Support NeoGAF

[TheGodfather07]

Why do you care so much if COD comes to GP? You arent even an Xbox gamer and COD will still be available to buy on PS systems. And for years at minimum as Sony already has another one of their muti-year Activision deals in place until 2025 or 2026.

Are you jealous or sore Xbox gamers play on GP and you got to pay $70? Well, too bad. Thats what competition brings. There's always one company who is cheaper.

Just treat it like MLB the Show. Sony charges you $70 on PS. But it's $70 or GP for Xbox. I doubt you care a Sony first party baseball game is on GP for Xbox. So why care if COD is?

Microsoft even trying to do that is anti competitive and one of the reasons why they may have to make bigger concessions to regulators. Microsoft can have cod on gamepass all they want but so should Sony have it on ps plus at the same time. That's fair competition. Let the consumers decide where they play. That's totally fair and what competition really should be.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Might as well say pro-GP people should want the deal to fail so MS can spend trillions buying the whole market!!! Yes!!!!

Yikes, bro. That’s the worst take you’ve had in this thread so far and that’s really saying something.

No, pro-GP people shouldn’t want MS wasting billions on timed exclusive content or day one GP deals if there are better deals out there to make. Clearly ABK is a better deal based on the fuss Sony is making.

Exactly. Timed deals who cares. But if MS wants to spend money on gaming, hey I'll take hoarding up games.

And COD and Diablo are two franchises I like and pay money so it helps my situation (I dont care about any of Activision's other console, PC or King games). So if they are on GP in exchange for me subbing that's great for subbers like me. But for all the crybabies, the games are still available to buy on other platforms. No different than big legacy games like Bethesda games and Minecraft. All still there. Its just you pay regular price.

Right now, PC gamers already get cheaper games than console gamers already. So this is no different. It's just that it's a console feature where they price is zero if someone is subbed. So for the jealous types, just ignore Xbox gamers playing on GP just like ignoring PC gamers getting games for 75% off Steam while full price on a console e-store.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

LMAO someone is already foaming in the mouth for Microsoft to buy SIE so they can add it to their gamepass. I can’t with these clowns. Im assuming its the same shit resetera is foaming for. They must have lower income in general there.

There are supposedly legitimate journalists suggesting Sony should buy Xbox out from Microsoft.

I think we should just ignore obvious retardation when we see it.

 

[adamsapple]

There are supposedly legitimate journalists suggesting Sony should buy Xbox out from Microsoft.

I think we should just ignore obvious retardation when we see it.

Holy shit that's not even that old of an article, it's from last month. If this was from 2014 I'd understand, but Feb 2023 ? lol.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Might as well say pro-GP people should want the deal to fail so MS can spend trillions buying the whole market!!! Yes!!!!

Yikes, bro. That’s the worst take you’ve had in this thread so far and that’s really saying something.

No, pro-GP people shouldn’t want MS wasting billions on timed exclusive content or day one GP deals if there are better deals out there to make. Clearly ABK is a better deal based on the fuss Sony is making.

Fair enough. If that's what you think. $70 billion for ABK games on Game Pass vs. $70 billion for Game Pass deals for potentially 1000s of games, including ABK's.

I was only asking the same question from I ironmang who favors this acquisition. He hasn't answered me, though.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Microsoft even trying to do that is anti competitive and one of the reasons why they may have to make bigger concessions to regulators. Microsoft can have cod on gamepass all they want but so should Sony have it on ps plus at the same time. That's fair competition. Let the consumers decide where they play. That's totally fair and what competition really should be.

Why would that be fair? MS owns it. It's their call.

Sony isn't even fair to their own customer base. MLB The Show is on Game Pass for 3 years in a row, while they charge their own gamer base full price the whole time.

And out of all the third party games on GP or PS+ plans, how many of the come out at the same time? Probably none have (or maybe there's been a couple tops).

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

After dumping $70 billion into getting the ABK library onto game pass it’s my worry MS won’t be going for the same variety of games they do now.

Eh, I think MS is finding out that it costs too much money to put big third party games on the service, so it’s better to just have as many of their own studios as possible making stuff.

Yacht loads of cash from CoD revenue couid easily fund games from Xbox studios you care about or fund more of the awesome smaller GamePass deals we have seen. It’s not just about ABK games.

