Support NeoGAF

[Sw0pDiller]

Well, I cant believe the judges believe Ms won't pull back call of duty. Sure they want those ps dollars right now when PS5 is flying of the shelves but next gen they might not have the same installed base so a ps version will not be "profitable" enough. And when they play their cards right the demand for the next ps will be a lot lower. Next obstacle is cloud gaming. How will Ms defend the purchase when is this case they are "by far" the market leader?

 

[DeepEnigma]

I don't see how anything they've said even remotely points in that direction.

They've actually just admitted that they can't do the maths too good and effectively foobarred their entire impact analysis regarding the consoles. I feel like they are just leaning into their reputation more than anything.

I’m just using words the Xbox fans labeled them as. And I only used quotes from top regulation lawyers and ex CMA lawyers they found it … “very and extremely unusual”

Things that make you go, hmmm

 

[Varteras]

Statements mean nothing because things change all the time. Not only did Spiderman come to PC, so did Mile Morales.

Your argument is entirely hypothetical. Until something factually changes, the statement that Microsoft has indeed made games or franchises exclusive post-acquisition is entirely accurate. No amount of "possibly" changes that.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Statements mean nothing because things change all the time. Not only did Spiderman come to PC, so did Mile Morales.

 

[TheGodfather07]

The best part of the Psygnosis acquisition points raised is that it is by Xbox fans angry at it. That acquisition was in the 90s when the Xbox console released in 2001. There isn't even a hint of an overlap. How is this still a thing? You fucking look like Neville Chamberlain waving a piece of paper. Useless.

 

[feynoob]

This was probably posted in response to commentary about that silly rumor of MS trying to buy Netflix.

You've also contributed to discussion of that nature on GAF, so I'm kinda puzzled you're making this post.

What kind of purchase did I suggest?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Ammo used before most people arguing this were born, that was not only inaccurate for a comparison, but hilariously filtered from the ambassawars PR channels.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

• Psygnosis, a $50 million purchase, that continued releasing games on competitor platforms = Bad acquisition
• Zenimax and ABK, bought for $75 billion, to immediately cut off 90% of the games releasing on competitor platforms = Good acquisition that increases competition.

It's just games, so relax.

COD is still going to be on PS for the next few years due to the existing deal. And MS offered 10 years. So if Sony was smart enough to take it, COD will be on PS till the 2030s. That'll cover PS5 and PS6 and possibly even the first few years of PS7. If the 10 year offer is on top of the remaining 2 years, that'll be 2035 which is PS7 territory. If the 10 year overlaps, so its really only a +8 year extension that's still 2033 which is well into PS6.

So if Sony took the deal, any PS COD gamer is covered for 10-12 years.

And besides, at the end of the day "It's just a business decision".

 

[TheGodfather07]

Ammo used before most people arguing this were born, that was not only inaccurate for a comparison, but hilariously filtered from the ambassawars PR channels.

it sure sounds like a narrative that was born on twitter.

 

[splattered]

The best part of the Psygnosis acquisition points raised is that it is by Xbox fans angry at it. That acquisition was in the 90s when the Xbox console released in 2001. There isn't even a hint of an overlap. How is this still a thing? You fucking look like Neville Chamberlain waving a piece of paper. Useless.

What Xbox fans are "angry" about it? People simply using it as an example, that's not the same thing.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Psygnosis, a $50 million purchase

And MSFT had 5b market cap at that time. What's the point? Sony had a similar (4.5b) market cap by the way.
And bethesda had 40 people in 1993. Appealing to the price or amount of employees does not matter. 20 years ago Facebook was just a single chair in the library.

 

[BrutalTruth_]

What Xbox fans are "angry" about it? People simply using it as an example, that's not the same thing.

I only see one side really angry about it, and it's the same people repeating the same points.

COD isn't going anywhere so I don't see the concern.

 

[Dick Jones]

What Xbox fans are "angry" about it? People simply using it as an example, that's not the same thing.

