Support NeoGAF

[thismeinteil]

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.

Let's just be honest here, I proved your points wrong and you have no more argument left. So, like weak debaters do, you call it nonsense and ignore it. You only had a point about Minecraft, so focused completely on that. Happens all the time in politics.

Concerning Minecraft, we know they have a next gen version in the wings. The question is, what's the hold up on dropping it. My guess is it would look bad for them to be talking about not playing favorites with their IPs they say are going to stay multiplat, then launch an exclusive next-gen version for XSX. It'll be interesting to see how long after this deal goes through, or fails, until we see that next gen version launch. And if it will be exclusive.

Also, Legends is a spinoff that will sell a fraction of what Minecraft does, so it's better to look nice and release it on all consoles. Again, can't play favorites while this deal is up in the air.

 

[feynoob]

Concerning Minecraft, we know they have a next gen version in the wings. The question is, what's the hold up on dropping it. My guess is it would look bad for them to be talking about not playing favorites with their IPs they say are going to stay multiplat, then launch an exclusive next-gen version for XSX. It'll be interesting to see how long after this deal goes through, or fails, until we see that next gen version launch. And if it will be exclusive.

Minecraft won't be exclusive. It's own category. Much bigger than Xbox.

Making it exclusive harms the game.

https://entrepreneur-360.com/how-does-minecraft-make-money-27654

Here is little bit of what Minecraft as a game brings.

Then you have business side, in which MS uses it for school education and program trainings.

Essentially, Minecraft would never be an exclusive game. Since there are alot of kids, who are becoming gamers, and the first thing they play is either roblox or Minecraft.

 

[In Cold Blood]

The hypocrisy of Sony fans is pretty amusing to watch.
They cheered on Sony buying up exclusives left and right. They were the same people who bitched and moaned when MS got Tomb Raider as a 12 month exclusive.
Now that MS is buying something they can't afford they are victims. Poor little Sony.
MS is using its position as a financial powerhouse to gain an advantage over poor Sony.
When a company buys exclusive rights to a third party game they have to compensate the developer for the sales they would miss out from by not releasing on the other console.
As Sony had more consoles by a factor of three, Microsoft would have had to pay three times the amount to buy the same exclusive than Sony would have to. So Sony took advantage of their dominant position to take content away from Xbox players. This was "smart buisness". It was a cut throat industry. Sony is fighting to give its customers the best exclusives possible and to draw people to their ecosystem.
However when Microsoft does the same thing but bigger than Sony can do all of a sudden it's unfair.
Then when MS bought Ninja Theory they cried because MS was buying a studio that had history with Sony, and Sony only bought studios that they cultured from their inception. Once Sony goes and buys Bungie who has a massive tie to Microsoft they suddenly think that Sony played the role in Bungies existence because they money hatted Destiny.
You cant make this shit up.
You can't buy publishers they cry, only studios, likes there's fucking rules to this shit, all the while choosing to ignore the fact that Sony themselves bought Psygnosis who were the biggest European Games Publisher at the time.
But, but, that was then and Sony hasn't bought any more so Microsoft can't do it now.
We all know if Sony had of bought Activision the same Sony people here would be claiming it as a bold move and a master stroke which will finish off Microsoft who should now just become a publisher.
You look so sad trying to defend your position. Deep down you know you a hypocritical.
The only thing more embarrassing than watching the Sony fans trying to cope is watching the pathetic actions of Sony trying to stop the buyout.

Facts
1. There is no rules about not buying publishers.
2. There is no rule about not buying existing studios with existing IP.
3. All companies grown through both organic and acquisitions. Both Sony and MS have done it.
4. No one owns Sony their place as the dominant player in the console space.
5. Both Sony and Microsoft take advantage of their market position to win over the other opposition.

 

[feynoob]

The hypocrisy of Sony fans is pretty amusing to watch.
They cheered on Sony buying up exclusives left and right. They were the same people who bitched and moaned when MS got Tomb Raider as a 12 month exclusive.
Now that MS is buying something they can't afford they are victims. Poor little Sony.
MS is using its position as a financial powerhouse to gain an advantage over poor Sony.
When a company buys exclusive rights to a third party game they have to compensate the developer for the sales they would miss out from by not releasing on the other console.
As Sony had more consoles by a factor of three, Microsoft would have had to pay three times the amount to buy the same exclusive than Sony would have to. So Sony took advantage of their dominant position to take content away from Xbox players. This was "smart buisness". It was a cut throat industry. Sony is fighting to give its customers the best exclusives possible and to draw people to their ecosystem.
However when Microsoft does the same thing but bigger than Sony can do all of a sudden it's unfair.
Then when MS bought Ninja Theory they cried because MS was buying a studio that had history with Sony, and Sony only bought studios that they cultured from their inception. Once Sony goes and buys Bungie who has a massive tie to Microsoft they suddenly think that Sony played the role in Bungies existence because they money hatted Destiny.
You cant make this shit up.
You can't buy publishers they cry, only studios, likes there's fucking rules to this shit, all the while choosing to ignore the fact that Sony themselves bought Psygnosis who were the biggest European Games Publisher at the time.
But, but, that was then and Sony hasn't bought any more so Microsoft can't do it now.
We all know if Sony had of bought Activision the same Sony people here would be claiming it as a bold move and a master stroke which will finish off Microsoft who should now just become a publisher.
You look so sad trying to defend your position. Deep down you know you a hypocritical.
The only thing more embarrassing than watching the Sony fans trying to cope is watching the pathetic actions of Sony trying to stop the buyout.

