I (admittedly) probably prefer Playstation over Xbox (I happened to have PS1 and PS2, had a 360 and then ended up having a PS4 last gen because I refused to pay the extra to be forced to buy Kinect), I still cannot help think it's a bit weird that Microsoft is just buying up already established massive publishers (and yes I agree this is notionally no worse than Sony buying Bungie). Compare it to how Sony/Playstation acquired studios that are widely considered its top studios today when they were still relatively small and/or were already de-facto Playstation exclusive development houses:

Guerilla Games
They got their big break from Killzone, which seems to have been partly/fully funded by Playstation (it was certainly published by SCE), and they signed an exclusive development agreement with SCE not long before Playstation decided to buy them out and make them a first party studio. At least for me, that reads like a relatively small studio that was offered work by Playstation, impressed Playstation, and was ultimately acquired by Playstation.

Naughty Dog
This acquisition also makes sense since Playstation published (and thus at least part funded) the original Crash Bandicoot, which is arguably what put Naughty Dog on the map. Also Wikipedia suggests

Bend Studio
They were making Syphon Filter games exclusively for Playstation, so similarly it's not completely weird that they were eventually acquired.

Insomniac
Pretty self-explanatory, but despite not being acquired until 2019, Insomniac seems to have had a deal with Sony to only put its biggest franchises (Spyro, R&C, J&D) on Playstation. Therefore it's not at all surprising for Insomniac to get bought out by Playstation. They were pretty much a first party studio by that point anyway.

Bluepoint
This studio has almost exclusively made Playstation games (mostly remasters) so it similarly is not surprising that it would eventually be acquired.

Housemarque
While not quite as clear cut as the others, looking at its gameography, we can see a pretty strong slant toward Playstation exclusives, 5 of its games (excluding Returnal) were published by SCE.

Sucker Punch
Except for one N64 game in 1999, the studio has literally only ever made Playstation games so its acquisition makes sense. Doesn't seem forced.

Bungie
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH yeah OK here is where I'm against the acquisition. Bungie seemingly had no ties to Sony/Playstation whatsoever. The acquisition just doesn't make sense.

This is exactly how I feel about the Bethesda and ActivisionBlizzard acquisitions.

The Bungie, Bethesda, and ActiBliz acquisitions all look like dickmoves to me. I would argue the Bungie acquisition is the least dick-movey, though because realistically the only game Bungie has right now is Destiny. At least if you're not a Destiny fan then the Bungie acquisition doesn't really affect you that much. In comparison, think of all the franchises contained within Bethesda and ActiBliz, though. It's mammoth in comparison.

It sort of looks like Microsoft released the Xbox in 2001 and has spent the last 21 years trying to build up a solid set of studios akin to what Nintendo and Playstation have. Of course the company has been acquiring a number of smaller studios (probably in the hope they will blossom into major first party studios in future) but these two big acquisitions just look like Microsoft execs saying "ah fuck it... just buy those massive companies over there and call it done".

Sort of like a lot of football fans disliked the English teams that were bought out by rich Arab oil tycoons and had gigantic transfer budgets. Sometimes it felt like they were just buying their way to success.


Anyway yeah this is longer than I planned. If you actually read this wall of shit text, I applaud you.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Sony have been leveraging their position for a number of years to do exactly that to Microsoft/Xbox.

Unfortunately for them Microsoft now has a subscription service that needs lots of content and the money/determination to provide the content. But even worse for Sony is the fact that Microsoft doesn’t see the value in moneyhatting games for their service that won’t be theirs or won’t be exclusive. So they opened the treasure room to get what they need.

If those things that I wrote above never happened, then Sony would have been quite happy to strangle Microsoft and make them less and less competitive as each year passed. They would certainly have never even considered buying a multi-platform Bungie. They would have locked everything down if they could have.

Now they are potentially going to reap what they have sown. They will have to adapt and overcome. I am not cheerleading acquisitions, but I certainly won’t shed a tear for poor Sony when they lose every acti blizzard/Bethesda game that doesn’t yet have an announced platform etc.

The market will look decidedly different in 10yrs. Sony will have to deal with it

Both of them have been doing it to each other for the past 20 years they've been in competition.

