Support NeoGAF

[Sosokrates]

Errrrr.....

Im sorry, but its kinda of a rediculous things to say, its basically insinuating that mega franchises like COD have no effect on a gaming platform.

COD being on gamepass and not being on PlayStation in some form is going to have an effect, some other game is not going to make the majority of COD players stop playing COD.

 

[Tschumi]

Reality:

Microsoft is hoovering up all studios they can to boost their market presence.

PS already has the market presence.

Neither blizzard, Activision or Bethesda will make any difference unless their recent history is entirely flipped.

This is all, in general, a bad thing for gaming.

 

[DarkestLight]

Sony / Insomniac don't own the Spiderman IP, it could be pulled from them at any time. Sony only own the movie adaptation rights not the character rights

 

[ReBurn]

Another angle to it all is if MS pulls big franchises like COD, the PS eco system will be fertile ground for other 3rd parties to gain ground. If you can't play COD, you'll play something else. Assuming the user base remains class leading.

What happens in reality is that if you only have a PlayStation, you only play COD, and Xbox or PC is the only place you can play COD, you're probably going to sell the PlayStation and get the thing that allows you to play COD. COD players aren't going to stick around and wait for Sony to plant something in that fertile ground. Hopefully it doesn't come to that, though.

 

[MrFunSocks]

Your argument about people buying Spider-Man because they already bought CoD is just wrong. The numbers don’t support what you’re saying at all. And if they did why isnt that knock on effect seen elsewhere?

That's not my argument lol. It was an example.

Without the big third party games that sell millions upon millions every year, without fail, there would not be an install base there for Spider Man as a PS exclusive to sell 20 million copies. That's the point I'm making.

What "knock on effect" are you talking about?

Sony / Insomniac don't own the Spiderman IP, it could be pulled from them at any time. Sony only own the movie adaptation rights not the character rights

And if next generation the Xbox is outselling the Playstation 2:1, Spider Man games will be on the Xbox - either made by insomniac or made by a third party studio.

I'm not sure but I don't believe Sony even have exclusive rights to spider man games on console atm? They were just given permission to make a Spider Man game.

 

[TaiLopezFan]

Sony can probably spend upwards 4 or 5 billion. I feel it’s better to build a studio that is specifically working on a online multiplayer F2P service game. That is on Playstation PC and Mobile. It only takes one hit to blow up. Look what happened to Fortnite. They should do that instead of big acquisition

 

[Ozriel]

Gentle reminder that Sony tried and failed to buy a publisher in 2020, only outbid for Leyou by Tencent.

Sony's acquisition strategy isn't really that dissimilar to MS. They just have a lot less money to play with.


I'm not sure how the OP's example is any difference from Microsoft buying Playground games and expanding them to make Fable, in addition to their Forza Horizon staple. Or the massive investments and internal growth in Undead Labs, Obsidian et al.

These threads aren't well researched at all.

 

[Sosokrates]

Reality:

Microsoft is hoovering up all studios they can to boost their market presence.

PS already has the market presence.

Neither blizzard, Activision or Bethesda will make any difference unless their recent history is entirely flipped.

This is all, in general, a bad thing for gaming.

Sonys market presence is only as strong as there offering comparitive to the competitive, sony have built there position by being better, when they stop being better its going to have an effect.

The industry is not static, gamers are very clued up on the reality of companies offerings.

If Microsoft release 50% more games then sony, when they have an incredible service like gamepass, the market will notice and adjust simply because there offering is better then the competitions.

 

[Ozriel]

Another angle to it all is if MS pulls big franchises like COD, the PS eco system will be fertile ground for other 3rd parties to gain ground. If you can't play COD, you'll play something else. Assuming the user base remains class leading.

Possibly. And Sony's been investing in their own first party GaaS FPS games.

For many, they'll still play COD. By the time the Sony agreements expire in 2024, the Series S will be $200. $400 for Series X.

People act like TVs don't have HDMI ports or that it's anathema to own more than one console.

I thought the usual consensus on GAF was that Games were what mattered and people move to where games are?

 

[MrFunSocks]

I thought the usual consensus on GAF was that Games were what mattered and people move to where games are?

