Support NeoGAF

[cireza]

You should check some of the japanese games Xbox was getting during the original Xbox or 360 (many were even exclusives) if you think this is the best Xbox has ever been interns of Japanese games.

This "Phil Spencer is the best" posts are getting out of hand lol.

I know very well how Japanese support was from the very first Xbox, that I still own by the way. The number and variety of games that we get today in the West from third parties has been largely addressed.

Let's take some examples...

OG Xbox had close to zero anime adaptations ported to it. Nowadays, you get everything on Xbox : DBZ, Naruto, One Piece, Gundam, Sword Art Online, Jojo etc...
Another example is about the major J-RPG series. We have pretty much the entire FF series (except for what is being paid for by Sony of course, thanks Sony !), Dragon Quest, Persona, Yakuza, Tales of etc... None of these were on OG Xbox, many weren't on 360 either.
We get games from Spike Chunsoft as well, with Dangan Ronpa or AI Somnium Files... Hoping to get Shiren 5+ someday.
Fighting games too (well, unless Sony pays to privatize SF and KOF, thanks Sony !). Guilty Gear and Blazblue are coming to Xbox as well, we also have Melty Blood (awesome game by the way).

Third party games have been well covered, there has been a huge improvement during the past years and it was obvious to all Xbox players.

Overall, we are still missing games that are more niche (Vanillaware and Falcom for example). I would be surprised that this doesn't get addressed at some point in the future.

Same story with GrimGrimoire Oncemore, it’s coming out on both Switch PlayStation but not on Xbox, which I don’t NIS America got payed by Sony to keep it from coming on Xbox.

You can be sure that NIS America is on the list of publishers to address by Phil/MS.

 

[Fabieter]

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.

Yea you don't see any negative on it. I get it no way in arguing with you. Let's talk in a decade when there isn't the same ms as todsy

 

[mckmas8808]

Interesting - Further on it gives you the gamepass numbers.

4.54 Since its launch in 2017, Game Pass has gradually grown to approximately 25 million subscribers. As above, this is 10 million fewer subscribers (28%) than what was forecasted for Fiscal Year 2022.331 Much of the growth so far has come from []. [] Xbox console users account for approximately []% of subscribers across all Game Pass tiers. Over the period July 2019-July 2022, []% of Game Pass Ultimate subscribers (who are entitled to play both the Game Pass console and PC catalogue) accessed Game Pass through a PC, and [] ([]% in total) accessed Game Pass Ultimate via xCloud.

WHOA! This is very interesting....

 

[Punished Miku]

Yea you don't see any negative on it. I get it no way in arguing with you. Let's talk in a decade when there isn't the same ms as todsy

I don't, no. I haven't bought a single Activision Blizzard game in 10 years except Diablo III. I don't think MS is going to radically shift gaming and become a monopoly. I do think Call of Duty will remain multiplatform. I think it'll be beneficial to strengthen MS at this point to help promote greater competition against Sony. I think having 3 strong systems would be beneficial to everyone.

If you don't agree that's fine. Thanks for talking about it with me.

I just genuinely didn't hear anything that makes me think MS is going to become such a monopoly that it will hurt gaming. I think it's more likely that Sony will have a fire lit under its ass and we'll see a hungrier Sony push for competitive pricing, subs, and FPS games instead of the profit consolidation phase we see this gen. The Activision deal will hardly change anything for me personally except not paying for Diablo IV. That's literally it. I will be surprised if MS can ever catch Sony. Sony already has multiple FPS in development now.

 

[gladdys]

SF was patially funded by Sony.

True. If that initial release was anything to go by they did not get enough. Essentially though, you grow your brand through exposure to more people. Reducing third party reach is not a sustainable long term strategy. If final fantasy AAA games are kept off Xbox for the next 20 years the brand has less reach and worth and that Sony money for exclusivity will get less and less.

 

[DForce]

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.

