Little Chicken
Gold Member
Funny.What do you call it when a corporation buys two of the largest publishers in the world that have been third-party longer than you’ve been alive, to keep games off an entire system let alone a service?
Funny.What do you call it when a corporation buys two of the largest publishers in the world that have been third-party longer than you’ve been alive, to keep games off an entire system let alone a service?
Not really as clear cut as that though is it.The better question is how many acquisitions have sony made that really affect xbox? Which games did xbox lose from Sonys acquisitions? I really can't think of many. Most of them were already making exclusive ip for PlayStation before they were acquired. Like insomniac, bluepoint, and housemarque. Now compare that to microsofts acquisitions. The difference between how they operate is clear.
You got yourself embarrassed by three different people. Yet you carried on twisting and going in circles. I don't even know why you've replied to me for? It's like your looking for an argument.Can you provide proof that anybody said Sony bought exclusivity for thousands of games? Shit, even hundreds? What's that? No? You're just angry because you got rightfully embarrassed and laughed out of another thread, and are trying to drag that same discussion to a new one?
Ah, right. Carry on.
Both are available on PC?Compare this with Kena, Sifu etc which will forever be exclusive.
Really. How much will Starfield have cost once it releases?The bolded is the key. It's what MS is doing with Starfield. They are using their big MS bucks from Windows, Azure, etc. to backfill the losses that Starfield "not" being on the PS5 will bring.
Shifting the blame doesn't change things.It's almost as if different people were running the company and making deals back then vs now.![]()
This isn't the first instance where we've seen Sony block games from Game Pass, and now here it is straight from the horses ass.
Sorry that your emotional investment into the Sony Corp has inhibited your tolerance for facts.
Shilling at it's best. It's like MS never bought exclusivity ever........Microsoft pays for content to be included on their platform and services.
Sony pays for content to be excluded from everyone else.
I haven't seen any evidence of this for a long time.Sorry your emotional investment into Microsoft has you deluding yourself into thinking that they don't block games from PlayStation. I fully accept that Sony does this. It works both ways.
I haven't seen any evidence of this for a long time.
…I haven't seen any evidence of this for a long time.
What do you call it when a corporation buys two of the largest publishers in the world that have been third-party longer than you’ve been alive, to keep games off an entire system let alone a service?
Business, right?
Funny.
Rise of the Tomb Raider was seven years ago.Shilling at it's best. It's like MS never bought exclusivity ever........
I haven't seen any evidence of this for a long time.
I was trying to be light-hearted because I don't want people to be rude to each other.
Paid online started with Sony and PS4.You seem to think the "REASON" for the deal is to keep it off of GamePass. I'm telling you that the "REASON" for the deal is for core marketing rights. Now within that deal are smaller items that a company like Capcom would have to abid by. Like.............
- Not running commericals, trailers, or Ads with Xbox controller prompts on them.
- Only having Playstation logos at the the end of the Ads\trailers
- Getting first dibs on DLC
- Not releasing on ANY competing subscription service (GamePass, Amazon Prime Gaming, Stadia, etc).
I'm not sure how this is not obvious to all here. Why would Sony give a company say $10 million just to keep the game off GamePass, and then toss in a "oh yeah lets do some extra marketing too" type of deal. That's freaking STUPID. Some of yall are acting as if you've never heard of a marketing deal before. As if it started days after GamePass was created. Geez.
You’re a treasure.I was trying to be light-hearted because I don't want people to be rude to each other.
Every Xbox E3
![]()
Thank you xYou’re a treasure.
I haven't seen any evidence of this for a long time.
None of them are AAA though, are they.
Microsoft pays for content to be included on their platform and services.
Sony pays for content to be excluded from everyone else.
I haven't seen any evidence of this for a long time.
I know, poor Microsoft. Their fans are riled up and crying about not having select games on their rental service due to marketing contracts, as they purchase two of the largest 3rd party publishers in the world, keeping games off entire platforms.None of them are AAA though, are they. They're all independent games or games with small budgets that Microsoft are in-part funding or marketing and bringing to Game Pass.
I think we know which company has a history of stifling competition, anti competitive behaviour and monopolistic practises.
Probably the last time you got laid too. That doesn’t mean it never happened.Rise of the Tomb Raider was seven years ago.
It will never be day one on gamepass. Not in the foreseeable future anyways.Well, people will continue to buy the game as usual, and people who is on the fence can try it through game pass. Still a win win
I like cod, but I'm the opposite. I don't think cod can top MW19 and will never buy a new cod, but would without a doubt try it if it was on Game pass.
Ms has always and still advertise for all xbox games day one on game pass.
https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-game-pass/play-day-one
Starfield, elder scrolls, stalker 2,forza series, halo etc gets on game pass day one.
