Support NeoGAF

[DaGwaphics]

Exactly. Sony was able to block 2 Bethesda games from Xbox and Game Pass before Xbox bought Bethesda. If the rumors are true, it's possible Xbox gamers would be blocked for a year or more from Starfield if they hadn't bought Bethesda. By purchasing them Sony will never be able to block any Bethesda games from Xbox again. Same with CoD and any perks like early access, different game modes, exclusive betas, etc.

I've said this before as well, a wing like Activision under MS is far more likely to put out games on more platforms like Switch than it would have done so before. It's a net gain for more platforms/folks in general.

Agreed. There is a very good chance MS just leaves the games multi-platform, maybe even adding them to new platforms. Plus, GP users will get even more content. It's a deal that won't hurt any gamers, and just adds further value to GP users.

 

[oldergamer]

Yeah, the driveclub creator made a mess of the game in especialy the multiplayer that was a mess for months. But Sony did not let go as many studios that MS dumped ore ending the contract. Fact is that Sony is maniging studios better then MS. That Sony bought Bungie was a reaction to the buying spree of MS. Sony bought only a few developers, and with insomniac they had a long relationship and Insomniac saw that they could not survive on theyr own.

And Bungie is staying third party. That Sony is paying a few developers to keep theyr games of GP is a meme. some developers agreed in the contract to bring theyr games not to subscripting services for a year. Thats not keeping the games forever of Gamepass.

MS is byuing whole publishers with the intention to bring all the games to Gamepass to get more subscribers to Gamepass cous GP is not growing at a rate that MS wants.
Its clear that you are a GP defender, thats you right.
But calling Sony practices shitty, is deflecting what MS is trying to push. I'am calling MS practices shitty cous they are trying to change te gamingindustry at theyr demand, just as they did with the whole OS for PC's

Part of what you said was right but the reasoning for buying publishers is incorrect. Its not due to slowed growth of game pass, its to protect against others paying to keep games off game pass. Example when aony prevented resident evil from being on gamepass.

They want to ensure they have a steady flow of first content and dont have to worry about a bunch of ip suddenly moving to a different service (similar to what happened with Netflix

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Exactly, Sony had the same position as Microsoft today to spend hundreds of millions out of gate and selling the PS1 much cheaper than Saturn.

Yeah but there were clear differences. PS1 was Sony's first gaming console, and it was expected of them to probably buy a developer or two. That's what upstarts in a new field, sometimes tend to do. They did buy a publisher in Psygnosis, but the 3DO Company technically got exclusivity with EA at that time, you can argue they "paid" for exclusivity from a big 3P publisher who was already on the market.

MS has decided to resort to buying massive publishers during their fourth console generation as a platform holder; a move that would be seen as more "normal" for an upstart in the industry, doesn't come off the same way with a company that's been making consoles since 2001. As for PS1 vs Saturn pricing; Sega initially sold the Saturn with a pack-in game (Virtua Fighter) and it also had built-in backup battery RAM for save data. For PS1, you still had to buy a game separately as well as a memory card if you wanted any saves; this essentially made the two evenly priced when that was accounted for.

Sony just made the smarter decision and removed the pack-in game for a demo disc, and made the memory cards separate (like how the Neo-Geo did prior), instead of bundling those into the default SKU and driving up the MSRP like Sega did. Other than that, there were no practical differences in the MSRP for both systems, but Sony had lower losses to eat since they handled the chip design in-house, and leveraged their own distribution chains among other things.

They didn't prevent Sega from being able to do that stuff, heck they didn't prevent Sega from going with Silicon Graphics or something with Lockheed Martian for Saturn. Those were Sega's own choices; they could've better allocated budgets from certain arcade efforts like Gameworks towards stuff for Saturn. But all of this is essentially moot: what you're describing Sony did (which isn't 100% true as a lot of context was left out that I tried elaborating on) is nothing too surprising for new companies entering the gaming market in the early-to-mid '90s. The 3DO Company kind of has its own lock on a massive 3P publisher of the time (EA), in fact the 3DO eventually dumped its price VERY quickly in just a couple years including models from Panasonic/Matsushita (who were at least around Sony's size back then, maybe even a bit bigger), and again factoring in the extra game & memory card you needed for PS1 to have save value as Saturn at launch, the effective prices for both systems was the same.

Microsoft have decided to buy not only a string of smaller developers (obviously a reaction to a problem but not too out of the ordinary otherwise), but two MASSIVE publishers (especially ABK), after being on the market as a platform holder for 20 years. That size/type of move at their level of maturity in the industry, is completely unlike anything Sony did when they entered the console market as a first-time platform holder.

Sony's directly involved in the development so what's the issue?

Also let's just be honest; the Switch would've held Ronin back to no end and Sony funding Ronin isn't any different from Nintendo funding Bayonetta 2 & 3. In all cases, those are games that very much would not have existed without another company, a platform holder, stepping in to help. Same goes for Stellar Blade.

 

[DaGwaphics]

@ thicc_girls_are_teh_best weren't Sega, 3DO and Atari all quick to point out that Sony was the first to price their console aggressively below bom? I remember threats of lawsuits and other things back then. Sony definitely maximized their money when getting started and in ways that the traditional gaming companies couldn't really match.

