Support NeoGAF

[Gavon West]

Not really... Sony will never been able to afford to outbid Microsoft after this on anything that Microsoft knows about and would like to strike a deal on. They just showed the entire world they don't give two shits about what a third party partner wants, only what they want themselves. Activision WANTS to be purchased by Microsoft at this point and Sony is doing its best to screw them over regardless of the outcome of their relationship with Acti or even other publishers watching this whole thing go down. Idiotic move from Sony, they should have worked good faith deals with Microsoft to get as much content on their console as possible rather than trying to drag everyone through the mud wasting everyone's time and money. The deal may or may not go through, but it won't have a positive effect on the Playstation platform moving forward that's for sure.

Agreed. In fact, if this deal falls through I suspect Microsoft will be much more aggressive moving forward (though that's bound to happen anyway) feelings-to-facts: there aren't many mega corps out there that can match Microsofts spending power. Things may get much worse for Sony if Microsoft doesn't land this deal, maybe worse than if they complete the ABK deal. Could be a case of Sony having to chose between the lesser of two evils at this point. We'll see though ..

 

[ShadowkillXNA]

We stand with Kotick.

Aside from the fans here that are currently kneeling in front of him (and spencer)?

 

[Unknown?]

Not really... Sony will never been able to afford to outbid Microsoft after this on anything that Microsoft knows about and would like to strike a deal on. They just showed the entire world they don't give two shits about what a third party partner wants, only what they want themselves. Activision WANTS to be purchased by Microsoft at this point and Sony is doing its best to screw them over regardless of the outcome of their relationship with Acti or even other publishers watching this whole thing go down. Idiotic move from Sony, they should have worked good faith deals with Microsoft to get as much content on their console as possible rather than trying to drag everyone through the mud wasting everyone's time and money. The deal may or may not go through, but it won't have a positive effect on the Playstation platform moving forward that's for sure.

There was no good faith deals, Microsoft is not paying 67 billion to keep games on PlayStation. Have you bought into their BS about uniting gamers and bringing games to more platforms? It's literally ONLY to remove access from one platform.

 

[Gavon West]

Well…yes? Its within sonys best interest to prevent this deal from happening, which it looks like it wont at this point

But at what price? Because there will be one. That's a guarantee.

 

[XXL]

It's hilarious to me that these Xbox fanboys overlook Playstation, a company that has been handing Xbox their ass for 2 decades. So much so, that they had to resort to fire sales, cheap consoles, insane promotions and giving away their products for free, only to STILL get their ass handed to them.

Wake the fuck up and stop being so fucking delusional. When you have 20+ studios requiring Activision/Blizzard to compete, means you've already lost.

 

[Topher]

Really? If they were so "supreme" why did they invest so heavy on a title they don't own instead of making their own FPS that could compete with CoD, Halo, and other super successful FPS in today's market? Why can't they offer day one games on PS+ when they've had their own subscription service much longer than Xbox? It's only been about 25ish years?? Genuine questions here...

Like, as the dominant market leader, one would think they'd have all the pieces needed to compete on all these fronts. Just offering another perspective.

Microsoft used to partner with Activision in marketing COD just as Sony has for the last eight years. Having a FPS like Halo didn't stop that from happening. Call of Duty is the biggest title in gaming and typically the market leader in the US is the one that gets that deal. Used to be Xbox, but for the last eight years, it has been PlayStation. Making a FPS to supplant COD or even compete with it is really easy to say, but that game has a massive following. Might as well suggest Microsoft make a game to take on Mario. Just not happening.

Sony absolutely can offer their games on PS+ day one. They simply choose not to. Game sales still matter, even to Microsoft. If that were not the case, then Xbox games would not be on Steam.

Also, why don't they have their own cloud infrastructure after this long? They watched Microsoft and other companies build their from scratch - ground zero. They had to know years ago that cloud was going to be a big deal. At least a moderately big deal. They had at least a modicum of an idea that subscription services were going to be super successful, they started PS+ long ago, even before Xbox.

