I could be mistaken, but I thought you were all in on VRR. How did you get from there to streaming a game like COD would be acceptable?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Riky
$MSFT
Each person can decide what's "acceptable" to them, at least you have the choice which is better than no choice.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
2nded glad to have you back bro.Welcome backRiky
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Trying to wrap my head around the idea that the amount of people who only game on PlayStation somehow outnumbers mobile, Nintendo, and xCloud reach 
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
I am so torn on this.
When the merger happens and the catalog gets added to game pass, should I download the Tony Hawk games first, or Crash Bandicoot 4?
When the merger happens and the catalog gets added to game pass, should I download the Tony Hawk games first, or Crash Bandicoot 4?
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
And there were even more choices prior to buying third party publishers and removing selective platforms after.
I would say that streaming COD while others play at 120 FPS is not really a choice a person would make without being duped or hoodwinked. But that is just one man's opinion. If my fellow enthusiasts actually think COD is suitable for streaming in 2023 onward, who am I to judge?
Riky
$MSFT
I would say that streaming COD while others play at 120 FPS is not really a choice a person would make without being duped or hoodwinked. But that is just one man's opinion. If my fellow enthusiasts actually think COD is suitable for streaming in 2023 onward, who am I to judge?
Some genres work better than others, I use XCloud for some slower paced stuff rather than download the whole game even on my Series X and S.
Since COD will continue to be multiplatform though I really don't see the issue.
only if you conveniently ignore the fact that the publisher that was acquired would have brought it those platforms regardless of the acquisition and so MS are not bringing it to more platforms due to the acquisition.
Also, saying they're the only platform holder doing this is wrong. Nobody is buying up established IPs but when they do it still releases on other platforms. Bungie is the only notable example of this happening and they are doing the same. Also could people argue that Sony brought psygnosis games like Destruction Derby to more platforms too? After all they released new IPs like Destruction Derby and other games on N64, Sega Saturn and MSDOS years after the acquisition. Or does going back years to draw parallels only work when we're trying to paint one platform holder in a bad light and the other as a saint?
Last edited:
akimbo009
Gold Member
So? There was less choice for other platforms once Sony bought Insomnia. You seem hurt, but also passive aggressive. Either way, acquisitions have consequences and in this case some content may be taken away from MS's lead competitor but certainly not all including promises being made publicly.
I suspect Sony will acquire more companies too. World still turns, but no reason to get all sad about it. You just seem mad to that MS isn't being consistent to your liking- well... ok? I think there's valid points being brought up where they have actually expanded their delivery to different platforms (even Ori to Switch), but certainly they aren't going to go out of their way to be a 3rd party publisher for Sony - that's hardly revelatory. If that's your point you keep hammering home I guess I wonder why's it so personal to you.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
All them storied Insomniac 30+ year 3rd party IPs. And that's a developer, not a 3rd party publisher. Just like nobody complained nor needed a process such as this when MS purchased solo studios either.
We really do need a bingo card.
Last edited:
akimbo009
Gold Member
Like the 30 year old Ratchet and Clank and Spyro?.... Think we got a bingo here.
Ratchet and Clank is a Sony IP dummy and Insomniac don't even own Spyro. Guess who does?
Last edited:
DarkMage619
$MSFT
You have proof Mojang would have brought Minecraft to all consoles, mobile and subscription services had MS not acquired them? I assume you also believe titles like Minecraft Dungeons and Legends would have done the same? I'd like to see your evidence.
Please give an example of another platform holder putting their IP on other platforms they don't own if you do not want to credit MS for the practice. As soon as you can show another company doing more than MS in that area you can feel free to criticise MS.
Your Bungie example is no different than what MS previously did ZeniMax games isn't it? If the game was already out it continued to get supported. In fact MS did that first too didn't they? I believe ZeniMax was purchased before Bungie was. I wouldn't be surprised if that precedent wasn't the reason Bungie took their current stance. I can totally see Sony winding down Xbox support for Destiny if it was up to them. There was a history of exclusives for PlayStation with Destiny.
