Support NeoGAF

[zzill3]

Actually, it is only talking about Sony's third-party exclusives and completely ignoring the fact that Xbox also does the same exclusivity deals all the time. And using that as an excuse to make a case for Microsoft's acquisition of third-party multiplatform publishers.

These are just some of the games that Xbox blocked from going to PlayStation recently.

• The Medium
• Shredders
• Tunic
• Valheim
• Warhammer Darktide
• High on Life
• The Gunk
• Stalkers 2
• Slime Rancher 2
• Scorn
• Ark 2

Of course it’s talking about Sony’s exclusives, because Sony are the ones wanting to block it. Both Sony and MS have in the past and continue to money hat exclusive third party content. Both of them have in the past and are still buying publishers - it’s only Sony who have kicked up a fuss about Microsoft buying ABK because all of a sudden MS doing what Sony have done isn’t allowed any more?

That’s the hypocrisy.

 

[Fabieter]

Is there a fictional FFVII Remake in the vaults somewhere for Xbox? I don't understand this obsession with a first party title that's a new IP being on a MS system. They literally pay the salary of the developers. This is the kind of stuff people are annoyed with when people laugh at Bloodborne being mentioned, which is a third party developer Sony doesn't own (yet). What about Nioh or Rise of the Ronin? What about Stellar Blade? What about tons of games. But literally the only one not allowed to have an exclusive is MS apparently. No one is criticizing Nioh or Rise of the Ronin, or suing to get Stellar Blade or FFVII or FFXVI on Xbox. Just Starfield apparently is the only bridge too far for you guys.

Stellar Blade was literally announced publicly for Xbox in 2019. Starfield sure wasn't. But even if it was, it would be fine because no one complains about Stellar Blade at all or even hardly mentions that the Xbox version got scrapped. Apparently no one cares. Did I mention that Tencent also is investing in that developer?
https://www.pushsquare.com/news/202...of-korean-ps5-console-exclusive-stellar-blade
Everyone is pursuing acquisitions and exclusivity aggressively.

No one cares Microsoft made gears of war 1 to 3 permanent exclusive either
Remember titanfall 1, thar was supposed to hit playstation too? No one cared but god forbid sony is doing what ms is doing since the 360 days

 

[Punished Miku]

No one cares Microsoft made gears of war 1 to 3 permanent exclusive either
Remember titanfall 1, thar was supposed to hit playstation too? No one cared but god forbid sony is doing what ms is doing since the 360 days

MS is not suing to block Sony from doing anything. Not even when they acquired their ex-developer Bungie, or Insomniac who they invested in (clearly some experience from Sunset Overdrive went into Spider Man). Sony is lobbying for trade organizations to sue MS, who is in a distant 3rd place.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Of course it’s talking about Sony’s exclusives, because Sony are the ones wanting to block it. Both Sony and MS have in the past and continue to money hat exclusive third party content. Both of them have in the past and are still buying publishers - it’s only Sony who have kicked up a fuss about Microsoft buying ABK because all of a sudden MS doing what Sony have done isn’t allowed any more?

That’s the hypocrisy.

Nope. Only Microsoft is buying multiplatform developers and publishers and blocking their games from going to PlayStation, in addition to all the third-party exclusive deals. Sony isn't doing that.

Because MS can't produce games at the quality and cadence of PlayStation Studios, their strategy to close the gap and create a level-playing field is to dry up PlayStation's library. Anybody can see that.

 

[Fabieter]

MS is not suing to block Sony from doing anything. Not even when they acquired their ex-developer Bungie, or Insomniac who they invested in (clearly some experience from Sunset Overdrive went into Spider Man). Sony is lobbying for trade organizations to sue MS, who is in a distant 3rd place.

Bungie will remain multi while insomniac made like 20 playstation exclusive before doing sunset. No one cared when ms bought playground.

 

[Punished Miku]

Bungie will remain multi while insomniac made like 20 playstation exclusive before doing sunset. No one cared when ms bought playground.

MS provided far more guarantee of Call of Duty being multiplat than anything we got from Bungie.