Like Rare. Buying a publisher when you dive into gaming to kickstart your studios, not 20+ years later. It's the fucking exact same thing as Rare except MS didn't get Donkey Kong

 

[Dick Jones]

Honestly thought that was aimed at Chamberlain

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

All i have seen for 726 pages of xboxfans, playstationfans and some PC fans throwing arguments at eachother. And try to counter does arguments and sticking to theyr own arguments repeating them endlessly over and over again.
One party is doing a victory dance now, but its not over yet.
And whe dont know the outcome. As i sayd before dont light up your cigar before the fat lady sings. It is not clear if CoD will be on Playstation and in what form.
And comments like MS will buy Sony and Sony is doomed, and Sony will stop with the Playstation. And MS will buy without any problem almost al the big publishers and a bunch of Japanse publishers are just brainfarts without real proof of substance.
Some of you guys must get your head out of the Clouds.

 

[quest]

Well, I cant believe the judges believe Ms won't pull back call of duty. Sure they want those ps dollars right now when PS5 is flying of the shelves but next gen they might not have the same installed base so a ps version will not be "profitable" enough. And when they play their cards right the demand for the next ps will be a lot lower. Next obstacle is cloud gaming. How will Ms defend the purchase when is this case they are "by far" the market leader?

Why would they and tank user count. Then run the risk of another multiplatform game becoming the go to game. None of the big money making GAAS titles are exclusive for a reason. If COD was a single player game i could see an argument to pull it but it needs a huge user base to be a revenue generator. Read the CMA study only 2-3 percent of people would switch for call of duty. They are not tossing away couple billion a year and tank the IP to get 2-3 percent. So it be 23-77 instead of 20-80 not a difference maker.

 

[The_Mike]

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 probably considered a xbox bro in here.

I don't care if Microsoft makes Activision Blizzard games exclusives or not.
I won't be cheering for Microsoft making them exclusive, but I wouldn't rage over it either as I'm a pc/xbox gamer.
The only thing I care about are the games on game pass. That's my interest.
Give it to playstation, Nintendo and whatever. I don't care. Just let me get it with game pass.

Sony are already doing timed exclusives and money hatting so nothing will change.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Well, I cant believe the judges believe Ms won't pull back call of duty. Sure they want those ps dollars right now when PS5 is flying of the shelves but next gen they might not have the same installed base so a ps version will not be "profitable" enough. And when they play their cards right the demand for the next ps will be a lot lower.

Sony could always sign that 10 year deal to ensure CoD is available for the PS6.

Next obstacle is cloud gaming. How will Ms defend the purchase when is this case they are "by far" the market leader?

Although the CMA believes Activision would have eventually put their games on the cloud, Activision's actions say otherwise. Their actions in relation to Nvidia's GFN speaks volumes about where their mindset is.

Only the biggest providers willing to accept Activision's terms would get access. Licensing fees paired with royalties. No small provider would get access. I wouldn't be surprised if exclusive access would be agreed upon too.

Which brings us to the behavioral remedies Microsoft is offering. Giving access to ABK games to a range of cloud gaming competitors, access they would not have absent the merger. These relevant customer benefits seemingly outweigh the lessening of competition resulting from this acquisition.

The RCBs outweighing the SLCs is one of the conditions to accept behavioral remedies.

Edit: I never understood why the hadn't brought it up previously, but it feels like Microsoft is the cloud gaming leader by way of bundling. I wonder where Microsoft's position would be if they didn't count all GPU members, but instead only those that use the cloud streaming option.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

There are other ways to be competitive outside of content offerings. Competitive pricing is one. Consumer friendly practices is another.

It's not anti-competitive to make Sony work for their customers. It's not anti-competitive to take marketshare from Sony. It's not anti-competitive to disrupt the status quo. If Sony's answer to keep customers sacrifices their need to maximize profits, that is not anti-competitive.

Competition doesn't solely focus on competitors. It has a lot to do with consumers.

Microsoft has been doing both of these things since 2017 but clearly they were not resonating in and of themselves; the One S did little to really catapult XBO sales, the Series S has routinely been the cheapest console offering on the market but struggles the most to sell. "Consumer friendly practices" can encompass many definitions; companies simply not charging an unfair price for their content and consumer-friendly. Providing all of their content on as many devices as possible is not a requirement and can potentially become anti-consumer friendly if the spread negatively affects the quality of the product to the consumers accessing it.