But what's the relevance? Not sure why there's this need to act like this a reap what you saw situation to flipflop away from the fact that this is an incomparable situatiuon

 

[Topher]

Theres just too much money Sony will lose on this so I don't think Sony really cares about opinions like these.

A third party game like cod is low effort money for Sony as someone else develops the game and Sony just had to money hat it.

Much easier than develop their own game.

I'm really confused by reading posts in here.

Games like gta and cod are shit games and we are all confused over why they sell. Bad games sell good.

On the other hand, games from Sony does sell well - and that's because the games are good. For some reason the rule doesn't apply to Sony.

That's because selling well due to being bad isn't the "rule" at all. Fact of the matter is that most gamers who play Call of Duty and GTA don't consider them shit games. If people didn't enjoy playing Call of Duty then they simply wouldn't buy them. There is no rule here that is being contradicted. In either case, the comparison to Sony games doesn't make any sense. Sony games sell well, but they don't outsell Call of Duty or GTA, not even on PlayStation.

Regardless, as others have pointed out, there are much better shooters than Call of Duty on the market, but Call of Duty is the most popular brand of shooter and it has tons of people to play with online. That's what keeps it popular.

 

[Leyasu]

Both of them have been doing it to each other for the past 20 years they've been in competition.

But what's the relevance? Not sure why there's this need to act like this a reap what you saw situation to flipflop away from the fact that this is an incomparable situatiuon

The only thing that is incomparable are the size of the acquisitions. Sony got blindsided by the ferocity of Microsoft’s gaming expansion. If they had had an inkling of what was going to happen, they would have begun acquiring studios instead of paying for the best versions or locking down timed exclusives.

Sony were doing everything that they thought was needed to make Xbox unable to compete. Now they are potentially in the position that they tried to force Microsoft into.

 

[Gavon West]

This cheerleading of acquisitions is embarrassing. Less people get to play the same games (Doesn't matter who does it).

It's also sad that one company has failed that many times they have to spend up to 90billion buying every 3rd party out there to stop the competition .

If Sony has the purchasing power of Microsoft and we could honestly say that Sony would treat the franchise the same as, you'd have a point. But they wouldn't. CoD would be locked down from the gate.

That said, it's not Microsofts fault Sony wants to compete with a 2 trillion dollar company. Of course you're going to have some issues when it comes to the kinds of deals you can make. Sony isn't even in the same ballpark, clearly.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

The only thing that is incomparable are the size of the acquisitions. Sony got blindsided by the ferocity of Microsoft’s gaming expansion. If they had had an inkling of what was going to happen, they would have begun acquiring studios instead of paying for the best versions or locking down timed exclusives.

Sony were doing everything that they thought was needed to make Xbox unable to compete. Now they are potentially in the position that they tried to force Microsoft into.

So the spectrum doesn't exist for you is what you're saying? MS could use their financial power to lock down Fifa, Fortnite, COD. Everything that Sony relies on and it just boils down to "you reap what you saw"?

That's a laughable position to take.

 

[Chukhopops]

We counting small Indies as the big day and date now. And hitman trilogy is this a joke?

Oh I forgot about total war. What a waste. no total war fan is playing the gamepass version since the dlc from the previous games won't work on it.

The moment I posted I knew you’d try some bullshit « ok but they don’t count » rebuttal. It’s just too predictable at this point.

You were asking which Day 1 games came out and you have your answer. Not super interested in your logic for why some games are not actually valid.

 

[kraspkibble]

Sony should be thanking Microsoft. MS doesn't need to release CoD on Playstation. Would Sony put God of War on Series X? They could but they won't.

I'm sure MS will want to keep CoD multi-platform as it is of course one of the big titles they now own and it will help recover the money they spent (not that they are in dire need of it lol). Going forward though you just know CoD is going to be heavily marketed as an Xbox game and that the best place to play CoD is on Xbox. That alone is damaging to Sony's brand and it seems that's enough for MS...for now. Years from now I won't be surprised if some CoD titles are 100% Xbox/PC exclusive. Sony will get whatever MS allows them to have.

 

[Leyasu]

So the spectrum doesn't exist for you is what you're saying? MS could use their financial power to lock down Fifa, Fortnite, COD. Everything that Sony relies on and it just boils down to "you reap what you saw"?

