Support NeoGAF

[Ozriel]

Well, its not even about the install base TODAY. It's about what would happen to the install base AFTER the acquisition. CoD is played by HALF of the console playerbase. If Sony loses HALF of the 150 million, they are down to 75 million and if MS gains that Sony half, they literally switch places. Yes, Sony is first and MS is at third place TODAY but they switch places in one fell swoop.

Not to mention the fact that this would effectively nerf Sony's entire business. Assuming they lose 30% of their userbase, thats their entire profit margin. That means they would have to downscale their entire business. Which means fewer first party releases. Fewer third party exclusives. Fewer investment in consoles. We've seen what happened to Nintendo. They went from selling 150 million DS and 100 million Wiis to just selling 120 million Switches. A lost of 130 million units in just a little over 10 years. They literally had to bow out of the console business and their AAA output has been a shell of what it used to be. Zelda and Mario in 2017 were their last AAA games. They simply cant afford to release AAA games on a regular basis.

MS says they are in third place. No. Nintendo is a non factor. CoD hasnt been on Nintendo since Black Ops 2 in 2012. This is a battle for second place and the install base is 150+63 million which will completely switch the moment cod goes exclusive. There is so much deception in MS's comments, it's frustrating.

There's a guarantee on the table that should see COD on PlayStation for the entire generation at the very least.
So there's no immediate switch like yoir scaremongering post implies.

Also, less than 15% of the PlayStation userbase buys COD, so your theories of mass switching makes no sense.

Your Nintendo comments are extremely bizarre. This is by far the best performance for Nintendo first party in a long, long time. They've combined their handheld and console lines and while they're selling fewer combined units than the days of the Wii, they're absolutely killing it with software.

 

[IFireflyl]

But if Microsoft does it if they promise the regulators otherwise it will prevent them, or make it harder for them to acquire companies in the future.

And I don't think Microsoft is for short term.

Microsoft's promise to regulators is pretty worthless since there is nothing that legally binds them to a promise. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not definitively saying any of this will happen. I'm just saying that that is the difference between the Bungie acquisition and the Activision Blizzard acquisition. With the Bungie acquisition it was in the paperwork that Destiny will remain multi-platform. With the Activision Blizzard acquisition it's just Microsoft's word. Which again, they could honor, and they could honor it for years (or even decades). It's just the difference of knowing versus hoping.

 

[adamsapple]

Microsoft's promise to regulators is pretty worthless since there is nothing that legally binds them to a promise. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not definitively saying any of this will happen. I'm just saying that that is the difference between the Bungie acquisition and the Activision Blizzard acquisition. With the Bungie acquisition it was in the paperwork that Destiny will remain multi-platform. With the Activision Blizzard acquisition it's just Microsoft's word. Which again, they could honor, and they could honor it for years (or even decades). It's just the difference of knowing versus hoping.

I don't think they would in any sense of the word want to incur a PR nightmare if they go back on their 'promise' despite there being no legalities tied to it

 

[DeepEnigma]

I don't think they would in any sense of the word want to incur a PR nightmare if they go back on their 'promise' despite there being no legalities tied to it

Either way, the precise deal length is this...

...going into next gen.

 

[Three]

what? That's the PS4 + PS5 install base aka actively supported users. Sony is still actively putting out PS4 titles + PS4 titles will come from 3rd party for the next two years probably. As mentioned in the filings with Brazil and UK, brand loyalty is a real thing and it's likely Sony will continue to have a massive install base as people upgrade from PS4 to PS5.

That's literally every single PS4 + PS5 sold but there would be a massive overlap of people who bought PS4s and replaced them with PS5s, ones that are simply unused. Would you for example count PS3 or PS2s as PS install base too? Not really because it's a legacy device that's mostly been replaced.

 

[Banjo64]

The difference is that Sony has no control over Destiny remaining multi-platform while Microsoft could make Call of Duty console-exclusive whenever it desires.

I'm sorry to highlight your post, but this thread really is like a GAF Greatest Hits compilation the monopoly man failing to understand what a monopoly is continuously as well this thread has it all

 

[jorgejjvr]

I just want cod on my gp please. It's very consumer friendly Regulators. I promise you

 

[SportsFan581]

Because that appears to be their terms for buying Bungie. Bungie remains independent.

Things Change. ™

That's worth about as much as anything MS is saying about ABK today.

 

[phil_t98]

That's literally every single PS4 + PS5 sold but there would be a massive overlap of people who bought PS4s and replaced them with PS5s, ones that are simply unused. Would you for example count PS3 or PS2s as PS install base too? Not really because it's a legacy device that's mostly been replaced.

Yeah you should

Data Shows More Gamers Are Playing PS3 Than Xbox Series X|S

According to the video game data website, HowLongToBeat, it shows that more players are currently gaming on PS3 than Xbox Series X|S.

www.gamebyte.com

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[phil_t98]

You got some typos in there but I think you are asking will it still be a thing in 6 years?
I don't what Destiny will be in 6 years. I do know that Bungie is an independent company.

Bloody phone autocorrect lol

 

[DarkMage619]

I don't think they would in any sense of the word want to incur a PR nightmare if they go back on their 'promise' despite there being no legalities tied to it

A consent decree would be legally binding if regulators concluded CoD alone was so important to the industry as a whole to be on PlayStation. Also the assurances MS made to Sony at the onset of the deal was also legally binding so it wasn't just MS' word.

I still find it amazing that a single game not even available on Switch is the sole determining factor of success in video games. The industry is big enough for all companies to find success and more people buying an Xbox isn't a threat to gaming in the least.

 

[phil_t98]

You got some typos in there but I think you are asking will it still be a thing in 6 years?
I don't what Destiny will be in 6 years. I do know that Bungie is an independent company.

Yes Bungie are an indipendant company but if you read these forums and possibly this thread a lot of Sony fans claiming Sony get final say or won't allow Bungie to put their games on other platforms and destiny will stay as it is because it's already out.

 

[Three]

Yeah you should

http://[URL][URL]https://www.gameby...e-gamers-are-playing-ps3-than-xbox-series-xs/

[/URL][/URL]

I followed the link and the source of that artcle is a page not found. I was curious to see how PS3 players are aggregated on howlongtobeat. I have a hard time believing that data is accurate.

If it's simply based on the platform the game released on and people playing that game then it may be explained by an influx of people playing PS3 titles on PS Now/Premium.

 

[Forsythia]

See below for just how out of touch in gaming these UK regulators are:

Sony is literally doing this right now, as we speak, and also as the market leader. Yet they're crying behind the scenes to the CMA that even if CoD is available on PlayStation that gamers may expect additional benefits on Xbox and therefore influence their console of choice.

You can't make this shit up.

This one baffles me. Sony's been doing this for years and now comes crying MS "might" do it. MS even promised content parity. This is too ridiculous to be true.

 

[SportsFan581]

Yes Bungie are an indipendant company but if you read these forums and possibly this thread a lot of Sony fans claiming Sony get final say or won't allow Bungie to put their games on other platforms and destiny will stay as it is because it's already out.

If Sony isn't the final say beyond the boards and measures of autonomy they've provided to Bungie, than Sony didn't buy Bungie. They loaned them some cash out of the goodness of their hearts with repayment made via the company's profits. I find that really doubtful. If the company started to significantly under perform, I feel like Sony could step in and make changes to the management structure there. If that isn't the case, than you are likely looking at one of the dumbest multi-billion dollar deals we've ever seen.

@ IFireflyl As I stated above, IMO this was a laughably bad deal if Sony spent Billions on Bungie and gained no more standing than they had from the start. I doubt that's the case tbh. Time will tell.

 

[IFireflyl]

Why is that exactly? Because so far they've said so?

Sorry, I completely missed this response. This is why it's different:

With the Bungie acquisition it was in the paperwork that Destiny will remain multi-platform. With the Activision Blizzard acquisition it's just Microsoft's word. Which again, they could honor, and they could honor it for years (or even decades). It's just the difference of knowing versus hoping.

I don't think they would in any sense of the word want to incur a PR nightmare if they go back on their 'promise' despite there being no legalities tied to it

You could very well be right. That's Topher 's take as well. I don't know what the future entails, but it's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out one way or another. As with the both of you, I also think this merger is going to go through. We're just making it through the chest pounding Gorilla moves before everything gets approved.

I'm sorry to highlight your post, but this thread really is like a GAF Greatest Hits compilation the monopoly man failing to understand what a monopoly is continuously as well this thread has it all

 

[onesvenus]

I do, you dont. what stops every single person on the planet being a potential customer? The answer is interest.

Suppose you need a driving license to buy a car. Is someone who wants a car but doesn't know how to drive a potential customer? No, it's not.
Interest is not what signals a potential customer. Having possible access to something does.
You can try to fit definitions as much as you want but that doesn't give you the reason.

If you think you have it, fair enough.

 

[phil_t98]

I followed the link and the source of that artcle is a page not found. I was curious to see how PS3 players are aggregated on howlongtobeat. I have a hard time believing that data is accurate.

If it's simply based on the platform the game released on and people playing that game then it may be explained by an influx of people playing PS3 titles on PS Now/Premium.

Data Shows More Gamers Are Playing PS3 Than Xbox Series X|S

According to the video game data website, HowLongToBeat, it shows that more players are currently gaming on PS3 than Xbox Series X|S.

www.gamebyte.com

 

[Topher]

Data Shows More Gamers Are Playing PS3 Than Xbox Series X|S

According to the video game data website, HowLongToBeat, it shows that more players are currently gaming on PS3 than Xbox Series X|S.

www.gamebyte.com

that site is linking to another site who claims to have extracted the data, but that original article is no longer there.

The page being linked to in this article isn't showing number of gamers per platform at all from what I can tell. Just number of releases per platform.

Site Statistics | HowLongToBeat

How long are your favorite video games? HowLongToBeat has the answer. Create a backlog, submit your game times and compete with your friends!

howlongtobeat.com

 

[KingT731]

This one baffles me. Sony's been doing this for years and now comes crying MS "might" do it. MS even promised content parity. This is too ridiculous to be true.

I think they're trying to make the distinction that if the game is on GP as well as having benefits for MS platforms there's less reasoning to even play the game outside of that ecosystem.
-----
Side note I did find reading this complaint to be quite interesting as MS says they're not using Azure servers for Xcloud

 

[Oddvintagechap]

even microsoft is saying, WE HAVE NO GAMEZ.

 

[Three]

http://[URL]https://www.gamebyte.com/data-shows-more-gamers-are-playing-ps3-than-xbox-series-xs/

[/URL]

Follow the link. Then within that article where it says

"As reported by aroged.com, the number of players in 2021 gaming on the PlayStation 3 outnumbers the Xbox Series X|S consoles."

The aroged link is not to any article, it's a broken link. I mean for all I know aroged.Com saw 10 people manually submit PS3 game times vs 1 Series X submission in a month. It's a ridiculous claim at face value. The PS3 is commercially dead and would have nothing in terms of game sales compared to Xbox Series S/X.

 

[DeepEnigma]

even microsoft is saying, WE HAVE NO GAMEZ.

They only have themselves to blame though.

 

[SportsFan581]

Side note I did find reading this complaint to be quite interesting as MS says they're not using Azure servers for Xcloud

That's a known thing. Xcloud is powered by the same chips that are in the XSX, which likely wouldn't be of much use to general Azure customers (memory config for the CPU would be less than ideal to say the least). I'd be surprised if there was even one Azure client using an Xcloud node (besides Xcloud, obviously).

 

[KingT731]

That's a known thing. Xcloud is powered by the same chips that are in the XSX, which likely wouldn't be of much use to general Azure customers (memory config for the CPU would be less than ideal to say the least). I'd be surprised if there was even one Azure client using an Xcloud node (besides Xcloud, obviously).

I'm aware of what they have said previously. Both their Xcloud developer page as well as interviews by Nadella say otherwise though.

 

[SportsFan581]

I'm aware of what they have said previously. Both their Xcloud developer page as well as interviews by Nadella say otherwise though.

I guess they could offer them up to customers, but I don't see why anyone would choose that option. The consoles are good value for budget gaming, but the configuration isn't exactly special for general compute. DDR3/4/5 is going to improve things for you quite a bit when purchasing a compute instance. Unless you specifically want to do work against the GPU, but in that case there is likely better options in the cloud already.

 

[Umbasaborne]

I feel less confident that this will go through, but to be honest I think thats a good thing. I dont think any of the Major third party franchises should be exclusive, that includes square enix and kingdom hearts, and final fantasy, and it includes call of duty, fallout, and the elder scrolls

 

[Schmick]

I think they're trying to make the distinction that if the game is on GP as well as having benefits for MS platforms there's less reasoning to even play the game outside of that ecosystem.
-----
Side note I did find reading this complaint to be quite interesting as MS says they're not using Azure servers for Xcloud

Wtf? How? Where? Why?

 

[FalsettoVibe]

They only have themselves to blame though.

This. They quite literally could have done the same thing Sony has done over the years but did not. Now using a massive amount of money from other divisions they are basically hitting the I win button.