The hypocrisy kicks in when people think MS buying large 3P publishers is "competition" and think Sony's answer to that should be to simply produce more games to fill the gaps internally. When in the same breadth, this was never insisted upon for Microsoft to be more competitive: fix up issues with the internal teams they already had, get a tight ship running with the 2018 acquisitions. The fact we've seen more new games the past two years from Zenimax, who were just recently acquired, over most of their 2018 acquisitions or even some of the teams they've had for decades since (Rare), is a complete embarrassment.

It's true competition to make Microsoft appeal to their wallet. It's true competition for Microsoft to gain market share by actually providing an offering that speaks to the end customer, versus just buying 3P publishers and assimilating their revenue into the Xbox division's. It's true competition when consumers support the status quo because it provides to their needs better than rivals.

Competition doesn't solely focus on competitors. It has a lot to do with consumers.

 

[Dick Jones]

Microsoft has been doing both of these things since 2017 but clearly they were not resonating in and of themselves; the One S did little to really catapult XBO sales, the Series S has routinely been the cheapest console offering on the market but struggles the most to sell. "Consumer friendly practices" can encompass many definitions; companies simply not charging an unfair price for their content and consumer-friendly. Providing all of their content on as many devices as possible is not a requirement and can potentially become anti-consumer friendly if the spread negatively affects the quality of the product to the consumers accessing it.

The hypocrisy kicks in when people think MS buying large 3P publishers is "competition" and think Sony's answer to that should be to simply produce more games to fill the gaps internally. When in the same breadth, this was never insisted upon for Microsoft to be more competitive: fix up issues with the internal teams they already had, get a tight ship running with the 2018 acquisitions. The fact we've seen more new games the past two years from Zenimax, who were just recently acquired, over most of their 2018 acquisitions or even some of the teams they've had for decades since (Rare), is a complete embarrassment.

It's true competition to make Microsoft appeal to their wallet. It's true competition for Microsoft to gain market share by actually providing an offering that speaks to the end customer, versus just buying 3P publishers and assimilating their revenue into the Xbox division's. It's true competition when consumers support the status quo because it provides to their needs better than rivals.

Competition doesn't solely focus on competitors. It has a lot to do with consumers.

Have you seen Xbox's senior management? If I was Nadella, I'd pay Bobby Kotick 69 billion than give 10 billion to Xbox Division

 

[feynoob]

All i have seen for 726 pages of xboxfans, playstationfans and some PC fans throwing arguments at eachother. And try to counter does arguments and sticking to theyr own arguments repeating them endlessly over and over again.
One party is doing a victory dance now, but its not over yet.
And whe dont know the outcome. As i sayd before dont light up your cigar before the fat lady sings. It is not clear if CoD will be on Playstation and in what form.
And comments like MS will buy Sony and Sony is doomed, and Sony will stop with the Playstation. And MS will buy without any problem almost al the big publishers and a bunch of Japanse publishers are just brainfarts without real proof of substance.
Some of you guys must get your head out of the Clouds.

I want to see the acquisition wars.

 

[Solidus_T]

Naughty Dog - acquisition
Insomnia - acquisition
Guerrilla Games - acquisition
Nixxes - acquisition
Bluepoint - acquisition

How many Xbox games did all of these studios make? I know the answer - just trying to get you to point out how ridiculous what you're saying is.

 

[BennyBlanco]

How many Xbox games did all of these studios make? I know the answer - just trying to get you to point out how ridiculous what you're saying is.

Sunset Overdrive rules

 

[Banjo64]

I'm probably considered a xbox bro in here.

I don't care if Microsoft makes Activision Blizzard games exclusives or not.
I won't be cheering for Microsoft making them exclusive, but I wouldn't rage over it either as I'm a pc/xbox gamer.
The only thing I care about are the games on game pass. That's my interest.
Give it to playstation, Nintendo and whatever. I don't care. Just let me get it with game pass.

Sony are already doing timed exclusives and money hatting so nothing will change.

I think I just worry about the future.

Right now, it’s hard for a single dev just to raise the price of their game beyond the norm. That’s why we normally see an industry wide shift all at once (like the increase to £69.99 this gen).

With Microsoft having control of a subscription service they can increase the price slightly year on year, boiling the frog so to speak. Netflix increased all 3 of their plans last year by a rate of 10%, 14% and 15%.

Right now yeah, it’s good (although the £7.99 console only plan is severely gimped compared to every other option). What I’m watching out for is that first price increase, because the level of the increase and the reaction of the user base will determine whether Microsoft make increases a regular occurrence.

Like Netflix they could also branch out to offer different plans also. E.g the £10.99 option could only include online play and certain first party titles whilst a £19.99 option includes CoD and third party games. We have to wait and see.

The act of acquiring the studio is permanent but Game Pass in its current form is temporary.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Welp, starfield and redfall is canceled y’all heard it here first lol

and what else?.

 

[Dick Jones]

Sunset Overdrive rules

They had 5 years to fund a sequel before Sony bought Insomniac. I suppose that was on Don Mattrick too.

Number of Days Don was in charge from the release date of Sunset Overdrive: 0

I wonder who was in charge that refused to extend the COD marketing, fund a Sunset Overdrive sequel, fund an exclusive Spider-Man game? I imagine he was fired out of a cannon.

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

Welcome back Ass of Can Whooping
Watch out now cous al lot of guys wants so see you out again. But I and many others want you to stay cous sometimes you are hilarous

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Microsoft has been doing both of these things since 2017 but clearly they were not resonating in and of themselves; the One S did little to really catapult XBO sales, the Series S has routinely been the cheapest console offering on the market but struggles the most to sell. "Consumer friendly practices" can encompass many definitions; companies simply not charging an unfair price for their content and consumer-friendly. Providing all of their content on as many devices as possible is not a requirement and can potentially become anti-consumer friendly if the spread negatively affects the quality of the product to the consumers accessing it.

Agreed. All of the consumer friendly practices by themselves were not moving the needle. In Microsoft's case they needed content. They needed to fight the narrative that "Xbox has no games".

The hypocrisy kicks in when people think MS buying large 3P publishers is "competition" and think Sony's answer to that should be to simply produce more games to fill the gaps internally. When in the same breadth, this was never insisted upon for Microsoft to be more competitive: fix up issues with the internal teams they already had, get a tight ship running with the 2018 acquisitions. The fact we've seen more new games the past two years from Zenimax, who were just recently acquired, over most of their 2018 acquisitions or even some of the teams they've had for decades since (Rare), is a complete embarrassment.

Buying 3P publishers is competition. I think Sony should respond with their own acquisitions. I think Square Enix is likely. I think Capcom would be wise. I think I've been consistent in my thoughts on competitive strategy. What's okay and good for one platform holder is okay and good for the other.

I haven't insisted on one strategy while shutting down any others. I don't put arbitrary barriers on what is okay to do and what isn't to be competitive.

It's true competition to make Microsoft appeal to their wallet. It's true competition for Microsoft to gain market share by actually providing an offering that speaks to the end customer, versus just buying 3P publishers and assimilating their revenue into the Xbox division's. It's true competition when consumers support the status quo because it provides to their needs better than rivals.

Competition doesn't solely focus on competitors. It has a lot to do with consumers.

Microsoft is appealing to people's wallets. Microsoft is trying to gain marketshare by providing an offering that speaks to the end customer (one of the ways they're trying to do this is by buying publishers/studios).

I don't arbitrarily put labels on what is and what isn't competition.

 

[Solidus_T]

Microsoft is appealing to people's wallets. Microsoft is trying to gain marketshare by providing an offering that speaks to the end customer (one of the ways they're trying to do this is by buying publishers/studios).

I don't arbitrarily put labels on what is and what isn't competition.

Microsoft is trying to gain market share by buying the market. That is not competition, and it's not an arbitrary act to state this.

 

[Varteras]

I think I just worry about the future.

Right now, it’s hard for a single dev just to raise the price of their game beyond the norm. That’s why we normally see an industry wide shift all at once (like the increase to £69.99 this gen).

With Microsoft having control of a subscription service they can increase the price slightly year on year, boiling the frog so to speak. Netflix increased all 3 of their plans last year by a rate of 10%, 14% and 15%.

Right now yeah, it’s good (although the £7.99 console only plan is severely gimped compared to every other option). What I’m watching out for is that first price increase, because the level of the increase and the reaction of the user base will determine whether Microsoft make increases a regular occurrence.