That's a laughable position to take.

?? I am not giving anyone a free pass. Just merely stating that Sony shouldn’t be upset that what they wanted to do is now happening to them b

 

[Topher]

The only thing that is incomparable are the size of the acquisitions. Sony got blindsided by the ferocity of Microsoft’s gaming expansion. If they had had an inkling of what was going to happen, they would have begun acquiring studios instead of paying for the best versions or locking down timed exclusives.

Sony were doing everything that they thought was needed to make Xbox unable to compete. Now they are potentially in the position that they tried to force Microsoft into.

No, the biggest obstacle to Xbox being able to compete last gen was the disastrous Xbox One. Sony became the market leader after that horrible launch, but let's not pretend Sony did anything that hadn't already been done before by Microsoft. And let's keep in mind that Sony wasn't in the same position Microsoft found itself in. They already had a strong stable of studios and didn't need to go on a spending spree. Even after the AB acquisition, as many have pointed out, Microsoft's gaming division will still command less revenue than Sony.

 

[Sosokrates]

Of course Cod influences people's choice of platform, the same way all of sonys exclusives do. Sony are just not happy because this its not them having the exclusive. As if they are not going to have exclusive content for destiny.

Ms buying actiblizz is not the worse outcome for sony, Microsoft could of done more damaging acquisitions and moneyhats with $70billion.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

?? I am not giving anyone a free pass. Just merely stating that Sony shouldn’t be upset that what they wanted to do is now happening to them b

The original question was why should Sony's inability to make a COD rival stop this from going through. My answer was that it would weaken PS as a competitor (significantly) and all i'm getting are cop out responses that "well sony did it too" or "sony would have done it too" like it's relevent.

We're not going to act like Xbox losing Final Fantasy is a massive blow like Sony losing COD. This is no different. It's not comparable.

 

[Impotaku]

Seems the fight for 2nd place between sony & microsoft is savage, it's kind of cringey seeing companys behave like this it's not the 90's anymore.

 

[Gavon West]

they haven't been doing that for the past 20 years so why do you think they'll do that now?

Look at how quickly they were snatching up developers since 2018. They went from, like, four studios to over a dozen pretty quickly! Like, record fast. Then Bethesda.

This is the main reason so many fanboys we're clamoring for Microsoft to leave the game. They have a fuck ton of money at their disposal. Once Phil stepped in, mega purchases were just a matter of time. He convinced Microsoft to start investing heavily in gaming. Now it's one of their major pillars along with cloud. A consistent trillion dollar company is nothing to play with. Now you know why. Again, this is why the FTA is involved. Microsoft could go balls out and buy 3 Sony's it they wanted to.

 

[yamaci17]

It sort of looks like Microsoft released the Xbox in 2001 and has spent the last 21 years trying to build up a solid set of studios akin to what Nintendo and Playstation have. Of course the company has been acquiring a number of smaller studios (probably in the hope they will blossom into major first party studios in future) but these two big acquisitions just look like Microsoft execs saying "ah fuck it... just buy those massive companies over there and call it done".

Sort of like a lot of football fans disliked the English teams that were bought out by rich Arab oil tycoons and had gigantic transfer budgets. Sometimes it felt like they were just buying their way to success.


Anyway yeah this is longer than I planned. If you actually read this wall of shit text, I applaud you.

they can't even manage their current studios fine. how do you expect them to steer small studios towards being behemots like santa monica / nd / guerilla etc. they simply don't care about their games' quality, that's thing out of the window with Xbox. look at how they manage 343. they give 0 care. absolutely no moves towards them to fix their shit up.
turn 10 is decent but they're decent themselves. no incentive or push from msoft

how can i trust xbox game studios to be like ps studios when i see how their studios already does a lackluster job? clearly they cannot manage their studios like sony does and that's why as you said they just brute forced their way into blizzard/bethesda/activision. but problem does not end there. xbox game studios is so bad at managing that i'm quite sure that these developers too will lose discipline that they seldom had in the past, and will become worse game studios in upcoming years

lack of vision, understanding what makes a video game good and not forgettable, creating rich and meaningful experiences: these are the things xbox studios do not seem to care. if not, they wouldn't slip imsomniac away. sony is not a magical wizard, they see a glimmer of talent, capability and they just bolster it with their vision and help them achieve what they want. i simply don't see that light from xbox game studios.