Facts
1. There is no rules about not buying publishers.
2. There is no rule about not buying existing studios with existing IP.
3. All companies grown through both organic and acquisitions. Both Sony and MS have done it.
4. No one owns Sony their place as the dominant player in the console space.
5. Both Sony and Microsoft take advantage of their market position to win over the other opposition.

Spending $70b on a video game company, is over kill.

That is not something we need to cheer on.

Aside of both fans crying about this deal, I am more worried about the other guys.

Once this deal is approved, the market is in open season. And those who have the big money would buy those companies.

That is my worry about this deal. Don't care about anything else.

 

[DarkMage619]

So the latter again. No suprise there

Not my fault you didn't like their conclusions. At least it was based on reasonable analysis. I have yet to see you produce a response that was as insightful.

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.

Well as important as 3rd parties are Xbox managed to survive even when big titles were either delayed significantly or blocked outright. It's part of competition.

The point is companies need to be nimble to survive and sometimes think outside the box. Nintendo demonstrates this. Those Nintendo games you site didn't just come out of nowhere and Nintendo doesn't release Mario and Zelda games every year. Sony has shown a knack at making big successful games and many would claim they are just as good as Nintendo's.

Besides CoD won't be annual past this year and assuming the acquisition goes through Activision will be making a more varied assortment of titles over just CoD. This will give the various teams be more creative than just CoD year in and out. I'm pretty sure Sony will survive this.

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.

Well there are certainly a group of people who want to act like Nintendo isn't a traditional player in this space like every one else when it's convenient. A big part of that success is that these franchises have been around generations. But just because they have the oldest franchises does not change the fact that they innovated in this space and found a way to compete doing something different. That should be applauded.

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.

Well this entire process is speculative. The idea cloud gaming will replace traditional games or MS will remove CoD off PlayStation all run contrary to the facts as they are today yet people still continue to argue that these things will happen.

As long as Nintendo produces hardware and software they are a legitimate player in the console gaming space. It is odd to try and pretend like they aren't making and selling games and systems just like MS and Sony. Again they aren't making hamburgers.

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.

No more absurd than claiming Xbox is 3rd in the home console business then claiming Nintendo isn't competing in this space because they have found a way to be successful that is different than Sony and MS. No one said innovation is easy. But refusing to count Nintendo as a part of the consoles industry seems like a way to have it both ways where you can claim Xbox is a failure(3rd!) but also a monopoly by trying to take away 3rd party games from PlayStation. I suppose people making consistent positions isn't really how this game works.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Spending $70b on a video game company, is over kill.

If that's the market rate for the company and the company is looking to sell, why does the $ value matter. Should Activision not be allowed to sell?

 

[feynoob]

If that's the market rate for the company and the company is looking to sell, why does the $ value matter. Should Activision not be allowed to sell?

If a company can spend that much, then there nothing stopping them, from disrupting the market.

To put in perspective. That $69b is 2b shy from from disney/fox deal. It's enough to buy Sega, Nintendo, capcom and Square Enix all together.

That is a major red flag.

 

[Topher]

Well there are certainly a group of people who want to act like Nintendo isn't a traditional player in this space like every one else when it's convenient.

There is certainly a group of people trying to paint Nintendo in a light beneficial to their favorite corporation when it's convenient. See? I can play that game too, but I don't speak for "groups". I speak only for me.

Well this entire process is speculative. The idea cloud gaming will replace traditional games or MS will remove CoD off PlayStation all run contrary to the facts as they are today yet people still continue to argue that these things will happen.

As long as Nintendo produces hardware and software they are a legitimate player in the console gaming space. It is odd to try and pretend like they aren't making and selling games and systems just like MS and Sony. Again they aren't making hamburgers.

No, what's odd is trying to insert Nintendo into a battle over Call of Duty and pretending it is proof of something. If I wanted to be that absurd I could say the lack of Call of Duty is what doomed Google Stadia. Just because I said so apparently.

No more absurd than claiming Xbox is 3rd in the home console business then claiming Nintendo isn't competing in this space because they have found a way to be successful that is different than Sony and MS. No one said innovation is easy. But refusing to count Nintendo as a part of the consoles industry seems like a way to have it both ways where you can claim Xbox is a failure(3rd!) but also a monopoly by trying to take away 3rd party games from PlayStation. I suppose people making consistent positions isn't really how this game works.

Then talk to the people making those arguments because nothing you've written there are points I have made at all.

 

[Cheezewizz]

Yes it is.

I'm saying that Sony should adapt like Nintendo did.

Nonsense. The reasoning I gave about the key difference in user base was called "irrelevant" so no, you didn't read the post entirely. You and others continue to highlight Nintendo as proof of something which makes no sense if you are going to readily admit that Nintendo isn't like Sony in this regard. You want to just say "Nintendo proves it" without any reasoning behind the statement at all. Sorry, but repeating a statement over and over isn't proof of jack shit. If Nintendo is different then stop referencing Nintendo. You can't have it both ways.

Nintendo doesn't get many multiplat 3rd party games. Therefore it's positioned itself to be self reliant with it's 1st party offerings. They even went a step further by producing a console/handheld all in one package.

Sony on the other hand is indeed different from Nintendo. I don't think many would dispute that. The problem with your premiseis that for you... It all stops right there. For whatever reason, you believe that because Nintendo is different that Sony shouldn't have to adapt. Why or what lead you to this conclusion is beyond me, but adapting to changing markets is just part of the game. Nintendo obviously was able to adapt in order to continue it's success. Much of the reason MS introduced GP was due to their belief that it was the best way forward amid changing market conditions.

Sony on the other hand hasn't adapted much, and that's unfortunate. Sony coasted on success for too long, and now are trying to adapt themselves. It's the reason they're currently working on so many multiplayer games.

We're referencing Nintendo because when faced with challenging market conditions, it was able to adapt and overcome those challenges. So when it comes to PS and CoD, I'm simpky saying that it should be Sony who should have to adapt instead of ABK/MS. While I'm not sure whether you're claiming Sony isn't capable of adapting to such a change, or whether they shouldn't have to. To suggest either of them is just ridiculous.

 

[Topher]

Nintendo doesn't get many multiplat 3rd party games. Therefore it's positioned itself to be self reliant with it's 1st party offerings. They even went a step further by producing a console/handheld all in one package.

Sony on the other hand is indeed different from Nintendo. I don't think many would dispute that. The problem with your premiseis that for you... It all stops right there. For whatever reason, you believe that because Nintendo is different that Sony shouldn't have to adapt. Why or what lead you to this conclusion is beyond me,

I've said nothing of the sort. Read my posts again.

If Call of Duty were indeed removed from PlayStation, yes Sony would have to adapt. I don't there is any question about that. Nintendo has always been Nintendo. They have not so much adapted as they have stayed true to themselves.

 

[DarkMage619]

There is certainly a group of people trying to paint Nintendo in a light beneficial to their favorite corporation when it's convenient. See? I can play that game too, but I don't speak for "groups". I speak only for me.

Claiming Nintendo is outselling Xbox is a weird way of putting MS in a beneficial light but it is at least true. Nintendo is far more successful in the console market than Xbox. It is undeniable. There is no game in this regard only the truth. I hope you don't think otherwise.

No, what's odd is trying to insert Nintendo into a battle over Call of Duty and pretending it is proof of something. If I wanted to be that absurd I could say the lack of Call of Duty is what doomed Google Stadia. Just because I said so apparently.

Not at all when the argument is that CoD is an 'input' to the overall success of any platform holder. Any platform holder that is successful without the title proves its presence on your platform isn't a requirement for success. This is true for any console. It's especially true for the market leader. Sony isn't a minor player here. They have the number one gaming brand out and it certainly isn't because of CoD.

Stadias failure was due to a horrible business plan. CoD on the system would not have saved it. It just shows again that a random 3rd party title does not a platform make. If anything Stadia lacking a first party at all was their undoing not the presence of CoD.

Then talk to the people making those arguments because nothing you've written there are points I have made at all.

Outside of saying that Nintendo is different because they rely on on first party over third does not negate the fact they are a console maker just like Sony and MS who created an innovative way of staying successful. Their first party success is a random attribute to determine they aren't both in the same market.

If you are comfortable believing that Nintendo isn't a competitor in the video game market we can agree to disagree but there is no way anyone can simultaneously argue that they aren't competing AND they are beating Xbox as well. If they ARE competing then they are doing so without CoD and without the mindshare of Sony.

That was CADE's point overall. If Nintendo can survive without CoD so can market leader Sony. Xbox is losing to Nintendo and they HAVE CoD and Nintendo doesn't! Imagine that.

No one said all platform holders had to do business the exact same way. If anything Sony and Nintendo have more in common than MS and Sony at this point. Especially on how they handle console sales and exclusives. Both of their subscription services avoid day one releases too. They all have unique ways of conducting business so should we then conclude that no one is competing at all? It gets ridiculous at that point.

I'll say one thing though If Nintendo isn't competing we should tell the NPD to stop tracking their consoles and games. That activity is reserved for companies in the video game industry. Although there is certainly more evidence that Nintendo is a video game platform holder just like Sony and Microsoft over some other weird alternative.

