Support NeoGAF

[CuNi]

Kinda makes you wonder what the point of Time Exclusive is, if gamers are willing to wait if they have to,

Not everyone is willing to wait.
Some will, others won't.

I waited for Satisfactory to come to Steam.
Many others didn't.
It's also a gamble on top, since with timed exclusives, you don't know if they will get ported.
They might, there is a chance. You have to decide how important that game is to you and how badly you want to play it now or if you can wait.
Everyone has different answers to those questions. Some buy whole consoles just for one game, others never buy full price and instead buy games today that released 5 years ago.

Big corps most certainly have statistics and probabilities that tell them how much they could earn if they spend X amount of money on a game to be exclusive for Y amount of time, and if those numbers make it appear worth the money, it's only logical to go for it.

 

[feynoob]

Lets play a game.

What sold more - Ark or Final Fantasy XV?

Your game is nice, except ark has more platforms unlike final fantasy 15. Plus ff15 sold 10m copies with less platforms. And both ff16 and ffr7 is locked on PS/PC.

 

[IntentionalPun]

I understand leverage but its not impossible for Microsoft to make those deals. As for making COD exclusive it depends on whether or not they want to give up that revenue from PlayStation. I saw mixed responses from regulators and Microsoft when it comes to that.

If MS can grow their platform they are way more likely to make COD have SOME sort of exclusivity.

I honestly wouldn't trust MS on any of that shit personally; they are in this for the long haul with game streaming and exclusivity is absolutely a large part of what drives platform adoption. They also still do care a lot about the console space itself and not just streaming, unlike what a lot of folks seem to think.

MS could do something like make COD only available as a streaming game on other platforms, and produce it only natively for Xbox and PC (with their combined SDK no less.) Conveniently that same platform would be what they have installed in the cloud too so 1.5 versions (since PC isn't EXACTLY an Xbox) can power Xbox/PC/cloud. That would for instance give them a win in 2 areas; it can drive people to Xbox.. and also drive some level of streaming adoption. If people try COD on Playstation in 10 years as a streaming game and like it, why not subscribe to Gamepass ultimate instead and get COD and a ton of other games w/o having to buy any hardware? (as by that time the plan would be for most TVs to have Xcloud built in.)

I don't know why anyone would really trust MS anyways. They absolutely WERE misleading w/ the Bethesda purchase and their statements on the matter. "Case by case basis" came first, and then they said "1st better or best." The reality? Zenimax are a 1st party Xbox studio making Xbox games and there are zero non-exclusives on the horizon.

MS wouldn't be making ANY of these actual promises w/o pressure from regulators. And all they actually have promised in legal terms is these 10 year deals. Beyond that statements like "COD will always be on Playstation as long as they exist" like Spencer said can be covered by not removing old COD's from the device. MS knows that statements like that aren't really legally binding and can be argued not to be lies quite easily no matter what they do.

 

[Poltz]

Your game is nice, except ark has more platforms unlike final fantasy 15. Plus ff15 sold 10m copies with less platforms. And both ff16 and ffr7 is locked on PS/PC.

If you don't like Ark we can do Monster Hunter World vs FF15 if you like?

 

[feynoob]

I don't know if it will put them on equal footing though. That will depend on their ability to sell consoles. You might be overestimating the impact this deal will have on marketshare.

It will alot.
COD is the biggest selling game every year. Who over owns that IP has a lot of power in term of negotiation.

From marketing power to making your subscription service stronger and more attractive.

 

[Schmick]

I am not willing to wait. It's why I own both consoles.

Well I did say some will. That's the point of timed exclusives plus they usually are cheaper to obtain.

Not everyone is willing to wait.
Some will, others won't.

I waited for Satisfactory to come to Steam.
Many others didn't.
It's also a gamble on top, since with timed exclusives, you don't know if they will get ported.
They might, there is a chance. You have to decide how important that game is to you and how badly you want to play it now or if you can wait.
Everyone has different answers to those questions. Some buy whole consoles just for one game, others never buy full price and instead buy games today that released 5 years ago.

Big corps most certainly have statistics and probabilities that tell them how much they could earn if they spend X amount of money on a game to be exclusive for Y amount of time, and if those numbers make it appear worth the money, it's only logical to go for it.

So in essence a Timed Exclusive can have the same impact to the consumer as a Permanent Exclusive.

 

[Poltz]

It will alot.
COD is the biggest selling game every year. Who over owns that IP has a lot of power in term of negotiation.

From marketing power to making your subscription service stronger and more attractive.

How will MS owning ABK help them have better relationships with Japanese publishers?

 

[feynoob]

If you don't like Ark we can do Monster Hunter World vs FF15 if you like?

Why are hung up on one game?
Look at some of Sony timed exclusives instead.
Ff7r, Ff7 2, ff16, forspoken, knights of republican, silent hill 2.
These are big AAA games.

That is the type of games that MS can afford, should they have same negotiation power as Sony.

 

[feynoob]

How will MS owning ABK help them have better relationships with Japanese publishers?

 

[Poltz]

Why are hung up on one game?
Look at some of Sony timed exclusives instead.
Ff7r, Ff7 2, ff16, forspoken, knights of republican, silent hill 2.
These are big AAA games.

That is the type of games that MS can afford, should they have same negotiation power as Sony.

They are spending 70bn on a publisher they can afford it. Ark and Monster World are bigger game in terms of sales than any game you have mentioned. The whole Silent Hill franchise sold 10m.

 

[Tomeru]

One game that’s already out

For that Microsoft have

Minecraft and it’s spin offs
Doom still selling on other stores
Elder scrolls still getting updates
Realeased doom 3 on multiplat
Constant updates for other games already released on multiplat.

But people still expect nee games such as starfield to be released on other platforms which is a new IP. The defensive of a lot of other stuff Sony hasn’t released is that it’s their own IP created by them, well starfield is now Microsoft’s IP owned and created by them.

 

[Poltz]

Do they not have money now?

 

[PaintTinJr]

I fully understand the acronym -

If you can't comprehend how your earlier comments attempted to be inclusive of all of UK and that the CMA should block this because of some misguided conspiracy / failure to do so would dramatically impact the UK markets as a whole - I can't help you...

Giving an opinion about an agency's action that's is inclusive for the 99% is clearly where you are having a comprehension issue. But that's no surprise considering your juvenile response to stop any discussion of the opinion I was giving, eh?

 

[Tomeru]

Do they not have money now?

When it comes to gaming they are poor. I mean where have you been for the last year?!

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Ive read on Twitter and here that putting cod on gamepass would be an incentive for people to switch consoles. Who in there right mind is gonna go get a $500 console for a new skin or because the game is on a $15 per mo. paid service instead of just paying the $70 for the console you currently have? That argument it tarded

Microsoft’s original 3 year deal is based on making it Xbox exclusive starting with next gen consoles

 

[feynoob]

Do they not have money now?

It's like this.

Person A wants to make his game exclusive. Sony would only have to pay 10m, while MS on other hand would pay double or more of that money due to market share.

Now MS has COD. So person A knows that MS has one the biggest game in the industry. It will offer MS the same money as Sony which was 10m.

MS could pay those money right now. But because Sony is paying less money, they don't want to pay those premium money. They want to pay the same money as Sony. Which is fair for them.

 

[Darsxx82]

Not really because it's temporary. I bought games after the released on another platform.

That is your particular case, for the vast majority of users is to buy the platform where a game is released on time and with certainty.

You can wait or buy another platform. That's your option with timed exclusives. With permanent exclusives you don't have the option of playing the game on your platform ever.

I repeat, waiting is not the option for most users. Even more so when it comes to exclusives with periods that can even make the Studio consider the suitability of porting to another console with 2x less user base or even 5-9x times less in a certain market (EU-Japan)

Add to all this the strategy of creating the idea of the possibility of total exclusivity and you have the same effects as a total exclusive.

Timed exclusives are definitely not equivalent to permanent exclusives. It's why your getting Silent Hill 2 on Xbox and not Spider-Man 2.

First, as of today there is no certainty of an SH 2 Xbox version. That is part of the strategy: Create insecurity for the user.

Then, an exclusive of 3-6 months is not the same of 1-2+ years, and yet some see no difference... Why?

