Support NeoGAF

[ManaByte]

MS did the same for Tomb Raider and?

One game. Sony made the entire franchise exclusive to the PlayStation up through the first PS2 game.

Remember COD on 360?

The 360 Call of Duty deal just gave them the map packs early, they still came to other platforms.

The current Sony Call of Duty deal locks features and game modes permanently off other platforms.

 

[John Wick]

psygnosis would have worth 70 billion now due to inflation if Sony did not closed it down

Sony bought a publisher and some developers as they didn't have any duh.
It's nowhere near the same size deal.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

That's not how reality works. Call of Duty is not guaranteed to be popular forever. And Sony has the ability to create a 20 million selling FPS now from world class studios anytime it wants to try. Nothing you said here is true.

Why is Sony able to make a 20 million selling FPS now when they couldn't do it during the PS3 era?

 

[Punished Miku]

Why is Sony able to make a 20 million selling FPS now when they couldn't do it during the PS3 era?

They always could.

But now the argument that it's LIKELY is way higher. They routinely introduce new IP that sell tens of millions now. Guerrilla just made a game that sold that much. Insomniac just made a game that sold that much. Now they have Bungie.

There's no one in the industry safer than Sony and they're crying.

 

[Sosokrates]

His point is cause = causation. Need more than that

Well u said it dont make sense. So now u are saying it does make sense but u just dont agree.

Ok.... Perhaps you can explain why?

I dont know what point you are trying to make with the "cause = causation"

 

[lh032]

Sony bought a publisher and some developers as they didn't have any duh.
It's nowhere near the same size deal.

nah im just jk

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

They always could.

But now the argument that it's LIKELY is way higher. They routinely introduce new IP that sell tens of millions now. Guerrilla just made a game that sold that much. Insomniac just made a game that sold that much. Now they have Bungie.

There's no one in the industry safer than Sony and they're crying.

No, they couldn't. Hence why none of them did that. Their games started selling into the tens of millions when they dropped linear short games and focused on bigger RPGs, or Spiderman.

 

[Punished Miku]

No, they couldn't. Hence why none of them did that. Their games started selling into the tens of millions when they dropped linear short games and focused on bigger RPGs, or Spiderman.

You're confusing outcome with possibility. They have the possibility of making a world class AAA shooter anytime they want.

It's not the government's job to ensure that it's successful or popular. They can make it, they can promote it and get the word out very effectively and they can compete against anyone in the industry in this space.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Well u said it dont make sense. So now u are saying it does make sense but u just dont agree.

Ok.... Perhaps you can explain why?

I dont know what point you are trying to make with the "cause = causation"

I've already explained why it doesn't make sense. They've made a load of aquistions before Bethesda, they're making more after Bethesda. Sony's timed exclusives aren't the cause of the ones that came before. They aren't the cause of the ones that came after. So how are you coming to the conclusion that Bethesda is the outlier?

 

[Topher]

They always could.

But now the argument that it's LIKELY is way higher. They routinely introduce new IP that sell tens of millions now. Guerrilla just made a game that sold that much. Insomniac just made a game that sold that much. Now they have Bungie.

There's no one in the industry safer than Sony and they're crying.

Not really. They are answering questions asked of them. Here are the questions that were asked since neither the OP or the tweet includes them:

THE QUESTIONS

They are the same for every party (I skipped the ones that where specific for the Brazilian market):

- Does your company agree that physical distribution and digital distribution of games should be treated as separate markets? Or would physical and digital distribution compete with each other in the same market?

- Should the digital video game distribution market be segmented by hardware/platform type (PC, consoles and mobile devices) or could it be considered as a single market without segmentation?

- If you consider that the game distribution market should be segmented into more restricted markets, or that it should encompass a broader set of products or services, etc.), present an alternative definition and justify your answer.

- In your company's view, subscription game services (such as Xbox Game Pass) should only be understood as part of a broader market for digital game distribution, or they could constitute a more restricted/specific market from a competitive perspective?

- From the consumer's perspective, are subscription services perceived as direct competitors of individually purchased games, in the "buy-to-play" model?