Yes, but that's only when the console they like has the games. As soon as it doesn't, they didn't want the games anyway, and it's not games that matter.

 

[arvfab]

They would need to be selling like 80+ million units to have 55% of console gamers playing it

And this number would also only be correct if they completely ignore the Switch, which - as far as I know - is also a console...

 

[Tschumi]

, when they stop being better its going to have an effect.

Assertion =/= foresight

The industry is not static, gamers are very clued up on the reality of companies offerings.

Only a tilted gamer would think only one company is offering gamer-worthy titles.

If Microsoft release 50% more games then sony, when they have an incredible service like gamepass, the market will notice and adjust simply because there offering is better then the competitions.

50% more games =/= "better"

50% more games =/= reality

Gamepass =/= incredible

Reality:

Reality:

Microsoft is hoovering up all studios they can to boost their market presence.

PS already has the market presence.

Neither blizzard, Activision or Bethesda will make any difference unless their recent history is entirely flipped.

This is all, in general, a bad thing for gaming.

 

[MrFunSocks]

Assertion =/= foresight

Only a tilted gamer would think only one company is offering gamer-worthy titles.

50% more games =/= "better"

50% more games =/= reality

Gamepass =/= incredible

Reality:

Did you really just quote yourself to point out that you think you're right while telling other people they're wrong?

 

[Tschumi]

Did you really just quote yourself to point out that you think you're right while telling other people they're wrong?

I just repeated what was already a sufficient post for the discussion

 

[Bullet Club]

 

[Sosokrates]

Assertion =/= foresight

Only a tilted gamer would think only one company is offering gamer-worthy titles.

50% more games =/= "better"

50% more games =/= reality

Gamepass =/= incredible

Reality:

Then why did the PS4 do better against the xbox one?

I was being generous to sony by saying 50% more games, when the acti-blizz deal goes through , Xbox will have 35 teams over double Sonys 17,

These studios have proven to be of equal quality to sonys apart from naughty dog and SSM but thats only 2 devs with dev times of 4 -5 years.

So yes Microsoft will have a better line up, if previous games are being used as an indicator of quality.

 

[Sosokrates]

I just repeated what was already a sufficient post for the discussion

Just because you say it is dont make it so. Perhaps actually try adressing the points I made.

 

[Dr Bass]

That's not my argument lol. It was an example.

Without the big third party games that sell millions upon millions every year, without fail, there would not be an install base there for Spider Man as a PS exclusive to sell 20 million copies. That's the point I'm making.

What "knock on effect" are you talking about?


And if next generation the Xbox is outselling the Playstation 2:1, Spider Man games will be on the Xbox - either made by insomniac or made by a third party studio.

I'm not sure but I don't believe Sony even have exclusive rights to spider man games on console atm? They were just given permission to make a Spider Man game.

Do you honestly think Xbox is going to sell 2:1 over playstation next gen? I mean maybe but that’s a massive change in consumer behavior …

The knock on effect is what you claimed. That Spider-Man sells in high numbers off the back of CoD. I’m saying why don’t other games on other platforms see that? My point was, because such a thing doesn’t exist.

Also don’t see a rebuttal to the actual CoD sales numbers vs this so called 55% console playing ratio. Looks like there are about 50 million Xbox ones out there. 115 million PS4s. So ignoring current gen numbers, CoD needs to sell 90 million units on console to hit a 55% playing ratio lol. Think that’s what the current games are selling when black ops was the highest at 30 million and Vanguard sales are way down?

 

[Dr Bass]

And this number would also only be correct if they completely ignore the Switch, which - as far as I know - is also a console...

Yeah I left it out for arguments sake. The games aren’t on there. No reason to count it in this case.

 

[sinnergy]

Sony basically buy all their first party studios over the 30 years .. MS did it in the last 2 years

 

[clarky]

Assuming the user base remains class leading.

Genuinely curious, what does this mean?

 

[CityHunter1981]

I always say perhaps Microsoft will bring more games to the market, but for me it seems they prefer quantity over quality. Sony is very picky about what studios to buy and seem to have already a plan for them even if often they are only supposed to support their existing studios. I mean with Sony nearly all studios they have acquired reached their peak in quality under Sony while under Microsofts leadership many studios struggled to produce high quality titles.

Instead of focusing to increase the quality of the output of their existing studios, Microsoft rather spend their money on new acquisitions. I know that they have the money to afford it, but sometimes it seems Microsoft don't have much trust in their existing studios and already know that there will be some turds and try to make sure there are enough other titles to cover for these.

 

[clarky]

Sony basically buy all their first party studios over the 30 years .. MS did it in the last 2 years

Fuck me, is playstation nearly 30 years old?

*checks* yep well bugger me feels like yesterday my 20 year old self was smashing wipeout to leftfield and the Prodigy.

 

[Von Hugh]

Sony basically buy all their first party studios over the 30 years .. MS did it in the last 2 years

Aside from Rare back in 2002 and Minecract/Mojang in 2014, you are right:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Sony
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_Game_Studios

But Microsoft are the cunts.

 

[Yoboman]

I get what you're saying but not everything will be a major hit. It took Sony a decade to get to the point where all its older first parties are sitting on successful IPs

The "newer" first parties like Bluepoint, Team Asobi, Housemarque havent really cracked it.

Buying a first party gets you instant million sellers and Sony should really be setting themselves a goal of getting to the point where they can put out a million seller every month or two

 

[clarky]

I always say perhaps Microsoft will bring more games to the market, but for me it seems they prefer quantity over quality. Sony is very picky about what studios to buy and seem to have already a plan for them even if often they are only supposed to support their existing studios. I mean with Sony nearly all studios they have acquired reached their peak in quality under Sony while under Microsofts leadership many studios struggled to produce high quality titles.

Instead of focusing to increase the quality of the output of their existing studios, Microsoft rather spend their money on new acquisitions. I know that they have the money to afford it, but sometimes it seems Microsoft don't have much trust in their existing studios and already know that there will be some turds and try to make sure there are enough other titles to cover for these.

when you say quantity over quality, ive got to pull you on this, until this year they released next to fuck all, but what they did was decent.
This year they released some of the best games of the year, hands down.

 

[SSfox]

Yeah first party focus is awesome without the doubt but...

The main thing is the idea of if MS buys one or more of the big japanese and some of the most iconic franchises like Street Fighter, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy Tekken, ect won't be release on playstation, to me in this case Sony would be just dead, while i don't give a fuck about COD or some other fallout or bethesda stuffs, but it's totally another story for the japanese franchises i named above, if Sony lose those they're just... DONE, fortunately it's not the case right now, but Sony better be aware of the danger, because if they're not and let this happen i can't support them anymore. So i truly hope Sony aren't that dumb and ignorant.

 

[Yoboman]

"The deal that will change the industry forever": Analysts on Microsoft's Activision acquisition

The number of mergers and acquisitions taking place across the games industry has dramatically risen in recent years, b…

www.gamesindustry.biz

Receipts provided

Id be interested how they game to that number, are they just adding the sales unit together?

 

[Three]

It’s not that I don’t believe the reporting firm, it’s that the claims are not specific enough to make an actual judgment in rating importance to support your argument that Spider-Man sales are merely a byproduct of CoD gamers

It’s a rush to conclusions nonsensical argument not supported by any kind of facts. And even if that stat is meaning active userbase, it has no way of informing you as to whether they purchased a console specifically for CoD merely because they play/played it

I would say at one time played COD. 55% of all console players playing the yearly installment would be sales of nearly 80M. Highly doubtful.

 

[TheMay30thMan]

Insomniac? A talented, but little known IP? I stopped reading there.

 

[Mattyp]

Is 20 million meant to be good for their top selling exclusive? SoT did 25 million and that’s a shit game with nothing to do.. Forza 4 25
million for a rehashed to death sequel so weird.

CoDs 20 million a year will be insignificant in hindsight I guess you’re right, no need to worry at all. 2 yearly single player titles for a combined 16 hours of gameplay is more than enough these days.

 

[Three]

Are Insomniac IP's really that unknown?

Spyro
Ratchet & Clank
Resistance
Sunset Overdrive

Then they were bought by Sony and released Spiderman

Those IPs did not belong to Insomniac except Sunset Overdrive. Your timeline is incorrect too.

Before acquisition they developed:
Ratchet and Clank
Resistance
Spiderman

As IPs owned by Sony but developed by Insomniac. Same goes for Spyro but it was sold to Acti back in the 00s. Sony bought Insomniac after they had already developed spiderman.

Insomniac? A talented, but little known IP? I stopped reading there.

Insomniac isn't an IP.

 

[Three]

Is 20 million meant to be good for their top selling exclusive? SoT did 25 million and that’s a shit game with nothing to do.. Forza 4 25
million for a rehashed to death sequel so weird.

CoDs 20 million a year will be insignificant in hindsight I guess you’re right, no need to worry at all. 2 yearly single player titles for a combined 16 hours of gameplay is more than enough these days.

Sure if you want to pretend non-active player count and sales are the same thing.

 

[Shmunter]

Genuinely curious, what does this mean?

The class leading? best in class, top of the bunch, highest achiever, etc

 

[Mattyp]

Sure if you want to pretend non-active player count and sales are the same thing.

Sure since they’re hard sales would be a lot more actively playing right now wouldn't there since they invested more in the game? So how many people are playing Spider-Man right now?

More than Forza? More than SoT? More than Halo? Surely right?

 

[reksveks]

The class leading? best in class, top of the bunch, highest achiever, etc

Does that really apply to the user base or do you mean developers?

 

[Three]

Sure since they’re hard sales would be a lot more actively playing right now wouldn't there since they invested more in the game? So how many people are playing Spider-Man right now?

More than Forza? More than SoT? More than Halo? Surely right?

Spiderman isn't a GaaS with microtransactions up the wazoo. People complete it. Not sure what your point is.

Trying to say that 20M sales aren't impressive because 25M people played SoT at some point is daft though.

 

[Shmunter]

Does that really apply to the user base or do you mean developers?

It does apply to anything, and user base in this instance - user base is membership numbers, acquisition, retention, attach rate.

 

[Mattyp]

Spiderman isn't a GaaS with microtransactions up the wazoo. People complete it. Not sure what your point is.

Trying to say that 20M sales aren't impressive because 25M people played SoT at some point is daft though.

It’s a single player game why would it have micro transactions? If we want to compare micro transactions in multiplayer games NaughtyDog is far far worse than any Microsoft title, it’s actually pay to win. But not the discussion we’re having.

At some point? I’m trying to say engagement is important, constant hours of game time is important, active members is important, constant sign ups is important. CoD is the largest game online for these important factors.

Having 2 exclusives a year worth 16 hours of play time that eventually end up on PC now? Not so important with repeat revenue.

 

[reksveks]

It does apply to anything, and user base in this instance - user base is membership numbers, acquisition, retention, attach rate.

It's an unusual (as in I have neither used it in this way) definition of class leading. I wouldn't call Android users as class leading cause they are the biggest group but ehh. Guess Valve users are apart of that class leading definition as well.

 

[Shmunter]

It's an unusual (as in I have neither used it in this way) definition of class leading. I wouldn't call Android users as class leading cause they are the biggest group but ehh. Guess Valve users are apart of that class leading definition as well.

You could say the population numbers in India are class leading if you like. But here im talking console user base in the context of the current events.

 

[ZehDon]

Assertion =/= foresight

Only a tilted gamer would think only one company is offering gamer-worthy titles.

50% more games =/= "better"

50% more games =/= reality

Gamepass =/= incredible

Reality:

Be careful with this type of presumption. As of right now, Sony don't make RPGs, FPSs, Strategy games, turn based games, looter shooters, MMOs, or online focused titles of any kind. Sony pretty much just makes cinematic third person action adventure games and Gran Turismo. They put all their eggs in that basket and let third parties carry the other genres. Meanwhile, Microsoft basically snagged every major RPG, FPS, and Strategy game developer on the planet. And the ones they don't own are with EA, who already have their titles on Game Pass. So, while you're completely correct in that 50% more games certainly doesn't mean better games, PlayStations fans who want something other than cinematic third person action adventure games will have a shorter list of titles to pick from, while Xbox fans will be spoilt for choice. If I want an RPG, for example, PlayStation have little to offer. I think that's going to matter.

