Support NeoGAF

[The_Mike]

I don't think setting the price to $70 is a Sony thing. If you are simply going by who was first, then that credit goes to whoever the publisher for that NBA2k game is (I suppose you can argue influence wise, Sony should be credited or maybe they were the first to announce pricing). As for people saying it was perfectly fine, I think you are mis-characterizing that. I took issue when prices first went up to $59.99 from $49.99. Now I just see it as normal, after a generation or two. Pointing out the that the price hike was an industry move isn't being okay with it or thinking it is perfectly fine. I wish games were still $49.99. That was the perfect price point IMO.

you seem to be right.

Seems like nba was the first 70 euro game, and apparently Sony were quickly out and saying they would increase the price.

They didn't start it, but they adapted it really quick.

But they got away with it easily. Not everyone supported it in here of course, but many did. If Sony didn't adapt so fast then there would have been a bigger outrage.

 

[Scotty W]

You console warriors are funny

 

[The_Mike]

^ Sounds really subjective tbh. I'm not an online FPS player.

And yet you try to teach me, someone who mainly have played pvp online games since 2000, that there's plenty of games like call of duty, giving me examples of every popular shooter as well,thst has nothing to do with the typical cod gameplay.

Counter Strike, half life quake series, cod series, battlefield series, unreal tournament. Insurgency, day of defeat, and so on. All major released and a lot of smaller ones through the last 23 years.

It's like i went into a TLOU discussion, and said TLOU, spider man and Days Gone and so on are all the same games, because they are third person.

Third person cinematic experience is the genre these games are in, but that doesn't mean they play all the same. Some has stealth, some has talent trees and so on. They look alike, but they aren't.

The same with shooters. Just because you are in first person and holding a gun doesn't make them all the same.

You can't really tell other online fps games are just like cod, despite not even having tried other games.

 

[DaGwaphics]

And yet you try to teach me, someone who mainly have played pvp online games since 2000, that there's plenty of games like call of duty, giving me examples of every popular shooter as well,thst has nothing to do with the typical cod gameplay.

Counter Strike, half life quake series, cod series, battlefield series, unreal tournament. Insurgency, day of defeat, and so on. All major released and a lot of smaller ones through the last 23 years.

It's like i went into a TLOU discussion, and said TLOU, spider man and Days Gone and so on are all the same games, because they are third person.

Third person cinematic experience is the genre these games are in, but that doesn't mean they play all the same. Some has stealth, some has talent trees and so on. They look alike, but they aren't.

The same with shooters. Just because you are in first person and holding a gun doesn't make them all the same.

You can't really tell other online fps games are just like cod, despite not even having tried other games.

I'm not trying to teach you anything. Just pointing out that popular games typically do have a certain amount of uniqueness, yet competition is still a thing. It sounds like you are disappointed that an exact clone of CoD doesn't exist, but what popular game exists that has exact clones of equal popularity? That doesn't exist and isn't required for a competitive market place. EA thinks Battlefield is a competitor to CoD, and Ubisoft thinks Rainbow is as well.

TLOU and Days Gone aren't the same exact game, no. But they definitely compete for the same general players. Probably a lot of overlap in the player base there, much more so than say TLOU and ER.

 

[Topher]

I wonder how these publishers feel about Sony shitting in them like this?

I wonder how Activision Blizzard feels about Microsoft "shitting in them" as well.

 

[OldBoyGamer]

You're thinking of it as a gamer. You need to think about it like a business. ATVI is a profitable company that was going through a rough patch. The company was trading at over 100$ per share a year ago before its legal and management issues. The market values the company at around 63 billion dollars today even with the uncertainty surrounding Microsoft's acquisition. ATVI generates billions in earnings per year. It is a good company for anybody to own.

Microsoft will profit immediately from the acquisition without doing anything. It probably intends to sort out the current mess and improve the company which will lead to more profits. Microsoft doesn't care as long as the profit being generated is more than other places where its money could be invested. It also has the flexibility to sell off under-performing or unwanted parts of the business to further streamline operations. Microsoft could just divest and sell the improved ATVI off in the worst case.

I understand your logic. Trying to compete with COD has been an exercise in futility for every company that has tried. There is no guarantee that spending 60B on new games would end up creating properties worth what already exists within ATVI. Buying ATVI and using it as a springboard for future games is a safer, if very expensive, play.

I understand what you’re trying to say but I don’t think it makes business sense other than as I said elsewhere - this was a super expensive move by MS to buy their way to be instant market leader and the cost is irrelevant because they have all the money.