 

[oldergamer]

How does pushing for a brand vital to gaming not being isolated to one platform come across as "anti-competitive" to you? It is a fair - and absolutely self-serving - statement.

A brand vital to gaming that they are not losing?? Sony the market leader acting like they are losing the game to a governing body to try and block a purchase when they clearly are not losing the game and even had a direct meeting on the subject. This is anti competitive. They would clearly have a case if the game wasnt going to exist on PlayStation platforms.

 

[Leyasu]

The original question was why should Sony's inability to make a COD rival stop this from going through. My answer was that it would weaken PS as a competitor (significantly) and all i'm getting are cop out responses that "well sony did it too" or "sony would have done it too" like it's relevent.

Their inability to make a competitor is their problem. They sat back for years expecting the status quo to remain, but it hasn’t.

Sony has lots of first party studio and an FPS powerhouse in Bungie. But like I said, they shouldn’t be upset because they would have done exactly the same thing if they could have

 

[Gavon West]

It amazes me that they haven’t bought Asobo yet after their work on MS Flight Sim.
Sony will probably buy them. And Moon Studios. And Certain Affinity. And Bungie… wait that already happened.
Seriously, instead of going after promising smaller studios they focus on the big fishes and end up having to promise to not release exclusive games, which in the end won’t change the needle at all on their market share. They get more money though, that’s what they really want.

But all these purchases will have an impact. It's easy to say all the publishers and studios they've purchased till now won't have an impact when the games aren't here yet. It gets SUPER real once these games start getting released, and many gamers start to understand that they REALLY aren't going to play the next ES or Doom, Starfield, Hellblade II etc unless it's on Cloud or PC. Or when the next CoD or MW name is synonymous with Xbox.
If you think that won't have an impact on the gaming landscape once these games start releasing, you're fooling yourself.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

A brand vital to gaming that they are not losing?? Sony the market leader acting like they are losing the game to a governing body to try and block a purchase when they clearly are not losing the game and even had a direct meeting on the subject. This is anti competitive. They would clearly have a case if the game wasnt going to exist on PlayStation platforms.

They were answering this question

- In the event that, in the future, Activision titles Blizzard are no longer available to competing Microsoft/Xbox ecosystems, to what extent would competition in the digital game distribution market be affected?

But sure. You stick with your clown takes

 

[Topher]

I just read this summary again. Couple of thoughts:

1) We are getting this second hand. Think that needs to be pointed out. Whether or not this is 100% accurately portraying what Sony stated, we don't know. But for the sake of argument, assuming it is accurate.

2) Sony is highlighting the importance of the Call of Duty brand to the overall market as well as to PlayStation. That's the crux of the argument here. Anyone can make a shooter, but Call of Duty commands a massive following. Getting that following to abandon Call of Duty is damn near impossible.

3) Sony's arguments are focused on making sure Call of Duty doesn't have to be replaced as a multiplatform title, particularly with PlayStation. There is nothing here stating that the Activision Blizzard deal shouldn't go through. Sony is playing their cards carefully here. Obviously they would prefer this deal not go through (they have never said that publicly though), but they are smart enough not to engage in 100% opposition to it as they need to have a good working relationship with Microsoft/AB going forward.

 

[Leyasu]

No, the biggest obstacle to Xbox being able to compete last gen was the disastrous Xbox One. Sony became the market leader after that horrible launch, but let's not pretend Sony did anything that hadn't already been done before by Microsoft. And let's keep in mind that Sony wasn't in the same position Microsoft found itself in. They already had a strong stable of studios and didn't need to go on a spending spree. Even after the AB acquisition, as many have pointed out, Microsoft's gaming division will still command less revenue than Sony.

Yeah, and then Sony begun leveraging their position to make Xbox less and less competitive, which they tried to continue with this gen. Things have changed, Sony will have to deal with it.

Who gives a fuck about revenue?

 

[Sosokrates]

Both of them have been doing it to each other for the past 20 years they've been in competition.

But what's the relevance? Not sure why there's this need to act like this a reap what you saw situation to flipflop away from the fact that this is an incomparable situatiuon

Well theres always going to be a richer company.