Don't pretend people wanted Microsoft to acquire nearly all major publishers just to be more competitive, they wanted MS to acquire more publishers to push Sony out of the market.

It's funny how scale becomes irrelevant when talking about acquisitions.

On one hand, you guys want to compare the Activision acquisition and compare it to the likes of Insomniac Games and then tell us that scale doesn't matter because they're the same. But as soon as someone mentions Microsoft time exclusives, you guys say they're generally just small indie games.


Time exclusive/exclusive deals from third-party publishers is not the reason why the likes of Sega left the market. Sony and Microsoft entered the market with third party deals because they needed exclusives because they were fighting against Nintendo who had their own established IPs.

You guys are buying this BS about being more competitive. They want to kill their competition and that's the goal. Xbox fans wanted this from the beginning so it looks dumb when Xbox fans say they just want to be more competitive when they wanted MS to acquire Take-2, EA, Ubisoft, and others.

 

[adamsapple]

Don't pretend people wanted Microsoft to acquire nearly all major publishers just to be more competitive, they wanted MS to acquire more publishers to push Sony out of the market.

Where did this happen ?

I'm sure you must have some examples handy since you're so confident in writing this.

 

[Topher]

Do you actually know the contracts or are you just speculating?

You could ask the same exact question of Microsoft.

 

[Punished Miku]

Don't pretend people wanted Microsoft to acquire nearly all major publishers just to be more competitive, they wanted MS to acquire more publishers to push Sony out of the market.

If you just want to call me a liar and act like I don't actually believe what I say, then I can't really talk to you about anything. That is actually the reason I'm in favor of the deal. It's the only reason - to promote better competition between the systems.

Why would I want Sony pushed out of the market?

The deal doesn't even benefit me personally, since I don't play any Activision / Blizz games. If I was just wanting games I like on Xbox, I'd advise them to spend the money elsewhere.

Where did this happen ?

I'm sure you must have some examples handy since you're so confident in writing this.

It's just BS.

 

[DenchDeckard]

You could ask the same exact question of Microsoft.

As in what context?

Are you implying microsoft are lying in their legal response?
Is that possible?

 

[adamsapple]

You could ask the same exact question of Microsoft.

Topher my dude we don't need to do whataboutism for everything

Dean was responding to someone specifically calling the info in the topic false (it isn't).

 

[Clear]

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.

The problem with your argument is how to differentiate between third-party exclusivity and first-party exclusivity. The latter is far less questionable than the former and the result of mergers are that everything acquired becomes the latter!

This is essentially why its so pernicious. Especially in terms of IP ownership because once acquired its exceedingly rare that a platform holder ever relinquishes control.

I know I've made some fairly inflammatory comments about MS portfolio management which could be construed as console-warring as part of my overall position regarding acquisitions/exlusivity deals etc. But I think its an extremely important consideration when dealing with mass transfers of IP ownership such as what occurs with publisher mergers.

A lot of minor IP are likely to get buried *permanently* in the shuffle because it centralizes the greenlight process to a single controller. So if that controller shows limited ability in creating and/or elevating IP then everything in their sphere of influence is going to suffer. If MS were doing brilliantly with limited resources it'd be one thing, but they've shown over the last 20 years to be pretty bad despite apparently having cash to burn.

Therefore in my estimation it should matter where these IP's are going because they aren't going to be deployed randomly, they are going to be deployed tactically according to a business strategy. Its why I find the hyper-focus on CoD as the key element of the ABK deal so worrying, that merger has way more on the line than a couple of hot franchises, its a treasure-trove of historic IP. All of which will end up locked to the same historically underperforming management team.

And as I pointed out, once the deal is done many of those minor IP are going to vanish into the ether, diminishing the creative landscape in the process.

This is not like movies where the vault of library content can simply be dusted off and reissued, what about properties that were locked to platforms other than the new owner's? Its not just the future at stake, its the past also.

 

[Fabieter]

Don't pretend people wanted Microsoft to acquire nearly all major publishers just to be more competitive, they wanted MS to acquire more publishers to push Sony out of the market.

