Support NeoGAF

[Darsxx82]

I'm still not seeing the market as a monopoly though. Microsoft can compete with Sony if they want especially since they have a lot more capital than them.

The market is competitive. But not competitors are equal and that's normal for this type of market.

The situation is such that we all agree that the acquisition of Activision by XBOX certainly would not create a monopoly and yet some talk as if that would happen.

No one is talking about a monopoly, but about an unhealthy market situation.

Playstation's position of dominance and brand power makes it impossible to compete on an equal footing and makes competition only open to companies willing to spend big bucks with little or no profit .

 

[phil_t98]

You're the one that needs to be corrected. MS had the marketing rights for the launch of Xbox one and the next. They even had limited COD consoles and exclusive DLC. You like to go back in history and spew BS. Enough.

Amazon.com: Xbox One Limited Edition Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Bundle : Video Games

Amazon.com: Xbox One Limited Edition Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Bundle : Video Games

www.amazon.com

PlayStation has had exclusive marketing rights with Call of Duty since 2014. Bloomberg reporter Jason Schreier confirmed PlayStation’s deal runs through at least Modern Warfare 2, CoD 2023, and Warzone 2 in 2023.

PlayStation's Call of Duty Marketing Deal Almost Certainly Ending

Say goodbye to those small bonuses

www.pushsquare.com

 

[Panajev2001a]

Playstation's position of dominance and brand power makes it impossible to compete on an equal footing

So that you just have to use your Azure+Office profits subsidising the consoles heavily and buying two of the biggest game publishers just to have your fair try in the gaming landscape ? … .

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

The argument holds up in that CoD isn't required in order to have a successful console, as is proved by Nintendo.

That isn't to say that CoD isn't incredibly Important to PS or Xbox, maybe even critically so. But that would just mean that should CoD stop releasing on PS, that Sony would have to replace it with a compelling alternative.

To be clear, I agree with all your points. My opinion just differs in what it means. Let's say that CoD does represent such a large presence on PS, and is extremely important. So? Just because Sony has chosen to lean so extraordinary hard on a 3rd party title doesn't mean that it should dictate what that 3rd party is legally allowed to do, as well as it's competitor console maker. Ultimately this all boils down to MS and ABK not being able to make their own decisions or deals because of what's good for Sony.

Nintendo does just fine without CoD. If Sony were to no longer get CoD, then Sony should simply become similar to Nintendo. You pointing out how different their userbase is, is irrelevant. Sony is either dependent on CoD or it's not. If it is, then Sony shouldn't have done that, and taken steps long ago not to be. if it's not, then Sony is able to adjust and continue being successful.

I think after all the claims here over the past few years about how PS's success is due to their AAA first party output. Now all of the sudden, those AAA exclusives don't matter, and about how CoD is really the tentpole that holds it up all along.

Probably the best post in the thread. Not surprised it was essentially ignored.

 

[MasterCornholio]

The situation is such that we all agree that the acquisition of Activision by XBOX certainly would not create a monopoly and yet some talk as if that would happen.

No one is talking about a monopoly, but about an unhealthy market situation.

Playstation's position of dominance and brand power makes it impossible to compete on an equal footing and makes competition only open to companies willing to spend big bucks with little or no profit .

Well it's up to the competition to gain market share so they don't have to pay huge amounts for those marketing deals. Once the competition makes the right decisions it should be cheaper for them to compete. Its not like Sony is controlling the industry with their market share. Everyone has the opportunity to compete here.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Probably the best post in the thread. Not surprised it was essentially ignored.

Sony should just become like Nintendo is dumb as fuck. Not even worth entertaining that nonsense.

 

[Darsxx82]

So that you just have to use your Azure+Office profits subsidising the consoles heavily and buying two of the biggest game publishers just to have your fair try in the gaming landscape ? … .

So your proposal is that MS stay put and continue to spend much more than what the studios and publishers ask Sony to lose 2:1 in sales?

Doesn't Sony use profits from other divisions of the company to strengthen the PlayStation business when it sees fit?

It's how the current market works. The other would be to create a regulated market.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Sony should just become like Nintendo is dumb as fuck. Not even worth entertaining that nonsense.

Try again, that’s not what the post said.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Try again, that’s not what the post said.

Yes it is.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Please. They were mad they didn't get the Bungie deal, and seeing that Destiny may have been the next big thing, they tried to come up with a work around. Which I'm sure only Xbox diehards saw it as funny. Doubt 3rd parties saw an intentional disrespect of their agreements with other companies quite as humorous. Which is why MS had to knock it off. Of course, if Sony pulled the same stunt, you would say they were showing their desperation.