I don't care about Psygnosis aside from acknowledgement that Sony can do whatever they want with the companies they buy. I want the same rights afforded to MS. The only thing that is pretty obvious is that Sony has a history of making IP they own (and some they don't) exclusive to their platform and MS has a history of expanding access to theirs. You have never in life heard me refer to any company as a saint, it is business pure and simple. Just accept that all video game business doesn't always benefit PlayStation.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Oh no, it's retarded.meme
I'm actually crying in laughter at your knowledge and your dumb deflection when realising Insomniac have never owned those IPs.
Ratchet and Clank is owned by Sony (even prior) and Spyro was owned by Universal Interactive who sold the IP along with Crash Bandicoot to Activision. Nobody is sad about it, it's just that suggesting those IPs now have less choice due to the Insomniac purchase is the funniest, dumbest and most ironic thing in this thread.
Last edited:
Badlucktroll
Member
I wonder if Sony planned on buying Konami or its IPs?
From the simple fact that 4J were developing it for the Wii U even before they were acquired. It's what you claimed MS brought it to. Minecraft was already on mobile too before the acquisition.
What subscription service choices were improved? Minecraft hit gamepass very late and didn't even release on other subs.
I'm not trying to discredit anyone for anything. I said very few platform holders buy established IPs and when they do they do the same thing. I gave you some clear examples already.
What are you talking about? Current and future games by Bungie will release on multiple platforms. It's exactly what you say other platform holders don't do. I even gave you further examples of Sony IPs on other platforms with Destruction Derby and Wipeout on the Sega Saturn. Now stop your bullshit.
Last edited:
akimbo009
Gold Member
You can't say future Bungie games will be on other platforms. They only mean Destiny - anything new will just be for Playstation. There's no reason to think Sony will start going multi-platform and start to publish games on Xbox when they can barely get their back catalog on PC. Don't say shit you can't back up.
When did they say that? It sounded like all Bungie games at the time to me. I figured there’s probably some profit share kicked in that made it important to Bungie people is my guess.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
MSFT$
It's like a never ending loop in this thread.
For the 100th time
Q. Bungie has future games in development, will they now become PlayStation exclusives?
No. We want the worlds we are creating to extend to anywhere people play games. We will continue to be self-published, creatively independent, and we will continue to drive one, unified Bungie community.
https://www.bungie.net/en/Explore/Detail/News/50989
Also even if we say your lack of information was right and it was just Destiny iterations how is that different to DarkMages example of Minecraft iterations?
Last edited:
feynoob
Member
Someone has woken up from his vampire den.
ChorizoPicozo
Gold Member
yep. this thread is like one of the circles of hell
i wonder if at the end of this journey, some people would have learned something useful. Or they will be expected to be witnessed by Phill or Jim:
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Minecraft expanded to additional platforms after MS' acquisition. It was not available on a subscription service before the acquisition either. The IP could have been made exclusive after the acquisition and it was not. Minecraft Dungeons and Legends would not have existed without MS' funding and they too were put on multiple platforms when they could have been exclusive. These are facts.
So it being on a subscription service is because of MS. We agree.
It's like MS is doing things differently than Sony and Nintendo. Every platform has different ways to distinguish themselves from their competitors. That's why it's silly to remove Nintendo from the market. They are all different. Only Sony has console VR.
It also shows why arguing that MS is a danger to competition when they are more likely to provide their IP to other platforms is so ridiculous. Twenty years of Xbox in the industry and Sony and Nintendo are still going strong.
MS still did it first whether you admit it or not. Continued support on platforms of existing titles was established by the ZeniMax acquisition before Sony bought Bungie. Multiple platforms for Bungie's titles could mean PC and PlayStation. There has been no proof Xbox will be included. I didn't see Xbox in your quote. This is vastly different from the signed promises MS has made to Nintendo, Valve, and Sony. Again it's laughable MS is called a liar for their offer of signed statements yet this QA statement from Bungie is taken as gospel for Xbox support. We can clearly see the BS and it's coming from you. Sorry man.
Last edited:
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Everything you just said makes no sense. I don't get why people keep trying to relitigate the Bethesda purchase. It's over. It's done. And if that's part of the FTC's strategy, then I'm glad because it's a weak argument if there ever was one. Microsoft will be able to demonstrate before a judge that not only have they done no harm, they've even respected agreements to the detriment of their own platform with regards to Deathloop and Ghostwire: Tokyo.
Even then it doesn't matter. It was approved with no conditions from all major regulators. Microsoft told everybody they would decide on a case-by-case basis on future Bethesda games from the onset. They told this to regulators like the EC also. This is about the Activision Blizzard deal. Stay focused. People aren't going to somehow by applying whatever weird pressure they believe they're applying to Microsoft now over its separate transaction to buy Activision Blizzard, get Microsoft to undo the fact that Starfield, Elder Scrolls 6, and games like Redfall are Xbox console exclusive.
And while you're busy focusing on just Playstation gamers, you conveniently overlook that what Microsoft has said about bringing more games to more people across a wider range of devices remains true even now with Bethesda games, especially Starfield and Redfall. You don't need to buy an Xbox console or a high-end PC to access those games. Game Pass will bring those games to Samsung TVs, LG TVs, cloud gaming handhelds, lower spec pc browsers, android phones and tablets, iOS phones and tablets, chromebooks, linux devices, and a continually growing list of devices. That's effectively reducing market effects by removing the price barrier of an expensive gaming PC or an Xbox console.
Microsoft has kept its promises. At no stage have they ever said there would never be any exclusive games from their Zenimax purchase. They only ever stated that they wouldn't have any incentive to cease or limit making zenimax games available for purchase on rival consoles.
There isn't one single one single Zenimax game that was available for purchase on a rival console prior to the transaction that is now no longer available for purchase after the close of the Zenimax deal. Microsoft never specified all future games when they stated this, they only said 'Zenimax games.' In other words, the fact people can still buy Doom Eternal, Doom 2016, Ghostwire Tokyo, Deathloop, all dishonored, all elder scrolls, all fallout, as well as all as a number of other Zenimax games that were previously available on rival consoles means they kept their promise.
Do you hear them saying that even now with Activision Blizzard's titles, that there will never be any exclusive to Xbox titles? No. They're just saying they won't remove Call of Duty from Playstation and are even willing to make a big legally binding 10 year agreement on it. They said they intend to treat it the way they have Minecraft. That right there is impossible to skate from should they violate it. They plan to treat Call of Duty like Minecraft. And you can believe them because that's serious fucking money for them to keep Call of Duty exactly as it is. Game Pass is about more players, more engagement. Call of Duty is that and then some. They don't want players leaving their eco-system of games, even if it means they play on Playstation. They aren't saying this about Diablo or Blizzard's new survival IP and other potential Activision Blizzard titles, and that matters.
Even then, the very real consumer benefits to Xbox owners, to PC gamers, to owners of smartphones, tablets, and to just about anyone on any device who might consider giving Game Pass a shot are all things that are important to show to regulators. They matter. Access to Activision Blizzard's content (the only content that truly matters in this transaction regardless of attempts by FTC to make Bethesda an issue) becomes significantly more affordable and more accessible to a much larger group of potential consumers across many more devices than what would otherwise be the case without the deal. That's a very powerful argument in favor of the deal.
Is playstation and sony's self interest important enough to deny Activision Blizzard's games to the widest set of consumers possible worldwide? I see some people try to dismiss
DarkMage619
each time he brings up importance of bringing Call of Duty to Nintendo, but it's more than that. Activision Blizzard's games are going to be able to reach the largest potential market they have ever had. That will matter in any review of the case.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
So MS is just gonna straight up step up to FTC like " you want it? let's fucking go!"
Must be super confident.
Must be super confident.
Iced Arcade
Member
Can't wait for this deal to pass through just so we can get back to both companies boasting and flexing new exclusives.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Everything you just said makes no sense. I don't get why people keep trying to relitigate the Bethesda purchase. It's over. It's done. And if that's part of the FTC's strategy, then I'm glad because it's a weak argument if there ever was one. Microsoft will be able to demonstrate before a judge that not only have they done no harm, they've even respected agreements to the detriment of their own platform with regards to Deathloop and Ghostwire: Tokyo.
Even then it doesn't matter. It was approved with no conditions from all major regulators. Microsoft told everybody they would decide on a case-by-case basis on future Bethesda games from the onset. They told this to regulators like the EC also. This is about the Activision Blizzard deal. Stay focused. People aren't going to somehow by applying whatever weird pressure they believe they're applying to Microsoft now over its separate transaction to buy Activision Blizzard, get Microsoft to undo the fact that Starfield, Elder Scrolls 6, and games like Redfall are Xbox console exclusive.
And while you're busy focusing on just Playstation gamers, you conveniently overlook that what Microsoft has said about bringing more games to more people across a wider range of devices remains true even now with Bethesda games, especially Starfield and Redfall. You don't need to buy an Xbox console or a high-end PC to access those games. Game Pass will bring those games to Samsung TVs, LG TVs, cloud gaming handhelds, lower spec pc browsers, android phones and tablets, iOS phones and tablets, chromebooks, linux devices, and a continually growing list of devices. That's effectively reducing market effects by removing the price barrier of an expensive gaming PC or an Xbox console.
Microsoft has kept its promises. At no stage have they ever said there would never be any exclusive games from their Zenimax purchase. They only ever stated that they wouldn't have any incentive to cease or limit making zenimax games available for purchase on rival consoles.
There isn't one single one single Zenimax game that was available for purchase on a rival console prior to the transaction that is now no longer available for purchase after the close of the Zenimax deal. Microsoft never specified all future games when they stated this, they only said 'Zenimax games.' In other words, the fact people can still buy Doom Eternal, Doom 2016, Ghostwire Tokyo, Deathloop, all dishonored, all elder scrolls, all fallout, as well as all as a number of other Zenimax games that were previously available on rival consoles means they kept their promise.
Do you hear them saying that even now with Activision Blizzard's titles, that there will never be any exclusive to Xbox titles? No. They're just saying they won't remove Call of Duty from Playstation and are even willing to make a big legally binding 10 year agreement on it. They said they intend to treat it the way they have Minecraft. That right there is impossible to skate from should they violate it. They plan to treat Call of Duty like Minecraft. And you can believe them because that's serious fucking money for them to keep Call of Duty exactly as it is. Game Pass is about more players, more engagement. Call of Duty is that and then some. They don't want players leaving their eco-system of games, even if it means they play on Playstation. They aren't saying this about Diablo or Blizzard's new survival IP and other potential Activision Blizzard titles, and that matters.
Even then, the very real consumer benefits to Xbox owners, to PC gamers, to owners of smartphones, tablets, and to just about anyone on any device who might consider giving Game Pass a shot are all things that are important to show to regulators. They matter. Access to Activision Blizzard's content (the only content that truly matters in this transaction regardless of attempts by FTC to make Bethesda an issue) becomes significantly more affordable and more accessible to a much larger group of potential consumers across many more devices than what would otherwise be the case without the deal. That's a very powerful argument in favor of the deal.
Is playstation and sony's self interest important enough to deny Activision Blizzard's games to the widest set of consumers possible worldwide? I see some people try to dismiss
This is way too good a post to waste in this thread. I mean you literally have someone arguing right now trying to downplay Microsoft’s work spreading Minecraft to all platforms, conveniently ignoring all the new releases, updates, and even spin offs that are all available on basically every platform. There’s really nothing you can say to these people that will change their minds.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
You crack me up, the own goals you kick are hilarious. You say we should take Sony at their word regarding Bungie and multiplatform, easy case right? I haven't seen very much progress from Sony by way of more platforms or same day releases or cross play etc. They're not leading competition in the marketplace, just stifling it. I'll accept Bungie, great team and generally very honest and open with fans.
Conversely MS/Xbox has -
- Grown Minecraft into multiplatform and cross play.
