Support NeoGAF

[Fabieter]

This will be the argument for all of time after this.

"But Microsoft told me they were the good guys, how dare they do anything similar to any other manufacturer."

We know Sony does it, we know MS does it and we know epic and Nintendo do it.

It's exactly the point MS lawyers were trying to make in court vs the ftc to be honest. Does exclusive content make a platform desirable? and what is considered a counter to that.

They blamed sony for the exact same thing. That kinda error makes every future thing you(ms) say rightfully questionable. How can you downplay this?

Sony had a rightfully pr nightmare foe this. The same with online drm in gt7 but guess what this stuff never got the traction with ms. Why do people downplay the same stuff the hate on other companys.

 

[PropellerEar]

Straight from MSFT playbook.

 

[Helghan]

So basically standard subscription service practice

 

[Mr Reasonable]

So basically standard subscription service practice

Standard subscription service practice but blown up with fanboy outrage.

 

[Heisenberg007]

So basically standard subscription service practice

That's not what you said about this earlier though, when news about Sony broke.

I get you pay for exclusivity of a game on your platform, but this means that they aren't paying to get the game on their service they are paying to not get it on Game Pass but still on Xbox... That's just ridiculous

So earlier it was "ridiculous" and now it's "standard practice." How come?

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Things just keep getting better for Xbox's image.

 

[Fabieter]

Things just keep getting better for Xbox's image.

Somehow this won't better. The same with higher prices for gamepass, consoles and the online drm they pulled.

Sony got rightfully criticism for every point but why doesn't ms get the same energy?

 

[Sweden85]

Phil Phil Phil...

 

[Allandor]

Oh my god ... they have a clause in contracts they are paying much money for ....
Really guys, are we now making troll threads for everything?

That is just normal business practice. You don't want to know what Sony paid for ffvii exclusivity?
Also the games still appear on competitive platforms, just not in subscription services for a while. That is a really harmless form of a exclusivity deal.

 

[Fabieter]

Oh my god ... they have a clause in contracts they are paying much money for ....
Really guys, are we now making troll threads for everything?

That is just normal business practice. You don't want to know what Sony paid for ffvii exclusivity?
Also the games still appear on competitive platforms, just not in subscription services for a while. That is a really harmless form of a exclusivity deal.

Ms themselves trolled with it because they accused sony for doing it while secretly doing it themselves. Seriously...

 

[Roberts]

Wasn't it obvious? I remember on more than one occasion a game leaving GP only to join PS+ very soon after that.

 

[Soodanim]

This thread is full of naivety and childishness.
Here's all you need to know:

1. Multinational companies will do anything to get a win, especially when they need a win. There's no morals, just money. Never be surprised by what these companies do.
2. Taking sides, especially if you're an adult, is sad as fuck. If it means more than absolutely nothing to you, something has gone wrong. You have no stake in any of this.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Sony isn't even looking to do day one playstation plus bigger titles....and anything like stray sure as shit will have this clause...why didn't we see stray on xbox or the others they've signed?

I'm not understanding the blind rage here

This kind of thing is no different than ms signing an id at xbox game or Sony signing a playstation plus game.

What's the play here?

 

[Panajev2001a]

They blamed sony for the exact same thing. That kinda error makes every future thing you(ms) say rightfully questionable. How can you downplay this?

Hey, it is hard work to workshop and align people on a message needed to downplay and justify this .

 

[Panajev2001a]

Sony isn't even looking to do day one playstation plus bigger titles....and anything like stray sure as shit will have this clause...why didn't we see stray on xbox or the others they've signed?

I'm not understanding the blind rage here

This kind of thing is no different than ms signing an id at xbox game or Sony signing a playstation plus game.

What's the play here?

How you pretend there was not Outrage around Sony making deals to keep games off of GamePass that seems at least silly if not astroturfy coming from a position where you should not really throw stones when you are not innocent yourself… is still unclear to me .

 

[Helghan]

So earlier it was "ridiculous" and now it's "standard practice." How come?

Here I was thinking you put me on ignore because you barely responded when I quoted you. It's just that you pick your battles only when you have a feeling you are in the right. That's pretty lame. Nonetheless I'll respond to you though.

How is this the same? Microsoft buys exclusivity for their subscription service, and puts the game on their subscription service. Sony just pays someone not to put it on a subscription service. It's not like Sony is putting it on PS+, not they just pay someone to not put it on Game Pass.... So that's not common subscription service practice where you buy exclusivity. You don't see me complaining about FF, because that's also a common practice.

 

[ulantan]

Here I was thinking you put me on ignore because you barely responded when I quoted you. It's just that you pick your battles only when you have a feeling you are in the right. That's pretty lame. Nonetheless I'll respond to you though.

How is this the same? Microsoft buys exclusivity for their subscription service, and puts the game on their subscription service. Sony just pays someone not to put it on a subscription service. It's not like Sony is putting it on PS+, not they just pay someone to not put it on Game Pass.... So that's not common subscription service practice where you buy exclusivity. You don't see me complaining about FF, because that's also a common practice.

If you have marketing rights why would you let gamepass under cut you. Does sony advertise that it's on gamepass?

 

[Heisenberg007]

Here I was thinking you put me on ignore because you barely responded when I quoted you. It's just that you pick your battles only when you have a feeling you are in the right. That's pretty lame. Nonetheless I'll respond to you though.

How is this the same? Microsoft buys exclusivity for their subscription service, and puts the game on their subscription service. Sony just pays someone not to put it on a subscription service. It's not like Sony is putting it on PS+, not they just pay someone to not put it on Game Pass.... So that's not common subscription service practice where you buy exclusivity. You don't see me complaining about FF, because that's also a common practice.

1. I do have you on ignore. No offense, and not personal, but our views are completely opposite, and it's often useless to be in arguments in my opinion.

2. The end-result is the same: one company is preventing a game to join a competitor sub service. And Sony doesn't "pay someone not to put it on a subscription service." That's a completely false narrative.

 

[Silent Viper]

Of course they are. Which is why it would be better if they didn't talk as much as they did.

The reality is if they didn't go around bullshitting the gaming press as if their life depends on it then headlines like the one in the thread title are not a big deal. This sort of thing is expected, it's only because of what they've publically said previously (along with their bunch of disciples going full attack dog) that this ends up appearing so bad.

Sony executives hypocrites ot not?

Jim ryan liar or not.?

 

[DenchDeckard]

How you pretend there was not Outrage around Sony making deals to keep games off of GamePass that seems at least silly if not astroturfy coming from a position where you should not really throw stones when you are not innocent yourself… is still unclear to me .

Wait, so Sony making a deal with a publisher to stop a game coming to game pass or any subscription service with what looks like no intention of putting that game on Playstation Plus is the same anti consumer practice as Microsoft making a deal to put a game on game pass for it's subscribers but not wanting it to be on Playstation Plus at the same time?

I am getting confused by the constant attack and spin going on here with anything related to Microsoft.

I am guessing the Sony shill tactic on this site is to attack MS and call any one who supports the platform a shill but also constantly make completely unrelated facts look like actual opposing facts?

I'm only trying to use that word as it is one I have seen used on here a lot lately, but only ever towards any one who says anything to show the tiniest support of the Xbox platform. It's starting to look strange, like maybe theres secret Sony shill ninjas lol

 

[Heisenberg007]

Sony executives hypocrites ot not?

Jim ryan liar or not.?

All dirt should be public, regardless of the company. I highly suggest creating a Jim Ryan thread where you collect all his lies and contradictory statements that emerged from this hearing. Go ahead

 

[ryzen1]

"When everyone plays, we all win....."

 

[NEbeast]

Oh no. Please no more GOTCHAs.

Just don't forget to change accounts before you reply to yourself next time.

 

[Klosshufvud]

GP was always an aggressive loss leader strategy to starve out the competition by offering a value proposition that was insane. Its very fundamental pillars were based on taking advantage of MS' unlimited war chest to get the competition forced into a field they had no funds to compete with. From the snake's own mouth; MS doesn't think it matters how good their exclusives are anymore. They think the deciding battle will be in creating alternative services separate from traditional gaming. I don't see how this contradicts MS' already volatile strategy.

 

[Helghan]

I do have you on ignore. No offense, and not personal, but our views are completely opposite, and it's often useless to be in arguments in my opinion.

Why are you responding then? Again only because you think there's a gotcha now? That's pretty sad. No worries I'll put you on ignore too, but I won't respond anymore.

 

[Forsythia]

So just like Sony, which, as with Sony, is reasonable. How stupid would it be to have the marketing rights to a game but then having said game pop up on Game Pass/PS+ day one.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

Microsoft tried to build their own studios but for the last 10 years the results have been... underwhelming.

 

[graywolf323]

Guys, even better ...

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

quoting this again since we keep having people saying things like “but they both do this” while completely ignoring the reason this is bad is because Xbox acted like only PlayStation did and they were ‘evil’ for doing so (and that’s why Microsoft had to go and buy publishers)

 

[Freeman76]

Lmao. Ppl will clutch at anything to try and make drama. This is business 101 ffs, how is this even a talking point

Its also insane to me how people try to use this to say MS bad Sony good. Fucking crazy.

They are both huge corporations who couldnt give 2 fucks about you as an individual, and all they exist for is to encourage you to spend money with them. Neither one is a 'good company' that has your interests at heart, unless it benefits them. You can't trust either of them, but dont really need to. Buy their product or dont, and leave it there

 

[AJUMP23]

It is a business......

 

[SmokedMeat]

Well yeah. It’s called competition, and anyone that didn’t think this would happen with subscription services has their head in the sand.

None of these companies are your friend, and they absolutely will do this to each other.

 

[Aion002]

I think this trial shows both sides do bullshit like this.

Not really.

Sony always had the stance of: "Fuck the competition, buy playstations".

While MS, with Phil, was the one saying: "We are the good guys, Xbox loves every gamer, we love Playstation and Nintendo yay! Sony is being meanie with exclusives!1!1!1!".

 

[LastBattle]

It’s probably already been said, as it’s obvious. But there’s a very big difference having a clause where a game you’ve invested in for your subscription service doesn’t appear on competitors services for a set period vs outright blocking a game form being playable in any form on your competitions console.

 

[Harlock]

Sony can´t use all those amazing shit indie games that are all over Gamespass?

 

[Chronicle]

This is like releasing on DVD before going to theatres

 

[Fabieter]

It’s probably already been said, as it’s obvious. But there’s a very big difference having a clause where a game you’ve invested in for your subscription service doesn’t appear on competitors services for a set period vs outright blocking a game form being playable in any form on your competitions console.

timed exclusives ain't the point. Are people so desperate to excuse this shit?

 

[graywolf323]

It’s probably already been said, as it’s obvious. But there’s a very big difference having a clause where a game you’ve invested in for your subscription service doesn’t appear on competitors services for a set period vs outright blocking a game form being playable in any form on your competitions console.

so you’re against the publisher acquisition spree that Microsoft has initiated that’s leading to the industry consolidating too right?

 

[LastBattle]

so you’re against the publisher acquisition spree that Microsoft has initiated that’s leading to the industry consolidating too right?

Publisher acquisition is fair game. It’s actively blocking a third party from your competitor that’s scummy.

Honestly I couldn’t care less about corp business practices. If I want games that are only available on another console, I’ll buy the console. It’s the double standards and false equivalencies that bugs me.

 

[Topher]

Wait, so Sony making a deal with a publisher to stop a game coming to game pass or any subscription service with what looks like no intention of putting that game on Playstation Plus is the same anti consumer practice as Microsoft making a deal to put a game on game pass for it's subscribers but not wanting it to be on Playstation Plus at the same time?

Two different things going on here, ultimately. Sony's marketing deals for big AAA games do not allow those games to be on Game Pass. That should be entirely uncontroversial because these games were never going to be on a subscription service anytime close to its launch anyway. The reason these marketing deals exist is to maximize sales. Yes, sales still matter. Microsoft is making deals to put games on Game Pass while not allowing the game on other services. There is nothing wrong with that either really. What is hilarious is that Microsoft acts like they are too good to resort to tactics like this and now we know that's not the case at all.

Had to delete the rest of your post as it was just whining Xbox persecution bullshit.

 

[graywolf323]

Publisher acquisition is fair game. It’s actively blocking a third party from your competitor that’s scummy.

whose alt are you? so it’s fine to buy an entire third party company to block it but how dare a company buy just a single game despite the fact the latter has been going on in this industry for decades and is done by all the console makers

 

[Topher]

It’s probably already been said, as it’s obvious. But there’s a very big difference having a clause where a game you’ve invested in for your subscription service doesn’t appear on competitors services for a set period vs outright blocking a game form being playable in any form on your competitions console.

This isn't about exclusives though. Only about blocking from services. Either way, we see more and more that both sides use the exact same tactics.

 

[Fabieter]

Publisher acquisition is fair game. It’s actively blocking a third party from your competitor that’s scummy.

Honestly I couldn’t care less about corp business practices. If I want games that are only available on another console, I’ll buy the console. It’s the double standards and false equivalencies that bugs me.

So the double standard of this very thread must kill you, right? Right? ...

 

[H4ze]

Are these warrior threads ever coming to an end? Ofc ms did that, common business practice, but easy for the masses to cry about lmao

 

[drganon]

Publisher acquisition is fair game. It’s actively blocking a third party from your competitor that’s scummy.

Honestly I couldn’t care less about corp business practices. If I want games that are only available on another console, I’ll buy the console. It’s the double standards and false equivalencies that bugs me.

In what universe is getting exclusivity of one lousy game worse than buying the whole fucking publisher?

 

[DarkBatman]

Are these warrior threads ever coming to an end? Ofc ms did that, common business practice, but easy for the masses to cry about lmao

It's not about MS doing such business practices.
It's about MS publicly attacking Sony and accusing them of doing such practices.

 

[graywolf323]

It's not about MS doing such business practices.
It's about MS publicly attacking Sony and accusing them of doing such practices.

gotta love how it went from “evil Sony” in the thread where MS attacked PlayStation for doing things like this to suddenly “well both sides do it why is this news?” you’d think at least some of them would try to not be so blatantly obvious…

 

[Ansphn]

Oh my god ... they have a clause in contracts they are paying much money for ....
Really guys, are we now making troll threads for everything?

That is just normal business practice. You don't want to know what Sony paid for ffvii exclusivity?
Also the games still appear on competitive platforms, just not in subscription services for a while. That is a really harmless form of a exclusivity deal.

Games that Sony has exclusivity with, they also have marketing rights with.. As in they market these games along with the publishers. Xbox locks games into their subscription without any marketing rights. Its just a fuck you block to stop games from going to PlayStation.

 

[NickFire]

What's the play here?

The point is there should never have been a play. All the performance theater that came before the hearing exposed the nonsense as nonsense, should have been cancelled before the first show.

 

[Fabieter]

In what universe is getting exclusivity of one lousy game worse than buying the whole fucking publisher?

Yea I don't get it imagine sony buying sqaure in gen 6 and never release anything on xbox vs was actually happened.

 

[quest]

whose alt are you? so it’s fine to buy an entire third party company to block it but how dare a company buy just a single game despite the fact the latter has been going on in this industry for decades and is done by all the console makers

Single game lol you mean actively trying to buy every zenimax next-generation game as an exclusive is not a single game. Sony was overly aggressive on zenimax games and got burned by forcing Microsoft to stop the bleeding of exclusive deals.