Add in Spencer whining all last gen about exclusivity deals, and yea, it's obvious they were crying.



That wasn't PR. That was a failed business agreement that Ryan didn't think would even make it to the public. That is until Spencer whined to the public about Sony not taking the deal. I'm sure them talking publicly about being the nice guys and wanting as many people to play COD as possible, while behind closed doors giving Sony a cutoff date for COD on the PS, is something that pricked some interest at the CMA.

I guess on the bright side, if this doesn't go through, MS won't have to worry about having to "go above and beyond."

So as a Sony fanboy you see it as crying and as a xbox fanboy I see it as a genius marketing move to get around the fact that Microsoft couldn't even say the game was multi platform and was available on xbox.

Who is right...no one truly knows....lol

 

[MasterCornholio]

So your proposal is that MS stay put and continue to spend much more than what the studios and publishers ask Sony to lose 2:1 in sales?

Doesn't Sony use profits from other divisions of the company to strengthen the PlayStation business when it sees fit?

It's how the current market works. The other would be to create a regulated market.

Isn't it Microsofts fault that they don't sell the same as Sony?

I mean they have the cheapest consoles plus gamepass. The value is definitely there. Maybe they should study why they are not producing similar numbers?

It would be a good idea for them to look at what the competition has been doing and try to mimic them in some ways.

 

[Goalus]

Well it's up to the competition to gain market share so they don't have to pay huge amounts for those marketing deals. Once the competition makes the right decisions it should be cheaper for them to compete. Its not like Sony is controlling the industry with their market share. Everyone has the opportunity to compete here.

The competition has already made the right decision because in the future a CoD marketing deal will be much cheaper for them and much more expensive for Sony. Now it would be Sony's turn to compete, but they chose to start crying and call for the regulators.

 

[MasterCornholio]

The competition has already made the right decision because in the future a CoD marketing deal will be much cheaper for them and much more expensive for Sony. Now it would be Sony's turn to compete, but they chose to start crying and call for the regulators.

Actually marketing wouldn't be possible for Sony since Acitivision wouldn't be independent anymore. No idea what your talking about BTW.

 

[DarkMage619]

Are you making a serious argument here or just arguing in bad faith like usual

My conclusions align with CADE. I don't think CADE reached their conclusion in bad faith. If you didn't like their conclusions take it up with them. A->B->C in your terms.

Because there is no equating the importance of Nintendo first party to PS or Xbox. PS/Xbox best sellers are mostly multiplatform. PS/Xbox first party is important, but third party is obviously much more crucial for them than it is for Nintendo. That isn't even remotely a controversial statement. The best sellers make this clear. Nintendo is dominated by Nintendo first party. That's the primary reason why gamers buy Switch. Thus, saying Nintendo is proof of anything when it comes to CoD on PS or Xbox is absurd.

List of best-selling PlayStation 4 video games - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Are we sure 3rd party titles sell better on PlayStation than their first party stuff? Games like God of War, Spiderman, and Uncharted look like big sellers. The list doesn't show CoD but I'd guess that Sony likes the free cash it provides over it being a requirement for viability.

There is no doubt that a hypothetical loss of CoD would cost them money but there is no evidence they would be unable to compete. That is where the Nintendo argument comes into play with some regulators. They found a way to be successful without the reliance on 3rd party software. Meaning they adapted to compete. MS is trying to adapt too with Game pass and the XSS. Adapting to market conditions to provide customers with with a better value is a good thing.

Microsoft was making promises to keep CoD on PlayStation before the deal reached any regulatory desk. If that doesn't highlight the franchises importance then I don't know what does. CADE can't predict the future and neither can I. Could Sony recover without CoD? Possibly? Could CoD exclusivity lead to a very dark future for PS? Possibly.

I thought the reason MS wanted to keep it multi-platform was why they kept Minecraft multi-platform. Money. More platforms for a multi-player game means more cash and it especially makes sense for a title like CoD that needs a big pool of players for match making. I doubt they offered to keep it multi-platform to help Sony survive a dark future.

I highly doubt Sony would have some sort of dark future without CoD. It would simply force them to adapt and compete. Maybe I just have more confidence in their products. They survived PS3 generation and ended up being a better company for it. Competition is why Sony didn't raise PlayStation prices in the US. Competition makes your company offer a better deal to consumers and should be encouraged.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

My conclusions align with CADE. I don't think CADE reached their conclusion in bad faith. If you didn't like their conclusions take it up with them. A->B->C in your terms.