 

[Three]

It’s a single player game why would it have micro transactions? If we want to compare micro transactions in multiplayer games NaughtyDog is far far worse than any Microsoft title, it’s actually pay to win. But not the discussion we’re having.

At some point? I’m trying to say engagement is important, constant hours of game time is important, active members is important, constant sign ups is important. CoD is the largest game online for these important factors.

Having 2 exclusives a year worth 16 hours of play time that eventually end up on PC now? Not so important with repeat revenue.

This aint a Sony vs MS thing so stop warring. Exactly it's a single player game that can be completed so you tell me why would you look at concurrent numbers for it? SoT is GaaS and you're still using non-active

So you're just cheerleading GaaS and microtransactions. That was your point?
you're not saying engagement is important you're trying to say 20M sales of a game isn't impressive then bringing up games like SoT non-active cumulative player numbers as comparison.

I have no idea why COD and PC is being mentioned now. People checked out a game on multiple platforms and on gamepass, that's impressive to you not sales of Spiderman. I think I get why you're doing it now though.

 

[MrFunSocks]

Do you honestly think Xbox is going to sell 2:1 over playstation next gen? I mean maybe but that’s a massive change in consumer behavior …

The knock on effect is what you claimed. That Spider-Man sells in high numbers off the back of CoD. I’m saying why don’t other games on other platforms see that? My point was, because such a thing doesn’t exist.

Also don’t see a rebuttal to the actual CoD sales numbers vs this so called 55% console playing ratio. Looks like there are about 50 million Xbox ones out there. 115 million PS4s. So ignoring current gen numbers, CoD needs to sell 90 million units on console to hit a 55% playing ratio lol. Think that’s what the current games are selling when black ops was the highest at 30 million and Vanguard sales are way down?

I didn't say I think that Xbox will sell 2:1 next gen. Why is comprehension such a hard thing on this forum?

The knock on effect of games selling bigger numbers on the console that wins the battle of getting all the players that play the biggest yearly games on their console you mean? That does happen. The console that becomes the defacto for all of the "filthy casuals" as this forum would refer to them, the ones that but FIFA/COD/Madden/NBA every year and play fortnite and minecraft, they're the ones that drive sales of the console. More sales = more game sales. Why do you think games tend to sell more at the end of the generation? Spider Man wouldn't have sold 20 million had it come out in 2014 or 2015. It sold that much because the install base was there, built up over years and years by the people buying COD/Madden/FIFA/NBA/etc.

The stats aren't mine so I'm not going to rebut your questioning of them. I quoted a figure, was asked for receipts, I brought receipts. If you guys want to question it, shoot the research company that did it your list of questions. I didn't claim to have done the research or know their methodology, I just quoted their research findings.

Those IPs did not belong to Insomniac except Sunset Overdrive. Your timeline is incorrect too.

Before acquisition they developed:
Ratchet and Clank
Resistance
Spiderman

As IPs owned by Sony but developed by Insomniac. Same goes for Spyro but it was sold to Acti back in the 00s. Sony bought Insomniac after they had already developed spiderman.


Insomniac isn't an IP.

Sony don't own the Spider Man IP.

T Three Since you laughed I am going to assume you think Sony do own the Spider Man IP, so I'll give you a few links to read and then a tl;dr version:

Spider-Man Movie Rights: The History Of Sony's Deal With Marvel

Recently, negotiations between Sony and Marvel broke down over the rights to Spider-Man. Here is the full story of how Sony came to own the rights to Spider-Man in the first place.

www.cinemablend.com

Untangling the Web of Spider-Man and Intellectual Property | Briffa Legal

In the nineties Marvel licensed film rights of well-known superheroes to film companies, including X-Men to 20th Century Fox and Spider-Man to Sony Pictures.

www.briffa.com

Does Sony own the video game rights to Spider-Man?

