• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Phil Spencer: Nintendo and Sony are not going to do anything that damages gaming in the long run.

JTCx

is on threat of perm for trolling. Please report.
I'm defending his honor? I'm happy that I get to play these games for free on Game Pass. Is that defending his honor?

Isn't it the opposite? Sony has been out played and out maneuvered. Sony tried to lock down exclusivity on starfield and ms bought Bethesda. Sony had an exclusivity deal with cod and ms bought Activision. Sony tried to bluff and ms called them on it and took the pot. Hopefully Sony has finally learned their lesson.
You can keep trying to move the goal post and weasel your way out of it.

Defend him some moar, you may proceed.

laugh
 
You can keep trying to move the goal post and weasel your way out of it.

Defend him some moar, you may proceed.

laugh
I don't know that I would agree I was defending his honor. I was defending his actions, but his honor? I'm not so sure.

Anytime someone defends someone, you say they are defending their honor? What about threads/posts where someone shits on Jim Ryan and someone defends his actions. That too is defending his honor? I can honestly say I've never defended his honor. Maybe Spencer's honor, depending upon how you define that.
 

Raven117

Member
“Sony and Nintendo good corporation, Microsoft evil corporation”
“This is a monopoly”
“It’s not fair to acquire things that are for sale”
“Phil Spencer is wrong”

Basically the summary of anyone arguing against the acquisition.
LOL. Got it.
 

Phil Spencer: "Nintendo and Sony are not going to do anything that damages gaming in the long run.​

We on the other hand are stepping up plans to acquire EA by year end, Ubisoft Q1 2023, 2K in Q4 2023 and THQ Nordic for a surprise that holiday season."
 

legacy24

Member
Why does Phil always have to say more things than he needs to. Just say we bought them to help us deliver content to gamepass and call it a day, no need to bring Sony and Nintendo into the convo
 
I only support PlayStation regardless of what MS do so I don't speak for anyone here even after they bought Bethesda and now Activision. With bs statements like this makes me even more less on supporting MS tqvm
 

Robb

Gold Member
Sounds a lot like saying ‘our trillion dollar corporation is good, but other trillion dollar corporations are bad’..
Sure Jan GIF


Although I guess I kinda get it. If consolidation has to happen I guess I do prefer MS to FB/Amazon/Google (in a lesser evil kinda way), mainly because the rest don’t seem as willing to invest in order to actually make games. I’m not a fan of Stadia but Google starting up game studios and then closing them down before they can barely start making games just shows, to me, they’re not interested in participating themselves.
 
Last edited:

Kenpachii

Member
sure jen.

Microsoft is going to gate everything behind gamepass and subscription services
Sony is selling 80 euro games.

That enough will do good amounts of dmg.
 

Three

Member
You said developers in your original question, so why bother reiterating as if I wasn't listing developers? You asked for developers they acquired, and I gave them to you. Minus maybe one.



That's still essentially a collection of developers. I also mentioned distribution as being one of the main differentiators, otherwise data, IP and brands are nothing wholly unique to a publisher as each developer has at least one if not all of these things for themselves. A publisher just coalesces that into an integrated network collective.

How am I fear-mongering, exactly? Give a clear example of where that's occurred. I've got no reason to fearmonger because acquisitions don't make me fearful to begin with, they just happen. Consolidation doesn't make me fearful because that's happened in virtually every other industry on the face of the planet, how's gaming any different when it's now the largest entertainment industry in the world?

That doesn't mean I cheerlead for acquisitions or consolidation, but it does mean I'm not going to bother fighting against them if and when they happen. I don't need to fearmonger another conglomerate making a big acquisition to ethically justify support for Microsoft acquiring Activision-Blizzard, because for one my "support" only goes as far as acknowledging it's happening and working with things as they are (and being optimistic in that regard). But more importantly, I don't see this acquisition in particular as being "problematic" considering the issues of culture at Acti/Blizzard, lapse of various IP of theirs, and what ownership through Microsoft could enable in improving workplace cultural issues while bringing back new entries in favored legacy IP Acti/Blizzard themselves would likely never engage with on their own.



What's the difference between Microsoft buying a major publisher in Activision-Blizzard, and Sony buying timed and full exclusivity on 3rd-party games and franchises that were at one point associated with Nintendo and Sega (back when Sony entered the market with PS1), when both have essentially the same effect? I.e a shifting of some percentage of market ownership that negatively impacts rival platform holders in some way or another?

Because if we agree that effect is the case here with the MS/Acti acquisition, then there's nothing fundamentally stopping you from agreeing with that conclusion in the Sony example, or even the more moderate examples of Sony purchasing timed or full exclusivity on 3P software. Those are also acquisitions, of various software releases, with the intent of shifting some (sizable) percentage of market ownership that negatively impacts rival platform holders in some way or another.

This argument about "but they aren't a publisher!" is really just semantics; at the end of the day the potential impact in how it can influence the customer base to spend (and in what ecosystems) is effectively the same. By making such arrangements over the years one can argue that Sony have purchased their way towards a monopoly of the traditional home gaming market in piecemeal, since those timed and full 3P exclusives have had direct impacts on what platforms a lot of gamers end up buying, and thus where they spend the majority of their money. That is, if you want to call what Microsoft is doing in purchasing Activision-Blizzard a monopoly. Of which, their own numbers have shown it isn't; you can give some leeway to say that maybe in due time it would if it leads to over 50% of the gaming market spending in Microsoft's ecosystem, but how does even that become provable as a monopoly when their ecosystem is spread out between Xbox consoles (which some analysts are saying get outsold by PlayStation 2:1 this year), PC (primarily on Steam, a storefront platform owned by Valve, not Microsoft (and also available on Linux)), and mobile (via cloud streaming access in either an app form no different from other mobile software, or through a browser)?

Simple answer is, you can't, and neither will the FTC nor SEC be able to prove anything resembling a monopoly happening here, neither in the traditional home gaming market or the larger gaming market. However, if one wanted to be cheeky enough, they could potentially prove grounds of enough instances of Sony leveraging money for timed exclusivity and full exclusivity 3P deals, to drive their way towards owning a large enough portion of the traditional gaming market that could be considered monopolistic. One of the only things that would temper such an attempt is Nintendo's own revenue, but that gets tricky considering what you classify the Switch as at a fundamental level. Since most would classify it as a portable, then in the space of a traditional, stationary home gaming console, a monopolistic argument could in theory be made for Sony given their practices over the years.

I'm pretty sure Sony and Microsoft both have lawyer teams that have taken these sort of things into consideration, so in the off-chance there are people hoping Sony or Son & Nintendo "challenge" this acquisition as being monopolistic, that wouldn't be a very wise move for either.
These false equivalences are not helpful and are trying to steer towards console war. Timed exclusives can be bad too, nobody said they aren't. However if you honestly think buying up publishers and paying for a year exclusivity are equivalent I don't know what to tell you. One is still an independent industry, the other is trying to own the industry.

Rewind and think back of what the different consequences are. Imagine instead when Sony could outbid all competitors on the PS1 they went and bought Square. No FF, Just Cause, Sleeping dogs on xbox, no Dragon Quest on switch etc etc. Imagine instead of getting SF they bought Capcom. No more Resident Evil on xbox and people cheering about it . How you can say companies paying publishers for temporary exclusivity and buying the publisher are identical with a straight face is beyond me.

Now imagine on 360 instead of MS paying for Mass effect, Bioshock, Tomb Raider, GTA stories and Dead Rising exclusivity they went and bought EA, Take two, SquareEnix, Capcom. No Mass effect, bioshock, Fifa, battlefield, GTA and the examples above for PS. Do you honestly believe these things are equivalent? You're only pulling a whataboutism here with it. They ARE both bad, nobody said they aren't, but they are not in any way equivalent. It's just a deflection of the subject.

Why does Phil always have to say more things than he needs to. Just say we bought them to help us deliver content to gamepass and call it a day, no need to bring Sony and Nintendo into the convo
Because he is probably given PR notes of talking points. This one is designed to make him seem like he is the caring underdog fighting back the Goliaths.
 
Last edited:

quest

Not Banned from OT
These false equivalences are not helpful and are trying to steer towards console war. Timed exclusives can be bad too, nobody said they aren't. However if you honestly think buying up publishers and paying for a year exclusivity are equivalent I don't know what to tell you. One is still an independent industry, the other is trying to own the industry.

Rewind and think back of what the different consequences are. Imagine instead when Sony could outbid all competitors on the PS1 they went and bought Square. No FF, Just Cause, Sleeping dogs on xbox, no Dragon Duest on switch etc etc. Imagine instead of getting SF they bought Capcom. No more Resident Evil on xbox and people cheering about it . How you can say companies paying publishers for temporary exclusivity and buying the publisher is identical with a straight face is beyond me.

Now imagine on 360 instead of MS paying for Mass effect, Bioshock, Tomb Raider, and Dead Rising exclusivity they went and bought EA, Take two, SquareEnix, Capcom. No Mass effect, bioshock, Fifa, battlefield and the examples above for PS. Do you honestly believe these things are equivalent? You're only pulling a whataboutism here with it. They ARE both bad, nobody said they aren't, but they are not in any way equivalent. It's just a deflection of the subject.


Because he is probably given PR notes of talking points. This one is designed to make him seem like he is the caring underdog fighting back the Goliaths.


Content starving the last competitor during the first 2 years of the generation is the same thing. Content starve them build so much of a lead they leave like Sega and Nintendo. Sony earned that zenimax deal doing timed exclusives on every zenimax game warranted a response. Punch a guy in the face don't be shocked it he returns the favor with brass knuckles. The Activision deal. Don't agree with it not enough studios for the money. Rather seen them get the old wb studios and 20 others instead. I'm not going to feel bad for Jim money hat ryan he escalated the war with his money hat world tour.
 

Three

Member
Content starving the last competitor during the first 2 years of the generation is the same thing. Content starve them build so much of a lead they leave like Sega and Nintendo. Sony earned that zenimax deal doing timed exclusives on every zenimax game warranted a response. Punch a guy in the face don't be shocked it he returns the favor with brass knuckles. The Activision deal. Don't agree with it not enough studios for the money. Rather seen them get the old wb studios and 20 others instead. I'm not going to feel bad for Jim money hat ryan he escalated the war with his money hat world tour.

They didn't content starve Nintendo. They made discs and lowered costs for publishers which attracted them to the platform. MS are now doing that with cloud if you read why Kotick wanted to sell to MS to begin with. These publishers want GaaS and the Metaverse now.

Trying to make MS seem like some justice fighting David vs Goliath is just PR nonsense you're repeating. MS is the Goliath and it's all just business.
 
Last edited:

quest

Not Banned from OT
They didn't content starve Nintendo. They made discs and lowered costs for publishers which attracted them to the platform. MS are now doing that with cloud if you read why Kotick wanted to sell to MS to begin with. These publishers want GaaS and the Metaverse now.

Trying to make MS seem like some justice fighting David vs Goliath is just PR nonsense you're repeating. MS is the Goliath and it's all just business.
Never said they content starved Nintendo. They left smarly to hand held market. Ryan clearly tried to content starve Microsoft with his money hat world tour begging everyone to do deals. On zenimax he locked up death loop, ghost wire Tokyo and was ready to close on star field. Was Microsoft supposed to do nothing? Or piss away money in a timed exclusive bidding war?
 

Three

Member
Never said they content starved Nintendo. They left smarly to hand held market. Ryan clearly tried to content starve Microsoft with his money hat world tour begging everyone to do deals. On zenimax he locked up death loop, ghost wire Tokyo and was ready to close on star field. Was Microsoft supposed to do nothing? Or piss away money in a timed exclusive bidding war?

And those timed exclusives still happened. What did buying achieve for MS or for Sony for that matter? I think this idea that this was some retaliation is just misguided childish deflection akin to "he hit me first". MS was on a buying spree way before these exclusivity deals and Activision didn't have games signed with Sony "to content starve" AFAIk.
 
Last edited:
This guy never stops talking, what is it his right to comment on Nintendo and Sony. I wish he'd stop chatting all the time about things not regarding Microsoft.
 

Honey Bunny

Member
Seriously. I thought most posters on here were on the older side. I remember PS1 coming out and finding out Nintendo isn't getting Final Fantasy after 6 games. People even older than me would also be able to note Nintendo bursting on the scene to supplant Atari, and Nintendo having a period of iron-fist dominance, but that was a tad before my time. I started with NES. But yes, I remember 3D0 and Jaguar trying, and then the first Xbox. Loosely speaking, Sony did to Nintendo what MS is doing to Sony at the moment. They were a bigger, richer, multi-media company with income from areas outside of gaming.
Almost 30 years later and you still don't know what happened with FF7 😆
 

nikolino840

Member
Seriously. I thought most posters on here were on the older side. I remember PS1 coming out and finding out Nintendo isn't getting Final Fantasy after 6 games. People even older than me would also be able to note Nintendo bursting on the scene to supplant Atari, and Nintendo having a period of iron-fist dominance, but that was a tad before my time. I started with NES. But yes, I remember 3D0 and Jaguar trying, and then the first Xbox. Loosely speaking, Sony did to Nintendo what MS is doing to Sony at the moment. They were a bigger, richer, multi-media company with income from areas outside of gaming.
This ☝️
 

Dane

Member
I don’t understand why PlayStation has so much more respect than Xbox from many on here. The PlayStation brand is only 7 years older than Xbox. Xbox has been in the gaming industry for more than 20 years. Most of us play games on windows devices.

Microsoft acquiring Activision Blizzard is fair business. They wanted to sell, and Microsoft got the deal. If you are upset about this, you are most likely a big Sony fan who doesn’t want to join the Xbox ecosystem. BTW Sonys biggest IP, Spider-Man, wasn’t always theirs. It’s not even close to being a monopoly, as it’s only ~10% of industry.

Phil Spencer has been at Microsoft longer than PlayStation has existed. He’s been a gamer longer than most of us. He is the best out there for the Job, and he’s right.

Nintendo is the only big player that does their own thing, and has been doing it the longest. Sony and Microsoft bursted into the industry, and now they both have their spots. Both have made anti-consumer moves and have flunked a generation.
When you have a fanbase used to have a near monopoly for two generations, this is what you get.
 

Snake29

Member
Seriously. I thought most posters on here were on the older side. I remember PS1 coming out and finding out Nintendo isn't getting Final Fantasy after 6 games. People even older than me would also be able to note Nintendo bursting on the scene to supplant Atari, and Nintendo having a period of iron-fist dominance, but that was a tad before my time. I started with NES. But yes, I remember 3D0 and Jaguar trying, and then the first Xbox. Loosely speaking, Sony did to Nintendo what MS is doing to Sony at the moment. They were a bigger, richer, multi-media company with income from areas outside of gaming.

So they purchased Square at that time? I mean, MS isn't started with the Xbox since last year that they need to build a porfolio. They are here already more then 20 year.

They have clearly been asleep for the past 20+ years. The fact that they are now suddenly raising the purse strings and buying everything whats loose and tight has nothing to do with what Sony did 30 years ago. Nintendo still got Square Enix games to this day. When people start complaining about PlayStation and timed exclusives or dlc exclusives. This is something Xbox started doing in the 360 era, so they have this to themselves and not the other way around.

Xbox fans are really looking for the xbox to deflect its own big mistakes onto Sony and make it up to themselves.
 
Last edited:

Thaedolus

Gold Member
So they purchased Square at that time? I mean, MS isn't started with the Xbox since last year that they need to build a porfolio. They are here already more then 20 year.

They have clearly been asleep for the past 20+ years. The fact that they are now suddenly raising the purse strings and buying everything whats loose and tight has nothing to do with what Sony did 30 years ago. Nintendo still got Square Enix games to this day. When people start complaining about PlayStation and timed exclusives or dlc exclusives. This is something Xbox started doing in the 360 era, so they have this to themselves and not the other way around.

Xbox fans are really looking for the xbox to deflect its own big mistakes onto Sony and make it up to themselves.
What mistake? The point is that it wasn’t a mistake or unfair that Sony made the business moves it made with timed exclusives and studio acquisitions over the years. It wasn’t a mistake when Microsoft bought Halo 20+ years ago. There’s nothing different with this acquisition except the size of it, and honestly I can’t even really care that much because I can’t even remember the last A/B game I played. Maybe Overwatch? 5 years ago?

There was a thread recently, before the acquisition was announced, asking something like if A/B disappeared tomorrow would you even notice it? For me, pretty hardcore gamer, I thought probably not. But some are acting like MS has bought every video game ever and you’ll have to pay them to keep playing. Calling this a monopoly is absurd. They bought a big studio, and I’m guessing they’re done for a while. Chill out
 

Swift_Star

Gold Member
It's hardly just a couple of moneyhats though. Sony have been signing exclusivity deals relentlessly all last generation, and they've done them largely unanswered as a result of both Xbox having a weaker market position making it cheaper for them to do, but also because the practice of signing them is widely accepted for them, but not for MS.

There's a reason why something like Final Fantasy sells so disproportionately on PlayStation... it's because these exclusivity deals reinforce (or in some cases disrupt) audiences on a given platform, and as time goes on that becomes more difficult to undo. Sony's had Final Fantasy in their corner for a long time now, going back to Final Fantasy 7, but the series DID eventually come to Xbox day and date beginning with Final Fantasy XIII, and was starting to cultivate an audience within that ecosystem that had a desire to play JRPGs. That Final Fantasy 7 Remake got moneyhatted (for what is still an uncertain length of time in regards to Xbox) isn't a random coincidence. This type of moneyhat is a precisely targeted one to cause an entire genre of game not be viable on the platform.

There are some IP that within their sphere carry so much weight that they cause ripple effects across the genre. Sony's Street Fighter V moneyhat effectively buried the entire fighter genre on Xbox, because nobody invested in that genre was going to opt for a console that lacked Street Fighter.. and as a result other titles that weren't (or at least I'm not aware of being) moneyhats would start to skip the console also, because if nobody that's invested in that genre is opting for that console, why should the smaller, more niche IP target that console either, right?

So yes... timed exclusives very much can be used to push a competing platform out of the market, and Sony was routinely targeting games that would be the most crippling across the spectrum. Whether that be Final Fantasy (and possibly Persona?) in the JRPG space, Street Fighter in the fighting game space, the year (or two) long exclusive content deals for Destiny, and the exclusive map content for COD in the FPS space, etc... the goal was to make it so Xbox as a platform wasn't a viable choice for the majority of the market. And quite frankly, it was working and working well... hence the situation in 2016 where MS bowing out of the market entirely was a very real possibility.

When that didn't occur, Sony looked to land killer blows right away at the start of this generation. Hence the announcement of Final Fantasy XVI's timed exclusivity ahead of the consoles being released, and the murmurs of a whole slew of others to be revealed in time. And the general response here was just that it was a foregone conclusion that PS5 would just continue to build on PS4's momentum largely unimpeded. And considering the shit MS took back in 2015 when they dared to land a single comparable exclusivity deal with Rise of the Tomb Raider, that avenue of retaliation was clearly not available to them. Look how quick the clarification of the duration of exclusivity of RoTR was forced out of MS and SquareEnix, and then contrast that with Crash N'Sane Trilogy, Nier Automata, Final Fantasy 7R, KOTOR remake... or any of countless other deals where their eventual Xbox release was happily left vague as hell. That's how we're here today, because MS were either gonna commit fully and land some true heavy blows that made a real difference to the current landscape, or they were inevitably going to see their platform marginalised to the point where they had to drop out.

If people didn't want to see the level of escalation we're seeing now today... well, they shouldn't have been so comfortable commending the ever increasing frequency and severity of deals Sony was making to cripple their primary competition. "Final Fantasy sells 80%+ on PlayStation anyways, so they may as well" and by extension "of course it makes sense for game X to skip Xbox, because the audience is all on PlayStation". Well, congrats... now they won't all be. The rampant desire for the glory days of PS2-era domination has led us here, and so cries about how unfair it is ring hollow.
People really rewrite history, don’t they? 🤣
 

Swift_Star

Gold Member
I don't know that I would agree I was defending his honor. I was defending his actions, but his honor? I'm not so sure.

Anytime someone defends someone, you say they are defending their honor? What about threads/posts where someone shits on Jim Ryan and someone defends his actions. That too is defending his honor? I can honestly say I've never defended his honor. Maybe Spencer's honor, depending upon how you define that.
Why do you feel the need to defend the actions of a big wig executive? That’s weird.
 

Goalus

Member

Phil Spencer: "Nintendo and Sony are not going to do anything that damages gaming in the long run.​

We on the other hand are stepping up plans to acquire EA by year end, Ubisoft Q1 2023, 2K in Q4 2023 and THQ Nordic for a surprise that holiday season."
They should ignore EA and Ubisoft.
They should try to snag Take Two eventually though.
 

Snake29

Member
What mistake? The point is that it wasn’t a mistake or unfair that Sony made the business moves it made with timed exclusives and studio acquisitions over the years. It wasn’t a mistake when Microsoft bought Halo 20+ years ago. There’s nothing different with this acquisition except the size of it, and honestly I can’t even really care that much because I can’t even remember the last A/B game I played. Maybe Overwatch? 5 years ago?

There was a thread recently, before the acquisition was announced, asking something like if A/B disappeared tomorrow would you even notice it? For me, pretty hardcore gamer, I thought probably not. But some are acting like MS has bought every video game ever and you’ll have to pay them to keep playing. Calling this a monopoly is absurd. They bought a big studio, and I’m guessing they’re done for a while. Chill out

Some fanboys are still blaming PS for all the timed exclusives and DLC exclusive, but they all ignore the fact the Xbox has started this journey with the 360.
 

Swift_Star

Gold Member
Some fanboys are still blaming PS for all the timed exclusives and DLC exclusive, but they all ignore the fact the Xbox has started this journey with the 360.
This purchase has nothing to do with exclusivity deals. Spencer is just trying to seize the market before the other big techs do. They’re afraid to lose space to them. That’s the reality of it.
 

FrankWza

Member
This purchase has nothing to do with exclusivity deals. Spencer is just trying to seize the market before the other big techs do. They’re afraid to lose space to them. That’s the reality of it.
He just bought a huge console game though. That’s not the big tech market, That’s Sonys and Nintendo’s. He’s just mentioning bigger companies to create fear of a, wolf at the door scenario. but hes not playing keep away, he’s playing takeaway. Now his only fear is that Apple buys PlayStation which isn’t likely.
 
Sony STARTED doing the same shit LAST generation? Over a decade?

You should read up on how Sony managed to secure all those PS1 and PS2 exclusives that propelled them towards the position they are currently in. That chicken has come home to roost now.
You're right.
But they didn't enter the market and start buying out not just studios or timed exclusivity, but the biggest independent publishers, by spending multiple billions of dollars.

And again, this isn't some massive karmic debt that is being repaid.

Microsoft aren't buying publishers because Sony signed exclusivity deals in the 90s.

And just because Sony did anti-consumer things in the past, doesn't make it acceptable or justifiable now.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
Some fanboys are still blaming PS for all the timed exclusives and DLC exclusive, but they all ignore the fact the Xbox has started this journey with the 360.
Didn't sony made a lot ot timed exclusivity deals during the ps1 era? In fact, wasn't one of the major contributors to the ps2 success the fact sony locked up temporary exclusivity deals for GTA games?

Pretty sure sony was the one who started this race.
 
Last edited:

Swift_Star

Gold Member
He just bought a huge console game though. That’s not the big tech market, That’s Sonys and Nintendo’s. He’s just mentioning bigger companies to create fear of a, wolf at the door scenario. but hes not playing keep away, he’s playing takeaway. Now his only fear is that Apple buys PlayStation which isn’t likely.
Do you even understand what is going on in the market? I think not. This is controlling the market before the big techs do it. Spencer is afraid to be left behind like MS was so many times.
 
Do you even understand what is going on in the market? I think not. This is controlling the market before the big techs do it. Spencer is afraid to be left behind like MS was so many times.
And what is Sony doing? Just sitting idly by and waiting to be acquired by Apple or Google? If this is where we are headed Sony cannot compete on their own. They need a lot more cash than they have, hence they would need to be acquired. Is that what you're thinking too?
 

FrankWza

Member
Do you even understand what is going on in the market? I think not. This is controlling the market before the big techs do it. Spencer is afraid to be left behind like MS was so many times.
I do. But again, he’s not playing keep away by purchasing CoD. He’s playing take away.
He’s just making an excuse of the climate to pretend that he’s doing this for the greater good. He’s not. Amazon wasn’t going to buy CoD for 70 billion and make it a prime exclusive and Apple wasn’t going to either.
 

Swift_Star

Gold Member
I do. But again, he’s not playing keep away by purchasing CoD. He’s playing take away.
He’s just making an excuse of the climate to pretend that he’s doing this for the greater good. He’s not. Amazon wasn’t going to buy CoD for 70 billion and make it a prime exclusive and Apple wasn’t going to either.
Why wouldn’t they? Lmao, of course they would.
 

FrankWza

Member
Why wouldn’t they? Lmao, of course they would.
Because it’s predominantly a console game and they don’t have a console. Activision went to Facebook and they said no. They didn’t even negotiate. Those are the 3 companies he mentioned. It makes sense for Microsoft because they have xbox. They get something for their gamepass, offset as much as they can because they went day and date with pc and the take away from PlayStation, and to a lesser or less significant extent, Nintendo. So, Microsoft gave him the money to go out and buy activision(CoD)
Take away. Not keep away.
 

Swift_Star

Gold Member
Because it’s predominantly a console game and they don’t have a console. Activision went to Facebook and they said no. They didn’t even negotiate. Those are the 3 companies he mentioned. It makes sense for Microsoft because they have xbox. They get something for their gamepass, offset as much as they can because they went day and date with pc and the take away from PlayStation, and to a lesser or less significant extent, Nintendo. So, Microsoft gave him the money to go out and buy activision(CoD)
Take away. Not keep away.
They could release everywhere without having a console. You’re not making any sense.
 

FrankWza

Member
They could release everywhere without having a console. You’re not making any sense.
Of course they could. He’s pretending they wouldn’t.
Amazon wasn’t going to buy CoD for 70 billion and make it a prime exclusive and Apple wasn’t going to either.
Why wouldn’t they? Lmao, of course they would.
Because it’s predominantly a console game and they don’t have a console.
They could release everywhere without having a console. You’re not making any sense.
 

Snake29

Member
Didn't sony made a lot ot timed exclusivity deals during the ps1 era? In fact, wasn't one of the major contributors to the ps2 success the fact sony locked up temporary exclusivity deals for GTA games?

Pretty sure sony was the one who started this race.

I just don't know why people (especially xbox fanboys) keep whining and go back in history far before the Xbox even existed? What point are some here want to make? None of what is now happening comes even remotely close.

When Microsoft entered the market they did exactly what they were supposed to do and bought games, bought studios that weren't even originally in development for the Xbox.

Are we seriously going to pretend that Microsoft was the good kid in the class? You can't whine at Sony when Microsoft did the exact same thing.
 
Last edited:

Mr Moose

Member
Never said they content starved Nintendo. They left smarly to hand held market. Ryan clearly tried to content starve Microsoft with his money hat world tour begging everyone to do deals. On zenimax he locked up death loop, ghost wire Tokyo and was ready to close on star field. Was Microsoft supposed to do nothing? Or piss away money in a timed exclusive bidding war?
You are aware MS had/have timed exclusives on Series consoles, right? Like... Right now and in the past for Xbox One.
Selective memory?
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
You are aware MS had/have timed exclusives on Series consoles, right? Like... Right now and in the past for Xbox One.
Selective memory?
If you want to go back a decade and Tomb Raider sure. They are hardly going to EA ubisoft getting huge exclusives. You want to compare 6 month exclusives of indy games Ike the ascent or falconeer with 2 year deals on Square Enix games or scoring zenimax games.
 

Bernkastel

Ask me about my fanboy energy!
He’s just making an excuse of the climate to pretend that he’s doing this for the greater good. He’s not. Amazon wasn’t going to buy CoD for 70 billion and make it a prime exclusive and Apple wasn’t going to either.
Because it’s predominantly a console game and they don’t have a console.
Are we legit pretending Amazon didn't buy Double Helix and merged them into "Amazon Game Studios" which has yet to make a single game that looks like it won't die? They are the reason we don't have a new Killer Instinct. Makes even more sense why Phil would fire shots at them for killing what was going to be a second party dev like Asobo.
I really don't know what the argument is in this thread any more.
Phil didn't say what some people wanted him to say, so they are putting words in his mouth.
 

Mr Moose

Member
If you want to go back a decade and Tomb Raider sure. They are hardly going to EA ubisoft getting huge exclusives. You want to compare 6 month exclusives of indy games Ike the ascent or falconeer with 2 year deals on Square Enix games or scoring zenimax games.
A decade? OK. Didn't Phil complain about timed exclusives, saying it wasn't his thing while bagging timed exclusives like Tomb Raider and Dead Rising 4?
Let's ignore the timed exclusive Tetris stuff, Warhammer, ARK 2 (ew), The Medium, Scorn, STALKER 2, The Touryst and so on. Only Square and Bethesda games count (new IPs). Those poor smol indie devs, MS doing them big favours.
 

FrankWza

Member
So we all should pretend Sony is the good kid in class instead?
The only one pretending is phil. Got beat repeatedly so he used Microsoft money to try a different game and he’s already so afraid of playing against those giants he’s trying to get ahead of it with fairy tales.
Are we legit pretending Amazon didn't buy Double Helix and merged them into "Amazon Game Studios" which has yet to make a single game that looks like it won't die? They are the reason we don't have a new Killer Instinct. Makes even more sense why Phil would fire shots at them for killing what was going to be a second party dev like Asobo
Ah, so phil lost his killer instinct. Got it. That makes sense. You need that to avoid being outmaneuvered.
Phil didn't say what some people wanted him to say, so they are putting words in his mouth.
Season 17 Episode 21 GIF by The Simpsons
 
Top Bottom