modiz
Member
For sure, his words on this show pure joy and excitement!
-
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.
Sony appreciates "the CMA’s focus on protecting gamers" as it welcomes the announcement to further investigate the Activision acquisition
- Thread starter FalsettoVibe
- Start date
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
It's funny how they refused to comment on DF asking them why Halo coop is working but cant be released officially. Straight up said we politely decline to comment.Microsoft have responded:
Sony: "Giving Microsoft control of Activision games like Call of Duty" has "major negative implications"
UPDATE 5pm UK: In a statement to Eurogamer, a Microsoft spokesperson has addressed Sony's statement: "It makes zero bus…www.eurogamer.net
Making statements directly to Eurogamer huh?
But this? Get on the phone to EG nao!
pasterpl
Member
What power are you referring to? Any fps multiplayer game that would be exclusive to single platform cannot compete with game like cod available on Xbox, pc(+steam), cloud (potentially switch). More players, more money, more engagement (mtx).
Topher
Gold Member
"It makes zero business sense to remove CoD from the leading platform"*
*But we will use it to become the leading platform
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Hey nothing stopped Sega from locking those games down themselves. Maybe if they didn't earmark $1 billion to Joypolis, some of that money could've gone towards a Tomb Raider exclusivity contract.
But Sega didn't care much about Western partnerships that generation anyway, otherwise they'd of done a lot of things different. And I say that having lots of love for Saturn (Japanese Saturn specifically but still).
AtomicStarving
Member
Bernd Lauert
Banned
Uncle Phil explicitly said that they're not burning any money and not using the loss leader strategy. People just need to accept the success of Gamepass and move on instead of spreading lies
3liteDragon
Member
LmfaoMicrosoft have responded:
Sony: "Giving Microsoft control of Activision games like Call of Duty" has "major negative implications"
UPDATE 5pm UK: In a statement to Eurogamer, a Microsoft spokesperson has addressed Sony's statement: "It makes zero bus…
Making statements directly to Eurogamer huh?
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Media outlets have been reduced to being messenger boys
Wonder who'll deliver Jim's response next. Sluts
Last edited:
Interfectum
Member
None of this is an emotional reaction from Jim or Sony. This is a calculated play. It potentially buys them more years of COD, allows for government intervention should MS finally pull COD away in a few years, sets Sony up to go after Microsoft again should they buy another publisher and opens up Sony to make a huge publisher purchase should regulators let MS go through with this.
Ol' Jimmy is thinking long term here as most CEOs do unlike Twatters who think about the past 5 minutes.
Ol' Jimmy is thinking long term here as most CEOs do unlike Twatters who think about the past 5 minutes.
GHG
Member
They only use Eurogamer as a positive PR outlet. Everyone knows that.
pasterpl
Member
And loose 500 m usd a year?They got the power of removing COD from PS rn
Frank Horrigan
Banned
Microsoft have responded:
Sony: "Giving Microsoft control of Activision games like Call of Duty" has "major negative implications"
UPDATE 5pm UK: In a statement to Eurogamer, a Microsoft spokesperson has addressed Sony's statement: "It makes zero bus…
Making statements directly to Eurogamer huh?
How many people were questioning the "business sense" logic of going 100% exclusive? Now it's straight from the horses mouth.
Last edited:
Bernd Lauert
Banned
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Uncle Phil explicitly said that they're not burning any money and not using the loss leader strategy. People just need to accept the success of Gamepass and move on instead of spreading lies
"Reinvesting" is not "burning."
Why is it so hard for them to say the word ... now hang in there ... you still there? "Profit."
They go out of there way with other words and filler, NOT to say it.
Last edited:
GHG
Member
Don't worry, I've got your name on that board as well.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
I have a question for my fellow blue rats:
Would you rather:
A) The acquisition to be blocked.
B) Sony buying Capcom/SquareEnix/Kojima Productions?
Would you rather:
A) The acquisition to be blocked.
B) Sony buying Capcom/SquareEnix/Kojima Productions?
skit_data
Member
Idk if posted but here goes
Edit: Interesting that Hoeg says he personally thinks it’s a ”70 to 30 that the deal goes through”. That’s a way higher risk of it not doing so than I anticipated.
Edit2: He later clarifies that he seem to think it would go through in some form or another so I really don’t understand why he said the earlier about 70 to 30 unless he means specifically in its current form.
Edit: Interesting that Hoeg says he personally thinks it’s a ”70 to 30 that the deal goes through”. That’s a way higher risk of it not doing so than I anticipated.
Edit2: He later clarifies that he seem to think it would go through in some form or another so I really don’t understand why he said the earlier about 70 to 30 unless he means specifically in its current form.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Topher
Gold Member
Uncle Phil explicitly said that they're not burning any money and not using the loss leader strategy. People just need to accept the success of Gamepass and move on instead of spreading lies
What he said:
“I know there's a lot of people that like to write [that] we're burning cash right now for some future pot of gold at the end,” Spencer said. “No. Game Pass is very, very sustainable right now as it sits. And it continues to grow.”
There is a lot of room for interpretation but the only thing he explicitly said was that Game Pass was "very, very sustainable" and growing.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Definitely. This ABK purchase will set a precedent one way or another. Either way, the independent, open free market of 3P developers that was ironically established by Activision back in the 1970s, is in jeopardy of being reduced to effectively nothing if this acquisition goes through because if Meta, Apple, Amazon etc. want to make a big publisher buy, they can just point to MS buying Zenimax & ABK and leverage it for their own moves.