MS could have spent a lot more when getting started and probably missed some opportunities (likely could have picked up Sega for a song back then). But, I don't think that should limit what they can do now. I don't think there is any specific rules as to what stage you can choose to invest into your business. Whether or not you get aggressive from the start or you spin your wheels for a decade before getting serious doesn't seem like it makes much of a difference.

 

[DarkMage619]

@ thicc_girls_are_teh_best weren't Sega, 3DO and Atari all quick to point out that Sony was the first to price their console aggressively below bom? I remember threats of lawsuits and other things back then. Sony definitely maximized their money when getting started and in ways that the traditional gaming companies couldn't really match.

MS could have spent a lot more when getting started and probably missed some opportunities (likely could have picked up Sega for a song back then). But, I don't think that should limit what they can do now. I don't think there is any specific rules as to what stage you can choose to invest into your business. Whether or not you get aggressive from the start or you spin your wheels for a decade before getting serious doesn't seem like it makes much of a difference.

Completely agree. Just like people are quite vocal about how Sony doesn't have to follow MS with things like day one first party titles on their sub service. MS doesn't have to follow Sony or any other companies with regard to studio acquisitions. It has nothing to do with fairness its all business and it is up to the market to decide what strategy will be successful.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I don't want to say lazy dev but it feels like it however its not really about laziness.

I didnt touch the topic about about monopolistic practices for a reason. I know that you can get a monopoly without doing any practices that would be deemed illegal or anticompetitive



Again wasn't talking about acquisitions, I was just saying that companies will increase prices regardless of whether they are renting you a product/service or selling it to you.

Okay then, fair enough. I didn't know if that was the way which you meant it, my bad.

Exactly. Sony was able to block 2 Bethesda games from Xbox and Game Pass before Xbox bought Bethesda. If the rumors are true, it's possible Xbox gamers would be blocked for a year or more from Starfield if they hadn't bought Bethesda. By purchasing them Sony will never be able to block any Bethesda games from Xbox again. Same with CoD and any perks like early access, different game modes, exclusive betas, etc.

TBF Microsoft could've secured all three of those games as timed console exclusives to Xbox Series but for whatever reason they were seriously behind in terms of negotiating those types of deals prior to 2020. And whatever they would've had to pay if getting into a bidding war with Sony, in the end would've costed them far less than the $7.5 billion they paid for Zenimax. All the same, they could've entered a bidding war on a new phase of COD marketing exclusivity after the current one was done and won such a bid, paying significantly less than $69 billion.

But I guess that's a "glass half-empty" way of looking at it. I just hope people understand that buying publishers was in fact never a requirement for MS to get more content for Xbox, especially considering the games you mention were always coming to Xbox anyway. MS made those purchases to get Day 1 AAA content for GamePass, and to expanding their revenue streams for Xbox division.

@ thicc_girls_are_teh_best weren't Sega, 3DO and Atari all quick to point out that Sony was the first to price their console aggressively below bom? I remember threats of lawsuits and other things back then. Sony definitely maximized their money when getting started and in ways that the traditional gaming companies couldn't really match.

Lol, Atari were desperate and looney; they tried accusing Sony of price-fixing the PS1 in America because it came out for $299 but they had no leg to stand on. Notice when Nintendo released the N64 in NA, it was $249, even cheaper than PS1 and certainly Saturn's launch price, but none of those threats and concerns popped up from Atari towards them did they?

Yes Sony did leverage certain financial and resource advantages that Nintendo and Sega lacked, but by that logic Sega could claim NEC did that with the PC-Engine in Japan vs. MegaDrive (NEC were HUGE back at that time). Sega & Nintendo could've made that claim against Panasonic/Matsushita with the 3DO, Atari as well, especially when 3DO's price went down rapidly.

I've actually argued that Microsoft are in a lot of ways leveraging their own financial & resource advantages today and pointed to Sony doing that with the PS1 as a defense for Microsoft. However, the scale is completely different and when Sony did that stuff with PS1, it was their first time as a platform holder, not their fourth generation already firmly entrenched in the industry.

I think you also underestimate how much money Nintendo had even back in the mid '90s; they always had a lot more money than, say, Sega or especially Atari during that period, they had more in common with Sony in terms of their overall capital size and financial resources. Also going back to Sony during that period, when they did things like buying Psygnosis, they didn't leverage the entire company's annual revenue stream across all of their other divisions to justify that buy; their Psygnosis purchase only leveraged a small fraction of total company revenue. It was ultimately still something tied very specifically to PlayStation division's balance books the entire time.

The costs of the ABK acquisition are going to get spread among all of Microsoft's divisions, not just Xbox, for quite some years.

MS could have spent a lot more when getting started and probably missed some opportunities (likely could have picked up Sega for a song back then). But, I don't think that should limit what they can do now. I don't think there is any specific rules as to what stage you can choose to invest into your business. Whether or not you get aggressive from the start or you spin your wheels for a decade before getting serious doesn't seem like it makes much of a difference.

I'm not arguing that MS can't buy publishers now. Just that for those who might get miffed seeing there are people opposed to MS buying Zenimax or ABK, they have to understand that for at least some of those people, part of the issue might come from the belief that MS is suddenly making those types of moves NOW, when they've had 20 years as a platform holder to make the most of previous acquisitions like Rare, and have mostly failed to do so.

People aren't suddenly going to forget about things with previous acquisitions like Rare, so that will be in the back of their head when they make purchases of big publishers like Zenimax and ABK. Also, I personally don't buy the idea that MS are only now "getting serious". Was the 360 generation not them being serious? Yet we saw a wholly different strategy from them during that period.

 

[DarkMage619]

TBF Microsoft could've secured all three of those games as timed console exclusives to Xbox Series but for whatever reason they were seriously behind in terms of negotiating those types of deals prior to 2020. And whatever they would've had to pay if getting into a bidding war with Sony, in the end would've costed them far less than the $7.5 billion they paid for Zenimax. All the same, they could've entered a bidding war on a new phase of COD marketing exclusivity after the current one was done and won such a bid, paying significantly less than $69 billion.

But I guess that's a "glass half-empty" way of looking at it. I just hope people understand that buying publishers was in fact never a requirement for MS to get more content for Xbox, especially considering the games you mention were always coming to Xbox anyway. MS made those purchases to get Day 1 AAA content for GamePass, and to expanding their revenue streams for Xbox division.

Timed exclusives for major third party titles will always cost MS more money since they have a smaller user base and the 3rd parties would demand a premium for missing out on the PlayStation base. Owning the studio eliminates that from being an issue and gives them a long term source of content over a very short term one. MS is playing the long game here and an investment in the studio would go a much longer way than a few months of keeping a title off PlayStation.

You also have to realize that MS isn't just focused on consoles like the other platforms and that would be a waste of money for the timed exclusive to block a competitor's console. The path MS is on currently works best for their company and others will do what works best for their respective platforms.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Part of what you said was right but the reasoning for buying publishers is incorrect. Its not due to slowed growth of game pass, its to protect against others paying to keep games off game pass. Example when aony prevented resident evil from being on gamepass.

They want to ensure they have a steady flow of first content and dont have to worry about a bunch of ip suddenly moving to a different service (similar to what happened with Netflix

Yep, it pretty much comes down to securing guarantees for Xbox and Game Pass customers. It isn't about trying to kill Sony or any such thing. Whenever there is fear or uncertainty in any aspect of a brand that will always stifle its ability to grow and develop a more loyal audience. Playstation has that and will never lose it even if Call of Duty should go fully Xbox Exclusive. (it won't)

Microsoft is interested in more revenue and more active players total than outselling Playstation consoles. They understand they don't need to go for the revenue first approach on all their titles, which is why Starfield and Elder Scrolls 6 and other games will be xbox console exclusives. Even as a hardcore Xbox fan, because of the popularity of Playstation, you're always worried about some deal coming down the pipeline that devalues Xbox. Activision + Bethesda combined with Xbox is the kind of move that will make sure Xbox customers never have to worry about that again. I personally feel Bethesda alone ensured that much, but their games simply don't come out nearly as often and other big projects just need more time still.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Timed exclusives for major third party titles will always cost MS more money since they have a smaller user base and the 3rd parties would demand a premium for missing out on the PlayStation base. Owning the studio eliminates that from being an issue and gives them a long term source of content over a very short term one. MS is playing the long game here and an investment in the studio would go a much longer way than a few months of keeping a title off PlayStation.

But that's Microsoft's fault for having the lesser-appealing product and weaker marketing, especially in various foreign markets. Them having to pay a bit more for the same deals is just to be expected, that's how business works when they would be locking out a larger install base with timed exclusivity.

Even so, whatever extra they would have to pay, wouldn't be anywhere near the amounts they have paid for Zenimax or let alone what they will soon be paying for ABK. MS could afford those premiums, and all they would need were a small handful of such games to work out for them and build the momentum over time naturally increasing their install base relative to PlayStation's, possibly getting them relatively lower premiums in bidding wars for that content for future releases.

But that would've taken time and, ironically, MS don't seem they had the patience for that despite the idea they are playing the "long-term" with these acquisitions. Which, I suppose they are. It's just funny seeing the dichotomy IMO.

You also have to realize that MS isn't just focused on consoles like the other platforms and that would be a waste of money for the timed exclusive to block a competitor's console. The path MS is on currently works best for their company and others will do what works best for their respective platforms.

Except this isn't exactly true. Sony and Nintendo aren't "just" focused on consoles, either. Sony has a strategy of porting older titles to PC, and growing their presence in mobile. Nintendo have interest in expanding their presence in mobile. These still constitute as areas of interest besides "just consoles.". The main difference between them is really in their approach to cloud streaming on non-console platforms, and Day 1 1P releases into a subscription service.

However, the former probably does not have a very large market and the latter does not fit Sony or Nintendo's business models considering how their 1P games tend to actually sell on average (and I imagine there is also a pedigree/image aspect to it as well with them).

 

[DarkMage619]

But that's Microsoft's fault for having the lesser-appealing product and weaker marketing, especially in various foreign markets. Them having to pay a bit more for the same deals is just to be expected, that's how business works when they would be locking out a larger install base with timed exclusivity.

