VAVA Mk2
Member
Again, the bulk of their revenue comes in from Azure and Windows/Office licenses to businesses. XBox is not making them a behemoth. Look at Google and Stadia...
-
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.
Starfield Was Planned For PS5 Prior To Microsoft's ZeniMax Acquisition, FTC Says
- Thread starter Solidsnake_1
- Start date
- News
Topher
Gold Member
But we all know there is more to it that those emails. Jim Ryan said COD would be on PS for "years to come". And then we find out the deal they proposed was only for three years and Jim Ryan obviously didn't think that was "perfectly fine" whatsoever.
bender
What time is it?
A bunch of users here do.
Astray
Gold Member
These big American tech companies suck because they are mainly based around M&A and not actually creating an idea and seeing it through.
You can see it with Microsoft failing at all aspects of business that aren't Windows/Office-related, Google failing at anything that isn't ads/Gmail etc etc.
Creativity is not part of their repertoire at all, these are companies that only understand bruteforcing their way into industries and driving all other players out of markets.
TheDreadLord
Gold Member
Hopefully he did that then. Now I am able to play it anywhere I want even on my phone.
VAVA Mk2
Member
Sony is not in danger of being driven out of any market. They overwhelmingly have more mindshare and market share world wide for over 20 years since XBox became a thing.
EDMIX
Member
fixed.
Lets try to add some context to what is going on vs making things up to force some narrative. MS didn't spend this type of money to get Starfield as I highly, highly doubt that. It being timed doesn't really support buying a whole publisher, this was something they would do regardless if Sony did some timed deal or not as I don't really buy that any publisher is buying another publisher to avoid missing 1 year of 1 title.
It makes little sense and exaggerates 1 title to an almost hilarious degree.
Last edited:
StealthGoblin
Banned
Microsoft could absolutely compete on that front. They’ve done it in the past.
Astray
Gold Member
Not necessarily.
There are many ways for these trillion dollar companies to gradually drive out competitors.
Gamepass is one such thing, it's essentially Microsoft burning money on an unsustainable product to get day 1 releases on there (1P especially is extremely expensive because it cannibalizes B2P revenue).
Hell, one could even argue that Microsoft is burning money on the Xbox division as a whole. How many companies lose 2 console gens in a row, never making a profit in more than a decade, and still can afford to stay in business?
VAVA Mk2
Member
It has been 2 decades and the needle has not moved much despite how much money they have thrown into this. I wouldn't worry about Sony going out of business.
Victor Omega
Member
If we check my "Phil Spencer Persona" Chart, this must be Big dick Phil
Kumbaya Phil - Let's all play together | Xbox is a service | anti-console war. Peace and love (powered by XBOX) | Let's hold hands and be like Nintendo.
Bad guy Phil - We want to disrupt the market before Amazon or Apple | Xbox is a console | "Sony isn't are focus" | Nintendo needs us (gets a % for online play).
BIG DICK PHIL - Sony is our focus.
Victim Phil - The Industry is against us | Sony is being mean | Xbox is the outcast | It's Japan's fault | Nintendo never shares with us.
Kumbaya Phil - Let's all play together | Xbox is a service | anti-console war. Peace and love (powered by XBOX) | Let's hold hands and be like Nintendo.
BIG DICK PHIL - Sony is our focus.
Victim Phil - The Industry is against us | Sony is being mean | Xbox is the outcast | It's Japan's fault | Nintendo never shares with us.
Stare-Bear
Banned
For £7,5 billion they could’ve made a lot of triple AAA first party games… now they got RedFall and Starfield.
Stare-Bear
Banned
So if the Acti-deal goes through, they have spent $85 BILLION just to fuck over Sony. That’s a lot of first party software their current studios could’ve made with that money.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Why not? It's a better way to compete for Xbox. They have the money to buy a publisher and Sony doesn't. Moneyhatting is currently not an effective way for Xbox to compete since it will cost them far more than Sony due to marketshare.
I'm curious why you and almost all the hardcore sony fans think Xbox should be compelled to only compete in the manner that is far more advantageous to sony even though it's not an effective or profitable way for them to compete. Xbox should compete in a manner that is most advantageous to their platform whether sony fans like it or not.
bender
What time is it?
Buggy Loop
Member
Zenimax for $7.5B is a fucking steal
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
It shows the priority of some X fans that prefer to take Activision - Blizzard games exclusive that they would be getting anyways than more games. Petty and shortsighted.
MarkMe2525
Member
Can we get a consolidated "MS exec says" thread? I don't think that we need an individual thread for every quoted sentence.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
That was for three years after the current deal ended in 2025. Essentially to 2028.
Either way, if this was truly an issue, he wouldn’t have had any problems signing the 10 year offer, right?
The fact that he turned around to say "we want to guarantee PlayStation gamers continue to have the highest quality Call of Duty experience," and complained about COD being put on GamePass means it certainly wasn’t just about the duration of the offer.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
This was Jim Ryan stating what the deal that was offered in January 2022. More than likely, Ryan got pissed off and decided to fight the deal. He said as much in Brussels. Ryan's attitude obviously changed dramatically. That is my point. That email does not describe the entire set of events.
Last edited:
EDMIX
Member
Cause MS is a smart company, they are thinking long term, not short term.
MS historically doesn't make choices based on such a thing and the purchase of this publisher was likely based on what they can do for MS for generations, not merely based on a timed game for 1 year, none of that makes sense and simply sounds like console warrior triggered logic or something.
So I'm not debating MS buying them, merely the reasoning doesn't really make much sense as they actually paid for timed games in the past and still do, they would have just paid for the timed deal Bethesda was offering Sony as I doubt they stopped at Sony or something.
The rest of your post is an assumption.
No where did I even remotely suggest majority of what you are screaming about lol
I'm simply telling you my fucking opinion that MS is not buying a whole ass publisher, based on hearing a game will be timed for 1 year, MS isn't short sighted, MS makes moves based on long term plans, MS isn't doing such a thing solely based on hearing someone else was going to get 1 title.
Stop forcing some narrative like I'm saying MS can't do this and ONLY SONY can do that or some fucking shit, none of my post are even remotely suggesting any of that. At the very least just reply with a quote vs assuming lol Not everyone disagreeing with what you are saying, is saying it based on some console war type shit or something.
I'm buying the game DAY 1 lol
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
First, I apologize for framing my reply to you as if you had made a response along the lines of Xbox could just outbid sony's Bethesda's multiple moneyhats. So many people keep repeating that that stupid response today as an alternative to buying Zenimax. I didn't read your post as carefully as I should have so I'm sorry.
It wasn't just the one game, Starfield. Sony had already taken 2 other Bethesda games away from Xbox at the launch of their new console. The opportunity to buy Zenimax was there, and it made sense to buy it.
twilo99
Member
It seems like they are trying to prevent a situation where they don't have a say in the matter and the publisher is simply not interested in releasing the game on their platform because of the low install base.
Topher
Gold Member
Frankly, I think both sides should call it as it is: shitty business practices from both. Seems like folks are arguing over which one is least shitty.
Last edited:
EDMIX
Member
No worries Cat.
I think MS had the correct call to buy Zenimax to fill out their catalog as that has been a major issue for MS for generations, I merely don't feel they did so based on those timed games. I think it can be seen as part of the reason, like an extra bonus, but knowing how MS behaves, they are thinking of the long term and the choice to buy Zenimax likely had a lot to do with the future of MS in gaming and likely had little relevance to any of those timed deals.
So I believe it makes sense too, merely for different reasons.
if I was MS and I was planning to buy Activision and knew the FTC could stop me, I would have never even started doing any type of exclusive shit until I had all of em lol Thats just me though. I think FTC has a fair case as maybe MS doing this isn't a good look if their whole argument is they won't do the same with Activision. Activision being the bigger deal, they probably should have held off from making any comments about exclusives and continued to express they wanted fair competition or something, at least until they fully owned Activision. So I think those comments have hurt them and those actions have hurt them even more regarding that deal.
Topher
I don't disagree, but its hard to stop one side from doing something, that shit is like Nuclear Proliferation at this point. Sony might buy a publisher, based on thinking MS will buy it first and then MS will think they need to buy this publisher next as Sony will counter lol We damn near need a fucking gaming treaty lol Be like "neither side will buy publishers in anger or out of spite to keep piece in the gaming kingdom" lol
Last edited:
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
No worries Cat.
I think MS had the correct call to buy Zenimax to fill out their catalog as that has been a major issue for MS for generations, I merely don't feel they did so based on those timed games. I think it can be seen as part of the reason, like an extra bonus, but knowing how MS behaves, they are thinking of the long term and the choice to buy Zenimax likely had a lot to do with the future of MS in gaming and likely had little relevance to any of those timed deals.
So I believe it makes sense too, merely for different reasons.
if I was MS and I was planning to buy Activision and knew the FTC could stop me, I would have never even started doing any type of exclusive shit until I had all of em lol Thats just me though. I think FTC has a fair case as maybe MS doing this isn't a good look if their whole argument is they won't do the same with Activision. Activision being the bigger deal, they probably should have held off from making any comments about exclusives and continued to express they wanted fair competition or something, at least until they fully owned Activision. So I think those comments have hurt them and those actions have hurt them even more regarding that deal.
Sony might buy a publisher, based on thinking MS will buy it first and then MS will think they need to buy this publisher next as Sony will counter lol We damn near need a fucking gaming treaty lol Be like "neither side will buy publishers in anger or out of spite to keep piece in the gaming kingdom" lol
The bolded is a very good explanation. Much better than what I wrote. It was several different things not just any one thing all of them added up to give the valid impetus to break into the war chest.
yes, this was just to clarify that the ‘three years’ was to run after the marketing deal ended in 2025
this is just conjecture, and there’s no telling whether or not there was an attitude change, since a private position can be drastically different from a public position.
According to Activision, Ryan told them he wasn’t interested in signing any deal and just wanted to block the merger.
Updated: PlayStation boss reportedly told Activision execs "I don't want a new Call of Duty deal. I just want to block your merger"
Jim Ryan's comments apparently weren't part of the big closed doors meeting
So it doesn’t have to be an attitude change. They could internally know for sure that the merger wouldn’t harm PlayStation, and still publicly be stridently opposed to the merger to maintain the current advantageous status quo.
Topher
Gold Member
yes, this was just to clarify that the ‘three years’ was to run after the marketing deal ended in 2025
this is just conjecture, and there’s no telling whether or not there was an attitude change, since a private position can be drastically different from a public position.
According to Activision, Ryan told them he wasn’t interested in signing any deal and just wanted to block the merger.
Updated: PlayStation boss reportedly told Activision execs "I don't want a new Call of Duty deal. I just want to block your merger"
Jim Ryan's comments apparently weren't part of the big closed doors meetingwww.gamesradar.com
So it doesn’t have to be an attitude change. They could internally know for sure that the merger wouldn’t harm PlayStation, and still publicly be stridently opposed to the merger to maintain the current advantageous status quo.
Sure, but it is all just conjecture. We've got two contrasting views from Jim Ryan on this. Could it be private view vs public view? Possibly....that's conjecture as well. Exactly my point.
Last edited:
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
If this were Phil just outright contradicting himself there would be a 200 page thread of gifs. But with Jimbo it’s contrasting views. These corporate goons are all the same and all full of shit.
Topher
Gold Member
You tell me then. Jimbo went from this....
"I’ve spent a fair amount of time with both Phil [Spencer] Bobby [Kotick] over the past day and I’m pretty sure we will continue to see Call of Duty on PlayStation for many years to come."
“I’m not complacent, and I’d rather this hadn’t happened, but we’ll be OK, we’ll be more than OK.”
To this....
"After almost 20 years of Call of Duty on PlayStation, their proposal was inadequate on many levels and failed to take account of the impact on our gamers. We want to guarantee PlayStation gamers continue to have the highest quality Call of Dutyexperience, and Microsoft’s proposal undermines this principle.”
“I hadn’t intended to comment on what I understood to be a private business discussion, but I feel the need to set the record straight because Phil Spencer brought this into the public forum"
So either something changed or as O Ozriel said (and I guess you missed where I said it was possible) Ryan is expressing different views publicly and privately. Contrasting, contradicting.....I'm fine with either.
And yes to the "corporate goons" and "full of shit" in either case and no, I'm no fan of Jim Ryan. As far as Phil Spencer, maybe he shouldn't talk so much. Those 200 page threads don't get created from Phil being silent, now do they?
StealthGoblin
Banned
Well the solution to that is to make a box that people actually want.
They’ve been in the console business almost as long as Sony. Given that time and their resources then it’s their own fault if they don’t appeal more.
The fact that they are having to resort to publisher buyouts is very sad indeed. It’s an admission that they don’t want to compete. It’s Microsoft revering back to how it was in the 90s.
ThatOneGrunt
Member
Nobody said you can't play it. Just get a PC, Xbox, or use Xcloud." When everyone plays, we all win..... "
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Did the other "MS acquired Bethesda after finding out Starfield was going to be exclusive" thread get merged in here ?
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
" When everyone* plays**, we all* win..... "
* Everyone/all who pay(s) Microsoft
** Xbox, PC, Game Pass purchase required
SenkiDala
Member
"He's a real gamer, look, he wears gamers t-shirts" if that shit moves actually works...
I honestly hope the deal doesn't happen. I own an XSX and I've bought all Xbox on day one since the first (and I've never done that for another brand), but this is just wrong. Sony buys an exclusive here and there, of course if they didn't, FFXVI, FFVIIR, Silent Hill 2, and others, would have been on Xbox. But it's a lot less damaging than buying the WHOLE editor/company...
For exemple Silent Hill 2, from Konami, is exclusive to PS5, but nothing says that Silent Hill f will be exclusive, the MGS3 remake is coming to Xbox, MGS Collection is coming to Xbox and Switch.
We are now seeing the damages of the acquisition of Bethesda by MS... Cancelling games on PS5 (Redfall, Starfield, Indy, confirmed). So yeah the FTC and CME might look like the party poopers but they are just saying facts. The situation about COD for exemple is self explanatory, at first they said it will be exclusive, like "duh we don't buy Activision to have COD on other platforms", then "nah I was kidding it will remain on PS at least 3 years", then "oh I said 3? I meant 10 years", and finally "COD ? How would we dare to remove that beloved franchise to the PS fans, who would do that ? Hitler ?"...
We already had Sony fighting back, a little, by purchasing Bungie (need help for multiplayers / GaaS games), Insomniac (been doing Ratchet games for them since 2 decades / 3 generations of consoles, Spiderman is a property of Sony / not surprising). If the regulation companies let MS buy ABK then Sony will go all in, and even though they don't have all the means that MS have, they might purchase huge companies like Square Enix, Capcom, FromSoft, etc, then MS would buy SEGA, etc...
FlyyGOD
Member
All platforms or your platform?
thismeinteil
Member
It'll never stop being funny watching shills, as well as Xbox execs, cry about timed exclusivity deals that Sony make, when Xbox still makes those same deals, and made more of them than any company during the 360 years. Which you didn't see them crying about these deals when it benefited them.
Sorry, but it's not Sony's fault Xbox completely Amber Heard the bed with the XBO and XSX, with poor policies and mediocre game output, causing them to lose market share and make it harder for them to make these deals without spending more for them. They act like children who don't just want to take the ball and go home, they want MS to buy the ballfield and move it behind a walled off area they call home.
Sony had to learn from their mistakes with the PS3 and get gud to become market leader, again. But, in shills' eyes, Xbox's mistakes mean it should be allowed for Papa MS to buy up the industry for baby Xbox.
Sorry, but it's not Sony's fault Xbox completely Amber Heard the bed with the XBO and XSX, with poor policies and mediocre game output, causing them to lose market share and make it harder for them to make these deals without spending more for them. They act like children who don't just want to take the ball and go home, they want MS to buy the ballfield and move it behind a walled off area they call home.
Sony had to learn from their mistakes with the PS3 and get gud to become market leader, again. But, in shills' eyes, Xbox's mistakes mean it should be allowed for Papa MS to buy up the industry for baby Xbox.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Sony has nothing to do with that. Past MUA games were delisted by Activision along with other Marvel games when they lost the license.
Delisted Marvel/Activision games :: Marvel: Ultimate Alliance General Discussions
After the expiration of the Marvel license, Activision has dilisted all their games which include Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions, The Amazing Spider-Man 1 and 2, Deadpool, Marvel Ultimate Alliance 1 and 2. These games can still be obtained using CD keys but due to their rarity they are quite...
BTW, Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 (published by Nintendo) is available to buy on Switch ......right now.
Last edited:
The Alien
Banned
Guess the FTC just catching up. We all knew this at the time MS bought Bethesda Zeni. Starfield was a big carrot. Phil was bullish on it too.
Pretty sure they also said Sony inquired about Starfield exclusivity prior to MS acquisition.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23622738/Xyph6dvBi9oydZYwPdcP4C.jpg)
www.theverge.com
Pretty sure they also said Sony inquired about Starfield exclusivity prior to MS acquisition.
Microsoft acquired Bethesda after hearing Starfield would be exclusive to PlayStation
Microsoft says Sony paid third parties to keep games off Xbox
www.theverge.com
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Guess the FTC just catching up. We all knew this at the time MS bought Bethesda Zeni. Starfield was a big carrot. Phil was bullish on it too.
Pretty sure they also said Sony inquired about Starfield exclusivity prior to MS acquisition.
Microsoft acquired Bethesda after hearing Starfield would be exclusive to PlayStation
Microsoft says Sony paid third parties to keep games off Xbox
Yep
Griffon
Member
The removal of MS would be an absolute good for customers and publishers.
Bring in someone else (likely Valve) who can play and succeed without burning the industry to the ground.
Competition is good. But we need real competition, not competition coming from a GAFAM who doesn't care to lose money and trying everything to asphyxiate the market. Instead of, like, make good games maybe?
Unlike in your example, Sony isn't winning by buying the competition, it's winning because it does a better job than the compeition.
Last edited:
bender
What time is it?
Sony has nothing to do with that. Past MUA games were delisted by Activision along with other Marvel games when they lost the license.
Delisted Marvel/Activision games :: Marvel: Ultimate Alliance General Discussions
After the expiration of the Marvel license, Activision has dilisted all their games which include Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions, The Amazing Spider-Man 1 and 2, Deadpool, Marvel Ultimate Alliance 1 and 2. These games can still be obtained using CD keys but due to their rarity they are quite...steamcommunity.com
BTW, Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 (published by Nintendo) is available to buy on Switch ......right now.
But Sony...
In Cold Blood
Banned
Of course it was. Sony was in negotiations to take it away from Xbox players, so yeah, we know.
nightmare-slain
Member
I bet Elder Scrolls VI and Fallout 5 were also meant to come to Playstation but now Microsoft owns them then they are Xbox/PC exclusive. People wanted Xbox to have more exclusive games and that's what Microsoft done. If the Activision deal ever goes through then more games will be taken away from Playstation.
Yeah it sucks for Playstation owners but that's how things work. I don't think Sony would want to put their games on Xbox so can't really complain about it.
Yeah it sucks for Playstation owners but that's how things work. I don't think Sony would want to put their games on Xbox so can't really complain about it.