It's funny how scale becomes irrelevant when talking about acquisitions.

On one hand, you guys want to compare the Activision acquisition and compare it to the likes of Insomniac Games and then tell us that scale doesn't matter because they're the same. But as soon as someone mentions Microsoft time exclusives, you guys say they're generally just small indie games.


Time exclusive/exclusive deals from third-party publishers is not the reason why the likes of Sega left the market. Sony and Microsoft entered the market with third party deals because they needed exclusives because they were fighting against Nintendo who had their own established IPs.

You guys are buying this BS about being more competitive. They want to kill their competition and that's the goal. Xbox fans wanted this from the beginning so it looks dumb when Xbox fans say they just want to be more competitive when they wanted MS to acquire Take-2, EA, Ubisoft, and others.

This!

 

[adamsapple]

This!

No, please don't *this* this lol.

DForce has a habit of posting inflammatory comments like this without providing any context.

Don't pretend people wanted Microsoft to acquire nearly all major publishers just to be more competitive, they wanted MS to acquire more publishers to push Sony out of the market.

To my best recollection, no one in the 300+ page Activision acquisition thread has said that they outright want Sony to be pushed out of the market.

 

[aries_71]

Well, that’s sad. I really wanted FF7R. Now it makes little sense to buy the Crisis Core remaster.

 

[Punished Miku]

The problem with your argument is how to differentiate between third-party exclusivity and first-party exclusivity. The latter is far less questionable than the former and the result of mergers are that everything acquired becomes the latter!

This is essentially why its so pernicious. Especially in terms of IP ownership because once acquired its exceedingly rare that a platform holder ever relinquishes control.

I know I've made some fairly inflammatory comments about MS portfolio management which could be construed as console-warring as part of my overall position regarding acquisitions/exlusivity deals etc. But I think its an extremely important consideration when dealing with mass transfers of IP ownership such as what occurs with publisher mergers.

A lot of minor IP are likely to get buried *permanently* in the shuffle because it centralizes the greenlight process to a single controller. So if that controller shows limited ability in creating and/or elevating IP then everything in their sphere of influence is going to suffer. If MS were doing brilliantly with limited resources it'd be one thing, but they've shown over the last 20 years to be pretty bad despite apparently having cash to burn.

Therefore in my estimation it should matter where these IP's are going because they aren't going to be deployed randomly, they are going to be deployed tactically according to a business strategy. Its why I find the hyper-focus on CoD as the key element of the ABK deal so worrying, that merger has way more on the line than a couple of hot franchises, its a treasure-trove of historic IP. All of which will end up locked to the same historically underperforming management team.

And as I pointed out, once the deal is done many of those minor IP are going to vanish into the ether, diminishing the creative landscape in the process.

This is not like movies where the vault of library content can simply be dusted off and reissued, what about properties that were locked to platforms other than the new owner's? Its not just the future at stake, its the past also.

My ideal situation is that Activision / Blizz under Gamepass would flourish more than they are now. It's probably a naive hope but it's possible. We see smaller, weirder projects getting greenlit under the GP model since they don't have to rely on sales. My hope is that some of those weird minor IP will have a greater chance than ever to not get buried. We see GP giving a platform for more AA games and weird genres. Also I'd think there's a greater chance of all those games getting added to a great backwards compatibility system MS has.

But anyway, thanks for the thoughtful post. We'll just have to see what happens.

 

[Captain Toad]

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.

 

[Fabieter]

No, please don't *this* this lol.

DForce has a habit of posting inflammatory comments like this without providing any context.



To my best recollection, no one in the 300+ page Activision acquisition thread has said that they outright want Sony to be pushed out of the market.

No they don't do that outright, but playstation got like 70% of their revenue from 3p sales if you take more and more away it will get to the point where its not feasible anymore.

And to be honest I don't think both sides have done a good job why it's good or bad for competition. It's mostly opinions at this point.