CoD wouldn't be any different.
Probably the last time you got laid too.
Not sure why this point gets to be casually waved off?
In a thread with finger waving about monopolies and anti-competitiveness, the market realities deserve discussion.
It's absolutely fair to say that due to Sony's dominant market position, they've enjoyed sweeter terms for securing exclusive rights to games. It might even be the case in Japan that Sony doesn't have to offer much of anything at all to earn exclusives.
This is all fair context.
Go back to the 360 gen then tell me....
It will never be day one on gamepass. Not in the foreseeable future anyways.
Of course and that's what one of the points in MS's reply is. That Sony are paying to keep games off of game pass.
We can assume there's a certain amount of implicit strong-arming involved as PS consoles account for the bigger share of sales for most Japanese games, and almost 100% of the share in Japan.
See. I knew it. Peeps gonna use this silly idea as a way of coping with the fact that MS was never and is never going to put COD day one on game pass.Exactly, you've said what I wanted to in more detailed words. Unfortunately you're also getting the expected "LMAO M$" responses.
Being the quote unquote market leader in terms of sales affords them a lot more leverage in marketing discussions and Village is just one example where we have a rare glimpse at what kind of contracts they make companies sign.
We can only guess the kind of limitations their contracts with Square have for the marquee Final Fantasy games etc.
Why stop there, why not go back to the Windows 3.1 days.
![]()
Not until the terms of any current marketing deals lapse at least.
So why don't you say Sony paid to keep games off Google Stadia?
See. I knew it. Peeps gonna use this silly idea as a way of coping with the fact that MS was never and is never going to put COD day one on game pass.
I never said it was the reason for the deal, never implied it was, and certainly never said or implied I think it was.
It's a part of those deals. Deals that are paid for. It's PART OF the reason for the deals.. that should be.. rather obvious considering those deals have other terms.
You are paying for all of the terms in the deal lol
Microsoft pays for content to be included on their platform and services.
Sony pays for content to be excluded from everyone else.
Sure, we can say that. They paid to keep games off of both game pass and google stadia.
We don't have a response from google sent to the Brazilian authorities unfortunately.
All first party published games go to game pass.
Why would this be an exception, outside of contractual obligations to another console (which very likely aren't permanent).
It doesn’t have to be one or the other. They could intentionally do ant a marketing deal with a specific big brand game in hopes of additionally keeping it off a streaming service or platform.
game pass game blocking is pretty rough stuff tbh
Do you think Microsoft would allow a game they paid marketing rights for to be on PS+ which means Sony markets that game for PS+?
Exactly! It's clear that one is worse than the other for consumers though.
At a baseline corporations are designed to make money. Presenting every action thereafter as a good thing, so long as it’s for the sake of profit, is a lazy and cheap argument.So how do you explain MS profiting? What a stupid statement to make. It's something all corporations are guilty of or do you think they are doing it from the goodness of their hearts?
Sony would of had to put the game on Playstation premium to be an exclusive over game pass nice try. Let me know if cod shows up on Playstation premium day 1 in a few months or else its paying to keep it off others platforms something no one else is doing.It's called "timed exclusives". No evidence, huh?
![]()
They're the only one of the two who've pledged they'll put out games on other platforms. Sony literally hasn't acknowledged even MLB '21 or '22 being on Xbox.
I think MS would be a lot more lenient in allowing what you're suggesting if it comes to that.
Probably the last time you got laid too. That doesn’t mean it never happened.
Sure, we can say that. They paid to keep games off of both game pass and google stadia.
We don't have a response from google sent to the Brazilian authorities unfortunately.
All first party published games go to game pass.
Why would this be an exception, outside of contractual obligations to another console (which very likely aren't permanent).
So it's okay for us to say that MS paid to keep every Bethesda\Zenimax game and some Activision\Blizzard off Playstation?
All first party published games go to game pass.
Why would this be an exception, outside of contractual obligations to another console (which very likely aren't permanent).
Obviously people will defend Sony and/Microsoft to the death. But the thing is Sony are not even trying to make the experience better for their players, they are just using their money and market position to actively make things worse for people on a competing platform. There's no net positive for anyone one on either console.
Business is business though.
So it's okay for us to say that MS paid to keep every Bethesda\Zenimax game and some Activision\Blizzard off Playstation?
That's funny.
Ah, yeah, pretty much. And in circles we all go.Are we back on the "my favorite company is less evil than your favorite company" bullshit routine again?
![]()
![]()
How did MS make anything better for any Playstation gamer by buying Bethesda\Zenimax and now Activision Blizzard?