Support NeoGAF

[mckmas8808]

Why are you comparing first party with third party blocker deals ?

No one in this topic said anything asinine like Sony blocking Naughty Dogs or Polyphony from making games on Xbox.



If you say so.

Because Bethesda\Zenimax games and Activision Blizzard games weren't first party until MS bought them. Why play stupid on this?

He was referring to the fact that the marketing and timed exclusive deals Sony does benefit no gamers. Sony gamers simply play what they were always going to have access to.

In MS's case, the Bethesda games went on GP which was a big benefit to Xbox gamers.

If the marketing deals helped the developers sell the game, then it does help gamers. I imagine that Sony's marketing spotlight helped FFVII Remake. I'm not going to act like it didn't help Square at all. And if that deal helps them make all FFVII Remake games like they currently are, then it helps.

 

[Topher]

Why are you comparing first party with third party blocker deals ?

No one in this topic said anything asinine like Sony blocking Naughty Dogs or Polyphony from making games on Xbox.



If you say so.

It is your cross to bear. Maybe.....don't be that guy anymore.

 

[ANIMAL1975]

 

[yamaci17]

i love adamsapple's profile pic a lot, it brightens my day whenever i see their post
such a menacing woman taking a bite from a tasty delicious looking apple, it evokes all sorts of feelings for me

 

[adamsapple]

Because Bethesda\Zenimax games and Activision Blizzard games weren't first party until MS bought them. Why play stupid on this?

You're just using cheap bad faith arguments now. Even more disappointing after your previous series of posts demanding what games were blocked when it clearly said REDACTED in the post.

Now you're using whataboutism on first party subsidiary output versus games that are available on both platforms but being blocked from selective services on one by paid deals.

These are not anywhere close to being the same.

Naughty Dogs, Insomniac, Ready at Dawn, Nixxess also weren't first party until Sony bought them. Yet no ones bringing that completely unrelated tangent here.

It is your cross to bear. Maybe.....don't be that guy anymore.

I don't even know where you're going with this now lol.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Because Bethesda\Zenimax games and Activision Blizzard games weren't first party until MS bought them. Why play stupid on this?



If the marketing deals helped the developers sell the game, then it does help gamers. I imagine that Sony's marketing spotlight helped FFVII Remake. I'm not going to act like it didn't help Square at all. And if that deal helps them make all FFVII Remake games like they currently are, then it helps.

No one said the marketing deals didn't help the developers, LOL. The gamers likely aren't that invested in the devs bottom line, I don't think there is much benefit there for them, no.

 

[Topher]

You're just using cheap bad faith arguments now. Even more disappointing after your previous series of posts demanding what games were blocked when it clearly said REDACTED in the post.

Now you're using whataboutism on first party subsidiary output versus games that are available on both platforms but being blocked from selective services on one by paid deals.

These are not anywhere close to being the same.

I don't even know where you're going with this now lol.

 

[Little Chicken]

Probably the last time you got laid too. That doesn’t mean it never happened.

My partner and I have been together for 8 years.

 

[Kerotan]

Where's that idiot who argued with me otherwise. This is basic business. Like really basic. I told him it obviously wasn't coming to GP because Sony had the marketing rights. At least for a decent period of time.

And he tells me to take off my Sony fanboy goggles. Like mind boggling stupid. If I cared to remember his name I would tag him. There's a reason 90% of people are only suited to become corporate slaves who do what they're told. Some people just can't see the bigger picture.

 

[Leyasu]

How did MS make anything better for any Playstation gamer by buying Bethesda\Zenimax and now Activision Blizzard?

Should they have refused to buy them?

 

[mckmas8808]

Should they have refused to buy them?

According to some people here? YES! It's it all about anti-consumer behavior, yes MS should have refused to buy.



Plus why am I not going to be able to play this game on my PS5?

 

[Banjo64]

I can’t cope with the spaghetti logic in here

Both MS and Sony have engaged in third party partnerships to bolster their brand and weaken the other, since the PS3/360 era.