So the latter again. No suprise there

 

[Darsxx82]

Well it's up to the competition to gain market share so they don't have to pay huge amounts for those marketing deals. Once the competition makes the right decisions it should be cheaper for them to compete. Its not like Sony is controlling the industry with their market share. Everyone has the opportunity to compete here.

Well, that is the reality of what is happening.

When Sony uses that position of dominance (especially in markets like Europe and Japan/Asia) to strike deals with big publishers and take away games and content from the rest of the competition, that control takes place.

The acquisition of Activision by MS is not going to make Playstation no longer competitive and what it could do is "adjust forces", nothing more. If after buying Activision MS makes an offer for a new big publisher (call it T2, EA or Ubi ) then the concerns would become realistic and government agencies should put their control there.

But I go back to the same place. The reality is that the current market is not healthy today, before the purchase of Activision is consummated. And after that acquisition it will be just as unhealthy

 

[CatLady]

Well it's up to the competition to gain market share so they don't have to pay huge amounts for those marketing deals. Once the competition makes the right decisions it should be cheaper for them to compete. Its not like Sony is controlling the industry with their market share. Everyone has the opportunity to compete here.

That's exactly what Xbox is doing with the acquisition of A/B/K. CMA should encourage this deal since they have determined it could lead to some gamers switching to Xbox, in other words it could lead to MORE competition.

There is no law of competition that says Xbox is required to compete with Sony on Sony's terms. Sony's strength is its market position that enables it to get more favorable moneyhatting deals for exclusive games and exclusive content for their console.

Xbox's strength is the MS warchest thatenables them to buy several desirable dev/pubs to provide exclusive games and exclusive content for Xbox.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

PlayStation has had exclusive marketing rights with Call of Duty since 2014. Bloomberg reporter Jason Schreier confirmed PlayStation’s deal runs through at least Modern Warfare 2, CoD 2023, and Warzone 2 in 2023.

PlayStation's Call of Duty Marketing Deal Almost Certainly Ending

Say goodbye to those small bonuses

www.pushsquare.com

I showed you the limited edition Xbox one console of Advanced Warfare (2014) + DLC. It wouldn't be possible for MS to do that if Sony had marketing. Phil Spencer announced the game for fuck sake. Case is closed.

 

[MasterCornholio]

That's exactly what Xbox is doing with the acquisition of A/B/K. CMA should encourage this deal since they have determined it could lead to some gamers switching to Xbox, in other words it could lead to MORE competition.

There is no law of competition that says Xbox is required to compete with Sony on Sony's terms. Sony's strength is its market position that enables it to get more favorable moneyhatting deals for exclusive games and exclusive content for their console.

Xbox's strength is the MS warchest thatenables them to buy several desirable dev/pubs to provide exclusive games and exclusive content for Xbox.

Well there is such a thing as buying too many publishers. We have to wait and see what those limits are. All I know is that Activision/Blizzard are a very large multiplatform publisher. It's why the CMA people are looking at this so closely. And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[IFireflyl]

Its revolved around covering the lost sales that could result in the other platform.

Timed exclusive means, the other side wont get that game. That results in losing sales from that particular platform. The publisher/dev does the math around those lost sales, and charge you the result of that math.

If A game sells 5m total, and the total break down is 2m on ps, 1.5m is on pc, and 1.5m is on xbox, Ms would need to pay those 2m sales on PS. While PS would need to pay 1.5m of xbox sales. Which essentially means, MS would pay extra .5m sales.

Your math is flawed. In your example you assume that Microsoft needs to cover 2 million in sales for a timed exclusive. They don't need to cover 2 million in sales because the game will still go on PlayStation. They would need to cover an agreed upon amount where the publisher/studio/developer is getting enough to make the first year worth it, and the publisher/studio/developer will still get additional sales from the other console once that exclusivity agreement is up. There is no way that Microsoft or Sony are paying enough to cover all sales from their competitor for a timed exclusive.

If you were not referring to timed exclusives, you're also forgetting that publishers/studios/developers don't have to do extra work for more than one console for console exclusive games. That saves them money, and that lowers the amount that Microsoft or Sony would be expected to dish out.

Ultimately, you're still making assumptions about how the math works. It does need to benefit the publisher/studio/developer, but that doesn't mean that Microsoft and Sony are just getting screwed on every deal they make. Since we don't have insider information this is just pointless speculation. You're making an argument that Microsoft has to pay more, but there is no evidence to support this argument. Your logic is sound on why they would potentially need to pay more, but you're also omitting other variables such as:

• Development cost savings for permanent console exclusives.
• The publisher/studio/developer is still getting additional sales from the other platform for single-year console exclusives.
• Certain publishers/studios/developers might give better deals to one platform over the other due to ongoing relationships.

