Support NeoGAF

[bluecowboys]

Thank you for this fortune cookie.

You don't need a fortune cookie to know that Activision put out all their big bangers this year. Next year is going to pale in comparison.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Microsoft has literally been driving up prices outside of the US, especially in INdia for years now. Something you are more than familiar with, but oddly enough try to pin it only on Sony. I wonder why that is (hint, rhetorical question - we all know why you do that).

I brought this up a while ago, and the responses were literally.. "it's India, nobody cares."

 

[MasterCornholio]

WTF -Driving up costs to consumers. Sony charges more for their games and has raised the price on their consoles.

That depends if Sony can afford to keep the prices the same. I'm OK with a business that wants to make a profit on hardware. The PS3 almost ruined Sony so I would hate to see them go through that again.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I honestly don't believe Sony wants costs to be higher. But feel free to provide a good rebuttal.

 

[Topher]

Yet Microsoft just did a price drop on xbox series s. If MS was more competitive in EU, Sony would've never raise the price of the PS5.

And? None of that changes what I said. Factually, inflation wasn't caused by Sony or Microsoft. Both companies strategically decide where to raise prices.

XSS being the most readily available makes it the most obvious candidate for Holiday promotion. The price drop isn't permanent.

 

[PJX]

Oh shit. My bad bro, for whatever reason it quoted the wrong person

 

[Punished Miku]

I honestly don't believe Sony wants costs to be higher. But feel free to provide a good rebuttal.

On hardware, I agree. But I do think there's an argument to be made about how easily they arrived at that decision based on their market dominance. Case in point being that they've been more reluctant to raise prices in the US. On software I think they were in the forefront of pushing costs higher while also decreasing frequency of sales and discounts in a concentrated effort to increase profits early in the gen to normalize higher spending.

I was mostly just teasing you about trying to act like it was a reference to their costs, not consumer costs. The shit emoji was still smiling, not angry.

 

[PropellerEar]

Cry a bit more you greedy fucker.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I wonder if he'll wear that shirt to Indo-China or the middle east offices of Bethesda?

 

[PropellerEar]

You don't need a fortune cookie to know that Activision put out all their big bangers this year. Next year is going to pale in comparison.

When is Diablo 4 coming out? Candy has been on top for 10 Years, CoD even longer..
Got any more BS to unload?

 

[bentanchorbolt]

Call me crazy, but MS being more competitive in the industry and selling better is good for the industry from a consumer perspective. None of these machines and games approach on a price territory that is unobtainable for most gamers, and having two big consoles that compete for your attention and dollars is the most ideal situation. Jim is painting the outcome stark because he wants regulators to shut down the acquisition or impose sanctions that force MS to play ball with CoD and other titles they will own outright.

IF MS is strong then Sony will compete harder, and everyone wins IMO. In the end I am a consumer and largely only care about how these things affect me, so as an owner of both systems I win regardless.

 

[MasterCornholio]

On hardware, I agree. But I do think there's an argument to be made about how easily they arrived at that decision based on their market dominance. Case in point being that they've been more reluctant to raise prices in the US. On software I think they were in the forefront of pushing costs higher while also decreasing frequency of sales and discounts in a concentrated effort to increase profits early in the gen to normalize higher spending.

I was mostly just teasing you about trying to act like it was a reference to their costs, not consumer costs. The shit emoji was still smiling, not angry.

OK I thought you were saying it was a shit post when it wasn't meant to be.

As for costs well the dollar isn't doing badly right now so that makes some sense. Also its probably their most fickle market so there's that as well.

As for Sony being able to afford to keep prices the same. If they did that I'm pretty sure their profits would take a hit. Whether or not they can afford that is a different question.

 

[Trazyn the Infinite]

I brought this up a while ago, and the responses were literally.. "it's India, nobody cares."

Yep. Massive clown these warriors.