Like Netflix they could also branch out to offer different plans also. E.g the £10.99 option could only include online play and certain first party titles whilst a £19.99 option includes CoD and third party games. We have to wait and see.

The act of acquiring the studio is permanent but Game Pass in its current form is temporary.

I think there are a few things about this acquisition that only time will show us. How long will CoD remain on PlayStation? Will CoD be on PS+ at all? Will all other ABK games be off the table? How many PlayStation gamers will actually move to Xbox if CoD ends up exclusive at some point? How many will go there if GamePass is the only console service that has it? Will CoD maintain its status in the years to come? Will PlayStation manage to create competing franchises that take the edge off? Will Microsoft be willing to eat the losses from all those studios making games that get their sales cannibalized over a fair length of time? None of these are anything we currently have the answers to. We have guesstimates at best. We won't know the impact this deal actually has for probably 5 to 10 years after it closes. All of these answers will be big determining factors for how sub services succeed or fail going forward.

 

[TheGodfather07]

I'm probably considered a xbox bro in here.

I don't care if Microsoft makes Activision Blizzard games exclusives or not.
I won't be cheering for Microsoft making them exclusive, but I wouldn't rage over it either as I'm a pc/xbox gamer.
The only thing I care about are the games on game pass. That's my interest.
Give it to playstation, Nintendo and whatever. I don't care. Just let me get it with game pass.

Sony are already doing timed exclusives and money hatting so nothing will change.

i think that would have been the perfect balance. games remain multiplatform but on xbox you can get it on gamepass. that gives xbox a nice advantage while still keeping games on all platforms as they were.

 

[BrutalTruth_]

i think that would have been the perfect balance. games remain multiplatform but on xbox you can get it on gamepass. that gives xbox a nice advantage while still keeping games on all platforms as they were.

That's what's going to happen with CoD.

The argument people are using are against Bethesda.

Microsoft will never make COD an exclusive.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

i dont know. but it seems this has been one of the most happy weeks for Xbox fam in a long time.

 

[fred420170]

????
"Gamepass, if this deal gets approved"

Did you not pay attention to these keywords.

It's not guaranteed that they will get these games on gamepass if this deal fails.
But if it passes, it will be like zenimax gamepass drop.

Also this is for gamepass users, not Xbox users. Two different groups.

Dude, it's called "Xbox Game Pass" for pc is called "PC Game Pass"

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Microsoft is trying to gain market share by buying the market.

And I'm saying that is okay. Don't misread what I'm saying here, buying the entire market is wrong. Buying a slice of the market is okay.

That is not competition, and it's not an arbitrary act to state this.

Arbitrary is saying a platform's studio count can't exceed the other's. Arbitrary is saying organic growth is the only fair way to compete. Arbitrary is saying exclusivity contracts are fine but acquisitions are not. Arbitrary is saying studio acquisitions are fine and publisher acquisitions are not.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Buying 3P publishers is competition. I think Sony should respond with their own acquisitions. I think Square Enix is likely. I think Capcom would be wise. I think I've been consistent in my thoughts on competitive strategy. What's okay and good for one platform holder is okay and good for the other.

I haven't insisted on one strategy while shutting down any others. I don't put arbitrary barriers on what is okay to do and what isn't to be competitive.

Your idea of "competition" just consolidates the market. There are specific benefits to having a large, independent 3P market and consolidation by platform holders and tech companies looking to become platform holders weakens those benefits, if not gets rid of them completely. 3P being acquired by investment groups pose their own issues depending on the specific investment firm, but not the same problems as the other examples given.

When there is a strong independent 3P market, there is generally more incentive for them to bring their AAA releases to as many platforms as possible. Creative decisions and funding solutions are not tied to the larger corporate culture and financing well of a single corporate owner. The games run less of a risk of becoming locked behind any one specific platform or ecosystem, because since most 3P publishers want to maximize profits, they have more of a real incentive to provide content to as many platforms and ecosystems as they realistically can.

A strong independent 3P market also means more inherent competition among the companies to make offerings that stand out in the market, and due to that,, sometimes the impetus to even make certain types of games in the first place. How likely do you think we would have gotten Fortnite if Microsoft owned Epic? Or Apex Legends if Microsoft had acquired Respawn around the time of TitanFall?

A healthy independent 3P market also means case-by-case chances for platform holders to partner with specific 3P developers on games that may not have been made otherwise, but those partnerships not locking the 3P developer out from doing other projects for other platforms. This is what we got with both Demon's Souls and Bloodborne, for example. If Sony had acquired From Software back in 2009 or 2015, chances are you would have never gotten Elden Ring for Xbox. In fact there's a chance you may not have gotten Elden Ring at all, but rather a Bloodborne 2. Instead, we're in reality where we have Elden Ring, and Sony can still collaborate with From Software on a Bloodborne 2.

As you can see, I don't exactly support the idea of rampant big 3P dev/pub acquisitions, regardless of who is doing it. While I think Sony WILL have to respond to MS acquiring ABK with a publisher acquisition of their own, I choose to refrain on deep-diving with speculation on that. However, I do feel there are levels to this. Just looking at how the respective companies have shown (or not shown) the ability to cultivate and grow their acquired talent to do bigger & better things, I would personally feel more comfortable with a Sony 3P acquisition than a Microsoft one, because cheapness of availability or having access to my games on 100 devices that I know 99% of them won't see the time of day in terms of serious gaming time, aren't at the top of my priority list as a gamer.

But maybe for you it's different. Maybe those things are your main concerns. Cool. I can't agree with that. But I can acknowledge that is your opinion.

 

[Varteras]

That's what's going to happen with CoD.

The argument people are using are against Bethesda.

Microsoft will never make COD an exclusive.

This is the same company that told people they couldn't trade their games at a time when physical media was the majority of game sales. The same company that told people they had to always be online at a time when even PC gamers hated that shit with a passion. The same company that sold their console for 25% more than their competitor because they insisted on bundling a camera that virtually no one wanted or used outside of novelties. The same company that tried to double the price of their online service in the middle of a pandemic. The same company that boasted about cloud computing, and how it would enhance games, with only one bad example for the entire generation. The same company that promoted a mid-gen console refresh as being built to support VR and having absolutely no VR product. The same company that decimated its own first-party, only to have to spend tens of billions to rebuild it. The same company that released a new console with no new exclusives, after a whole generation of having "no games", and still to this day has struggled with it. I could go on but my point is; do not, I mean absolutely DO NOT, underestimate Microsoft's ability to say and do very dumb shit. They're not the only ones either. Both Sony and Nintendo have also proven capable of some gross stupidity.

 

[DryvBy]

Sony is just as guilty of the bolded above. Except they do it from a market leader position.

But I was just replying how competition was used in relation to Brad Smith's tweet. Not saying acquisitions are better than organic growth.

I think Sony (as market leader) would run into the same issues as Microsoft did with CoD if they tried to acquire Take 2 (due to the GTA franchise). Surprisingly, the research done by CADE had more significance put on GTA than CoD among CoD gamers.

However, I don't see any issues arising from Sony acquiring Square Enix, I actually expect and selfishly want Sony to acquire Square Enix. I also think Sony acquiring Capcom would go through with relative ease. Some roadblocks probably, a long process like this one, but would go through.

I'll say this though, I agree that the Microsoft acquiring spree while they haven't seen their marketshare shift is worrisome. It's a smart move from Microsoft, and could prove to be anti-competitive. (Example being Zenimax and ABK may improve their marketshare so much that they'll be the market leader in 8 years, and any acquisitions before that point may compound those effects)

It's hard to say what will happen in the future though. I don't look too much/far into hypothetical futures to say why I am for or against something.

If developer studios is the metric we are arbitrarily saying is the metric we should use to determine someone's marketshare, then look at Embracer with over 100 development studios. When you view Xbox through other metrics, revenue, console sales, they're still behind Sony even after ABK goes through.

That's where I differ. If Microsoft bought Ensemble Studios (AOE for young kids), that's great. It's organic. If Sony buys Naughty Dog, that's great. It's organic.

If Sony buys Capcom and MS buys EA, it's not organic. Capcom and EA are making games for every platform and I'm not cool with corporations (Nintendo, Sony, MS, "PC" lol) buying up brands that aren't on the verge of bankruptcy just so they can lazily become bigger. In this scenario, you didn't work for it. You just did the rich kid thing about bought things to keep it out of the hands of others. Because you're rich and that's all it is.

