• 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.

StormCell

Member
Of those mentioned, Nintendo and Valve are the only ones that are exclusively into games (development/publishing)

Microsoft has their cloud infrastructure, operating system, etc.
Sony has music, movies, tvs, etc.

That is, if the games industry were to magically disappear tomorrow, only Nintendo and Valve would die with it.
So those two care much more about the industry than any other company, since they have much more to lose.

They have to put their souls into it.
Nintendo has been in business longer than any of these other companies. They're almost twice as old Sony. When you say "games industry" I assume you mean video games, and what was Nintendo doing before video games? Of all the brands in this discussion, if video games were gone tomorrow, Nintendo's is the only brand that would probably continue. Playstation, Xbox, and Steam would be gone, obviously. Nintendo still produces card games. They would shift priorities and expand elsewhere, probably making quirky electronic toys.

Nintendo 50+
Sony 40 or so

Everything MS brought to gaming is monetization of services that were free, a copycat streaming service, gaas without shame... Very few games, or play related.

Their track record is nothing to brag about, the stuff Google, Apple or Amazon could do to "damage" gaming has been mostly done.
Nintendo has been making games since 1889. That is if you include their playing cards business. :)
 
Last edited:

StormCell

Member
Removing big publishers from the industry and making them exclusive, restricting growth in the industry with the sole intention to only have those games on gamepass, which is a huge money hole as has been discussed in length before. This model is not good for me personally, as I don't play GaaS or spend hours in mmos, nor is it good for the industry, as the moment MS stops sudsidising gamepass and they drop it, all of these franchises will disappear, as they will have a lower userbase due to their exclusivity.
I wanted to add something here. The publishers being bought have done a fine enough job practically removing themselves from the industry. To hear Phil talk about the IP catalog of Activision/Blizzard and hear names many of us haven't heard from in a very long time just goes to show that the publishers, and not really the gaming market, have changed. So many quality IPs are in the grave because of money cows like COD and the eternal pursuit for ever increasing recurring revenue streams.

MS may not change this seeing as how they've gone to a subscription service, but there's at least a glimmer of hope that we will see these publishers come back to life rather than being a COD-maker.

Besides, before MS was doing this, EA was the giant eating all the smaller publishers. All those long lost IPs that are basically dead now... that was once a vibrant and fun video game landscape. Now look at where we're at...
 
I wanted to add something here. The publishers being bought have done a fine enough job practically removing themselves from the industry. To hear Phil talk about the IP catalog of Activision/Blizzard and hear names many of us haven't heard from in a very long time just goes to show that the publishers, and not really the gaming market, have changed. So many quality IPs are in the grave because of money cows like COD and the eternal pursuit for ever increasing recurring revenue streams.

MS may not change this seeing as how they've gone to a subscription service, but there's at least a glimmer of hope that we will see these publishers come back to life rather than being a COD-maker.

Besides, before MS was doing this, EA was the giant eating all the smaller publishers. All those long lost IPs that are basically dead now... that was once a vibrant and fun video game landscape. Now look at where we're at...
Yep. Sub services are the last hope for AA gaming.
 

SlimeGooGoo

Party Gooper
Nintendo has been in business longer than any of these other companies. They're almost twice as old Sony. When you say "games industry" I assume you mean video games, and what was Nintendo doing before video games? Of all the brands in this discussion, if video games were gone tomorrow, Nintendo's is the only brand that would probably continue. Playstation, Xbox, and Steam would be gone, obviously. Nintendo still produces card games. They would shift priorities and expand elsewhere, probably making quirky electronic toys.
Oh yes, definitely.
It was more as in "the Nintendo we all know and love" sense.
 

Boss Mog

Member
Well, hes not wrong.
This. I do have more trust in Valve, Nintendo and Sony not to fuck up gaming. I do think Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon are likely to fuck it up. The only point of contention I have with Phil's statement is that I think MS is just as likely to fuck it up as those other companies. Gamepass might fuck it up; too early to tell though (and I say this as a current subscriber).
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
This. I do have more trust in Valve, Nintendo and Sony not to fuck up gaming. I do think Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon are likely to fuck it up. The only point of contention I have with Phil's statement is that I think MS is just as likely to fuck it up as those other companies. Gamepass might fuck it up; too early to tell though (and I say this as a current subscriber).

Amazon, Google, Apple and Facebook aren't even out there trying to buy up publishers to fuck anything up. It's all just made up nonsense.

You're telling me there is this huge bidding war going on but they've actually ended up buying little to nothing? Who have Amazon, Apple, Google or Facebook bought to fuck shit up in the games industry? It's all a ruse while the actual one trying to actually is.
 
Last edited:

StormCell

Member
This. I do have more trust in Valve, Nintendo and Sony not to fuck up gaming. I do think Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon are likely to fuck it up. The only point of contention I have with Phil's statement is that I think MS is just as likely to fuck it up as those other companies. Gamepass might fuck it up; too early to tell though (and I say this as a current subscriber).
Would be an interesting thread to explore what exactly a fucked up games industry could be. I imagine it would be completely overloaded by and driven by mtx, and yet I fail to see how the current industry is shielded from that. Even PS Plus and Game Pass aren't saving us from games riddled with extra purchases and such -- you get the base game and are left wishing the expansions were included to make a game whole.

So, I may trust the old guard to keep the status quo, but from where I'm sitting it has generally been the new players in the market (Playstation, Valve) who have actually driven down costs and made gaming far more accessible. For example, before Valve I would end up pirating PC games and since t hen prices and sales have been so accessible that pirating is harder than simply paying $5 and having an ultra fast download. And it was the same case with Playstation when so many great games ended up in the $5 pile at stores. Never before were last year's versions of sports titles so cheap and affordable. It really changed the market for the better.

The true threat to the industry has been mobile. It's an incompatible platform with the rest of the market. It practically steals effort from the traditional space. The fundamental revenue model is free-to-play but continually costs more money to really enjoy due to game design that adds pain to free loaders and rewards spenders.

Companies looking to join the premium market probably wouldn't follow that model, and as usual competition usually drives down prices. I'm not sure that new players to the market would be an awful thing, especially if it wakes the old guard up and causes them to press and improve their game.
 

Three

Member
Would be an interesting thread to explore what exactly a fucked up games industry could be. I imagine it would be completely overloaded by and driven by mtx, and yet I fail to see how the current industry is shielded from that. Even PS Plus and Game Pass aren't saving us from games riddled with extra purchases and such -- you get the base game and are left wishing the expansions were included to make a game whole.
PS plus and Game Pass don't shield you from it, they accelerate you towards it. A lot of the games (though not all) on those services are mostly disguised f2p games with microtransactions to make the actual money. In a subscription dominant future where very few people buy games games with microtransactions and GaaS are what will thrive.
 
Last edited:
Who cares? They needed to be smarter than Sony and Nintendo not me. Thats why haven’t they won a single console generation. Why they haven’t sold 100 million consoles. Why they need to supplement their first party studios by buying publishers. Because they weren’t able to outsmart Sony or Nintendo. That’s the point genius.

Every new release day and date? Nope.

no. It’s the actions of a company that outplayed 1/2 of their competition for 20 years and does way more with way less. Sony can’t play at Microsoft’s buyout game because only a handful of companies can.
They haven't won. Lol. There you go frankie with your console wars. Congrats. You know Sony didn't win the last gen either? Nintendo did. So according to you Sony lost and they're clearly doing something wrong.

And you're upset that ms is taking these actions to make them not competitive? You don't want them to sell more consoles. Because that hurts your precious console wars. Sad shit man.
 

StormCell

Member
PS plus and Game Pass don't shield you from it, they accelerate you towards it. A lot of the games (though not all) on those services are mostly disguised f2p games with microtransactions to make the actual money. In a subscription dominant future where very few people buy games games with microtransactions and GaaS are what will thrive.
I can see how they could accelerate us towards that future, but I've gotten a ton of quality games that weren't disguised f2p. I think I need some examples of those games. The times I have run into games I felt were crippled has been few and most notably it was with fighting games where part of the roster is behind a pay wall. Aside from the exceptions, Game Pass is currently full of terrific titles and complete editions of games. There are some cases such as with Fallout 4 where the DLC is extra. PS Plus has also filled my library full of complete games. As we said, though, the future could look completely different if Publishers decide to design their titles for these subscription services.

One, I don't think that buying games will go out of style. Games leave Game Pass all the time.

Two, I think a subscription service is a great way to showcase and sell hardware via 1st & 2nd party games. If Nintendo did a subscription for their stuff, I would way more likely to dip into it and play games I would never feel good about paying $60 for.
 

Three

Member
I can see how they could accelerate us towards that future, but I've gotten a ton of quality games that weren't disguised f2p. I think I need some examples of those games.
Games like Destiny 2, Sea of thieves, GTA Online even Fall guys.

Yeah fighting games have seen this too. Saw MK11 on a subscription and the first thing I notice is that it's trying to sell me Arnie, Rambo, Robocop and some other characters as DLC.


One, I don't think that buying games will go out of style. Games leave Game Pass all the time.
It will eventually just like buying music CDs did. At least that's what everyone is seemingly trying to push. This streaming and subscription future where player engagement and microtransactions are more important than sales. 3 entire gens without a new GTA. Reason: GTA online.
 
Last edited:

Tumle

Member
https://www.wired.com/story/google-stadia-games-entertainment-collapse/



Regardless, vis-a-vis the quote this topic is about "Spencer said he's concerned about tech companies unfamiliar with the gaming industry barging in to the space, as opposed to the current, experienced competition against Nintendo and Sony." He's 100% right.
Ok well that is bull crap reasoning.. unfamiliar?
So apple should have never gone into the phone business, and left it all up to Nokia, blackberry, Motorola and Ericsson ?

The only thing this does is putting more IP’s in Microsoft pocket and that’s great for Microsoft.. but I don’t think Nintendo or Sony looks at them as the big saviours of gaming..

But let’s see if they go console exclusive with there “new” IPs 😊
 
Last edited:

Kiraly

Member
Microsoft has been signing timed exclusivity deals since the 360. Or does that not count? This shit has been going on for over a decade now.
So why are you surprised that Sony started doing the same shit last generation?

And nobody with half a brain, except true fanboys like timed exclusivity deals, because they're shit.
Xbox fanboys cry every time Sony signs one, and Sony fanboys cry when Xbox does it.
This is normal. The only difference is that PlayStation is a bigger brand and so will have more fanboys running around.

So please, dial it back with the sanctimonious line about how this is karmic justice for encouraging Sony to do it, as if only Sony fanboys have been cheering tribalistic bullshit for the last 20 years.

Phil Spencer and Microsoft are friends to nobody beyond their superiors and shareholders. They're playing the nice guy for now, but as soon as they have the ascendancy they'll do as any other private corporation does.
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.
 

JackMcGunns

Member


Does that represent Sony's bid for Activision?
 

FrankWza

Member
They haven't won. Lol. There you go frankie with your console wars. Congrats. You know Sony didn't win the last gen either? Nintendo did. So according to you Sony lost and they're clearly doing something wrong.

.
You’re at the point of being a cartoon character. They didn’t spend 70 billion to take CoD away from Nintendo. Regardless of winning and losing last gen, Sony and Nintendo Have actually done just that. They also both sold 100 million consoles multiple times. Xbox has not.
And you're upset that ms is taking these actions to make them not competitive?
No. You’re upset that it’s being pointed out that it was necessary for them to do that because they couldn’t win any other way. It takes away from the romanticized notion that Phil’s playing 4d chess and all that stupid shit when he’s done nothing.
He has unlimited resources and:

-He’s never had a 100 million selling console.

-He needed to attach his catalog to PC install base instead of building his own.

-He had to delay his flagship franchise 1 year and still shipped incomplete.

-he’s had numerous $1 promotions tied to his subscription service for 3 years and is still barely at 25 million subs

- he bought a publisher for almost 8 billion and still hasn’t had one of those titles release on his system yet.

- he released 2 flagship franchises during the holiday season and made his secondary console more available than his higher end console.

What a master :)
 
You’re at the point of being a cartoon character. They didn’t spend 70 billion to take CoD away from Nintendo. Regardless of winning and losing last gen, Sony and Nintendo Have actually done just that. They also both sold 100 million consoles multiple times. Xbox has not.

No. You’re upset that it’s being pointed out that it was necessary for them to do that because they couldn’t win any other way. It takes away from the romanticized notion that Phil’s playing 4d chess and all that stupid shit when he’s done nothing.
He has unlimited resources and:

-He’s never had a 100 million selling console.

-He needed to attach his catalog to PC install base instead of building his own.

-He had to delay his flagship franchise 1 year and still shipped incomplete.

-he’s had numerous $1 promotions tied to his subscription service for 3 years and is still barely at 25 million subs

- he bought a publisher for almost 8 billion and still hasn’t had one of those titles release on his system yet.

- he released 2 flagship franchises during the holiday season and made his secondary console more available than his higher end console.

What a master :)
I'm not upset that it's being pointed out. Lol. It's funny to see you console warriors get butt hurt that ms has the money to make these acquisitions. So now you're resorting to calling Microsoft losers and they're effectively cheating. Gotta laugh!
 
Last edited:

JackMcGunns

Member
You’re at the point of being a cartoon character. They didn’t spend 70 billion to take CoD away from Nintendo. Regardless of winning and losing last gen, Sony and Nintendo Have actually done just that. They also both sold 100 million consoles multiple times. Xbox has not.

No. You’re upset that it’s being pointed out that it was necessary for them to do that because they couldn’t win any other way. It takes away from the romanticized notion that Phil’s playing 4d chess and all that stupid shit when he’s done nothing.
He has unlimited resources and:

-He’s never had a 100 million selling console.

-He needed to attach his catalog to PC install base instead of building his own.

-He had to delay his flagship franchise 1 year and still shipped incomplete.

-he’s had numerous $1 promotions tied to his subscription service for 3 years and is still barely at 25 million subs

- he bought a publisher for almost 8 billion and still hasn’t had one of those titles release on his system yet.

- he released 2 flagship franchises during the holiday season and made his secondary console more available than his higher end console.

What a master :)


Wow, it's been a long time since I've seen this much fanboy drivel in a single post. Are you sleeping ok?
 
Sure. Just point out the part of my post that was wrong.
Those are all facts, but I think what's off is your emphasis on how negative you perceive any of that to be.

  • 100 million is nice. But 360 is obviously their most successful console, and sold 84 million. That's pretty good. Xbox has always had difficulty being a global brand and is far more focused on NA in terms of their success.
  • Bethesda games haven't come out yet from this acquisition, but so what? They're going to come out eventually. Deathloop, Ghostwire, Starfield and lots more. It's obviously on the way. Things move slow.
  • Released 2 flagship franchises during the holiday and made secondary console more available isn't a negative. The Series S by accident has turned out to be the perfect antidote to supply chain constraints that are making it harder for Sony to get PS5s out. It's two positive things that you mentioned here.
  • Halo was delayed and had a ton of its content cut. This is true. But again the emphasis on negativity is the issue. It still reviewed pretty well, seems popular with fans of the series and is a step in the right direction for the studio after years of development hell. It's not flawless by any means, but it's something. Many people seem to really enjoy the game, and the series for the first time in years.
  • He needed to attach his catalog to PC. Sony is doing the same thing? Who cares?
 

StormCell

Member
Games like Destiny 2, Sea of thieves, GTA Online even Fall guys.

Yeah fighting games have seen this too. Saw MK11 on a subscription and the first thing I notice is that it's trying to sell me Arnie, Rambo, Robocop and some other characters as DLC.



It will eventually just like buying music CDs did. At least that's what everyone is seemingly trying to push. This streaming and subscription future where player engagement and microtransactions are more important than sales. 3 entire gens without a new GTA. Reason: GTA online.
Yeah, I can see what you mean. Music slid down a slippery slope in a hurry. It seems like it was just yesterday that I was buying mp3s and picking up entire albums on the cheap. Now I can't even remember the last time I paid for music. And if there's anything I want offline I just save it somehow and never pay anything anymore...

I hope my favorite music artists aren't starving.... I need to go check on them. Do they still keep blogs?? Tell me, how do I make sure my favorite bands are still alive???

/kidding

Okay, kidding aside. God I'm sorry... I really drifted there. You know, you can still buy music, including mp3s. It hasn't destroyed music, and subscriptions are just another thing. I think most people just go to YouTube for music and just download whatever they like if they're going to need it offline. It's all there. The music industry's revenue model has simply adjusted. The days of paying per listen are simply over, and that is a good and healthy market correction. That bubble was never gonna last.

I imagine that if games get too shitty in terms of design and content delivery, the market will respond. I've already responded. I don't buy DLC infested packages on day 1 like with Mortal Kombat. What they put on PS Collection and on Game Pass actually turned me off from even purchasing. That's a missed opportunity for them as the partial package did nothing to entice me to buy more fighters. If it ever gets so bad, the market knows how to respond to that by simply not buying it the traditional way. The market always has a way to counter this stuff. We'll either wait for the complete edition or... wait for huge sales... or....
 
Last edited:

FrankWza

Member
Those are all facts, but I think what's off is your emphasis on how negative you perceive any of that to be.

  • 100 million is nice. But 360 is obviously their most successful console, and sold 84 million. That's pretty good. Xbox has always had difficulty being a global brand and is far more focused on NA in terms of their success.
  • Bethesda games haven't come out yet from this acquisition, but so what? They're going to come out eventually. Deathloop, Ghostwire, Starfield and lots more. It's obviously on the way. Things move slow.
  • Released 2 flagship franchises during the holiday and made secondary console more available isn't a negative. The Series S by accident has turned out to be the perfect antidote to supply chain constraints that are making it harder for Sony to get PS5s out. It's two positive things that you mentioned here.
  • Halo was delayed and had a ton of its content cut. This is true. But again the emphasis on negativity is the issue. It still reviewed pretty well, seems popular with fans of the series and is a step in the right direction for the studio after years of development hell. It's not flawless by any means, but it's something. Many people seem to really enjoy the game, and the series for the first time in years.
  • He needed to attach his catalog to PC. Sony is doing the same thing? Who cares?
Nothing here distinguishes him as the maestro he’s made out to be. Circumstantial and hypothetical success does not equate to consistent and sometimes dominating generations that Sony and Nintendo have had. While neither company is small, they are nowhere near the size of Phil’s backer. Sony’s not putting out games day one. They may at some point, but they never needed to. Xbox did with pc while pretending to have this quasi-exclusive thing that isn’t. Another move designed to take away from the competition vs adding to his install base. Why couldn’t he stand alone with his own platform? Sony and Nintendo have been able to.
 