I don’t see how they can profit immediately. The value of Acti bliz is not $67B. Not even close. And you can say they are but they aren’t. The proof is in the pudding. Activ bliz are biting
MS’s hand to make that deal go through because they know it’s not a good deal, is the fucking deal of the century!


The value of the Xbox as a gaming platform is largely contingent on its roster of games - especially exclusives. That value would have gone through the roof over the next few years had they spent that money on buying some of the biggest IP’s in games. MGS, final fantasy, tomb raider, castle V etc etc. use that $67B on buying those kinds of exclusives and the Xbox would have been a must buy for almost all gamers.

Add that new exclusive $10B COD competitor and Bobs your uncle.

 

[reksveks]

I don’t see how they can profit immediately. The value of Acti bliz is not $67B. Not even close. And you can say they are but they aren’t. The proof is in the pudding. Activ bliz are biting
MS’s hand to make that deal go through because they know it’s not a good deal, is the fucking deal of the century!

Show me a gaming publisher that makes anywhere close to the profits that ABK makes.

ABK now cause of yesterday's numbers look a slightly overpriced deal but their market cap was relative in line with their profits and revenue

 

[OldBoyGamer]

Then stop buying from said companies, right?

And I like the tune of some comments here: "without COD Playstation is dead". Wasn't Playstation great because of its own IP? All this talk about Sony "protecting" competition is nonsense.

Being anti corporate companies doesn’t mean I don’t want their product. It means I don’t want them to hold their consumers to random and I certainly don’t want them to use their power for political gain.

 

[Leyasu]

Unless Sony screws up, Xbox will sell half the amount total at best.

Xbox isn't relevant outside the US and UK and once PS5 supply will be sufficient, those two markets will struggle as well.

That's the entire reason MS is moving towards GamePass.
Obviously, GamePass isn't sustainable yet, so they can't exactly say they'll move away from consoles.
The Xbox division has been struggling since day 1 and Xbox only had one proper shot with X360, but lost it's momentum with XBO. To bleed even more while GP isn't sustainable yet, would be suicide for MS.

MS knows it and the writing has been on the wall since 2013.

What a post lol They just decided to splash out 80bn on I.Ps and studios because that was better than moving away from hardware and going 3rd party only because the writing is on the wall and they can see it too. Yep I can totally see it.

 

[OldBoyGamer]

Show me a gaming publisher that makes anywhere close to their profits that ABK makes.

What’s that got to do with being worth $67B?

 

[NickFire]

Is Bungie considered 3rd party now? I know Sony bought it, but if they are staying platform neutral what do we call them now? Second party means 3rd party making exclusive games, right? If so, I wouldn't call them 2nd.

Regardless, Sony should push Bungie to use their shooter and online capabilities to make a modern earth-based military shooter. The COD formula is not exactly rocket science if you can focus on making a fast paced shooter with solid mechanics and decent maps.

 

[DaGwaphics]

What’s that got to do with being worth $67B?

Everything. When you earn as much profit as they do per year, the ROI on 70b isn't that bad.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Is Bungie considered 3rd party now? I know Sony bought it, but if they are staying platform neutral what do we call them now? Second party means 3rd party making exclusive games, right? If so, I wouldn't call them 2nd.

They are first party/subsidiary just like San Diego Studio or Bethesda.

Regardless, Sony should push Bungie to use their shooter and online capabilities to make a modern earth-based military shooter. The COD formula is not exactly rocket science if you can focus on making a fast paced shooter with solid mechanics and decent maps.

 

[remember_spinal]

Is Bungie considered 3rd party now? I know Sony bought it, but if they are staying platform neutral what do we call them now? Second party means 3rd party making exclusive games, right? If so, I wouldn't call them 2nd.

Regardless, Sony should push Bungie to use their shooter and online capabilities to make a modern earth-based military shooter. The COD formula is not exactly rocket science if you can focus on making a fast paced shooter with solid mechanics and decent maps.

Bungie is a 1st party studio, just like San Diego studios

 

[Leyasu]

What’s that got to do with being worth $67B?

I don't think Microsoft will be looking to recoup that money within the next few years. It is a long term investment in IPs and talent. Plus they have the cash just sitting around devaluing through inflation... Might as well buy some valuable assets with it

 

[reksveks]

What’s that got to do with being worth $67B?

That's what the market as a whole basically looks at. Potential is valued less than actual realised profits and income.

 

[NickFire]

They are first party/subsidiary just like San Diego Studio or Bethesda.

Bungie is a 1st party studio, just like San Diego studios

I suppose you are both correct. Just feels weird to me to call a company first party that is releasing games (or is going to) on multiple consoles.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I suppose you are both correct. Just feels weird to me to call a company first party that is releasing games (or is going to) on multiple consoles.

It is also pretty weird of Playstation realising their games on PC.

 

[01011001]

I suppose you are both correct. Just feels weird to me to call a company first party that is releasing games (or is going to) on multiple consoles.

Sega released games in rival platforms back in the 90s, so that's nothing new

 

[Lasha]

I understand what you’re trying to say but I don’t think it makes business sense other than as I said elsewhere - this was a super expensive move by MS to buy their way to be instant market leader and the cost is irrelevant because they have all the money.

I don’t see how they can profit immediately. The value of Acti bliz is not $67B. Not even close. And you can say they are but they aren’t. The proof is in the pudding. Activ bliz are biting
MS’s hand to make that deal go through because they know it’s not a good deal, is the fucking deal of the century!


The value of the Xbox as a gaming platform is largely contingent on its roster of games - especially exclusives. That value would have gone through the roof over the next few years had they spent that money on buying some of the biggest IP’s in games. MGS, final fantasy, tomb raider, castle V etc etc. use that $67B on buying those kinds of exclusives and the Xbox would have been a must buy for almost all gamers.

Add that new exclusive $10B COD competitor and Bobs your uncle.

Explain to me what you think the fair price for Activision is then. Those other properties are clearly not the biggest in gaming if you can buy them all for less than the price of Activision's portfolio. The current price of Activision is around 62 billion dollars. Not my opinion btw. That is how much the market values Activision at the moment. Activision's value was higher before it's legal troubles. It's a really solid gaming company to own.

Microsoft profits immediately because Activision is an immensely profitable company. Microsoft is trading cash that is being devalued due to inflation for a company that generates massive revenue and profit. All the COD, King, and Blizzard revenue streams will immediately go into Microsoft's profit. Activision gives Microsoft a huge boost in IP and billions of dollars per year to do what you think it should do. It's a win win.

 

[OldBoyGamer]

Explain to me what you think the fair price for Activision is then. Those other properties are clearly not the biggest in gaming if you can buy them all for less than the price of Activision's portfolio. The current price of Activision is around 62 billion dollars. Not my opinion btw. That is how much the market values Activision at the moment. Activision's value was higher before it's legal troubles. It's a really solid gaming company to own.

Microsoft profits immediately because Activision is an immensely profitable company. Microsoft is trading cash that is being devalued due to inflation for a company that generates massive revenue and profit. All the COD, King, and Blizzard revenue streams will immediately go into Microsoft's profit. Activision gives Microsoft a huge boost in IP and billions of dollars per year to do what you think it should do. It's a win win.

Fair enough. According to statista, AB average between 7 and just under $9B a year. But that’s not a steady climb. It goes up and down. They’ve never broken $10B.

That means IF the company maintains that revenue (this year its gone down a bit) MS will see the financial return in seven years.

Which is fair enough I genuinely didn’t realise that

But I do have to say that I’m skeptical of that revenue because MS do not have a great track record with their big studios and IP.

Regardless. It does make the sum a bit less crazy than I originally thought

 

[Lasha]

Fair enough. According to statista, AB average between 7 and just under $9B a year. But that’s not a steady climb. It goes up and down. They’ve never broken $10B.

That means IF the company maintains that revenue (this year its gone down a bit) MS will see the financial return in seven years.

Which is fair enough I genuinely didn’t realise that

But I do have to say that I’m skeptical of that revenue because MS do not have a great track record with their big studios and IP.

Regardless. It does make the sum a bit less crazy than I originally thought

Microsoft sees financial return from day 1 because ATVI is revenue generating. Break even is probably a bit longer since it's operating income is around 3.5B to 4B. Not that Microsoft cares because it has bigger plans than just breaking even. Look what it did with that 2.5B investment in Minecraft.

I have a slightly more optimistic outlook. Microsoft can carve all of the expertise and market knowledge out of Activision to help it's other studios. Microsoft has the cash to splash on IP which has been neglected due to Activision's singular focus on COD and share price. Whatever comes next is going to be wild if the deal actually closes.