Acquisitions in the ‘traditional’ sense are absolutely fair game.

MS spending $80b combined on Activision and Bethesda and stripping Sony of hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue is not ‘traditional acquisitions’ and deserve to be scrutinised.

Everything else is bluster.
Personally I just hope some original games from MS finally come out soon (or before we’re all dead anyway).

 

[Insane Metal]

Hey c'mon now. Those exclusives and world premieres were never paid for. They were exclusives and world premieres for Xbox because they love Phil. I mean how can you not love him?

 

[Little Chicken]

I know, poor Microsoft. Their fans are riled up and crying about not having select games on their rental service due to marketing contracts, as they purchase two of the largest 3rd party publishers in the world, keeping games off entire platforms.

Much sympathy. Many victim.

I mean... the only thing stopping Sony from buying Activision or Zenimax is because they just can't. Microsoft can, and they did - both companies had previously shown a desire for Microsoft to acquire them - it isn't Microsoft's problem that Sony are a far less successful company.

As for "keeping games off" Playstation, Sony not only had two full-year timed exclusives from Besthesda, which Microsoft honored, but were in the process of doing the same, or worse, with Starfield. Neither of those two games have yet to be released on the console made by the company that owns them.

So what, four months of exclusivity with Death's Door and Tunic because they were a part of ID@Xbox - get a grip. Entirely different kettle of fish.

 

[CaptainSlayAHo]

Exactly! Which is why it's stupid to frame these marketing deals as "Sony paying to keep game X off GamePass". That's just stupid console war narrative creation.

Console war narrative creation? Did you read the translated Court document? Microsoft themselves are stating it, not keyboard jockeys

 

[mckmas8808]

You're just using cheap bad faith arguments now. Even more disappointing after your previous series of posts demanding what games were blocked when it clearly said REDACTED in the post.

Now you're using whataboutism on first party subsidiary output versus games that are available on both platforms but being blocked from selective services on one by paid deals.

These are not anywhere close to being the same.

Naughty Dogs, Insomniac, Ready at Dawn, Nixxess also weren't first party until Sony bought them. Yet no ones bringing that completely unrelated tangent here.

So you won't acknowledge why I won't be able to play these games either?

 

[Leyasu]

According to some people here? YES! It's it all about anti-consumer behavior, yes MS should have refused to buy.



Plus why am I not going to be able to play this game on my PS5?

Monsyhats everywhere. It is what it is. Neither Microsoft nor Sony should be crying about the other doing it.

Anyway, why should they have refused to buy companies that wanted to be bought?

 

[mckmas8808]

Console war narrative creation? Did you read the translated Court document? Microsoft themselves are stating it, not keyboard jockeys

You believe everything a lawyer working for a corporation says now? Did you believe Sony when they said they can't make a game that could compete with COD? Did you believe everything Epic said about Apple too? MS needs to prove that Sony paid money to keep games off of Gamepass.

 

[mckmas8808]

Monsyhats everywhere. It is what it is. Neither Microsoft nor Sony should be crying about the other doing it.

Anyway, why should they have refused to buy companies that wanted to be bought?

Or I'd say this. If it's "ALL ABOUT" keeping games on every system in the universe, then MS should have bought them and released every game under those publishers onto Playstation consoles too. Unless..........

 

[adamsapple]

So you won't acknowledge why I won't be able to play these games either?

Acknowledge what ?

Your last post was naming first party studios and demanding why those games weren't coming to PS5, now you've made a complete pivot. lol

Your messaging is very inconsistent.

You believe everything a lawyer working for a corporation says now? Did you believe Sony when they said they can't make a game that could compete with COD? Did you believe everything Epic said about Apple too? MS needs to prove that Sony paid money to keep games off of Gamepass.

They already did, the court has a list of redacted content the public doesn't have access to.

And we've all seen the leaked RE Village contract which very directly prohibits the game from going on game pass under the termed tenure.