It's also ironic if things go down that route, since Microsoft partly made both acquisitions in order to try intimidating those companies from making further inroads into console gaming, but they could end up having the opposite effect. It's kind of like when Sega came through with the Genesis/MegaDrive and how that opened the doors for other manufacturers to try their shot like 3DO/Panasonic, Philips, Fujitsu, and eventually Sony. But the big differences between that and this being, Sega weren't trying to intimidate other companies from jumping in; they just wanted to challenge Nintendo. And ultimately, the only business models that were being challenged were in the way of draconian anti-competitive clauses Nintendo themselves built the NES/Famicom empire upon.
If Microsoft incidentally set a precedent where other massive companies buy up many of the remaining large and mid-sized publishers, can that actually lead to a contraction of gaming content in the market? Since the new owners won't need as many active IP (they just want the small number that bring the most money), I think it would, and that's troublesome. Can it lead to higher prices for customers down the line? Since singular massive entities would now own so many IP and control the distribution and availability of that IP, they can artificially limit certain types of availability and use that to increase costs over time to customers. We've already seen Disney do this several times over the years, why would it not eventually happen with gaming?
Those are other things I think (or hope) the regulators are taking into account; the precedent (regardless of Microsoft's intent) the acquisition of ABK (without certain concessions) will have on the future stability of the industry as it currently exists, and the enabling it can provide for other massive conglomerates to replicate MS's strategy with even greater of ease. Let alone how this could affect Sony or Nintendo (or see them try jumping in making similar acquisitions).
Roxkis_ii
Member
I would pick A.
At least with timed exclusives, people may have a chance to play later.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
kyliethicc
Member
It’s more than that. And it’s basically “free” money.
They’d lose so much money from Plus subs and microtransactions, along with the game sales, that Sony themselves barely have to spend any money to earn, that it would literally shrink their company spending budgets. Sony’s 1st party game budgets can be industry highs because of reliable annual 3rd party game revenues that don’t require much investment from Sony. Basically if CoD goes, then Insomniac & Naughty Dog etc will get their budgets cut, and more.
SLB1904
Banned
Option c
Build studios from the ground up and make new games.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Id say it already has. This is what rock bottom looks like. I remember a Gamespot journalist confirmed rumors that Jimbo was out there buying everything from Final Fantasy to Starfield exclusivity and that likely forced MS's hand. I think MS got fed up with the timed exclusive nonsense and went nuclear 2 years ago. These are just the after shocks or simply the aftermath of what happens when idiots go too far and think a trillion dollar company can be outbid.
I have been saying this for a while now, but no one spends $75 billion to buy an exclusive. MS's only objective here was to drive sony out of the business or maybe if Sony was willing, maybe bring them into the gamepass fold. There is no other explanation for this when Ubisoft, Capcom, SE, Take2, and FromSoft all cost $20 billion less than Activision combined. If their goal was content, they wouldve bought everything else. They just got fed up with being last place, being bullied by a $100 billion company, and simply said fuck it, we are going nuclear.
This move is not healthy for the industry. Greenlighting Avowed and Hellblade 2 and giving them big $100 million budgets is. This is just a fuck you move that is designed to limit competition and its as dirty a move as there is. Its funny to see both used car salesmen go down in the dirt and fight because thats exactly what ive been calling them for the last few years. Whoever wins, we lose.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
i didn't put option C. A or B?
SLB1904
Banned
Guilty_AI
Member
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Agreed.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
i am getting triggered.
tmlDan
Member
I guess you'd rather lose $500M a year instead of trying to retain it and potentially increase it in future growth.
Makes sense. /s
SLB1904
Banned
3liteDragon
Member
I think he predicted 80-20 way before, someone correct me on that.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
70-30 I think.
ChiefDada
Gold Member
The above is why I would selfishly choose option A (even though overall I don't believe the acquisition is monopolistic). I understand how important CoD is to the livelihood of the Sony first party games that I love.
GHG
Member
This is the most perfect summary of the current executive situation with these two companies that I've seen yet.
MasterCornholio
Member
modiz
Member
Sure buddy.
SteelCurtain 59
Member
Are we just assuming all the people who play COD every year are simply going to say "oh well, this game I love isn't on Playstation anymore, but I must continue to be a loyal Playstation customer so I'll just find an alternative to COD that's available on my Playstation".
A very very large chunk of COD players will buy an Xbox (even if it's a Series S), play on PC, or play via xCloud. And those people are the ones who spend the most on microtransactions anyways. The amount of people that would stubbornly stay on Playstation and just stop playing COD wouldn't be some majority of COD players. And every customer that switches from Playstation to Xbox ecosystem would be a substantial revenue difference. I'm not saying whether it will or won't be exclusive, but there's plenty of sound business logic given COD's popularity that it could reasonably attract a lot of people over to Xbox, similar to how marketing deals caused the COD community to largely switch from 360 to PS4
Thirty7ven
Banned
A)
Personally I would only want to see Sony do those kind of acquisitions if it were a matter of life and death so to speak.
At the end of the day what gamers should want is for thriving third party’s, Sony/MS/Nintendo pouring money on third parties for exclusive content which effectively makes those companies healthier and allows them to take more risks, and for the big three to make game experiences that ultimately third parties aren’t creating or creating enough of. That’s what an healthy industry looks like.
Extreme consolidation is terrible, buying independent devs with barely any IP is one thing, but this thing MS is doing is only good for short sighted fanboys.
If MS went out there and dropped cash on AB to get COD day one on gamepass then hey more power to them, nobody is actually losing.
Banjo64
cumsessed
GHG
Member
Imagine Facefuck, Google or anyone buying Nintendo
Facefucks are fun when you're not on the receiving end.
Poor princess peach.
Ghost of Caelid
Banned
Not at the hands of UKs regulations. If UK acting funny then US approves UK will fall in line. Only if US has massive issues maybe.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked