Support NeoGAF

[Thirty7ven]

Competition rules are there to primarily protect consumers, not third parties. Third parties have a right to access, not cutting the best deal.

If you’re the market leader and you use that position of dominance to cut deals that entrench your position, that’s the most basic form of potentially anti-competitive business going.

You’re not leveraging the market share against the third party. You’re leveraging it against the other publishers in that market.

There’s nothing in terms of market theory to support what you’re saying. And you yourself cannot support your theory, it doesn’t hold water.

Sony and MS going to TSMC and competing for wafers for example. If Sony manages to secure more wafer priority because they will make more orders, because they expect more demand and therefore a larger set of costumers to sell their hardware to, did they leverage their market dominance in an anti competitive way? So TMSC should turn around and say “that’s not fair to Xbox”? Senseless.

Third parties have the right to secure the best deal for themselves. If manufacturers like MS, Nintendo, and Sony, compete for third party then the third party wins. Competition wins. The consumer also wins because they are competing for the consumer time and money fairly.

It’s why a monopoly is bad yes? Because when there’s only one player, there’s no competition, and without competition the consumer doesn’t get innovation, better products, better prices.

Gamepass exists because of that competition. And MS signs subscription exclusives, are they leveraging their market share? If they are not leveraging their market share against the third party by saying, you either only do business with us or you don’t do business with us, then they are not doing it in an anti competitive way or abusing their market lead.

Sorry but you gotta have more than simply, PlayStation has the bigger market share so when they get an exclusive it’s anti competitive but when Xbox gets an exclusive it’s not anti competitive because they have a smaller market share. This isn’t a well thought out argument. It’s how you sign exclusives that could be deemed anti competitive or not.

This point was argued in front of the judge by the way, with MS failing to explain how Xbox can’t afford to pay for exclusives but can get a 78 billion for acquisitions from the parent company. The FTC also successfully argued that competing for third party content is fair competition, good for the market, good for consumers. MS buying a publisher and then forcing Sony to buy a publisher is actually the opposite, it’s bad, and used case law to prove it.

Xbox can leverage MS’s deep pockets to sign exclusives, and that would be fair competition. Would you say it’s anti competitive because Sony has less money? Of course not.

 

[FlyyGOD]

I understood it perfectly. You are the one who doesn’t seem to understand how leveraging market share in anti competitive ways goes about. It’s not what you describe.

Guess what, Stadia had a harder time of getting exclusives. If tomorrow Amazon releases a videogame console, they will have an harder time convincing pubs to support it or even make exclusives to it, than Microsoft. How do you draw the line all the way to it being anti competitive? It’s senseless.

You are describing a third party finding the best deal possible for itself as a problem in the market, when that’s a feature of competition. So MS who has the inferior product for a third party, has to be the one that makes it worth it for the third party.

Microsoft doesn't have to make it worthwhile for anyone but themselves if they own the company. Microsoft is in it to make money not bleed it. Are you suggesting that Microsoft should just accept those terms or make financial sense and buy the company ?

 

[sainraja]

But Sony did have support. All 3 companies being Japanese, I'd imagine it was much easier for Sony to introduce themselves into the market at that time. I think the first notable Japanese games on Xbox were Dead or Alive 3 and Shin Megami Tensei (the latter only released in Japan). Then Majesco came along and brought over my favorite game of all time: Phantom Dust, the first exclusive Japanese Xbox game that I can remember actually releasing in America. There were maybe others only released in Japan, but I doubt they were exclusive. Xbox followed behind other American made systems that saw similar struggle, Atari Jaguar had only 50 games in it's entire library during it's lifetime. 3DO was a joke.

My point is, though Xbox didn't do itself any favors as @Yoboman was keen to point out, they were also trying to enter a space that was dominated by Japanese games being the gold standard in America as well is in Japan. So yea they did home grow some studios, but not enough to be able to compete. It was at a time where very few American developers had a foothold in the industry, and if they did, they were not inclined to release exclusives for Xbox. Playstation or Dreamcast also got those games. Not too sure about Nintendo, but I doubt Nintendo needed them.

I mean, I don't think developers such as Naughty dog, Insomniac, Sucker Punch, Guerrilla Games, etc are Japanese studios, and I am not sure why you are now focusing on the Japanese market, maybe I missed that somehow, were you guys only discussing the Japanese market?

MS could have done exactly what Sony did during their time in gaming — build up IPs of their own via their first-party and second-party studios and acquire those second-party studios that ended up being beneficial for them.

 

[Ogbert]

There’s nothing in terms of market theory to support what you’re saying. And you yourself cannot support your theory, it doesn’t hold water.

Sony and MS going to TSMC and competing for wafers for example. If Sony manages to secure more wafer priority because they will make more orders, because they expect more demand and therefore a larger set of costumers to sell their hardware to, did they leverage their market dominance in an anti competitive way? So TMSC should turn around and say “that’s not fair to Xbox”? Senseless.

Third parties have the right to secure the best deal for themselves. If manufacturers like MS, Nintendo, and Sony, compete for third party then the third party wins. Competition wins. The consumer also wins because they are competing for the consumer time and money fairly.

It’s why a monopoly is bad yes? Because when there’s only one player, there’s no competition, and without competition the consumer doesn’t get innovation, better products, better prices.

Gamepass exists because of that competition. And MS signs subscription exclusives, are they leveraging their market share? If they are not leveraging their market share against the third party by saying, you either only do business with us or you don’t do business with us, then they are not doing it in an anti competitive way or abusing their market lead.

Sorry but you gotta have more than simply, PlayStation has the bigger market share so when they get an exclusive it’s anti competitive but when Xbox gets an exclusive it’s not anti competitive because they have a smaller market share. This isn’t a well thought out argument. It’s how you sign exclusives that could be deemed anti competitive or not.

This point was argued in front of the judge by the way, with MS failing to explain how Xbox can’t afford to pay for exclusives but can get a 78 billion for acquisitions from the parent company. The FTC also successfully argued that competing for third party content is fair competition, good for the market, good for consumers. MS buying a publisher and then forcing Sony to buy a publisher is actually the opposite, it’s bad, and used case law to prove it.

Xbox can leverage MS’s deep pockets to sign exclusives, and that would be fair competition. Would you say it’s anti competitive because Sony has less money? Of course not.

It’s basic competition law.

If, for example, Sony were to gain 75% of the UK market and entered into deals that withheld content from the remaining 25%, the deal damages those consumers and would be subject to scrutiny. In fact, as Sony gets stronger, you’ll likely see their deals reduce in heavily regulated markets.

And if market share isn’t an issue, what’s the concern over the cloud then?

 

[Thirty7ven]

Microsoft doesn't have to make it worthwhile for anyone but themselves if they own the company. Microsoft is in it to make money not bleed it. Are you suggesting that Microsoft should just accept those terms or make financial sense and buy the company ?

And if it makes more financial sense for MS to buy Sony, EA, ABK, and Sega because they have the means to do it and might as well get on with it, you think this is how it should be?

I’m suggesting it doesn’t matter how MS feels about it, lol who cares how MS feels, either they want to compete or they don’t. Removing competition by acquiring the biggest publishers is bad. In the end that means they don’t have to compete, which is bad.

 

[Thirty7ven]

It’s basic competition law.

If, for example, Sony were to gain 75% of the UK market and entered into deals that withheld content from the remaining 25%, the deal damages those consumers and would be subject to scrutiny. In fact, as Sony gets stronger, you’ll likely see their deals reduce in heavily regulated markets.

And if market share isn’t an issue, what’s the concern over the cloud then?

The concern is that MS is removing competition in such a way that they are the ones who pick winners and losers. Once again, here we go again, it’s not being argued that MS shouldn’t be able to sign COD as Xcloud exclusive. Why does this keep being set aside?

 

[Ogbert]

The concern is that MS is removing competition in such a way that they are the ones who pick winners and losers. Once again, here we go again, it’s not being argued that MS shouldn’t be able to sign COD as Xcloud exclusive. Why does this keep being set aside?

That’s exactly what CMA is arguing - that COD’s potential exclusivity for the cloud installs it’s current position of dominance into an insurmountable obstacle.

 

[Jigsaah]

I mean, I don't think developers such as Naughty dog, Insomniac, Sucker Punch, Guerrilla Games, etc are Japanese studios, and I am not sure why you are now focusing on the Japanese market, maybe I missed that somehow, were you guys only discussing the Japanese market?

MS could have done exactly what Sony did during their time in gaming — build up IPs of their own via their first-party and second-party studios and acquire those second-party studios that ended up being beneficial for them.

I wasn't originally in the conversation but I believe they were discussing why Microsoft doesn't grow itself organically.

The clear answer is simple, they just aren't very good at it.

 

[FlyyGOD]

And if it makes more financial sense for MS to buy Sony, EA, ABK, and Sega because they have the means to do it and might as well get on with it, you think this is how it should be?

I’m suggesting it doesn’t matter how MS feels about it, lol who cares how MS feels, either they want to compete or they don’t. Removing competition by acquiring the biggest publishers is bad. In the end that means they don’t have to compete, which is bad.

So what Sony does is good? Sony created the environment that Microsoft had to compete in the fashion they're competing in.

 

[FlyyGOD]

I wasn't originally in the conversation but I believe they were discussing why Microsoft doesn't grow itself organically.

The clear answer is simple, they just aren't very good at it.

Sony buying insomniac , Naughty Dog and Bungie is organic growth?

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

Yep thats a very convincing counterargument , so you dont want to read it.

 

[Ar¢tos]

Sony buying insomniac , Naughty Dog and Bungie is organic growth?

If buying studios after spending years working with them and those studios releasing games almost exclusively to your platform (except Bungie, that was bought for live service expertise), is not organic growth, then what the fuck is?

 

[tmlDan]

Sony buying insomniac , Naughty Dog and Bungie is organic growth?

Are you guys bots?

It would be nice if someone had a decent argument other than a twitter shit post

 

[Thirty7ven]

So what Sony does is good? Sony created the environment that Microsoft had to compete in the fashion they're competing in.

Sony did not create this environment and saying shows a lack of knowledge about the history of the industry, and a lack of understanding of market rules.

That’s exactly what CMA is arguing - that COD’s potential exclusivity for the cloud installs it’s current position of dominance into an insurmountable obstacle.

Ownership, control of the content. As in MS removing the ability for others to compete for that content or dictating price of access to that content. So you are wrong here, misreading what’s actually being argued.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Judge said it shouldn’t take (longer than?) 3-4 months. (Paraphrasing)

So appeal in July then the final verdict towards the end of the year?

That could be a pretty long time for the deal though. Curious to see if they will wait that long.

 

[Topher]

Sony buying insomniac , Naughty Dog and Bungie is organic growth?

I wouldn't consider organic growth to be reserved only for studios that are created within the corporation. If you look at Naughty Dog since they have been acquired we are talking about a massively different studio than it used to be. To me, that's organic growth. Bungie definitely is not.

On the Microsoft side, I'd say we are seeing organic growth with studios like Playground which is growing beyond just being a racing game studio.

 

[Jigsaah]

So what Sony does is good? Sony created the environment that Microsoft had to compete in the fashion they're competing in.

It's partially true. Sony is very aggressive with exclusivity. Microsoft has the money to compete in the same fashion for sure. However because they are the underdog in the console space, they often overpay for exclusivity and I would imagine Gamepass deals as well though there's no real numbers out there. That's just the nature of business. To get exclusivity on your smaller platform you are asking developers to forego revenue that could be had on a much larger platform. So yea, it's gonna cost you more.

This is partly the reason why Microsoft started reporting MAUs rather than console sales. If you can show that you have a significant enough population in your ECOSYSTEM, then who cares how many consoles you've sold? It's a narrative that will go through it's growing pains, but it's a narrative Microsoft actually has a chance to compete in. They already said they lost the console war. They won't out-console Sony or Nintendo. So they have to go with what their strengths are if they are going to exist in the short term.

It's kinda like if you're Shaq going 1v1 against Steph Curry. Steph Curry is gonna rain 3's on you like no tomorrow. Do you, as Shaq, sit there trying to shoot 3's in response when you got the ball? Hell no, bitch you can barely make freethrows, let alone 3's. You're gonna use your weight, back em into the paint and dunk on his ass, over and over again. Doesn't mean you'll necessarily win...but you gotta play the game in the way that best suits your situation.

 

[Jigsaah]

Sony buying insomniac , Naughty Dog and Bungie is organic growth?

Well, Insomniac and Naughty Dog, yes. Bungie was a GaaS play and third party though there were some dealing with Sony in terms of exclusive content with DEstiny. I wouldn't consider Bungie 2nd party.

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[Corndog]

Microsoft Loses Between $100-$200 On Every Xbox It Sells

Xbox boss Phil Spencer says the company recoups the losses by selling accessories and subscriptions

kotaku.com

This in addition with gamepass all the investment they did. It's not hard to imagine how much money they currently lose.

Microsoft Loses Between $100-$200 On Every Xbox It Sells

Xbox boss Phil Spencer says the company recoups the losses by selling accessories and subscriptions

kotaku.com

This in addition with gamepass all the investment they did. It's not hard to imagine how much money they currently lose.

That’s not their financials. All that says is they sold the physical consoles at a loss. So again show the actual financials.

 

[M1987]

So what Sony does is good? Sony created the environment that Microsoft had to compete in the fashion they're competing in.

It's completely different to what Microsoft are doing

 

[bitbydeath]

So appeal in July then the final verdict towards the end of the year?

That could be a pretty long time for the deal though. Curious to see if they will wait that long.

Sorry bad memory, shouldn’t take 2-3 months, will amend.

 

[SirTerry-T]

Read the topic from Heisenberg007 about the summary of the FTC case on the frontpage, the Lies of P are exposed for everyone to see...ore ignore it like most Xboxfans are doing....

It's not so much that those of us who game on the Green team are ignoring it, it's just that many of us are just bored of the whole fucking thing.

But as I said before, some posters are trying to make this fiasco look like it's the bloody Watergate scandal or as important as the Cuban Missile Crisis.


It's not. It's just businesses being businesses and if you think there is only one business that engages in the sort of practices outlined in all these topics then I have very nice line of chocolate teapots I'd like to sell you.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Sorry bad memory, shouldn’t take 2-3 months, will amend.

Oh I was thinking of the CATs decision not the P.I.

 

[FlyyGOD]

It's completely different to what Microsoft are doing

Yup Sony uses its number 1 market position to aquire an advantage and Microsoft uses its money. So yes they compete using their own distinctive advantages.

 

[bitbydeath]

Oh I was thinking of the CATs decision not the P.I.

Not sure about CAT, I’ve seen August thrown around but not sure if accurate.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Not sure about CAT, I’ve seen August thrown around but not sure if accurate.

Weird I thought it was said the CAT process would take some time.

 

[Ogbert]

Ownership, control of the content. As in MS removing the ability for others to compete for that content or dictating price of access to that content. So you are wrong here, misreading what’s actually being argued.

This is a distinction without a difference. The block is predicated on MS potentially abusing a position of dominance in a nascent market.

It’s not ownership (hence them waiving the console concerns). It’s ownership combined with their pre-existing cloud infrastructure.

 

[Kilau]

Yep thats a very convincing counterargument , so you dont want to read it.

My post about what Phil said was a joke response to the Watergate reference. I’ve read the lies thread.

 

[adamsapple]

Is this an organic exit ?

 

[Thirty7ven]

This is a distinction without a difference. The block is predicated on MS potentially abusing a position of dominance in a nascent market.

It’s not ownership (hence them waiving the console concerns). It’s ownership combined with their pre-existing cloud infrastructure.

So its ownership, its control, its the ability to be the one who decides who gets access for how much. I agree with the market share bit, but the CMA isn’t arguing that MS can’t pay ABK to make COD exclusive to Xcloud for a year or two or whatever. They are arguing that because of their market position they can’t acquire ABK and thereby acquiring even more control of the future of a nascent market.

At least finally we are getting to the heart of the matter, which is control.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Is this an organic exit ?

Just a circle back thought experiment.

 

[adamsapple]

Just a circle back thought experiment.

Fuck the internet, I read the word circle and my brain automatically put jerk ahead of it

 

[DeepEnigma]

Fuck the internet, I read the word circle and my brain automatically put jerk ahead of it

 

[FrankWza]

Because I believe that consoles sales are absolutely 100% important to them and still their big focus. Everything else is a sham to divert attention away from their poor console sales.

Now why do you think they were carrying those boards across EU if console sales is not their focus?

Either that or they will use it as an excuse for favorable decisions. Their main goal and the driving force behind most of these decisions is to get PlayStation out of the way. This is all being done to play takeaway from PlayStation. These acquisitions are a last resort after decades and generations of being unable to outsell, out-produce and out-strategize.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

Sony buying insomniac , Naughty Dog and Bungie is organic growth?

Ok.. what do you think organic growth means?

To not just be an ass, since it's obvious you don't know, I will tell you... Yes, Sony buying them is organic growth.

With naughty dog and Insomniac, look at who they had been working with before they were acquired. They either did a lot of business with sony or were working with Sony exclusively. That is the best case of organic growth.

With Bungie, they were independent, have been acquired, and remain independent. All the games are still coming to whoever they want them to. But furthermore, their partnership with Sony only grew stronger and stronger with destiny, even when they were in contract with Activision.

If you look at all sony acquisitions, they all tend to have a similar pattern, they acquire what they have either done a lot of business with before, or better yet, done business with exclusively. So much so that you hear they have aquired somene,it doesn't even surprise you.

Inorganic growth is when your acquisitions don't make sense or feel forced... or take payers off the table. Eg. MS acquired Bethesda, just to show how inorganic that was, they were already in contract to make two exclusive games for Playstation when they were acquired. But furthermore, that is a publisher that has been making games for everyone for over 3 whole console generations... that's over 20 years. And MS just takes them and makes them exclusive. Meanwhile, Xbox represents their least profitable or smallest business partner. And then now trying to do the exact same thing with Activision.

See the difference?

 

[Bernoulli]

Sorry bad memory, shouldn’t take 2-3 months, will amend.

So we will know if Activision extends or not before the FTC and CAT result?

 

[Kilau]

So we will know if Activision extends or not before the FTC and CAT result?

I would be surprised if the judge doesn’t deliver her ruling this week. Independence Day slowing things down slightly.

 

[adamsapple]

I would be surprised if the judge doesn’t deliver her ruling this week. Independence Day slowing things down slightly.

I don't think the FTC's PI result will take that long, if I'm not mistaken, the judge said something about a July 11th or 12th deadline.

 

[T0minator]

Ok.. what do you think organic growth means?

To not just be an ass, since it's obvious you don't know, I will tell you... Yes, Sony buying them is organic growth.

With naughty dog and Insomniac, look at who they had been working with before they were acquired. They either did a lot of business with sony or were working with Sony exclusively. That is the best case of organic growth.

With Bungie, they were independent, have been acquired, and remain independent. All the games are still coming to whoever they want them to. But furthermore, their partnership with Sony only grew stronger and stronger with destiny, even when they were in contract with Activision.

If you look at all sony acquisitions, they all tend to have a similar pattern, they acquire what they have either done a lot of business with before, or better yet, done business with exclusively. So much so that you hear they have aquired somene,it doesn't even surprise you.

Inorganic growth is when your acquisitions don't make sense or feel forced... or take payers off the table. Eg. MS acquired Bethesda, just to show how inorganic that was, they were already in contract to make two exclusive games for Playstation when they were acquired. But furthermore, that is a publisher that has been making games for everyone for over 3 whole console generations... that's over 20 years. And MS just takes them and makes them exclusive. Meanwhile, Xbox represents their least profitable or smallest business partner. And then now trying to do the exact same thing with Activision.

See the difference?

It's kind of ridiculous to me how some seriously don't understand what organic growth really is. PlayStation worked with Housemarque for years, dating back to the PS3 days, helping with their tech and development... they eventually acquired them. Same with Insomniac, Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch, Guerilla, even Bungie since the announcement of PS4 Sony and Bungie have worked closely together, Bungie even helped design the DualSense.

MS acquiring Ninja Theory...where's the history? Where's the prior relationship? Activision overall is in the same boat.

Double Fine, Playground Games, those are perfect examples of organic growth. When there's a history of development and resources provided to those teams for years until the studios are ready to be acquired, that's organic growth

 

[Kilau]

I don't think the FTC's PI result will take that long, if I'm not mistaken, the judge said something about a July 11th or 12th deadline.

So maybe by Friday or early next week at the latest but certainly before the 18th deadline.

 

[GHG]

I don't think the FTC's PI result will take that long, if I'm not mistaken, the judge said something about a July 11th or 12th deadline.

*2024

 

[RickMasters]

But they did that. They really leveraged the PC market to bring a ton of Devs who were PC only to console. They established a competitive uniqueness and we're publishing games not found elsewhere

Imagine Microsoft today if they had made the offer you can't refuse to devs they were publishing for like Bioware, Epic Games, Mistwalker, Bizarre creations before they were bought up or did their own thing. Hadn't let go of Bungie and closed Lionhead. Had courted Xbox exclusive devs like Team Ninja and Starbreeze.

They lost all their competitive advantage of their own volition instead of building on it

Luckily they eventually did bring back Xbox 1 exclusive devs like Bethesda and Double Fine

Completely agree. They have squandered a lot of relationships that could have turned into acquisitions. I think BioWare, and starbreeze in particular where missed opportunities.


But hey Atleast Bethesda and double fine found their way ‘home’ so to speak.



Even bungie….. they could have let bungie make their new IPs….. still set up 343i to make halo games but Atleast with a little advisory guidance from bungie.

Mistwalker could have been their very own JRPG studio. Not sure just how much that would have helped their situation in Japan but Atleast they would have had first party JRPG, continuously.



Epic games….. after all the partnering with gears and the x360 being a bit of a poster child for unreal engine……. Suprised they bought the IP instead of thinking about buying the company that makes the IP and the technology.



Going forward I just hope all the studio they do own are turning out some quality games. At some point maybe we get lucky and MS realises that if they just support their devs in make banging exclusives they will give people a reason to want an Xbox and subscribe to gamepass.


I don’t think the acquisitions will stop after this….. whether it goes through or not. Let’s just hope they make the right choices internally and that leads to great games. Maybe in a post starfield world they really do turn a corner and they just get back to the basics. Make great games. Compete aggressively as the underdog should…. Utilise some of that financial power…. And have a little vision.


Man I should be in charge! I could get them out of this rut!

 

[FlyyGOD]

Ok.. what do you think organic growth means?

To not just be an ass, since it's obvious you don't know, I will tell you... Yes, Sony buying them is organic growth.

With naughty dog and Insomniac, look at who they had been working with before they were acquired. They either did a lot of business with sony or were working with Sony exclusively. That is the best case of organic growth.

With Bungie, they were independent, have been acquired, and remain independent. All the games are still coming to whoever they want them to. But furthermore, their partnership with Sony only grew stronger and stronger with destiny, even when they were in contract with Activision.

If you look at all sony acquisitions, they all tend to have a similar pattern, they acquire what they have either done a lot of business with before, or better yet, done business with exclusively. So much so that you hear they have aquired somene,it doesn't even surprise you.

Inorganic growth is when your acquisitions don't make sense or feel forced... or take payers off the table. Eg. MS acquired Bethesda, just to show how inorganic that was, they were already in contract to make two exclusive games for Playstation when they were acquired. But furthermore, that is a publisher that has been making games for everyone for over 3 whole console generations... that's over 20 years. And MS just takes them and makes them exclusive. Meanwhile, Xbox represents their least profitable or smallest business partner. And then now trying to do the exact same thing with Activision.

See the difference?

Organic growth only matters to fanboys. None of these companies care nothing about you only the bottom line. Nobody cares when Sony buys silent hill or Street Fighter 5 exclusivity though.

 

[Pelta88]

When you see someone show Heisenberg007 anything less than the respect he deserves.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Disappointing Heisenberg007 i thought you would revert to the old tactic of posting comments, outwith original context to back your arguments.

All I can hear is that you still have no answer

 

[FrankWza]

When you see someone show Heisenberg007 anything less than the respect he deserves.

It's happening everywhere. He really ruined some people's holiday weekend

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/%E2%80%9Cxbox-fans-are-paid%E2%80%9D-says-former-world-of-warcraft-designer.1658408/post-268143696

 

[Calverz]

When you see someone show Heisenberg007 anything less than the respect he deserves.

The melon himself? Get outta here!

 

[GHG]

When you see someone show Heisenberg007 anything less than the respect he deserves.

He'll have a target on his head now for making that summary thread the other day.

 

[Thirty7ven]

They out there trying to X 007 #Xgiveth