 

[CaptainSlayAHo]

How did MS make anything better for any Playstation gamer by buying Bethesda\Zenimax and now Activision Blizzard?

Don't people love sitting on bobby kotick? He'll be out soon, or does that suddenly not matter anymore

 

[sainraja]

I'm just super confused what your point is... Sony, is making deals, that they pay for, that include a clause stopping those games from coming to Gamepass w/i a time period (when the games are on Xbox already.)

Of course Capcom isn't forced to take the deal.. that's how any deal works.

Sony is still paying people to keep their games off of Gamepass lol You are smarter than this dude.

Yes, the deals prevent games under those marketing deals from going to Game Pass. Those deals weren't made in reaction to Game Pass....which I think is their point. Ofcourse, Game Pass came later, but it still is a competing service, Sony's not going to be nice and market a game that will also appear on Game Pass day one or something like that. Microsoft wouldn't either. But yes, whether it was GWG or Game Pass, the intent is the same.

Not PS1 but here's another, and they paid for extra exclusive time (for 3 and Vice City) right before San Andreas came out.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/e3-2002-sony-gets-grand-theft-auto-exclusive/1100-2866884/

Microsoft rejected GTA3. They put the option in Sony's court.
Link: https://www.gamesradar.com/xbox-rejected-gta-3-because-it-didnt-think-rockstar-could-make-it/

Also, not many remember this but they also rejected Heavenly Sword by Ninja Theory when it wasn't called Heavenly Sword or that's how I remember....maybe the name was already given.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Just like Gamepass, these actions by Sony are illegal.

Jim Ryan needs to be arrested for illegal business practices: such as unorthodox high quantity purchasing with currency without proper authorization, blocking access in monopolistic style moves preventing product from being sold on another illegal service, bribery tactics to hold international company assets to their machines with Square co's "final fantasy" using detrimental business metrics in their international agreements which creates a threat to the national security of the United States.

If we do not call out these illegal practices what will happen to you? or your daughter, my son, his cousin, your friends, dog, Davids baby, who is david? Doesn't matter, he's dead because of these illegals practices. Do you want that to happen? I would hope not.What about your aunt? My uncle? his co-worker? Her chef? when will it stop? WHEN WILL IT STOP?

Arrest now.

 

[Md Ray]

-snip-

Lmao at that tag..

 

[Raonak]

Good. Gamepass is ASS

 

[DeepEnigma]

I mean... the only thing stopping Sony from buying Activision or Zenimax is because they just can't. Microsoft can, and they did - both companies had previously shown a desire for Microsoft to acquire them - it isn't Microsoft's problem that Sony are a far less successful company.

As for "keeping games off" Playstation, Sony not only had two full-year timed exclusives from Besthesda, which Microsoft honored, but were in the process of doing the same, or worse, with Starfield. Neither of those two games have yet to be released on the console made by the company that owns them.

So what, four months of exclusivity with Death's Door and Tunic because they were a part of ID@Xbox - get a grip. Entirely different kettle of fish.

 

[ReBurn]

So you’ve chosen to not have a choice. Separately, you realize $15 is just to lock people in - to later increase the rates. At $15 a month, MS is burning money. They use the same tactics in their Azure services, taking on loss with each customer since they know customers too invested into the ecosystem. But yea, I’d say destroying the market isn’t inaccurate of a statement. People used to tout the Azure prices too, until MS jacked up the rates. Ask yourself how game pass makes sense being cheaper than Netflix, while utilizing exponentially more resources.

People want to pretend that MS is a different company to the 90s anti-competitive MS. Spoiler, the company hasn’t changed, and has simply rebranded its pursuit of monopolies. The first hit is always free with them.

Please don't preach at me. I've exercised my choice. If you like paying more than you need to because you think it gives you some kind of power then more power to you. But there are enough games for me to choose from on the subscription services I have for me to get plenty of value for my money.