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. I can't say that because we don't have verifiable data. I'm just saying that everything you're saying, while logical, isn't a complete picture and it's pointless to make bold claims (like saying Microsoft has to pay more than Sony for every exclusivity deal) without evidence to support that. It's fine if that's your opinion, but lets not pretend that it's fact.

 

[thismeinteil]

It was PR. Ryan was looking to gain sympathy with people and it worked on plenty. I mean, here you are.




Doubtful, because the CMA undoubtedly has loads of experience dealing with confidential contracts and deals and understands how laughably stupid the idea is that Microsoft should offer Sony an olive branch in the form of a never-ending guarantee to always put CoD on PlayStation. Ignoring how stupid that is for all kinds of business reasons, MS doesn’t even own CoD yet

Like someone else pointed out, it’s not as if Activision and Sony had a lifelong deal. Yet MS and Sony are supposed to?



It’ll go through and CoD will remain on PS just like Minecraft.

Lol, somebody needs to look up the definition of PR. Cause it definitely isn't a failed business agreement you had no intention of the public finding out about. If Ryan ran out to the public immediately after they turned MS down and said, "Hey, look at what MS is trying to pull," then yes, it would have been PR for sympathy. But, he had no intention of talking about that business dealing. Instead, how did we find out about it? When Spencer ran to the public to whine about big bad Sony turning down his "very generous" offer. Ryan then later came out just to give the actual details of the deal and state it wasn't a good deal.

What does MS not owning COD, yet, have to do with anything. I guess they shouldn't have even offered the 3 years then, since they don't own it, yet? What a ridiculous statement. This whole thread is about them wanting to purchase it, and what harm that could have on the industry.

And no, this will not be like Minecraft. A game, BTW, that doesn't have a native PS5 version and is only available through B/C. If they ever release a next gen version, will they also release one for PS5 is a good question. Anyway, Spencer and Ryan's talk about the deal already showed MS's hand. They are going to keep it on PS5, but there are no plans to continue supporting PS after this gen. But, I guess you can join those who pretend that MS will always keep it on PS, because that would help the deal go through.

As someone correctly stated earlier, MS could have this deal go through tomorrow if they just announced and signed an agreement that they were going to spin off COD into it's own branch. They would work independently of MS/Xbox, and continue to publish on multiple platforms. Sony did this with Bungie and the deal went through very quickly. The fact that MS doesn't want to do this telegraphs their intentions more than anything. I'm sure it peaked the interest of the CMA, as well.

 

[feynoob]

Your math is flawed. In your example you assume that Microsoft needs to cover 2 million in sales for a timed exclusive. They don't need to cover 2 million in sales because the game will still go on PlayStation. They would need to cover an agreed upon amount where the publisher/studio/developer is getting enough to make the first year worth it, and the publisher/studio/developer will still get additional sales from the other console once that exclusivity agreement is up. There is no way that Microsoft or Sony are paying enough to cover all sales from their competitor for a timed exclusive.

MS needs to cover the lost sales on Ps in the 1st year. Doesn't matter if the game is going there next year or not. They need to cover the launch lost sales. As the game becomes less desirable after 1 year of launch.
That 5m is just 1 year example sale. Not the entire sale.

If you were not referring to timed exclusives, you're also forgetting that publishers/studios/developers don't have to do extra work for more than one console for console exclusive games. That saves them money, and that lowers the amount that Microsoft or Sony would be expected to dish out.

Ultimately, you're still making assumptions about how the math works. It does need to benefit the publisher/studio/developer, but that doesn't mean that Microsoft and Sony are just getting screwed on every deal they make. Since we don't have insider information this is just pointless speculation. You're making an argument that Microsoft has to pay more, but there is no evidence to support this argument. Your logic is sound on why they would potentially need to pay more, but you're also omitting other variables such as:

• Development cost savings for permanent console exclusives.
• The publisher/studio/developer is still getting additional sales from the other platform for single-year console exclusives.
• Certain publishers/studios/developers might give better deals to one platform over the other due to ongoing relationships.

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. I can't say that because we don't have verifiable data. I'm just saying that everything you're saying, while logical, isn't a complete picture and it's pointless to make bold claims (like saying Microsoft has to pay more than Sony for every exclusivity deal) without evidence to support that. It's fine if that's your opinion, but lets not pretend that it's fact.

The data is very simple.
Developers are losing potential 1 year of sale from that console. Especially, when the game is hot, fresh, and has strong sale legs. It's also at this period, that the devs need to recover their production cost, and everything that is associated with the game development.

After 1 year, it's just becomes normal sales.