 

[StealthGoblin]

It can be argued that Jim hasn't had real success yet that he's skating off the work of those before him. And I don't think that is entirely fair tbh but we won't see his true impact on Sony for another few years. How well the division does, the games greenlit under his watch, etc. I'm sure he will do fine but he basically inherited a ship that was on the right course with solid infrastructure moving forward.

I think several things under his stewardship are vast improvements:

- reacted to GamePass with a good extra tier
- diversifying PlayStation’s portfolio of games (into GAAS, but not at the expense of their AAA single player games)
- investing in mobile
- investing in more studios worldwide and drastically ramping up the size of their internal teams
- acquisitions have been very solid
- global marketing is great improvement

I honestly think the only foot wrong he has made has been launching PS+ premium without the BC catalogue ready to go.

 

[DaGwaphics]

what? They did it with windows, Skype, office and others. They failed at phones, browsers, music players and others.
But, yes, they DO have this history. They just flopped a lot of times.

What acquisition did they make that resulted in Windows being dominant? I must really be forgetting something there, as far as I'm remembering all the OS systems from back then are still around and not connected to Windows. Same with Office, when MS was becoming dominant the major rival of the day was Corel, last I checked MS never bought them. If you could be more specific that would be helpful. Possibly they acquired some technologies that were integrated into Windows/Office, but I just don't remember anything significant enough that you could point to a particular acquisition and say it swung the pendulum.

 

[nikolino840]

Hey Jim, I still don't have the choice to play Street Fighter 5 and Final Fantasy Remake on my Xbox.

What is your message to Street Fighter fans on Xbox One?

O: [Laughs] There’s plenty of time to save $300 before the game comes out. The PlayStation 4 is at a very attractive price point at the moment. [Laughs]

 

[IDKFA]

Lets be real though, CoD, Diablo, Starfield, Elder Scrolls, Etc "Free" day 1 on Gamepass does have a very solid chance of killing Playstation in the mid to long term. The critical mass of normies do not care that much about the single prestige first party game Sony releases every year or two, they'll buy the Black Friday $200 Series S and play all the big games for $10.

This.

CoD, Diablo, Starfield, Elder Scrolls are the heavy hitters that used to be (or were originally announced to be in Starfield's case) multiplatform. Those games being available on GP day one make the Xbox much more appealing than the PlayStation. My son has switched from PS to Xbox (series S) because all his friends made the switch and because the insane value of GP. Last gen they all had PS4s. This time they're all Xbox because of Gamepass.

Who can blame them? The value of Gamepass is insane, especially with the amount of content being delivered thanks to MS purchasing two huge publishers. Sony can't compete with that kind of content.

 

[DeepEnigma]

What is your message to Street Fighter fans on Xbox One?

O: [Laughs] There’s plenty of time to save $300 before the game comes out. The PlayStation 4 is at a very attractive price point at the moment. [Laughs]

So, blame Ono.

This.

CoD, Diablo, Starfield, Elder Scrolls are the heavy hitters that used to be (or were originally announced to be in Starfield's case) multiplatform. Those games being available on GP day one make the Xbox much more appealing than the PlayStation. My son has switched from PS to Xbox (series S) because all his friends made the switch and because the insane value of GP. Last gen they all had PS4s. This time they're all Xbox because of Gamepass.

Who can blame them? The value of Gamepass is insane, especially with the amount of content being delivered thanks to MS purchasing two huge publishers. Sony can't compete with that kind of content.

Hence why some people say, "it's a race to the bottom."

E.E.E.

 

[DaGwaphics]

I was a web developer during Microsoft's whole war to own browsing. There were many aspects to this you probably heard little about. From a dev perspective they constantly shit on any kind of open standard by either refusing to support it or doing the whole embrace and extend thing they tend to do often where they poison standards by putting in proprietary extensions that only their browsers support well. They also used their position as the OS holder almost constantly to make it difficult to choose alternatives. They even tried doing it again with Edge and Windows 10 by making you choose defaults for every file type.