This isn't to rile up a fanboy war. It's just, again, offering another perspective to all this. I know GaF is heavily slanted "blue team" but hopefully you're all still willing to discuss different perspectives. If not...*shrugs*

Why doesn't Microsoft make their own computer chips? Why are they depending on AMD? Because that is not the business they choose to be in. The same applies to Sony and cloud. Azure doesn't exist for Xbox. Azure exists for a much larger cloud enterprise business. It makes more sense for Sony invest in cloud services that others provide. Creating a global cloud presence on their own just for PlayStation makes no sense.

What's with the whining about the "blue team"? You had a good post. No need for that nonsense.

 

[ShadowkillXNA]

Agreed. In fact, if this deal falls through I suspect Microsoft will be much more aggressive moving forward (though that's bound to happen anyway) feelings-to-facts: there aren't many mega corps out there that can match Microsofts spending power. Things may get much worse for Sony if Microsoft doesn't land this deal, maybe worse than if they complete the ABK deal. Could be a case of Sony having to chose between the lesser of two evils at this point. We'll see though ..

We've been hearing this horseshit about microsoft and their huge warchest pushing sony around for over a decade at this point. Hasn't happened yet and it never will.

 

[Pelta88]

Phil’s body language says it all at the Game Awards. Heck he didn’t even bother with the CBS/Fox news. Why haven’t they came out to say anything after the CMA news broke? They are always the loudest yet they are silent. I highly doubt this goes to April.

Because Microsoft are now acutely aware that all of Phil's PR contradictions were, and continue to be, used against him. Phil will slip into PR mode if there's a camera present or close by. Instead, Microsoft have put Kotic out to do the PR rounds. A man who is currently being investigated for threatening to kill his own assistant.

Activision CEO Bobby Kotick threatened to have his former assistant killed, according to a bombshell new investigation

In 2006, Kotick threatened to have his assistant killed in a voicemail, the WSJ reported. The dispute is said to have been settled out of court.

www.businessinsider.com

That is how costly Phil's PR BS has been to this acquisition.

 

[TLZ]

Notella

 

[Unknown?]

When was the last time Microsoft flailed around and took Sony to court because they bought a developer? Sony picks up devs all the time. They just bought bungie and there are still a lot of Xbox players that enjoy Destiny. You know that if Sony were to go out and buy Square Enix or Embracer tomorrow Microsoft wouldn't say a word other than "congratulations!" ... Sony are acting like a bunch of cry babies over this whole thing and it's embarassing.

Are you being daft on purpose? A developer isn't a publisher and Square/Embracer aren't even a small fraction of EA, T2, or Activision. My scenario was actually comparable to Zenimax and Activision.

 

[zomboden]

But at what price? Because there will be one. That's a guarantee.

Realistically speaking what could be the "price"?

Activision isn't going to stop selling games on PlayStation. That would be shooting themselves in the foot.

Maybe worse case scenario Sony loses COD marketing?

Microsoft should take the money and invest in third party deals like Sony already does or just make new studios from scratch. I know new studios would take forever to bear fruit so that's why they don't want to do that. It's risky.

Microsoft isn't going to turn around and immediately buy more publishers. That would be a red flag to regulators I would think.

 

[Gavon West]

We've been hearing this horseshit about microsoft and their huge warchest pushing sony around for over a decade at this point. Hasn't happened yet and it never will.

Youve GOT to be living in an alternate universe with this post. You can't be serious..

 

[Thirty7ven]

Realistically speaking what could be the "price"?

Activision isn't going to stop selling games on PlayStation. That would be shooting themselves in the foot.

Maybe worse case scenario Sony loses COD marketing?

The price will be these fanboys tears. Paid in shinning currency, the salt of the earth.

These people are buffoons.