 

[ironmang]

Microsoft even trying to do that is anti competitive and one of the reasons why they may have to make bigger concessions to regulators. Microsoft can have cod on gamepass all they want but so should Sony have it on ps plus at the same time. That's fair competition. Let the consumers decide where they play. That's totally fair and what competition really should be.

Sony wouldn't pay fair market value to have it on PS+ day 1.

I was only asking the same question from I ironmang who favors this acquisition. He hasn't answered me, though.

I didn't answer because I thought it was a joke post lol. Why would I think about things that have 0% chance of happening?

 

[Kilau]

Eh, I think MS is finding out that it costs too much money to put big third party games on the service, so it’s better to just have as many of their own studios as possible making stuff.

Yacht loads of cash from CoD revenue couid easily fund games from Xbox studios you care about or fund more of the awesome smaller GamePass deals we have seen. It’s not just about ABK games.

Guess we will find out eventually.

It’s the primary reason I’m not in favor of the deal, it brings no added value to me as a customer and could lessen the quality of my subscription. I also don’t think the deal should be blocked or have any forced concessions if approved.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I didn't answer because I thought it was a joke post lol. Why would I think about things that have 0% chance of happening?

What? I'm asking you to state your preference - nothing more - so I can get a sense of the other camp's rationale because I'm in the against-this-acquisition camp.

What would you rather prefer as a gamer and consumer: MS spends $70 billion to acquire ABK and puts the ABK catalog on Game Pass OR MS spends $70 billion to make deals and potentially put 1000s of games on Game Pass, including ABKs, but that would mean no acquisitions?

 

[Torrent of Pork]

MS does not need to acquire ABK to put COD on GP. Why are the pro-GP people cheering for this acquisition?

They can offer a load of cash to ABK, get the marketing deal, and sign a GP contract.

In fact, for only around $10 billion (out of these $70 billion), MS can bring nearly every single third-party game out there on GP. Shouldn’t the pro-GP people like you hope that the acquisition fails and MS get the GP deals for almost ALL games out there?

What would a company do with 130 billion dollars in the bank in a historically inflationary environment?

MS didn't spend 69 (nice) billion dollars to make COD exclusive. MS got 69 billion dollars in rapidly devaluating liquid cash off their balance sheet in exchange for a proven asset who's owners were desperately looking for an offramp after a shit-ton of bad press.

 

[Kenshin775]

What? I'm asking you to state your preference - nothing more - so I can get a sense of the other camp's rationale because I'm in the against-this-acquisition camp.

What would you rather prefer as a gamer and consumer: MS spends $70 billion to acquire ABK and puts the ABK catalog on Game Pass OR MS spends $70 billion to make deals and potentially put 1000s of games on Game Pass, including ABKs, but that would mean no acquisitions?

Option 1 MS spends $70 billion on ABK but keeps the games multiplatform like they have stated they plan to do. Because Its much better than spending $70 billion making exclusivity deals which are bad for the consumer.

 

[ulantan]

Option 1 MS spends $70 billion on ABK but keeps the games multiplatform like they have stated they plan to do. Because Its much better than spending $70 billion making exclusivity deals which are bad for the consumer.

Thank God they are so kind.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

What would a company do with 130 billion dollars in the bank in a historically inflationary environment?

MS didn't spend 69 (nice) billion dollars to make COD exclusive. MS got 69 billion dollars in rapidly devaluating liquid cash off their balance sheet in exchange for a proven asset who's owners were desperately looking for an offramp after a shit-ton of bad press.

if that is the reason....is a pretty stupid reason.

 

[The Tourmaline Gorilla]

Option 1 MS spends $70 billion on ABK but keeps the games multiplatform like they have stated they plan to do. Because Its much better than spending $70 billion making exclusivity deals which are bad for the consumer.

Let's just get one thing very clear here... If MS does something, it's not because they think it's good for the consumer; it's because they think it's good for business. Sometimes...many times those two things overlap, but make no mistake, MS (and all of these companies) aren't our friends, nor are they running charities. The ONLY time it's good for the consumer is when it's good for the business, long or short-term, as the case may be.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Option 1 MS spends $70 billion on ABK but keeps the games multiplatform like they have stated they plan to do. Because Its much better than spending $70 billion making exclusivity deals which are bad for the consumer.