Microsoft spent billions on acquisitions like Nokia trying to jumpstart their renewed mobile efforts after abandoning Windows CE. It just failed.

They made a huge investment into trying to compete with the iPod with the Zune. It just failed.

Trying and failing does not erase the magnitude of investment Microsoft has thrown into these industries trying to grab position. When they did get a dominant position they tended to abuse it regularly. Other players like Apple and Google among others have also abused their position so this is not a uniquely Microsoft behavior.

I never implied MS didn't make investments, obviously they do. I said they don't have a history of dominating secondary markets they try to enter. They are dominant at Windows, Office, and enterprise software distribution. They have other secondary businesses that are successful, and many of those they bought into, but they aren't dominating those areas.

IE6 was a mess with CSS, no question. If you wanted pages to look consistently the same across most of the browsers you needed to use tables even though that was slow as all hell. Kind of beside the point though.

 

[twilo99]

Call me crazy, but MS being more competitive in the industry and selling better is good for the industry from a consumer perspective. None of these machines and games approach on a price territory that is unobtainable for most gamers, and having two big consoles that compete for your attention and dollars is the most ideal situation. Jim is painting the outcome stark because he wants regulators to shut down the acquisition or impose sanctions that force MS to play ball with CoD and other titles they will own outright.

IF MS is strong then Sony will compete harder, and everyone wins IMO. In the end I am a consumer and largely only care about how these things affect me, so as an owner of both systems I win regardless.

you are crazy, Sony without any competitions is the best thing for the industry.

 

[Punished Miku]

So, blame Ono.

So, blame Activision.

 

[DeepEnigma]

So, blame Activision.

I do partially blame them. Context and nuance are a thing, however. And you are purposely being obtuse here.

 

[Trazyn the Infinite]

So, blame Activision.

Ono/Capcom isn’t purchased and operated by a console manufacturer. Activision is.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

I think several things under his stewardship are vast improvements:

- reacted to GamePass with a good extra tier
- diversifying PlayStation’s portfolio of games (into GAAS, but not at the expense of their AAA single player games)
- investing in mobile
- investing in more studios worldwide and drastically ramping up the size of their internal teams
- acquisitions have been very solid
- global marketing is great improvement

I honestly think the only foot wrong he has made has been launching PS+ premium without the BC catalogue ready to go.

I probably should have been more clear. Obviously he is good at his job and will be well liked by the corporate Sony folks because what he is doing will lead to more sales, but as a consumer those things aren't really important to me. When I look at a CEO that is leading a company such as Sony or MS, I really only care about how their policies affect me personally along with gamers. His overreliance on blockbuster games and remakes thus far has been a major turnoff, even if everyone agrees they will all be highly acclaimed and commercially successful. Under Shawn Laydon is felt as though making quality and diverse videogames was top of the agenda, but now the focus seems to have shifted to focusing primarily on the core games and styles that Sony has become known for, along with transitioning those massive IP's onto your tv set with shows and movies.

I kinda want something that isn't a 3rd person game is really what I am getting at here. Sony has a talented lineup of studios and could making something truly great outside of that box. It's been hard to find exclusive content to play on the PS5 primarily because of that, at least for me.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

you are crazy, Sony without any competitions is the best thing for the industry.

Sony could have put themselves on cruise control after the debacle that was the Xbox One but they didn't. If that is Sony when they are given a red carpet to victory, then I can't wait to see Sony when it actually has to earn hose sales less they lose them to a competitor.

 

[DenchDeckard]

I wonder if he'll wear that shirt to Indo-China or the middle east offices of Bethesda?

Probably, guys a massive Chad!

 

[DeepEnigma]

Probably, guys a massive Chad!

 

[Punished Miku]

I do partially blame them. Context and nuance are a thing, however. And you are purposely being obtuse here.