I'm not saying either benefits consumers but one is clearly worse than the other. No exclusivity at all is the best though.

We are in a free market where each company uses its strengths..... The existence of an action is a consequence of the action of the other.

While that does not change, the only role of the user is to choose the product that has a catalog, in time and certain, that best suits their preferences. And that is why, in this reality, the effects of a temporary exclusive with such long periods and with the uncertainty of its possible total exclusive result with the same effects as total exclusivities.

 

[FoxMcChief]

Anytime I see a man annonymously denigrate a woman's looks, I think it speaks volumes about that individual actual life.

To be abundently clear, nobody on the forum gave a fuck about how Khan looked until she was identified as someone who could potentially block microsoft's acquisition. How sad is that? Check the search history/recipts... Not a single mention of this woman until they saw her as a threat to a prefered plastic box. That shit is pathetic.

To be fair, people probably didn’t know she existed until this thread. I know I didn’t.

 

[DrFigs]

Microsoft’s original 3 year deal is based on making it Xbox exclusive starting with next gen consoles

The CMA seemingly conclusively deciding that Microsoft has no incentive to make COD exclusive comes off as naive. But this is up to Sony to make these arguments, and they haven't. Perhaps they know this is false (from private conversations with Xbox) or they're not as good arguments as they seem to us online.

 

[Poltz]

It's like this.

Person A wants to make his game exclusive. Sony would only have to pay 10m, while MS on other hand would pay double or more of that money due to market share.

Now MS has COD. So person A knows that MS has one the biggest game in the industry. It will offer MS the same money as Sony which was 10m.

MS could pay those money right now. But because Sony is paying less money, they don't want to pay those premium money. They want to pay the same money as Sony. Which is fair for them.

You are putting too much weight into this. Other publishers wouldn't care, also MS have to pay for Day 1 Game Pass which Sony don't...

 

[CuNi]

So in essence a Timed Exclusive can have the same impact to the consumer as a Permanent Exclusive.

To some, sure, to others not so much.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Microsoft’s original 3 year deal is based on making it Xbox exclusive starting with next gen consoles

 

[DarkMage619]

Square isn't acquired by Sony (yet). You are comparing games that are from a publisher which MS has acquired...

The argument was that temporary exclusives were better than permanent. Xbox has no true exclusives at all. You tossed out how Xbox gamers could play certain games on PC. Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from continuing to access games MS acquires and you don't even need an Xbox to do so. Same can't be said for some things like that content from Hogwarts Legacy where even PC gamers are blocked.

I've said it before no content is promised to any platform. Xbox gamers in particular have been on the short end of these deals many times. MS is trying to ensure content to their customers just like Sony is. It's business.

The CMA seemingly conclusively deciding that Microsoft has no incentive to make COD exclusive comes off as naive. But this is up to Sony to make these arguments, and they haven't. Perhaps they know this is false (from private conversations with Xbox) or they're not as good arguments as they seem to us online.

MS had incentive to make Minecraft exclusive and did not do so. They then proceeded to expand the game to more platforms and even put spin-off titles on other platforms. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the same is true for CoD.

 

[MasterCornholio]

So in essence a Timed Exclusive can have the same impact to the consumer as a Permanent Exclusive.

Not exactly because with timed exclusives you can just wait for the game to come out. With permanent exclusives you can't.

Usually permanent exclusives will convince more people to change platforms. With temporary exclusives some will while others will choose to wait.

Some people will not buy PS5s to play Silent Hill 2. But they will still buy the game when it releases on their platform.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

The CMA seemingly conclusively deciding that Microsoft has no incentive to make COD exclusive comes off as naive. But this is up to Sony to make these arguments, and they haven't. Perhaps they know this is false (from private conversations with Xbox) or they're not as good arguments as they seem to us online.

Yeah it is very naive

We have direct evidence throughout this whole process of Microsoft’s intent to eventually foreclose CoD on PlayStation

3 year deal (changed to 10). Then MS said 10 years is plenty for PS to come up with a CoD competitor themselves. Not to mention MS’s behavior pre vs post Bethesda acquisition

Writing is on the wall really. The CMA should only approve the deal if they don’t consider foreclosure of CoD to be an issue at all. If they do consider it an issue, then they clearly aren’t reading the room properly

 

[DeepEnigma]

MS had incentive to make Minecraft exclusive and did not do so. They then proceeded to expand the game to more platforms and even put spin-off titles on other platforms. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the same is true for CoD.

 

[HoofHearted]

Giving an opinion about an agency's action that's is inclusive for the 99% is clearly where you are having a comprehension issue. But that's no surprise considering your juvenile response to stop any discussion of the opinion I was giving, eh?

No - what's "juvenile" here is your assumption that the "99%" you're referring to shares your "opinion"..

 

[MasterCornholio]

First, as of today there is no certainty of an SH 2 Xbox version. That is part of the strategy: Create insecurity for the user.

Then, an exclusive of 3-6 months is not the same of 1-2+ years, and yet some see no difference... Why?

I mean if your insecure that's a you problem to be honest.

Is something troubling you?

 

[dem]

I really don't see COD becoming exclusive anytime soon. It just doesn't make sense. The install base is just too small on Xbox right now. Cut off the PS crowd and it could turn into a dead game like Halo real quick.

In 10 years... who knows.

Will COD still be a big deal in 10 years? Its already had a hell of a run.
It almost feels like MS bought an All Star for way too much money on a UFA contract. How many games have stayed relevant for that long? How long can COD stay on top?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

The argument was that temporary exclusives were better than permanent. Xbox has no true exclusives at all. You tossed out how Xbox gamers could play certain games on PC. Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from continuing to access games MS acquires and you don't even need an Xbox to do so. Same can't be said for some things like that content from Hogwarts Legacy where even PC gamers are blocked.

I've said it before no content is promised to any platform. Xbox gamers in particular have been on the short end of these deals many times. MS is trying to ensure content to their customers just like Sony is. It's business.


MS had incentive to make Minecraft exclusive and did not do so. They then proceeded to expand the game to more platforms and even put spin-off titles on other platforms. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the same is true for CoD.

Yup.

MS even releases the spin off games like MC Dungeons and the new MC Legends in multiplatform too. Not only could they had cut the cord on the original game (which they didn't), they also didn't cut off new MC games.

 

[DarkMage619]

Yeah it is very naive

We have direct evidence throughout this whole process of Microsoft’s intent to eventually foreclose CoD on PlayStation

3 year deal (changed to 10). Then MS said 10 years is plenty for PS to come up with a CoD competitor themselves. Not to mention MS’s behavior pre vs post Bethesda acquisition

Writing is on the wall really. The CMA should only approve the deal if they don’t consider foreclosure of CoD to be an issue at all. If they do consider it an issue, then they clearly aren’t reading the room properly

Is there any precedent of a regulatory agency requiring a company to offer a finished product to a competitor to sell in perpetuity?

 

[feynoob]

You are putting too much weight into this. Other publishers wouldn't care, also MS have to pay for Day 1 Game Pass which Sony don't...

They care alot.

Look at Xbox evolution since they bought those studios.
They have a lot of attractive content on their platform now.

 

[IntentionalPun]

I really don't see COD becoming exclusive anytime soon. It just doesn't make sense. The install base is just too small on Xbox right now. Cut off the PS crowd and it could turn into a dead game like Halo real quick.

In 10 years... who knows.

Will COD still be a big deal in 10 years? Its already had a hell of a run.
It almost feels like MS bought an All Star for way too much money on a UFA contract. How many games have stayed relevant for that long? How long can COD stay on top?

Well the purchase is a lot more than just about COD; MS has really skewed the narrative to making it only about that game lol MS bought a whole bunch of extremely successful mobile profit, they bought World of Warcraft.. and D4 is about to probably rake in billions w/o having to develop a new game for a decade. COD is massive, but it's also hugely expensive, more money is spent on that series than any other, by far, with it's yearly release schedule and thousands working on every game. It's not just 1 "all star" they paid for.

But you hit it on the nail on the head with the 10 year comment.

As I said earlier MS believes game streaming is a huge chunk of the future.. and if it truly is adopted by the masses, they can remove COD from platforms and have people stream the game to their TVs. They can do a hybrid strategy as well where the game is only native on Xbox (conveniently that version also is what runs in xCloud) and release only streaming clients on other platforms.

10 years is a long time.. and MS has long-term plans for the streaming business both directly and as a cloud provider.

Now if streaming continues to be a wet fart like it has been so far I could see MS really questioning all of this strategy.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Is there any precedent of a regulatory agency requiring a company to offer a finished product to a competitor to sell in perpetuity?

No, but there’s also not a precedent for a tech company acquiring a gaming company that is nearly the same size as the biggest competitors in that market

This is pretty much uncharted territory

 

[The_Mike]

Destiny?

Was released before the acquisition.

Still gonna need a bnet account I think?

Of course. Bnet is used to communicate with other, like steam has their own.

Everyone will have to use a Bnet account to talk across all their games. I don't see that change unless they ditch the entire Bnet launcher and eco system, which I don't think ever will happen.

Many wow players don't even care about other games. That will affect them heavily.

Kinda makes you wonder what the point of Time Exclusive is, if gamers are willing to wait if they have to.

My Gf is a huge Harry Potter fan and looked forward to hogwarts legacy.

Until she saw Sony money hatted the special mission or whatever for a year.
My Gf won't mind waiting a year. By that time, the game will probably also be cheaper at least on a sale.

I'm sorry, but someone who buys an entire system for 499 because they can't wait a year for a timed game either has too many money, or have other issues.

I really don't see COD becoming exclusive anytime soon. It just doesn't make sense. The install base is just too small on Xbox right now. Cut off the PS crowd and it could turn into a dead game like Halo real quick.

In 10 years... who knows.

1. People said making Bethesda games exclusives didn't make sense as there's no one playing xbox.

They went exclusive.

2. Xbox and pc has the same username. So it's technically bigger than playstation thanks to pc.
Besides. Nintendo is also in the mix. I do doubt they get the exactly same version through.

Halo is not dead. It's far from it's prime time, but you don't have to wait many seconds to join a game.
It would still be in the same state if it was on playstation. It's thanks to piss poor management.

Great game getting killed because lack of content.

Also, it's fun reading the narrative from "no one should buy an Xbox it has no games", to "xbox shouldn't make popular games exclusive, they will die as no one will buy an xbox,not even if it had great games".

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Is there any precedent of a regulatory agency requiring a company to offer a finished product to a competitor to sell in perpetuity?

Who knows. But probably never.

Nobody knows what the final deal will be until the acquisition closes, but by the sounds of it I dont think that Sony 10 year deal was accepted or even still on the table anymore. If it was, MS or Sony would announce the deal, and MS would keep telling the world the offer to Sony is still there.

Looks like Sony tried to bluff MS and CMA and lost. They should had taken the COD offer like Nintendo.

I dont know if that 10 year offer was an extension to the existing Sony/Activision partnership for another few years (making it really 12 years), or if it replaces it making it 10 years flat, but if Sony took the deal, it'd be well into the 2030s. Sony and Sony gamers would only have to worry about COD being pulled out from under them (if MS even wants to do that... they didnt to Minecraft) when around PS7 launches.

 

[DarkMage619]

No, but there’s also not a precedent for a tech company acquiring a gaming company that is nearly the same size as the biggest competitors in that market

This is pretty much uncharted territory

The size of the companies evolved with the deal seem to be much less relevant than the requirement that a product be provided to a competitor in perpetuity. There is no law anywhere stating that big companies can't buy big companies. No regulator can require a company to provide something forever.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

The size of the companies evolved with the deal seem to be much less relevant than the requirement that a product be provided to a competitor in perpetuity. There is no law anywhere stating that big companies can't buy big companies. No regulator can require a company to provide something forever.

There are long term licensing agreements that do go on in perpetuity

I believe Sony’s Spider-Man deal is one

 

[reksveks]

There are long term licensing agreements that do go on in perpetuity

I believe Sony’s Spider-Man deal is one

With marvel for the movies or games?

Those early Marvel movie deals required the other companies to do stuff with the IP every X years otherwise the right reverted back to Marvel. It's partially why there was some shit ones.

I suspect the games are the same, you aren't going to license out an IP and just enable someone else to sit on it.

 

[Darsxx82]

I mean if your insecure that's a you problem to be honest.

Is something troubling you?

??

Are you telling me that not knowing when or for sure if a game comes out on a platform doesn't create insecurity for the user in the catalog of that platform?

I repeat, your case is the exception. The vast majority of users choose only one platform, the one with the catalog that offers them the assurance that they will have the games they prefer on time and with certainty. Temporary exclusives that are so long and uncertain have the same effect on the user when choosing a platform as total exclusivity....

Sony knows this well and for this reason it is strongly committed to this strategy as a means secure and expanding its user base.

 

[Bernardougf]

Its pretty funny to see people trying to argue that a multi-trillion company that just spent close to 80 billion dollar on their game division in aquisitions dosent have "leverage" to make exclusive deals .... as if money wasint the only or more important levarage in the market

"But but but but consoles sales ? Studios dont want to sell exclusivity to the "last place" "
Yeah tell that to the bigger publisher who just sold allll their games and studios to the "last place"

If you want to play dumb.. play it .. just spare me from your false stupidity

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

ñ

Its pretty funny to see people trying to argue that a multi-trillion company that just spent close to 80 billion dollar on their game division in aquisitions dosent have "leverage" to make exclusive deals .... as if money wasint the only or more important levarage in the market

"But but but but consoles sales ? Studios dont want to sell exclusivity to the "last place" "
Yeah tell that to the bigger publisher who just sold allll their games and studios to the "last place"

If you want to play dumb.. play it .. just spare me from your false stupidity

wat?

 

[Poltz]

They care alot.

Look at Xbox evolution since they bought those studios.
They have a lot of attractive content on their platform now.

Square Enix and Konami do not care. They want to see Xbox sell consoles in Japan first and foremost.

 

[MasterCornholio]

??

Are you telling me that not knowing when or for sure if a game comes out on a platform doesn't create insecurity for the user in the catalog of that platform?

I repeat, your case is the exception. The vast majority of users choose only one platform, the one with the catalog that offers them the assurance that they will have the games they prefer on time and with certainty. Temporary exclusives that are so long and uncertain have the same effect on the user when choosing a platform as total exclusivity....

Sony knows this well and for this reason it is strongly committed to this strategy as a means secure and expanding its user base.

No I mean you shouldn't be insecure about a Bloober title not coming to Xbox. I'm sure Silent Hill 2 will be available on that platform.

 

[DarkMage619]

There are long term licensing agreements that do go on in perpetuity

I believe Sony’s Spider-Man deal is one

That deal was not imposed by a regulator. That was an agreement between two companies. Nothing is stopping Sony from approaching MS and negotiating a 'forever' contract with them.

 

[Topher]

wat?

Translation: "A business segment that has $70 billion at its disposal to acquire a publisher should not be considered 'poor'"

 

[DeepEnigma]

Translation: "A business segment that has $70 billion at its disposal to acquire a publisher should not be considered 'poor'"

Poor trilly pitbull being pushed around by a billy chihuahua. Victims we tells ya, victims.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Translation: "A business segment that has $70 billion at its disposal to acquire a publisher should not be considered 'poor'"

 

[DarkMage619]

No I mean you shouldn't be insecure about a Bloober title not coming to Xbox. I'm sure Silent Hill 2 will be available on that platform.

Interesting that you can be so dismissive of his concerns as being 'insecure' when again every game Xbox has 'exclusive' is available on PC. PC was the same solution told to Xbox fans for Final Fantasy and Street Fighter 5. No game is promised to every platform but if PC is the solution it's a solution available to both PlayStation and Xbox players. Should keep everyone from being 'insecure' right?

 

[MasterCornholio]

Interesting that you can be so dismissive of his concerns as being 'insecure' when again every game Xbox has 'exclusive' is available on PC. PC was the same solution told to Xbox fans for Final Fantasy and Street Fighter 5. No game is promised to every platform but if PC is the solution it's a solution available to both PlayStation and Xbox players. Should keep everyone from being 'insecure' right?

Why are you insecure again?

You do know i don't take you seriously right?

Basically I know your a weird parody account.