I mean if Microsoft wanted to they could destroy playstation. But they dont because there ultimate goal is for the gaming business to grow and if ms's plans are successful playstation will have to put gamepass on there platform if they want to be more then just a sony first party box.

Microsoft are thinking way ahead, it really is some 4d chess stuff. In 10,20,30yrs when every screen has high speed cloud gaming and the latency is at geforce now standard or better it really does change things.
I mean if you can get a 1440p stream at gefore now quality, the amount of people this is unacceptable to is going to be tiny.

 

[The_Mike]

That's because selling well due to being bad isn't the "rule" at all. Fact of the matter is that most gamers who play Call of Duty and GTA don't consider them shit games.

People playing Call of Duty and GTA doesnt consider them shit games?
Wow, you are blowing my mind.

My point flew over your head by the way. It's very popular to talk shit about Call of Duty here, and online gaming in general. Meanwhile, when you step your feet out from Neogaf, the scenario gets different from being mainly single player gaming to a good mix.

So many in here sees their personal opinion as facts, and you show the part of the problem. You dont like CoD, so its shit, and its surprisingly how it sells well.
On the other hand, you like sony first party games, and by your personal opinion you validate its because the games are great. It is so biased, and the ironic thing is that you (and many other in here) can't see it, and that is whats sad and turns a forum into a hivemind.

Where Resetera is it about gender politics, this is about Playstation. And its all logical because Sony outperforms microsoft a lot, but if you only walk among people with the same opinion, it's easy to forget the same opinions you share arent facts, but still just subjective opinions.

If a game is bad, it doesn't sell. Period.

I am probably the villain in here for liking Call of Duty. I havent bought it since MW19 because I grew tired of annual sequels, but if I wanted to play a new online fps game and have to pay for it, it would without a doubt be Call of Duty, because no other first person shooter brings the same online experience.

There is no rule here that is being contradicted. In either case, the comparison to Sony games doesn't make any sense. Sony games sell well, but they don't outsell Call of Duty or GTA, not even on PlayStation.

To be fair, Sony's sales are hindred by being exlusive (and to some extend, some of their games on PC). If Sony were third party, then we both know they would sell even more games.

Yet its games like Call of Duty, GTA and Fifa rocking the lists across all platforms. And theres a reason for that.

Regardless, as others have pointed out, there are much better shooters than Call of Duty on the market, but Call of Duty is the most popular brand of shooter and it has tons of people to play with online. That's what keeps it popular.

No, there really isn't. Stop stating opinions as facts.

Maybe to you, but if I want something like Call of Duty, then there's no competition.

NO other fps can give me custom classes like CoD.
The extreme level of attachments unlocks like CoD.
Maps with solid design like CoD. Lets be real, some maps are our favorites, and some we hate, but they know how to make map design, which clearly shows.
No other fps gives the same fast paced combat as in CoD.

The only real competitor I can think of is Titanfall 2, but with the focus on a single player campaign the multiplayer component fell short unlike Titanfall 1.

I'd really like to know which competitors there are out there that gives the same experience as Call of Duty, because I really want to know.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Their inability to make a competitor is their problem. They sat back for years expecting the status quo to remain, but it hasn’t.

Sony has lots of first party studio and an FPS powerhouse in Bungie. But like I said, they shouldn’t be upset because they would have done exactly the same thing if they could have

Their inability to make a competitor is the industry's problem. Not just Sony's.

They're answering questions. Has nothing to do with being upset. is COD significant to Sony? Yes. Could Bungie fill in for COD? Fuck no. That's a delusional take

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Well theres always going to be a richer company.

I mean if Microsoft wanted to they could destroy playstation. But they dont because there ultimate goal is for the gaming business to grow and if ms's plans are successful playstation will have to put gamepass on there platform if they want to be more then just a sony first party box.

Microsoft are thinking way ahead, it really is some 4d chess stuff. In 10,20,30yrs when every screen has high speed cloud gaming and the latency is at geforce now standard or better it really does change things.
I mean if you can get a 1440p stream at gefore now quality, the amount of people this is unacceptable to is going to be tiny.

Microsoft can't destroy playstation because we have regulations in place.

 

[Tomeru]

Well theres always going to be a richer company.