- Collaborated with other industry players, such as Nintendo or Steam/PC, for cross play and "forcing" Sony to do similar on some titles e.g. Rocket League, Minecraft etc.
- Forza is on more platforms and cross play, with subs and same day releases.
- Halo is on more platforms and cross play, with subs and same day releases.
- All first party games are part of Gamepass day one and support PC/cloud/console same day releases.
- The platform ecosystem between console, mobile, PC, cloud under Xbox is seamless, as is the parental, digital rights/saves/upgrades, privacy and billing management.
- The social, voice and party chat systems rival world class telephony systems.
- Xbox @ ID success with 4,600 devs in 90 countries.
- 10 year deals offered on COD, the overwhelming majority of the industry players support.
- 343 new studio, despite failures received continuous investment and workplace growth within USA.
- Coalition new studio, old IP.
- ORI was on PC and Xbox, then released on PS/Switch.
- Cuphead was on PC and Xbox, then released on PS/Switch.
By direct factual comparison of your own argument Sony are way behind and whinging about competition while holding the chloroform rag over MS.
MS have proven, just like Azure and Minecraft historically, they have every interest invested in being the open platform while their own take on various games/software/hardware in the ring of competition as well e.g. Google phones/OS where they both compete & partner with Samsung/others players while offering a value add Netflix style service with Gamepass. Sony have proven they only care about their walled garden and bottom line.
Let us say it another way, here's the current list of exclusives -
SONY EXCLUSIVES
- Astro’s Playroom
- Deathloop
- Demon’s Souls
- Destruction AllStars
- Final Fantasy VII Remake Intergrade
- Ghostwire: Tokyo
- God of War Ragnarok
- Gran Turismo 7
- Horizon Forbidden West
- Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart
- Returnal
- Spider-Man: Miles Morales
- Sackboy: A Big Adventure
NINTENDO/SWITCH EXCLUSIVES
- Super Mario Party/Superstars
- Super Mario Kart
- Pokemon Let's Go
- Yoshi's Crafted World
- Super Smash Bros
- The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening
- Hyrule Warriors
- Luigi's Mansion 3
- Pokemon Sword & Shield
- Fire Emblem
- Metroid Dread
- Pokemon Legends
- Kirby and the Forgotten Land
- Mario Strikers: Battle League
XBOX EXCLUSIVES (ALL AVAILABLE ON PC, Cloud & Xbox same day).
- Forza Horizon 5
- Halo Infinite
- Microsoft Flight Simulator
But what if Xbox made one game exclusive (COD). WHAAMMBbulance sirens. What all of a sudden Joel/Ellie, Spidey, Kratos, Mario, Luigi, Zelda/Link, some animal at a crossing, Pikachu and all the rest aren't big enough to compete with just Ghost from COD in the public gaming zeitgeist? Ghost got that god mode cheat going.
Have fun with the exclusivity argument in court, with or without Nintendo.
Last edited:
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
This succinct statement reveals FTC/Sony's flaw in their main argument.
It doesn't matter if this deal damages Sony. You don't hold up an entire industry of platforms, devs, publishers, games, consumers and more of blurred market segments with the most competition, players, innovation and investment on record because #2 is crying about #4 making some moves.
Xbox isn't about exclusives in the same magnitude Sony is. It's the only mentality Sony seem to understand or focus on too.
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
Of course they’re confident. This is happening. Only a select few here think it isn’t.
MS chose to take different paths when it comes to building a portfolio. It didn’t work like they hoped. So yes, punishing PS players by using Office funds to take the biggest game on console away (unless they buy a new system to run it from Xbox or a gaming PC) is anti-consumer to millions of people and warrants protection from government. The millions and millions of people who would be harmed have just as much right to say it deserves a challenge as the people who Want to profit or win a console war.
gothmog
Gold Member
MS knows that the FTC alone is not going to be enough to kill this deal. If one of the major European agencies does not accept the concessions they know that this deal is absolutely dead. So it's not confidence as much as everyone admitting that right now that the FTC is only becomes relevant in the 6-12 month time frame.