I was just using your argument, not being obtuse. Instead of shifting blame solely to Capcom you could acknowledge that Sony obviously plays a role in that arrangement which is what they were talking about. If me using your argument is obtuse then we are both obtuse.

Everyone has picked their sides and we're all just going back and forth over nothing.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I was just using your argument, not being obtuse. Instead of shifting blame solely to Capcom you could acknowledge that Sony obviously plays a role in that arrangement which is what they were talking about. If me using your argument is obtuse then we are both obtuse.

Everyone has picked their sides and we're all just going back and forth over nothing.

I did not shift the blame "solely on Capcom," I was responding to Ono's own words in that interview.

If you're going to use (not you but a poster) Ono's own words as a rebuttal to anything Sony or the like, then blame Ono in that context. He is the one who laughed and said it. Ono is not a Sony rep.

 

[Punished Miku]

I did not shift the blame "solely on Capcom," I was responding to Ono's own words in that interview.

You kind of literally did exactly that lol. But okay. I dont care. Whatev.

 

[sainraja]

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 know Nintendo is a key player (I acknowledged they are one of the three) but their position in the market is a bit different than Sony and Microsoft. They are in a very unique position right now which is also their advantage.

The OS market is interesting, especially when you take a step back and look at it holistically. From a commercial perspective Windows definitely leads there, but I'm not sure "dominates" is the right word. They make the most money but they aren't necessarily on the most computers.

The situation today is definitely different now. I don't remember now all that well but when desktop/laptop computers were the IT items to have computing wise, MS did face their share of troubles due to the market, specially with IE.

There is a tremendous amount of choice on both the desktop and server side. The majority of those choices are completely free, and of the free choices many are functionally equivalent to Windows for most purposes. I have a laptop running Ubuntu that I can use to do 100% of my job and it does most of the things I do faster and better than Windows. My macbook also does better than my Windows laptop. The only area where they aren't on par with Windows or better is gaming. Likewise, on the server side, there are many options that compete with Windows that are a better choice and most of those are completely free, too.

We still don't have another OS as a real competitor and anyone who has tried has had to offer theirs for free to get people to switch but those free options seem to only be popular with those who like to tinker with their hardware. Apple became huge due to the iPhone/iPad product line. Before that, their hardware was popular in the workplace for design related things.

The reason Windows "dominates" on the desktop is because it's what most people want, not because it's their only choice. In 1997, when Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple and pretty much saved them from bankruptcy, they essentially supported creating a legitimate competitive ecosystem for the desktop market.

What other choice do people really have? And why was MS put in the position to save Apple from bankruptcy? And I am also forgetting details on this so I can't say much until I read up on this again.

--

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.

AB studios and developers will remain independent to help keep the successful company culture they have developed. Over time though, their entire publishing wing of the company is literally not needed and will probably be downsized.

You are going great lengths to make the argument that Activision is irrelevant and framing your argument as 'as a publisher' like that changes anything. A publisher that has no talent (developers) and no IP is worthless. In order to be a 'publisher' you have to have IP that you OWN and talent to work on them lol. Activision's worth is due to the talent and IP they have.

IP/talent trumps anything else. MS wouldn't have acquired A&B otherwise. I don't even know what the point of your argument is if you are just trying to separate the IP/Talent from Activision lol. That is what makes A&B what they are! And that is the only reason MS is facing these challenges in getting them.

 

[SHA]

The brand will die if he keeps doing that , and I'm not happy with the dying part regardless of what he says and do , his posture matters at this moment to remain strong for the longevity of the brand.

 

[DaGwaphics]

You are going great lengths to make the argument that getting Activision is worthless and framing your argument as 'as a publsiher'. A publisher that has no talent (developers) and no IP is worthless. In order to be a 'publisher' you have to have IP that you OWN and talent to work on them lol. Activision's worth is due to the talent and IP they have.

I think what he's getting at is that the "publisher" distinction is meaningless. MS could have just as well spent the same $70b buying individual IPs and studios from other publishers, would that have made a meaningful difference to you?