Sony owns the rights to Spider-Man on the big screen but when it comes to the web-slinger in video games, who is the one responsible?

apptrigger.com

tl;dr: Marvel own everything related to the spider man IP. Sony currently have a exclusive usage rights to spider man for movies. If they do not have a spider man movie in production/release every x amount of years, they lose the movie rights. The Spider Man IP is wholly owned by Marvel/Disney.

 

[MistBreeze]

I think 3d party is lost cause now for anybody best not to depend on it

For sony I think it is not realastic to expect it to compete with mega corporations on acquisitions

To be successful u must find something u do so well nobody do it better than u

In case of sony big bluckbaster AAA titles are their specialty. no one doing it as well as them they must continue in it, they sell millions and millions of copies so it is great

Buy more talented studios, try to make some fps multiplayer military shooter with unique idea maybe one game as a service

Maybe they should test a sub service that includ ps plus, now and a collection of third party, indi games and their first parties games that ran the course sales wise maybe full back compat catalogue ps1-ps3 titles to make it more appealing

as for Japanese publishers maybe sony should buy capcom or square, if American mega corp jumped to buy any japanese publisher then I think Japanese government must step in to protect their japanese companies

 

[Justin9mm]

Microsoft want as many games as they can for gamepass because they are going to hook everyone in and raise that monthly fee because it needs to remain valuable and profitable. It's cheaper in the long run to own the studios then pay for every game to be on gamepass. That's the only way to make it profitable long term. It's the best strategy because that's how you build a subscription service.

It's got nothing to do with Sony and can't be compared because its not what Sony is doing.

 

[anthony2690]

I think Spiderman sells on name alone.
It helps that they turned out a high quality product too.
Look how crazy people went for wolverine? & They showed pretty much nothing.
I wouldn't be surprised if Sony make more marvel games in the future.

Sadly though, I'm just not into super heroes.

 

[tusharngf]

one huge COD game = all first party titles in a single year. This is what cod brings to the table.

 

[Three]

I didn't say I think that Xbox will sell 2:1 next gen. Why is comprehension such a hard thing on this forum?

The knock on effect of games selling bigger numbers on the console that wins the battle of getting all the players that play the biggest yearly games on their console you mean? That does happen. The console that becomes the defacto for all of the "filthy casuals" as this forum would refer to them, the ones that but FIFA/COD/Madden/NBA every year and play fortnite and minecraft, they're the ones that drive sales of the console. More sales = more game sales. Why do you think games tend to sell more at the end of the generation? Spider Man wouldn't have sold 20 million had it come out in 2014 or 2015. It sold that much because the install base was there, built up over years and years by the people buying COD/Madden/FIFA/NBA/etc.

The stats aren't mine so I'm not going to rebut your questioning of them. I quoted a figure, was asked for receipts, I brought receipts. If you guys want to question it, shoot the research company that did it your list of questions. I didn't claim to have done the research or know their methodology, I just quoted their research findings.


Sony don't own the Spider Man IP.

T Three Since you laughed I am going to assume you think Sony do own the Spider Man IP, so I'll give you a few links to read and then a tl;dr version:

Spider-Man Movie Rights: The History Of Sony's Deal With Marvel

Recently, negotiations between Sony and Marvel broke down over the rights to Spider-Man. Here is the full story of how Sony came to own the rights to Spider-Man in the first place.

www.cinemablend.com

Untangling the Web of Spider-Man and Intellectual Property | Briffa Legal

In the nineties Marvel licensed film rights of well-known superheroes to film companies, including X-Men to 20th Century Fox and Spider-Man to Sony Pictures.

www.briffa.com

Does Sony own the video game rights to Spider-Man?

Sony owns the rights to Spider-Man on the big screen but when it comes to the web-slinger in video games, who is the one responsible?

apptrigger.com

tl;dr: Marvel own everything related to the spider man IP. Sony currently have a exclusive usage rights to spider man for movies. If they do not have a spider man movie in production/release every x amount of years, they lose the movie rights. The Spider Man IP is wholly owned by Marvel/Disney.

I laughed before you even quoted me in your edit. I would laugh twice at your post if I could now.

Sony secured the rights to the game and hired Insomniac even prior to acquisition. So OPs point of Insomniac having little known IPs is right in the context.

 

[Ebidramon]

Sony is finished.