• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

MS's Response to Sony's "No AAA Studio Can Match CoD" Statement + Confirms Sony Pays To Blocks Games From Game Pass

One has to wonder how much MS offered to get RE:VIII Village on GamePass Day One. Especially since Capcom chose to go with the simple Playstation marketing deal money instead. One has to wonder was it "JUST" about the money......or was it about something else?....
Capcom is probably just as short-sighted as Sony when it comes to game subscription models and will be playing catch-up once the dominoes start to fall.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
One has to wonder how much MS offered to get RE:VIII Village on GamePass Day One. Especially since Capcom chose to go with the simple Playstation marketing deal money instead. One has to wonder was it "JUST" about the money......or was it about something else?....

Huh ? what are you talking about ? we don't know if Capcom were approached for a day 1.

RE VII (or MH World for that matter) didn't come to game pass day 1 either, it came after a year or so. With the Village deal, we literally don't know if Sony's contract was in perpetuity or if they put a couple of years term on it.

Whatever happened to all those arguments that Xbox gamers made that said GamePass subscribers would still keep buying games by the boatload? It sure seems like yall are pushing the message that GamePass subscribers won't be purchasing many games in any given year.

Again, what are you talking about ? Do you really think game pass subscribers literally don't buy any other games ?

We've seen official research done earlier this year (or was it last year ?) that showed that on average game pass subscribers are spending more in the xbox eco system.

They already do this today with their Console Launch Exclusive games that they've moneyhatted for. So why are you acting as if they need to "REACT" to what Sony does?

A third time, what are you talking about ? No one ever said MS doesn't get timed exclusive games either, you seem to have an issue only when they do it. Why ?

The game pass blocking thing is related to games that's already out on multiple platforms that is being blocked from coming on one service with a paid deal.
 
Last edited:

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
They all have the same cards they always have had. Buying timed exclusives and marketing deals isn't going anywhere simply because MS buys Activision. Now that both MS and Sony have subscription services then I expect you'll see more of a "subscription exclusive" entering into the console war.

Microsoft has waaaaay more cards then they’ve ever had. Practically the entire western AAA FPS market will be controlled by Microsoft. More huge franchises then ever before will fall exclusively under Microsoft’s umbrella.
Microsoft also has more money to throw around, so it can get worse for Sony.

I have no horse in this race, but even as a long time Playstation fan - I think Sony can wind up in a very rough spot.
 

Fredrik

Member
They don't directly. It's a benefit to the company, both companies when they make deals. I have been on that side of the fence this entire thread and many of them prior. I have been saying since day zero of this topic that this is shit they both do, and neither one are saints. Only fanatics waving their banners of consumer lunacy have been arguing otherwise.
Yeah. The reality is that all these acquisitions are cheered on because of tribalism. We can pretend it’s for some other reason but I’d say it’s bs. The reality is that MS could do Gamepass deals without owning them, like they do with A Plague Tale and like they did with Outriders.

The only upside I see from an acquisition is that Google or Amazon can’t buy them and lock the games to streaming only.
 
It will be on the PC, since the footage said it was "captured on a PC"

Just as 7R is, and just as 15, etc..



Ff7r and 15 came to pc a year and a half after playstation

Xbox moneyhatted games come to pc day 1 (and on gamepass, but that's besides the point)

I truly wonder which pc gamers prefer

Truly one and the same (again)
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?



Ff7r and 15 came to pc a year and a half after playstation

Xbox moneyhatted games come to pc day 1 (and on gamepass, but that's besides the point)

I truly wonder which pc gamers prefer

Truly one and the same (again)


Having games available on more platforms is objectively better for gamers.


I wish they had, instead of buying those games forever. This deal has zero upside for me and millions of gamers at all.

It has a lot of upside for the gamers on multiple other platforms that aren't the one you're talking about.

It is what it is.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Banned
Others make the argument that it's cheaper with game pass (literally true)

Personally only argument I've made is that it's 60 on Xbox and 70 on PS5 for moneyhatted options (also true)

That being said the only game I can think of that I've purchased the past few years is cyberpunk....

