feynoob
Gold Member
Tomb Raider is the only evidence we have.
-
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.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
PaintTinJr
Member
When did that become an indie -AA game, and how is it post acquisition - where Microsoft have to take up the sole responsibility of marketing of Activision's games to keep the revenue ABK was generating pre-acquisition flowing?
There's also the question of whether that deal would have been signed in a post-acquisition world by Microsoft.
The situation of a 3rd party game failing by being crowded out by other third-parties' games releasing is a completely different problem for a dev/publisher than being drowned out by a platform holder's own owned games.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
It's a competitive market. Microsoft is allowed to compete with Sony if they want to. I don't see why it's anything else. If Sony was a state owned monopoly (for example) no competition would be allowed.
Anyways in a competitive market someone is market leader because the simply sell their products better than the competition. However the competition is allowed to make changes so they can gain market share. Which is exactly what Microsoft is doing.
It's why competitive markets are beautiful. The competition can make mistakes and lose market share. But they also can make changes that improve their situation which Microsoft has done.
Its OK for a market leader to exist in a competive market as long as they don't behave like an illegal monopoly.
feynoob
Gold Member
Can xbox compete with PS, without MS money?
Cheezewizz
Banned
I don't believe I ever insinuated that Sony was a monopoly, or that any of the console manufacturers weren't able to compete.
We can agree or disagree as to how competitive the console market is currently, but I don't think we're that far apart in our thinking. For the most part, they are able to compete, and by acquiring ABK, that's exactly what MS are doing.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
That's a retarded question.
Can PlayStation compete without Sony money?
You honestly don't understand how this works correct?
It's not like PlayStation Is free for Sony. There are plenty of costs that Sony has to pay to run PlayStation.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
They are already competing without that company. I don't see why it's impossible for Microsoft to compete with Sony. I mean if they need to buy up the entire market to compete then their problems are a lot more serious than I suspect.
feynoob
Gold Member
The point is, Xbox needs insane amount of money from MS to stay competitive.
When you are spending that much money, are you even in a fair competition? Do you even have the same chance as your competition?
That is the point here.
MasterCornholio
Member
Why would Microsoft need to spend that amount of money to compete?
Can't they be more efficient with it?
I mean Sony is a lot smaller than Microsoft but they seem to do fine when it comes to the playstation division.
Really miss their VAIOS though......
phil_t98
#SonyToo
am talking if guardians a massive game can be successful so can indie games but your agenda against anything xbox related in this thread blinkers you from seeing that
PaintTinJr
Member
Well, they could have spent their money replicating PlayStation's business model verbatim to detach themselves from needing that money by being self-sufficient and a net-positive for Microsoft - like PlayStation has been in every generation except the PS3 AFAIK.
Maybe that brings up a wider question: should every company feel they can enter the console games industry and compete? Maybe Microsoft were never the right company to join the market and better placed companies like Samsung or ABK - that excel in hardware sales or game software sales - would have been better entrants.
PaintTinJr
Member
You aren't replying in context to the argument I made. I'm talking post-acquisition, and always have been, and am talking about the lack of motivation for Microsoft to promote indie - AA games without external pressure post acquisition, compared to PlayStation, Steam or Epic, or even Nintendo.
I've got no qualms with any of the successes Xbox has had- even the exclusive CoD arrangements in the 360/X1 years, except for the parity clauses for Assassins Creed, etc which is just scummy to damage perception of competitors' hardware IMO and feels downright anit-competitive.
feynoob
Gold Member
How can you be efficient, when the things your competition can afford is premium to you? Tomb Raider cost them $100m for 1 year timed exclusive.
MS lost their foot with Xbox one. PS rose up with ps4. Tons of market went to them.
This gen, PS5 started at a high bar, while xbox is doing a catch up. Switch is still having a weaker hardware.
And as for xbox, the only thing that is putting them in this console field, is gamepass. Without that, they are dead console to consumers.
For marketing and exclusives for this gen, xbox would need to pay for more, due to having less markets, and they have to cover the lost sales from userbase difference.
I dont see competition here.
But that doesn't imply a monopoly. Xbox would need to be dead, for PS to be a monopoly. Vice versa.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
You talk lack of promotion? Have you seen evidence of that?
I mean didn’t Sony revamp
The game store where it moved games so the bigger releases get more spotlight than the indies.
Xbox had no deal with COD during the X1 and that’s the second time I had to correct you on that.
Topher
Gold Member
Nintendo does just fine without CoD because the Switch user base isn't buying Switch for games like CoD. That's the point. The entire comparison is a false equivalence.
And what evidence does that give us?