 

[Fabieter]

MS provided far more guarantee of Call of Duty being multiplat than anything we got from Bungie.

Well its what bungie wanted. Knowing bungies history its safe to say that bungie wont be under sony when they are forcing bungie to do anything.

Besides ftc looked into the bungie case as well and probably saw a contract which ensured any game to be multiplatform going forward which is more than ms is providing with Bethesda and avb.

 

[Kokoloko85]

Is there a fictional FFVII Remake in the vaults somewhere for Xbox? I don't understand this obsession with a first party title that's a new IP being on a MS system. They literally pay the salary of the developers. This is the kind of stuff people are annoyed with when people laugh at Bloodborne being mentioned, which is a third party developer Sony doesn't own (yet). What about Nioh or Rise of the Ronin? What about Stellar Blade? What about tons of games. But literally the only one not allowed to have an exclusive is MS apparently. No one is criticizing Nioh or Rise of the Ronin, or suing to get Stellar Blade or FFVII or FFXVI on Xbox. Just Starfield apparently is the only bridge too far for you guys.

Stellar Blade was literally announced publicly for Xbox in 2019. Starfield sure wasn't. But even if it was, it would be fine because no one complains about Stellar Blade at all or even hardly mentions that the Xbox version got scrapped. Apparently no one cares. Did I mention that Tencent also is investing in that developer?
https://www.pushsquare.com/news/202...of-korean-ps5-console-exclusive-stellar-blade
Everyone is pursuing acquisitions and exclusivity aggressively.

Bloodborne was also made by Japan Studios like Demons Souls. Nioh wasn’t I don’t believe.
Rise of the Ronin is. Also Death Stranding was assisted by Guerilla, more than just the engine. Detroit didnt get helped by PS studios. Thats why those games are published by Playstation. They pay for it and help create the games mostly.

I didnt even know Stellar Blade was announced before. And big different between a game or 2 an an entire publisher forever. Starfield wasn’t an MS 1st party title when it was being made for years lol. Im sure MS hardly done anything to get the game going to being made.

 

[zzill3]

Nope. Only Microsoft is buying multiplatform developers and publishers and blocking their games from going to PlayStation, in addition to all the third-party exclusive deals. Sony isn't doing that.

Sony acquired Guerilla Games in 2005, the makers of the Horizon series. Are those games coming out on xbox do you think? If not, then Sony have bought a developer and are blocking their games from going on xbox.
If no one complains about Horizon being exclusive after Sony bought the developers, no one should complain when MS does the same thing.

Because MS can't produce games at the quality and cadence of PlayStation Studios, their strategy to close the gap and create a level-playing field is to dry up PlayStation's library. Anybody can see that.

If MS buying developers and publishers and exclusives is because they can’t keep up with Playstation game output, then why are playstation also doing those things in your opinion?

 

[ANDS]

This is assuming there aren't any existing / longstanding agreements between Sony and Square about rights to refusal or thereabout.

Is this your thing now? Stating the obvious?

 

[Punished Miku]

Starfield wasn’t an MS 1st party title when it was being made for years lol. Im sure MS hardly done anything to get the game going to being made.

Stellar Blade was literally announced for Xbox 4 years ago. This year it was announced Sony is publishing it, and it comes out this year. Sony does not own the developer.

Are you truly incapable of just admitting that MS making Starfield exclusive is 100% fine, and a normal practice that happens in the industry all the time? Or compare Starfield to FFXVI, which Sony is doing the same with but also doesn't own and likely also didn't help on development with. Why is it only Starfield that gets this shit? It's the same thing. This isn't a trick question, it's literally the same thing.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Stellar Blade was literally announced for Xbox 4 years ago. This year it was announced Sony is publishing it, and it comes out this year. Sony does not own the developer.