Even so, whatever extra they would have to pay, wouldn't be anywhere near the amounts they have paid for Zenimax or let alone what they will soon be paying for ABK. MS could afford those premiums, and all they would need were a small handful of such games to work out for them and build the momentum over time naturally increasing their install base relative to PlayStation's, possibly getting them relatively lower premiums in bidding wars for that content for future releases.

But that would've taken time and, ironically, MS don't seem they had the patience for that despite the idea they are playing the "long-term" with these acquisitions. Which, I suppose they are. It's just funny seeing the dichotomy IMO.

OK. MS didn't sell as well trying emulate two older and entrenched competitors. Now they are trying something different focusing on broadening their market with lower powered console options and with a robust subscription service. So far they've found more success than just copying Sony and Nintendo. That's a good thing. They should follow their own path. Paying for timed exclusives is much better suited for Sony and that's why MS stopped focusing on it. MS money goes much further actually owning IP than borrowing it for a short time.

Except this isn't exactly true. Sony and Nintendo aren't "just" focused on consoles, either. Sony has a strategy of porting older titles to PC, and growing their presence in mobile. Nintendo have interest in expanding their presence in mobile. These still constitute as areas of interest besides "just consoles.". The main difference between them is really in their approach to cloud streaming on non-console platforms, and Day 1 1P releases into a subscription service.

However, the former probably does not have a very large market and the latter does not fit Sony or Nintendo's business models considering how their 1P games tend to actually sell on average (and I imagine there is also a pedigree/image aspect to it as well with them).

Except it is. Sony and Nintendo are FAR more focused on selling boxes like they both have since they started making consoles in the 90s and 80s. Just like where MS is more interested in actually acquiring new studios over a temporary renting of them, MS now doesn't even require customers to purchase their box at all to play their newest titles. No one else is doing that and it again shows MS is doing things their way. Again it's cool that each platform has unique strengths and weaknesses. Makes for a diverse marketplace.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Okay then, fair enough. I didn't know if that was the way which you meant it, my bad.



TBF Microsoft could've secured all three of those games as timed console exclusives to Xbox Series but for whatever reason they were seriously behind in terms of negotiating those types of deals prior to 2020. And whatever they would've had to pay if getting into a bidding war with Sony, in the end would've costed them far less than the $7.5 billion they paid for Zenimax. All the same, they could've entered a bidding war on a new phase of COD marketing exclusivity after the current one was done and won such a bid, paying significantly less than $69 billion.

But I guess that's a "glass half-empty" way of looking at it. I just hope people understand that buying publishers was in fact never a requirement for MS to get more content for Xbox, especially considering the games you mention were always coming to Xbox anyway. MS made those purchases to get Day 1 AAA content for GamePass, and to expanding their revenue streams for Xbox division.



Lol, Atari were desperate and looney; they tried accusing Sony of price-fixing the PS1 in America because it came out for $299 but they had no leg to stand on. Notice when Nintendo released the N64 in NA, it was $249, even cheaper than PS1 and certainly Saturn's launch price, but none of those threats and concerns popped up from Atari towards them did they?

Yes Sony did leverage certain financial and resource advantages that Nintendo and Sega lacked, but by that logic Sega could claim NEC did that with the PC-Engine in Japan vs. MegaDrive (NEC were HUGE back at that time). Sega & Nintendo could've made that claim against Panasonic/Matsushita with the 3DO, Atari as well, especially when 3DO's price went down rapidly.

I've actually argued that Microsoft are in a lot of ways leveraging their own financial & resource advantages today and pointed to Sony doing that with the PS1 as a defense for Microsoft. However, the scale is completely different and when Sony did that stuff with PS1, it was their first time as a platform holder, not their fourth generation already firmly entrenched in the industry.

I think you also underestimate how much money Nintendo had even back in the mid '90s; they always had a lot more money than, say, Sega or especially Atari during that period, they had more in common with Sony in terms of their overall capital size and financial resources. Also going back to Sony during that period, when they did things like buying Psygnosis, they didn't leverage the entire company's annual revenue stream across all of their other divisions to justify that buy; their Psygnosis purchase only leveraged a small fraction of total company revenue. It was ultimately still something tied very specifically to PlayStation division's balance books the entire time.

The costs of the ABK acquisition are going to get spread among all of Microsoft's divisions, not just Xbox, for quite some years.



I'm not arguing that MS can't buy publishers now. Just that for those who might get miffed seeing there are people opposed to MS buying Zenimax or ABK, they have to understand that for at least some of those people, part of the issue might come from the belief that MS is suddenly making those types of moves NOW, when they've had 20 years as a platform holder to make the most of previous acquisitions like Rare, and have mostly failed to do so.

People aren't suddenly going to forget about things with previous acquisitions like Rare, so that will be in the back of their head when they make purchases of big publishers like Zenimax and ABK. Also, I personally don't buy the idea that MS are only now "getting serious". Was the 360 generation not them being serious? Yet we saw a wholly different strategy from them during that period.

Ms May have been able to bid on getting content but could they secure gamepass day 1 on those titles for a lucrative deal. We also know that Sony has terms in their publishing contracts for some developers that they have had deals with that if a game goes on game pass is must go on ps plus day one.

I imagine by buying these devs it gives Microsoft control on tweaking contracts and allowing them to add titles day one to their gamepass service and grow that revenue stream for the business. That is Microsoft sees this imo. Sales no longer matter and haven't for years it's all about engagement and MAUs.