I mean if Microsoft wanted to they could destroy playstation. But they dont because there ultimate goal is for the gaming business to grow and if ms's plans are successful playstation will have to put gamepass on there platform if they want to be more then just a sony first party box.

Microsoft are thinking way ahead, it really is some 4d chess stuff. In 10,20,30yrs when every screen has high speed cloud gaming and the latency is at geforce now standard or better it really does change things.
I mean if you can get a 1440p stream at gefore now quality, the amount of people this is unacceptable to is going to be tiny.

 

[Sosokrates]

Another thing that needs answering is at what point does exclusives beome not fair legally? Who makes up these rules?
Why is sony buying insomniac and taking away insomniac content for other platforms acceptable but doing it with COD is not?

Why is buying a huge franchise worse then buying 8 smaller studios over several years? Both strategies have the same outcome, but for some reason the passage of time mitigates the problem?

 

[Gavon West]

Both of them have been doing it to each other for the past 20 years they've been in competition.

But what's the relevance? Not sure why there's this need to act like this a reap what you saw situation to flipflop away from the fact that this is an incomparable situatiuon

To you. Someone who thinks logically, Sony definitely brought this on themselves by buying up countless deals to keep games off of Xbox. Basically weakening their competition.

Now, Sony has to deal with the consequences of those decisions. I'll be damned if I feel any remorse for them. And good luck trying to compete with a 2 trillion dollar company. This is why Microsoft said Sony isn't their direct competition. Google and Amazon are. Judging from the way they've been purchasing whole publishers and developers, id say the tracks heavy.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Why is sony buying insomniac and taking away insomniac content for other platforms acceptable but doing it with COD is not?

How much of an impact on the industry do you think Xbox not getting Sunset Overdrive 2 has vs PS not getting Call of Duty?

 

[modiz]

Sure, that is why they paid big money last gen and this gen to make it seem as if CoD was exclusive to Playstation.

 

[yamaci17]

Another thing that needs answering is at what point does exclusives beome not fair legally? Who makes up these rules?
Why is sony buying insomniac and taking away insomniac content for other platforms acceptable but doing it with COD is not?

Why is buying a huge franchise worse then buying 8 smaller studios over several years? Both strategies have the same outcome, but for some reason the passage of time mitigates the problem?

imsomniac/santa monica/naughty dog = draymond green (drafted from 2nd round, no one gave a single care about thim in the nba draft), stephen curry (warriors invested him hard, trusted him all teh way. even when he had injuries here and there initially), klay thompson (simply a byproduct of great scouting, just like draymond). result? countless championships and great success stories.

activision/blizzard/bethesda = lebron james, wade, bosh. practically like miami's big 3 when pat riley just brute forced his way into nba championship with a big 3

xbox is simply not trying to find its own steph, klay or draymond or poole. maybe they will find some solace in brute boying lebron, wade and bosh though, who knows.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

To you. Someone who thinks logically, Sony definitely brought this on themselves by buying up countless deals to keep games off of Xbox. Basically weakening their competition.

Now, Sony has to deal with the consequences of those decisions. I'll be damned if I feel any remorse for them. And good luck trying to compete with a 2 trillion dollar company. This is why Microsoft said Sony isn't their direct competition. Google and Amazon are. Judging from the way they've been purchasing whole publishers and developers, id say the tracks heavy.

This idea that Sony brought it on themselves is just a fallacy. MS has a clear strategy. Whether Sony plays nice or acts like a dick was never going to stop MS from throwing their weight around.

 

[Topher]

No, I'm not going through all the shit you wrote.

People playing Call of Duty and GTA doesnt consider them shit games?
Wow, you are blowing my mind.

My point flew over your head by the way.

No, it really didn't. Your point is simply a massive generalization. You can invent any hypocrisy you want out of thin air doing that and that's what you are doing.

No, there really isn't. Stop stating opinions as facts.

I'll let you dwell on the irony of what you just wrote there.

 

[reksveks]

How much of an impact on the industry do you think Xbox not getting Sunset Overdrive 2 has vs PS not getting Call of Duty?

Yeah, the issue is all about the impact that an acquisition can have.