Are you truly incapable of just admitting that MS making Starfield exclusive is 100% fine, and a normal practice that happens in the industry all the time? Or compare Starfield to FFXVI, which Sony is doing the same with but also doesn't own and likely also didn't help on development with. Why is it only Starfield that gets this shit? It's the same thing. This isn't a trick question, it's literally the same thing.

nailed it 100%

 

[reinking]

Of course it’s talking about Sony’s exclusives, because Sony are the ones wanting to block it. Both Sony and MS have in the past and continue to money hat exclusive third party content. Both of them have in the past and are still buying publishers - it’s only Sony who have kicked up a fuss about Microsoft buying ABK because all of a sudden MS doing what Sony have done isn’t allowed any more?

That’s the hypocrisy.

When was the last time Sony bought a major gaming publisher and distributor? I did not realize they have been doing that.

 

[Clear]

Stellar Blade was literally announced for Xbox 4 years ago. This year it was announced Sony is publishing it, and it comes out this year. Sony does not own the developer.

Are you truly incapable of just admitting that MS making Starfield exclusive is 100% fine, and a normal practice that happens in the industry all the time? Or compare Starfield to FFXVI, which Sony is doing the same with but also doesn't own and likely also didn't help on development with. Why is it only Starfield that gets this shit? It's the same thing. This isn't a trick question, it's literally the same thing.

Because the Starfield exclusivity is a consequence of them buying an entire PUBLISHER. Which includes not only Starfield but all of Bethesda's *numerous* IP. Which of course is saying nothing of all the other companies and properties acquired during the same buyout like ID etc.

Buying a house and buying a small-town's worth of buildings are not the same thing!

 

[Lupin25]

Sony acquired Guerilla Games in 2005, the makers of the Horizon series. Are those games coming out on xbox do you think? If not, then Sony have bought a developer and are blocking their games from going on xbox.
If no one complains about Horizon being exclusive after Sony bought the developers, no one should complain when MS does the same thing.



If MS buying developers and publishers and exclusives is because they can’t keep up with Playstation game output, then why are playstation also doing those things in your opinion?

This is willfully obtuse. It’s not the same.

Horizon released in 2017, 12 years after GG was bought. Sony made the IP.
It was NEVER intended as a multiplatform game, nor would there be a game without Sony’s funding.

Buying a publisher with a stable of multiplatform IP isn’t the same as buying individual studios and developing/funding new exclusive games for the platform.

 

[Punished Miku]

Because the Starfield exclusivity is a consequence of them buying an entire PUBLISHER. Which includes not only Starfield but all of Bethesda's *numerous* IP. Which of course is saying nothing of all the other companies and properties acquired during the same buyout like ID etc.

Buying a house and buying a small-town's worth of buildings are not the same thing!

If you want to talk about the Zenimax deal, we can. It went through without major issue. It's a done deal.

If you want to talk about games, that's what I was talking about. I was talking specifically about Starfield being an exclusive is literally exactly the same as Stellar Blade or Final Fantasy XVI. If anything, the fact that MS purchased them and now pays their salaries entirely makes Starfield being an exclusive even more justified. That is a fact. I asked if you guys are incapable of acknowledging that, and it appears you are.

If you want to talk about the pros and cons of acquiring a large publisher, that's literally a whole separate topic. MS having Starfield exclusive is 100% normal, and in keeping with what their competition regularly does with huge RPG titles. Literally the two biggest RPG titles of next year are FFXVI and Starfield. The ease of comparison could not possibly be more clear and you guys still can't acknowledge it.

 

[feynoob]

But a higher user base will only shift the absolute data more in favor of PlayStation, not Xbox, right?

Correct.
It's why these debates are meaningless.
PS higher userbase gives them advantage over Xbox.

 

[adamsapple]

Is this your thing now? Stating the obvious?

If you, also, think I'm stating the obvious, then what's the point of arguments like "but MS can pay them even mooooore"

It looks like we're on the same page here

So where's the proof this actually happened?

Where's the proof of what happening ? that they've historically increased the exclusivity timeline at least once ?

Watch the FFVII R trailers, then watch the FFVII R Intergrade trailers and look at the tags at the end.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Correct.
It's why these debates are meaningless.
PS higher userbase gives them advantage over Xbox.

Yes, but that wasn't my point. My point was that Xbox does not have a higher digital ratio than PS, and the example I shared proved that.