Here's the thing: MS can own Activision and if they don't have a change in management (namely that jockboy looking turd, Phil Spencer), you're going to have a few already in production games come out and then a bunch of nothing. The only thing Phil has really gotten done is Xbox Live 2.0, another thing to constantly take your money. You don't need games when you have GamePass!

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Your idea of "competition" just consolidates the market.

I view organic growth, acquisitions, consumer friendly practices and competitive pricing as competition.

But if we are solely talking about acquisitions, yes, it does. And I don't think consolidation within limits is a bad thing. When looking at Microsoft's Gamepass strategy, it's very positive.

There are specific benefits to having a large, independent 3P market and consolidation by platform holders and tech companies looking to become platform holders weakens those benefits, if not gets rid of them completely. 3P being acquired by investment groups pose their own issues depending on the specific investment firm, but not the same problems as the other examples given.

When there is a strong independent 3P market, there is generally more incentive for them to bring their AAA releases to as many platforms as possible. Creative decisions and funding solutions are not tied to the larger corporate culture and financing well of a single corporate owner. The games run less of a risk of becoming locked behind any one specific platform or ecosystem, because since most 3P publishers want to maximize profits, they have more of a real incentive to provide content to as many platforms and ecosystems as they realistically can.

A strong independent 3P market also means more inherent competition among the companies to make offerings that stand out in the market, and due to that,, sometimes the impetus to even make certain types of games in the first place. How likely do you think we would have gotten Fortnite if Microsoft owned Epic? Or Apex Legends if Microsoft had acquired Respawn around the time of TitanFall?

A healthy independent 3P market also means case-by-case chances for platform holders to partner with specific 3P developers on games that may not have been made otherwise, but those partnerships not locking the 3P developer out from doing other projects for other platforms. This is what we got with both Demon's Souls and Bloodborne, for example. If Sony had acquired From Software back in 2009 or 2015, chances are you would have never gotten Elden Ring for Xbox. In fact there's a chance you may not have gotten Elden Ring at all, but rather a Bloodborne 2. Instead, we're in reality where we have Elden Ring, and Sony can still collaborate with From Software on a Bloodborne 2.

As you can see, I don't exactly support the idea of rampant big 3P dev/pub acquisitions, regardless of who is doing it. While I think Sony WILL have to respond to MS acquiring ABK with a publisher acquisition of their own, I choose to refrain on deep-diving with speculation on that. However, I do feel there are levels to this. Just looking at how the respective companies have shown (or not shown) the ability to cultivate and grow their acquired talent to do bigger & better things, I would personally feel more comfortable with a Sony 3P acquisition than a Microsoft one, because cheapness of availability or having access to my games on 100 devices that I know 99% of them won't see the time of day in terms of serious gaming time, aren't at the top of my priority list as a gamer.

But maybe for you it's different. Maybe those things are your main concerns. Cool. I can't agree with that. But I can acknowledge that is your opinion.

I think your concerns around consolidation are valid. I don't feel we are at a point where we'll see negative impacts of this consolidation. I choose to look at the positives of whatever consolidation is going on along with the negatives.

 

[Snake29]

Please also name all the IPs that were taken off of the competitor platforms because of all these acquisitions.

Go on. We will wait.

Let me help him. Must start with Final Fantasy and ends with Final Fantasy. Lol they always compare ONE game with a mountain of IP's that Xbox now will taken away from the PS platform. IP's that are even older then the whole Xbox platform.

why are xbox fans angry still? , the deal is almost done ................they should be happy

They will stay angry as long as PS is market leader. They have a long time issue with PS being the strongest every gen. And it's kinda clear what their intention is. They want every game being taken away from the PS platform so that Sony gets weaker. It's why they shill for everything to be acquired by MS and added to GP. But they also cry when a game will not be released on GP.

Imo, they are the trash of the world wide gaming community.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Let me help him. Must start with Final Fantasy and ends with Final Fantasy. Lol they always compare ONE game with a mountain of IP's that Xbox now will taken away from the PS platform. IP's that are even older then the whole Xbox platform.

It's only fair since we're getting Sunset Overdrive 2

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

That's where I differ. If Microsoft bought Ensemble Studios (AOE for young kids), that's great. It's organic. If Sony buys Naughty Dog, that's great. It's organic.