It's not just Microsoft that pushed for thus, it's the entertainment business as a whole. Businesses understand how many eyeballs do you have looking at your content. Thanks to Netflix, Disney plus, amazon prime and gamepass/ps plus.

Sony isn't even reporting sales figures for its games anymore. I bet if something happened and ps5 slipped too far in sales vs ps4 that they may stop reporting console sales too and lean more on mau.

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

Part of what you said was right but the reasoning for buying publishers is incorrect. Its not due to slowed growth of game pass, its to protect against others paying to keep games off game pass. Example when aony prevented resident evil from being on gamepass.

They want to ensure they have a steady flow of first content and dont have to worry about a bunch of ip suddenly moving to a different service (similar to what happened with Netflix

You realy believe that? They are buying publishers for only one goal, to put the games on Gamepass, and keep them away from Sony. Sony closed a deal for ONE year ( not forever) to keep Resident Evil from Sub services. MS can put RE now on GP when Capcom agrees.

MS can keep the games from the publishers they bought forever away from Playstation. When the deal goes trough i think thats gonna happen. I think thats MS endgoal is to put gamepass on as many other devices as possible, and will try to push Sony to except Gamepass in Sony's ecosystem.

 

[KingT731]

Quick question, which approach do you prefer and you find that is more pro gamer, based on recent game announcement;

Team ninja Wo Long - all platforms, gamepass day one (ms moneyhatting)
Team ninja Rise of Ronin - ps console exclusive, not available on other platforms (Sony moneyhatting)

Is this the same when Sony's XDEV Japan Team is working on the game with Team Ninja?

 

[John Wick]

I mean you were the person who tried to suggest capping number of studios because "Microsoft has enough studios and IP's" (Probably because "Sony can't afford to buy more, so Microsoft should not be able to do it...") which prompted me to argue with Embracer who bought almost every AA development house available and nobody seem to have problem with that. Like what the fuck even "enough studios and IP's means?" Did get Sony blocked when they bought Sucker Punch in 2011 because Sony had way more studios than Xbox? But of course, they keep their games multiplatform (Embracer) which makes their cases toooootaly different right and they can gobble entire industry, right? Which by accident makes it again about "not hurting Sony."

And if you are arguing with revenue, than there should be no problem got this acquisition approved, since even after that Xbox will be behind Sony in terms of revenue, right? And while you arguing about revenue, did you forgot about Tencent who is gobbling every studio that Embracer did not bought despite being biggest gaming company on the market.

It's just so transparent. If EA and Take-Two merged tomorrow, nobody would be crying about industry consolidation and negative impact of this deal for gaming industry. Because the would keep their games on PlayStation. And that's most important part. It's not about Microsoft having negative impact on industry. It's about Microsoft having negative impact on PlayStation's cashflow and Jimbo's panic about what will happen to his 80€ dream when Microsoft will offer Call of Duty every year in Game Pass and COD fans would spend their money in Microsoft's ecosystem.

What a load of horse shit. I don't even know why you wrote it? The fact is Embracer isn't even in the same universe to MS when it comes to buying power. So your bullshit example means exactly that bullshit! The fact that Embracer games come to all platforms you willfully ignored. Where MS blocked from buying studios?
I think Sony are far behind MS when it comes to revenue and profit. The fact that Xbox use finances from the parent company then the whole parent company should be compared.
You keep on mentioning 3rd party publishers and companies? Why? Embracer and Tencent like AB are already providing content for all platforms. Clearly you want MS to buy as many publishers as to take content away from PlayStation. That argument works both ways doesn't it dishonest corporate........?
What's transparent is your dishonesty and moving the goalposts. Fancy comparing MS buying huge publishers to Embracer and Tencent who have no horse in the race and using that as your main arguement. Pathetic springs to mind.
If EA and Take Two merged it wouldn't affect either Sony or MS you clown. The games would still be released on all platforms. It wouldn't effect MS. But you do you and try comparing that to MS buying AB and Zenimax.
One of the most dishonest takes you can get.

 

[John Wick]

But Sony aren't a 2Trillion dollar company with history or means of completely cornering a market and locking out everyone and setting the terms.

Just look at Windows and Office, neither were first or best and yet with the WinTel lock on the home PC market, the price to buy these products standalone is randomly picked out the sky. Linux and Android are effectively free, and products that pre-date Excel - like Lotus 1-2-3 - are the foundation of open source alternatives. Show me a situation where Sony or PlayStation are charging hundreds of pounds above what a product is worth with market dominance and zero competition.

They can't! MS are well known for these practises. They've used about $90 billion from elsewhere to corner the market. It's funny how MS fangirls keep on mentioning revenue of PlayStation but fail to mention the revenue of MS. Nadella needs to be laughed at with his nonsense of how Sony is No1 and his little $2 trillion dollar company is trying to compete. He's a bigger wanker than Jimbo.

 

[skit_data]

We also know that Sony has terms in their publishing contracts for some developers that they have had deals with that if a game goes on game pass is must go on ps plus day one.

Never heard of this, care to provide a source?
We’ve heard of marketing deals blocking a gamepass release but I’ve never heard of this.

 

[John Wick]

who makes the most money?

Microsoft and Xbox

 

[John Wick]

Exactly, Sony had the same position as Microsoft today to spend hundreds of millions out of gate and selling the PS1 much cheaper than Saturn.

No they didn't. Stop chatting shit. MS spent billions when they launched the Original Xbox. Why are you comparing MS 4th gen to Sony's first?

 

[DaGwaphics]

I'm not arguing that MS can't buy publishers now. Just that for those who might get miffed seeing there are people opposed to MS buying Zenimax or ABK, they have to understand that for at least some of those people, part of the issue might come from the belief that MS is suddenly making those types of moves NOW, when they've had 20 years as a platform holder to make the most of previous acquisitions like Rare, and have mostly failed to do so.

People aren't suddenly going to forget about things with previous acquisitions like Rare, so that will be in the back of their head when they make purchases of big publishers like Zenimax and ABK. Also, I personally don't buy the idea that MS are only now "getting serious". Was the 360 generation not them being serious? Yet we saw a wholly different strategy from them during that period.

Isn't SoT like the most successful thing that Rare has ever released? Seems like most people are okay with Rare. In terms of the classic Rare IPs, I believe the people at the top of Rare itself didn't want to work on those anymore and MS didn't force them.

I just don't get the point of the 20 years reference. What difference does it make if they had been in business for 20yrs or 40yrs, management has decided to invest more into the business, simple as that. I think MS has always been serious about Xbox, the big 360 write-off to save the brand showed that, I just think they are taking gaming more seriously than they did before. Hence the big spending.

 

[DaGwaphics]

But that's Microsoft's fault for having the lesser-appealing product and weaker marketing, especially in various foreign markets. Them having to pay a bit more for the same deals is just to be expected, that's how business works when they would be locking out a larger install base with timed exclusivity.

True. That's business.

However, there are no rules that dictate that MS and Sony have to utilize the same strategy in how they run their business. MS can't compete directly with Sony if they align perfectly with the traditional model where everything costs them more yet they have fewer users. MS has simply found a better way for them to compete that better utilizes the companies overall strength.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Yep, it pretty much comes down to securing guarantees for Xbox and Game Pass customers. It isn't about trying to kill Sony or any such thing. Whenever there is fear or uncertainty in any aspect of a brand that will always stifle its ability to grow and develop a more loyal audience. Playstation has that and will never lose it even if Call of Duty should go fully Xbox Exclusive. (it won't)

Microsoft is interesting in more revenue and more active players total than outselling Playstation consoles. They understand they don't need to go for the revenue first approach on all their titles, which is why Starfield and Elder Scrolls 6 and other games will be xbox console exclusives. Even as a hardcore Xbox fan, because of the popularity of Playstation, you're always worried about some deal coming down the pipeline that devalues Xbox. Activision + Bethesda combined with Xbox is the kind of move that will make sure Xbox customers never have to worry about that again. I personally feel Bethesda alone ensured that much, but their games simply don't come out nearly as often and other big projects just need more time still.

Absolutely, they eliminated the need to negotiate for Bethesda and Activision titles on a game by game basis and now get all those benefits indefinitely. That's the smartest way to do it.

Everyone knew that competition for GP would come along and we are seeing that now with PS+. As soon as you have that second service that you need to compete with for every deal the cost of content is going to increase (just as it did between Hulu/Netflix). Both responded to that by trying to produce more content in-house, MS is just doing the same. They are obviously still competing with Sony for a lot of the content on GP, but they wanted to secure some heavy hitters that they no longer need to compete for.

 

[phil_t98]

Microsoft and Xbox

now come on you know xbox don't make the most money in the gaming industry

 

[SenjutsuSage]

You realy believe that? They are buying publishers for only one goal, to put the games on Gamepass, and keep them away from Sony. Sony closed a deal for ONE year ( not forever) to keep Resident Evil from Sub services. MS can put RE now on GP when Capcom agrees.

MS can keep the games from the publishers they bought forever away from Playstation. When the deal goes trough i think thats gonna happen. I think thats MS endgoal is to put gamepass on as many other devices as possible, and will try to push Sony to except Gamepass in Sony's ecosystem.

Microsoft is no longer interested in Game Pass on PlayStation. They may have entertained it for a time, but that has passed. Microsoft's goal is not to keep games away from Sony. That might be a consequence of Microsoft owning publishers, but Microsoft's true goal is two fold. Radically improving Game Pass's value offering. The next major goal (arguably their biggest in my view) is getting major development studios, using some of the most popular game IP and most anticipated games imaginable, developing games the way they want them to, to drive faster adoption of DirectStorage, Sampler Feedback Streaming etc. The primary way to make that happen is by owning studios who have massive enough releases to draw more attention to those things.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Microsoft's goal is not to keep games away from Sony.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

You realy believe that? They are buying publishers for only one goal, to put the games on Gamepass, and keep them away from Sony. Sony closed a deal for ONE year ( not forever) to keep Resident Evil from Sub services. MS can put RE now on GP when Capcom agrees.

MS can keep the games from the publishers they bought forever away from Playstation. When the deal goes trough i think thats gonna happen. I think thats MS endgoal is to put gamepass on as many other devices as possible, and will try to push Sony to except Gamepass in Sony's ecosystem.