- There are relevant barriers to the entry of a company in the electronic game distribution market? For the console, PC and mobile markets.

- In the last 5 (five) years, there has been any relevant entry into the distribution market of digital gaming?

- Provide an estimate of the time required to complete a full entry (from the planning phase to the start of the entrant's activities), so that an entrant can be considered an effective rival in the digital game distribution market. For PC, console and mobile.

- An isolated entry into the game distribution market can be considered commercially viable? Or an effective entry into the segment would depend on the concurrent entry or presence in other market(s), such as gaming hardware or the development and publishing of games? For PC, console and mobile.

- The market for physical distribution of games for consoles exerts some competitive pressure on the console game digital distribution market, considering the global and national scenarios?

- Contracts entered into with digital stores usually contain exclusivity clauses, that are limited to a certain period?

- In your experience, the terms of agreements entered into with Microsoft digital stores differ significantly from those practiced by other players in the digital distribution market?

- Does Activision Blizzard publish any title(s) which, due to its characteristics or specificities, does not have close competitors published by other companies in the games?

- In the event that, in the future, Activision titles Blizzard are no longer available to competing Microsoft/Xbox ecosystems, to what extent would competition in the digital game distribution market be affected?

- Your company thinks it is likely that Microsoft will leave to offer Activision Blizzard games on competing digital stores, even though this practice could result in the loss of revenue from sales of these titles in other channels?

- In your company's view, does Activision Blizzard publish any game that can be considered essential for a gaming hardware vendor to work?

- What is the relevance of the existence of exclusive titles in the competitive dynamics of the gaming hardware (console) market?

- It would be possible to expect a significant reduction in the number of sales of rival Xbox consoles in the event of non-availability of Xbox titles from Activision Blizzard for these platforms?

- What is the position of your company regarding to positive/negative aspects of this Merger in relation to the online advertising market in Brazil?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

You're confusing outcome with possibility. They have the possibility of making a world class AAA shooter anytime they want.

It's not the government's job to ensure that it's successful or popular. They can make it, they can promote it and get the word out very effectively and they can compete against anyone in the industry in this space.

I value probability more than possibility. And yes, the goverment should consider that as well

 

[Punished Miku]

I value probability more than possibility. And yes, the goverment should consider that as well

But I honestly don't think they look at it like you think they do. They let markets decide (capitalism) as long as there is fair competition and the possibility for disruption from competitors.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

But I honestly don't think they look at it like you think they do. They let markets decide (capitalism) as long as there is fair competition and the possibility for disruption from competitors.

Why do you think they're sueing meta over a VR game?

 

[Sosokrates]

I've already explained why it doesn't matter sense. They've made a load of aquistions before Bethesda, they're making more after Bethesda. Sony's timed exclusives aren't the cause of the ones that came before. They aren't the cause of the ones that came after. So how are you coming to the conclusion that Bethesda is the outlier?

Well it still could be a reason. Having multiple reasons does not seem far fetched. Im mean all acquisitions dont have to have all the same motivations for them. And just because the sony zenimax moneyhats where not related to other moneyhats that came before it, so what! Maybe ms just did not like sony doing all these moneyhats, there does not have to be these requirements you are making up.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Well it still could be a reason. Having multiple reasons does not seem far fetched. Im mean all acquisitions dont have to have all the same motivations for them. And just because the sony zenimax moneyhats where not related other moneyhats that came before it, so what! Maybe ms just did like sony doing all these moneyhats, there does not have to be these requirements you are making up.

It's a net benefit. Not a reason. The reason is they wanted to strengthen their portfolio and gamepass.

If they didn't like it, that would just make them hypocrites

 

[Sosokrates]

It's a net benefit. Not a reason. The reason is they wanted to strengthen their portfolio and gamepass.

If they didn't like it, that would just make them hypocrites

Whats wrong with them doing it for gamepass and to stop sony doing these moneyhats? And they are both hypocrites of each other. This a billion dollar industry, its not nice, its not fair, its ruthless.

 

[Punished Miku]

Why do you think they're sueing meta over a VR game?

Read the article. It kind of goes against your argument that they're looking at sales, since Within is not some sales giant.

F.T.C. Sues to Block Meta’s Virtual Reality Deal as It Confronts Big Tech

The move is a potential blow to Meta’s metaverse efforts and signals a shift in how the Federal Trade Commission is approaching tech deals.

www.nytimes.com

I think the injunction is a little ridiculous personally, and it would be hard to argue that Meta has a monopoly on VR or fitness right now.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Whats wrong with them doing it for gamepass and to stop sony doing these moneyhats? And they are both hypocrites of each other. This a billion dollar industry, its not nice, its not fair, its ruthless.

The core premise of the Bethesda aquistions is that it was a retaliation. That's what i'm disputing.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Read the article. It kind of goes against your argument that they're looking at sales, since Within is not some sales giant.

F.T.C. Sues to Block Meta’s Virtual Reality Deal as It Confronts Big Tech

The move is a potential blow to Meta’s metaverse efforts and signals a shift in how the Federal Trade Commission is approaching tech deals.

www.nytimes.com

I think the injunction is a little ridiculous personally, and it would be hard to argue that Meta has a monopoly on VR or fitness right now.

Beat Saber is the biggest VR game. Yes it's about sales. It's about moat. It's about recognition. All of which COD is undisputed at.

 

[Punished Miku]

Beat Saber is the biggest VR game. Yes it's about sales. It's about moat. It's about recognition. All of which COD is undesputed at.

I think it's more about emerging, new markets and trying to let it expand out a bit before the contraction. Video games are not brand new like VR is.

One of the questions about sub services Topher listed above may highlight this. Just a guess. But I'm thinking they are trying to decide if sub services are a "new market" or just an extension of digital and physical sales which have already existed for 40 years if you group it all together.

I don't think Beat Saber is a factor at all. There's not even a Beat Saber 2 yet. And Beat Saber is on Playstation.

 

[Sosokrates]

The core premise of the Bethesda aquistions is that it was a retaliation. That's what i'm disputing.

Right, I too dont think that was the sole motivating factor. Its pretty obvious though that both sony and Microsoft will do things within there power to stop the competiton taking away quality 3rd party content.

Im quite surprised by the scope sony is implementing its studio expansion.
Jim Ryan criticised Microsoft for aquiring large development houses and then they aquire bungie and possibly eyeing japan Square.

 

[intheinbetween]

The amount of salt and hypocrisy in this thread doesn't disappoint

 

[SLB1904]

Why is taking so long for this deal to go through?

Sp we can move to the next big thing that will shake the industry to its core

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

The amount of salt and hypocrisy in this thread doesn't disappoint

Only one way this thread was going to go

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I think it's more about emerging, new markets and trying to let it expand out a bit before the contraction. Video games are not brand new like VR is.

One of the questions about sub services Topher listed above may highlight this. Just a guess. But I'm thinking they are trying to decide if sub services are a "new market" or just an extension of digital and physical sales which have already existed for 40 years if you group it all together.

I don't think Beat Saber is a factor at all. There's not even a Beat Saber 2 yet. And Beat Saber is on Playstation.

it's a lot more than just about the subscription market. Obviously that's important part because of how distruptive gamepass is, but they also need to consider if it's an emerging market, then how is Sony going to financially compete if they're weakening in the traditional one as a result of aquistions like Acti. They don't have the capital to invest heavily like MS can.

It's about beat saber. That's the other fitness app they're refering too.

 

[SmokedMeat]

They always could.

But now the argument that it's LIKELY is way higher. They routinely introduce new IP that sell tens of millions now. Guerrilla just made a game that sold that much. Insomniac just made a game that sold that much. Now they have Bungie.

There's no one in the industry safer than Sony and they're crying.

Sony can’t, otherwise they would’ve done it already. Every publisher would like to have their own FPS mega franchise, that brings in huge money annually. Guerilla couldn’t even make a Halo killer. Insomniac’s Resistance never caught on.
Claiming that they could just do it if they felt like it is some real 4th grade playground talk.

 

[vj27]

I see Sony is saying no company can make a game to rival cod but the first games I think of that are just as popular and if not even more popular are games like fortnite or apex or Roblox.

Those are literal games that stand toe to toe with Cods BIGGEST IP AKA WARZONE… how is that not third parties competing??? Releasing at a yearly basis has actually diminished cod to the point there actually moving away from that model because they have their most popular title that they can just update forever like the other games I mentioned.

Oh and I wonder if elden ring counts since that blew up like a Pokémon game. Idk, cod isn’t the juggernaut it was last gen when it had EVERYTHING on lock and it was just fortnite there’s like 4 other games these last few years pulling Cod numbers.

 

[intheinbetween]

Yeah, Sony bought Bungie, but the games from Bungie will stay multiplatform. Thats not the intension what MS has with the buyout of several publishers...

And, do you really believe Sony will make those games available for XBOX? Because I really doubt it, releasing multi-platform games doesn't mean being released for ALL platforms, but for more than one platform (e.g PS4/PS5 and PC)

Also that acquisition, and messaging, could be used as a counter-measure since the acquisition, or intent of acquisition, of Bungie was announced after the announcement of the intention to buy AB by MS. So this messaging around Sony acquiring Bungie to continue with their multi-platform approach is shady, especially since there's no other example of Sony releasing games on other platforms than theirs (besides their latests PC efforts).

 

[Punished Miku]

Sony can’t, otherwise they would’ve done it already. Every publisher would like to have their own FPS mega franchise, that brings in huge money annually. Guerilla couldn’t even make a Halo killer. Insomniac’s Resistance never caught on.
Claiming that they could just do it if they felt like it is some real 4th grade playground talk.

Ability and outcome are different things. Sunset Overdrive and Spiderman were pretty similar in a lot of ways in terms of gameplay. Having the ability to do it doesn't guarantee it'll be popular. Avengers from SQEX had the IP and it wasn't popular. Outcomes are always a gamble. That's business.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Ability and outcome are different things. Sunset Overdrive and Spiderman were pretty similar in a lot of ways in terms of gameplay. Having the ability to do it doesn't guarantee it'll be popular. Avengers from SQEX had the IP and it wasn't popular. Outcomes are always a gamble. That's business.

So you’re agreeing then, they can’t just make a hit FPS. It’s no simple task as we’ve seen, and Sony even realizes this.

 

[SoloKingRobert]

Microsoft can't destroy playstation because we have regulations in place.

What regulations? Sony now has a Monopoly on Anime Streaming services. They've just acquired Crunchyroll.. They own Funimation.

Regulators won't do anything to stop Microsoft from acquiring Publishers. Microsoft is far from being a Monopoly.. By owning like 3% in the gaming division... While Sony owns like 99% in the Anime division.

 

[Punished Miku]

So you’re agreeing then, they can’t just make a hit FPS. It’s no simple task as we’ve seen, and Sony even realizes this.

No, you're not understanding what I was saying. I said they have the ability to make a world class AAA FPS anytime they want, and the ability to promote it very easily and make it widely available.

The outcome is up to the market, but nothing is stopping their ability to compete in this genre at the highest level.

 

[jaysius]

Why is taking so long for this deal to go through?

Sp we can move to the next big thing that will shake the industry to its core

In the real world buy outs this big take time, the only reason it looks like it's taking so long is that people are making a fuss about it. Typically company X says it's buying company Z, we all think of it as "done" then but it's not really, it still takes time usually there's no fuss so the illusion that it's done lasts until the months later when it actually completes and we never hear about anything after the initial news. Blizz/Act is a complex company and it takes a long time to make that deal work.

Just think of the headlines like ELON MUSK BUYS TWITTER! That came out months ago when he just put his bid in for it, and he still hasn't bought it despite all the headlines stating that for months now.

 

[johnjohn]

Yea, losing COD would be devastating to Sony. The Activision acquisition puts MS in kind of a power position in gaming.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

What regulations? Sony now has a Monopoly on Anime Streaming services. They've just acquired Crunchyroll.. They own Funimation.