So MS needs to pay that much, or else the devs/publisher would lose alot of money, compared to selling on that platform.

 

[CatLady]

Well there is such a thing as buying too many publishers. We have to wait and see what those limits are. All I know is that Activision/Blizzard are a very large multiplatform publisher. It's why the CMA people are looking at this so closely. And there's nothing wrong with that.

How many is too many according to the laws of competition? Is there a limit to how many big 3rd party games and/or content can be moneyhatted by one platform in the laws of competition?

An acquisition this size certainly should be looked at. Should the actions of the only competitor objecting to this deal also be looked. For example, the complaint by Sony and the concern by CMA that Xbox might or might not block additional content or perks from PS. Should the fact that Sony is doing that today on a game they do NOT even own to all other platforms and has been doing it for years: should that also be a considered by CMA?

 

[ReBurn]

They are more likely to see their games prominence and ability to sell diminish faster on a store that has a new vested interest in keeping the marketing wheels of ABK, Bethesda, Mojang turning as the owner, rather than just a platform marketing those third-party games.

Can you actually back this up with some sort of proof? I mean, I doubt it. But if you're going to make crazy comment like this you need to show how this has already happened considering they already have Bethesda and Mojang and we're hearing from many indie studios how working with Microsoft has benefited them.

 

[MasterCornholio]

How many is too many according to the laws of competition? Is there a limit to how many big 3rd party games and/or content can be moneyhatted by one platform in the laws of competition?

An acquisition this size certainly should be looked at. Should the actions of the only competitor objecting to this deal also be looked. For example, the complaint by Sony and the concern by CMA that Xbox might or might not block additional content or perks from PS. Should the fact that Sony is doing that today on a game they do NOT even own to all other platforms and has been doing it for years: should that also be a considered by CMA?

I just think if you improve your market share making those deals would be cheaper to do. Microsoft isn't a poor company so they can definitely afford to make them.

If anything I believe the best way to improve market share is to produce games that people want to play. Once you do that its much easier to sell a console.

Microsoft won't be allowed to manage a monopoly in this industry. So there's definitely a limit to how much regulators will let them buy.

First Activision then Take 2 then maybe EA. There has to be a limit somewhere.

Edit: I'm not trying to be funny CatLady . I don't remember disrespecting you at all during our conversation.

If you want to insult me go ahead. I definitely don't have anything against you.

 

[CatLady]

I just think if you improve your market share making those deals would be cheaper to do. Microsoft isn't a poor company so they can definitely afford to make them.

If anything I believe the best way to improve market share is to produce games that people want to play. Once you do that its much easier to sell a console.

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I posted.

 

[MasterCornholio]

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I posted.

I thought it did. What did you want me to say?

 

[thismeinteil]

So as a Sony fanboy you see it as crying and as a xbox fanboy I see it as a genius marketing move to get around the fact that Microsoft couldn't even say the game was multi platform and was available on xbox.

Who is right...no one truly knows....lol

When you couple it with Spencer whining about Sony exclusives all last gen, even though he continued to make some of those same deals, yea they were crying. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if them disrespecting a 3rd party's agreement is part of the reason they didn't get as many of those deals last gen. Probably pissed a few of them off. Notice how they never tried to pull that, again? Not so genius.

And don't give me the "oh poor multi-billionaire MS corporation is being downtrodden on" BS. Everyone knew it was multiplatform. It was on Bungie's site and Youtube ads not on Sony's pages. That's standard for a marketing agreement. Which MS should know since they made plenty of them before (and after.) They were just pissed that Sony got the marketing rights to what may have been the next big franchise. Probably hurt extra since it was from Bungie. So, they cried about it in an ad for the world to see.

 

[feynoob]

I dont know what is going at this moment, but I am enjoying it.

It seems we have to do this for 8 month.

 

[CatLady]

I thought it did. What did you want me to say?

Adress what I actually asked you, not tell me why you think Xbox should to try to out moneyhat Sony.

How many is too many according to the laws of competition? Is there a limit to how many big 3rd party games and/or content can be moneyhatted by one platform in the laws of competition?

An acquisition this size certainly should be looked at. Should the actions of the only competitor objecting to this deal also be looked. For example, the complaint by Sony and the concern by CMA that Xbox might or might not block additional content or perks from PS. Should the fact that Sony is doing that today on a game they do NOT even own to all other platforms and has been doing it for years: should that also be a considered by CMA?

I will add one more:
Why should Xbox be compelled to compete with PS on Sony's terms (moneyhatting) where they have a BIG disadvantage, instead of on their own terms (outright buying) which is far more advantageous to MS?

