• 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.

Sony Wants To Grow PlayStation By Making Xbox Smaller, Phil Spencer Says

-Yoshi-P wanted to put bring Final Fantasy 14 to future Xbox consoles but can't.
-I remember waiting for FF7 to land on Xbox so I can try it out, it never landed on the console so I dismissed the series entirely.
FF 14 was not made on xbox because at the time xbox were the ones preventing cross play, it was against their interest at the time.
I have no clue why you bring FF VII in the conversation, I don't think any console of that generation ever had a port of FF VII (would have been nice tho).

If you are still upset about the hack episode you should probably have yourself checked by an expert at this point.

Sony never prevented MS from doing cross play, they did not accept it for a while when Ms started to push for it (when it became important FOR MS to maintain a good number of players in the MP versions of the games on xbox, so they don't become completely irrelevant)... Anyway, Sony permitted it until MS started to push for it, a few months later Sony went back to their original stance. Which made no difference because few people use the cross play option in games.
 

John Wick

Member
One more time: And? Nothing you've typed out in your continuing quest to condescend (try saying that three times fast. . .or don't, I don't care) justifies the administrative complaint the FTC is using here. All you've whinged about is a corporate culture that hits you "in your feels" as something bad. Great. Argue that (very easily, I might add) in the numerous threads about MS and its expansion strategy. The post you ORIGINALLY slithered in to respond to was ostensibly about the justification of this complaint, particularly me asking how this deal (stay focused) creates a monopoly for MS.



Oh. Well this explains it. You think this is a proxy "console war" discussion, instead of a neutral conversation about whether this is government overreach in the face of legitimate corporate expansion or justified government intervention against anti-competitive practices.

. . .forget the first message block. Carry on.
Before writing this wall of rubbish maybe you should consider that the FTC doesn't just look into monopolies? Your whole arguement is based on how this deal makes Xbox a monoply. Maybe you should go and check the FTC website about unfair competition etc. We could go much more in depth where MS could leverage their dominance in the cloud, cash etc but the only buzzword your interested in is monoply. So keep at it
 

John Wick

Member
Other reasons I hate Sony:

-Microsoft approached Sony for cross multiplayer and they were barred from it.
-Sony's security sucks which led to the Sony hack and they handled it piss poor.
-Yoshi-P wanted to put bring Final Fantasy 14 to future Xbox consoles but can't.
-I remember waiting for FF7 to land on Xbox so I can try it out, it never landed on the console so I dismissed the series entirely.
Why don't you list all the bad things from MS and Nintendo's side? Or is it just one way traffic?
 
Why don't you list all the bad things from MS and Nintendo's side? Or is it just one way traffic?

It doesn't want us to enjoy Sony products.

Jim Carrey Movie GIF
 
Other reasons I hate Sony:

-Microsoft approached Sony for cross multiplayer and they were barred from it.
-Sony's security sucks which led to the Sony hack and they handled it piss poor.
-Yoshi-P wanted to put bring Final Fantasy 14 to future Xbox consoles but can't.
-I remember waiting for FF7 to land on Xbox so I can try it out, it never landed on the console so I dismissed the series entirely.
You got to have all consoles to fully enjoy gaming.

Don’t see the point of locking yourself to one console. Exclusives are going to continue to happen whether you like it or not.
 
So, it was about making COD exclusive afterall.


That doesn't sound like a good justification IMO. All it really shows is their intent to make exclusives with Activision. Not sure if Regulators are looking for that.

There are games besides COD. COD is going to be multiplat, for the 1000th time.

So how many IPs are going exclusive?
 
Last edited:
So how many IPs are going exclusive?
I'm sure it would be a case by case basis like they've done in the past. Minecraft and Call of Duty are multiplatform. I could see others staying multi-plat like Overwatch, Diablo, and more but it hasn't been specified. Obviously some games would be exclusives.

Seems like they're leaning into new IP being more likely to be exclusive. Bungie is probably doing something similar.
 
Last edited:
The quote is: "So the administrative law judge is going to have to decide whether going from 59 to 60 is such a danger to competition that he should stop this from moving forward."

Are you really going to pretend the 1 game he was talking about is not COD?

Really???
They are literally putting Call of Duty on Nintendo, PS, PS+, everything. I didn't see the whole quote, just the tweet. Call of Duty has been explained about 10,000x now, as a multiplat game.
 

NickFire

Member
They are literally putting Call of Duty on Nintendo, PS, PS+, everything. I didn't see the whole quote, just the tweet. Call of Duty has been explained about 10,000x now, as a multiplat game.
Click the link in the tweet and read the quote. Or don't, and feel confident that I cut and pasted it from the article linked to in the tweet.

Then stop dodging the question with platitudes please. He is a top MS guy saying there is no harm in MS getting 1 more exclusive. What game do you think he is talking about if not COD? And no, it won't be Diablo 4. That launches before the trial even begins.
 
I'm sure it would be a case by case basis like they've done in the past. Minecraft and Call of Duty are multiplatform. I could see others staying multi-plat like Overwatch, Diablo, and more but it hasn't been specified. Obviously some games would be exclusives.

Seems like they're leaning into new IP being more likely to be exclusive. Bungie is probably doing something similar.

From what they said about Bungie it doesn't seem like it.
 
Click the link in the tweet and read the quote. Or don't, and feel confident that I cut and pasted it from the article linked to in the tweet.

Then stop dodging the question with platitudes please. He is a top MS guy saying there is no harm in MS getting 1 more exclusive. What game do you think he is talking about if not COD? And no, it won't be Diablo 4. That launches before the trial even begins.
No idea. I'd rather wait for concrete info than guess. It's not platitudes. I've said from day 1 it's my opinion it would stay multi-platform, and they've been insanely consistent in repeatedly saying it will stay multiplatform literally over and over and over. One quote that vaguely hints the other way isn't changing my mind. I think they have every intention of doing what they've said they're going to do.

The way it reads to me is like he was just trying to point out that Sony has a lot more exclusives than they do.
 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
No idea. I'd rather wait for concrete info than guess. It's not platitudes. I've said from day 1 it's my opinion it would stay multi-platform, and they've been insanely consistent in repeatedly saying it will stay multiplatform literally over and over and over. One quote that vaguely hints the other way isn't changing my mind. I think they have every intention of doing what they've said they're going to do.
I'm just in disbelief you would deny that he is talking about COD in that context. I'm literally not asking you to say they would or would not make it exclusive based on that quote alone. I just can't believe you would even pretend he might be talking about something else.
 
Last edited:
I'm literally not asking you to say they would or would not make it exclusive based on that quote alone.
Well the entire conversation I was having with someone else was about people CLEARLY claiming MS is now going to make it exclusive. The original person I was actually talking to first said that I wasn't paying attention because it's so obvious now that it's clearly going exclusive in 10 years. That's literally what the post I replied to is entirely about. I'm not sure what you're in disbelief about, but I genuinely think you guys are wrong about Call of Duty going exclusive. I think they're arguing about the general state of exclusives collectively - and how stacked Sony is compared to MS in that area.
 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
Well the entire conversation I was having with someone else was about people CLEARLY claiming MS is now going to make it exclusive. The original person I was actually talking to first said that I wasn't paying attention because it's so obvious now that it's clearly going exclusive in 10 years. That's literally what the post I replied to is entirely about. I'm not sure what you're in disbelief about, but I genuinely think you guys are wrong about Call of Duty going exclusive. I think they're arguing about the general state of exclusives and how stacked Sony is compared to MS in that area.
When they start saying things like: We will judge year 11 when we get closer, and even if we made it exclusive . . . . . , you will have your chance to redeem yourself and admit they are talking about COD (even if we agree or disagree on their intent).

Oh yeah, it's essentially guaranteed they start (I guess continue based on the article) saying things to the above effect. PR is much easier to use in interviews than depositions and witness stands.
 
When they start saying things like: We will judge year 11 when we get closer, and even if we made it exclusive . . . . . , you will have your chance to redeem yourself and admit they are talking about COD (even if we agree or disagree on their intent).

Oh yeah, it's essentially guaranteed they start (I guess continue based on the article) saying things to the above effect. PR is much easier to use in interviews than depositions and witness stands.
I'm at work and can't open your link, since its blocked.

For the sake of argument, lets say they're talking about Call of Duty. So you read it already and think they will make it exclusive.

I still don't think it will be exclusive. I think they're arguing about the state of the industry power balance. Hope that clears this up for you.
 
Last edited:

ANDS

King of Gaslighting
No idea. I'd rather wait for concrete info than guess. It's not platitudes. I've said from day 1 it's my opinion it would stay multi-platform, and they've been insanely consistent in repeatedly saying it will stay multiplatform literally over and over and over. One quote that vaguely hints the other way isn't changing my mind. I think they have every intention of doing what they've said they're going to do.

The way it reads to me is like he was just trying to point out that Sony has a lot more exclusives than they do.

Come on now. AB definitely have a large stable of IP's, but this is all about one IP and the "butts it puts in seats." There's no reality in which AB is being bought for 70B sans COD. MS does have an argument about the FTC/SONY overstating the value of COD to its ability to stay competitive on the tech front, but MS needs to stop being demure here and accept that the rest of the world knows a spade when they see it (or however the phrase goes).