Between game pass and ps+ I don't see that changing anytime soon for me so I can't agree with their argument, the two services are literally preventing me from buying games, though I'm not sure how that's relevant

It's a different conversation, but it'll be more relevant in the coming years. Thanks for being honest.
 

clarky

Gold Member
Do you think publishers just dump content onto the market as soon as they possibly can? Or do you think there's a strong element of strategy and planning involved in order to produce share-holder friendly results on an annual and quarterly basis?

If you accept the latter to be true, what do you think happens when any one party has control over so many significant properties that it becomes difficult to manage smoothly? And what do you think happens to serial under-performers under corporate ownership?

Just bear in mind that all MS' expansion into gaming is not coming as a result of years of dominance in the marketplace. Its not a case of success breeding success!

What it is in fact is a product of corporate ambition and protectionism funded by immense wealth generated outside of gaming.

MS have only gotten to this point by burning billions of dollars in losses in order to stay in the game. Their track record is not good, which is why, two-decades-in, they are still spending huge in order to acquire IP and not expanding out from their home-grown successes.

Seriously. Why would you want a corporation with a track record like that to control all these huge, storied IP's?




I've been posting on here for a pretty long time. And I can say with complete certainty that I've never commented favourably on any sort of consolidation regardless of who was buying who.
I'm philosophically opposed to it because I understand where the path leads.

You need to understand that what's being transacted aren't "games". It's purely IP's and assets. Which means that to the buyer, they can't really lose too much even if they run their new acquisition into the ground. Because they'll always own the IP and assets even when the staff and studio they purchased is long gone and scattered to the winds.
There track record is fine, apart from a near catastrophic error with the xbox one ( which almost took rare with it) the OG xbox the 360, one x and now the series consoles are/were great. They've released some fantastic games.
 
Of course, you don't. Because you are okay with one company's moneyhatting, but just not the other. That's weird to me. But hey.....it is what it is.
I don't think you know what money-hatting means. Money-hatting only applies when party one monetarily bribes party two into doing something that is unfavorable to party three. Once Microsoft completes the acquisition of Activision, they are no longer considered a separate entity. You cannot bribe yourself into doing something :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 

phil_t98

#SonyToo
Sounds to me like MS was right and CoD isn't some sort of genre defining title that can't be competed with. There really is no reason this deal shouldn't happen. Hopefully there are no 'blocks' in place to keep the titles off Game pass.


Morrowind was an Elder Scrolls title and it wasn't on PlayStation. Sony did just fine without it. I have yet to see any product a listing proving any of these future titles were going to be on PlayStation in the first place. Xbox gamers were sure Final Fantasy 7R and Street Fighter 5 would hit Xbox and low and behold they didn't.

The only difference is that Sony doesn't own those properties and MS DOES own Elder Scrolls and Fallout. Still these games are available for any PlayStation gamer with a capable PC and those titles will most likely also be streamable to other devices as well. You don't even need an Xbox at all.


that's because Sony paid to make sure they didn't come to rival platforms and remained exclusive
 

mckmas8808

Banned
Huh ? what are you talking about ? we don't know if Capcom were approached for a day 1.

RE VII (or MH World for that matter) didn't come to game pass day 1 either, it came after a year or so. With the Village deal, we literally don't know if Sony's contract was in perpetuity or if they put a couple of years term on it.



Again, what are you talking about ? Do you really think game pass subscribers literally don't buy any other games ?

We've seen official research done earlier this year (or was it last year ?) that showed that on average game pass subscribers are spending more in the xbox eco system.



A third time, what are you talking about ? No one ever said MS doesn't get timed exclusive games either, you seem to have an issue only when they do it. Why ?

The game pass blocking thing is related to games that's already out on multiple platforms that is being blocked from coming on one service with a paid deal.

I have NO ISSUE with Microsoft moneyhatting. Yall are the ones complaining about Sony. I've come to an understanding on what the industry is and how each player is competing. I'm okay with it. It's you guys that still "seem" to have the problem.

FYI.....

Yall can't make 2 competing arguments at the same time and think you aren't going to be called out on it.

1. MS putting games on Gamepass means we get to spend less money on games than Playstation gamers. This in turn is why it's good for gamers that MS spends $80 Billion on acquisitions.

2. GamePass subscribers are spending more money in the eco system, therefore the ecosystem is very healthy due to it.
 

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
Microsoft could pay to get every one of those same games on GamePass, without buying the Publisher outright. Why are you all acting as if MS had to spend $80 Billion to get a bunch of games on GamePass?

Apparently they see value in having more internal studios and big name franchises to tie into their subscription service.

Everyone’s looking at this as if Sony and Microsoft are the only pieces on the board. Meanwhile Embracer has snapped up a fuckton of studios, and Tencent is getting their dirty hands into studios as well.

If Microsoft doesn’t pounce, someone else may.
 

mckmas8808

Banned
I don't think you know what money-hatting means. Money-hatting only applies when party one monetarily bribes party two into doing something that is unfavorable to party three. Once Microsoft completes the acquisition of Activision, they are no longer considered a separate entity. You cannot bribe yourself into doing something :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Is this the lie that you have to tell yourself?

- So it's okay if Party One buys Party Two for billions of dollars to take games away from Party Three forever.
- But if Party One pays Party Two for a marketing deal and to keep it off the subscription service of Party Three (but it's still available on Party Three hardware to buy), that's bad?
 
It's a different conversation, but it'll be more relevant in the coming years. Thanks for being honest.
Literally the only reason I tend to side with Microsoft is that they release games day one whether first party or moneyhatted for game pass

Sony made up a lot of ground imo with ps+, if they also released 1st/3rd party games day one on the service Microsoft would have no ground to stand on

I want both services to be as great as possible so they're able to compete and hold each other back from raising prices/feel the need to continue adding to their services

Until then, Microsoft exclusivity benefits me and everyone on the platform(s!) (60 dollars vs 70), and Sony's doesn't benefit anyone on the platform
 
Last edited:
I have NO ISSUE with Microsoft moneyhatting. Yall are the ones complaining about Sony. I've come to an understanding on what the industry is and how each player is competing. I'm okay with it. It's you guys that still "seem" to have the problem.

FYI.....

Yall can't make 2 competing arguments at the same time and think you aren't going to be called out on it.

1. MS putting games on Gamepass means we get to spend less money on games than Playstation gamers. This in turn is why it's good for gamers that MS spends $80 Billion on acquisitions.

2. GamePass subscribers are spending more money in the eco system, therefore the ecosystem is very healthy due to it.
You have your two points wrong.

MS putting games on GamePass means people are able to play many more titles which they may never have looked twice at before and much less spent money on. If someone who had no interest in COD in the last 10 years and spent $0 on COD in the last 10 years suddenly decides to play COD MW2 when it becomes available on GP, has Microsoft really lost a sale? Quite the contrary in fact, for if that person discovers that they actually enjoy the game, they may then decide to buy items from the in-game store which is revenue that would not have been made available before.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Apparently they see value in having more internal studios and big name franchises to tie into their subscription service.

Everyone’s looking at this as if Sony and Microsoft are the only pieces on the board. Meanwhile Embracer has snapped up a fuckton of studios, and Tencent is getting their dirty hands into studios as well.

If Microsoft doesn’t pounce, someone else may.
I'll give you that. It we are doing the "lesser of evils" principal,

I would much rather have MS snag them, than Tencent.

Clint Eastwood Coffee GIF

Fuck commies.
 

clarky

Gold Member
People have been saying this since the very first X-Box and it hasn't meant shit yet.
Keeps sony on their toes at the very least. Its win win if you ask me.

Id of thought most people around these parts own at least 2 platforms to game on and dont give a fuck where they game as long as the hits keep coming.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Yall can't make 2 competing arguments at the same time and think you aren't going to be called out on it.

1. MS putting games on Gamepass means we get to spend less money on games than Playstation gamers. This in turn is why it's good for gamers that MS spends $80 Billion on acquisitions.

2. GamePass subscribers are spending more money in the eco system, therefore the ecosystem is very healthy due to it.

The two points you've put are not mutually exclusive.