Last edited:
feynoob
Gold Member
Study the history of console gaming first.
Whatever you posted only happened in different universe.
Sony become self sufficient, only after ps3 disaster. Before that, they were no different than what Nintendo was doing before.
MS main enemy is themselves. They throw away a good place, just so they can do TV. They are to blame themselves for xbox one, and what happened after that.
I dont even blame PS for doing what they are doing now. Companies need to make their products attractive.
feynoob
Gold Member
100m is too much for 1 year timed exclusive. MS got robbed so bad there.
PaintTinJr
Member
I'm talking about post acquisition promotion of other games, and why they might all close ranks and lean towards PlayStation, to use PlayStation time-exclusion as a stalking horse to get Xbox's interest and a pay out to publish on Xbox because they have boundless money going by the 40% overpay of ABK at $70b.
It has been mentioned multiple times by others that the 360 CoD deal extended into the first year or two of X1 launch. I'm sure others I'm paraphrasing will be along to mention that, soon enough.
Topher
Gold Member
If we don't know how much Sony pays for exclusives then we can't say MS pays any more or less than Sony.
MasterCornholio
Member
Just because the competition fails doesn't mean the market isn't competitive. Your only making Microsoft look like sore losers when they did the opposite. They brought many positive changes to the market which has helped their position. If the market was a monopoly they wouldn't be able to do that.
In short you either have a competitive market or a monopoly you can't have both.
feynoob
Gold Member
The math usually goes like this.
How much money are they going to lose from the other side.
If the competition has alot of userbase, then the price goes up, since that is alot of sales lost.
So the more userbase your competition has, the more money you need to fork.
If you are the one with higher userbase, you usually get charged less, depends on how much higher your userbase is compared to the competition.
HoofHearted
Member
Man.. there's some serious drugs being passed around in this thread..
Ya'll need to pony up and share..
Ya'll need to pony up and share..
phil_t98
#SonyToo
You have no clue what you are talking about
In one breath earlier in the thread you talk about microsoft not wanting to loose out on COD money on the PS but now other studios would be happy to loose the Microsoft money lol
Console warring at its finest
The ps4 came out in November 2013 and the deal for COD marketing and timed exclusive maps came into for with PS in 2014.
The last COD game to have marketing with Microsoft was call of duty ghosts which. Launched on 350/ps3 but also worked on Xbox one and ps4. Sony had the exclusivity the whole of last gen and this gen
feynoob
Gold Member
Topher
Gold Member
Eh....I'm seeing more assumptions than math here, but ok....
HoofHearted
Member
Cant, i am little short on them.
GhostOfTsu
Banned
You're the one that needs to be corrected. MS had the marketing rights for the launch of Xbox one and the next. They even had limited COD consoles and exclusive DLC. You like to go back in history and spew BS. Enough.
Amazon.com: Xbox One Limited Edition Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Bundle : Video Games
Amazon.com: Xbox One Limited Edition Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Bundle : Video Games
www.amazon.com
Last edited:
NO, Xbox couldn't. In fact, without that endorsement, XBOX would have disappeared years ago or never existed.
The reality is that the console market is not a competitive market. It is closed to the entry of new manufacturers and the reason is only one: The brand power and dominant position of PlayStation.
If today there are 3 manufacturers, it is only because Nintendo knew how to reinvent itself and be successful when it was on the verge of ruin and tried to compete with PS. And Xbox exists solely because it has MS support behind it. A support that was once in doubt and in fact many here (who say it is a healthy competitive market) predicted (and celebrated) its disappearance a few years ago.
Thats the reality. It is almost impossible to compete with the PlayStation brand as equals.
Now just imagine that a company decided to enter the console market as a manufacturer... What would it have to do to compete against PS other than buying studios, important Ips and spending tons of more money than Sony?
That is why the CMA's concern that the acquisition of ACTV could hinder the entry of new competition is surprising... LOL, as if it were possible today. CMA should worry more because the existing one doesn't disappear.
MasterCornholio
Member
feynoob
Gold Member
HoofHearted
Member
giphy is your friend.. not sure original source though..
MasterCornholio
Member
HoofHearted
Member
GhostOfTsu
Banned
No, Advanced Warfare came out in 2014 and Xbox had Marketing. Phil Spencer announced it on stage at E3. Stop lying and look on Wikipedia.
HoofHearted
Member
I'm a big fan of Jim Henson but I never remember seeing that before.
MasterCornholio
Member
No, Advanced Warfare came out in 2014 and Xbox had Marketing. Phil Spencer announced it on stage at E3. Stop lying and look on Wikipedia.
