• 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.

MS's Response to Sony's "No AAA Studio Can Match CoD" Statement + Confirms Sony Pays To Blocks Games From Game Pass

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
This is a follow up to the previous thread:



-

The same reset era user has done exhaustive translations of MS's response to Sony to the Brazilian authorities.

I would highly recommend a full read here.

-

Some key points:

They say that MS and ABK will face competition from a number of game developers and publishers. In addition, all of their games have close competitors. In fact, the third parties named several rival third-party publishers who own popular game franchises, demonstrating the intense rivalry in the market. In fact, MS highlights arguments from Ubisoft, Riot, Amazon or Google that confirm some of their arguments: post transaction there will be multiples developers and publishers and players use multiple devices to play.

MS literally says that: "Not surprisingly, Sony was the only third party to convey public opinion materially different from MS/ABK and the third parties regarding the competitive analysis of the transaction".

MS believes that Sony's isolated position can likely be explained by the fact that Microsoft's subscription game offering, Game Pass, was launched as Microsoft's competitive response to Xbox's failure in the "console wars" and the need to offer players additional value compared to the "buy-to-play" traditional model. In this way, Game Pass threatens to compete more effectively with the buy-to-play model, which Sony has successfully adopted.

In fact, MS says that Microsoft's ability to continue expanding Game Pass has been hampered by Sony's desire to inhibit such growth. Sony pays for "blocking rights" to prevent developers from adding content to Game Pass and other competing subscription services (then there is a bunch of redacted content).

"Almost literal, MS says that: "In short, Sony is not resigned to having to compete with Microsoft's subscription service. Sony's public outcry on subscription games and the company's response are clear: Sony doesn't want attractive subscription services to threaten its dominance in the market for digital distribution of console games. In other words, Sony rails against the introduction of new monetization models capable of challenging its business model".

Finally, MS says that regardless of how unusual Sony's criticisms of content are, the reality is that the strategy of retaining Activision Blizzard games, not distributing them in rival console stores, would simply not be profitable for Microsoft because such a strategy would only be profitable if Activision Blizzard's games were able to attract a sufficiently large number of gamers to the Xbox console ecosystem, and if Microsoft could earn enough revenue from the sale of games to offset the losses arising from non-distribution of such games on rival consoles.
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
That’s pretty much how marketing agreements work, would be kind of stupid of Sony to market a game heavily without making sure it doesn’t end up on a competitors subscription service.
Yep. But let the drama commence.
Fox Tv Popcorn GIF by The Four
 

Hendrick's

If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
That’s pretty much how marketing agreements work, would be kind of stupid of Sony to market a game heavily without making sure it doesn’t end up on a competitors subscription service.
No it's not. Marketing agreements are for marketing. This falls in line with paid exclusivity and is a bullshit tactic no matter who is doing it.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
All their points are valid. Interesting seeing this non-PR back and forth.

Yeah. Based on what we've seen so far, the argument against the acquisition are pretty weak, especially if MS has already (and multiple times) pledged that they will continue to do multiplatform releases on a case by case basis, and in general for CoD at least.
 

Hendrick's

If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Yeah. Based on what we've seen so far, the argument against the acquisition are pretty weak, especially if MS has already (and multiple times) pledged that they will continue to do multiplatform releases on a case by case basis, and in general for CoD at least.
Sony clearly fears Game Pass and what putting CoD day and date will mean for them. But not wanting to compete with the Game Pass model is not the same as can't compete. They basically are crying and have no real argument.
 
If these statements are true, then it pretty much confirms that COD and other major Activision franchises will continue releasing on PlayStation for the foreseeable future...or at least until the money MS is wiling to sacrifice by not releasing on PlayStation is offset by some other area such as substantial GamePass revenue/adoption (which may very well happen if all future COD games became GamePass accessible from Day-1 going forward).
 
Last edited:

ManaByte

Gold Member
Sony clearly fears Game Pass and what putting CoD day and date will mean for them. But not wanting to compete with the Game Pass model is not the same as can't compete. They basically are crying and have no real argument.

If MS completes the merger, someone can walk into a store with $250-$300 and go home with a console that'll play next-gen COD right out of the box.
 
the reality is that the strategy of retaining Activision Blizzard games, not distributing them in rival console stores, would simply not be profitable for Microsoft because such a strategy would only be profitable if Activision Blizzard's games were able to attract a sufficiently large number of gamers to the Xbox console ecosystem, and if Microsoft could earn enough revenue from the sale of games to offset the losses arising from non-distribution of such games on rival consoles.
Interesting...

Also interesting is this part in the original documents in Portuguese:
"A posição isolada da Sony pode ser provavelmente explicada pelo fato de que a oferta de jogos por assinatura da Microsoft, o Xbox Game Pass ("Game Pass"), foi lançada como uma resposta competitiva da Microsoft ao insucesso do Xbox na "guerra de consoles" e à necessidade de ofertar aos jogadores valor adicional em relação ao modelo "buy-to-play" tradicional."

It basically stats the obvious...and one thing i posted once on restera and made me get a ban for "trolling", which is, that Gamepass was only created as a competitive response from Microsoft due to the lack of success of Xbox in the "console wars" and the need to offer additional value to gamers that wasn't the "traditonal" "buy-to-play" that Sony was doing and they couldn't.