Regulators won't do anything to stop Microsoft from acquiring Publishers. Microsoft is far from being a Monopoly.. By owning like 3% in the gaming division... While Sony owns like 99% in the Anime division.

Sony didn't destroy any competitiors in the anime streaming space.

Amazon and Netflix can be major anime streaming platforms if they put more effort in. Netflix is pretty much already there.

 

[splattered]

I don't know why people are whining about this, it would hurt but it's not like it would break Sony. They are way too complacent this generation, after all is said and done this will probably be GOOD for Sony. Competition may make things a lot more interesting and entertaining soon. We should all be supportive and looking forward to it. Sony is sure to buy some things to make MS squirm soon too, I can't wait haha

 

[MikeM]

I don’t think this would be so bad if BF was viable alternative.

People also saying Sony has done the same has never done anything of this magnitude. MS is dropping serious “fuck you” money on these deals. While I really enjoy GP on my Series X, I have a huge problem with companies essentially buying market share.

 

[modiz]

I don't know why people are whining about this, it would hurt but it's not like it would break Sony. They are way too complacent this generation, after all is said and done this will probably be GOOD for Sony. Competition may make things a lot more interesting and entertaining soon. We should all be supportive and looking forward to it. Sony is sure to buy some things to make MS squirm soon too, I can't wait haha

They whine because they are more afraid of their favorite company not being the top spot for all games in the future anymore. They don't care about the actual games because otherwise they would just go where the games are. It is as simple as that.

 

[64bitmodels]

they can't even manage their current studios fine. how do you expect them to steer small studios towards being behemots like santa monica / nd / guerilla etc. they simply don't care about their games' quality, that's thing out of the window with Xbox. look at how they manage 343. they give 0 care. absolutely no moves towards them to fix their shit up.
turn 10 is decent but they're decent themselves. no incentive or push from msoft

how can i trust xbox game studios to be like ps studios when i see how their studios already does a lackluster job? clearly they cannot manage their studios like sony does and that's why as you said they just brute forced their way into blizzard/bethesda/activision. but problem does not end there. xbox game studios is so bad at managing that i'm quite sure that these developers too will lose discipline that they seldom had in the past, and will become worse game studios in upcoming years

lack of vision, understanding what makes a video game good and not forgettable, creating rich and meaningful experiences: these are the things xbox studios do not seem to care. if not, they wouldn't slip imsomniac away. sony is not a magical wizard, they see a glimmer of talent, capability and they just bolster it with their vision and help them achieve what they want. i simply don't see that light from xbox game studios.

last time MS took initiative and tried managing their studios it resulted in a complete lack of creative freedom for the devs as they were just forced into what project MS let them make next

 

[oldergamer]

The last season of that show was nuts from what i read

 

[tmlDan]

What regulations? Sony now has a Monopoly on Anime Streaming services. They've just acquired Crunchyroll.. They own Funimation.

Regulators won't do anything to stop Microsoft from acquiring Publishers. Microsoft is far from being a Monopoly.. By owning like 3% in the gaming division... While Sony owns like 99% in the Anime division.

God, people in this thread are brainless.

Why bring up anime? Like Anime streaming services bring in the cash COD. For reference the anime industry as a WHOLE is worth only $24 Billion in 2022. Whether you believe there's a monopoly for Sony (which their isn't, in anime as a whole) They do not make nearly that much, it's closer to 2-5 billion in revenue for Sony. That's nothing.

You also tend to forget MS and their buying position, it's not about whether they're a monopoly or not, it's bullying their way to the top by buying things instead of making your own. That's what these agencies are supposed to stop, stop buying up and eliminating competition, and taking revenue from competitors just because "you have money".

if MS wants to grow, make their own studios, hire a team, find other ways of success rather than the lazy I have money route.

Small Edit to the people saying Sony buy studios blah blah: There's a diff when they exclusively worked with Sony/MS in the past and the revenue they generate is minimal at best. None of these companies (ND,SP, Ins) or whoever made revenue on the scale of COD for PS.

 

[splattered]

God, people in this thread are brainless.

Why bring up anime? Like Anime streaming services bring in the cash COD. For reference the anime industry as a WHOLE is worth only $24 Billion in 2022. Whether you believe there's a monopoly for Sony (which their isn't, in anime as a whole) They do not make nearly that much, it's closer to 2-5 billion in revenue for Sony. That's nothing.

You also tend to forget MS and their buying position, it's not about whether they're a monopoly or not, it's bullying their way to the top by buying things instead of making your own. That's what these agencies are supposed to stop, stop buying up and eliminating competition, and taking revenue from competitors just because "you have money".

if MS wants to grow, make their own studios, hire a team, find other ways of success rather than the lazy I have money route.

You mean like Sony has also always done?

 

[Orbital2060]

I dont think you can say that the CoD games are a category of their own, there are other games that rival that as Google are trying to say. Just skimming over it, it sounds like Sony and Google are at opposite ends of that argument. I think something like Battlefield can rival CoD it just needs to find the right time and place, like EA did with Battlefield 1. I thought BF1 was a good rival to CoD at the time, and theres Counter-Strike and Rainbow Six. So I dont think that holds water at all to say that, its just the most popular shooter at the moment, or has been on and off for long while.

About the subscription statements its kind of hard to take seriously when Sony themselves are in the subscription business. And saying that games quality may or will suffer from a subscription economy has not been proven so far, at least not from Xbox and Game Pass so far. Maybe they are talking about their own or some other company’s economy. But it sounds like a dig at game pass and XGS..

Its interesting though how Sony and Google seem to be so at opposites in the questioning.

 

[tmlDan]

You mean like Sony has also always done?

Has Sony bought a studio/publisher that brought in nearly a billion in revenue for a competing platform holder??

 

[EverydayBeast]

Call of duty at its core is a heartfelt historical shooter I don’t know how it became this war zone, zombie, putting stickers on guns, interacting with rap stars thing. Call of duty’s original agenda was to honor wars and story telling, competitive multiplayer (COD2) yet its still selling today.

 

[oldergamer]

Yeah, Sony bought Bungie, but the games from Bungie will stay multiplatform. Thats not the intension what MS has with the buyout of several publishers...

Oh right. When sony does it the intention is things stay multiplatform despite all past history proving otherwise.

When MS does it and says things will stay multiplatform, and has games already multiplatform, thier intention is that they wont be?

What kind of stupid fanboy logic is that? Seriously certain sony fans just dont understand double standards

 

[reinking]

They bought Tomb Raider exclusively for an entire generation after the Saturn version ran faster.

Then when Destiny came out they moneyhatted content to keep it off Xbox. There were entire Strikes you could only access in the PlayStation version.

Most recently they moneyhatted Final Fantasy for exclusively.

Those things are not like a 70 billion dollar acquisition and you know that.


This thread has turned into a bunch of fanboys throwing out crap they they know isn't genuine to make some kind of point. Both of these companies are out to protect their best interest. Not ours. I'm not sure why we need to be defending either of them.

 

[splattered]

If they did would you sit here and argue against it and talk about how unfair it is to poor Microsoft?

At the times when Sony were buying up smaller devs before eventually building them up into something even better were there any huge publishers like ActiBlizz up for sale with billion dollar franchises on multiple consoles they could have just outright purchased?

Do you honestly think Sony wouldn't have jumped at the chance at purchases like this if they had the ability/money to do so?

You are fooling yourself if you think Sony would never buy up huge publishers/devs/games to ensure things are fair for their competition.

 

[Kagey K]

Has Sony bought a studio/publisher that brought in nearly a billion in revenue for a competing platform holder??

Bungie.

They brought in much more than a billion for MS.

 

[Sleepwalker]

Weird way to spin what Sony said.

They are playing a role here. They don't want to lose an IP like COD. They would always sound negative as hell to not lose that game and show why it should remain multiplatform.

COD is bigger than any first party title they have. Or Microsoft. Or Nintendo.

You don't see anything else bigger than COD made by any of the main 3 console makers. Maybe GTA online, Fortnite, Minecraft. But they are available everywhere.

Really the only first party IP that compares revenue and sales wise is Pokemon.