Your goalpost moving cracks me up. Nobody said who has more exclusives. Somebody just said no platform holder is releasing their games/IPs on other platforms. I said no platform holder is buying up IPs like MS is but when they do they do the same.
minecraft was a multiplatform game when it was acquired, it was on Mobile, Nintendo, Playstation. Being Java it was also available on toasters.
That's great and all but what has all this got to do with IPs like Elderscrolls 6, Hellblade 2, the outer Worlds 2 getting bought and appearing on less platforms than before they were acquired? The argument was not about cheerleading for MS it was that no other platform holder releases their IP on other platforms and that simply isn't true. It was about IPs appearing on "more platforms" after, which also isn't true.
No thanks, please put the pom poms down.
You've got to be shitting me with these lists. It's not like we've got a bunch of Bethesda titles and other games xbox is getting without ABK, also got to love the fact that you added an enhanced PS4 game and a packin just for your narrative. Let me fix your xbox list for you too
"XBOX EXCLUSIVES" .
- Forza Horizon 5
- Halo Infinite
- Microsoft Flight Simulator
- Grounded
- As Dusk Falls
- Pentiment
- CrossfireX
- The Ascent
- The Medium
- Scorn
- ...
Last edited:
This about sums up my conversation with you. It's like talking to a billboard. Christ, put the pom poms down. The examples I gave were from a time where xbox didn't even exist but if it makes you and your tag happy I'll give MS the medal for it because this nonsense isn't even relevant.
Last edited:
SenjutsuSage
Banned
I get what some people are trying to say, but what evidence is there Microsoft doesn't keep its commitments or contracts? Deathloop? Ghostwire: Tokyo? Microsoft has demonstrated already it holds to commitments especially when it leads to criticism. They've extended an offer to Sony they have thus far refused to accept, which may or may not prove mighty costly depending on how things progress.
Minecraft speaks for itself. Most of us may not care about that game, but a crap ton of people who make Microsoft money by buying and playing it do. Minecraft is a major game property that brings in a lot of money. New games in the franchise have maintained Playstation support, as will Minecraft Legends this year.
Microsoft loves money right? If anybody doubts anything at all about this entire thing, do not doubt Microsoft's love of money. There are places Playstation will always be bigger than Xbox. There are consumers to whom Playstation will always be their primary choice no matter what. Everybody knows this; Microsoft definitely understands this. Microsoft intends to take full advantage of that fact by keeping Call of Duty on Playstation to keep bringing in that money. I said with confidence before that Microsoft would have no issue whatsoever forgoing whatever extra money that could have been made from bringing Starfield and Elder Scrolls 6 to Playstation 5 because it just makes so much damn sense to make them exclusive to make Xbox to attract more gamers to Xbox, but also to really promote the hell out of Game Pass, which doesn't just need big game releases, but also big exclusive game releases also.
Playstation gamers will keep buying Call of Duty, keep spending money in Warzone. Everything Microsoft is doing with Game Pass becomes a whole lot easier with the popularity of a multi-platform Call of Duty. Even with the potential benefits of making it exclusive, they are not worth disrupting the type of annual cash cow that the franchise quite obviously represents even if many gamers should immediately switch to Xbox and buy Game Pass. Microsoft wisely realizes that it is far smarter to grow Game Pass more slowly and gradually as a result of not making something like Call of Duty exclusive while also benefitting from the money spent by Playstation gamers on the franchise. Game Pass STILL gets where it needs to get with the help of Xbox Game Studios, Bethesda's biggest titles and the acquisition of Activision Blizzard King, and you're still making a killing off people who just plain prefer Playstation. It would be business malpractice of the highest order to risk disrupting such a loyal, very large, and very willing to spend money community of gamers and risk losing that engagement to other titles. What they ultimately gain in new xbox console owners and game pass subscribers would not fix the long term damage of possibly weakening Call of Duty's reach with gamers without knowing just when a massive new competitor in the same exact category could come and take away those loyal customers. Microsoft really cares about engagement numbers because the higher numbers of player engagement means the biggest shot at making more money. Call of Duty is the perfect IP for exactly that.