 

[Killer8]

It's not disingenuous, It's just completely irrelevant. It makes no difference whether a third party developer releases an exclusive game that happened to be published by Sony or releases a game exclusively with a paid for contract when it comes to availability for the consumer of said title, which is what this is all about. The result for the consumer is exactly the same.

Well yes, the end result of the Xbox consumer not having access to the game will be the same either way. But the circumstances of why that happened are different, and are certainly not irrelevant to regulators.

A console manufacturer co-developing a new or already owned IP with a third-party is not the same as paying for a third party IP which may already have a precedence for being available on multiple platforms. I don't know how many times this needs to be repeated.

Obviously the Xbox consumer not being able to play the new IP (eg. Bloodborne) is going to be completely understandable, so for Microsoft to then make an equivalence with the Xbox consumer somehow having access removed is nonsensical. You might claim to be an impartial person who isn't judging whether MS are making a good argument or not - I on the other hand am judging them on this silliness.

In both cases, Sony paid a third party to develop games exclusively for them which, in turn, means that it can't be released on Xbox, and Microsoft is using these examples to argue that exclusives are common, normal and that it shouldn't be used to block the acquisition.

I'm aware of this and already wrote that this is Microsoft's strategy when trying to convince the regulators. It's in their interests to characterize all dealings with third parties as the same - first party money for third party games - with little attention paid to the context of each deal. It's what they hope will allow them to characterize the acquisition of AB as just another 'common, normal' deal. Don't get my wrong, Sony are absolutely guilty of denying access to the consumer as well. But I do find it disingenuous of Microsoft to cite Bloodborne as an example which is somehow equivalent to that.

You can make plenty of arguments that there is a big difference between paying for exclusive titles and acquiring an entire publisher, sure. But saying that they shouldn't have used Bloodborne as an example here simply because it's published by Sony themselves is silly and is missing the forest for the trees.

We're basically talking past each other and arguing about different things then.

 

[Clear]

My ideal situation is that Activision / Blizz under Gamepass would flourish more than they are now. It's probably a naive hope but it's possible. We see smaller, weirder projects getting greenlit under the GP model since they don't have to rely on sales. My hope is that some of those weird minor IP will have a greater chance than ever to not get buried. We see GP giving a platform for more AA games and weird genres. Also I'd think there's a greater chance of all those games getting added to a great backwards compatibility system MS has.

But anyway, thanks for the thoughtful post. We'll just have to see what happens.

I look at it this way. Remember when all the legacy (including former Playstation exclusive) FF titles were reissued on Xbox? Had SE been bought out by Sony that would most probably never have happened because that wouldn't serve their interests.

Consolidation is bad news, even if it might take many years for the extent to become apparent.

 

[Topher]

As in what context?

Are you implying microsoft are lying in their legal response?
Is that possible?

They are certainly not above exaggerating. These legal responses are full of that from all sides. I'd like to know how Microsoft knows details of Sony's arrangement with third parties? Don't you?

Topher my dude we don't need to do whataboutism for everything

Dean was responding to someone specifically calling the info in the topic false (it isn't).

adam my man you don't need to gobble both Phil's nuts at the same time. Pace yourself

Nothing "whataboutism" about posing a direct question as to Microsoft's knowledge of Sony's arrangement.

 

[Punished Miku]

I look at it this way. Remember when all the legacy (including former Playstation exclusive) FF titles were reissued on Xbox? Had SE been bought out by Sony that would most probably never have happened because that wouldn't serve their interests.

Consolidation is bad news, even if it might take many years for the extent to become apparent.

SQEX is one of the only ones that does that though and they're pretty good about re-releases.

Most of the Activision catalog would probably just disappear. This way, most would be on Xbox and PC. MS has teams that put in the work on BC also, so they might literally update them for new systems for free. Activision probably will never do that even as a paid remaster. And MS is fine funding SRPGs like Warcraft / Starcraft for PC also.