 

[Topher]

If you are comfortable believing that Nintendo isn't a competitor in the video game market we can agree to disagree

lol....now you are just making shit up, dude.

 

[Menzies]

I've said nothing of the sort. Read my posts again.

If Call of Duty were indeed removed from PlayStation, yes Sony would have to adapt. I don't there is any question about that. Nintendo has always been Nintendo. They have not so much adapted as they have stayed true to themselves.

I'd argue that it wasn't really until the Wii that Nintendo had their big pivot move. Up to that point, it was likely considered strange for a big third-party game to skip the platform.

Sony have already started to carve a niche for themselves with the PSVR and the acquisition of Firesprite studios - seems like they can adapt fine to me.

This all just still so crazy to me. I regularly need to stop, pause and reflect the fact that Sony just outsold Xbox by a cool 60+ million consoles and that this is still being contested to such a degree. Does anyone here actually believe that this will move the needle that much, and beyond to tip the scales the other way that there is genuine foreclosure concern?

Let's be real. There are no "new entrants" waiting behind the curtains for the past 30 years to now emerge onto the scene ready to dump 20 billion dollars on R&D, marketing, and developer acquisitions required to be a competitor. So, I'm not sure why we should be looking out for Mr. Invisible's interests over the current guy getting trounced as the perennial 'third-place' lol

 

[DaGwaphics]

If a company can spend that much, then there nothing stopping them, from disrupting the market.

To put in perspective. That $69b is 2b shy from from disney/fox deal. It's enough to buy Sega, Nintendo, capcom and Square Enix all together.

That is a major red flag.

Wouldn't make a difference if it was $100b. One company was looking to sell and the other had the funds to purchase, it's not a hostile takeover or something like that and the move won't give the purchasing party a monopolistic percentage of the game publishing market.

 

[DarkMage619]

lol....now you are just making shit up, dude.

I'm not the one claiming Sony, MS, and Nintendo should not be compared because of first party titles. I always thought that was silly. As I've stated numerous times CADE's analysis made the most sense.

 

[onesvenus]

Well, they could have spent their money replicating PlayStation's business model verbatim to detach themselves from needing that money by being self-sufficient and a net-positive for Microsoft - like PlayStation has been in every generation except the PS3 AFAIK.

Anybody will tell you that replicate a business model verbatim is not a good way of entering a market. People will prefer the original one than the copycat. This is why Nintendo had to look for differentiation to survive.

I'm talking about post acquisition promotion of other games, and why they might all close ranks and lean towards PlayStation, to use PlayStation time-exclusion as a stalking horse to get Xbox's interest and a pay out to publish on Xbox because they have boundless money going by the 40% overpay of ABK at $70b.

I don't know if I'm understanding right but is your argument that third parties will agree to being PS exclusives, losing the whole Xbox market, in exchange of the uncertain possibility of getting Gamepass money in the future? That doesn't sound like a good strategy at all

 

[DenchDeckard]

If a company can spend that much, then there nothing stopping them, from disrupting the market.

To put in perspective. That $69b is 2b shy from from disney/fox deal. It's enough to buy Sega, Nintendo, capcom and Square Enix all together.

That is a major red flag.

Why is it a major red flag if that is what the company is worth?

This isn't just Activision, it's blizzard and king as well. Do any of the companies you mentioned come close to generating the revenue and profit king do each year?

 

[Three]

I'd argue that it wasn't really until the Wii that Nintendo had their big pivot move. Up to that point, it was likely considered strange for a big third-party game to skip the platform.

That happened on the N64. Which did not survive well on first party alone. Then they had the Wii with motion controls and had success. failed again with Wii U with lack of third party support then merged their handheld sales into a hybrid.

Sony have already started to carve a niche for themselves with the PSVR and the acquisition of Firesprite studios - seems like they can adapt fine to me.

What? Go look at the thread 'was MS right to drop its VR plans'

even you are there saying it's smart not to invest in it at this point yet expect Sony to go all in on it to survive?

I think it's smart to not invest too much into it at this point.

Let's be real. There are no "new entrants" waiting behind the curtains for the past 30 years to now emerge onto the scene ready to dump 20 billion dollars on R&D, marketing, and developer acquisitions required to be a competitor. So, I'm not sure why we should be looking out for Mr. Invisible's interests over the current guy getting trounced as the perennial 'third-place' lol

There are new entrants in the cloud gaming space. The new entrants for console the Steam Box failed, I would say because it was a Linux machine that couldn't run most popular games. It has had mild success with a portable Steamdeck but even that is only at 1M sales.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

I don't know if I'm understanding right but is your argument that third parties will agree to being PS exclusives, losing the whole Xbox market

A financial analyst just released this about the latest Square Annual Report and it's very eye-opening how low the sales are for some games on Xbox. It makes sense why Square ditched the platform for FF7R and FFXVI after the total flop of Final Fantasy 15.