Before writing this wall of rubbish maybe you should consider that the FTC doesn't just look into monopolies? Your whole arguement is based on how this deal makes Xbox a monoply. Maybe you should go and check the FTC website about unfair competition etc. We could go much more in depth where MS could leverage their dominance in the cloud, cash etc but the only buzzword your interested in is monoply. So keep at it

I haven't made that argument a single time in this thread (the word monopoly isn't even in the post you quoted). So thank you for confirming you aren't actually here to engage in a meaningful discussion and instead are here to just condescend to people about what you THINK they are saying (that was called shitposting "in my day").

. . .save's us both the bother honestly.
 

SaucyJack

Member
The quote is: "So the administrative law judge is going to have to decide whether going from 59 to 60 is such a danger to competition that he should stop this from moving forward."

Are you really going to pretend the 1 game he was talking about is not COD?

Really???

or that ABK is only one game.
 

NickFire

Member
I'm at work and can't open your link, since its blocked.

For the sake of argument, lets say they're talking about Call of Duty. So you read it already and think they will make it exclusive.

I still don't think it will be exclusive. I think they're arguing about the state of the industry power balance. Hope that clears this up for you.
I read that as the inevitable shift in posturing that I would expect when they know they will be under oath soon. They are in this mess partially because they played coy when asked about intent for Bethesda games before EU cleared that purchase (it wasn't just to EU, but I think publicly they played coy by denying right to discuss plans before closing). In a trial proceeding, they will be cross examined and pushed for specifics with reference to last purchase leading to foreclosure of access to new Bethesda games.

If you are asking what my guess is for their future plans, I expect they would make it exclusive long before 10 years is up. My guess includes the assumption that any 10 year deal they offer Sony is so loaded with poison pills that they know Sony will never agree. And then they can blame Sony in their PR for making it exclusive as soon as the marketing agreement expires. To the extent they have any deal with Nintendo, they will have an out (if even needed) by hardware limitations.
 
I read that as the inevitable shift in posturing that I would expect when they know they will be under oath soon. They are in this mess partially because they played coy when asked about intent for Bethesda games before EU cleared that purchase (it wasn't just to EU, but I think publicly they played coy by denying right to discuss plans before closing). In a trial proceeding, they will be cross examined and pushed for specifics with reference to last purchase leading to foreclosure of access to new Bethesda games.

If you are asking what my guess is for their future plans, I expect they would make it exclusive long before 10 years is up. My guess includes the assumption that any 10 year deal they offer Sony is so loaded with poison pills that they know Sony will never agree. And then they can blame Sony in their PR for making it exclusive as soon as the marketing agreement expires. To the extent they have any deal with Nintendo, they will have an out (if even needed) by hardware limitations.
Maybe? I'd admit I was wrong if that happened. I just personally think it's unthinkable after how many EXTREMELY public assurances they've given that this is not what they're doing. I think they'd lose way too much money. I think they have a history of doing exactly what I'm talking about with Minecraft.
 

yurinka

Member
I’d really love to see the receipts for the numbers he cited about exclusives because it seems as spun as everything else they’ve been saying regarding this merger
You already quoted the receipts, "PlayStation has 286 exclusive games while Xbox only has 59". I assume he also counts timed and console exclusives, but they are still exclusives.
 
I’d really love to see the receipts for the numbers he cited about exclusives because it seems as spun as everything else they’ve been saying regarding this merger
They probably include all small ish and indie third party titles that would not be ported just because they are made by studios that do not have resources or time to port to the xbox platform.

There is a surprising number of those, Sony does not pay for those to be exclusive, they just enjoy the market leader effect.
 

kikii

Member
-Microsoft approached Sony for cross multiplayer and they were barred from it.
-Sony's security sucks which led to the Sony hack and they handled it piss poor.
-Yoshi-P wanted to put bring Final Fantasy 14 to future Xbox consoles but can't.
-I remember waiting for FF7 to land on Xbox so I can try it out, it never landed on the console so I dismissed the series entirely.
1st. no, see 3rd
2nd. i dunno
3rd. pls fcking research ur stuff, ff14 is not on ur shiny box cause of MS policy of cross-mp
4th. FFVIIR never was supposed to be even on xbox, timed exclusivity ended when they released it on PC uhh :p

5th. are ya colteastwood or misterXmedia ?
 
Last edited:

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
Wow there is some serious deparate takes coming from the ms camp. I mean sony said some desperate stuff aswell, but ms is taking it to another level.

Yeah they are evidently very concerned about the deal not going through.

You never see argumentation and verbiage like this normally because it admits weakness in their current offering. Which is a huge no-no for corporate messaging.
 
Top Bottom