 

[MasterCornholio]

Adress what I actually asked you, not tell me why you think Xbox should to try to out moneyhat Sony.

I will add one more:
Why should Xbox be compelled to compete with PS on Sony's terms (moneyhatting) where they have a BIG disadvantage, instead of on their own terms (outright buying) which is far more advantageous to MS?

Because buying up third parties could be seen as anti competitive. I'm guessing that's why they are not attempting to buy the entire market.

Now if Microsoft chooses to release a ton of great games and attract new customers with a cheap console I don't think anyone have issues with that. Once they gain more market share then marketing deals would be cheaper for them to do. But they don't have issues with money anyways.

 

[Topher]

List of best-selling PlayStation 4 video games - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Are we sure 3rd party titles sell better on PlayStation than their first party stuff? Games like God of War, Spiderman, and Uncharted look like big sellers. The list doesn't show CoD but I'd guess that Sony likes the free cash it provides over it being a requirement for viability.

There is no doubt that a hypothetical loss of CoD would cost them money but there is no evidence they would be unable to compete. That is where the Nintendo argument comes into play with some regulators. They found a way to be successful without the reliance on 3rd party software. Meaning they adapted to compete. MS is trying to adapt too with Game pass and the XSS. Adapting to market conditions to provide customers with with a better value is a good thing.

I said third party was crucial. I never said any specific titles outsold whatever. Either way, Call of Duty and sports games are released annually. God of War and Spider-man are not. I'm talking about franchises.

Here are the top selling franchises of all time:

List of best-selling video game franchises - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Right off the bat you've got two Nintendo franchises followed by Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto. That right there shows the clear and distinct separation that exists between Nintendo and everything else. Nintendo first party exists on a level all its own. I am presenting no revelations here. This has all been known for quite some time.

I'm not going to speculate any further on the future. The answer is unknown and one attempt at speculation is just as good as any other and lack of evidence of something is not proof.

I'll say this. Sony very well could compete with Microsoft at a very high level even if CoD were to become console exclusive to Xbox, but Nintendo isn't evidence of that for reasons I've already given. If people want to pretend otherwise then that is up to them.

Sony should just become like Nintendo is dumb as fuck. Not even worth entertaining that nonsense.

About as absurd an argument there is. Might as well tell Paramount pictures to become Disney. Cuz....some dudes on forums said it was easy.

Imagine actually having to explain to people on this forum how Nintendo differs from Xbox and PlayStation.

 

[reinking]

Adress what I actually asked you, not tell me why you think Xbox should to try to out moneyhat Sony.

I will add one more:
Why should Xbox be compelled to compete with PS on Sony's terms (moneyhatting) where they have a BIG disadvantage, instead of on their own terms (outright buying) which is far more advantageous to MS?

I think you already know the answer to this.

 

[phil_t98]

I showed you the limited edition Xbox one console of Advanced Warfare (2014) + DLC. It wouldn't be possible for MS to do that if Sony had marketing. Phil Spencer announced the game for fuck sake. Case is closed.

Do a search on who had marketing rights for advanced warfare. It was Sony, that was the first game in the deal.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I think you already know the answer to this.

I really don't understand how marketing agreements can be seen as "Sony terms".

Both Microsoft and Sony have made marketing agreements/deals in the past. I do know that Sony is market leader but that doesn't stop the competition (who has more capital BTW) from getting similar deals. This is the way a lot of markets work.

 

[Topher]

Do a search on who had marketing rights for advanced warfare. It was Sony, that was the first game in the deal.

"The exclusive arrangement will begin with Call of Duty: Black Ops 3, which launches Nov. 6 on PlayStation 4, Windows PC and Xbox One. It is also in development for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360."

'PlayStation is the new home of Call of Duty,' says PlayStation CEO on exclusive deal

Sony has taken over for Microsoft as far as Call of Duty exclusivity goes, with a new deal that will bring all map packs to PlayStation first from this point forward, PlayStation CEO Andrew House...

www.polygon.com

 

[feynoob]

Sony should just become like Nintendo is dumb as fuck. Not even worth entertaining that nonsense.

Wouldn't that give you MS e3 2013?

 

[gothmog]

A competitive market, is when each provider has a chance to compete.
The current market doesn't show that at all.

• Xbox is half of PS in term of userbase and console sales.
• Xbox is nonexistent in certain markets like Europe and Japan.
• Switch is essentially a weak hardware. Means, current demanded games don't drop on that console.
• Xbox needs to pay double amounts of what PS is paying, in order to get those exclusives or those marketing rights.
• Marketing rights and exclusives depend on your market share and userbase. If they are alot lower than your competition, then you have to pay higher premiums.
• Xbox had to make gamepass, in order to make themselves relevant.

With all these, and you keep saying the market is competitive. I really don't see it that way. Especially, when 1 party is gaining huge advantage.

MS being required to pay huge amounts of money, compared to sony, is prove that this is not a competitive field.

What does any of this have to do with Sony? How did Sony impact the fact that Xbox shot itself in the foot multiple times when in strong positions and Nintendo is playing a different hardware game?

 

[reinking]

I really don't understand how marketing agreements can be seen as "Sony terms".

Both Microsoft and Sony have made marketing agreements/deals in the past. I do know that Sony is market leader but that doesn't stop the competition (who has more capital BTW) from getting similar deals. This is the way a lot of markets work.

Everyone knows that there is a difference in "money hatting" (in which MS has tons of resources for that) and outright buying out a market. Anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous. That being said, I do believe this deal will and should go through as far as video games are concerned. It is the cloud and streaming side of things that might need a closer look. I also believe that any future publisher acquisitions will need to be scrutinized more closely.

 

[gothmog]

That's a retarded question.

Can PlayStation compete without Sony money?

You honestly don't understand how this works correct?

It's not like PlayStation Is free for Sony. There are plenty of costs that Sony has to pay to run PlayStation.

You don't remember history very well. Everyone knows Ken Kutaragi grew the first PlayStation in his garden.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Everyone knows that there is a difference in "money hatting" (in which MS has tons of resources for that) and outright buying out a market. Anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous. That being said, I do believe this deal will and should go through as far as video games are concerned. It is the cloud and streaming side of things that might need a closer look. I also believe that any future publisher acquisitions will need to be scrutinized more closely.

They are definitely two different things. Like for example when Insomniac was independent they made deals with both Sony and Microsoft. We had exclusive games from them on both platforms. But once Sony bought them that changed. Acquisitions are definitely more impactful because whoever owns them can dictate what games they make and to what platforms. Doing so eliminates the competition from being able to make deals with them.

Now the reason why this is being looked at so closely is because the acquisition is huge. Activision is a big muktiplatform publisher and for them to go exclusive would have a pretty big impact on the industry unlike those smaller acquisitions that Sony and Microsoft made in the past (Double Fine and Insombiac for example). Regulators are going to be looking at this more closely due to this.

Whether or not it will go through I have no idea. But if either Microsoft or Sony go after a big publisher I can see this investigation happening again.

 

[MasterCornholio]

You don't remember history very well. Everyone knows Ken Kutaragi grew the first PlayStation in his garden.

That he did. Unfortunately he almost grew a piranha plant the first time around but Nintendo took that away.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Yes it is.

No it isn’t. I guess reading is hard for some. That was one line in the post and was not the point of it. Here, I’ll spell it out for you. Nintendo proves you can succeed without CoD. He agrees that Sony and Nintendo are not the same. But that’s Sonys fault, not ABK, and not Microsoft’s. If Sonys position in the industry weighs so heavily on CoD, Sony has no one to blame for that but themselves. Because… again, Nintendo proves you can succeed doing something different.

The onus is on Sony to adapt and compete in a changing market. The onus isn’t on the market to remain in a position for Sony to keep their position.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

No it isn’t. I guess reading is hard for some. That was one line in the post and was not the point of it. Here, I’ll spell it out for you. Nintendo proves you can succeed without CoD. He agrees that Sony and Nintendo are not the same. But that’s Sonys fault, not ABK, and not Microsoft’s. If Sonys position in the industry weighs so heavily on CoD, Sony has no one to blame for that but themselves. Because… again, Nintendo proves you can succeed doing something different.

The onus is on Sony to adapt and compete in a changing market. The onus isn’t on the market to remain in a position for Sony to keep their position.

No quite

 

[KingT731]

They are definitely two different things. Like for example when Insomniac was independent they made deals with both Sony and Microsoft. We had exclusive games from them on both platforms. But once Sony bought them that changed. Acquisitions are definitely more impactful because whoever owns them can dictate what games they make and to what platforms. Doing so eliminates the competition from being able to make deals with them.

Now the reason why this is being looked at so closely is because the acquisition is huge. Activision is a big muktiplatform publisher and for them to go exclusive would have a pretty big impact on the industry unlike those smaller acquisitions that Sony and Microsoft made in the past (Double Fine and Insombiac for example). Regulators are going to be looking at this more closely due to this.

Whether or not it will go through I have no idea. But if either Microsoft or Sony go after a big publisher I can see this investigation happening again.

I know you're not brining up Insomniac when most the games that any of you actually played were on PS and they had 2 games on Xbox (Fuse[multiplat] and Sunset Overdrive[exclusive]).

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Lol, somebody needs to look up the definition of PR. Cause it definitely isn't a failed business agreement you had no intention of the public finding out about. If Ryan ran out to the public immediately after they turned MS down and said, "Hey, look at what MS is trying to pull," then yes, it would have been PR for sympathy. But, he had no intention of talking about that business dealing. Instead, how did we find out about it? When Spencer ran to the public to whine about big bad Sony turning down his "very generous" offer. Ryan then later came out just to give the actual details of the deal and state it wasn't a good deal.

What does MS not owning COD, yet, have to do with anything. I guess they shouldn't have even offered the 3 years then, since they don't own it, yet? What a ridiculous statement. This whole thread is about them wanting to purchase it, and what harm that could have on the industry.

And no, this will not be like Minecraft. A game, BTW, that doesn't have a native PS5 version and is only available through B/C. If they ever release a next gen version, will they also release one for PS5 is a good question. Anyway, Spencer and Ryan's talk about the deal already showed MS's hand. They are going to keep it on PS5, but there are no plans to continue supporting PS after this gen. But, I guess you can join those who pretend that MS will always keep it on PS, because that would help the deal go through.

As someone correctly stated earlier, MS could have this deal go through tomorrow if they just announced and signed an agreement that they were going to spin off COD into it's own branch. They would work independently of MS/Xbox, and continue to publish on multiple platforms. Sony did this with Bungie and the deal went through very quickly. The fact that MS doesn't want to do this telegraphs their intentions more than anything. I'm sure it peaked the interest of the CMA, as well.

The only part of this nonsense worth responding to is the part about Minecraft. You complain about a lack of PS5 version, unless something’s changed since June there’s no native SX version either. And Legends is coming to PS5 next year.

Keep drinking that koolaid.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I know you're not brining up Insomniac when most the games that any of you actually played were on PS and they had 2 games on Xbox (Fuse[multiplat] and Sunset Overdrive[exclusive]).

Sony hasn't really bought any big multiplatform publisher so that's the best example I can find from them. Most studios they they bought have made games exclusively for playstation.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Can you actually back this up with some sort of proof? I mean, I doubt it. But if you're going to make crazy comment like this you need to show how this has already happened considering they already have Bethesda and Mojang and we're hearing from many indie studios how working with Microsoft has benefited them.

First off, where was the acknowledgment of the long response I gave you a few pages back that corroborated my post you disagreed with?

And why does anyone need to give proof of the future I am predicting? Common sense tells you that they are buying the biggest 3rd party publisher in the world and will then need to market all of those games that produce revenue to keep the money flowing.

There is limited space even on a 4K screen for a store to give immediate prominence, you also have a problem of information overload for viewers with too much advertising in one space, and only so many players (on xbox) and only so much revenue you can extract per gamer. Where it would have been Activision's problem to market wider on all platforms - more eyeballs, these becoming Microsoft owned and managed become Microsoft/xbox problems that are in competition with the needs of other lesser third-party interests on the xbox store platform. They will have $70b reasons to put their own content interests above indie - AA game interests in the future

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

No it isn’t. I guess reading is hard for some. That was one line in the post and was not the point of it. Here, I’ll spell it out for you. Nintendo proves you can succeed without CoD. He agrees that Sony and Nintendo are not the same. But that’s Sonys fault, not ABK, and not Microsoft’s. If Sonys position in the industry weighs so heavily on CoD, Sony has no one to blame for that but themselves. Because… again, Nintendo proves you can succeed doing something different.

The onus is on Sony to adapt and compete in a changing market. The onus isn’t on the market to remain in a position for Sony to keep their position.

It's on Sony if they can't protect themselves from a tech-giants ability to buy up entire markets?

El oh el. Good luck arguing that case. This is an M&A case. It has fuck all to do with adapting to a changing market lmao

 

[Topher]

Nintendo proves you can succeed without CoD. He agrees that Sony and Nintendo are not the same.

Nintendo proves Nintendo can succeed without CoD. Nothing more. Both Microsoft and Sony depend on third party publishers. Nintendo does not. This is an important distinction that cannot be emphasized enough. Whatever else you want to say about Sony having to adapt or whatever....I have no problem with any supposition anyone wants to make in that regard. But anyone who follows this industry knows that Nintendo's business model is remarkably different to Microsoft's and Sony's. Nintendo has proven Nintendo only needs Nintendo. Neither Sony or Microsoft can say as much. So no, as far as Call of Duty is concerned, Nintendo proves nothing.