Microsoft is no longer interested in Game Pass on PlayStation. They may have entertained it for a time, but that time has passed. Microsoft's goal is not to keep games away from Sony. That might be an occasional consequence of Microsoft owning publishers, but Microsoft's true goal is different.

1 - Radically improving Game Pass's value offering, thus boosting subscribers and overall people playing their games.
2 - The next major goal (arguably their biggest alongside growing game pass) is getting major game studios with massively anticipated games to use those anticipated games as advertisements for why dev studios need to be developing games the way Microsoft suggests. Microsoft wants much faster adoption DirectStorage and Sampler Feedback Streaming, more game engines built from the ground up for it. The primary way to make that happen is by owning the studios.

 

[John Wick]

now come on you know xbox don't make the most money in the gaming industry

Well they are using their parent companies money to take over the gaming industry. Can't cry and say we are only a small player. They make the most barring Apple which double.

 

[John Wick]

Microsoft is no longer interested in Game Pass on PlayStation. They may have entertained it for a time, but that time has passed. Microsoft's goal is not to keep games away from Sony. That might be an occasional consequence of Microsoft owning publishers, but Microsoft's true goal is different.

1 - Radically improving Game Pass's value offering, thus boosting subscribers and overall people playing their games.
2 - The next major goal (arguably their biggest alongside growing game pass) is getting major game studios with massively anticipated games to use those anticipated games as advertisements for why dev studios need to be developing games the way Microsoft suggests. Microsoft wants much faster adoption DirectStorage and Sampler Feedback Streaming, more game engines built from the ground up for it. The primary way to make that happen is by owning the studios.

Lmfao!

 

[Hawking Radiation]

Please, for GAF's sake, just get this shit over the line already.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Please, for GAF's sake, just get this shit over the line already.

Yes, so we can move on to the CDPR and Embracer acquisitions.

 

[Hawking Radiation]

Yes, so we can move on to the CDPR and Embracer acquisitions.

Well anything is fine by me cause this thread is just a back and forth affair between two camps.

Its modern warfare

 

[phil_t98]

Well they are using their parent companies money to take over the gaming industry. Can't cry and say we are only a small player. They make the most barring Apple which double.

then fair game them having the money to purchase publishers then

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Well anything is fine by me cause this thread is just a back and forth affair between two camps.

Its modern warfare

 

[jhjfss]

 

[adamsapple]

Well anything is fine by me cause this thread is just a back and forth affair between two camps.

Its modern warfare

 

[John Wick]

Some of the cringe replies from certain loyalists about how Sony would do the same if they had the money is so dishonest it beggers belief. No Sony wouldn't because MS have a history of doing it. Sony totally dominate the music market yet they ain't taken anything away from Apple, Spotify etc etc. So no they wouldn't.

 

[John Wick]

Yes, so we can move on to the CDPR and Embracer acquisitions.

Your dreaming if you think MS is going to be allowed to go after other big publishers if they get AB.

 

[Ozriel]

But Sony aren't a 2Trillion dollar company with history or means of completely cornering a market and locking out everyone and setting the terms.

Just look at Windows and Office, neither were first or best and yet with the WinTel lock on the home PC market, the price to buy these products standalone is randomly picked out the sky. Linux and Android are effectively free, and products that pre-date Excel - like Lotus 1-2-3 - are the foundation of open source alternatives. Show me a situation where Sony or PlayStation are charging hundreds of pounds above what a product is worth with market dominance and zero competition.

Compared to most other commercial productivity software, Office is priced just fine. And their Office 365 subscription is very attractively priced for consumers.

And contrary to your previous claims, Microsoft continually adds stuff to the Office suite.

Imagine comparing the price to open source, free software. How does that make sense?

 

[Ozriel]

Some of the cringe replies from certain loyalists about how Sony would do the same if they had the money is so dishonest it beggers belief. No Sony wouldn't because MS have a history of doing it. Sony totally dominate the music market yet they ain't taken anything away from Apple, Spotify etc etc. So no they wouldn't.

So in your past comments here where you’ve urged Sony to buy Fromsoftware, Square and Capcom, you’ve done that in the belief that their games would continue to ship on Xbox post acquisition?

 

[KingT731]

No they didn't. Stop chatting shit. MS spent billions when they launched the Original Xbox. Why are you comparing MS 4th gen to Sony's first?

They lost over $4B. That type of loss would cripple or kill most others. To compare Sony lost roughly $3.3B on the PS3 and it caused the entire company to shift strategy.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

I think units sold is a more fair way to judge the actual market. How does revenue and profits factor into it? The market is all about how much you sell. Always has been.

Playstation has over 100M active monthly players...does Nintendo have more considering they have sold around 110M units since 2017?

 

[Rick Dangerous]

Compared to most other commercial productivity software, Office is priced just fine. And their Office 365 subscription is very attractively priced for consumers.

And contrary to your previous claims, Microsoft continually adds stuff to the Office suite.

Imagine comparing the price to open source, free software. How does that make sense?

No it's it not. You know shit about it. So don't talk about it.

 

[reksveks]

No it's it not. You know shit about it. So don't talk about it.

which bit?

value judgement of pricing is subjective, no?

 

[Bergoglio]

Your dreaming if you think MS is going to be allowed to go after other big publishers if they get AB.

Maybe not the most prominent western publishers like EA, Square Enix or Take Two, but, If the strategy is to acquire publishers to enhance the Xbox offer, at this point there's a lack of central publisher in Japan, so Sega, Capcom, Bandai Namco are all candidates. Buying a small Japanese studio or two wouldn't change anything, they need a Japanese studio industry to be relevant.

 

[JackSparr0w]

Some of the cringe replies from certain loyalists about how Sony would do the same if they had the money is so dishonest it beggers belief. No Sony wouldn't because MS have a history of doing it. Sony totally dominate the music market yet they ain't taken anything away from Apple, Spotify etc etc. So no they wouldn't.

Sony taking away from Apple? Apple would spank them so hard they would have to come back begging on their knees to let them into their ecosystem.

 

[phil_t98]

Some of the cringe replies from certain loyalists about how Sony would do the same if they had the money is so dishonest it beggers belief. No Sony wouldn't because MS have a history of doing it. Sony totally dominate the music market yet they ain't taken anything away from Apple, Spotify etc etc. So no they wouldn't.

Yeah Sony bought Bungie for a laugh didn’t they

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

Some of the cringe replies from certain loyalists about how Sony would do the same if they had the money is so dishonest it beggers belief. No Sony wouldn't because MS have a history of doing it. Sony totally dominate the music market yet they ain't taken anything away from Apple, Spotify etc etc. So no they wouldn't.

Irony at it's finest

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

So in your past comments here where you’ve urged Sony to buy Fromsoftware, Square and Capcom, you’ve done that in the belief that their games would continue to ship on Xbox post acquisition?

 

[Neofire]

Yeah Sony bought Bungie for a laugh didn’t they

But their games are still on the competitions console

 

[Dane]

No they didn't. Stop chatting shit. MS spent billions when they launched the Original Xbox. Why are you comparing MS 4th gen to Sony's first?

And Sony in the 90s had hundreds of millions for marketing and court all developers in, Microsoft in the other hand had to compete against a massively estabilished brand that had already won that generation at the start, you stop chatting shit.

Yeah but there were clear differences. PS1 was Sony's first gaming console, and it was expected of them to probably buy a developer or two. That's what upstarts in a new field, sometimes tend to do. They did buy a publisher in Psygnosis, but the 3DO Company technically got exclusivity with EA at that time, you can argue they "paid" for exclusivity from a big 3P publisher who was already on the market.

MS has decided to resort to buying massive publishers during their fourth console generation as a platform holder; a move that would be seen as more "normal" for an upstart in the industry, doesn't come off the same way with a company that's been making consoles since 2001. As for PS1 vs Saturn pricing; Sega initially sold the Saturn with a pack-in game (Virtua Fighter) and it also had built-in backup battery RAM for save data. For PS1, you still had to buy a game separately as well as a memory card if you wanted any saves; this essentially made the two evenly priced when that was accounted for.

Sony just made the smarter decision and removed the pack-in game for a demo disc, and made the memory cards separate (like how the Neo-Geo did prior), instead of bundling those into the default SKU and driving up the MSRP like Sega did. Other than that, there were no practical differences in the MSRP for both systems, but Sony had lower losses to eat since they handled the chip design in-house, and leveraged their own distribution chains among other things.

They didn't prevent Sega from being able to do that stuff, heck they didn't prevent Sega from going with Silicon Graphics or something with Lockheed Martian for Saturn. Those were Sega's own choices; they could've better allocated budgets from certain arcade efforts like Gameworks towards stuff for Saturn. But all of this is essentially moot: what you're describing Sony did (which isn't 100% true as a lot of context was left out that I tried elaborating on) is nothing too surprising for new companies entering the gaming market in the early-to-mid '90s. The 3DO Company kind of has its own lock on a massive 3P publisher of the time (EA), in fact the 3DO eventually dumped its price VERY quickly in just a couple years including models from Panasonic/Matsushita (who were at least around Sony's size back then, maybe even a bit bigger), and again factoring in the extra game & memory card you needed for PS1 to have save value as Saturn at launch, the effective prices for both systems was the same.

Microsoft have decided to buy not only a string of smaller developers (obviously a reaction to a problem but not too out of the ordinary otherwise), but two MASSIVE publishers (especially ABK), after being on the market as a platform holder for 20 years. That size/type of move at their level of maturity in the industry, is completely unlike anything Sony did when they entered the console market as a first-time platform holder.



Also let's just be honest; the Switch would've held Ronin back to no end and Sony funding Ronin isn't any different from Nintendo funding Bayonetta 2 & 3. In all cases, those are games that very much would not have existed without another company, a platform holder, stepping in to help. Same goes for Stellar Blade.

Psygnosis had half or more of the European market, which why also Playstation has the biggest marketshare in Europe compared to Xbox. The original launch games for PS1 and Saturn were "complete in one seat" games that didn't really need the memory card, so for most people you were saving 50 dollars, even if I account the memory card which was more effect in terms of durability it would be roughly 25-30 dollars cheaper overall.

 

[twilo99]

How does Sony have any say in what another company can and can’t buy with their own money?

It’s like if I make more money than you and can afford a bigger house, you go complain of inequality and block the purchase because you can’t afford the same thing?