 

[SSfox]

Poor dude want his Golden Parachute so bad

 

[mrmustard]

Really? If they were so "supreme" why did they invest so heavy on a title they don't own instead of making their own FPS that could compete with CoD, Halo, and other super successful FPS in today's market? Why can't they offer day one games on PS+ when they've had their own subscription service much longer than Xbox? It's only been about 25ish years?? Genuine questions here...

Like, as the dominant market leader, one would think they'd have all the pieces needed to compete on all these fronts. Just offering another perspective.

Also, why don't they have their own cloud infrastructure after this long? They watched Microsoft and other companies build their from scratch - ground zero. They had to know years ago that cloud was going to be a big deal. At least a moderately big deal. They had at least a modicum of an idea that subscription services were going to be super successful, they started PS+ long ago, even before Xbox.

This isn't to rile up a fanboy war. It's just, again, offering another perspective to all this. I know GaF is heavily slanted "blue team" but hopefully you're all still willing to discuss different perspectives. If not...*shrugs*

You can have as many perspectives as you want, doesn't change the fact that it's normal that thoses companies fight tooth and claw to gain or keep market shares. That's all i was saying.

 

[Gavon West]

Realistically speaking what could be the "price"?

Activision isn't going to stop selling games on PlayStation. That would be shooting themselves in the foot.

Maybe worse case scenario Sony loses COD marketing?

I'm not even talking about Activision. I'm talking wholly Microsoft right now. They simply have too much money and resources to turn the industry upside down on Sony - like their sort of doing now. And if their even slightly motivated by negative feelings on this deal, that could be the beginning of hard times for Sony, imo.

 

[Topher]

When was the last time Microsoft flailed around and took Sony to court because they bought a developer? Sony picks up devs all the time. They just bought bungie and there are still a lot of Xbox players that enjoy Destiny. You know that if Sony were to go out and buy Square Enix or Embracer tomorrow Microsoft wouldn't say a word other than "congratulations!" ... Sony are acting like a bunch of cry babies over this whole thing and it's embarassing.

Sony isn't taking Microsoft to court either. If Microsoft saw an opportunity to object to a business deal that they believe would have a significant negative impact on their business, you really think Microsoft wouldn't do that?

Come on, man. Step back and be realistic here.

 

[sinnergy]

It's hilarious to me that these Xbox fanboys overlook Playstation, a company that has been handing Xbox their ass for 2 decades. So much so, that they had to resort to fire sales, cheap consoles, insane promotions and giving away their products for free, only to STILL get their ass handed to them.

Wake the fuck up and stop being so fucking delusional. When you have 20+ studios requiring Activision/Blizzard to compete, means you've already lost.

So what is the problem then for Sony ? They could just agree with the merger …

 

[Jaybe]

Bobby gets a massive payout if/when this goes through. It’s as simple as that.

 

[splattered]

There was no good faith deals, Microsoft is not paying 67 billion to keep games on PlayStation. Have you bought into their BS about uniting gamers and bringing games to more platforms? It's literally ONLY to remove access from one platform.

They can't negotiate good faith deals if they don't have control over Activision... there are lots of multiplayer/multiplatform games within the Acti stable that make a TON of money and make sense to keep on multiple platforms. Just like Minecraft. Fallout 76. Yes, Microsoft would have added some single player experience type exclusives to their console but would have kept other multiplatform games open especially where it made financial sense. COD. Diablo. Maybe even WoW on both consoles. Now Sony will be lucky if they get anything at all if this deal goes through and if other publishers are willing to work deals with them when Sony has openly shown they dont care about anyone but themselves. There is no reality where Microsoft was getting outbid on something it REALLY wanted. You don't think Sony was "winning" these bids due to pre-existing positive relationships forged during previous generations? They are throwing all of that positivity down the drain right now and it might get even worse as we get closer to final decisions here in a few months.