Option 2 is just about Game Pass deals, not timed exclusivity deals. So something like Plague Tale Requiem. It launched on both PS and Xbox at the same time but was also available on Game Pass day one.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Let's just get one thing very clear here... If MS does something, it's not because they think it's good for the consumer; it's because they think it's good for business. Sometimes...many times those two things overlap, but make no mistake, MS (and all of these companies) aren't our friends, nor are they running charities. The ONLY time it's good for the consumer is when it's good for the business, long or short-term, as the case may be.

as every company.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

if that is the reason....is a pretty stupid reason.

I don't even know how to respond to that. Do you disagree with the historically high inflation rate, the spook the 'Cosby Room' shenanigans put into Activision investors, or the idea that a company with a shit-ton of rapidly devaluating liquidity might want to acquire an otherwise financially performing asset on the cheap?

Do you think ABK could have been purchased for $69b if everything was as pure as the driven snow?

 

[ironmang]

What? I'm asking you to state your preference - nothing more - so I can get a sense of the other camp's rationale because I'm in the against-this-acquisition camp.

What would you rather prefer as a gamer and consumer: MS spends $70 billion to acquire ABK and puts the ABK catalog on Game Pass OR MS spends $70 billion to make deals and potentially put 1000s of games on Game Pass, including ABKs, but that would mean no acquisitions?

I prefer the option that allows the gaming division to continue to exist.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

does any actual gamer want this to go through. and I don't mean fan boys

Plenty. Depends how you define fan boy though.

Selfishly, a lot of gamers are looking at the value that will be added with Gamepass and excited for this to go through.

I've checked out maybe 2 Call of Duty games since the original Modern Warfare 2. It's not a game I go out of my way to play, if it's on Gamepass though, I would. I've never played a Diablo game, if it's on Gamepass I might convince some friends to hop on for a night and start a new addiction.

 

[El Pistolero]

Option 1 MS spends $70 billion on ABK but keeps the games multiplatform like they have stated they plan to do. Because Its much better than spending $70 billion making exclusivity deals which are bad for the consumer.

Exclusivity deals are bad for the consumers...You mean like Starfield, Redfall, and every future release from Zenimax, or does that only apply to temporary exclusives? I'm just trying to understand the logic here: Striking a deal with a publisher is bad, but buying said publisher as to secure all of its games in perpetuaty is good?

 

[Heisenberg007]

I prefer the option that allows the gaming division to continue to exist.

That now seems like a completely different stance than the one you had on the previous page. Changing the narratives like this on the fly makes discussions impossible.

This is why most pro-GP people are happy with these big acquisitions. They like how affordable and cheap gaming has become for them.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Guys, i know what im about to say might sound stupid (but tbf, everyone would call me that if i predicted the ABK deal years ago), but please hear me out.



If we assume that the deal’s approved somehow, in longterm can MS attempt to acquire SIE from Sony (with Sony’s approval) in 70-80B$ deal (or amazon-apple-tencent in case MS or Sony rejects), becoming Xbox/Playstation with all their games available on both platforms day/date and Gamepass Absorbing PS+ )

Horizontal merger/acquisition concerns are 1000% harder to get by regulators. It would be like Coke buying Pepsi. Apple and Google merging. No regulator worth anything would let something like that slide.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

MS just fixed their biggest problem lack of exclusive games. Now let's see how things go forward for them before you play that card shall we? Also, let's see who moves dates Starfield or Spiderman 2. I don't think Sony has the balls to release Spiderman 2 in the same week as Starfield. Looking from a level playing field, Spiderman 2 better make the PS5 whistle Dixie to stand up to Starfield's release. Then again, maybe releasing SP2 on the same week is the right timing but, I wouldn't be willing to do it.

Wait... Spiderman 2 is coming out around Starfield? What the fuck man. That's not cool. Those are literally 2 of my most anticipated games this year. Spiderman 2 is the reason I'm getting a PS5. Sheeeeit.

 

[ironmang]

That now seems like a completely different stance than the one you had on the previous page. Changing the narratives like this on the fly makes discussions impossible.

That's not a different stance and ridiculous hypotheticals make discussions impossible.

 

[b6a6es]

Horizontal merger/acquisition concerns are 1000% harder to get by regulators. It would be like Coke buying Pepsi. Apple and Google merging. No regulator worth anything would let something like that slide.

Hmmmm interesting, so i think amazon or Apple (or maybe tencent buying stakes) buying SIE would be closer than MS in that case

 

[Heisenberg007]

Wait... Spiderman 2 is coming out around Starfield? What the fuck man. That's not cool. Those are literally 2 of my most anticipated games this year. Spiderman 2 is the reason I'm getting a PS5. Sheeeeit.

SM2 will most likely be ~60 days after Starfield.

 

[ulantan]

Hmmmm interesting, so i think amazon or Apple (or maybe tencent buying stakes) buying SIE would be closer than MS in that case

My brother the cataclysmic events that would have to transpire for Sony to sell one of if not its most profitable division is unrealistic

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

SM2 will most likely be ~60 days after Starfield.

That's a relief. If they were coming out the same day I'd probably have to let Starfield wait.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Why not both???

Because regulators can have issues with one of those options. There's plenty of ways to increase your output that don't involve buying multiplatform publishers.

 

[b6a6es]

My brother the cataclysmic events that would have to transpire for Sony to sell one of if not its most profitable division is unrealistic

Well, the revenues are guaranteed to decline fast if the deal is approved somehow, and sony would only have like 10 years before the majority of their audience shift to xbox permanently due to CoD becoming exclusive (not to mention MS’s would attempt to acquire T2, which would be the death sentence of the Playstation Brand, people forget that Sony isn’t nintendo, they dont own Pokemon/Mario level of franchises and would rely heavily on 3rd party ones), for sony group they’re currently seeing massive growth in their music/films and anime is also growing big, they’re gonna be fine imo

Imo it’s better to sell while the iron’s still hot (ps5 momentum), before it gets to ps3 levels of brand decline if not total death from losing GTA 6 or RDR3 once MS gets T2

 

[Ozriel]

Microsoft even trying to do that is anti competitive and one of the reasons why they may have to make bigger concessions to regulators. Microsoft can have cod on gamepass all they want but so should Sony have it on ps plus at the same time. That's fair competition. Let the consumers decide where they play. That's totally fair and what competition really should be.

Wut? You say this like we've never had day 1 third party games on GP before. Was it anti-competitive then? Atomic Heart and Wo Long this year alone, plus years of MLB.

Microsoft takes a retail sales hit when they put games on Gamepass. They make up for it from GP subscription revenue. Any deal to bring COD to PS+ day one would see Sony paying a significant amount of money for that. Regulators aren't going to push that lever since a GP release doesn't keep COD away from PlayStation.

Absolutely nothing anti-competitive about that.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I prefer the option that allows the gaming division to continue to exist.

That's both options to be fair. I believe Phil already said that.

P.S Just making a reference to Phils comment on the future of Xbox if the ABK deal fails. Xbox would still exist.

 

[Three]

Yacht loads of cash from CoD revenue couid easily fund games from Xbox studios you care about or fund more of the awesome smaller GamePass deals we have seen. It’s not just about ABK games.

So $70B is being spent to start to make 'yacht loads of cash' 7+years down the line to maybe greenlight some xbox studio games ? Makes sense since their MO is about waiting. Wouldn't want to use that $70B yacht load of cash to greenlight some projects now.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

MS does not need to acquire ABK to put COD on GP. Why are the pro-GP people cheering for this acquisition?

They can offer a load of cash to ABK, get the marketing deal, and sign a GP contract.

In fact, for only around $10 billion (out of these $70 billion), MS can bring nearly every single third-party game out there on GP. Shouldn’t the pro-GP people like you hope that the acquisition fails and MS get the GP deals for almost ALL games out there?

The $70bn has not been given by Microsoft to Xbox to strengthen Gamepass. It's an insane amount of money for that. Microsoft could spend less and get more effect if they wanted to strengthen Gamepass.

People are so caught up in this Xbox Vs Sony narrative that they genuinely think that Microsoft are prepared to spend $70bn just to stick it to Sony. That's not why Microsoft decided to make this purchase.

If the deal fails, Xbox doesn't get to use the money for something else. It's not in an account labelled "screw Sony"

 

[Three]

There are supposedly legitimate journalists suggesting Sony should buy Xbox out from Microsoft.

I think we should just ignore obvious retardation when we see it.

That's not a journalist. That's a readers email, somebody who has sent it in.

The reader’s feature does not necessary represent the views of GameCentral or Metro.

You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. Just contact us at gamecentral@metro.co.uk or use our Submit Stuff page and you won’t need to send an email.

 

[Topher]

Sorry, I'm not paying too much attention to this thread, so just to make sure... Your question is whether Jim Ryan would be in trouble should he not try to stop this acquisition, right? Did I understand correctly?

First of all I must say I'm not a criminal lawyer, I tried for a very brief period of time and I can't say I enjoyed the experience, so maybe there're people on this very thread with a more expert opinion than mine. In any case the first question would be: which country are we talking about? USA? The problem with law is that not only can it be different from one country to another, it can even be the exact opposite. That's why I'm not licensed to practice in USA, how could I? xD

But anyway the way I see the question from my "non-American point of view" is this:

- Could Jim Ryan face criminal charges for not trying to stop a competitor from making an acquisition? Nope, not in a million years. No way. The idea is just ridiculous.

- Could Jim Ryan face a civil claim from SONY if he doesn't try his best to stop MS from buying Activision? My answer is still NO. Things get a little bit more interesting here, granted, but still... That's exactly the kind of things I do and I can't even imagine how I would do it unless this very situation and what Mr. Ryan is expected to do about it are laid down in the contract, which is highly unlikely. Based on what exactly? If SONY isn't happy with the way an employee is handling a situation what the company can and should do is fire him and hire someone else, maybe with specific instructions this time. Beyond that... there's not much to do since there would be nothing to base the claim on and it would only be a waste of money and resources. In any case what a third company decides tu purchase is not Ryan's responsability.

Thanks for your insight, bud

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

I understand that, but that wasn't the topic of conversation. The discussion was that pro-GP people support these big acquisitions because they get more games on Game Pass at a cheaper price. So my question was, regardless of Microsoft's ROI, wouldn't pro-GP people prefer if, instead of acquiring ABK, Microsoft uses this money to get hundreds of games to Game Pass?

The business side of things is important though. It would be amazing if Microsoft added every 3rd party AAA game to gamepass day 1. I'd love it if they did that and could do that indefinitely.

But the indefinitely part is where this fantasy falls apart. I'd rather a smaller collection of games on Gamepass for the next 40 years than all the AAA games in the industry on Gamepass for 5 years (at which point Gamepass shuts down).

People defend Sony saying it isn't viable for them to put their titles or CoD day 1 on their sub service, but we can't suggest acquisitions are a smarter investment with longer term benefits than moneyhatting?

 

[Mr Reasonable]

The business side of things is important though. It would be amazing if Microsoft added every 3rd party AAA game to gamepass day 1. I'd love it if they did that and could do that indefinitely.

But the indefinitely part is where this fantasy falls apart.

No, the fantasy falls apart well before then.
You're taking as if Xbox has $70bn to spend to strengthen Gamepass.

They definitely don't.

If that was the case, they'd buy multiple publishers for less money.

This is about buying Activision as a money making entity that owns IP that sells all over the world on every platform.

If the deal fails, then it doesn't mean Xbox get to keep the money for something else.

 

[Heisenberg007]

The business side of things is important though. It would be amazing if Microsoft added every 3rd party AAA game to gamepass day 1. I'd love it if they did that and could do that indefinitely.

But the indefinitely part is where this fantasy falls apart. I'd rather a smaller collection of games on Gamepass for the next 40 years than all the AAA games in the industry on Gamepass for 5 years (at which point Gamepass shuts down).

People defend Sony saying it isn't viable for them to put their titles or CoD day 1 on their sub service, but we can't suggest acquisitions are a smarter investment with longer term benefits than moneyhatting?

For the record, I agree with this. As a matter of fact, I even believe that this entire day-one subscription model is not financially sustainable, especially for big AAA games. That's my current belief based on the information we have.

But just to clarify -- the discussion wasn't from Microsoft's financial POV. The argument was that "a group of people supports this acquisition and consolidation of industry because it brings games to Game Pass and gives them a cheap way to play games."

The people who don't want to buy games to play them obviously aren't interested in Microsoft's financials. And let's be honest, Microsoft's financial health isn't something that most people would be concerned about. If the line of thinking is that "this acquisition brings me cheaper games; i don't give a fuck about the rest" (which is an opinion that's fine to have), but then shouldn't adding a 1,000 game (+ABK catalog) would be even more preferable for those people over spending $70 billion for acquisitions?

I think we both know the answer to that. The answer is a resounding yes.

The real reason why people like I ironmang kept avoiding this question because they know that this acquisition is about minimizing PlayStation's library of games. They're still supporting it but using the veil of "more games on Game Pass" as the reason for supporting this acquisition. But the true reason is Xbox exclusives that won't be available on PlayStation.

 

[Three]

It always weirds me out to see people actually trash a good price like its a point of shame. Only seen it this gen.

It is a strange phenomenon but that last part is not true really. You don't remember PSN being free? You don't remember any highly rated game getting a price drop being regarded a bomba? You don't remember xbox one price cuts the first March after launch? Trashing a low price like it's a point of shame really isn't limited to this gen. It's a phenomenon about perceived quality or desirability that's as old as time.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

this acquisition is about minimizing PlayStation's library of games.

No chance, why would they spend so much if that was the case? They could more effectively do that by acquiring a number of developers for $70bn.

Bethesda with Doom, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, etc. Etc. Could be bought ten times over for the cost of this deal.

 

[Zephyrus0]

Literally everything can be explained away and made fun of when you conveniently eliminate the #1 reason people are excited about it. Day one on GamePass is the #1 reason people were pumped for the Bethesda acquisition and the same applies to ABK but you brush it aside as “beside the point”. Nah, it actually is the point.

Also, in terms of “creating new and exciting exclusives”, well first off MS has no exclusives, they’re all on PC and/or other consoles. Secondly, yes they have?

1. Obsidian has said a tiny team was working on Grounded but work was slow because they didn’t have money. MS acquisition allowed the team to grow and work on it entirely while also allowing Obsidian to work on other projects.

2. Josh Sawyer has said multiple times that the acquisition and GamePass made Pentiment possible.

3. Ninja Theory had already passed on Bleeding Edge once, and couldn’t afford to have people making more than one game at a time. So the MS acquisition allowed them to work fully on Bleeding Edge while also making Hellblade II and other projects.

So that’s three examples off the top of my head, and there’s probably more. But even ignoring those games, you also have the acquisition and influx of Bill Gates money allowing devs to make their games better. We saw Double Fine saying the acquisition allowed them to have more people working on the game and making more content, and inXile said the acquisition allowed them to add more content to Wasteland 3 and have the game fully voiced over.

So you have:

Day one GamePass games
Games coming sooner than they otherwise would have
More projects for these developers
Better games thanks to financial support
Lack of games being timed exclusive on Playstation
Lack of games being chopped up and content being PlayStation exclusive


Gee golly you’re right, what kind of fanboy would want that.

A really stupid one that can't see an obvious trojan horse.
Glad you asked.

 

[Bernardougf]

The stupidity of thinking that MS is spending almost 100 billions of dollars in several aquisitions and will spend anoter several billions in game development to just practically give away games dirt cheap forever in a service is beyond comprehension to me, Joe Rogan once said in a special, humans are far more stupid than dolphins, you almost never see dolphins caught in a fishing lure, but if you hang out burguers flying all over the city as bait, people would bite the shit out of those burguers and flyaway oblivious of their stupidity ....

 

[Heisenberg007]

No chance, why would they spend so much if that was the case? They could more effectively do that by acquiring a number of developers for $70bn.

Bethesda with Doom, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, etc. Etc. Could be bought ten times over for the cost of this deal.

All of Xbox's acquisitions have been about minimizing PlayStation's game library: Obsidian (Avowed / TOW 2), Ninja Theory (Hellblade 2 / Bleeding Edge), Zenimax (Redfall, Starfield, Hi-Fi Rush), and others. Only Playground was different.

Why think that ABK will be any different? Even today, when the acquisition close to being blocked, they are only offering to keep Call of Duty multiplatform and that too for only 10 years. They want to make all other ABK games exclusives from the get-go.

 

[Bernardougf]

Literally everything can be explained away and made fun of when you conveniently eliminate the #1 reason people are excited about it. Day one on GamePass is the #1 reason people were pumped for the Bethesda acquisition and the same applies to ABK but you brush it aside as “beside the point”. Nah, it actually is the point.

Also, in terms of “creating new and exciting exclusives”, well first off MS has no exclusives, they’re all on PC and/or other consoles. Secondly, yes they have?

1. Obsidian has said a tiny team was working on Grounded but work was slow because they didn’t have money. MS acquisition allowed the team to grow and work on it entirely while also allowing Obsidian to work on other projects.

2. Josh Sawyer has said multiple times that the acquisition and GamePass made Pentiment possible.

3. Ninja Theory had already passed on Bleeding Edge once, and couldn’t afford to have people making more than one game at a time. So the MS acquisition allowed them to work fully on Bleeding Edge while also making Hellblade II and other projects.

So that’s three examples off the top of my head, and there’s probably more. But even ignoring those games, you also have the acquisition and influx of Bill Gates money allowing devs to make their games better. We saw Double Fine saying the acquisition allowed them to have more people working on the game and making more content, and inXile said the acquisition allowed them to add more content to Wasteland 3 and have the game fully voiced over.

So you have:

Day one GamePass games
Games coming sooner than they otherwise would have
More projects for these developers
Better games thanks to financial support
Lack of games being timed exclusive on Playstation
Lack of games being chopped up and content being PlayStation exclusive


Gee golly you’re right, what kind of fanboy would want that.

1 - I never said that MS is not making any exclusives, read again please, I said that people championing this deal for more MS exclusives are gaining virtually nothing because those games would be played for them anyway, so is literally championing taking away games from others forever, which is just sad, childsh and petty

2 - yes.. GP is beside this point that I making, about exclusives, aquisitions to include games on GP day one are a separate subject

3 - if you really, truly, believe in this GP utopia that MS is selling to its fans, well, cant say much, but reality is going to hit hard some day, this robin-hood persona MS is masking itself its just hilariously obvious, just like any kind of pseudo-socialist model of manegement/distribution is made for luring poor/cheap/dreamers in and lock them and never letting go .... but keep telling yourself you will be playing COD and etc for "almost free" for now on if it justifies your believes.

 

[Helghan]

For the record, I agree with this. As a matter of fact, I even believe that this entire day-one subscription model is not financially sustainable, especially for big AAA games. That's my current belief based on the information we have.

But just to clarify -- the discussion wasn't from Microsoft's financial POV. The argument was that "a group of people supports this acquisition and consolidation of industry because it brings games to Game Pass and gives them a cheap way to play games."

The people who don't want to buy games to play them obviously aren't interested in Microsoft's financials. And let's be honest, Microsoft's financial health isn't something that most people would be concerned about. If the line of thinking is that "this acquisition brings me cheaper games; i don't give a fuck about the rest" (which is an opinion that's fine to have), but then shouldn't adding a 1,000 game (+ABK catalog) would be even more preferable for those people over spending $70 billion for acquisitions?

I think we both know the answer to that. The answer is a resounding yes.

The real reason why people like I ironmang kept avoiding this question because they know that this acquisition is about minimizing PlayStation's library of games. They're still supporting it but using the veil of "more games on Game Pass" as the reason for supporting this acquisition. But the true reason is Xbox exclusives that won't be available on PlayStation.

You were asking a silly question, that didn't make a lot of sense. Is there an option 3 where they just give me 70 billion? I prefer that option then...

 

[Snake29]

There is no evidence of Sony paying money to developers to not put their games on Game Pass.

There is evidence of Sony adding a clause to their marketing agreement that games that Sony is spending to market cannot join any subscription service for 1 year.

Everybody made a big deal out of it, but it makes total sense. And I bet Xbox would also have the same agreement (it'd be stupid not to have it). Because Sony spends money marketing a game because they hope to recover that money and then some by selling their game on PlayStation and getting that 30% revenue cut.

If the game launches on Game Pass, all of Sony's marketing campaigns would benefit Xbox and Game Pass. Gamers will learn about the game from PlayStation marketing and ads, and play the game day one on Game Pass. Sony's marketing deals will end up with a negative ROI. That'd be just poor business.

The story that Sony would pay so games don't come to GP has taken on quite a life of its own, and that's a shame. Because every brainwashed xbox warrior on youtube or twitter keeps running with it, and even the media keeps calling it out.

MS has exactly the same clauses, that when they have marketing rights for a game, that same game cannot be on PS+ on the same day namely. Is nothing crazy about it or nothing new. Would be pretty weird if Sony has marketing rights for RE8 and MS can just put it on Gamepass for nothing. As long as Capcom doesn't have a contract with MS or doesn't sign anything MS can't put anything on GP either.

The whole "Sony blocks games" story is complete bullshit and all empty ammo from the Xbox fans to use that in the acquisition talk.

Same goes for all the upcoming timed exclusives that MS has, and you're going to see there are going to be many more coming when they have another big event. However people keep pretending MS doesn't have timed exclusives and constantly sticking their heads in the sand and screaming "only Sony does it!"

No one is standing in the way of MS getting better deals. They themselves have turned down a lot of deals including Spiderman and Star Wars, can hardly blame Sony for that. Turn the whole story around, why don't people wonder why MS just can't manage to become successful? The whole Xbox One era they have been sleeping. Do people think Sony is going to wait for Xbox? The same people who then also cry that Sony should just make their own FPS shooter? Why, why doesn't MS do it themselves?

MS just gets the same old same old with these publisher acquisitions. They don't care about new, fresh IP's. They just want to quickly build a library of existing games, and the only one that is taking away games from the biggest platform is MS and not Sony. "They need to compete with Sony, so they need ABK LOL". Biggest nonsense I've heard since gaming. If they can't even compete with the studios they have AND Bethesda, Then Xbox is pathetic. I'm going to laugh so hard if Sony is able to beat them way harder if they get ABK.

Creative poverty at Xbox.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

All of Xbox's acquisitions have been about minimizing PlayStation's game library: Obsidian (Avowed / TOW 2), Ninja Theory (Hellblade 2 / Bleeding Edge), Zenimax (Redfall, Starfield, Hi-Fi Rush), and others. Only Playground was different.

Why think that ABK will be any different? Even today, when the acquisition close to being blocked, they are only offering to keep Call of Duty multiplatform and that too for only 10 years. They want to make all other ABK games exclusives from the get-go.

I don't agree with your assertion that all Microsoft's acquisitions are about trying to take away from PlayStation, but putting that to one side, the differentiator here is the scale of the deal.

If Microsoft were driven by trying to restrict the choice of PlayStation's customers, they would be able to do so far, far more effectively by buying multiple publishers for $70bn, rather than one publisher costing $70bn.

As has been repeatedly stated and ignored, though Xbox is a Microsoft product, it has it's own accounts to balance, and cannot access the entirety of Microsoft's resources.

It is a mistake to assume that Xbox is buying ABK. Microsoft is. That is not the same thing.
Microsoft are not spending $70bn to compete with Playstation. You would have to be completely insane to think that makes sense, or assume that Microsoft is run by Timdog.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I don't agree with your assertion that all Microsoft's acquisitions are about trying to take away from PlayStation, but putting that to one side, the differentiator here is the scale of the deal.

If Microsoft they were driven by trying to restrict the choice of PlayStation's customers, they would be able to do so far, far more effectively by buying multiple publishers for $70bn, rather than one publisher costing $70bn.

As has been repeatedly stated and ignored, though Xbox is a Microsoft product, it has it's own accounts to balance, and cannot access the entirety of Microsoft's resources.

It is a mistake to assume that Xbox is buying ABK. Microsoft is. That is not the same thing.
Microsoft are not spending $70bn to compete with Playstation. You would have to be completely insane to think that makes sense, or assume that Microsoft is run by Timdog.

I'd have agreed with you 2 years ago.

In fact, I was one of the people who said that Zenimax would remain multiplatform and had the same justifications that you just presented: the scale of the acquisition (think InXile or Double Fine or Ninja Theory vs. a $7.5 billion Zenimax), separate accounts to balance, and Microsoft (not Xbox) buying Zenimax as a separate entity to remain alongside XGS.

But here we are.

Hi-Fi Rush, Redfall, Starfield, all 3 new games releasing under Microsoft management post-acquisition are Xbox exclusives.

The CMA said that Microsoft's internal strategy documents all focus on exclusivity. That's their North star.

As for ABK, let's not forget that Microsoft only offered a 3-year contract for COD to Sony. Because they want to make it exclusive as soon as possible. They are not offering other ABK games to remain multiplatform at all; those are all gonna be exclusive from the get-go.

It's okay if you have a different feeling about this, but every single piece of evidence (current ABK offers, internal strategy documents, and past precedence in the case of Zenimax) literally points out the inevitable exclusivity of ABK games after the acquisition.