1. For a gamers point of view, it is definitely beneficial if they have access to a game say a call of duty, on day 1 at no extra cost above their sub. This benefits both console and PC gamers as opposed to just PS gamers. From MS's point of view, it helps entice users to their eco system, and for those who don't want to get in their eco system, they still have access to the game on PS if they want to.

2. Game Pass subscribers spending more money in the eco system is not a theoretical, it happens irl.


I have NO ISSUE with Microsoft moneyhatting. Yall are the ones complaining about Sony. I've come to an understanding on what the industry is and how each player is competing. I'm okay with it. It's you guys that still "seem" to have the problem.

You're conflating a few different things here. You're conflating money hatting some period of timed exclusivity with money hatting a game from coming to game pass/PS+ etc when it's already out. If we were to start to dive into the general ethics of money hatting games off of one platform entirely, we both know which one does it more for higher profile games. But that's not the point of contention.


Apparently they see value in having more internal studios and big name franchises to tie into their subscription service.
Everyone’s looking at this as if Sony and Microsoft are the only pieces on the board. Meanwhile Embracer has snapped up a fuckton of studios, and Tencent is getting their dirty hands into studios as well.
If Microsoft doesn’t pounce, someone else may.


I don't want to live in a world where "Meta Presents Call of Duty: Privacy Warfare".
 
Sony pays for "blocking rights" to prevent developers from adding content to Game Pass and other competing subscription services (then there is a bunch of redacted content).
Are Microsoft claiming that they don't?
 
Is this the lie that you have to tell yourself?

- So it's okay if Party One buys Party Two for billions of dollars to take games away from Party Three forever.
- But if Party One pays Party Two for a marketing deal and to keep it off the subscription service of Party Three (but it's still available on Party Three hardware to buy), that's bad?
Activision was on the market and Microsoft had the incentive and money to purchase them. A transaction took place that added value to both parties. The Sony approach on the other hand is not an exchange of services or products, it's just a cock-block.
 
I'll give you that. It we are doing the "lesser of evils" principal,

I would much rather have MS snag them, than Tencent.

Clint Eastwood Coffee GIF
Microsoft fans should feel the same about Sony, fuck ten cent.

I see nothing wrong with embracer though... At least so far...

We’ve never seen a Microsoft like this before. The past doesn’t matter.

Sony may find themselves in third place by the end of this generation.
Lol no

Sony will win this generation, and considering it seems like Nintendo is just rolling with the switch and upgraded iterations of it they'll remain where they are too.

Real discussion begins at the start of next generation though, assuming that they're all as heavily built around their hardware as they are now (already increasingly not the case between xcloud and Sony opening up for pc)
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Right? The content would have to be China approved.

Could you imagine that shit? I remember UbiSoft trying to make changes to Rainbow Six to appease them. Fuck that.
Eh, for China. They'll still let the regressive cultural war divide the western nations. In fact, they'll probably pay double to have it more prevalent in the games.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Lol no

Sony will win this generation, and considering it seems like Nintendo is just rolling with the switch and upgraded iterations of it they'll remain where they are too.

Real discussion begins at the start of next generation though, assuming that they're all as heavily built around their hardware as they are now (already increasingly not the case between xcloud and Sony opening up for pc)

I think Nintendo has already won the generation if we're talking about unit sales.

But, yes, I don't think Xbox will over take PS this gen, but it will be very close, similar to the 360/PS3 gen and not the PS4/XBO bloodbath.

MS has picked up some real good first party talent in the last couple of years, unfortunately we've also been going through a debilitating real world pandemic which has crippled a lot of the industry, and the studios they picked up already had prior obligations to put out before the ink was signed (Deathloop, Ghostwire etc).

So we haven't even really started seeing any of their purchases take effect. 2023 with Redfall and Starfield will be the first time Bethesda made games will come out under MS studios, that's 2+ years after they first bought the studio. In an ideal world without the pandemic, Bethesda alone would have put out 2, 3 new exclusive games since being bought.
 