So you keep multi-platform COD that makes you money off Playstation gamers, and you definitely seriously try to expand it to Nintendo.
The people who say it will harm them do have a right to say it deserves a challenge. Nobody denies that. That's fair. However, when the data does not support the claimed damage and the rest of the evidence in the affirmative is just clearly stronger it becomes difficult to see how the no side of the argument wins. Playstation was big before Call of Duty. It would continue to remain a big deal after Call of Duty even if it should one day become exclusive (don't see it happening). Games like Starfield and Elder Scrolls only come around once every 4-6 years if we're lucky. Starfield has taken 8 years since Fallout 4 in 2015, but I personally think COVID played a far bigger role than some will ever acknowledge which dramatically shook up their timetable. There will have been around a 15-16+ year gap since Skyrim released by the time Elder Scrolls 6 drops. It becomes very difficult to claim a platform can't possibly survive without the latest Elder Scrolls title when everybody has gone so many years without a big new release. Nobody is saying the games won't be massive when they drop. They will be phenomenons on both console and PC. They will be huge for Game Pass, but Sony will have its own major first-party exclusive releases also, and will also have its own major 3rd party exclusives in that time frame. And as Elden Ring and Cyberpunk and many other games demonstrate, it isn't just exclusives that make noise in this industry.
Hogwarts Legacy, for example, is looking like an almost dream like videogame project that you never thought could ever exist. That thing so far has mega hit written all over it based on what I've seen thus far. Just an all around super creative effort by that team and it all looks amazing. Microsoft acquiring Activision Blizzard King makes Xbox a much more formidable competitor in the gaming space, but it doesn't make them so formidable that Sony will never be able to adequately compete and a significantly larger swath of consumers will be harmed more than benefitted.
We'll just see where it all goes, but people who don't like it and want it to fail, I definitely understand where people are coming from, but all signs tell us that the fear is simply not justified. The biggest legitimate fear is a stronger, more competitive Xbox that is harder for other publishers to just ignore once aligned with Activision Blizzard King. I mean, it doesn't make much sense to potentially skip a platform that could cause you to not release on an Xbox that could soon become known as the best platform for all Activision Blizzard gamers, especially if you love Call of Duty. It doesn't mean third party exclusives that skip xbox go away, but it's now a different business calculus for those companies. Certain deals may become more expensive for Sony to make.
ChorizoPicozo
Gold Member
https://www.frommers.com/trip-ideas...s-are-in-a-lot-more-trouble-than-people-think
another example of how an acquisition of this magnitude is not a slam dunk. (spending money is easy) MS's hard work is just beginning.
another example of how an acquisition of this magnitude is not a slam dunk. (spending money is easy) MS's hard work is just beginning.
Kagey K
Banned
The fact that you can post this here means you have a device capable of playing the game.
Whether you choose to or not because it's not on your preffered device becomes your choice.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
The idea of you talking about pom poms when you are sitting there denying reality that MS has been far more free with their IP than any other platform is hilarious. Keep on thinking Minecraft wasn't significantly expanded under MS.
I spoke about the ZeniMax acquisition before the Bungie acquisition because I wanted to keep things recent and relevant. If you want to focus on the past with Psygnosis you should then have no problems with this publisher acquisition then since Sony bought one before Xbox existed right? You can't have it both ways. Either both Sony and MS were wrong and should never buy big studios or both are fine and should do whatever is legal when it comes business.
At least I'm consistent. I don't care what Sony does with its money as long as MS can do the same with theirs. You seem to only have a problem with MS. I guess we know which way you shake your pom poms...
Last edited:
Kagey K
Banned
It's only the 4th, most people won't be back into work mode until Monday.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Minecraft wasn't on Nintendo yet. Microsoft brought it to Wii U, then to Switch 3 years later. Call of Duty is also a multi-platform at the time of being acquired, has a large community that's dependent on being kept together across platforms, just like Minecraft, and Call of Duty is also on mobile. Soon Warzone will be on mobile too. The fact remains that Microsoft's incentives for keeping COD on Playstation and expanding its reach further are even stronger for something like Call of Duty than they were for Minecraft. Call of Duty brings in so much money and fresh player engagement each year. There is a regular cleansing of the palette each and every year. Microsoft doesn't care where they play Call of Duty, if they're playing Call of Duty, those are Xbox gamers as far as they're concerned. They're in the eco-system.