I can see your argument but there's potential for good as well.

 

[adamsapple]

adam my man you don't need to gobble both Phil's nuts at the same time. Pace yourself

Nothing "whataboutism" about posing a direct question as to Microsoft's knowledge of Sony's arrangement.

There's nothing wrong with the question but you're posing it in response to something unrelated in context, I felt.

 

[Heisenberg007]

From our dear analysist.



This is from Zhuge long time ago on npd sales.

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


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

That's one game. I'm talking about the overall average for all games. We have the data now that we need to calculate Xbox's overall digital ratio.

A + B + C = D

We have A (PlayStation's digital ratio), B (Nintendo's digital ratio), and D = Console industry total digital sales ratio. We can easily calculate C (Xbox's digital ratio), as I did in this post.

 

[DForce]

Where did this happen ?

I'm sure you must have some examples handy since you're so confident in writing this.

MOTM

I mean in theory yes they could but MS would never let themselves get out muscled by Sony, impossible. They’ll pay a premium to out bid them and that’s all. They are not joking around anymore.

You think MS would let Sony buy Take 2?

MS & EA have always been busy buddies. Not happening.

If they could Sony would go back in time and never sign those scummy times exclusive deals that benefit absolutely nobody.

Waste of money and now they made MS angry

nightmare-slain

only MS will be able to buy EA, Take Two, or Bandai.

i don't think MS is done spending. once the activision buy settles down then they'll look at something else. EA or Take Two seem like the next logical buy. god help Sony if they lose Fifa or GTA lol

captainraincoat

I’m guessing Ubisoft is next on the ms list….they would then have a lock on one of the largest third person action adventure game makers outside of Sony…they are also pc centric as well with their own app….consolidate that with the blizzard one as well as the ms store and they have a pc and console majority

Take2 makes more sense for a Sony platform but I don’t see them dropping that sorta coin

Worse choice would be ea….

Op also missing valve/steam…ms could consolidate all pc gaming back to 1 store

Gavon West

STFU.

Its hilarious how not too long ago everyone (especially Sony fans) were saying "Xbox has no games". Well, now, they have games! So many games in fact, Sony fanboys believe their entitled to what are officially first party games because Microsoft needs the money from Sony's fan base in order to make recent acquisitions lucrative.

This entire switch up happened only a few short months ago. Now, Sony fans are shitting their pants afraid Microsoft is going to acquire, yet, even more studios Lol. Shit changes quick, doesn't it?

No, please don't *this* this lol.

DForce DForce has a habit of posting inflammatory comments like this without providing any context.

Actually, I back up with I say. Every time people do this, you guys disappear or don't respond.

I can find more, even on twitter.

The fact that you're denying this is stupid.

 

[mckmas8808]

I refuse to believe MS are retarded enough to list Bloodborne as an example of a money hat deal. The game is a wholly Sony owned IP which was produced by Japan Studio. I mean for fuck sake, Japan Studio approached Miyazaki with the idea for the game:



Frankly, Sony should get litigious over bullshit like this.

This video makes me so sad that Sony killed Studio Japan.

 

[Topher]

There's nothing wrong with the question but you're posing it in response to something unrelated in context, I felt.

The question was knowledge of the specific contracts themselves. Applying that question to Microsoft is not unrelated at all and is completely on-topic.

As far as the assertion that the OP is false, nowhere does Microsoft state that these games "can only be released on Xbox if Sony allows it".

 

[lh032]

Where did this happen ?

I'm sure you must have some examples handy since you're so confident in writing this.

come on.....im pretty sure even you dont believe what you just type.....

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Another thread of both companies do moneyhat shit.

Idk how you guys have the desire to argue about this in circles relentlessly.

 

[Kokoloko85]

Really? Because I haven't seen anyone say that they ONLY take issue with Sony paying for third party exclusives.