It's funny how you use Azure as an argument against subscription services and accuse them of "jacking up rates". All that tells me is that you don't understand those types of services and the value they bring to the enterprises using them. In my day job I spend over $3 million per year on infrastructure and application services in Azure and AWS. And it saves me more than $2 million per year in maintenance, licensing, backup, storage, equipment replacement, skilled workers that are extremely hard to find and retain... all sorts of things because I don't have to maintain as much infrastructure in my data center and I don't have to constantly replace stuff that wears out. Clearly you struggle to understand the concept of value because cloud subscriptions save me and people like me a ton of money every day.

Services like Gamepass and PS+ also save me a lot of time, money and hassle. Between the two services I always have something to play. I play games on one or the other pretty much every day and I can play a different game every day for months and still not play them all. All for what I would pay for 4 or 5 new AAA games per year between the two platforms. I can stream games on my iPad when I'm away from home. On top of that, if I really like a game I can still buy it and I often do. Because that's my choice. And if one day they go away no big deal. I got what I paid for and I'll be fine with that.

So I feel as though it's a better choice for me to focus more on subscriptions than purchases. With the proliferation of digital services I have no problem not "owning" games because you never really own them anyway. I can choose to play what I want, where I want, when I want. And I don't have to deal with the clutter of the plastic discs that contain the worst possible version of the game that's on them. But if spend more and collecting clutter is your thing then have at it. I'm not going to lecture you about it.

 

[Infamy v1]

You got yourself embarrassed by three different people. Yet you carried on twisting and going in circles.

Who? Where? Why do you consistently lie like people don't have a brain and can't, y'know, scroll up? You're literally talking about yourself here in some wierd deflection technique (although instead of your made up number "3," it's far over a dozen people in your case); anyone can see what I linked in the post you just quoted and follow the rabbit hole.

Thread got locked for a reason, let's not rehash it here.

Yeah, you’re right. It's just hilarious seeing him carry the exact same arguments here to multiple new people, most of which are posts that were copy/pasted verbatim. It's almost uncanny.

 

[reinking]

They're the only one of the two who've pledged they'll put out games on other platforms. Sony literally hasn't acknowledged even MLB '21 or '22 being on Xbox. Just a vague "It's MLB's decision, not ours".

I think MS would be a lot more lenient in allowing what you're suggesting if it comes to that.

Didn't Sony buy Bungie? Didn't Bungie pledge to keep games on all platforms?

Some of you make me laugh. On one hand, you promise us that games like Starfield will never see the light of day on a Sony console and then turn around and make a comment like this. Please tell me you're not one of those people.

 

[adamsapple]

Didn't Sony buy Bungie? Didn't Bungie pledge to keep games on all platforms?

Some of you make me laugh. On one hand, you promise us that games like Starfield will never see the light of day on a Sony console and then turn around and make a comment like this. Please tell me you're not one of those people.

Yes, that came from Bungie before the acquisition closed, But then you have people here saying "clearly they mean PC and PS5 when they say multi platform". I think that's the "those people" you might be referring to.

And if we're going to be pedantic about it, I don't think bungie have named Xbox as one of their platforms, while MS/Phil have clearly said playstation when talking about keeping CoD multi platform. But like I said, that's being real pedantic about it. We won't know what's up for real until Bungie actually announces a new project and what platform(s) it will be on.

 

[Infamy v1]

Where's that idiot who argued with me otherwise. This is basic business. Like really basic. I told him it obviously wasn't coming to GP because Sony had the marketing rights. At least for a decent period of time.

And he tells me to take off my Sony fanboy goggles. Like mind boggling stupid. If I cared to remember his name I would tag him. There's a reason 90% of people are only suited to become corporate slaves who do what they're told. Some people just can't see the bigger picture.

Talk about embarrassing. This is a prime example of why it's always good to read the OP and not skim through a headline.

Nowhere in the OP talks about Sony keeping CoD off Game Pass because they have marketing rights. In fact, there is a ton of discourse both here and on Era about when people think CoD will actually drop on Game Pass, and most seem to think sooner than later.