Nothing here distinguishes him as the maestro he’s made out to be. Circumstantial and hypothetical success does not equate to consistent and sometimes dominating generations that Sony and Nintendo have had. While neither company is small, they are nowhere near the size of Phil’s backer. Sony’s not putting out games day one. They may at some point, but they never needed to. Xbox did with pc while pretending to have this quasi-exclusive thing that isn’t. Another move designed to take away from the competition vs adding to his install base. Why couldn’t he stand alone with his own platform? Sony and Nintendo have been able to.
  • Well yeah, your list doesn't make him a maestro because it's a list of all the most negative things you could think of. If I wanted to list some positives, it would be repairing Xbox's shattered image after Xbox One. Gamepass. Refocusing the company on putting out the strongest hardware, but also having a cheaper option with different specs. That's an untested strategy that's original. Focusing resources on actually solving BC titles is noteworthy. Then finally, rapid investment in studio acquisition because he read the situation correctly - that they're fucked in terms of first party development and that it would take 20 years to catch up at best. His decisions are basically the only way he could have gone that would lead to success.
  • No one is claiming their success equates to Nintendo and Sony. They have been 3rd place, peaking during the 360 gen. They're not strong globally. Xbox One was a series of severe mistakes that everyone has publicly admitted, over and over, including in their recent documentary.
  • Why couldn't he stand alone? They did stand alone pretty well during the 360 by competing on price, ease of development, online, and quality exclusives. During Xbox One they infamously changed strategy and it blew up in their face. Now they're course correcting. This is all common knowledge.
I still don't why you're so negative about any of this. They're coming back from behind. That's clear as day to everyone that played games last gen. Things are clearly improving from Mattrick to Spencer. He's been promoted twice since then.
 

FrankWza

Member
Well yeah, your list doesn't make him a maestro because it's a list of all the most negative things you could think of.
Yeah.And a list of accomplishments his competitors achieved that he or xbox has not been able to. That’s kind of the point I originally made, maybe before you posted. This is his last resort. Using the one advantage that he has that few companies on the planet do and even fewer that are tech related.
Why couldn't he stand alone?
He made the Zeni deal and the AB deal. Put them on xbox. Not pc, not tablets or whatever. xbox exclusive.
I still don't why you're so negative about any of this. They're coming back from behind.
I agree. He and xbox should have used this a long time ago. They tried to play Sony and Nintendo’s game and lost. Now they’re playing a game neither can play. It’s not right or wrong, Just the way it is. We can never know what Sony or Nintendo would be able to do unless they were bought by Apple or Amazon the way Microsoft backs xbox and Phil’s purchases. But we know that when they tried to play for the last 20 years and 4 generations, they lost.
 
Last edited:

Sosokrates

Gold Member
This. I do have more trust in Valve, Nintendo and Sony not to fuck up gaming. I do think Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon are likely to fuck it up. The only point of contention I have with Phil's statement is that I think MS is just as likely to fuck it up as those other companies. Gamepass might fuck it up; too early to tell though (and I say this as a current subscriber).

I disagree, Microsoft has been through a lot in regards to gaming, they have 3 gens of experience and have been through to much ups and downs. They have a lot to lose and if they stray to far there history will remind them just how fluid gaming is. Same with sony, however we are seeing recent sony get a bit arrogant and reminiscent of there older selves but nothing major.
 

sainraja

Member
There's always layers to every transition with good and bad elements. Part of the reason Nintendo got pushed out of the current race is that they didn't have the money to push console systems that high end while losing that much money up front, and also investing in HD gaming. So it was Sony's status as a larger multi-media company that allowed them to take this strategy to push out Nintendo. Sega also got pushed out largely by Sony. Sony pretty much toppled the two main consoles. How's that for destabilization?
Sega is mostly responsible for what happened to Sega. As for the hardware race, you can't simply attribute that to Sony — Nintendo got out of that after the GameCube. You are forgetting that Microsoft had entered the race at that point. So if anything, Microsoft is also responsible for Nintendo not being in the 'pushing hardware' race.
 
Last edited:

assurdum

Member
I'm starting to think you aren't that smart.

At first it was your 60 FPS interpolation thread. But hey, honest mistake.

Then it was your inability to grasp the concept of a monopoly.

Now it's your inability to grasp irony.

Irony = Your Avatar
Here we go again
Monopoly

the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
"the state's monopoly of radio and television broadcasting"


So what MS try to do with Gamepass and notorious AAA titles is not like that, Mr smart ass? Because before MS, Bethesda and Activision were free to publish their old brand in the free market of the console hardware, but not anymore. I'm starting to think people as you are prefer to rise the flag of their favourite company indeed to use their brains.
 
Last edited:

Thirty7ven

Sony make cringe trainers.
Called the fact that Phil and his media goons would be spinning the world into seeing this obscene acquisition as something benevolent, an hero act, the age of spin is truly upon us and it te remarkable how so many people are completely unprepared for it.
 

BeardGawd

Gold Member
MS was an outsider, so was Sony, so was Nintendo even, when they were making playing cards. Nobody is buying big publishers except him and he's trying to sell you that idea as a good thing with a story about the bogeyman. He is the big tech corp trying to buy the market.

If some other big tech corp entered the market it's no different and nothing suggests they will destroy it. There isn't some artificial cut off that's lapsed to when others can try and enter the market and do things differently.
Oh yeah this is definitely a bogeyman ploy and people naturally have a fear of the unknown but I think most gamers agree with him tho. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Also I think he's speaking on heritage as well. Wouldn't you as a gamer want the companies who pioneered this hobby to win out in the end vs some big corp thats only jumping in now?
 
Ready at Dawn, Typhoon, PlayGiga, BigBox VR are developers. Population is a game by BigBox not a developer or publisher

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.

A publisher is not just a collection of developers. It is distribution, data, IPs and brands as well as all of the developers in its network. It is completely different to buying a single developer and your false equivalence and baseless fear mongering that Google or Facebook would have done it doesn't change that

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.

MS was an outsider, so was Sony, so was Nintendo even, when they were making playing cards. Nobody is buying big publishers except him and he's trying to sell you that idea as a good thing with a story about the bogeyman. He is the big tech corp trying to buy the market.

If some other big tech corp entered the market it's no different and nothing suggests they will destroy it. There isn't some artificial cut off that's lapsed to when others can try and enter the market and do things differently.

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.
 
Last edited:
Nothing here distinguishes him as the maestro he’s made out to be. Circumstantial and hypothetical success does not equate to consistent and sometimes dominating generations that Sony and Nintendo have had. While neither company is small, they are nowhere near the size of Phil’s backer. Sony’s not putting out games day one. They may at some point, but they never needed to. Xbox did with pc while pretending to have this quasi-exclusive thing that isn’t. Another move designed to take away from the competition vs adding to his install base. Why couldn’t he stand alone with his own platform? Sony and Nintendo have been able to.
"Why can't he play fair"

jesus, give me a break
 

FrankWza

Member
"Why can't he play fair"

jesus, give me a break
Where did I even imply that. I actually said it’s fair more than once.
Like I said earlier, it’s totally fair

Business is business so it’s all fair. But it’s a last resort and one that Sony or Nintendo can’t compete in because only a handful can. But the game they play he was no match for.
You’re at the point where you want a reaction you’re not getting and it making you crazy.Do you need your purchase validated?
insane brad pitt GIF
 
Last edited:
Where did I even imply that. I actually said it’s fair more than once.



You’re at the point where you want a reaction you’re not getting. Do you need your purchase validated?
insane brad pitt GIF
What does this mean then (your own words): Why couldn’t he stand alone with his own platform? Sony and Nintendo have been able to.

That screams to me that you are upset and feel it's unfair that MS is spending all this money.
 

FrankWza

Member
What does this mean then (your own words): Why couldn’t he stand alone with his own platform? Sony and Nintendo have been able to.

That screams to me that you are upset and feel it's unfair that MS is spending all this money.
It means you have some type of attention or reading comprehension disorder. Vamoose
 

Ryu Kaiba

Member
At this point in time In agree with him. The big boys are gonna swallow everyone eventually and I'd actually rather it be Microsoft then google or facebook.
 

FrankWza

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.
I don’t think it’s a monopoly.
I’ve said it’s fair.
I don’t think him buying it is wrong because that’s what he is.
That’s the extent of his ability at that level. He sat across from the best and he lost. Over and over. So he’s using his only tool that allows him to play at the level he wants. Microsoft’s money.
 
Top Bottom