 

[metareferential]

Being anti corporate companies doesn’t mean I don’t want their product. It means I don’t want them to hold their consumers to random and I certainly don’t want them to use their power for political gain.

It's OT, but anyway: I get your point, but I can't see another way to influence their policy if not refusing to give them money.

 

[ComboBongo]

That's pretty much what I was saying.

Except you were saying that they created Game Pass out of necessity. They’ve clearly done it as it’s the right path forward from a business perspective and they’re using the full backing of Microsoft to attempt to establish themselves as the top gaming streaming service with first mover advantage. Satya Nadella learnt from Reed Hastings which is why they are applying the Netflix model to gaming.

 

[legacy24]

 

[CatLady]

Fair enough. According to statista, AB average between 7 and just under $9B a year. But that’s not a steady climb. It goes up and down. They’ve never broken $10B.

That means IF the company maintains that revenue (this year its gone down a bit) MS will see the financial return in seven years.

Which is fair enough I genuinely didn’t realise that

But I do have to say that I’m skeptical of that revenue because MS do not have a great track record with their big studios and IP.

Regardless. It does make the sum a bit less crazy than I originally thought

At the end of 7 years, they will also still own an asset that is worth billions that will continue generating revenue in the billions annually or can be sold for probably more than $68B.

 

[Warablo]

I wonder how Activision Blizzard feels about Microsoft "shitting in them" as well.

I don't think they care as long as they keep their jobs. Big layoffs would probably happen if they didn't get bought out.

 

[Topher]

I don't think they care as long as they keep their jobs. Big layoffs would probably happen if they didn't get bought out.

Yeah, I know. Just messing around.

 

[twilo99]

Can they make something like Doom?

 

[Kagey K]

Can they make something like Doom?

Original PC release or 2018?

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Thx for the title fix mods as the OP was misleading.

 

[FF:Enhanced_Reality]

Sony: We like to buy stuff but don't like it when our competition does.

Sony is just mad because all the times they fucked over xbox they got fucked back.
Sony definitely doesn't like to share.
Ms is playing nice. For now.

Some people have very short memories.

 

[TheGodfather07]

sony are right. who else can make an FPS with the engagement and sales of call of duty? its the premier FPS game, is what sony are saying and who is gonna deny that?

 

[Torrent of Pork]

Sony aside I still cannot understand this deal.

I just can’t see how they will make a return on that $67B.

It feels like a Dick move by a company pushing their financial weight around. A company that doesn’t actually expect to make a return on that sale. But they simply want to become the market leader and have used their incredible wealth to try and do that.

Edit. And before someone says it. I am genuinely NOT anti Xbox. I love that little black cube and am getting a lot of joy out of it thank you very much.

I am anti global corporate companies though

Cash in the bank is losing value by the day. Expect a lot more M&A by cash-heavy corporations in the next year or so as functioning, profit-generating ventures are worth far more than cash in the bank that's literally on fire.

 

[Benniewise de Clown]

Except you were saying that they created Game Pass out of necessity. They’ve clearly done it as it’s the right path forward from a business perspective and they’re using the full backing of Microsoft to attempt to establish themselves as the top gaming streaming service with first mover advantage. Satya Nadella learnt from Reed Hastings which is why they are applying the Netflix model to gaming.

There's different perspectives to everything, you know that, right?

You say they do it because it's the "right" path, I say it's mostly out of necessity.

What's the difference, really?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't PS+ incl. PS Now bigger than GamePass? What first mover advantage does MS have, exactly?
The market for game-streaming services is much smaller than for tv. It won't be the future for the foreseeable future.

 

[Benniewise de Clown]

What a post lol They just decided to splash out 80bn on I.Ps and studios because that was better than moving away from hardware and going 3rd party only because the writing is on the wall and they can see it too. Yep I can totally see it.

People can laugh all they want, but if you really think about it, MS is like Fauci and BigPharma trying to sell vaccines.

 

[Kagey K]

There's different perspectives to everything, you know that, right?

You say they do it because it's the "right" path, I say it's mostly out of necessity.

What's the difference, really?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't PS+ incl. PS Now bigger than GamePass? What first mover advantage does MS have, exactly?
The market for game-streaming services is much smaller than for tv. It won't be the future for the foreseeable future.

According to the filing PS Plus is at a disadvantage, and MS has stole up to 70% of the landscape.

It will take them at least 5 years of heavy losses to catch up to where Gamepass is today.

It's right there in the OP.