I thought we both misunderstood each other. Do you also agree that Xbox does not have a higher digital ratio than PS?

 

[zzill3]

When was the last time Sony bought a major gaming publisher and distributor? I did not realize they have been doing that.

Sony bought Bungie, a publisher in January this year. Whether they are ‘major’ or not is your opinion, but they are a developer and publisher.

This is willfully obtuse. It’s not the same.

Horizon released in 2017, 12 years after GG was bought. Sony made the IP.
It was NEVER intended as a multiplatform game, nor would there be a game without Sony’s funding.

Buying a publisher with a stable of multiplatform IP isn’t the same as buying individual studios and developing/funding new exclusive games for the platform.

Heisenberg007 needed an example of Sony buying a developer and stopping their games going to xbox, so I gave one.
You can throw a load of caveats in to that so that it’s only a problem in the exact circumstances that Microsoft are operating in if you want, but that wasn’t part of what we were talking about.

It doesn’t really matter when the games were released and when the developer was bought, the point is a developer who had made multi platform content is now exclusive to playstation - and there’s more examples of that as well, GG was just the first one I saw.
If it’s ok for Sony, then it’s ok for Microsoft.

 

[gladdys]

Yeah but it doesn't change the fact that Microsoft buys whole publishers (which IMO is worse than timed exclusivity deals) as well as paying for third party deals. So, what the hell is Microsoft complaining about here?

The fact is the results are the same. My hope is if Microsoft can use COD as a bargaining chip, I will get final fantasy 7 remake, 16, etc.

Then I get intrigued if this deal falls through how to Microsoft adapt their strategy and put their 65 billion dollars to acceptable use?

 

[feynoob]

Yes, but that wasn't my point. My point was that Xbox does not have a higher digital ratio than PS, and the example I shared proved that.

I thought we both misunderstood each other. Do you also agree that Xbox does not have a higher digital ratio than PS?

Xbox has around 90% for their platform.
It doesn't have higher digital sales than PS.

 

[Thabass]

And Sony was mad at Microsoft for the Activision Blizzard purchase? Yeah, no hypocrisy there.

 

[Same ol G]

Thread is filled with Sony warriors how annoying some are reading the comments.
Please show me on the elmo doll where Microsoft touched you.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Xbox has around 90% for their platform.
It doesn't have higher digital sales than PS.

What's the source for that figure?

 

[Heisenberg007]

Sony acquired Guerilla Games in 2005, the makers of the Horizon series. Are those games coming out on xbox do you think? If not, then Sony have bought a developer and are blocking their games from going on xbox.
If no one complains about Horizon being exclusive after Sony bought the developers, no one should complain when MS does the same thing.

That is such a bad example; it only makes your argument weak.

Horizon is a Sony game, not a Guerrilla Game. It released in 2017, 12 years after Sony bought Guerrilla. How many Xbox games and IP did Guerrilla made before Sony's acquisition? What did Xbox lose when Sony acquired Guerrilla?

 

[Swift_Star]

I've said this before:
Xbox is an US oriented console.
All of its marketing is oriented torwards the US market.
This is the biggest problem with this brand.
The only reason this partially works on Brazil, it's because this country likes what north americans like.
All in all, PS and Switch marketing don't alienate other countries like Xbox's do.
As such, it should come as no surprise that japanese games historically flop on Xbox consoles, the vast majority of their userbase DON'T play japanese games.
And, of course, this is all on MS.

 

[Clear]

If you want to talk about the Zenimax deal, we can. It went through without major issue. It's a done deal.

If you want to talk about games, that's what I was talking about. I was talking specifically about Starfield being an exclusive is literally exactly the same as Stellar Blade or Final Fantasy XVI. If anything, the fact that MS purchased them and now pays their salaries entirely makes Starfield being an exclusive even more justified. That is a fact. I asked if you guys are incapable of acknowledging that, and it appears you are.

If you want to talk about the pros and cons of acquiring a large publisher, that's literally a whole separate topic. MS having Starfield exclusive is 100% normal, and in keeping with what their competition regularly does with huge RPG titles. Literally the two biggest RPG titles of next year are FFXVI and Starfield. The ease of comparison could not possibly be more clear and you guys still can't acknowledge it.