If I remember correctly Sony made a lot of mistakes with the PS3. Which gave the competition the opportunity to take advantage of those mistakes. That's exactly what happens in a competitive market.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
How is it a false equivalence? I thought the Switch users bought the system for the exclusives, Mario, Zelda, Pokemon and the like. Just like PlayStation gamers bought the system for exclusives like Last of Us, and God of War. I certainly did. People attack MS all the time for not having exclusives. Are you saying that hypothetically without 3rd party CoD people won't buy PlayStation? If Nintendo can survive without certain 3rd party titles why can't PlayStation?
This whole discussion is about whether or not MS buying Activision is an anticompetitive move. CADE determined Sony would still be very competitive in the market without a hypothetical removal of CoD do you disagree?
IFireflyl
Gold Member
Do you think we are expert in math?
I think the point is that your entire argument is hinging on speculation and assumptions. The fact is that we have no idea what Sony pays for exclusives, so we cannot properly compare them to Microsoft. Additionally, knowing Microsoft's exclusivity cost for one game doesn't give us enough data. For all we know that was an anomaly.
In the PS3 generation, Sony made such mistakes that, in a healthy competitive market, they would have meant the disappearance of any other manufacturer... and yet it ended up winning that generation in sales.
If anything shows that the PS3 generation is the power of the brand and the dominant position of PlayStation and how difficult it is to compete with that situation without a huge economic support behind it.
IFireflyl
Gold Member
Ezekiel_
Banned
Well, would it be easier for a new entrant without CoD on its system, or with it? I think you agree with the CMA here
feynoob
Gold Member
Its revolved around covering the lost sales that could result in the other platform.
Timed exclusive means, the other side wont get that game. That results in losing sales from that particular platform. The publisher/dev does the math around those lost sales, and charge you the result of that math.
If A game sells 5m total, and the total break down is 2m on ps, 1.5m is on pc, and 1.5m is on xbox, Ms would need to pay those 2m sales on PS. While PS would need to pay 1.5m of xbox sales. Which essentially means, MS would pay extra .5m sales.
MasterCornholio
Member
I don't know why you blaming Sony for this to be honest. Seems like they learnt from their Mistakes with the PS3 and that's helped them to perform a lot better. It's how a competitive market should work.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Are you making a serious argument here or just arguing in bad faith like usual
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Because there is no equating the importance of Nintendo first party to PS or Xbox. PS/Xbox best sellers are mostly multiplatform. PS/Xbox first party is important, but third party is obviously much more crucial for them than it is for Nintendo. That isn't even remotely a controversial statement. The best sellers make this clear. Nintendo is dominated by Nintendo first party. That's the primary reason why gamers buy Switch. Thus, saying Nintendo is proof of anything when it comes to CoD on PS or Xbox is absurd.
Microsoft was making promises to keep CoD on PlayStation before the deal reached any regulatory desk. If that doesn't highlight the franchises importance then I don't know what does. CADE can't predict the future and neither can I. Could Sony recover without CoD? Possibly? Could CoD exclusivity lead to a very dark future for PS? Possibly.
Last edited:
To blame? LOL. I was just arguing with your reasoning.
The reality is that if anything shows that generation of PS3 is the power of the brand and position of dominance of PlayStation. For another brand, this type of serious errors would have even cost them the disappearance and yet it only cost Sony to win by less difference.
The reality is that there is no healthy competition in today's market. It is impossible to compete on equal terms with PlayStation.
Entering the console market today against Playstation would only be possible for Amazon, Google or Apple and if they did, rest assured that they would do so with the formula of buying Studios, publishers and large Ips because there would be no other way.
What this reality reflects is anything but a market with healthy competition.
MasterCornholio
Member
I'm still not seeing the market as a monopoly though. Microsoft can compete with Sony if they want especially since they have a lot more capital than them.
The market is competitive. But not competitors are equal and that's normal for this type of market.
feynoob
Gold Member
That is a very bad comparison.
COD is integral part of PS.
10m of cod users are ps+ users. 10m sales of cod is 600m*0.30=180m*8=$1.44b lost sales. Not to mention, losing those 10m userbase, who would buy other games, and paying for mtx on cod, and other games.
You are essentially taking a big revenue from Sony.
Its not. But taking COD from PS is. But MS wouldnt allow that move anyway, as they are losing alot of money, and would allow Sony to make their own shooter game.
It would be exactly as difficult.
With or without acquisition through the only ones that could enter the console market today would be Apple, Google or Amazon and rest assured that they would do so with the same formula of buying Studios, publishers and famous IPS.
That in the end is what shows that there is no healthy competition in the current console market.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked