Welp another day another post on ResetERA that misses the point. TigerFish419 eh? Let's break it down, I guess...
You say this like it's a bad thing? this is exactly what Sony was last generation but I assume you were totally ok with that right? I find it hilarious that people think a 2:1 console advantage to Microsoft is considered this unholly thing that should not be allowed and should be concidered a monopoly or whatever but Sony has had that for the past 8 years and I didn't hear a single peep about Sony being a monopoly.
That's not what a monopoly is about. Having a product that appeals to more end customers in a given market, to the point those customers buy your product more than a competitor's, is within the spirit of competition as long as the company achieving such did not pay to block chip production/fabbing space for their rival, price-fix, or completely shut competitors out of attempting exclusivity deals with other companies.
As per to my knowledge, Sony were guilty of none of this last generation. It was Microsoft's choice to scale about XBO during critical years, not Sony's. It was Microsoft's decision to build the XBO in a way wherein they never made profit off of console hardware sales,
not Sony's. And it was Microsoft who decided to turn down a deal with Marvel, turn down pursuing co-funding for SFV, avoided trying to make further exclusivity deals beyond RotTR, cancelled Scalebound and Phantom Dust, rushed out ReCore, released a broken Crackdown 3 etc....
not Sony's.
This idea that Microsoft have no culpability in the situation they found themselves at the end of the XBO generation is just hilarious.
People on this very forum kept telling Microsoft to compete, they kept saying Sony's IP is the BIGGEST in the world and are UNRIVALED by anyone in the industry now you have people saying Sony is about to be totally screwed out of the industry no game competes with COD and Microsoft is now a monopoly all over a single deal. Not only this you have people say who cares about COD and no one plays COD anymore like it doesn't matter but on another hand say that this is going to ruin the industry and how can this be allowed.
Taking disingenuous, obviously wrong arguments and trying to make them sound legitimate isn't the same as them actually being legitimate. I don't think when the vast majority asked for Microsoft to compete better with Sony, they pictured them buying up two of the largest multiplat publishers in the span of two years and already signaling they'd like to buy even more in spite of lack of released, consistent results from the companies purchased thus far to abate further concerns and show (not just talk) they can manage this rapidly increased load of studios under them now.
If you want an example of how "building oneself up" can be done, look at Sony during the back half of the PS3 generation. They couldn't leverage negotiation deals for Western 3P AAA content the way Microsoft did, but their answer wasn't to go buy out publishers. They didn't even buy that many developer studios (heck, they probably closed a couple down!). They got their 1P studios into gear and invested in them over a period of years, cultivated relationships with (mostly Japanese) 3P developers to co-develop console exclusives, and gradually earned back goodwill over a period of several years leading up to PS4's launch. Even then, they still had setbacks, like the disastrous PSN hack of 2012.
There was nothing stopping Microsoft from replicating this strategy during the back end of the XBO generation. If they had done so, they'd of likely had a few standouts ready for Xbox Series's launch and may not have felt the pressure to do something drastic and buy ABK, or even Zenimax. The idea that they need to acquire a sea of publishers in order to have regular content for GamePass is a fallacy; the proven method of co-funding exclusives with 3P partners was still available. Signing exclusivity deals with 3P publishers for big AAA games were still options. Even if MS would've had to pay a bit more than Sony, they could've taken this route.
However, MS subscribed themselves to the idea that GamePass can only grow through direct funding, and not indirect association. Even if they would have been unable to get a lot of those games into GamePass Day 1, they would've still been on Xbox platforms, drawing people to the system even more, and then something like GamePass presenting itself as a value-add to the ecosystem through features for extending reach of those games for the end user. Push GamePass as a subscription backlog & Xbox/PC/mobile sync & steaming client with rewards and points sharable across the devices. Then later, maybe start putting a few smaller 1P and 3P games into the service Day 1 and seeing how that went, THEN grow towards adding bigger games Day 1.
IMO Microsoft skipped this part because of lack of patience; they wanted a way to easily differentiate themselves with Sony & Nintendo but then needed to justify a huge risky strategy after the commitment to live up to the bold promise when it turned out that 3P publishers, shockingly, weren't too keen to put their big 3P AAA releases into a subscription service Day 1! Basically, Microsoft thought of a solution to a problem that only partially existed, already had solutions available anyway (other game rental services, deep discount sales and bundles, etc.), and did not want to take the time needed for a gradual implementation of the solution that could be measured over time before making bigger commitments.
All this deal has done is really show what people actually think and want from both Sony and Microsoft, to me people don't want change they want status quo. People tell Microsoft to compete but try and dictate how they should compete and say no this isn't how you should be allowed to compete or not you have to do this.
Competing via willingly playing into mass consolidation that can destabilize the independent 3P community of developers, turn them into dependencies towards a singular platform holder, and potentially result in less content rather than more, isn't the idea of competition most people had in mind.
Buying your way to a larger revenue share of the market instead of naturally getting there by attracting more 3P business on your platform, having more console owners to buy said 3P software, and galvanizing the hardcore/core of your fanbase with 1P content to keep them committed to the platform WRT 1P AND 3P purchases, isn't the idea of competition most people had in mind.
Again, these moves essentially make Xbox division a lot more successful in terms of overall revenue, but it's a question of at what cost that is being done. You can't act surprised when people used to one way of things are being asked to just blindly/unquestionably accept a new, very unproven model that has yet to actually produce consistent, stable results where it matters most (revenue & profit figures...I mean there aren't a lot of other reasons why we still don't get GamePass revenue figures). These are normal reactions, and most of them don't come from a place of not wanting things to get better for Xbox; quite the opposite.
At the end of the deal this deal is going to help the industry grow, Sony will do better, Nintendo will do better if MS actually does put COD on Nintendo and Microsoft would do better. This deal lights a fire under Sony's ass which is a GOOD thing for even the most hardcore rusted on Sony fan, those fans might get SOCOM back because of this AND still be able to play COD.
This is you only looking at it from a bean counter's POV; we are
GAMERS, ultimately it matters if the games get better, if the games become more ambitious, if we get games that otherwise we would simply not get. All of these are unproven when it comes to MS's acquisitions, that's partially why there is still trepidation. The next three years will be very telling, hopefully for the better, when it comes to Xbox brand growth in ways aside how much money they're bringing in.