Ozriel

M$FT
Microsoft could pay to get every one of those same games on GamePass, without buying the Publisher outright. Why are you all acting as if MS had to spend $80 Billion to get a bunch of games on GamePass?

Because it’s not all about Gamepass. They’ll sell millions at retail, including cash from Switch 2 ports. They like the revenue too. And the talent they’re acquiring.
 

JackMcGunns

Member
Microsoft also pays to keep games away from PS+
FEB 03, 2020
Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Epic Mickey 2: The Power of Two, Pumped BMX Pro, RAGE, and The Jackbox Party Pack 2 will be leaving the service within the next few weeks.
https://www.thegamer.com/xbox-game-pass-removing-games-shadow-tomb-raider/#:~:text=Xbox Game Pass will soon,the best deals in gaming

March 3, 2020

Shadow of the Tomb Raider join PS Now​

https://blog.playstation.com/archiv...lfenstein-ii-join-the-ps4-service-next-month/


Pivot, strawman, what do you call this? #MS TOO

Nice try buddy
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
There track record is fine, apart from a near catastrophic error with the xbox one ( which almost took rare with it) the OG xbox the 360, one x and now the series consoles are/were great. They've released some fantastic games.

What great IP have they created in the 20+ years they've been around?

It seems to me even when things start out hot with externally acquired IP like Halo or Gears, as soon as its production moves to an internal team... things don't seem to go from strength to strength :D

So, again I'm asking what makes you confident that moving to a MS management team is going to maintain or improve quality of output?

This is the crux of the matter if you get past the platform-war bollocks: Is the transfer of ownership going to be beneficial to the work? Or is it going to go the way the EA takeover of Westwood went?

And please, for the Love of God stop pretending that MS are going to give all their acquisitions a free hand to do whatever they like forever, without financial consequence or oversight! The bigger the roster the less painful it becomes to cut underperforming members. Netflix cuts shows all the time, but the so-called "Netflix of gaming" is going to be a creative utopia?!?

Above all else, when a company get absorbed under a giant corporate umbrella, what it means is their fate is no longer their own. They are existentially bound to the good graces of their corporate masters, and that grace can be a very fickle thing. This is why I dislike consolidation.
 
Yeah. The reality is that all these acquisitions are cheered on because of tribalism. We can pretend it’s for some other reason but I’d say it’s bs. The reality is that MS could do Gamepass deals without owning them, like they do with A Plague Tale and like they did with Outriders.
MS isn't forcing these companies to sell themselves lol

These companies were already actively trying to be brought and MS has the money to buy them so they did.

In the long run, It does make more sense to own the IP outright then try to make those one off deals for game pass.
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
MS isn't forcing these companies to sell themselves lol

These companies were already actively trying to be brought and MS has the money to buy them so they did.

In the long run, It does make more sense to own the IP outright then try to make those one off deals for game pass.
Its disingenuous people who want Microsoft to play the game on Sony’s turf of marketing deals, money hats and others deals where it is much cheaper for the dominant market leader. Instead of Microsoft fighting on its own terms were its better to own the content maker and build a portfolio of studios. Pay more upfront instead of multiple bad deals where you have to over pay being last place in the market.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Its disingenuous people who want Microsoft to play the game on Sony’s turf of marketing deals, money hats and others deals where it is much cheaper for the dominant market leader. Instead of Microsoft fighting on its own terms were its better to own the content maker and build a portfolio of studios. Pay more upfront instead of multiple bad deals where you have to over pay being last place in the market.

Completely agree. It seems like a no brainer that it'll be much cheaper in the long run to own a good portion of the day one content on GP. Especially since there is now competition in the console game subscription market (which will likely lead to bidding wars over quality content).
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It seems to me even when things start out hot with externally acquired IP like Halo or Gears, as soon as its production moves to an internal team... things don't seem to go from strength to strength :D

So, again I'm asking what makes you confident that moving to a MS management team is going to maintain or improve quality of output?

Because Unlike Gears (Epic) and and Halo (Bungie), the same studios which created the IP you're talking about will continue to make it under MS Studios as well (CoD - all the Activision subsidiaries), (Starfield/TESVI/Fallout Next - Bethesda).

So that takes care of the concern you have about the perceived management of the IP.


Completely agree. It seems like a no brainer that it'll be much cheaper in the long run to own a good portion of the day one content on GP. Especially since there is now competition in the console game subscription market (which will likely lead to bidding wars over quality content).

It's not just about new day 1 content either, all the legacy content that comes with Activision will also bolster Game Pass substantially.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Microsoft has waaaaay more cards then they’ve ever had. Practically the entire western AAA FPS market will be controlled by Microsoft. More huge franchises then ever before will fall exclusively under Microsoft’s umbrella.
Microsoft also has more money to throw around, so it can get worse for Sony.

I have no horse in this race, but even as a long time Playstation fan - I think Sony can wind up in a very rough spot.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said except I think PlayStation will be fine. I think this is the most competitive it has ever been and that is a good thing. But I don't think Microsoft has Sony over a barrel here.
 

Menzies

Banned
Above all else, when a company get absorbed under a giant corporate umbrella, what it means is their fate is no longer their own. They are existentially bound to the good graces of their corporate masters, and that grace can be a very fickle thing. This is why I dislike consolidation.
That's true.

Conversely, we now have great creative minds in Brian Fargo and Tim Schafer able to rest easy at night without the stresses of 'can I juggle business ownership, keep all my staff employed, AND make great games'. Now they can solely focus on what they do best.

I don't blame them for choosing this path.
 

Kagey K

Banned
Its disingenuous people who want Microsoft to play the game on Sony’s turf of marketing deals, money hats and others deals where it is much cheaper for the dominant market leader. Instead of Microsoft fighting on its own terms were its better to own the content maker and build a portfolio of studios. Pay more upfront instead of multiple bad deals where you have to over pay being last place in the market.
The thing is those moneyhat deals literally just pay to keep the game off competitors platforms.

By buying the studio you are actively trying to grow your business by taking on all the extra risks like fully funding their games, paying their employees’ salaries, providing them with health benefits, and then reaping the rewards of said risk.

It's 2 very different strategies.

1 uses its strength as market leader to try to hurt the competition, the other uses its financial strength to assume the risks in order prevent it from happening.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said except I think PlayStation will be fine. I think this is the most competitive it has ever been and that is a good thing. But I don't think Microsoft has Sony over a barrel here.

Yes, Sony are exaggerating and trying to put roadblocks in the way of the acquisition with their "we can't compete".

They'll be just fine, especially as they will continue to get some of Acti's games for the next couple of years to come, if not all.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Yes, Sony are exaggerating and trying to put roadblocks in the way of the acquisition with their "we can't compete".

They'll be just fine, especially as they will continue to get some of Acti's games for the next couple of years to come, if not all.

Sony and Microsoft are both exaggerating. They have corporate lawyers they pay a ton of money to exaggerate every single issue. If Sony were the one merging with Activision then MS would exaggerate and complain just as much. Corporations doing what corporations do.
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
That's true.

Conversely, we now have great creative minds in Brian Fargo and Tim Schafer able to rest easy at night without the stresses of 'can I juggle business ownership, keep all my staff employed, AND make great games'. Now they can solely focus on what they do best.

I don't blame them for choosing this path.

Creative leadership is important, but ultimately its all about money. Because without funding you're dead in the water.

Honestly, I just feel that with MS corporate strategy for gaming being what it is, I'd be a lot happier if they were sinking the same money they are spending on acquisitions into building up their first party organically. Because it seems to me that in the end everything will live or die purely on the basis of how well it serves that strategy.
 
Creative leadership is important, but ultimately its all about money. Because without funding you're dead in the water.

Honestly, I just feel that with MS corporate strategy for gaming being what it is, I'd be a lot happier if they were sinking the same money they are spending on acquisitions into building up their first party organically. Because it seems to me that in the end everything will live or die purely on the basis of how well it serves that strategy.
They've said that perfect dark is their most expensive game in development, brand new studio

Fable is also being made a new studio (under playground, but this will be their first game)
 
Top Bottom