If Sony buys Capcom and MS buys EA, it's not organic. Capcom and EA are making games for every platform and I'm not cool with corporations (Nintendo, Sony, MS, "PC" lol) buying up brands that aren't on the verge of bankruptcy just so they can lazily become bigger. In this scenario, you didn't work for it. You just did the rich kid thing about bought things to keep it out of the hands of others. Because you're rich and that's all it is.

Here's the thing: MS can own Activision and if they don't have a change in management (namely that jockboy looking turd, Phil Spencer), you're going to have a few already in production games come out and then a bunch of nothing. The only thing Phil has really gotten done is Xbox Live 2.0, another thing to constantly take your money. You don't need games when you have GamePass!

You're entitled to believe certain acquisitions are organic and good. While others are bad.

Current regulation law doesn't see it that way.

 

[The Pleasure]

Microsoft proudly presents: A 343 studios production. Brought to you by Carls Jr. FUCK YOU. I'M GAMING! Call of Booty Modern Infinite!! With Bethesda crossover of horse armor. In conjunction with Blizzard. A mechanical mount! In partnership with KING. TASTY! STREAMING TO ITS ASS ON GAMEPASS! With fox host, bill o Reilly as THE COMMENTATOR! With XTRA BIG ASS AMENDMENTS! Now with more MICROTRANSACTIONS!

 

[BrutalTruth_]

This is the same company that told people they couldn't trade their games at a time when physical media was the majority of game sales. The same company that told people they had to always be online at a time when even PC gamers hated that shit with a passion. The same company that sold their console for 25% more than their competitor because they insisted on bundling a camera that virtually no one wanted or used outside of novelties. The same company that tried to double the price of their online service in the middle of a pandemic. The same company that boasted about cloud computing, and how it would enhance games, with only one bad example for the entire generation. The same company that promoted a mid-gen console refresh as being built to support VR and having absolutely no VR product. The same company that decimated its own first-party, only to have to spend tens of billions to rebuild it. The same company that released a new console with no new exclusives, after a whole generation of having "no games", and still to this day has struggled with it. I could go on but my point is; do not, I mean absolutely DO NOT, underestimate Microsoft's ability to say and do very dumb shit. They're not the only ones either. Both Sony and Nintendo have also proven capable of some gross stupidity.

Use logic dude, the PS sales make over 50 percent of COD sales, there's no way Microsoft would pull the plug on that, and the CMA agreed, and I'll side with them over some upset PlayStation fans on a forum.

conspiracy theories about MS throwing millions away for nothing to "stick it to Sony" is absolutely ridiculous, the backlash and loss of money would be insane.

They did this for Gamepass and overall profit.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Microsoft proudly presents: A 343 studios production. Brought to you by Carls Jr. FUCK YOU. I'M GAMING! Call of Booty Modern Infinite!! With Bethesda crossover of horse armor. In conjunction with Blizzard. A mechanical mount! In partnership with KING. TASTY! STREAMING TO ITS ASS ON GAMEPASS! With fox host, bill o Reilly as THE COMMENTATOR! With XTRA BIG ASS AMENDMENTS! Now with more MICROTRANSACTIONS!

not funny

 

[Varteras]

Use logic dude, the PS sales make over 50 percent of COD sales, there's no way Microsoft would pull the plug on that, and the CMA agreed, and I'll side with them over some upset PlayStation fans on a forum.

conspiracy theories about MS throwing millions away for nothing to "stick it to Sony" is absolutely ridiculous, the backlash and loss of money would be insane.

They did this for Gamepass and overall profit.

Logic wasn't there when Microsoft did a bunch of dumb shit, dude.

 

[The Pleasure]

not funny

It's not supposed to be. Microsoft was stunning and brave when they introduced advertising on the 360 service. Which we paid for.

 

[BrutalTruth_]

Logic wasn't there when Microsoft did a bunch of dumb shit, dude.

That has nothing to do with my comment.

 

[Varteras]

That has nothing to do with my comment.

It does.

 

[Dick Jones]

It's only fair since we're getting Sunset Overdrive 2

Looks a bit one-sided. Give MS Capcom, Take Two and Square Enix to let Xbox compete