Other than probably being a lot easier for them to close, buying talent and IPs as a group or individually doesn't change much.

 

[sainraja]

I think what he's getting at is that the "publisher" distinction is meaningless. MS could have just as well spent the same $70b buying individual IPs and studios from other publishers, would that have made a meaningful difference to you?

Other than probably being a lot easier for them to close, buying talent and IPs as a group or individually doesn't change much.

The only reason MS spent the $70b is for the IP and studios that make up Activision lol. That is why they are even facing the challenges they are....which you are also acknowledging. I guess I just don't get the argument or point in trying to separate the two.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I think what he's getting at is that the "publisher" distinction is meaningless. MS could have just as well spent the same $70b buying individual IPs and studios from other publishers, would that have made a meaningful difference to you?

Other than probably being a lot easier for them to close, buying talent and IPs as a group or individually doesn't change much.

And we all explained why "publisher" is used, because it would be a wall of text naming individual IPs and development studios.

Sometimes saying less is more.

 

[Punished Miku]

The only reason MS spent the $70b is for the IP and studios that make up Activision lol.

That's basically what I was trying to say. We agree. I had no idea it would be that complicated or unusual or derail the thread this much.

 

[Iced Arcade]

It's what he's suppose to say when his product is in jeopardy of it's grip on the #1 title.

 

[DaGwaphics]

The only reason MS spent the $70b is for the IP and studios that make up Activision lol.

Exactly, so if they had purchased the CoD IP and studios along with all the other major IPs and studios, you wouldn't have a problem with that so long as Activision still existed as a publisher with a few titles that no one cared about? That's how silly the "publisher" argument is regarding these acquisitions. It's the same thing as buying individual studios and IPs, it's just a bundle buy.

 

[sainraja]

That's basically what I was trying to say. We agree. I had no idea it would be that complicated or unusual or derail the thread this much.

Ah, okay. I still don't understand why anyone needed to make the distinction between the publishing side. To me, A&B is who they are because of the studios/talent and IP they have.

 

[John Wick]

WTF -Driving up costs to consumers. Sony charges more for their games and has raised the price on their consoles.

Yet people have no problem paying the massive markups Apple charge for their items or Nike for their sneakers? MS have your eyes out on Windows and Office for years. Yet Sony isn't the one banking 80 billion profit a year.

 

[Punished Miku]

Ah, okay. I still don't understand why anyone needed to make the distinction between the publishing side. To me, A&B is who they are because of the studios/talent and IP they have.

My argument was that they add "publisher" to it to enhance the fearmongering about the deal.
Everyone else argued that it's just for abbreviation / shorthand reference.

That's it. Pretty dumb debate overall though.

 

[sainraja]

Exactly, so if they had purchased the CoD IP and studios along with all the other major IPs and studios, you wouldn't have a problem with that so long as Activision still existed as a publisher with a few titles that no one cared about? That's how silly the "publisher" argument is regarding these acquisitions. It's the same thing as buying individual studios and IPs, it's just a bundle buy.

The IP and studios is what makes A&B who they are lol. That's how I see it anyway.

My argument was that they add "publisher" to it to enhance the fearmongering about the deal.
Everyone else argued that it's just for abbreviation / shorthand reference.

That's it. Pretty dumb debate overall though.

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, I wasn't sure where it was going but I can read through the full conversation later for context.

 

[DaGwaphics]

That is why they are even facing the challenges they are....which you are also acknowledging. I guess I just don't get the argument or point in trying to separate the two.

We were just refuting the stupid argument that it's okay to buy studios and ips, but not "publishers". When really buying a publisher is just MS buying a group of studios and ips, there is no difference. The difference between ABK and Insomniac is the amount of IPs, the earnings, the headcount and the price, not that one is a publisher and the other isn't.

 

[gothmog]

I never implied MS didn't make investments, obviously they do. I said they don't have a history of dominating secondary markets they try to enter. They are dominant at Windows, Office, and enterprise software distribution. They have other secondary businesses that are successful, and many of those they bought into, but they aren't dominating those areas.

IE6 was a mess with CSS, no question. If you wanted pages to look consistently the same across most of the browsers you needed to use tables even though that was slow as all hell. Kind of beside the point though.

It's probably more accurate to say that they don't have a history of regularly grabbing dominant market share in industries they enter. Markets they do dominate, though, they use all of the foreclosure tactics that people worry about. It is in their DNA to act that way and they do it without even thinking.

 

[DeepEnigma]

My argument was that they add "publisher" to it to enhance the fearmongering about the deal.
Everyone else argued that it's just for abbreviation / shorthand reference.

That's it. Pretty dumb debate overall though.

It's not for "fear mongering," it's to show the disingenuous argument about buying Bluepoint or remaining independent Bungie is any bit the same as an entire publisher with tons of decades old 3rd party IPs and studios, especially when they already buy their Ninja Theories and the like as well.

 

[Kataploom]

"Oh no, the poor PS players, they won't have the choice to brag about console exclusivities on AB games anymore... How can they disrespect our rights to harm their content? This should be ILLEGAL"

That's how it sounds... What's the difference between paying big publishers to keep some of the biggest franchises or even content of lastest entries away from Xbox and just buying them? I'll respond myself: The former don't have the money so they mask it under a virtue signal... The later just gets tired of that shit pull the trigger.

The only reason Sony didn't buy AB is they don't have the money and it was more convenient to stay paying per entry deals... They would if they could. Jimbo is just embarrassing himself maybe under Sony HQ pressure.

 

[DeepEnigma]

"Oh no, the poor PS players, they won't have the choice to brag about console exclusivities on AB games anymore... How can they disrespect our rights to harm their content? This should be ILLEGAL"

That's how it sounds... What's the difference between paying big publishers to keep some of the biggest franchises or even content of lastest entries away from Xbox and just buying them? I'll respond myself: The former don't have the money so they mask it under a virtue signal... The later just gets tired of that shit pull the trigger.

The only reason Sony didn't buy AB is they don't have the money and it was more convenient to stay paying per entry deals... They would if they could. Jimbo is just embarrassing himself maybe under Sony HQ pressure.

Not sure if a flex post or a complaint post.

 

[sainraja]

We were just refuting the stupid argument that it's okay to buy studios and ips, but not "publishers". When really buying a publisher is just MS buying a group of studios and ips, there is no difference. The difference between ABK and Insomniac is the amount of IPs, the earnings, the headcount and the price, not that one is a publisher and the other isn't.

I will have to go back and read the full conversation but just to respond to your post; I don't see how you can equalize buying a large publisher that owns studios and multiple IP (their worth) to getting individual studios who have talent and maybe one or two IPs. The weight of the two situations isn't the same. A studio with no IP is more of a risk compared to a big publisher that has a bunch of studios and a bunch of IP (I know saying the same but differently). But who knows, getting a big publisher with studios/IP could very well have their own set of risks/challenges. I would think the IP you are getting is probably worth that.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I will have to go back and read the full conversation but just to respond to your post; I don't see how you can equalize buying a large publisher that owns studios and multiple IP (their worth) to getting individual studios who have talent and maybe one or two IPs. The weight of the two situations isn't the same. A studio with no IP is more of a risk compared to a big publisher that has a bunch of studios and a bunch of IP (I know saying the same but differently).

In which they already do themselves (MS) as well, lol. People acting like they did not do that either prior to Bethesda and ABK and only Sony did.

 

[Kataploom]

Not sure if a flex post or a complaint post.

A complain post maybe? lol It bothers me how Ryan cries over the purchase while paying big money to publishers to keep games away from Xbox. Some big third party games literally never came out on Xbox One and that's clearly not because they liked PS more