 

[Menzies]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't PS+ incl. PS Now bigger than GamePass? What first mover advantage does MS have, exactly?
The market for game-streaming services is much smaller than for tv. It won't be the future for the foreseeable future.

Well, sure as shit Sony doesn't know.

According to 'victim Sony' in the OP; - "GamePass has a commanding lead and has captured 60-70% of the subscription market. It will take several years and substantial investment for a competitor."

Then according to 'boastful Sony'; - "we're #1 in subscribers with 'Spartacus' after rolling PS+ with Now."

Flip a coin.

 

[plasmawave]

Hold my beer

 

[Benniewise de Clown]

According to the filing PS Plus is at a disadvantage, and MS has stole up to 70% of the landscape.

It will take them at least 5 years of heavy losses to catch up to where Gamepass is today.

It's right there in the OP.

Thanks, I stand corrected. GamePass does have the lead according to said post.

 

[March Climber]

According to the filing PS Plus is at a disadvantage, and MS has stole up to 70% of the landscape.

It will take them at least 5 years of heavy losses to catch up to where Gamepass is today.

It's right there in the OP.

Oh, so they're where HBO was years ago when Netflix was the stream king. Couldn't they just do the HBO thing and keep making and offering consistently high budget quality content?

 

[ComboBongo]

There's different perspectives to everything, you know that, right?

You say they do it because it's the "right" path, I say it's mostly out of necessity.

What's the difference, really?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't PS+ incl. PS Now bigger than GamePass? What first mover advantage does MS have, exactly?
The market for game-streaming services is much smaller than for tv. It won't be the future for the foreseeable future.

I’m saying they see it as the right path as their core business is now centred around subscription services (not my opinion). They clearly see massive growth potential in gaming to be investing so heavily in to both games and game streaming.

PlayStation Plus (including what it was originally, an Xbox Live equivalent) from what we know is bigger than Game Pass. We don’t know how many individual Xbox Live subscriptions are still going too. Although it must be in the tens of millions.

First mover advantage is with respect to Game Pass being the first all you can eat game service offering first party titles, and some third party day and date of their release. So just like Netflix.

 

[A2una1]

Well you can certainly argue over the quality of the CoD Games. But not beeing on Playstation anymore will certainly be a hit. Maybe not as drastic as sony will make it to ,but it will. I have friends who only play FIFA and CoD and nothing else. They don't play on PC and only own one Konsole. They don't care if it is a Microsoft or Sony konsole. The first one buying a console is more or less determening the console for this circle of friends in this gen.
But on the other hand, I don't think they know yet CoD is becoming a Microsoft IP...

It is a pathetic move from sony nonetheless...

 

[Benniewise de Clown]

I’m saying they see it as the right path as their core business is now centred around subscription services (not my opinion). They clearly see massive growth potential in gaming to be investing so heavily in to both games and game streaming.

PlayStation Plus (including what it was originally, an Xbox Live equivalent) from what we know is bigger than Game Pass. We don’t know how many individual Xbox Live subscriptions are still going too. Although it must be in the tens of millions.

First mover advantage is with respect to Game Pass being the first all you can eat game service offering first party titles, and some third party day and date of their release. So just like Netflix.

Yes, like I said, that pretty much what I was saying as well.
Definitely not disagreeing with you on this.

 

[pasterpl]

To be honest, for the most impact, I would keep cod, war zone multi platform. But would make it like 30 day gamepass/Xbox/pc launch exclusive, plus would add multiple exclusive game perks to Xbox/gamepass version.

 

[00Magnum Gaming]

You said....

"Sony will get mw2, continued warzone updates, and never see a mainline entry again"

A link or you are a lying troll

Clearly stating his opinion. Your just to butt hurt to see.

 

[93xfan]

Bring back SOCOM

This x 1000.

 

[93xfan]

To be honest, for the most impact, I would keep cod, war zone multi platform. But would make it like 30 day gamepass/Xbox/pc launch exclusive, plus would add multiple exclusive game perks to Xbox/gamepass version.

They could go that route.

Could even propose a deal with Sony to stop preventing Final Fantasy and other 3rd party titles on Xbox as part of a deal.

 

[Yoboman]

Honestly I hope COD goes exclusive

I think the status quo of COD on top has gone on too long and some disruption will really open up some competition in the genre to fill the void

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Clearly stating his opinion. Your just to butt hurt to see.

He constantly stated it like a fact at the time he was posting it.
You are so butt hurt by me calling out the bs that you late quote me.