The second publisher they are purchasing, the largest and one of the oldest 3rd party publishers, after already purchasing one of the largest prior... and they also made comments that they would not stop.
I think he's referring to the 90s and early 2000s when Microsoft were reluctant to put any non Microsoft software into windows. And if I recall they were buying out competing companies and shutting them down so they couldn't compete. They defo faced anti competitive legislation from the government li know that
I see a lot of people insinuating that Nintendo isn't a factor in this for a lot of reasons, but Nintendo still operates in the console space. Many of the games releasing on PlayStation and Xbox are also releasing on Switch day and date. They're in the same market. Microsoft acquiring Activision will definitely make Microsoft's position stronger in the console market. They've been hanging at number 3 of 3 since Xbox One. Maybe this will move them to number 2. We'll have to see.
I just don't agree. This is literally the type of fear mongering I'm talking about. Activision as a publisher is literally almost totally irrelevant. No one gives a shit that they're old. That's just added to make it scary. They don't hardly publish anything outside of their own internal studios, and MS has zero interest in acquiring redundant publishing capability.
That right there in the bolded is a farce.
I feel like you have no clue what I'm saying.
Well, you're not doing very well at explaining so no probably not
Only one is purchasing the largest 3rd party publishers.
Activision's publishing capability is irrelevant in this acquisition. Their entire publishing arm of the company could be laid off after its acquired and change nothing. MS can publish anything they want. Focusing on acquiring "a large publisher" is fear mongering to make it sound scary. In addition, the publishing loss to everyone else is pretty minimal. Activision publishes almost zero games outside of their own content. The change to the overall market in terms of publishing if they are acquired is next to nothing. The only reason they are being acquired is for their developers and IP. The only part of the company with valuable publishing capability is King, since MS has no publishing experience or infrastructure on mobile.
I think you're getting hung up on the wrong usage of certain words. In general I think when people are saying publisher they mean a gaming company with many development studios. We say Bethesda but what they really bought was Zenimax which had multiple major studios under their brand (Bethesda, id, and Arkane).
Is this seriously your argument?
Exactly. Thank you.
The Porn industry ensured BR won. And, it was a better standard than HDDVD. Sony didn't have market dominance in the era they pushed it.
If you followed the conversation that is literally what I criticized is people focusing on using the words "large publisher" to enhance the fear mongering, when that aspect of the acquisition is literally irrelevant. It's semantics, but I didn't think it was THAT weird.
Large publisher is used because it's easier to say than long form naming all the developers... which actually would seem worse for fear mongering, IMO.
Large development group. I just figured when people talk about publishing, they actually wanted to talk about publishing. My mistake for taking people literally I guess.
Nah, when it's brought up, it is referring to all those development houses and their storied IPs that have been 3rd party for decades.
Lol blood thought he got something
Yeah ignore the Bethesda, ninja theory,
Which makes
Franchises like
Hellblade
Psychonauts
Starfield
Elder scrolls
Tew
Doom
Fuck ton other not available on ps
Get out of here
No I'm not. Who would deny the scale is large? Never even implied that. Literally just explained that their ability to publish is irrelevant. Sometimes I feel like you guys can't read, or rush too much.
Well if we're discussing acquiring multiple publishers, I figured people were worried about publishing. But apparently not.
Feel free to go back to the initial comment that I replied to if you want to know. I have no idea how anything I said could be this confusing.
Stop shifting, lol. Go back to your original point. That was deliciously funny.That the company with by far the bigger marketshare, larger gaming revenue, bigger brand recognition and first party IP + a well established penchant for securing exclusivity is higher on the ‘dominant’ scale?
Yes. That’s my argument. I think it compares favorably to “well, this company once drove Netscape out of business a quarter century ago”.
This was Sony’s analysis of the market in May 2021 AFTER the Bethesda deal closed.
Despite the Bethesda purchase, Sony essentially predicts an increase in revenue from 45% from the PS4 era to 50%. With COD remaining multiplatform, it would help if you could break down how you expect Microsoft to suddenly dominate the industry. Clearly, not even Jim Ryan believes this.
I dont like it. I simply dont like the way MS does it. Buy companies and put them on game pass. Its not good. It will backfire in future.
Jim Ryan says players will no longer have choices if Microsoft buys Activision
PlayStation head Jim Ryan has once again commented on Microsoft's potential acquisition of ActivisonBlizzard, saying that gamers will be left without the choices they have now, if the Call of Duty publisher joins Xbox.www.altchar.com
Jim Ryan issues a statement today in response to a NYT query.
This time it seems Jim went a bit more aggressive, but also kept it short. Still within that short response he alluded to Microsofts previous history in the past of dominating industries through monopolistic practices, and that the choices games have today will disappear if Microsoft accomplishes their goal.
While it has been some times since Microsoft was in a position to monopolize anything, I would say Jim had a point if Sony did not engage in similar policies in the consoles space from 1994-?
With that said, it's still a question on whether gamers lose choice.
One one hand, if Sony is excluded by MS puts games and makes them easier to access across smartphones, PC, Tablets, Xbox, and TVs, thagt would technically me more choice.
But on the other hand, it does exclude Sony's userbase, which means that they will not be able to participate, and that can be seen as sacrificing one for all, instead of all for one and one for all.
But jims call out to Microsofts history in the past shows that he's getting a bit unhinged now. Even after he reportedly accepted a signed 10 year deal from Phil Spencer (rumored). This means that Jim is very concerned and possibly angry about this issue to a personal level, and probably the numerous calls for contact by the press about it didn't help either.
But then again we have to ask ourselves the question, is buying exclusive away from platforms choice? Because Sony engages with in that with the PS5 and PS4 recently for years and years from Final Fantasy, to several other games that missed Xbox One and now X. Is that much different that Microsoft? Where do we draw the line? If it's allowed than there really shouldn't be such controversy over it. If the issue is how much PS consoles sales are connected, Jim can end this whole thing right now by showing documentation revealing how much PS sales will be impacted. Otherwise this seems overblown.
Stop shifting, lol. Go back to your original point. That was deliciously funny.
Sony builds up an amazing 3rd party investing heavily internally and expanding their talent, MS fails to do so for well over a decade, so that's a negative on Sony and thus MS should be open season in buying up all these third parties and making them first for their own failures?
So much wrong in one messy post. Do you get some type of a hard on protecting little poor MS? Is renting games that important to you?
I just want a Hexen revival, pal. Please understand.
How so? My post had no insults and laid out multiple specific opinions. Why do you think they're wrong? Get specific on each one.