You got way too excited here by accident and preemptively called others "stupid" and "corporate slaves" when that's exactly what you look like. Oops

 

[Hawking Radiation]

i love adamsapple's profile pic a lot, it brightens my day whenever i see their post
such a menacing woman taking a bite from a tasty delicious looking apple, it evokes all sorts of feelings for me

Yessir

All

Sorts

Of

Feelings

 

[AtomicStarving]

"Sony Pays To Blocks Games From Game Pass", and MS pays almost $70 bi for "one game"

Seriously, Microsoft got the best selling gaming of all time and one of the most popular (Minecraft), and now just wants a new one lol.

What is next? Take Two (GTA) + EA (Apex) + Epic Games (Fortnite)? ew

 

[Corndog]

That's not what he is saying.

He is asking for games that are specific to not be on GamePass, without it being a timed exclusive or marketing deal. Which Sony and others have had this language in their contracts before GamePass was even a thing. It just gets impacted because the language is broad by stating "subscription services."

Why does it matter if it is a marketing deal? If it’s exclusive for say a year then it’s exclusive for a year. Why would you need to add that it not be on game pass? The only reason is if the ban on game pass extends beyond exclusivity.

 

[CatLady]

Is there a chance this goes through this month so we can just enjoy the cod announcements next month and stop with the acquisition talk.

Sony being petty, Microsoft are probably petty in some way. I'm sure they will have an agreement to stop a game being on ps plus if it is on game pass? If they don't that pretty damn cool but I doubt that will be happening.

Apparently, that's not the case with Xbox. Ghost Recon Wildlands came to Game Pass this month and Yakuza Kiwami and Kiwami 2 were already on there. PS Extra just announced those game will be on their service this month.

 

[lh032]

"destroy the market" lmao. Just compete bro, it's not hard.

Theres no difference between Microsoft buying up publishers and Sony paying publishers to block content.

And Microsoft does the same thing, the only difference is they are too stupid to be aggressive locking content ,unlike Sony.

 

[John Wick]

So why don't you say Sony paid to keep games off Google Stadia?

They don't make his favourite box.

 

[sainraja]

Naughty Dogs, Insomniac, Ready at Dawn, Nixxess also weren't first party until Sony bought them. Yet no ones bringing that completely unrelated tangent here.

With the ones you are naming, which games/IPs did Sony own after they bought them? Crash?

Most of the studios that Sony got, they didn't take away any IPs from other systems that already existed there. Did Jak & Daxter, Uncharted, The Last of Us exist before Sony bought Naughty Dog? They were all made during the time ND was a first party studio.
You can't even say Bungie given nothing is going to change with their current or future IPs. That isn't the point though. Sony didn't acquire any of the IPs with purchase of those studios. Those IPs were created under PlayStation.

EDIT

Also, Ready at Dawn is not a Sony studio.

 

[The_Mike]

My partner and I have been together for 8 years.

So you just confirmed it's 7 years ago

 

[lh032]

Microsoft is not a person, its a mega corporation. As other corporation including Sony, they don't do charity.

Sony don't do gamepass model because they are the leading one, Microsoft don't do 70 dollar games because they are behind.
Its not that hard to understand.

This is why Microsoft is going for publisher, their strategy is the same as Sony.

 

[adamsapple]

With the ones you are naming, which games/IPs did Sony own after they bought them? Crash?

Most of the studios that Sony got, they didn't take away any IPs from other systems that already existed there. Did Jak & Daxter, Uncharted, The Last of Us exist before Sony bought Naughty Dog? They were all made during the time ND was a first party studio.
You can't even say Bungie given nothing is going to change with their current or future IPs. That isn't the point though. Sony didn't acquire any of the IPs with purchase of those studios. Those IPs were created under PlayStation.

No one's talking about individual IPs ? The post I was quoting talked about general Activision/blizzard and Bethesda made games.

What is next? Take Two (GTA) + EA (Apex) + Epic Games (Fortnite)? ew

 

[graywolf323]

Naughty Dogs, Insomniac, Ready at Dawn, Nixxess also weren't first party until Sony bought them. Yet no ones bringing that completely unrelated tangent here.

at least be factual, Ready at Dawn was bought by Facebook not Sony

also how is buying development studios comparable to buying entire publishers? and Nixes isn't even a developer in the traditional sense, they handle PC ports

 

[sainraja]

No one's talking about individual IPs ? The post I was quoting talked about general Activision/blizzard and Bethesda made games.

Ah my bad. I thought you guys were having a different conversation lol.
Carry on.

--

It should be clear to everyone, that whatever has been made under Activision/Blizzard up to this point, has been made without any influence from Microsoft. How MS shapes the future of the company remains to be seen. It could be for the better or it could just be more of the same.

 

[Justin9mm]

Why do some people think COD is going to be on GP or become an MS exclusive, even in future? COD has already become a household juggernaut across all platforms, for Microsoft to make it exclusive would be cutting off their own legs. I don't think they even want to lose the profit margin by putting it on GP, it's probably one of Xbox's highest selling games on their platform separate to GP. They aren't that stupid.

 

[Warablo]

Timed exclusives has always been a thing, but notice with Sony its to the extreme. Like Microsoft heyday 360 days was at max 1 month. Sony's is like 1-2 years or forever. Microsoft got so much shit with that Tomb Raider time exclusive deal, that they had to address the public because everyone was going nuts.

 

[CaptainSlayAHo]

Why do some people think COD is going to be on GP or become an MS exclusive, even in future? COD has already become a household juggernaut across all platforms, for Microsoft to make it exclusive would be cutting off their own legs. I don't think they even want to lose the profit margin by putting it on GP, it's probably one of Xbox's highest selling games on their platform separate to GP. They aren't that stupid.

Because taking it off playstation would bring players from Sony to Xbox (or pc) where they are now part of Xboxs ecosystem for 3rd party titles. They wouldn't have to pay sony the 30 percent listing fee and would get 30 percent of 3rd party sales from the new users.

Game pass is recurring revenue, xboxs best sales pitch at the moment, and if they drop the "first party day one" pitch they'd lose all credibility and goodwill the service has built, it'd be fucking idiotic.

Sounds more and more like it will remain on sony (for the time being anyways), but the second a previous contract isn't restricting them it's going to gamepass, and people who think otherwise are morons.

 

[adamsapple]

at least be factual, Ready at Dawn was bought by Facebook not Sony

Damn man I misnamed one company, there was no malice behind it lol.

also how is buying development studios comparable to buying entire publishers? and Nixes isn't even a developer in the traditional sense, they handle PC ports

They're not, it was a rhetorical reply to a post comparing output from a first party to third party blocking contracts.


-


Our boy Tom has also picked this up, let's get some mainstream eyes on this.

 

[Justin9mm]

Because taking it off playstation would bring players from Sony to Xbox (or pc) where they are now part of Xboxs ecosystem for 3rd party titles. They wouldn't have to pay sony the 30 percent listing fee and would get 30 percent of 3rd party sales from the new users.

Game pass is recurring revenue, xboxs best sales pitch at the moment, and if they drop the "first party day one" pitch they'd lose all credibility and goodwill the service has built, it'd be fucking idiotic.

Sounds more and more like it will remain on sony (for the time being anyways), but the second a previous contract isn't restricting them it's going to gamepass, and people who think otherwise are morons.

I don't agree, you think every person who plays COD would magically switch to Xbox? I personally don't think so. The profit margin to buy the game RRP on PlayStation, PC and Xbox is way bigger than the impact of putting it on GamePass..
I don't see it being a Day 1 GP title anytime in the future. Unless they keep it multiplat and still put it on GP but won't be a day 1 GP title, that makes more sense to me.
This just isn't any game, I think the rules so to speak are a little different with this one. Will see how it plays out, maybe I'm a moron, maybe I'm not.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Our boy Tom has also picked this up, let's get some mainstream eyes on this.

 

[ManaByte]