Support NeoGAF

[Three]

MS also has the capital to grow all the Activision studios as well. If they double the devs in Infinity Ward, Trayarch and Sledgehammer for instance, they could free up the other studios and keep COD annually.

If they wanted to do that why wouldn't they just do that at Rare for Banjo? Why would it require the Toys for Bob studio name but hiring different personnel anyway?

 

[DrFigs]

MS also has the capital to grow all the Activision studios as well. If they double the devs in Infinity Ward, Trayarch and Sledgehammer for instance, they could free up the other studios and keep COD annually.

I think it will be an interesting challenge for xbox's management to have that many employees if that's the route they go. But I think really the xbox team would be shooting themselves in the foot by changing literally anything Activision is doing right now, including the yearly releases or moving dev teams away from COD to do budget titles (?). I think what's more likely is that they just hire third party devs to make smaller games, like what Sony sometimes does. like for example sumo digital making little big planet games or whatever.

 

[In Cold Blood]

c'mon now.

Why not? MS short of a quid?

 

[Ozriel]

You think they didn't on ABK?
Get people to say it's because of Nintendo signing contracts for exclusivity of Monster Hunter Rise, Octopath 1, Triangle strategy etc so it's the only way for Sony to compete, pie chart of marketshare of game sales in Japan presented in a hotel conference room, list first party Nintendo games, 10yr deal with Amazon for Final Fantasy on luna and Fire Tablets once the deal goes through. Boom, done deal.

In all seriousness, do you think ABK going through is less market shifting than Capcom or SE? That's crazy.

They asked Nintendo. They supported the deal because Microsoft promised to bring COD to Nintendo platforms and because MS has a history of bringing games to Switch on a case-by-case basis.

It would be immeasurably difficult for a successful argument that Nintendo exclusivity for Triangle Strategy and Harvestella outweighs deals for Forspoken, FFXVI, FF14 and FF7 Remake.

Not to mention that the CMA and EC look at sales in the UK and EU where Sony is really strong.

More importantly, there are no real arguments Sony can make to say they need Capcom or SE. They already get the games coming from those guys (including exclusivity deals) and are in a position of market dominance in terms of marketshare, mindshare and revenue. They also don’t have any history like MS does with the likes of Minecraft. And of course, their strategy towards exclusivity is well known.

I don’t think it would go as easy as some of you think. At least, not without being forced to sign behavioral remedies.

 

[Yoboman]

The reality is Microsoft are not hands on managers. ABK will manage itself as it has been the last decade, same as Bethesda have been. With the change that some of their games now exclude PlayStation and they have to be on Gamepass day one

If anything they may increase developers working on COD to keep on schedule with the addition of Nintendo platforms

 

[DrFigs]

They asked Nintendo. They supported the deal because Microsoft promised to bring COD to Nintendo platforms and because MS has a history of bringing games to Switch on a case-by-case basis.

It would be immeasurably difficult for a successful argument that Nintendo exclusivity for Triangle Strategy and Harvestella outweighs deals for Forspoken, FFXVI, FF14 and FF7 Remake.

Not to mention that the CMA and EC look at sales in the UK and EU where Sony is really strong.

More importantly, there are no real arguments Sony can make to say they need Capcom or SE. They already get the games coming from those guys (including exclusivity deals) and are in a position of market dominance in terms of marketshare, mindshare and revenue. They also don’t have any history like MS does with the likes of Minecraft. And of course, their strategy towards exclusivity is well known.

I don’t think it would go as easy as some of you think. At least, not without being forced to sign behavioral remedies.

Call of Duty makes a lot more revenue on playstation than on Xbox, but that doesn't seem to matter. This would be an insane outcome if they allowed the 70 billion dollar acquisition, but not whatever <10 billion it would cost for Square enix and capcom. just on the face of it.

edit: ah sorry i misread your comment. i think my first sentence is not responding to what you were saying about exclusivity deals that sony and nintendo have w/ square.

 

[In Cold Blood]

I think it will be an interesting challenge for xbox's management to have that many employees if that's the route they go. But I think really the xbox team would be shooting themselves in the foot by changing literally anything Activision is doing right now, including the yearly releases or moving dev teams away from COD to do budget titles (?). I think what's more likely is that they just hire third party devs to make smaller games, like what Sony sometimes does. like for example sumo digital making little big planet games or whatever.

With ABK, Bethesda and Xbox Studios they have around 18,000 employees. By comparison Ubisoft has 20,000 and Embracer Group has around 16,000.
For the output MS has far bigger and better IP than both of them.
They could grow that by 2000 more to build up the COD studios without any real dramas.

 

[TheGodfather07]

They asked Nintendo. They supported the deal because Microsoft promised to bring COD to Nintendo platforms and because MS has a history of bringing games to Switch on a case-by-case basis.

It would be immeasurably difficult for a successful argument that Nintendo exclusivity for Triangle Strategy and Harvestella outweighs deals for Forspoken, FFXVI, FF14 and FF7 Remake.

Not to mention that the CMA and EC look at sales in the UK and EU where Sony is really strong.

More importantly, there are no real arguments Sony can make to say they need Capcom or SE. They already get the games coming from those guys (including exclusivity deals) and are in a position of market dominance in terms of marketshare, mindshare and revenue. They also don’t have any history like MS does with the likes of Minecraft. And of course, their strategy towards exclusivity is well known.

I don’t think it would go as easy as some of you think. At least, not without being forced to sign behavioral remedies.

i dont think sony will even try to get any japanese publishers simply because there is no threat of microsoft getting them. it would be western publisher that they go for to balance it out a little bit. the only significant thing they can get from japan that would make a difference would be kadokawa.

 

[Ozriel]

"Sony has chosen not to compete with MS on a subscription service while MS has gone all in."

Give me a F break..... ya geez I wonder why Sony hasnt chosen to pursue that path. Maybe because they realize without fudging the numbers to look favorable it really isnt that profitable to do and they cant take massive losses like MS can with money made OUTSIDE of Xbox. Even right now Phil himself has stated they lose over $100-$200 on every console they are selling as well.

This casual belief that Microsoft is taking massive losses with GamePass seems rooted in wishful thinking. Because there’s no metric or information out there that suggest this.

Frankly, the same goes for Microsoft (who are actually the desperate ones here). Why anyone thinks that they're going to be able to manage 30+ studios and 2 publishing arms when they're having trouble with their current number, and have had trouble with a number that could be counted on less than 2 hands is beyond me.

No management issues at Bethesda, and it’s unlikely you’d find the same at Activision. These are being run as subsidiary divisions under Microsoft Games, and retain much of their leadership structure.

The ‘mismanagement’ reported at XGS affects just a handful of studios and nothing suggests those are not fixable.

 

[DrFigs]

With ABK, Bethesda and Xbox Studios they have around 18,000 employees. By comparison Ubisoft has 20,000 and Embracer Group has around 16,000.
For the output MS has far bigger and better IP than both of them.
They could grow that by 2000 more to build up the COD studios without any real dramas.

Yeah i don't think Embracer group and Ubisoft are examples of companies that are doing well managing a large staff

 

[Heisenberg007]

Questions for Xbox bros:

• What do you think Sony will do to respond to this acquisition once approved?
• What would you be okay with? And what would you be not?

A few examples to clarify the questions:

• Sony may stay the course: increase current studios organically by adding more developers and buying smaller studios every now and then.
• Sony may start acquiring smaller publishers (< $10 billion): SquareEnix, Capcom, CDPR, FromSoftware, Ubisoft, Sega, etc.
• Sony may attempt a bigger publisher (> $10 billion): Take-Two, EA, etc.
• Sony may go all in timed-exclusivity deals.
• Sony may go all in on full-exclusivity deals for major multiplatform franchises
• Other stuff like this that I didn't list here.

What do you think they are most likely to do? And what would you be okay with/not okay with?

 

[FoxMcChief]

I have my doubts about that.

There are long queues to just play a beta. On a weekend where people are busy playing a remake to the best game ever made. Diablo 4 is gonna be crazy.

 

[TheGodfather07]

Questions for Xbox bros:

• What do you think Sony will do to respond to this acquisition once approved?
• What would you be okay with? And what would you be not?

A few examples to clarify the questions:

• Sony may stay the course: increase current studios organically by adding more developers and buying smaller studios every now and then.
• Sony may start acquiring smaller publishers (< $10 billion): SquareEnix, Capcom, CDPR, FromSoftware, Ubisoft, Sega, etc.
• Sony may attempt a bigger publisher (> $10 billion): Take-Two, EA, etc.
• Sony may go all in timed-exclusivity deals.
• Sony may go all in on full-exclusivity deals for major multiplatform franchises
• Other stuff like this that I didn't list here.

What do you think they are most likely to do? And what would you be okay with/not okay with?

xbox bros hate temporary deals, so acquisitions it is! i guess its better to not get a bunch of games at all then get a few a bit later. makes no sense to me but alot of shit doesnt make sense in todays world. you cant even call a woman a woman without somebody getting mad at you.

 

[DopeyFish]

MS also has the capital to grow all the Activision studios as well. If they double the devs in Infinity Ward, Trayarch and Sledgehammer for instance, they could free up the other studios and keep COD annually.

infinity ward and sledgehammer have both doubled in size the last 3 years

 

[Yoboman]

They asked Nintendo. They supported the deal because Microsoft promised to bring COD to Nintendo platforms and because MS has a history of bringing games to Switch on a case-by-case basis.

It would be immeasurably difficult for a successful argument that Nintendo exclusivity for Triangle Strategy and Harvestella outweighs deals for Forspoken, FFXVI, FF14 and FF7 Remake.

Not to mention that the CMA and EC look at sales in the UK and EU where Sony is really strong.

More importantly, there are no real arguments Sony can make to say they need Capcom or SE. They already get the games coming from those guys (including exclusivity deals) and are in a position of market dominance in terms of marketshare, mindshare and revenue. They also don’t have any history like MS does with the likes of Minecraft. And of course, their strategy towards exclusivity is well known.

I don’t think it would go as easy as some of you think. At least, not without being forced to sign behavioral remedies.

This whole process has made it clear that the software needs to be considered an "essential input" for it to be considered for behavioural remedy. If COD doesn't qualify then nothing does

Any and all parties can make a convincing argument for why they need X developer. Sony needs Square because of low marketshare in the Japanese market. Nintendo need Capcom because they don't have access to games in the high end console market like RE4 remake. Xbox can make all the same arguments as they have with ABK

Basically all bets are off now

 

[reksveks]

The main question that I have about Sony's strategy is whether any big buy does also commit them to being more supportive of PC as a platform that they release games onto day one. They don't have to but it feels to me that it would be the case (however I obviously don't have the revenue splits)

 

[In Cold Blood]

If they wanted to do that why wouldn't they just do that at Rare for Banjo? Why would it require the Toys for Bob studio name but hiring different personnel anyway?

Rare don't want to do Banjo or any old IPs now.

 

[FoxMcChief]

Questions for Xbox bros:

• What do you think Sony will do to respond to this acquisition once approved?
• What would you be okay with? And what would you be not?

A few examples to clarify the questions:

• Sony may stay the course: increase current studios organically by adding more developers and buying smaller studios every now and then.
• Sony may start acquiring smaller publishers (< $10 billion): SquareEnix, Capcom, CDPR, FromSoftware, Ubisoft, Sega, etc.
• Sony may attempt a bigger publisher (> $10 billion): Take-Two, EA, etc.
• Sony may go all in timed-exclusivity deals.
• Sony may go all in on full-exclusivity deals for major multiplatform franchises
• Other stuff like this that I didn't list here.

What do you think they are most likely to do? And what would you be okay with/not okay with?

As a gamer that’s owned every Nintendo, PlayStation and Xbox, I expect Sony to keep making their exclusives that keep me coming back. I wish they’d remember that have Killzone and stop with the awful Horizon games.

 

[Tomeru]

Time to call Kaz in. He will save Sony.



Again.

 

[Heisenberg007]

xbox bros hate temporary deals, so acquisitions it is! i guess its better to not get a bunch of games at all then get a few a bit later. makes no sense to me but alot of shit doesnt make sense in todays world. you cant even call a woman a woman without somebody getting mad at you.

Who do you think they will acquire then?

 

[FoxMcChief]

Rare don't want to do Banjo or any old IPs now.

I don’t blame them. Sea of Thieves (their baby) has been more successful than the old IP’s. Maybe not in certain peoples minds, but in sales and longevity, I think it has.

 

[Ozriel]

Questions for Xbox bros:

• What do you think Sony will do to respond to this acquisition once approved?
• What would you be okay with? And what would you be not?

A few examples to clarify the questions:

• Sony may stay the course: increase current studios organically by adding more developers and buying smaller studios every now and then.
• Sony may start acquiring smaller publishers (< $10 billion): SquareEnix, Capcom, CDPR, FromSoftware, Ubisoft, Sega, etc.
• Sony may attempt a bigger publisher (> $10 billion): Take-Two, EA, etc.
• Sony may go all in timed-exclusivity deals.
• Sony may go all in on full-exclusivity deals for major multiplatform franchises
• Other stuff like this that I didn't list here.

What do you think they are most likely to do? And what would you be okay with/not okay with?

I’m not sure why acquisitions or exclusivity deals are the only responses you envisage. The major change from this deal with ABK will be an increase in revenue for Microsoft, bigger presence in Mobile gaming and a much more attractive GamePass. Why can’t Sony’s response to this be to further improve their PS Plus Extra tier?

Sony’s already gone all in on full and timed exclusivity wherever they can find and afford them, so those last two bullet points are rather disingenuous.

We also know they’ve been carving out substantial budgets for acquisitions in the past few years, so they always had acquisitions for exclusive content in mind.
Hopefully, in more egregious examples, regulators can hold them to multi year access deals similar to what they’ll get from MS with ABK. Seems only fair.

 

[Heisenberg007]

The main question that I have about Sony's strategy is whether any big buy does also commit them to being more supportive of PC as a platform that they release games onto day one. They don't have to but it feels to me that it would be the case (however I obviously don't have the revenue splits)

100%.

Almost all multiplatform publishers release their games on PC, and that revenue and reach become part of their buying price. To remove a big platform like PC after the acquisition disturbs the financials.

PC and PS make up like 75-80% of the sales. By ensuring any publisher they buy continue to release on PC, it'd be easier for Sony to not release their games on Xbox and take that 20% revenue hit for long-term gains. At best, we will see delayed PC releases as in the case of Final Fantasy and other first-party PS games.

 

[In Cold Blood]

infinity ward and sledgehammer have both doubled in size the last 3 years

Double them again.
People are saying that COD is a bigger IP and makes more money than GTA.
Infinity Ward have around 500-600
Sledgehammer has around 500-600
Trayarch has around 650
By comparison Rockstar has over 5000.

 

[Snake29]

Take a puff and calm down. You sound ridiculous.

Because you don’t want to hear your lovely MS has contracts with clauses?

The whole argument is stupid AF..... idk how people dont understand a simple concept as marketing rights and not being on a competitors sub service. How stupid would you be as a company paying a ton of money to get marketing rights and then your competitor can just promote the game on their sub service day 1 basically trumping your own marketing on your console. This also doesnt take into account the actual publisher of the game might not want to put it on a sub service and wants game sales first

Xbox fanboys are tone deaf. They ignore this part, don’t want to hear this, because they are heavenly focused on painting Sony PlayStation as the evil corp, just so the can sleep every night.

And the would even blame Sony for MS Xbox their bad and inconsistent games output. If PS didn’t had any meaningful output for 3 years, the world was already on fire.

 

[FoxMcChief]

100%.

Almost all multiplatform publishers release their games on PC, and that revenue and reach become part of their buying price. To remove a big platform like PC after the acquisition disturbs the financials.

PC and PS make up like 75-80% of the sales. By ensuring any publisher they buy continue to release on PC, it'd be easier for Sony to not release their games on Xbox and take that 20% revenue hit for long-term gains. At best, we will see delayed PC releases as in the case of Final Fantasy and other first-party PS games.

That’s the thing that sucks about Sony exclusives and some third party exclusives. PC releases should always be day 1. Sony greed or whatever you want to call it needs to end.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I’m not sure why acquisitions or exclusivity deals are the only responses you envisage.

Only? I listed 6 examples + left room for others to chime in.

The major change from this deal with ABK will be an increase in revenue for Microsoft, bigger presence in Mobile gaming and a much more attractive GamePass. Why can’t Sony’s response to this be to further improve their PS Plus Extra tier?

Because subscription is a money pit; they don't increase revenue.

Sony’s already gone all in on full and timed exclusivity wherever they can find and afford them, so those last two bullet points are rather disingenuous.

Not at all. There are no timed or full exclusives from the majority of publishers: Sega, Ubisoft, EA, Koei Tecmo, Take Two, Warner Bros, CDPR, FromSoftware, etc.

There's a lot of room for Sony to expand in this area by 10x.

We also know they’ve been carving out substantial budgets for acquisitions in the past few years, so they always had acquisitions for exclusive content in mind.
Hopefully, in more egregious examples, regulators can hold them to multi year access deals similar to what they’ll get from MS with ABK. Seems only fair.

The multi-year access deal is only about COD of more than 2 dozen IPs that Microsoft has recently bought. I can see a similar arrangement for something like GTA. But why should that be the case for smaller games such as Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, Monster Hunter, Assassin's Creed, Division, Sonic, etc.?

 

[Heisenberg007]

That’s the thing that sucks about Sony exclusives and some third party exclusives. PC releases should always be day 1. Sony greed or whatever you want to call it needs to end.

Why? There is no hard-and-fast rule about that or an obligation that console manufacturers should release their games on PC day one.

Sony would do it if it makes financial sense for them. If it doesn't, they won't do it. Having said that, if they purchase any publisher, I don't expect Sony to remove day-one releases from Steam/Epic, but they won't be obligated to do so, and it wouldn't be wrong if they stop doing it.

 

[Yoboman]

I’m not sure why acquisitions or exclusivity deals are the only responses you envisage. The major change from this deal with ABK will be an increase in revenue for Microsoft, bigger presence in Mobile gaming and a much more attractive GamePass. Why can’t Sony’s response to this be to further improve their PS Plus Extra tier?

Sony’s already gone all in on full and timed exclusivity wherever they can find and afford them, so those last two bullet points are rather disingenuous.

We also know they’ve been carving out substantial budgets for acquisitions in the past few years, so they always had acquisitions for exclusive content in mind.
Hopefully, in more egregious examples, regulators can hold them to multi year access deals similar to what they’ll get from MS with ABK. Seems only fair.

How does swapping a 30% royalty to paying for licenses increase revenue?

 

[TheGodfather07]

Who do you think they will acquire then?

i have absolutely no idea but i'll take a guess that it would be a western publisher. microsoft have 2 big ones, so i reckon sony will get one and balance it out a little. theres no way they dont respond at all if microsoft get activision. they have no choice but to respond and it has to be a publisher. single studios wont cut it anymore because microsoft have changed the game.

 

[mansoor1980]

 

[FoxMcChief]

The Jim Ryan legacy will be ending soon. As a PS5 owner, I say good riddance. As an Xbox owner, I say, “lol.”

 

[Heisenberg007]

i have absolutely no idea but i'll take a guess that it would be a western publisher. microsoft have 2 big ones, so i reckon sony will get one and balance it out a little. theres no way they dont respond at all if microsoft get activision. they have no choice but to respond and it has to be a publisher. single studios wont cut it anymore because microsoft have changed the game.

Yeah. IF they decide to buy a publisher, there is a high chance it's a Western one. Japanese publishers are relatively safe from Microsoft, and Nintendo is less likely to buy one either.

The problem is that there are very few Western publishers with cherished IPs that are well-managed and cost less than $10. Ubisoft would have been an option but it's a terribly run and bloated mess that I'm sure Sony would avoid at all costs. Warner Bros. may be an option, but not sure how worthy that would be without the IPs.

 

[TheGodfather07]

Yeah. IF they decide to buy a publisher, there is a high chance it's a Western one. Japanese publishers are relatively safe from Microsoft, and Nintendo is less likely to buy one either.

The problem is that there are very few Western publishers with cherished IPs that are well-managed and cost less than $10. Ubisoft would have been an option but it's a terribly run and bloated mess that I'm sure Sony would avoid at all costs. Warner Bros. may be an option, but not sure how worthy that would be without the IPs.

lol, very few indeed for under $10.

what about EA? would give sony a bunch of established and well known ip, including battlefield. it would be easier than creating their own fps from scratch. sony can massively grow the ip by actually making good games. EA have been awful for ages. they need a shakeup.

 

[ulantan]

The Jim Ryan legacy will be ending soon. As a PS5 owner, I say good riddance. As an Xbox owner, I say, “lol.”

I mean he really hasn't done anything other than have the foresight to make some multi-player game I don't get the hate from a ps owner standpoint.

 

[Fredrik]

The main question that I have about Sony's strategy is whether any big buy does also commit them to being more supportive of PC as a platform that they release games onto day one. They don't have to but it feels to me that it would be the case (however I obviously don't have the revenue splits)

That’s my main annoyance with Sony’s exclusivity strategy. I already have all platforms, I don’t care if they buy up every studio that is still available to buy - As long as they stop doing their stupid PC game delays!
What’s the deal? They get their fans to 1) double dip and first buy a console version and later a PC version, or 2) buy a console version and then get angry when a better version comes to PC that they should’ve bought instead, or 3) patiently wait for a PC version and have everything in the story spoiled til the release. It’s just a shit strategy.

 

[Three]

They asked Nintendo. They supported the deal because Microsoft promised to bring COD to Nintendo platforms and because MS has a history of bringing games to Switch on a case-by-case basis.

Come on now. They barely brought anything to Nintendo platforms that wasn't through an aquisition to begin with. The only thing I can think of is Ori. Why couldn't Sony do the same if they made an aquisition and have some SE or Capcom games come to Nintendo platforms. Just say it's like MLB The Show.

It would be immeasurably difficult for a successful argument that Nintendo exclusivity for Triangle Strategy and Harvestella outweighs deals for Forspoken, FFXVI, FF14 and FF7 Remake.

I said Octopath Traveller not Harvestella, we can add that to the list though. what about capcom and Monster Hunter Rise, that's pretty big. There is no deal for FF14 btw.

Not to mention that the CMA and EC look at sales in the UK and EU where Sony is really strong.

In the UK MS is strong too. Last year they sold 87K less than PS having released very little for the whole year.

If Nintendo have a problem with it all they would need to do is point to Switch sales, say they're not a monopoly if they buy Capcom because they wouldn't be if Nintendo and MS are there, point to Capcoms lower sales compared to MS/Nintendo massive first party sales. Say it isn't a critical supply for Nintedo or even MS because it truly isn't in the slightest compared to ABK. Say they want to compete on MGS services. Say Nintendo didn't have SF or RE to begin with and Capcom aren't interested without the acquisition. Pretty much everything that has happened now.

More importantly, there are no real arguments Sony can make to say they need Capcom or SE. They already get the games coming from those guys

What's the argument made that MS need ABK? Was xbox not getting games from ABK before? They can say they need content for PS+ Premium.

(including exclusivity deals) and are in a position of market dominance in terms of marketshare, mindshare and revenue. They also don’t have any history like MS does with the likes of Minecraft. And of course, their strategy towards exclusivity is well known.

I don’t think it would go as easy as some of you think. At least, not without being forced to sign behavioral remedies.

MS are in a position of market dominance for MGS right now, doesn't stop them from acquiring it for that purpose. Sony have The Show on Switch and Xbox, they have Bungie's IP on other platforms too. They absolutely do have a history, they even have a history of multiplatform releases from an acquisition that outdates Xbox the brand, releasing destruction derby and wipeout on N64 and Saturn.

Minecraft was an acquisition too. A pretty big one. should that have been blocked because at the time PS and xbox were pretty close and MS didn’t have any history of multiplatform releases whatsoever? The chicken or the egg. You're saying they can't make a purchase to show they continue releasing games on the other platforms "cases by case" for capcom when they have no history of cutting off IP/games. I think the SLC concerns for Capcom would be smaller than they are for ABK.

Rare don't want to do Banjo or any old IPs now.

Define Rare here. The people currently at Rare might be doing other things and uninterested but you're saying that they can get new people to work on Banjo at TfB. Why wouldn't Rare want to expand and hire people on a separate team working on a different project?

 

[reksveks]

100%.

Almost all multiplatform publishers release their games on PC, and that revenue and reach become part of their buying price. To remove a big platform like PC after the acquisition disturbs the financials.

