Support NeoGAF

[Heisenberg007]

This court case may actually provide us some clear answers as to why these games aren't launching on Xbox and if there is a reason, Xbox lawyers will be pressing questions to make the world know about it. Maybe it is as you say, or maybe it isn't. Wouldn't you be interested to find out?

I sure as hell am, it will put a lot of misconceptions to rest from both sides.

True. It may shed some light on that too.

 

[Ar¢tos]

All this is just gonna make Sony more aggressive with the exclusive content/timed exclusivity deals, they will probably force Bungie to do Playstation/PC only down the road.

 

[Lasha]

How does Sony's timed exclusivity deals affect Xbox's position though? Microsoft will also have to prove that.

If games do not sell as much on Xbox, devs will not port their games to Xbox. Take FFVII Remake as an example.

Final Fantasy 7 Remake's exclusivity is already over, but SquareEnix isn't porting their game to Xbox. It's not Sony's responsibility to make SquareEnix publish their game on Xbox.

If SquareEnix isn't even willing to port a game on Xbox (because it doesn't make financial sense for them to do so), how does Sony getting a timed exclusive agreement for that game hurts Xbox?

I dunno how closely you are following the acquisition but Microsoft has alleged that Sony has signed a permanent exclusivity deal for FF7r in its response to the CMA in the UK. There is likely truth to this game since FFXI, FFXII, XIII, and XV were all released on Xbox and Microsoft is currently working with SquareEnix to finally port FFXIV over to series consoles(XIV released before crossplay became a thing). Sony will have some explaining to do if the accusation is true. Especially since it is asking regulators to protect its lead position over MS over competitive issues.

Page 64 §3.67 of the Report

3.67 Exclusivity strategies are not uncommon in the games industry and other market
participants have access to their own content.238 Both Sony’s and Nintendo’s exclusive
first-party games rank among the best-selling in Europe and worldwide.239 Current
Sony exclusive content includes prominent first-party titles such as The Last of Us,
Ghosts of Tsushima, God of War, and Spiderman. In addition to having outright
exclusive content, Sony has also entered into arrangements with third-party publishers
which require the “exclusion” of Xbox from the set of platforms these publishers can
distribute their games on. Some prominent examples of these agreements include Final
Fantasy VII Remake (Square Enix), Bloodborne (From Software), the upcoming Final
Fantasy XVI (Square Enix) and the recently announced Silent Hill 2 remastered
(Bloober team).240 Nintendo’s exclusive content includes well-established globally
famous and iconic franchises such as Super Mario, Zelda, Xenoblade, Pokémon, and
Animal Crossing.

Regulators need to prove that Activision's output is essential to Sony's business. That is basically how you stop a vertical merger. Sony is almost certainly highly profitable without ATVI and Nintendo became the market leader by altering is competitive strategy. Its a tough hill to climb.

 

[Morrie’s wig shop]

We’ll I guess this will expose a lot of the he said she said nonsense that everyone is arguing about.

This should expose hard facts with numbers and contracts for exclusive deals and timed exclusive.
Exciting times to actually look at 3rd party exclusive and timed exclusive contracts without any PR talk and nobody misconstruing the info like the talking heads on YouTube.
If this all happens it will most likely expose the behind the scenes/backhanded deals that I suspect a lot of “gamers” are not going to be happy with.

This could be the moment everything is exposed.

 

[Fabieter]

I dunno how closely you are following the acquisition but Microsoft has alleged that Sony has signed a permanent exclusivity deal for FF7r in its response to the CMA in the UK. There is likely truth to this game since FFXI, FFXII, XIII, and XV were all released on Xbox and Microsoft is currently working with SquareEnix to finally port FFXIV over to series consoles(XIV released before crossplay became a thing). Sony will have some explaining to do if the accusation is true. Especially since it is asking regulators to protect its lead position over MS over competitive issues.

Page 64 §3.67 of the Report


Regulators need to prove that Activision's output is essential to Sony's business. That is basically how you stop a vertical merger. Sony is almost certainly highly profitable without ATVI and Nintendo became the market leader by altering is competitive strategy. Its a tough hill to climb.

The thing is at which point will it affect business from sony. After they buy take 2, Ea Sqaure enix and capcom. Phil confirmed they are far from done. Whats happening here is other divisions of Microsoft financing the downfall of the competition. Sony wont vanish but they don't have the capacity to actual compete with Microsoft unlimited money which in the end also affect the consumer when xbox doesn't has real competition anymore.

 

[Unknown?]

I dunno how closely you are following the acquisition but Microsoft has alleged that Sony has signed a permanent exclusivity deal for FF7r in its response to the CMA in the UK. There is likely truth to this game since FFXI, FFXII, XIII, and XV were all released on Xbox and Microsoft is currently working with SquareEnix to finally port FFXIV over to series consoles(XIV released before crossplay became a thing). Sony will have some explaining to do if the accusation is true. Especially since it is asking regulators to protect its lead position over MS over competitive issues.

Page 64 §3.67 of the Report


Regulators need to prove that Activision's output is essential to Sony's business. That is basically how you stop a vertical merger. Sony is almost certainly highly profitable without ATVI and Nintendo became the market leader by altering is competitive strategy. Its a tough hill to climb.

Those games were all released years later after Microsoft helped pay for them, not because SE was expecting more money, they barely sold anything on the platform.

As far as the timed exclusivity thing, couldn't Sony make Microsoft show that they do the exact same thing?

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

The thing is at which point will it affect business from sony. After they buy take 2, Ea Sqaure enix and capcom. Phil confirmed they are far from done. Whats happening here is other divisions of Microsoft financing the downfall of the competition. Sony wont vanish but they don't have the capacity to actual compete with Microsoft unlimited money which in the end also affect the consumer when xbox doesn't has real competition anymore.

You are acting like Xbox is somehow number 2 in the console world. That if Sony weakens that Xbox would be king.

Xbox is currently number 3 in the console business. Had been for some time. Xbox would have to beat Nintendo to be top dog, and that is not going to happen.

 

[Fabieter]

Those games were all released years later after Microsoft helped pay for them, not because SE was expecting more money, they barely sold anything on the platform.

As far as the timed exclusivity thing, couldn't Sony make Microsoft show that they do the exact same thing?

They are downplayed because they aint big enough to matter. Seemingly they are big enough for Microsoft to pay exclusion fees tho.

 

[Dick Jones]

To make it make sense ms would need to show their own production pipeline imo. So the ftc could see that both companys are already highly competitive as it is.

Sure Xbox announced everything for the next 5 years. There are no suprises when you intentionally leak everything to stay relevant. Sony wouldn't find out anything new, neither would we.

 

[Three]

How are you sure that Sony didn't pay to extend the exclusivity period? This seems likely considering Crisis Core coming to Xbox speaks against your entire argument.

What makes you sure they did? Before it was confirmed that Persona 5 didn't even have an exclusivity contract people were sure Sony paid for it.

Nobody knows so we aren't sure of either. I personally think SE want to entice MS into getting FF7R as a platform holder and aren't interested in doing the port. Crisis core was the prequel they released simultaneously. Of course interest in crisis core on xbox was low judging by NPD but if it weren't they were more likely to pay for the port. A late FF7R port on xbox now though without MS pushing for it wouldn't be that great an incentive for SE, even if we assume the contract hasn't been extended.

 

[Drizzlehell]

"More broadly available"? What the fuck does that mean? What's broader than the game being available on every next gen platform possible?

Literal clown shoes.

And the saddest part is how people feed off of this bullshit corporate game of hand slaps. Stop picking sides and defending your flag like a bunch of cavemen. None of those companies care. They just wanna kill off the competition and it won't even matter to them if they're gonna inconvenience us as customers. Wait for MS to take over everything and then you'll see how awesome they are. Clap minus 90 bucks for every shitty game, zero ownership as a result of subscription model, new kinect camera in your living room watching you masturbate, and so on...

 

[Heisenberg007]

I dunno how closely you are following the acquisition but Microsoft has alleged that Sony has signed a permanent exclusivity deal for FF7r in its response to the CMA in the UK. There is likely truth to this game since FFXI, FFXII, XIII, and XV were all released on Xbox and Microsoft is currently working with SquareEnix to finally port FFXIV over to series consoles(XIV released before crossplay became a thing). Sony will have some explaining to do if the accusation is true. Especially since it is asking regulators to protect its lead position over MS over competitive issues.

Page 64 §3.67 of the Report

I remember this document. Microsoft's lawyers made several mistakes in this document, so I wouldn't take them seriously. Here are just a few:

They mention Bloodborne and Sackboy as third-party exclusive content, among Silent Hill 2, SFV, and Sifu.

They also said that PS+ had reached 50 million subscribers (which is not true)

Later in the same document, they also call Final Fantasy a first-party exclusive (lol)

These Microsoft lawyers do not even know how to file the right subpoena. I wouldn't trust them with any information related to Sony's internal operations or the gaming industry itself.

 

[thismeinteil]

If this doesn't scream Xbox needs new management, I don't know what does.

"Please show us your development pipeline, so we can fix ours."

 

[Ar¢tos]

.

I remember this document. Microsoft's lawyers made several mistakes in this document, so I wouldn't take them seriously. Here are just a few:

They mention Bloodborne and Sackboy as third-party exclusive content, among Silent Hill 2, SFV, and Sifu.

They also said that PS+ had reached 50 million subscribers (which is not true)

Later in the same document, they also call Final Fantasy a first-party exclusive (lol)

These Microsoft lawyers do not even know how to file the right subpoena. I wouldn't trust them with any information related to Sony's internal operations or the gaming industry itself.

Neither Bloodborne or Sackboy were developed by a 1st party studio, even if the IPs belongs belong to Sony, maybe that is what they mean?

 

[Fabieter]

You are acting like Xbox is somehow number 2 in the console world. That if Sony weakens that Xbox would be king.

Xbox is currently number 3 in the console business. Had been for some time. Xbox would have to beat Nintendo to be top dog, and that is not going to happen.

Revenuewise they will be 1 place after avb. And it will only get better with more and more pubs being bought.

 

[Kilau]

I remember this document. Microsoft's lawyers made several mistakes in this document, so I wouldn't take them seriously. Here are just a few:

They mention Bloodborne and Sackboy as third-party exclusive content, among Silent Hill 2, SFV, and Sifu.

They also said that PS+ had reached 50 million subscribers (which is not true)

Later in the same document, they also call Final Fantasy a first-party exclusive (lol)

These Microsoft lawyers do not even know how to file the right subpoena. I wouldn't trust them with any information related to Sony's internal operations or the gaming industry itself.

Listen, I watched the first 3 seasons of Suits and a few angry YouTube reviews of She-Hulk so I think I speak with a certain level of expertise here.

Sony is doomed.

 

[Ozriel]

Second, third-party exclusivity is not done exclusively by Sony. Microsoft also has done and continues to do timed-exclusive deals. They recently released Scorn and High on Life as timed-exclusives. Upcoming timed-exclusives include Stalker 2 and Ark 2. Since both are doing the same thing, it cancels out.

“Since both are doing the same thing, it cancels out”

Interesting how you happily disregard scale/scope when it comes to exclusivity deals, but not when it comes to acquisitions.

 

[Ar¢tos]

Revenuewise they will be 1 place after avb. And it will only get better with more and more pubs being bought.

After buying Activision, it is less likely they will be allowed to buy another mid size/big publisher for the same reasons the Activision merger hasn't happened yet.

 

[justiceiro]

Man, I love when companies battle out.

 

[Lasha]

The thing is at which point will it affect business from sony. After they buy take 2, Ea Sqaure enix and capcom. Phil confirmed they are far from done. Whats happening here is other divisions of Microsoft financing the downfall of the competition. Sony wont vanish but they don't have the capacity to actual compete with Microsoft unlimited money which in the end also affect the consumer when xbox doesn't has real competition anymore.

Nintendo is more profitable than the gaming divisions of both Sony and Microsoft despite a top-line revenue of only 2/3 of Sony. Sony's model of "sell a walled garden at a loss to reap services revenue and a share of all games sold" might be threatened but it definitely has the financial resources through its own conglomorate to compete if other entrants lock out third party content. I do not think that the regulators are going to let too many more deals like ATVI pass through though.

Those games were all released years later after Microsoft helped pay for them, not because SE was expecting more money, they barely sold anything on the platform.

As far as the timed exclusivity thing, couldn't Sony make Microsoft show that they do the exact same thing?

FFXIII released at the same time as the PS3 version, XV was a world wide release on both PS4 and Xbox (PC was later). FFXI was a year 1 360 title. Only XII Zodiac age came much later but Zodiac age is already a re-release of an older game. The issue isn't that Microsoft does it too. Its that Sony is asking a regultor to protect its lead in the market while doing the same thing it is accusing Microsoft of.

These Microsoft lawyers do not even know how to file the right subpoena. I wouldn't trust them with any information related to Sony's internal operations or the gaming industry itself.

The original version was addressed to the incorrect recipient and thus couldn't be properly served. Sony provided Microsoft with the correct channel for servicing. Its a pretty common occurrence and more of an information asymmetry thing than incompetence.

 

[Heisenberg007]

.
Neither Bloodborne or Sackboy were developed by a 1st party studio, even if the IPs belongs belong to Sony, maybe that is what they mean?

In that case, they are clearly misleading the regulators, because they know Bloodborne and Sackboy are first-party games, even if developed by external studios.

More importantly, Microsoft themselves use the term "first-party" for first-party IP games developed by third-party studios. Here is an example (Ori and the Will of the Wisps Fact Sheet).

This sheet can be downloaded from the official website xbox.com. Here is a direct download link.

So either (1) Microsoft doesn't know what they are talking about in these documents, or (2) they are intentionally misleading regulators by presenting Sony's first-party exclusives as third-party exclusives.

 

[The_Mike]

All this is just gonna make Sony more aggressive with the exclusive content/timed exclusivity deals, they will probably force Bungie to do Playstation/PC only down the road.

So in short:

Sony will continue to do what they were already doing.

 

[Fabieter]

After buying Activision, it is less likely they will be allowed to buy another mid size/big publisher for the same reasons the Activision merger hasn't happened yet.

Maybe, but i thought the same thing after Disney getting fox on top of starwars and marvel.

I know it's not legally possible but maybe the best concession would be to sign to not go for another publisher anytime soon

 

[Punished Miku]

All this is just gonna make Sony more aggressive with the exclusive content/timed exclusivity deals, they will probably force Bungie to do Playstation/PC only down the road.

That's hilarious lol.

 

[Unknown?]

Nintendo is more profitable than the gaming divisions of both Sony and Microsoft despite a top-line revenue of only 2/3 of Sony. Sony's model of "sell a walled garden at a loss to reap services revenue and a share of all games sold" might be threatened but it definitely has the financial resources through its own conglomorate to compete if other entrants lock out third party content. I do not think that the regulators are going to let too many more deals like ATVI pass through though.



FFXIII released at the same time as the PS3 version, XV was a world wide release on both PS4 and Xbox (PC was later). FFXI was a year 1 360 title. Only XII Zodiac age came much later but Zodiac age is already a re-release of an older game. The issue isn't that Microsoft does it too. Its that Sony is asking a regultor to protect its lead in the market while doing the same thing it is accusing Microsoft of.



The original version was addressed to the incorrect recipient and thus couldn't be properly served. Sony provided Microsoft with the correct channel for servicing. Its a pretty common occurrence and more of an information asymmetry thing than incompetence.

Nah Sony isn't doing anything like buying out the largest publishers. Even Bungie pales in comparison.

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

We going to finally get some game announcements from Sony? They should have the hearing on Twitch.

Playstation Showcase live from the court.

 

[Three]

There is likely truth to this game since FFXI, FFXII, XIII, and XV were all released on Xbox and Microsoft is currently working with SquareEnix to finally port FFXIV over to series consoles(XIV released before crossplay became a thing). Sony will have some explaining to do if the accusation is true.

They have been working with Square Enix since 2013. FFXIV came out when crossplay was already a thing, between PS, Windows, OSX. The issue was MS and not allowing cross platform servers on their platform. They are dragging their feet on this far more popular online game for at least 3 years and not getting the game on xbox without battling an exclusivity agreement. What makes you think FF7R of all things would still need one to have not been released on xbox yet? Those single player games are front loaded and a late port to a system it's not even popular on to begin with without MS funding would be even less likely. If SE has convinced Sony for more money from that situation then more power to them I'd say, they wouldn't need to explain anything.

 

[Rykan]

In that case, they are clearly misleading the regulators, because they know Bloodborne and Sackboy are first-party games, even if developed by external studios.

A game developed by a third party studio is a third party developed game. Who owns the IP is completely irrelevant in this specific context.

 

[Punished Miku]

They have been working with Square Enix since 2013. FFXIV came out when crossplay was already a thing, between PS, Windows, OSX. The issue was MS and not allowing cross platform servers on their platform. They are dragging their feet on this far more popular online game for at least 3 years and not getting the game on xbox without battling an exclusivity agreement. What makes you think FF7R of all things would still need one to have not been released on xbox yet? Those single player games are front loaded and a late port to a system it's not even popular on to begin with without MS funding would be even less likely. If SE has convinced Sony for more money from that situation then more power to them I'd say, they wouldn't need to explain anything.

If anything positive comes from this, it will be the death of this stupid talking point that SQEX can't be bothered to port to Xbox because sales are so low.

 

[Fabieter]

Nintendo is more profitable than the gaming divisions of both Sony and Microsoft despite a top-line revenue of only 2/3 of Sony. Sony's model of "sell a walled garden at a loss to reap services revenue and a share of all games sold" might be threatened but it definitely has the financial resources through its own conglomorate to compete if other entrants lock out third party content. I do not think that the regulators are going to let too many more deals like ATVI pass through though.



FFXIII released at the same time as the PS3 version, XV was a world wide release on both PS4 and Xbox (PC was later). FFXI was a year 1 360 title. Only XII Zodiac age came much later but Zodiac age is already a re-release of an older game. The issue isn't that Microsoft does it too. Its that Sony is asking a regultor to protect its lead in the market while doing the same thing it is accusing Microsoft of.



The original version was addressed to the incorrect recipient and thus couldn't be properly served. Sony provided Microsoft with the correct channel for servicing. Its a pretty common occurrence and more of an information asymmetry thing than incompetence.

No sony cant compete with Microsoft on the moneyfront. They would need to be bought by tencent or apple for that to be the case. And i dont think anyone would want that.

I know thar nintendo is highly profitable, but I think its ridiculous to make Microsoft look like the underdog. That's simply not true.

 

[Snake29]

So in short:

Sony will continue to do what they were already doing.

Why the heck do people act as if MS is some pathetic little company that just can't become successful? There is nothing stopping MS from making better deals than the ones they are doing now. We know by now that MS itself has turned down an awful lot of deals in the past. Besides, it is also more interesting for a publisher or developer to go for a platform that is many times more popular than the xbox worldwide. It is easy to call out that Sony tries to "keep games away from Xbox," while MS does the same the other way around.

I mean why do they want ARK 2 to be exclusive to their platform for a very long time if timed exclusives "hurt" them? Publishers and developers end up choosing where they have less risk and then it is not surprising that PlayStation manages to get better deals.

Xbox is just incompentent and we have seen it already with their old studios. Almost all of their announced projects have had some sort of development problems.

 

[Heisenberg007]

A game developed by a third party studio is a third party developed game. Who owns the IP is completely irrelevant in this specific context.

That's not true. And even Microsoft doesn't believe that or use the term third-party like that. Check out this post.

In that case, they are clearly misleading the regulators, because they know Bloodborne and Sackboy are first-party games, even if developed by external studios.

More importantly, Microsoft themselves use the term "first-party" for first-party IP games developed by third-party studios. Here is an example (Ori and the Will of the Wisps Fact Sheet).

This sheet can be downloaded from the official website xbox.com. Here is a direct download link.

So either (1) Microsoft doesn't know what they are talking about in these documents, or (2) they are intentionally misleading regulators by presenting Sony's first-party exclusives as third-party exclusives.

 

[MasterCornholio]

If anything positive comes from this, it will be the death of this stupid talking point that SQEX can't be bothered to port to Xbox because sales are so low.

I wonder if that information can come from this. Like if it's revealed that Sony has no agreement keeping FFIV or FF7R exclusive.

 

[Lasha]

Nah Sony isn't doing anything like buying out the largest publishers. Even Bungie pales in comparison.

Microsoft's gaming revenue and ATVI's revenue together is still probably below Sony's though. Sony's revenue would remain bigger if Microsoft made all ATVI games exclusive since Microsoft would be nuking a highly profitable company. The size of the deal combined with the populist nature of the company involved is a solid reason for the deal to be given adequate review. The impact of the deal is overstated in gaming circles because there is a console war attachment. The actual impact on the market would be minimal. Theres a reason that ATVI's one year target is around 95$ despite the stock becoming more and more attractive. Nobody wants to buy ATVI for over 95$ when there is a solid chance that the deal will go through.

No sony cant compete with Microsoft on the moneyfront. They would need to be bought by tencent or apple for that to be the case. And i dont think anyone would want that.

I know thar nintendo is highly profitable, but I think its ridiculous to make Microsoft look like the underdog. That's simply not true.

Nintendo found a way to carve out its own niche that turned itself into a market leader. What is stopping a company as capable as Sony from competing on its own terms?

 

[Heisenberg007]

I wonder if that information can come from this. Like if it's revealed that Sony has no agreement keeping FFIV or FF7R exclusive.

It's pretty much confirmed for FFIV at least. For FF7R, the argument is that Sony "extended" the exclusivity agreement. It could be true but there's 0 evidence of that as of yet.

 

[Fabieter]

Microsoft's gaming revenue and ATVI's revenue together is still probably below Sony's though. Sony's revenue would remain bigger if Microsoft made all ATVI games exclusive since Microsoft would be nuking a highly profitable company. The size of the deal combined with the populist nature of the company involved is a solid reason for the deal to be given adequate review. The impact of the deal is overstated in gaming circles because there is a console war attachment. The actual impact on the market would be minimal. Theres a reason that ATVI's one year target is around 95$ despite the stock becoming more and more attractive. Nobody wants to buy ATVI for over 95$ when there is a solid chance that the deal will go through.



Nintendo found a way to carve out its own niche that turned itself into a market leader. What is stopping a company as capable as Sony from competing on its own terms?

I mean their own terms already implies that they won't directly compete with Microsoft which will affect consumers in the end.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Playstation Showcase live from the court.

Jim Ryan takes stand.

Judge: "How do you respond to these claims by Microsoft, Mr. Ryan?"

Jim Ryan: "We'll let our games do the talking."

The lights go off in the court. A PlayStation Showcase logo appears. Jim Ryan hands the judge some popcorn. The PS Showcase 2023 streams live, directly from the court. The show begins with KOTOR Remake. Fine print reads console exclusive for at least 2 years.

 

[Lasha]

I mean their own terms already implies that they won't directly compete with Microsoft which will affect consumers in the end.

Nintendo invested in its gimmicks and internal IP to build its own profitable business. Microsoft changed its business model to offer Xbox as a platform and focus on service revenue over purely selling boxes. Why is Sony entitled to have its business model preserved without change? Especially a business model which in Sony's complaint depends on collecting economic rent from third parties rather than producing their own games. Would Sony have equal standing if some other company bought ATVI and said "PC/Mobile Only" to avoid marketplace fees?

 

[Ar¢tos]

Microsoft's gaming revenue and ATVI's revenue together is still probably below Sony's though. Sony's revenue would remain bigger if Microsoft made all ATVI games exclusive since Microsoft would be nuking a highly profitable company. The size of the deal combined with the populist nature of the company involved is a solid reason for the deal to be given adequate review. The impact of the deal is overstated in gaming circles because there is a console war attachment. The actual impact on the market would be minimal. Theres a reason that ATVI's one year target is around 95$ despite the stock becoming more and more attractive. Nobody wants to buy ATVI for over 95$ when there is a solid chance that the deal will go through.



Nintendo found a way to carve out its own niche that turned itself into a market leader. What is stopping a company as capable as Sony from competing on its own terms?

I thought the reason for the objection had nothing to do with revenues, but with the lack of competition for titles like CoD in the market after it becomes a MS IP.

 

[Fabieter]

I also think it's funny that Microsoft tempered the expectations for their direct when they didnt had alot to show for so long. Both are playing cat and mouse which is really annoying.

 

[Rykan]

That's not true. And even Microsoft doesn't believe that or use the term third-party like that. Check out this post.

It doesn't matter what Microsoft calls something in a completely unrelated document. Microsoft may have had a contract with Moon Studios citing that they will only develop MS owned games that are exclusively published by Microsoft. There was no such contract with Sumo Digital or FromSoftware, it's not the same situation.