"Unless SE embraces Xbox and GamePass, I don't see how their struggles could end." Is ToysARs a poster here? Phil/Xbox is the savior is very prevalent in that fanbase

 

[pasterpl]

The point is, Xbox needs insane amount of money from MS to stay competitive.

When you are spending that much money, are you even in a fair competition? Do you even have the same chance as your competition?

That is the point here.

Based on some reports that were publish for example;
https://adage.com/article/cmo-strat...ts-xbox-series-x-three-one-launch-ads/2298636

So outside of studio acquisitions, it seems that Sony was outspending ms in most categories - timed exclusives, marketing deals (eg. cOD), ad spend, partnerships (eg. UEFA).

 

[Three]

Based on some reports that were publish for example;
https://adage.com/article/cmo-strat...ts-xbox-series-x-three-one-launch-ads/2298636

So outside of studio acquisitions, it seems that Sony was outspending ms in most categories - timed exclusives, marketing deals (eg. cOD), ad spend, partnerships (eg. UEFA).

Can you tell me the spend of timed exclusives vs GP exclusives spend? Even for marketing what did MS pay for Cyberpunk and Battlefield and Sony for CoD, etc. I think you would be surprised. Especially with Gamepass spend, that's excluding the $80B in acquisitions even.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Not my fault you didn't like their conclusions. At least it was based on reasonable analysis. I have yet to see you produce a response that was as insightful.

Can you post where they concluded people buy a PlayStation mainly for their FP titles then?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I'm saying that Sony should adapt like Nintendo did.

Nintendo never adapted to anything. Their foundation has always been supported by their first party

 

[phil_t98]

A financial analyst just released this about the latest Square Annual Report and it's very eye-opening how low the sales are for some games on Xbox. It makes sense why Square ditched the platform for FF7R and FFXVI after the total flop of Final Fantasy 15.

"Unless SE embraces Xbox and GamePass, I don't see how their struggles could end." Is ToysARs a poster here? Phil/Xbox is the savior is very prevalent in that fanbase

see this is where this whole thread breaks down, it says Sony is willing to give them more for exclusivity. Microsoft is willing to buy Activision

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

see this is where this whole thread breaks down, it says Sony is willing to give them more for exclusivity. Microsoft is willing to buy Activision

Breaks down how exactly?

 

[phil_t98]

Breaks down how exactly?

because people are happy for Sony to pay more money for exclusivity and buy outs like bungie but not when Microsoft does this

 

[onesvenus]

A financial analyst just released this about the latest Square Annual Report and it's very eye-opening how low the sales are for some games on Xbox. It makes sense why Square ditched the platform for FF7R and FFXVI after the total flop of Final Fantasy 15.

"Unless SE embraces Xbox and GamePass, I don't see how their struggles could end." Is ToysARs a poster here? Phil/Xbox is the savior is very prevalent in that fanbase

Even if the number of games sold on PS is much much higher than on Xbox, 9% of 10 million is a million copies sold. Quick maths (70% of every copy sold at 40$) show they bring around 25 million dollars. Do you think they'd risk losing that amount of money?

Also, I'm sure they looked at those sales and they said "we don't want that money, let's make FFXVI and FF7R exclusive to our friends at Sony" without Sony paying for it. This narrative that big third parties are not releasing games on Xbox by their own judgement without Sony putting money on the table is just wishful thinking. Nobody, except fanboys, would believe that.

And I love how a random guy on Twitter with less than 1k followers is now an analyst that's worth taking into account. Is that you?

 

[PaintTinJr]

Keep up with the recent information. Much better, than having fake information to support your point.

That is completely disingenuous to the points they are making to the CMA, because "hype man" Tom Warren's tweet is intended to promote Xbox with that RT feature, and their original marketing at the beginning of this generation did the same. The "native" Series preview build with RT for Series S and X using DirectX specific feature DXR still existed and was in the hands of gamers and was commercially leveraged for their consoles; mindshare. And what isn't in question is that despite the Java version being the original game, and the one that probably sold more, and the one that had access to RT through OpenGL/Vulkan extensions before DXR was even in DirectX, that version has been intentionally marginalised without that graphics feature too, as part of Microsoft's long term strategy to migrate Minecraft's main userbase to the native Windows version or the Series X version and getting people paying for dedicated servers on Azure - in direct contradiction to the picture being painted to the CMA of equal access for Minecraft and its features as though their acquisition of Mojang has not interfered with the business.

TLDR, that tweet doesn't delete Xbox leveraging the DXR feature's use for marketing exclusive in WIndows native MC and MC on Series consoles.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

Weird and....interesting twitter post from Playstation.

 

[Goalus]

Nintendo never adapted to anything. Their foundation has always been supported by their first party

They adapted at least twice.