Basically since they couldn't compete with Sony in selling games, they decided to go for a different approach. I just think it's hilarious to see Microsoft stating that directly and using the expressions "console wars" like this, lmao.
 

mejin

Member
Interesting...

Also interesting is this part in the original documents in Portuguese:


It basically stats the obvious...and one thing i posted once on restera and made me get a ban for "trolling", which is, that Gamepass was only created as a competitive response from Microsoft due to the lack of success of Xbox in the "console wars" and the need to offer additional value to gamers that wasn't the "traditonal" "buy-to-play" that Sony was doing and they couldn't.

Basically since they couldn't compete with Sony in selling games, they decided to go for a different approach. I just think it's hilarious to see Microsoft stating that directly and using the expressions "console wars" like this, lmao.

MS M.O.

destroy the market to conquer.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Interesting...

Also interesting is this part in the original documents in Portuguese:


It basically stats the obvious...and one thing i posted once on restera and made me get a ban for "trolling", which is, that Gamepass was only created as a competitive response from Microsoft due to the lack of success of Xbox in the "console wars" and the need to offer additional value to gamers that wasn't the "traditonal" "buy-to-play" that Sony was doing and they couldn't.

Basically since they couldn't compete with Sony in selling games, they decided to go for a different approach. I just think it's hilarious to see Microsoft stating that directly and using the expressions "console wars" like this, lmao.
EEE Remastered?
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Sony wants to leverage their position as market leader to pay off publishers so that Sony doesn't have to compete with Gamepass. Sounds pretty anti-competitive to me...

Anti competitive and a bit whiny to be fair.


MS literally says that: "Not surprisingly, Sony was the only third party to convey public opinion materially different from MS/ABK and the third parties regarding the competitive analysis of the transaction".

MS highlights arguments from Ubisoft, Riot, Amazon or Google that confirm some of their arguments: post transaction there will be multiples developers and publishers and players use multiple devices to play.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
I find it so refreshing when they take direct shots at each other. Much better to debate what was said than what was implied / not-said.

The argument that Sony is trying to prevent MS from being in a better position to compete with Sony is fair. I do think nuance and context takes some air out of the argument, but it is still valid.

I'd also like to know more about blocking gamepass access. If the situations involve co-marketing deals, well, duh! It would be bad business to enter a co-marketing deal for something "given away" elsewhere. Unless, of course, Sony is considered the publisher and gets MTX cuts like with MLB. But back on point, if Sony is only paying to block access without a co-marketing deal, that would be rather anti-competitive on Sony's part and shouldn't occur IMO.

Final point regards "not distributing them in rival console stores, would simply not be profitable for Microsoft." Sounds pretty close to an admission that MS is using non-gaming revenue to soften a huge income loss from making a certain non-Activision game exclusive IMO. In all honesty, this is the type of stuff that makes me concerned about MS buying up publishers but not really concerned about Sony buying big names like Bungie. I feel like Sony's anti-competitive behavior is designed to make it's eco-system more attractive by addition, whereas MS just wants to take things away until the audience capitulates and buys in. Reasonable minds can disagree of course.
 
Interesting...

Also interesting is this part in the original documents in Portuguese:


It basically stats the obvious...and one thing i posted once on restera and made me get a ban for "trolling", which is, that Gamepass was only created as a competitive response from Microsoft due to the lack of success of Xbox in the "console wars" and the need to offer additional value to gamers that wasn't the "traditonal" "buy-to-play" that Sony was doing and they couldn't.

Basically since they couldn't compete with Sony in selling games, they decided to go for a different approach. I just think it's hilarious to see Microsoft stating that directly and using the expressions "console wars" like this, lmao.
Microsoft carved themselves a very nice slice of the console market with Xbox, but it was always going to be an uphill battle trying to dethrone Nintendo and PlayStation in terms of console sales as both competitors already had decades to foster a faithful userbase and established gaming franchises.

However, now that hardware sales are becoming less and less relevant to the bottom line and user engagement paired with monetization schemes seems to be the be all- end all of the current gaming market, Sony sees themselves in uncharted waters and they are afraid of change. Microsoft meanwhile has fully embraced this and is easily the most prepared for the evolving market.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Microsoft being monopolistic babies when things aren't going their way? Color me surprised.

That's certainly a take no one would ever realistically have after reading any of the text in the OP :messenger_tears_of_joy:


Yeah I said it. The threads are still here to see exactly what I was talking about.


arnold schwarzenegger predator GIF



We're all here for the corporate bitching.
 
Last edited:

poppabk

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
You sure?

I'm sure Netflix would NEVER keep a popular show off of Hulu. That would be a "BS tactic". They must freely share all their content with other streaming services, because it's the right thing to do.

I'm so proud Microsoft has never even thought of paying for....

CONSOLE LAUNCH EXCLUSIVE
This is kinda the next level of that kind of bullshit. It's not paying to give your customers exclusive access, but paying so you can dictate how your competitors customers can access the content. It would be like say Hulu paying to prevent a show from being available as an off-line download on Netflix.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
This is kinda the next level of that kind of bullshit. It's not paying to give your customers exclusive access, but paying so you can dictate how your competitors customers can access the content. It would be like say Hulu paying to prevent a show from being available as an off-line download on Netflix.
Streaming services pay for exclusive content all the time. Which in turns keeps it off competitors. Difference here, Sony (and MS, yes they do it too) are not keeping select games off the stores (physical or digital) that they partner with, just sub services.
 
Top Bottom