So Call of Duty has never really been what I felt people were worried about. I think people are worried that Microsoft could actually do some incredible things with all those studios and IP, or even by allowing them to do something with existing Xbox IP. No one would have an ounce of fear if they believed with 100% confidence that every one of the new and exciting projects that will come from Activision Blizzard in the future were somehow guaranteed to come to Playstation. It's a fair assessment that such a thing is up in the air. I personally feel that new Blizzard survival game is a very strong candidate to get the Starfield treatment. Is any potential other new IPs guaranteed to come to Playstation? What about the eventual Diablo 5? There is legitimate reason to fear all of this. And even if all of that should come to pass, Playstation would STILL not be in any mortal danger of not being competitive and all the big and immediate consumer benefits would still be a reality even in such exclusion release scenarios.
Some may view that as unfair, but the thing about it is that it really wouldn't be. Microsoft would fully own the properties and when you own things you tend to be allowed to largely do with them what you wish to a large extent that largely strips other companies of equal rights to a lot of things that would go on to be produced. There's no rule or requirement unless regulators seek to impose them that every game produced from Activision Blizzard outside of Call of Duty and obvious multi-platform releases MUST appear on Playstation consoles. And with the market data and realities being as they are, I suspect Call of Duty would be the only game that faces such restriction, or they could place some timed restriction on any and everything from Activision Blizzard for the next 10-15 years having to appear on Playstation. Something I firmly believe Microsoft wouldn't even quarrel with. It takes away some exclusive opportunities for the immediate future, but they still get a hold of the assets. I assume Microsoft would appeal for a carveout for IPs that don't necessarily belong to Activision Blizzard, like if they ever allowed an Activision studio to build a new Halo FPS. I think that would be exempt on account that it isn't an Activision Blizzard IP or project that could have naturally come about absent the purchase.
Anyway, goodnight fellas.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
The idea of you talking about pom poms when you are sitting there denying reality that MS has been far more free with their IP than any other platform is hilarious. Keep on thinking Minecraft wasn't significantly expanded under MS.
I spoke about the ZeniMax acquisition before the Bungie acquisition because I wanted to keep things recent and relevant. If you want to focus on the past with Psygnosis you should then have no problems with this publisher acquisition then since Sony bought one before Xbox existed right? You can't have it both ways. Either both Sony and MS were wrong and should never buy big studios or both are fine and should do whatever is legal when it comes business.
At least I'm consistent. I don't care what Sony does with its money as long as MS can do the same with theirs. You seem to only have a problem with MS. I guess we know which way you shake your pom poms...
This is what it boils down to for me. I'm not pissed off at any of Sony's exclusive deals or any of the studios they buy. My mindset is they're competing to build great content. They're investing to do battle. Sony even has even acquired Jade Raymond's Haven Studios which is building a AAA multiplayer game for Sony. That studio was one of a number of purchases by Sony. They're no less significant simply because they don't have the names Diablo, World of Warcraft, and Call of Duty, and the pricetag doesn't need to be $68.7 billion for it to have an impact. Take a real good look at the $229 million purchase of Insomniac and tell me their value doesn't quite obviously far exceed that pricetag.
Companies compete and I'm happy to see these two fight for gamers' attention. It will all be everyone's benefit in the end. There are limits to how much of this can and should be allowed, but we haven't hit that point yet.
As I said in my previous post. 4J got Wii U devkits and Minecraft Wii U was rumoured in 2013, before MS acquired them. They released only shortly after.
His point wasn't so much that it remained multiplatform but became multiplatform under MS. When I said it was a multiplatform franchise that was already running on pretty much everything already he continued to argue and ask for proof.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked