KaiserBecks
Member
Sony is paying money to keep games off gamepass and calls it a "marketing deal". Microsoft is paying money to keep games off psplus und puts them on gamepass instead. Tell me, which deal is better for the consumer?
-
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.
Xbox is locking out Gamepass games from competitor's subscription services
- Thread starter Bernoulli
- Start date
Sony is paying money to keep games off gamepass and calls it a "marketing deal". Microsoft is paying money to keep games off psplus und puts them on gamepass instead. Tell me, which deal is better for the consumer?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Last edited:
SEGAvangelist
Member
Ok, yeah. Caught up on the thread. This is not the same thing, and I think you know it.Guys, even better ...
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/16288012/xboxplaystation.jpg)
Microsoft claims Sony pays for “blocking rights” to keep games off Xbox Game Pass
The claims were made in legal documents to a Brazilian regulator.www.theverge.com
KaiserBecks
Member
Sorry for interrupting.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Exactly the same thing. Blocking games from going to the other subscription service.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Kokoloko85
Member
Its just a different kind of deal. They prefer to make sales money. Same as Nintendo. Getting the consumer use to not paying full price for games devalues the games evntually
Because one is on a service the other is blocked from any service. It be no different than Sony paying to keep a game off both consoles.
SEGAvangelist
Member
When did I move a goal post?
GHG
Member
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
And how does that matter? lol.
The end-result is still the same thing: subscribers of the other service can't have the game.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Gotta be honest, the thing that I find the most gross about all this stuff is the way MS seem to be actively marketing business revelations.
I mean all these threads about the FTC case are full of links to tweets and articles to people/outlets that have undeniable historic connections to MS! Places like The Verge don't seem likely to be the best for unbiased coverage, and I'm sorry but I find it hard to just pin it all down to fanboys gonna fanboy.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I will bet the farm that MS has the same language in their marketing deals for games to not end up on PS+ day 1 or for the durations of said marketing contract.
People are going to go down the intellectually dishonest "blinders on" road like the last thread, for it to come out in the future.
What happened to "both sides?"
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
The games that get marketing deals are never going to be on any service day one regardless. The reason those marketing deals even exist is to maximize game sales.
graywolf323
Member
why? I mean sure those of us capable of critical thinking knew this sure but this is now confirmation against a massive amount of FUD that was being spread by at best people who argued in bad faith
took three pages but it looks like they got a narrative together
DeepEnigma
honestly it’s actually worse, we know Sony does this for marketing deals
while apparently Xbox does it for anything that wants to be on GamePass
Last edited:
SEGAvangelist
Member
Except in Sony's case, they don't even put it on their own subscription service. That's quite the difference.
Thats funny they had a service first
. If it was keeping people from buying games on Playstation they would of not overhauled in the last year and killed it.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought that after reading that post, lol.
The games eventually end up there. Like CoD and others, they just don't do day 1 for big AAA 3rd party games, and Activision has admitted they like that model better.
Smaller games like Stray and the like are day 1.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Sometimes they do. Sometimes they market the product. Xbox is blocking games that they don't even market.
Regardless, the end-result is the same: blocking games from joining the other subscription service.
SEGAvangelist
Member
Are you saying the deals are made for the game to come to PS Plus at the same time as the deal forbidding the game on the competitor's subscription service? I suppose that would make things a little different.
Last edited:
mrmustard
Banned
If you pay a shitload of money for something on your sub, you of course don't want it to be on any other subs at the same time. That's what Netflix and others do all the time. But i have never heard about Netflix saying 'You know what, we are not interested in your tv show, but we pay you money if you don't allow it on the subs of our competitors.
If you don't see the difference or don't want to see it, i can't help you.
Last edited:
SEGAvangelist
Member
End result is not the same. You can't pay a sub to play a game at all for the Sony deal.
GHG
Member
Have you ever thought that maybe the publisher themselves doesn't want the game on a subscription service anyway, hence:
- They are happy to sign the contract and be in agreement with the clause
- They are happy with just the marketing deal, nothing else.
- Whatever Microsoft might have been offering in terms of a marketing/gamepass bonanza wasn't attractive to them and they chose to go elsewhere.
Last edited:
Skifi28
Member
So they block a game from coming to xbox and the game is not even on Playstation?
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
If you spend a shitload of money on marketing a product so it sells, you don't want it to be on any sub that cannibalizes sales.
Otherwise, your marketing money goes down the gutter.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
They do do this, why do you think The Office was pulled off of Netflix for another service to get exclusive rights?
Last edited:
SEGAvangelist
Member
Topher
Gold Member
If you pay a shit load for a marketing deal to maximize games sales, you of course don't want it to be on any sub at all.
If you don't see the difference or don't want to see it, i can't help you.
SEGAvangelist
Member
I'm pretty sure the RE8 deal stops the game from EVER going to Game Pass. That's also quite different than a timed window. Correct me if I'm wrong.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
When has Microsoft ever put a game day one on Gamepass that they didn't market?
lol They market the shit out of that fact, endlessly.
Spitfire098
Member
Damn I guess my attempt at a joke bombed.
Topher
Gold Member
That is incorrect. RE 8 was prevented from going to GP for one year and then 6 months after that Sony had right of first refusal. RE 8 could be on Game Pass right now if Capcom wanted it to be.
Ansphn
Member
It's misinformation warefare. Used a lot in politics. Gaming was not this way until Xbox decided to bring that B.S into gaming.
graywolf323
Member
plenty of indie games I’d imagine
doesn’t seem like they have marketing rights to the upcoming Sea of Stars since it’s been featured in Nintendo Directs as well but it is going to be day one on GamePass
SEGAvangelist
Member
Thanks for the correction. I really wasn't sure of that.
killatopak
Gold Member
I hope everything that comes out of this results in giving value back to the consumer.
For too long people here have been fighting for companies’ benefits. Shit is weird.
For too long people here have been fighting for companies’ benefits. Shit is weird.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Marketing a game is different than having a marketing deal.
Microsoft put Plague Tale Requiem on Game Pass day one, but PlayStation actually did more marketing for that game. Neither Microsoft nor Sony had any marketing deal for that game.
On the other hand, PlayStation had a Hogwart's Legacy "marketing deal" (the type which would have prevented a Game Pass deal), and that level of marketing was on a whole another level.
Snake29
RSI Employee of the Year
Or every other timed deal. Lets start blaming MS now for blocking STALKER 2, ARK 2 and many more games. Ow wait, those are timed exclusives. Deals were people say “Sony is actively paying devs to block games from xbox”
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Hell, MS dropped one of their own games with no marketing at all.
graywolf323
Member
Or every other timed deal. Lets start blaming MS now for blocking STALKER 2, ARK 2 and many more games. Ow wait, those are timed exclusives. Deals people say “Sony is actively paying devs to block games on xbox”
it’s tribalism at it’s worse, it’s okay if our side does it but how DARE the ‘enemy’ do the same thing
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
I see it as marketing, pure and simple. Public revelations aren't going to affect the FTC decision and once that hurdle is past they can just weather the storm in a PR sense no matter what public sentiment is.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Oh no, I got caught calling out a bullshit tactic that is still bullshit. Why would I want some of my subscription fee being spent on keeping content off someone else's platform?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Last edited:
mrmustard
Banned
Maybe i got that wrong. Did that only happen with games Sony had a marketing deal for? In that case that would be ok for me, i thought they did this with random games just to damage Game Pass.
GHG
Member
So what's the problem then?
If they have happily signed only a marketing agreement that stipulates putting the game in question on a subscription service (particularly a competing one) is not on the cards, then that means that game was never going to be on a subscription service regardless. If they wanted it to be on one then they wouldn't sign the contract and/or they would seek alternative offers.
"It's not the same" doesn't wash here my friend, it takes two to tango and the 3rd party publishers who are agreeing to these restrictive contracts (whether it be via Sony, Xbox or Nintendo) will have calculated whether or not signing such a contract makes sense for the game in question.
Similar threads
- Locked