PC and PS make up like 75-80% of the sales. By ensuring any publisher they buy continue to release on PC, it'd be easier for Sony to not release their games on Xbox and take that 20% revenue hit for long-term gains. At best, we will see delayed PC releases as in the case of Final Fantasy and other first-party PS games.

Yeah, in which case I am not too personally fussed about Sony buying a big third party publisher. I have been supportive of the idea that Sony could create a pc storefront and am happy to have multiple stores on my PC.

I can see them applying a six month exclusivity, I think any longer starts causing issues with the general ROI.

 

[Heisenberg007]

what about EA? would give sony a bunch of established and well known ip, including battlefield. it would be easier than creating their own fps from scratch. sony can massively grow the ip by actually making good games. EA have been awful for ages. they need a shakeup.

EA would give them Battlefield and Apex that they can prop up against Call of Duty in the future. It'll also give them another route to big those big-name IP-licensed games like Star Wars.

However, EA is just way too expensive I believe.

 

[Heisenberg007]

You're saying they can't make a purchase to show they continue releasing games on the other platforms "cases by case" for capcom when they have no history of cutting off IP/games. I think the SLC concerns for Capcom would be smaller than they are for ABK.

Significantly. I don't think there would even be any concern. It'll be passed just like Zenimax did.

I can see Nintendo raising some concerns for IPs like Monster Hunter, but Sony can offer them a deal. Beyond that, I don't see any concerns whatsoever from an Xbox perspective buying Capcom or similar-sized publishers.

 

[Alex Scott]

Yeah, in which case I am not too personally fussed about Sony buying a big third party publisher. I am have been supportive of the idea that Sony could create a pc storefront and am happy to have multiple stores on my PC.

I can see them applying a six month exclusivity, I think any longer starts causing issues with the general ROI.

Even a 6 month exclusivity is a bad idea. They need the the accquistion to pay itself to some extent.

 

[reksveks]

Even a 6 month exclusivity is a bad idea. They need the the accquistion to pay itself to some extent.

I think it's a bad idea but it does depend on the forecasts that Sony has re the increased console sales/MAU's from implementing that tactic. I don't think it would cover itself.

 

[Alex Scott]

EA would give them Battlefield and Apex that they can prop up against Call of Duty in the future. It'll also give them another route to big those big-name IP-licensed games like Star Wars.

However, EA is just way too expensive I believe.

EA is worth 32B. MS paid 47% premium (I think) on ABK. So it would cost 47,040,000,000 to buy EA.

 

[TheGodfather07]

EA is worth 32B. MS paid 47% premium (I think) on ABK. So it would cost 47,040,000,000 to buy EA.

so the only ones who can buy EA are... microsoft. what great competiton we have!

 

[Three]

There are long queues to just play a beta. On a weekend where people are busy playing a remake to the best game ever made. Diablo 4 is gonna be crazy.

I'm sure player numbers are good. Do you think it will sell 30M like Diablo 3 though? I'm not talking player numbers here because the person said sales and that's what I have my doubts about. Might be wrong and not saying it can't happen but I have doubts about that.

 

[FoxMcChief]

so the only ones who can buy EA are... microsoft. what great competiton we have!

With EA already a part of game pass, no need for MS to acquire them. Those of us with patience (and game pass sized backlogs), we can wait for their game to hit the service.

 

[FoxMcChief]

I'm sure player numbers are good. Do you think it will sell 30M like Diablo 3 though? I'm not talking player numbers here because the person said sales and that's what I have my doubts about. Might be wrong and not saying it can't happen but I have doubts about that.

I’m not sure. I think D4 could surpass D3. Its online structure seems to make it a game that will have much longer legs, meaning more sales in other ways than just at retail.

 

[Three]

I’m not sure. I think D4 could surpass D3. Its online structure seems to make it a game that will have much longer legs, meaning more sales in other ways than just at retail.

Through microtransactions? True, I can see that happening but the guy was talking about unit sales specifically.

 

[X-Wing]

The Jim Ryan legacy will be ending soon. As a PS5 owner, I say good riddance. As an Xbox owner, I say, “lol.”

You are tired of good games released on a regular basis?

 

[Yoboman]

so the only ones who can buy EA are... microsoft. what great competiton we have!

Hopefully they do it to protect us from Google, Amazon and Saudi Princes