Theres plenty people complaining about FF7 Remake-FF16 for years being exclusive

 

[adamsapple]

MOTM

nightmare-slain

captainraincoat

Gavon West

Actually, I back up with I say. Every time people do this, you guys disappear or don't respond.

I can find more, even on twitter.

The fact that you're denying this is stupid.

Not a single one of those quotes says they want Sony to be pushed out of the gaming market.

I'm sorry you had to spend so much time trying to find those quotes that literally don't say what you clearly accused "xbox fans" of saying

they wanted MS to acquire more publishers to push Sony out of the market.

please try and keep the inflammatory rhetoric a little low my dude.

 

[DForce]

Not a single one of those quotes says they want Sony to be pushed out of the gaming industry.

I'm sorry you had to spend so much time trying to find those quotes that literally don't say what you clearly accused "xbox fans" of saying

Didn't take much time. It's clear that's what they want MS to do because they're not playing around anymore and couldn't be stopped.

You have a habit of denying clear evidence, so your response doesn't surprise me.

 

[John Wick]

You're reading it all wrong. Playstation is absolutely allowed to have exclusives, the acquisition is only causing problems because MS might make some of ABK games exclusive to xbox.

Nothing hypocritical in pointing out exclusives other consoles have when those other consoles are trying to block you from getting more exclusives yourself.
Hypocrisy is complaining about ABK games going exclusive to another console when you have loads of exclusives yourself.

Except MS fail to mention they were doing similar deals themselves. They also fail to mention they have access to these 3rd party companies themselves. Nothing is stopping MS from negotiating with SE. They managed it perfectly fine with Tomb Raider. So rather than blame Sony why not try fostering better relationships with those companies. They also need to stop with this ridiculous notion that SE need Sony's permission to release games on Xbox. Sony isn't the IP owner but nice try spinning that.

 

[adamsapple]

Didn't take much time. It's clear that's what they want MS to do because they're not playing around anymore and couldn't be stopped.

You have a habit of denying clear evidence, so your response doesn't surprise me.

There needs to be "clear evidence" for it to be denied.

There is none, only your usual "Xbox fans say this" "Xbox fans do this" yada yada nonsense.

 

[Kokoloko85]

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.

Who are you talking too? I havent complained. Im just saying its different. Both are fine.
Are you incapable of understanding the difference between buying an entire publisher and making a bunch of IPs that have been around before Xbox was even a console now being Xbox Ip’s? And having some 3rd party exclusives...

Like I said,I didnt know Stellar Blade was even a thing. Maybe Sony is helping with developing the game, they don’t normally put published unless they worked on it. FF7remake, Nioh arent published by Sony. But the games they help with mostly are

 

[Punished Miku]

making a bunch of IPs that have been around before Xbox was even a console now being Xbox Ip’s? And having some 3rd party exclusives...

I just think it's applying arbitrary details to make it sound scary. Who cares if Xbox wasn't around? Final Fantasy 1-6 were on Nintendo systems before PS was a thing.

I answered your questions a few posts up in a few different posts already so I'll just leave the rest.

 

[DForce]

There needs to be "clear evidence" for it to be denied.

There is none, only your usual "Xbox fans say this" "Xbox fans do this" yada yada nonsense.

If you want MS to acquire all major publishers then you're well aware of what it will do to the competition.

Xbox fans are the same people who believe Sony making time-exclusive deals pushed Sega out of the console market. You're always here to defend the same stuff Xbox fans say and you whine every time I call them out.

I told you this before. Maybe you should focus your attention on the dumb stuff that's said within the Xbox community because people don't easily forget.

If you can complain about PS fans talking about the Xbox Series S and Game Pass then I'm free to call out Xbox fans.

 

[feynoob]

That's one game. I'm talking about the overall average for all games. We have the data now that we need to calculate Xbox's overall digital ratio.

That is a big game. It gives us the context for other games.

A + B + C = D

We have A (PlayStation's digital ratio), B (Nintendo's digital ratio), and D = Console industry total digital sales ratio. We can easily calculate C (Xbox's digital ratio), as I did in this post.