In the nineties, they had
- competitive hardware
- massive 3rd-party support
- their 1st-party offerings
- a successful mobile device

With the N64, the 3rd-party support began to dry up, but they didn't course-correct anything which led to the Gamecube finishing in third place. Now with the Wii, they adapted the first time by getting rid of the "competitive hardware" trait of their stationary console and relying on a gimmick instead - which worked, because it was a well thought-out gimmick, which they could have established as a 3D mouse if they hadn't ditched it already when they launched the successor console. So during Wii days, they still had
- their 1st-party offerings
- a successful mobile device
- a gimmick that made their console unique and successful

As said, they seemingly didn't think of establishing the Wiimote as the "mouse of the console space" (which I personally would have hoped), but instead they trashed it in order to invent a new gimmick. Only this time it didn't work because the new gimmick was not useful at all, to put it mildly. So during Wii U days they still had
- their 1st-party offerings
- a moderately successful mobile device which saw increased competition from the smartphone space
- a gimmick that made their console unique and unsuccessful

Now they had to adapt the second time by merging their mobile and stationary device. So now they still have
- their 1st-party offerings
- a successful mobile device
- 3rd party is somewhat back, but the only interesting 3rd-party titles are smaller ones, so I would summarize this as "better than during the Wii era, but much worse than during the nineties"

If they ever produce another hardware failure, they might have to adapt again, but this time they don't have a secondary device to fall back on.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Anybody will tell you that replicate a business model verbatim is not a good way of entering a market. People will prefer the original one than the copycat. This is why Nintendo had to look for differentiation to survive.

That is such a copout for them failing to create and produce fresh game IPs that lit up the industry to be the market leader. There primary plan for joining the market should have been to make gaming better for gamers, and then expect to be rewarded for it. But sadly the story of DirectX shows other motivation.

In two decades of making consoles they haven't even managed to solve their problem of not turning a profit in hardware over a generation. So eventually if they buy up the market, who do you think eventually pays that money back - and continues to pay it - for their inefficiencies, when all better hardware competitors are gone?

Maybe instead of buying ABK they should be looking at setting up an electronics division with that $70b, or upping to buy a Philips, etc, instead to actually fix that major flaw in their offering.

I don't know if I'm understanding right but is your argument that third parties will agree to being PS exclusives, losing the whole Xbox market, in exchange of the uncertain possibility of getting Gamepass money in the future? That doesn't sound like a good strategy at all

I'm saying that for most indie - AA games releasing post-acquisition that capture at least 75% of their total sales on PlayStation, or a mix of PC, Switch and PlayStation their 25% sales on Xbox will typically drop because of the ABK acquisition IPs then eating into their previous exposure, so offering PlayStation a free 2-week timed console exclusion - would probably give them higher prominence on PlayStation and across gaming in general, get them noticed more by Xbox by their absence, and give them two, three or four chances to launch via PlayStation, Xbox port with a 6month Windows Store PC exclusive deal, then Steam/Epic down the line.

Microsoft are now all in with game pass with an $80b outlay and counting with ABK approval, so marginalised indie/AA games on Xbox can now see that them putting their games on Xbox has a chargeable value to Microsoft, that they couldn't extract from PlayStation. PlayStation can put them in a console exclusive showcase and probably give them 2weeks of launch prominence on the store, and maybe the lion's share of their sales - even if not quite the SquareEnix situation of 75% - whereas Xbox can afford to pay them just to be available on xbox, just so their $80b acquisitions aren't left floundering on a console with 90% of the indie-AA games missing from the catalogue.

 

[DForce]

The hypocrisy of Sony fans is pretty amusing to watch.
They cheered on Sony buying up exclusives left and right. They were the same people who bitched and moaned when MS got Tomb Raider as a 12 month exclusive.
Now that MS is buying something they can't afford they are victims. Poor little Sony.
MS is using its position as a financial powerhouse to gain an advantage over poor Sony.
When a company buys exclusive rights to a third party game they have to compensate the developer for the sales they would miss out from by not releasing on the other console.
As Sony had more consoles by a factor of three, Microsoft would have had to pay three times the amount to buy the same exclusive than Sony would have to. So Sony took advantage of their dominant position to take content away from Xbox players. This was "smart buisness". It was a cut throat industry. Sony is fighting to give its customers the best exclusives possible and to draw people to their ecosystem.
However when Microsoft does the same thing but bigger than Sony can do all of a sudden it's unfair.
Then when MS bought Ninja Theory they cried because MS was buying a studio that had history with Sony, and Sony only bought studios that they cultured from their inception. Once Sony goes and buys Bungie who has a massive tie to Microsoft they suddenly think that Sony played the role in Bungies existence because they money hatted Destiny.
You cant make this shit up.
You can't buy publishers they cry, only studios, likes there's fucking rules to this shit, all the while choosing to ignore the fact that Sony themselves bought Psygnosis who were the biggest European Games Publisher at the time.
But, but, that was then and Sony hasn't bought any more so Microsoft can't do it now.
We all know if Sony had of bought Activision the same Sony people here would be claiming it as a bold move and a master stroke which will finish off Microsoft who should now just become a publisher.
You look so sad trying to defend your position. Deep down you know you a hypocritical.
The only thing more embarrassing than watching the Sony fans trying to cope is watching the pathetic actions of Sony trying to stop the buyout.