I do think regulators are going to have fun trying to figure out what the impact of COD going on GP whilst still being on PS platforms will be. There is a small part of me wondering how many caveats/concessions Microsoft is willing to make for this deal.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

This response just seems like Sony crying about the fact they won't be able to call PS the "best place to play CoD" with all their exclusive marketing deals; they've basically had a stranglehold on exclusive CoD content for years and now they are butthurt it's going to be over.

 

[The_Mike]

I'll let you dwell on the irony of what you just wrote there.

I worded it poorly, but it was more to make your statement (which you state as a fact) as untrue, from a neutral perspective.

I'm still waiting for the list of CoD competitors out there that brings the same experience or better.

 

[Topher]

Yeah, and then Sony begun leveraging their position to make Xbox less and less competitive, which they tried to continue with this gen. Things have changed, Sony will have to deal with it.

Who gives a fuck about revenue?

And Microsoft didn't do the same thing when they were leading the market with Xbox 360? Actually, yes they did. Timed exclusives? Yep. Marketing deals? Yep. Sony dealt with it fine. I expect they will continue to do so.

Who gives a fuck about revenue? We are talking about market position and you ask me that?

I worded it poorly, but it was more to make your statement (which you state as a fact) as untrue, from a neutral perspective.

I'm still waiting for the list of CoD competitors out there that brings the same experience or better.

I was talking specifically about the game as a shooter and yes, it was an opinion. Any time someone says something is "better" than something else then it is an opinion. I shouldn't have to be explicit about it at every turn.

I never claimed any other game gives "the same experience or better" than CoD. I like other shooters better, but I'm only looking for the single player experience. As you pointed out with Titanfall, that isn't the same experience at all.

 

[Gavon West]

This idea that Sony brought it on themselves is just a fallacy. MS has a clear strategy. Whether Sony plays nice or acts like a dick was never going to stop MS from throwing their weight around.

Actually it did stop them, for years! Sony also had a strategy. One they've been playing for decades. And it's worked well for them. It literally retired sega from the hardware game. And it almost shut down Xbox for good.

Now Microsoft took a page from Sony's playbook and upped the ante to about 1000. Sony simply can't compete with Microsoft on this purchasing level. Microsoft bought Bethesda with 7 billion, then turned around and recouped that invest 2x over in one month. ONE MONTH!!

That's not a company to poke and play with. Sony would have gladly loved for things to stay as they have always been. Now they realize, there's a price for that they simply can't pay in full.

 

[Leyasu]

Their inability to make a competitor is the industry's problem. Not just Sony's.

They're answering questions. Has nothing to do with being upset. is COD significant to Sony? Yes. Could Bungie fill in for COD? Fuck no. That's a delusional take

The industry 3rd parties already feel like competitors exist…. Wether Sonys position is weakened or not, shouldn’t be a reason to block the acquisition. Adapt and overcome


I never said that Bungie can make a cod replacement, I said that they were a powerhouse. Destiny is a big game.

Also, can stop the petty little snarky insult attempts. It makes you look like an angry child.

 

[REDRZA MWS]

I hope something like this would shut down the deal wherever it can, just to spite MS. They're a behemoth that literally cannot be competed against.

Microsoft needs to be broken up, like yesterday.

EDIT: Everybody "LOL"ing at my comment: I am serious. Microsoft has been a menace way longer than they've been in the game industry. Their acquisitions are never a good thing for any industry (gaming or otherwise).

What an idiotic statement. Sony has led in sales every generation since PlayStation 1. Regardless who the competitor is/was. PlayStation is just fucking fine. They have great studios that make great games. I’m happy MS bought COD and other dev studios to bolster their library. It’s why console wars” are stupid. I own all platforms and always will because I like VIDEO GAMES. if there is a game I want to play and experience having all platforms covers me.

 

[Sosokrates]

Microsoft can't destroy playstation because we have regulations in place.

It would be possible without breaking regulations.

A company as rich as Microsoft could quadruple marketing budgets, be very agressive with moneyhats, entice playstation studio employees, aquire parts of the supply chain.

But lets not get into a back and forth on whether they could or couldn't, lets just agree to disagree and save some time.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Actually it did stop them, for years! Sony also had a strategy. One they've been playing for decades. And it's worked well for them. It literally retired sega from the hardware game. And it almost shut down Xbox for good.

Now Microsoft took a page from Sony's playbook and upped the ante to about 1000. Sony simply can't compete with Microsoft on this purchasing level. Microsoft bought Bethesda with 7 billion, then turned around and recouped that invest 2x over in one month. ONE MONTH!!

That's not a company to poke and play with. Sony would have gladly loved for things to stay as they have always been. Now they realize, there's a price for that they simply can't pay in full.

The only thing stopping Xbox was Microsoft's commitment to the division. Not Sony.

I'm not getting into a discussion about Sega, but Sony was one reason out of 10 for that

 

[Leyasu]

And Microsoft didn't do the same thing when they were leading the market with Xbox 360? Actually, yes they did. Timed exclusives? Yep. Marketing deals? Yep. Sony dealt with it fine. I expect they will continue to do so.

Who gives a fuck about revenue? We are talking about market position and you ask me that?



I was talking specifically about the game as a shooter and yes, it was an opinion. Any time someone says something is "better" than something else then it is an opinion. I shouldn't have to be explicit about it at every turn.

I never claimed any other game gives "the same experience or better" than CoD. I like other shooters better, but I'm only looking for the single player experience. As you pointed out with Titanfall, that isn't the same experience at all.

Yeah Microsoft loved a moneyhat during the 360 days and then Sony replied in kind once the ps4 took off. So what? The game has changed. Now it’s content for their service. And like I said, Sony would have been more aggressive had they had known the direction that Microsoft was going to take.

And again, who gives a fuck about revenue? I didn’t mention anything about that in my posts before you came running in

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

The industry 3rd parties already feel like competitors exist…. Wether Sonys position is weakened or not, shouldn’t be a reason to block the acquisition. Adapt and overcome


I never said that Bungie can make a cod replacement, I said that they were a powerhouse. Destiny is a big game.

Also, can stop the petty little snarky insult attempts. It makes you look like an angry child.

You mean like Battlefield which got listed? The game that got outsold by the previous years COD? Uhuh

Then what's the point of bringing it up? Destiny isn't a rival to COD. Period.

Nah i'm getting pretty fed up with the dumbass takes being presented.

 

[Sosokrates]

How much of an impact on the industry do you think Xbox not getting Sunset Overdrive 2 has vs PS not getting Call of Duty?

Of course theres a huge disparity, but a what point does it become a legal issue?

Also you missed out probably the most important part of my post. buying an acti-blizz in one year or buying several studios over several years, why does a longer time mitigate the issue?

why does a longer time mitigate the issue?

why does a longer time mitigate the issue?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Of course theres a huge disparity, but a what point does it become a legal issue?

Also you missed out probably the most important part of my post. buying an acti-blizz in one year or buying several studios over several years, why does a longer time mitigate the issue?

why does a longer time mitigate the issue?

why does a longer time mitigate the issue?

Impact of the industry like I said. it's easy to objectively look at how COD impacts PlayStation. It's not so easy to see where multiple studio aquistions over 10 years leads to.

 

[mejin]

It would be possible without breaking regulations.

A company as rich as Microsoft could quadruple marketing budgets, be very agressive with moneyhats, entice playstation studio employees, aquire parts of the supply chain.

But lets not get into a back and forth on whether they could or couldn't, lets just agree to disagree and save some time.

They are already doing it and they still can't do squabbles even when they already have more devs than Sony.

In theory MS already has enough to be competitive without the $70 bi acquisition.

 

[Leyasu]

You mean like Battlefield which got listed? The game that got outsold by the previous years COD? Uhuh

Then what's the point of bringing it up? Destiny isn't a rival to COD. Period.

Nah i'm getting pretty fed up with the dumbass takes being presented.

I never said anything about which franchise can compete. Read my posts. I merely repeated what the other publishers said.

I also never said that destiny can compete with cod. But I did say that Sony has acquired an FPS powerhouse with Bungie. Which they have.

Okay, so anyone that doesn’t agree with you is presenting a dumbass take. Gotcha

 

[Robb]

They’re probably right, but I feel they brought this on themselves by moneyhatting CoD year after year, keeping it off GamePass etc. Something was bound to happen, although I doubt anyone saw this purchase coming..

It’ll be very interesting to see where things go post acquisition.