No, that is not how is works.



If a game sells 100k, that would mean 30% would be physical.
But since Chris gave us the total number which was 29% for xbox, 41% for xbox, and remaining on PC, we can conlude that xbox sold sold 29k copies. If the digital is 84%, that is 24k copies sold on xbox.
So for Sony, it would be 41k copies (41% total). Digital PS was over 50%. Lets say 55% , which would give us 22.5k copies.
In this case, PS would have a higher sales, but lower digital sales.

So total of 41k(PS) + 29k(xbox)+ 30k (pc)= total of 100k copies of the game.
Your numbers would work if physical sales is like 20%, which would give PS higher digital sales. PS is the only platform with higher physical sales. if they buy more physical sales, it would lead to lower digital sales. Vice versa.

While PC is 99% digital, and xbox having lower physical ratio.

 

[adamsapple]

If you want MS to acquire all major publishers then you're well aware of what it will do to the competition.

Xbox fans are the same people who believe Sony making time-exclusive deals pushed Sega out of the console market. You're always here to defend the same stuff Xbox fans say and you whine every time I call them out.

I told you this before. Maybe you should focus your attention on the dumb stuff that's said within the Xbox community because people don't easily forget.

If you can complain about PS fans talking about the Xbox Series S and Game Pass then I'm free to call out Xbox fans.

See you're doing it again lol, most of your posts in the acquisition topic are also about "Xbox fans did this" and "Xbox fans said that".

It's 2 pages worth of posts just by searching your name and "xbox fans".

Some real apparent projection going on here where you're accusing "xbox fans" of wanting to push Sony out of the gaming industry (which no one has said) while playing the victim.

Also, no ones talking about game pass or series s in this topic, it's not relevant to this discussion at all, you couldn't be more obvious if you tried

 

[Rykan]

Well yes, the end result of the Xbox consumer not having access to the game will be the same either way. But the circumstances of why that happened are different, and are certainly not irrelevant to regulators.

And this is the only part that matters. Everything else is completely irrelevant. It is not the regulator's job to determine whether the acquisition is fair or not. Their job is to determine whether the acquisition will disrupt the market to such an extent that will lead to a potential monopoly.

A console manufacturer co-developing a new or already owned IP with a third-party is not the same as paying for a third party IP which may already have a precedence for being available on multiple platforms. I don't know how many times this needs to be repeated.

It never needed to be repeated because it's completely irrelevant. You're appealing to all sorts of factors that have no relevancy to the regulator's decision. It's actually very straight forward and while it's an oversimplification, it goes a little something like this:

Regulators:"Can other console market participants compete if MS were to acquire AB and make their content exclusive?"
MS: "Yes they can. They have a large stable of their own developers, and they are capable of signing contracts with third party publishers/devs to deliver exclusive content"

That's it. That's all there is to it. Whether Sony owns the IP or not is not relevant in the slightest. The question is A: Is exclusive content common in games and B: Can Sony/Nintendo still get their own exclusive content as well. And according to MS, the answer is yes to both of that.

Regulators are not going to go over each IP and determine whether it's first party or not.

 

[feynoob]

Same old day

 

[DForce]

See you're doing it again lol, most of your posts in the acquisition topic are also about "Xbox fans did this" and "Xbox fans said that".

It's 2 pages worth of posts just by searching your name and "xbox fans".

Some real apparent projection going on here where you're accusing "xbox fans" of wanting to push Sony out of the gaming industry (which no one has said) while playing the victim.

I call them out. This has to do with the fact they say a lot of dumb stuff.

People remember.

Don't complain.

Also, no ones talking about game pass or series s in this topic, you couldn't be more obvious if you tried

The point flew over your head. Again, not surprised.

 

[Kokoloko85]

I just think it's applying arbitrary details to make it sound scary. Who cares if Xbox wasn't around? Final Fantasy 1-6 were on Nintendo systems before PS was a thing.