 

[sinnergy]

Because if Sony buys Take Two and EA, I'm sure you'd say Microsoft could just build a better GTA and Fifa, right? Give me a break.

No, I would suggest buying Sony studios

 

[RoboFu]

As a consumer who owns all platforms.. the more these companies compete the better it is for me. They will take bigger risks and lower prices.
As an enthusiast it also benefits me as it makes for a more interesting industry. Announcements are bigger. There is more attention paid to wowing the customers.

 

[sinnergy]

I mean what does that say about MS having to buy entire publishers.

It says: they think it can add value to their games business..

 

[ToTTenTranz]

Because Microsoft are now acutely aware that all of Phil's PR contradictions were, and continue to be, used against him. Phil will slip into PR mode if there's a camera present or close by. Instead, Microsoft have put Kotic out to do the PR rounds. A man who is currently being investigated for threatening to kill his own assistant.

http://[URL]https://www.businessins...ned-former-assistant-killed-2021-11?r=US&IR=T

[/URL]

That is how costly Phil's PR BS has been to this acquisition.

Also funny how 2 months prior to announcing the acquisition Phil was saying they were going to stop doing business with ABK because of all the misconduct lawsuits.

But now that the deal is almost dead in the water, those "analysts" and a bunch of gaf users are saying Microsoft is going to do super exclusive deals for CoD out of vengeance from Sony. And Kotick is suddenly a nice guy for complaining about Sony on TV.

If I'm the owner of IGN, I'd fire this piece of shit for unprofessionalism immediately.

The owner of IGN might be the one who told him to post that.

 

[zomboden]

I'm not even talking about Activision. I'm talking wholly Microsoft right now. They simply have too much money and resources to turn the industry upside down on Sony - like their sort of doing now. And if their even slightly motivated by negative feelings on this deal, that could be the beginning of hard times for Sony, imo.

You are thinking too emotionally on this rather than realistically.

Money and green lights come from the tippy top of Microsoft. They will only give Xbox funds to buy studios if they feel like it will make them money in the long run.

It's not as simple as "oh Sony now we gonna buy everyone and everything" plus you have to realize that... the same thing with this deal. Regulators can step in and say this is just too much.

I mean, they cut marketing budget for Xbox this year. Why would they do that if they felt confident in its growth? I mean. That's kind of unrelated but just an example of Xbox being stripped of funds or given funds based on whether the board/CEO of Microsoft feels it will profit in the end. (this is my opinion)

If at any point they feel like Xbox doesn't have a profitable path forward they will kill it off with no hesitation. They almost did it during Xbox One gen.

Don't get me wrong, this is a good generation for Xbox so far. Series S/X are doing well compared to Xbox One. I'm not saying Microsoft is gonna kill Xbox in reality. I just don't think they are gonna set money on fire for it either.

Sony needs PlayStation WAAAAAAAAY more than Microsoft will ever need Xbox

 

[splattered]

We've been hearing this horseshit about microsoft and their huge warchest pushing sony around for over a decade at this point. Hasn't happened yet and it never will.

Totally! Microsoft aren't dipping into their "warchest" and buying Bethesda and Activision... this has all been a figment of our imagination. Glad we finally woke up and can get back to reality! Whew.

 

[splattered]

Sony isn't taking Microsoft to court either. If Microsoft saw an opportunity to object to a business deal that they believe would have a significant negative impact on their business, you really think Microsoft wouldn't do that?

Come on, man. Step back and be realistic here.

Sony isn't taking them to court but it is doing its best to kill the deal however it can. So... we have examples of Microsoft ever stepping in and objecting to Sony purchasing ANYTHING ever videogame related?

 

[XXL]

So what is the problem then for Sony ? They could just agree with the merger …

I don't even care if they did agree to it.

1. I own and can buy any console.
2. Microsoft seems to fuck up anything related to gaming that they get their hands on.

It's more about number 2 why I would prefer the deal not passing. I don't think the can deliver like Playstation and Nintendo can consistently.