Yes it did, but MS trying the same approach a couple of years later on an even larger scale with ABK annihilates any sort of moral argument they have.

Essentially they are complaining about a competitor making a couple of properties exclusive while they themselves engineer a position where they make literally dozens of franchises exclusive in perpetuity.

Their actions made Sony's response and current business strategy inevitable.

Its been 5 full years since MS started aggressively buying up companies, and at no point have they indicated that they are about to stop anytime soon. Are you suggesting that Sony should just sit there and let these moves stand unopposed?

 

[Punished Miku]

I've said this before:
Xbox is an US oriented console.
All of its marketing is oriented torwards the US market.
This is the biggest problem with this brand.
The only reason this partially works on Brazil, it's because this country likes what north americans like.
All in all, PS and Switch marketing don't alienate other countries like Xbox's do.
As such, it should come as no surprise that japanese games historically flop on Xbox consoles, the vast majority of their userbase DON'T play japanese games.
And, of course, this is all on MS.

A lot of what you said is true, sure.

But Sony doesn't see FFXVI as so weak on Xbox that they don't have to address it. They see it as so important they're locking down exclusivity and blocking it from Xbox. So that is some objective proof that it's not as simple as you claim. If we leave both our opinions out of it, we know Sony is paying to block it. That's something objective we can both agree on.

My only opinion I'd add is that while Xbox is US-centric, the repeated denials of major JRPGs over two decades have also been strategically designed to prevent that JRPG audience from ever growing on Xbox. It's a chicken and egg situation. Are JRPGs unpopular on Xbox just because, or does their constant blocking on the system also help prevent them from ever being popular?

 

[feynoob]

What's the source for that figure?

From our dear analysist.



This is from Zhuge long time ago on npd sales.

Xbox One had a good year all things considered. Hardware was up YoY thanks to the release of the Xbox One X. Software remains healthy and I really need to stress how large the digital shares are on Xbox compared to other platforms. Global installed base now around 41m.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/de...-game-of-december.95119/page-14#post-17170590


It's why Xbox sells less physical and more digital.

 

[Dick Jones]

Looks like he's talking about the company not the players.

I doubt it. He throws in an inflammatory comment and runs off straight away. He knew what he was doing.

I actually waited to respond to you to see if there was a resurface. None. Stop defending those type of posters.

 

[Lupin25]

Sony bought Bungie, a publisher in January this year. Whether they are ‘major’ or not is your opinion, but they are a developer and publisher.



Heisenberg007 needed an example of Sony buying a developer and stopping their games going to xbox, so I gave one.
You can throw a load of caveats in to that so that it’s only a problem in the exact circumstances that Microsoft are operating in if you want, but that wasn’t part of what we were talking about.

It doesn’t really matter when the games were released and when the developer was bought, the point is a developer who had made multi platform content is now exclusive to playstation - and there’s more examples of that as well, GG was just the first one I saw.
If it’s ok for Sony, then it’s ok for Microsoft.

But it does…

Because the whole topic of debate surrounding both the ZeniMax & Activision-Blizzard acquisitions, is the fact that they all contain multiplatform games.

Horizon was never multiplatform (unless you count pc now lol) and you’re forgetting…
Wouldn’t EXIST without SONY’s funding.

Meaning it was a MUTUAL partnership to create the IP.

Sony’s not coming after MS for Halo or Forza.
Big difference there, right?

 

[Punished Miku]

Essentially they are complaining about a competitor making a couple of properties exclusive while they themselves engineer a position where they make literally dozens of franchises exclusive in perpetuity.

Their actions made Sony's response and current business strategy inevitable.

Its been 5 full years since MS started aggressively buying up companies, and at no point have they indicated that they are about to stop anytime soon. Are you suggesting that Sony should just sit there and let these moves stand unopposed?

I don't understand. You have the first sentence backwards. MS is not complaining. Sony is complaining. MS is taking action to try and remain competitive against a dominant player in the market.

As for Sony, I feel they're acting like massive hypocrites. I'd expect them to respond with their own plans to strengthen the offerings on their system, not cry.

 

[fuck_diggity_cunt_ingdon]

Where Final Fantasy is concerned - who the hell is buying an Xbox and THEN getting annoyed by this?!?!?!

If that’s your jam you’re buying a Playstation.

 

[Swift_Star]

And people seriously still fucking try to convince me Sony isn't the cancer pushing exclusivity today. I hope Microsoft takes CoD and all Bethesda games away from those scumbags.

 

[SSfox]

the fact that these are the only non-first party xbox exclusives that come to mind is actually a hint about the situation. Microsoft failed miserably to build relationships with third party developers and publishers and now they have to literally force people to make games for them by buying them out.

Ok a bit harsh

There are more like Ryse, Dead Rising 3, but Phil Cry now cause he realize he's more lame than every past Xbox head.

 

[Swift_Star]

Paying third parties to keep long running games series like final fantasy, street fighter, silent hill, etc. off of a competing platform is not good for consumers/gamers and the choices available to them. Does anyone disagree?

SF was patially funded by Sony.

 

[Clear]

I don't understand. You have the first sentence backwards. MS is not complaining. Sony is complaining. MS is taking action to try and remain competitive against a dominant player in the market.

As for Sony, I feel they're acting like massive hypocrites. I'd expect them to respond with their own plans to strengthen the offerings on their system, not cry.

No, you're ignoring the circumstance and therefore the context in which these comments are made.

The undeniable fact is that the centrepiece of XBox PR for the past few years has been "we are buying everything" basically because their own first-party effort has become so decrepit and mismanaged that the best you can say about them is that they managed to push a Forza title out the door annually and even that they managed to fuck up this year!

Nobody in this business EVER has been so aggressive in acquiring major franchises and developers as the current XBox regime. That there's now some knuckle-headed controversy about Playstation making exclusivity deals on single titles -a practice that has been normal since day#1- is quite laughable to me.

Locking certain high-profile games to a single platform is not in the least bit problematic. However when an incredibly rich and well funded company starts grabbing publishers in an undisguised attempt to starve the competition of support, then there is an issue.

Its not even like the acquired parties weren't previously publishing on Xbox either, the ONLY reason to expend the billions that MS are is in order to hurt the competition. Because beyond that, they are gaining nothing. They could buy exclusivity deals piecemeal like Sony are, but they aren't, and its not because they care about gaming or lack the funds to make those deals.

 

[Punished Miku]

Locking certain high-profile games to a single platform is not in the least bit problematic. However when an incredibly rich and well funded company starts grabbing publishers in an undisguised attempt to starve the competition of support, then there is an issue.

This literally makes no sense to me. They're the same thing.

The only difference is scale. We can have a debate about scale, which is what the CMA and FTC are doing. But both actions are obviously designed to hurt the competition in the exact same way. That's why I call it hypocrisy; because it's literally the same.

Let's say for the sake of argument, purely hypothetical - that the rumors of Sony trying to pay for Starfield to be an exclusive are true. That is fine? But if MS owns Bethesda in a deal approved and finished, making Starfield exclusive is not fine then? It makes no sense man.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Sony will have to make a statement, they have a shot to buy square enix.

 

[Fabieter]

If you want to talk about the Zenimax deal, we can. It went through without major issue. It's a done deal.

If you want to talk about games, that's what I was talking about. I was talking specifically about Starfield being an exclusive is literally exactly the same as Stellar Blade or Final Fantasy XVI. If anything, the fact that MS purchased them and now pays their salaries entirely makes Starfield being an exclusive even more justified. That is a fact. I asked if you guys are incapable of acknowledging that, and it appears you are.

If you want to talk about the pros and cons of acquiring a large publisher, that's literally a whole separate topic. MS having Starfield exclusive is 100% normal, and in keeping with what their competition regularly does with huge RPG titles. Literally the two biggest RPG titles of next year are FFXVI and Starfield. The ease of comparison could not possibly be more clear and you guys still can't acknowledge it.

As a diehard final fantasy myself. No matter how good both games are, Starfield is gonna be alot bigger. There is no comparison.

 

[zzill3]

That is such a bad example; it only makes your argument weak.

Horizon is a Sony game, not a Guerrilla Game. It released in 2017, 12 years after Sony bought Guerrilla. How many Xbox games and IP did Guerrilla made before Sony's acquisition? What did Xbox lose when Sony acquired Guerrilla?

Guerilla had made 1 game for xbox and 2 for playstation being being acquired, and Xbox lost all Guerilla Games future multiplatform output - no one knows what games that would have included because that timeline doesn’t exist. Much like the timeline where new Bethesda games are on playstation, and post acquisition the timeline where new ABK games are on playstation.

If you don’t care about post acquisition Guerilla games not being made for xbox, then you shouldn’t care about post acquisition Bethesda and ABK games not being made for playstation.

But it does…

Because the whole topic of debate surrounding both the ZeniMax & Activision-Blizzard acquisitions, is the fact that they all contain multiplatform games.

Horizon was never multiplatform (unless you count pc now lol) and you’re forgetting…
Wouldn’t EXIST without SONY’s funding.

Meaning it was a MUTUAL partnership to create the IP.

Sony’s not coming after MS for Halo or Forza.
Big difference there, right?

Horizon is not multiplatform like Starfield is not multiplatform, along with all future output from those companies which haven’t already been released.
The multiplatform games aren’t going away after the acquisition is complete. You can still buy games from Bethesdas back catalogue on playstation store today if you want.

Games that get released post acquisition tend to be exclusive to the platform holder that acquired them. That’s ok for Guerilla and Sony, so it should be ok for Bethesda and ABK for Microsoft as well. Just because Sony did it a long time ago and Microsoft are doing it more recently shouldn’t really matter.

 

[DForce]

Sony acquired Guerilla Games in 2005, the makers of the Horizon series. Are those games coming out on xbox do you think? If not, then Sony have bought a developer and are blocking their games from going on xbox.
If no one complains about Horizon being exclusive after Sony bought the developers, no one should complain when MS does the same thing.



If MS buying developers and publishers and exclusives is because they can’t keep up with Playstation game output, then why are playstation also doing those things in your opinion?

You guys get so desperate that you have to name Guerrilla Games. LOL

You're comparing acquiring Call of Duty and all their IPs to acquiring Guerrilla Games. You don't even remember which games they made before being acquired without looking at the wiki page.

 

[adamsapple]

Locking certain high-profile games to a single platform is not in the least bit problematic. However when an incredibly rich and well funded company starts grabbing publishers in an undisguised attempt to starve the competition of support, then there is an issue.

They're the same thing lol

In your specific example, the entity buying the publisher is *NOT* withholding any game, so it's even more detrimental to your argument.

 

[Fabieter]

Guerilla had made 1 game for xbox and 2 for playstation being being acquired, and Xbox lost all Guerilla Games future multiplatform output - no one knows what games that would have included because that timeline doesn’t exist. Much like the timeline where new Bethesda games are on playstation, and post acquisition the timeline where new ABK games are on playstation.

If you don’t care about post acquisition Guerilla games not being made for xbox, then you shouldn’t care about post acquisition Bethesda and ABK games not being made for playstation.





Horizon is not multiplatform like Starfield is not multiplatform, along with all future output from those companies which haven’t already been released.
The multiplatform games aren’t going away after the acquisition is complete. You can still buy games from Bethesdas back catalogue on playstation store today if you want.

Games that get released post acquisition tend to be exclusive to the platform holder that acquired them. That’s ok for Guerilla and Sony, so it should be ok for Bethesda and ABK for Microsoft as well. Just because Sony did it a long time ago and Microsoft are doing it more recently shouldn’t really matter.

So lets say sony is buying
T2
Capcom
Swaure enix

Are you happy with xbox loosing like 30 ips permanently? Buying devs and pubs isn't the same. Why do people dont get it.

 

[Clear]

This literally makes no sense to me. They're the same thing.

The only difference is scale. We can have a debate about scale, which is what the CMA and FTC are doing. But both actions are obviously designed to hurt the competition in the exact same way. That's why I call it hypocrisy; because it's literally the same.

Let's say for the sake of argument, purely hypothetical - that the rumors of Sony trying to pay for Starfield to be an exclusive are true. That is fine? But if MS owns Bethesda in a deal approved and finished, making Starfield exclusive is not fine then? It makes no sense man.

Its not just scale its permanence. If entity A has a property sufficiently appealing that entities B and C are willing to pay for its exclusivity, following the conclusion of the deal there are still 3 active participants for any future negotiation. When party A is absorbed into B or C, then there are only 2 parties left in the aftermath.

Given that B and C have competing interests the likelihood of future deals being made shrinks to near zero unless at the point of merger explicit arrangements are made that the acquired entity remains quasi-independent in perpetuity with just ownership changing hands. This is not what MS are presently offering.

 

[Punished Miku]

Its not just scale its permanence. If entity A has a property sufficiently appealing that entities B and C are willing to pay for its exclusivity, following the conclusion of the deal there are still 3 active participants for any future negotiation. When party A is absorbed into B or C, then there are only 2 parties left in the aftermath.

Given that B and C have competing interests the likelihood of future deals being made shrinks to near zero unless at the point of merger explicit arrangements are made that the acquired entity remains quasi-independent in perpetuity with just ownership changing hands. This is not what MS are presently offering.

Fair enough, permanence is a difference. But acquisitions still happen all the time. We'll see if people think the scale is too big in the end. The permanence is not really going to prevent acquisitions.

It would be nice if you could at least admit that constantly locking down major releases so they can't appear on your competitor's much smaller userbase is also clearly designed to hurt the competition. You literally say it's not problematic at all, when Sony has been the dominant player with this strategy for 25 years. Sega died, Nintendo basically gave up on third parties and HD graphics except for indies. MS is the only one left that can even survive against Sony's strategy. If you can't admit that's got a major anti-competitive effect then you're kidding yourself.

MS didn't start with an acquisition strategy until it became clear that this is what they have to do to overcome the huge uphill market incentives working against them in gaming.

 

[Fabieter]

Fair enough, permanence is a difference. But acquisitions still happen all the time. We'll see if people think the scale is to big in the end. The permanence is not really going to prevent acquisitions.

It would be nice if you could at least admit that constantly locking down major releases so they can't appear on your competitor's much smaller userbase is also clearly designed to hurt the competition. You literally say it's not problematic at all, when Sony has been the dominant player with this strategy for 25 years. Sega died, Nintendo basically gave up on third parties and HD graphics except for indies. MS is the only left that can even survive against Sony's strategy. If you can't admit that's got a major anti-competitive effect then you're kidding yourself.

MS didn't start with an acquisition strategy until it became clear that this is what they have to do to overcome the huge uphill market incentives working against them in gaming.

Sony almost went out of business with the ps3?
Nintendo gave 3p an insane ammount of issues and cost they didnt want to deal with and lets not pretent that ps is the reason Sega is out of business but... yea timed exclusives suck for all THEEE companies. Only ONE is doing acquisitions of big pubs.

 

[Punished Miku]

Sony almost went out of business with the ps3?
Nintendo gave 3p an insane ammount of issues and cost they didnt want to deal with and lets not pretent that ps is the reason Sega is out of business but... yea timed exclusives suck for all THEEE companies. Only ONE is doing acquisitions of big pubs.

Acquisitions of big pubs are designed to try and compete against the constant 20 year onslaught of third party exclusives with all big pubs.

As I've argued in this thread, the net effect is the same thing. Sony gets to spend very little to lock up games. They don't have to pay the salary of third party developers. They just get to exploit their dominant position to lock out competitors from developing an audience. Just because they're the only one doing it now, doesn't mean others wont and it doesn't mean it wasn't beneficial to promoting competition against a dominant player in the market. And it doesn't mean consumers wont benefit.

 

[SSfox]

Why Microsoft don't just make great games?