 

[Solidus_T]

So basically, 2 trillion dollar tech giant trying to buy a company nearly the size of its competitor alleges that its competitor isn't playing fair and that it needs to own another huge company in order to compete...

The 2 trillion dollar tech giant just laid off 10,000 employees, which is the amount of people that the company they are arguing they NEED, currently employs. There's more to add here; The largest gaming acquisition was also by the same tech giant, where it now plans to remove the company's games from its largest userbase, which happens to be the competitor it is issuing a subpoena for.

Without using the name of the companies, you can see how bad this really looks for MS. I wonder what they think will come out of this?

 

[ArcaneNLSC]

Microsoft really trying to pull this stunt aren't they

 

[Fabieter]

Nintendo invested in its gimmicks and internal IP to build its own profitable business. Microsoft changed its business model to offer Xbox as a platform and focus on service revenue over purely selling boxes. Why is Sony entitled to have its business model preserved without change? Especially a business model which in Sony's complaint depends on collecting economic rent from third parties rather than producing their own games. Would Sony have equal standing if some other company bought ATVI and said "PC/Mobile Only" to avoid marketplace fees?

Nintendo always were this profitable. Their gaming ips are above any other publisher on average. If that would be so easy to recap both Microsoft and sony would already done it.

Nevertheless is sony competing for the very same customer that Microsoft is going for and the main reason is equal access to third party games.

How would they compete when the next 2 publisher are gone? Like I said they won't vanish, will still be profitable but they surely as hell wont be directly compete with Microsoft going forward.

Hard to tell what would happen with another party buying them, but 3p don't have real reasons to exclude consoles.

 

[Heisenberg007]

It doesn't matter what Microsoft calls something in a completely unrelated document. Microsoft may have had a contract with Moon Studios citing that they will only develop MS owned games that are exclusively published by Microsoft. There was no such contract with Sumo Digital or FromSoftware, it's not the same situation.

What?! It's the EXACT same thing.

• Moon Studio is an independent studio. Sumo Digital is an independent studio.
• Microsoft hired Moon Studios to develop Ori. Sony hired Sumo Digital to develop Sackboy.
• Microsoft owns the Ori IP. Sony owns the Sackboy IP.
• Microsoft calls Ori a first-party exclusive game. Sony calls Sackboy a first-party exclusive game.

But Microsoft says, while Ori is a first-party game, Sackboy is a third-party exclusive? And you say it does not matter what Microsoft says. The entire argument is that Microsoft is calling Sackboy a third-party game to mislead regulators.

What's different here?

 

[Roufianos]

Lol. This will be glorious. Wonder if Sony will still be able to claim they're looking to 'protect gamers' once all their anticompetitive practices get aired.

 

[fart town usa]

This is so dumb. I don't dislike XBOX but they are basically a gadfly at this point when it comes to consoles and games.

 

[Flutta]

Yet they would still be totally fine with the great games they produce themselves. Of course it would hurt them but the FTC's job is not to protect the market leader as far as I am aware. LMFAO.

No, you still don’t get it after all this time this thing has been going on, imagine that. Stop being disingenuous.

FTC’s job is to protect the market NOT Sony. MS is exactly the type of company the FTC needs to protect the market from due to its market cap/Size/warchest. If MS is let lose they could swallow the whole market if they wanted too and kill of most competition just like that.

But here you are pretending like MS is playing on the same level like everyone else and blaming the market leader for MS fuckups. I mean look at what’s happening to HALO. Is that also Sony’s fault?

 

[Pelta88]

Apparently Sony said no.

Sony doesn't want to provide documents and/or witnesses Microsoft requested in Federal Trade Commission adjudicative proceeding regarding its Activision Blizzard deal

On Wednesday, I wrote that Sony may live to regret the market definition and theory of harm it espouses in connection with Microsoft's acqu...

www.fosspatents.com

 

[Fabieter]

Yet they would still be totally fine with the great games they produce themselves. Of course it would hurt them but the FTC's job is not to protect the market leader as far as I am aware. LMFAO.

So at which point should regulators do their job? After the third, fourth or fifth publisher Microsoft bought? Serious question. At which point does it have an in impact on the market and the competition? When it doesnt change anything why would a company pay 75 billion dollar for 2 publishers?