 

[drganon]

We've been hearing this horseshit about microsoft and their huge warchest pushing sony around for over a decade at this point. Hasn't happened yet and it never will.

It's nothing more than revenge fan fiction.

 

[Heisenberg007]

The CMA caught on, they don't care about COD on game pass at all.

It's such a tiny % of people that care about this aspect that it is absolutely not worth it to disrupt the market for.

~30% of Xbox console users are Game Pass subscribers. ~70% of Xbox console users do not even care enough to subscribe to Game Pass. They'd rather buy their games. On top of that, Game Pass has the fewest subscribers of the multi-game subscription services offered by console manufacturers anyway.

So in the grand scheme of things, it is extremely minuscule even to consider the impact of COD on Game Pass subscribers.

Besides, (1) Microsoft saying that Game Pass lead to fewer game sales and (2) Activision saying that they do not want to put their games on gaming subscription day one wouldn't have helped the case either, I imagine.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

So the deal was never done and Microsoft just wanted to buy Activision, but Activision denied?

Activision wants to be bought.

M&As can have far-reaching consequences. You buying an orange does not. Hence why there's a process

 

[splattered]

As a consumer who owns all platforms.. the more these companies compete the better it is for me. They will take bigger risks and lower prices.
As an enthusiast it also benefits me as it makes for a more interesting industry. Announcements are bigger. There is more attention paid to wowing the customers.

Thank you for the most sensible post in this thread by a long shot lmao... i agree that i think it makes everything more competitive. More interesting. I would LOVE to be able to play a next gen Warhawk on my PS5. I know Sony is working on some multiplayer focused stuff finally but haven't shown any of it. Do people think they would have even bothered with funding those projects if stuff like COD/Apex/Valorant hadn't gotten so popular in recent years? I personally can't wait to see Factions and other stuff they put out here hopefully soon-ish.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Sony isn't taking them to court but it is doing its best to kill the deal however it can. So... we have examples of Microsoft ever stepping in and objecting to Sony purchasing ANYTHING ever videogame related?

Sony never tried to purchase one of the biggest publishers on the market

A bad actor is a bad actor

 

[Topher]

Sony isn't taking them to court but it is doing its best to kill the deal however it can. So... we have examples of Microsoft ever stepping in and objecting to Sony purchasing ANYTHING ever videogame related?

Show me an acquisition of the same size and scope as this one. Did Sony object to Bethesda? Obsidian? Ninja Theory.....the rest? No they didn't.

Again, if Microsoft saw a deal that they felt threatened by then hell yes, they would step in and object. If they didn't their stockholders would be throwing a fit. It is pointless to ask if Microsoft has ever objected to a Sony acquisition when there has never been a comparable acquisition attempted at all.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

The hell y'all arguing about up in here?

 

[Gavon West]

Microsoft used to partner with Activision in marketing COD just as Sony has for the last eight years. Having a FPS like Halo didn't stop that from happening. Call of Duty is the biggest title in gaming and typically the market leader in the US is the one that gets that deal. Used to be Xbox, but for the last eight years, it has been PlayStation. Making a FPS to supplant COD or even compete with it is really easy to say, but that game has a massive following. Might as well suggest Microsoft make a game to take on Mario. Just not happening.

Sony absolutely can offer their games on PS+ day one. They simply choose not to. Game sales still matter, even to Microsoft. If that were not the case, then Xbox games would not be on Steam.



Why doesn't Microsoft make their own computer chips? Why are they depending on AMD? Because that is not the business they choose to be in. The same applies to Sony and cloud. Azure doesn't exist for Xbox. Azure exists for a much larger cloud enterprise business. It makes more sense for Sony invest in cloud services that others provide. Creating a global cloud presence on their own just for PlayStation makes no sense.

What's with the whining about the "blue team"? You had a good post. No need for that nonsense.

The "blue team" comment is just my realization to where I am. This is GaF. Nothing more.

That said, even with Xbox having a deal for CoD in the 360 days, Xbox still has Halo. CoD built itself into what it is now. It wasn't always as big as it is today. And that's my point. Regardless of CoD, Sony could've created a tittle that could at least COMPETE in the FPS space after this long. They don't even have a FPS title they can throw in the ring to even lose to the competition in the FPS space. And they have several titles under their umbrella at their disposal. It didn't stop Xbox from creating their own.

PS+ could be head to head with a subscription service like Gamepass right now after it's inception more than a decade ago. That's a long time. Agreed? Sony won't offer day one releases because they can't afford to do so, not simply because they don't want to. My point is, after this long, they had more than enough time to get to where Gamepass is today. They just chose not to do so. Didn't feel the need. At the end of the day, that's the choice they made.

Azure wasn't made for Xbox, this is true. But was anyone surprised when Xbox announced they were using cloud? Of course not. Microsoft is Xbox and vice versa. It's just a natural evolution that made perfect sense. But even then; Sony observed the creation of azure from inception until now. This includes other players who did the same thing. They've had more than enough time to be completely self reliant on their own cloud infrastructure YEARS ago. They just chose not to. Again, this is a choice they made of where, what and when to invest. Nothing more.

As the dominant market leader for more than 25 years (no small feat, mind you..) you'd think they'd be more prepared for the battle their in now.

Instead, they find themselves up against a player with less experience and the least successful out of the Big 3 who is in the process of leveling the playing field in a big way. To me, that says a lot!

Just like people say, "Xbox had 20 years to cultivate and grow their developers organically" Sony now finds themselves in the same spot, just differently.

Again, a different perspective

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

The "blue team" comment is just my realization to where I am. This is GaF. Nothing more.

That said, even with Xbox having a deal for CoD in the 360 days, Xbox still has Halo. CoD built itself into what it is now. It wasn't always as big as it is today. And that's my point. Regardless of CoD, Sony could've created a tittle that could at least COMPETE in the FPS space after this long. They don't even have a FPS title they can throw in the ring to even lose to the competition in the FPS space. And they have several titles under their umbrella at their disposal. It didn't stop Xbox from creating their own.

PS+ could be head to head with a subscription service like Gamepass right now after it's inception more than a decade ago. That's a long time. Agreed? Sony won't offer day one releases because they can't afford to do so, not simply because they don't want to. My point is, after this long, had they had more than enough time to get to where Gamepass is today. They just chose not to do so. Didn't feel the need. At the end of the day, that's the choice they made.

Azure wasn't made for Xbox, this is true. But was anyone surprised when Xbox announced they were using cloud? Of course not. Microsoft is Xbox and vice versa. It's just a natural evolution that made perfect sense. But even then; Sony observed the creation of azure from inception until now. This includes other players who did the same thing. They've had more than enough time to be completely self reliant on their own cloud infrastructure YEARS ago. They just chose not to. Again, this is a choice they made of where, what and when to invest. Nothing more.

As the dominant market leader for more than 25 years (no small feat, mind you..) you'd think they'd be more prepared for the battle their in now.

Instead, they find themselves up against a player with less experience and the least successful out of the Big 3 who is in the process of leveling the playing field in a big way. To me, that says a lot!

Just like people say, "Xbox has 20 years to cultivate and grow their developers organically" Sony now finds themselves in the same spot, just differently.

Again, a different perspective

You're clinging to the FPS aspect like it means anything.

It doesn't. COD is significant because it's COD, not because it's an FPS title. Sony doesn't have one to compare and neither does Microsoft

 

[splattered]

Sony never tried to purchase one of the biggest publishers on the market

A bad actor is a bad actor

Sony can't afford to. You really don't think if Sony was as flush with cash they wouldn't be out there buying up EVERYTHING they could get away with? I think if Sony actually had the financial ability to do what they want it could be WAY worse than what we've seen with Microsoft. Microsoft might be bullish at times, but Sony are downright arrogant. I'd much rather live in a world where Microsoft buys up some devs/pubs but still continues to provide affordable value for its consumers. If things were flipped and Sony no longer had competition we would all be buying $700 consoles and $100 games right now if they had their way.

 

[Unknown?]

They can't negotiate good faith deals if they don't have control over Activision... there are lots of multiplayer/multiplatform games within the Acti stable that make a TON of money and make sense to keep on multiple platforms. Just like Minecraft. Fallout 76. Yes, Microsoft would have added some single player experience type exclusives to their console but would have kept other multiplatform games open especially where it made financial sense. COD. Diablo. Maybe even WoW on both consoles. Now Sony will be lucky if they get anything at all if this deal goes through and if other publishers are willing to work deals with them when Sony has openly shown they dont care about anyone but themselves. There is no reality where Microsoft was getting outbid on something it REALLY wanted. You don't think Sony was "winning" these bids due to pre-existing positive relationships forged during previous generations? They are throwing all of that positivity down the drain right now and it might get even worse as we get closer to final decisions here in a few months.

It made sense to keep Elder Scrolls and many Zenimax games multiplatform as well but they didn't. So tell me about this lovely fantasy of Sony keeping Activision games on their platform?

As for Minecraft it's a live service game that contractually couldn't be pulled. Minecraft 2 wouldn't be on PS5 if it were released.

Microsoft has a history of this. Sony used Skype on PSP and allowed it to stay after acquisition but wouldn't allow them to use it on anything else later.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Sony can't afford to. You really don't think if Sony was as flush with cash they wouldn't be out there buying up EVERYTHING they could get away with?

No shit. That's not the point I was making. Just like Sony would swoop up Activision if they could, Microsoft would be the childish brat if the shoe was on the other foot

This pedestal you're putting on Microsoft of all companies is embarrassing

 

[MasterCornholio]

The hell y'all arguing about up in here?

Microsoft will seek revenge on Sony I guess.



I honestly don't know at this point. The CMAs decision really messed some people up.

 

[Clear]

Let's ask the guy who stands to make literally hundreds of millions of dollars from completion of the merger his *ahem* honest opinion!

 

[MasterCornholio]

if Sony actually had the financial ability to do what they want it could be WAY worse than what we've seen with Microsoft.

Actually regulators probably wouldn't like that at all given Sonys position in the market.

Don't think either one could buy up the entire market even if they had the funds to do so.

In that sense Sony is limited by their funds which isn't a bad thing. A company that isn't could be a big problem pretty quickly in regulators eyes.

 

[Amiga]

More worried about the management of the franchises. Was already bad enough under Activision.

 

[Chiggs]

Microsoft will seek revenge on Sony I guess.

Almost all but assured. Now the question is: "Will it be the kind of revenge that takes time, planning, and patience, or will it be a white hot outburst of rage?"

Microsoft might just be better off finding a replacement for Phil who can actually make their dev studios, outside of the Forza folks, produce quality games at a consistent cadence.

 

[Fake]

Nintendo is trying as well launching Tears of Kingdom next to whatever game Microsoft launch this yes.

 

[Gavon West]

You're clinging to the FPS aspect like it means anything.

It doesn't. COD is significant because it's COD, not because it's an FPS title. Sony doesn't have one to compare and neither does Microsoft

It does mean something. You can't just ignore the very reason Sony is fighting like hell to stop the ABK deal.

I've read your posts before bro. I don't always agree but I respect it. You're better than that, for sure.

Microsoft has Halo. A title they've created, cultivated and created an entire studio DEDICATED to it. It's also relevant in the FPS space. My point is that AT LEAST Xbox has a title they can throw in the ring. Sony could've done the same thing EONS ago. Hell, they had titles from the PS2 days that could be MASSIVE by now. Fact is, they don't. They instead decided to heavily adopt a title they didn't even own, but want to act like they do. Frankly, it doesn't work that way.

You're acting as if the relationship between Acti and Sony just started. We all know better than that. C'mon ..

Why do you think Sony continually worked with Activision to begin with? They wanted a successful FPS they could add to their all ready massively successful IPs. Only problem is, they don't OWN it. But, you know this bro. I ain't telling you nothing new.

 

[Topher]

The "blue team" comment is just my realization to where I am. This is GaF. Nothing more.

No idea why we have to refer to "teams" at all. There are plenty of PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo and PC fans on GAF. GAF isn't one "team". Ultimately, we all speak for ourselves.

That said, even with Xbox having a deal for CoD in the 360 days, Xbox still has Halo. CoD built itself into what it is now. It wasn't always as big as it is today. And that's my point. Regardless of CoD, Sony could've created a tittle that could at least COMPETE in the FPS space after this long. They don't even have a FPS title they can throw in the ring to even lose to the competition in the FPS space. And they have several titles under their umbrella at their disposal. It didn't stop Xbox from creating their own.

PS+ could be head to head with a subscription service like Gamepass right now after it's inception more than a decade ago. That's a long time. Agreed? Sony won't offer day one releases because they can't afford to do so, not simply because they don't want to. My point is, after this long, had they had more than enough time to get to where Gamepass is today. They just chose not to do so. Didn't feel the need. At the end of the day, that's the choice they made.

Azure wasn't made for Xbox, this is true. But was anyone surprised when Xbox announced they were using cloud? Of course not. Microsoft is Xbox and vice versa. It's just a natural evolution that made perfect sense. But even then; Sony observed the creation of azure from inception until now. This includes other players who did the same thing. They've had more than enough time to be completely self reliant on their own cloud infrastructure YEARS ago. They just chose not to. Again, this is a choice they made of where, what and when to invest. Nothing more.

As the dominant market leader for more than 25 years (no small feat, mind you..) you'd think they'd be more prepared for the battle their in now.

Instead, they find themselves up against a player with less experience and the least successful out of the Big 3 who is in the process of leveling the playing field in a big way. To me, that says a lot!

Just like people say, "Xbox has 20 years to cultivate and grow their developers organically" Sony now finds themselves in the same spot, just differently.

Again, a different perspective

Even Halo has fallen in popularity while COD remains strong on an annual basis. Sony could have kept pushing out more Killzone but obviously they realized others were better at FPS and moved in a different direction. Regardless, marketing deals for COD would still exist. MS having Halo didn't stop Xbox from getting that deal during the 360 years.

Saying Sony can't "afford" day one on PS+ equates to Sony making less money and yes, that is exactly right. Sony is going with the strategy that makes them more money. Being where Game Pass is today has never been their goal. Remember now, Sony makes more money than Microsoft in gaming. Why in the world would Sony want to adopt a strategy that means making less money?

It makes perfect sense for Xbox to utilize Azure. It would make no sense at all to build Azure solely for Xbox. The same is true for PlayStation.

 

[Three]

Can someone please explain the situation for me in very simple, european (means I don't have any idea about neoliberal economy!) language? Because I really don't get it, if I want to buy some oranges, and there's a store which has oranges for sale, how can someone else, who has nothing to do with me or the store, interfere and prevent me buying the damn oranges? And why is it taking so long for Microsoft to buy the damn oranges?

Because you're not just buying some oranges you're buying the orange farm that a town relies on and selling it in another town only.

 

[Topher]

It does mean something. You can't just ignore the very reason Sony is fighting like hell to stop the ABK deal.

Because Call of Duty is ridiculously popular, that's why. Plenty of FPS games exist out there. There is only one Call of Duty franchise. If it were just about being associated with a FPS then there are much cheaper options than the COD deal.