I answered your questions a few posts up in a few different posts already so I'll just leave the rest.

I think there a big difference between buying a publisher and making some deals on 3rd party exclusives. But at the end of the day it doesnt matter what I think, its a reality.

Just like a rich new football team gets loads of money and buys things they couldnt and start winning. It happens and doesnt matter what I think of it.
So I expect people to just accept also when PS, Nintendo and Xbox get their own 3rd party exclusives like FF16, Ark 2 or SMT5. Just like PS3/360 era and Xbox1/PS4 era. Plenty of 3rd party exclusives on all sides.

But games like Bloodborne and Rise of Ronin arent those 3rd party exclusives. Im not sure about Rise of Ronin but Im guessing ex Japan studios are working on it? Or PS is now publishing games when they arent involved in the work like MS with Ori, Dead Rising or Mass Effect etc

FF being a PS thing was more Nintendo’s fault not going CD. FF13-15 cant work on Wii U or Switch, and FF7, 8, 9 X etc wouldn’t work on a cart but FF13,15 came to Xbox.

 

[Heisenberg007]

No, that is not how is works.

Your calculation has a few issues:

If a game sells 100k, that would mean 30% would be physical.
But since Chris gave us the total number which was 29% for xbox, 41% for xbox, and remaining on PC,

The numbers I used was for console sales (does not include PC), because GameIndustry shared console sales digital ratio earlier this week (71% digital).

we can conlude that xbox sold sold 29k copies. If the digital is 84%, that is 24k copies sold on xbox.

When talking about overall digital ratio for Xbox, we don't know this number. We can't assume this number. In fact, this is "x" that we are calculating for.

So for Sony, it would be 41k copies (41% total). Digital PS was over 50%. Lets say 55% , which would give us 22.5k copies.
In this case, PS would have a higher sales, but lower digital sales.

So total of 41k(PS) + 29k(xbox)+ 30k (pc)= total of 100k copies of the game.
Your numbers would work if physical sales is like 20%, which would give PS higher digital sales. PS is the only platform with higher physical sales. if they buy more physical sales, it would lead to lower digital sales. Vice versa.

Overall industry-wide physical sales are 29%, to be precise. Game's Industry shared this data earlier this week. So that's why I took that number; it wasn't my assumption.

While PC is 99% digital, and xbox having lower physical ratio.

As mentioned above, the data GI shared earlier this week does not include PC, so we have a very clean set of digital data for console sales.

 

[adamsapple]

I call them out. This has to do with the fact they say a lot of dumb stuff.

Then maybe a little self-reflection is in order

When talking about overall digital ratio for Xbox, we don't know this number. We can't assume this number. In fact, this is "x" that we are calculating for.

While we don't know the exact value of 'x', it has been said time and time again, by GI.biz and various other sources, that the digital tie-in ratio for Xbox is a lot higher than the physical one.

 

[Flutta]

High on Life, while excellent, is nowhere near a name brand like FF or SH, which is the point the document raised.

Otherwise we can talk about games like Stray, Kena and more for a while.

Starfield….
Now STFU.
They both do it. Stop being disingenuous.

Moneyhatting games for a period of time is not the same as removing them completely from plattform.

 

[Captain Toad]

Not a single one of those quotes says they want Sony to be pushed out of the gaming market.

I'm sorry you had to spend so much time trying to find those quotes that literally don't say what you clearly accused "xbox fans" of saying





please try and keep the inflammatory rhetoric a little low my dude.

 

[Draugoth]

Show me those ethnicity stats in the form of data please.

 

[reinking]

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.

Don't they just self-publish or am I forgetting some games they have published for other parties?

 

[DForce]

Then maybe a little self-reflection is in order

You're the person who tried to convince people that MS didn't take away the likes of Starfield because it was never confirmed for PlayStation. A game where it was going to sell the most on a console (probably any platform for that matter). Yeah, there's no self-reflection because I don't go around making arguments like this.