Facts
1. There is no rules about not buying publishers.
2. There is no rule about not buying existing studios with existing IP.
3. All companies grown through both organic and acquisitions. Both Sony and MS have done it.
4. No one owns Sony their place as the dominant player in the console space.
5. Both Sony and Microsoft take advantage of their market position to win over the other opposition.

Wait... You don't remember back in 2014 when Xbox fanboys touted exclusives and made fun of the PS4 because "PS4 had no games"?

- Ninja Theory? Didn't they make a game called Hellblade? A game Xbox fans called a cinematic walking simulator when it was an Xbox exclusive? Now, these types of games are acceptable because now they're an Xbox studio? Oh, lets not forget every time an ex Sony employee joins an Xbox studio, there's a lot of hype around it because you know how much the "walking simulator games" were criticized.
- But what am I bringing this up? Xbox fans have been hyping studios for years. They talked shit about exclusives and they were never a selling point, but that narrative has changed ever since MS started buying studios.

- Now you have Xbox fans complaining about time-exclusive deals and whenever a PS fan mentions a time-exclusive deal from Microsoft, it's always the same excuse "It's an indie game. It's not a triple-A title."

- Microsoft would have to pay 3 times the amount? Based on that assumption, Microsoft would have to pay far less for their game to appear on Game Pass versus PS+/PS Now because they're not the market leader and the sales expectations are much lower on Xbox.

There has been so much hypocrisy on the other side because the goalpost has been moved so many times. This is when happens when they're at the bottom fighting to get to the top.

 

[Goalus]

Maybe instead of buying ABK they should be looking at setting up an electronics division with that $70b, or upping to buy a Philips, etc, instead to actually fix that major flaw in their offering.

I would prefer AMD.
First Activision, then AMD, and Take Two after that.

 

[DarkMage619]

Can you post where they concluded people buy a PlayStation mainly for their FP titles then?

They pointed out Sony could still compete without CoD just like Nintendo is. Competition and consumer protection is what regulators should care about. They should not be getting into mental gymnastics trying to argue that Nintendo isn't a competitor in the industry.

Brazilian regulator says Sony could compete without Call of Duty, like Nintendo does | VGC

Brazil’s CADE has approved Microsoft’s proposed Activision Blizzard acquistion…

www.videogameschronicle.com

 

[Topher]

I'm not the one claiming Sony, MS, and Nintendo should not be compared because of first party titles. I always thought that was silly.

More fiction. Never said " Sony, MS, and Nintendo should not be compared because of first party titles" once. I referenced Nintendo first party titles to contrast the dependency of MS and Sony on third party versus Nintendo. Somehow you lost the point entirely that Nintendo's lack of Call of Duty doesn't prove/disprove the importance of CoD to Sony or Microsoft.

If you disagree with me then that is completely fine, but disagree with points I actually make.

 

[reksveks]

Anyways, back to news.

 

[Topher]

They adapted at least twice.

In the nineties, they had
- competitive hardware
- massive 3rd-party support
- their 1st-party offerings
- a successful mobile device

With the N64, the 3rd-party support began to dry up, but they didn't course-correct anything which led to the Gamecube finishing in third place. Now with the Wii, they adapted the first time by getting rid of the "competitive hardware" trait of their stationary console and relying on a gimmick instead - which worked, because it was a well thought-out gimmick, which they could have established as a 3D mouse if they hadn't ditched it already when they launched the successor console. So during Wii days, they still had
- their 1st-party offerings
- a successful mobile device
- a gimmick that made their console unique and successful

As said, they seemingly didn't think of establishing the Wiimote as the "mouse of the console space" (which I personally would have hoped), but instead they trashed it in order to invent a new gimmick. Only this time it didn't work because the new gimmick was not useful at all, to put it mildly. So during Wii U days they still had
- their 1st-party offerings
- a moderately successful mobile device which saw increased competition from the smartphone space
- a gimmick that made their console unique and unsuccessful

Now they had to adapt the second time by merging their mobile and stationary device. So now they still have
- their 1st-party offerings
- a successful mobile device
- 3rd party is somewhat back, but the only interesting 3rd-party titles are smaller ones, so I would summarize this as "better than during the Wii era, but much worse than during the nineties"

If they ever produce another hardware failure, they might have to adapt again, but this time they don't have a secondary device to fall back on.

Strong first party is the common trait for Nintendo across all the generations. It was worked out extremely well. I think you are right that Nintendo has adapted a few times, but it has always been to find ways to make their product more attractive to gamers. Not this bullshit we have with Sony and Microsoft with moneyhatting timed exclusives and buying publishers/studios. A lot of the times it seems both companies are finding ways to make their competition weaker rather than make their own products stronger. Stark contrast to Nintendo's business, frankly. More reasons why inserting Nintendo into all this is so incredibly off key, imo.

 

[feynoob]

That is completely disingenuous to the points they are making to the CMA, because "hype man" Tom Warren's tweet is intended to promote Xbox with that RT feature, and their original marketing at the beginning of this generation did the same. The "native" Series preview build with RT for Series S and X using DirectX specific feature DXR still existed and was in the hands of gamers and was commercially leveraged for their consoles; mindshare. And what isn't in question is that despite the Java version being the original game, and the one that probably sold more, and the one that had access to RT through OpenGL/Vulkan extensions before DXR was even in DirectX, that version has been intentionally marginalised without that graphics feature too, as part of Microsoft's long term strategy to migrate Minecraft's main userbase to the native Windows version or the Series X version and getting people paying for dedicated servers on Azure - in direct contradiction to the picture being painted to the CMA of equal access for Minecraft and its features as though their acquisition of Mojang has not interfered with the business.

TLDR, that tweet doesn't delete Xbox leveraging the DXR feature's use for marketing exclusive in WIndows native MC and MC on Series consoles.

In other word, your words should be the truth, and not the devs who make the game.
Got it.

Topher help me out here.

 

[Topher]

In other word, your words should be the truth, and not the devs who make the game.
Got it.

Topher help me out here.

If I going to choose to either listen to a dev talking about a game versus a lawyer making arguments on behalf of a multi-trillion dollar corporation then I'm going to listen to the dev every time. That's about all I can say from reading that tweet and the reply. Any more comment would require me to go back and try to figure out what the hell Minecraft RT has to do with any of this, but I'm not going to do that.

 

[adamsapple]

Call Of Duty Will Remain On PlayStation, Says Phil Spencer

During an interview, Phil Spencer clarifies that Microsoft wants to keep Call of Duty on the PlayStation platform.

emopulse.com

 

[Topher]

Call Of Duty Will Remain On PlayStation, Says Phil Spencer

During an interview, Phil Spencer clarifies that Microsoft wants to keep Call of Duty on the PlayStation platform.

emopulse.com

"As long as there is a PlayStation to ship to our intent is to ship Call of Duty to PlayStation"

 

[adamsapple]

"As long as there is a PlayStation to ship to our intent is to ship Call of Duty to PlayStation"

How do I @ the CMA to this post,

 

[Topher]

How do I @ the CMA to this post,

Too late....

 

[ManaByte]

 

[GHG]

"As long as there is a PlayStation to ship to our intent is to ship Call of Duty to PlayStation"

There can't be a Playstation to ship to if you kill Playstation.

 

[Topher]

Why do they have these massive headsets on talking to Phil.....right in front of them....and he isn't wearing a headset?

 

[The_Mike]

But Sony won't be able to moneyhat anything

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

They adapted at least twice.

In the nineties, they had
- competitive hardware
- massive 3rd-party support
- their 1st-party offerings
- a successful mobile device

With the N64, the 3rd-party support began to dry up, but they didn't course-correct anything which led to the Gamecube finishing in third place. Now with the Wii, they adapted the first time by getting rid of the "competitive hardware" trait of their stationary console and relying on a gimmick instead - which worked, because it was a well thought-out gimmick, which they could have established as a 3D mouse if they hadn't ditched it already when they launched the successor console. So during Wii days, they still had
- their 1st-party offerings
- a successful mobile device
- a gimmick that made their console unique and successful

As said, they seemingly didn't think of establishing the Wiimote as the "mouse of the console space" (which I personally would have hoped), but instead they trashed it in order to invent a new gimmick. Only this time it didn't work because the new gimmick was not useful at all, to put it mildly. So during Wii U days they still had
- their 1st-party offerings
- a moderately successful mobile device which saw increased competition from the smartphone space
- a gimmick that made their console unique and unsuccessful

Now they had to adapt the second time by merging their mobile and stationary device. So now they still have
- their 1st-party offerings
- a successful mobile device
- 3rd party is somewhat back, but the only interesting 3rd-party titles are smaller ones, so I would summarize this as "better than during the Wii era, but much worse than during the nineties"

If they ever produce another hardware failure, they might have to adapt again, but this time they don't have a secondary device to fall back on.

None of what you've said changes the fact that Nintendo has been reliant on their first party

 

[DenchDeckard]

Weird and....interesting twitter post from Playstation.

Wow, Kinda obvious....but strange lol.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

They pointed out Sony could still compete without CoD just like Nintendo is. Competition and consumer protection is what regulators should care about. They should not be getting into mental gymnastics trying to argue that Nintendo isn't a competitor in the industry.

Brazilian regulator says Sony could compete without Call of Duty, like Nintendo does | VGC

Brazil’s CADE has approved Microsoft’s proposed Activision Blizzard acquistion…

www.videogameschronicle.com

Again, where have they said most people buy PlayStation for their FP games