 

[remember_spinal]

even microsoft is saying, WE HAVE NO GAMEZ.

Interesting combined with this…

 

[SportsFan581]

Interesting combined with this…

A real light bulb moment for them I guess.

Right along with the rest of the console manufacturers that acquire studios. I could have told them this, no deep investigation needed. They absolutely should be reviewing the deal with the consideration that exclusivity is a possibility, just like they did in Brazil. ABK titles are hardly the cornerstone of the industry, just a very small piece of the big picture in reality.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Interesting combined with this…

Took some great detective work to find that "pattern".

 

[DForce]

According to Mr. Gangsta Shits, Microsoft led Sony into a trap.

I think there's a good chance that this deal will go through, but to see Microsoft lying their asses off has me shaking my head.

 

[GHG]

A real light bulb moment for them I guess.

Right along with the rest of the console manufacturers that acquire studios. I could have told them this, no deep investigation needed. They absolutely should be reviewing the deal with the consideration that exclusivity is a possibility, just like they did in Brazil. ABK titles are hardly the cornerstone of the industry, just a very small piece of the big picture in reality.

Took some great detective work to find that "pattern".

It's not about the exclusivity part per se, that in itself is not an issue. It's more to do with whether on not they are being honest with their intentions/plans or not. The regulators will be looking at all of this asking if they are being lied to and if the feeling is yes, what else might be untoward as a result.

It's just years of PR double speak that surrounded previous acquisitions coming back to bite them in the ass, only have themselves to blame in this case.

 

[Three]

Suppose you need a driving license to buy a car. Is someone who wants a car but doesn't know how to drive a potential customer? No, it's not.
Interest is not what signals a potential customer. Having possible access to something does.
You can try to fit definitions as much as you want but that doesn't give you the reason.

If you think you have it, fair enough.

What's the phone, console or subscription service in your analogy?
Why would you not have access to a driving licence if you are interested in buying a car?

If you go out and get a driving licence you are showing a prerequisite interest in buying a car like a Honda, Tesla, etc. If you go out and buy a console you are showing a prerequisite interest in buying games like Hellblade, GoW etc. Doesn't mean you 100% will buy a specific game because again your interests might not be third person action games. If you are buying a phone you are not necessarily showing any interest in games so counting them as "potential customers" that would outnumber "potential customers" on consoles is a bad way of looking at things. You're replacing a large potential audience that have already shown an interest to chase a group of people ("potential customers") that have shown not to have any already.

I'll give you another analogy. You want to sell a Nascar toy model. Would removing it from sale in the states to go and sell it in china because the "potential customers" is greater be sound? Of course not because even if there are 1.4B "potential customers" vs 330M in the US people's interests are different. You don't remove it from where your actual customers are showing interest to suggest you have more potential customers elsewhere where they have not shown any interest. Phone users have not shown any interest in cloud streaming games.

 

[SportsFan581]

It's not about the exclusivity part per se, that in itself is not an issue. It's more to do with whether on not they are being honest with their intentions/plans or not. The regulators will be looking at all of this asking if they are being lied to and if the feeling is yes, what else might be untoward as a result.

It's just years of PR double speak that surrounded previous acquisitions coming back to bite them in the ass, only have themselves to blame in this case.

If MS made a point of stating that Zenimax software would remain multi-platform when that deal was being reviewed (in the official documents to these regulatory boards - not media PR spin) and that wasn't followed through on, that could be a thing. But like I said, these regulatory boards should be looking at the deal from the perspective that things could go exclusive regardless of what MS's future plans are (like they did in Brazil). It shouldn't make much difference.

Chances are that MS never took that position officially though, in regards to the Zenimax deal. They barely even took that position in the press, opting for the case-by-case thing which neither promised nor removed the titles from anywhere. Along with very carefully worded statements about not removing existing content (which they haven't done).

 

[DeepEnigma]

opting for the case-by-case thing

Exactly.

 

[GHG]

If MS made a point of stating that Zenimax software would remain multi-platform when that deal was being reviewed (in the official documents to these regulatory boards - not media PR spin) and that wasn't followed through on, that could be a thing. But like I said, these regulatory boards should be looking at the deal from the perspective that things could go exclusive regardless of what MS's future plans are (like they did in Brazil). It shouldn't make much difference.

Chances are that MS never took that position officially though, in regards to the Zenimax deal. They barely even took that position in the press, opting for the case-by-case thing which neither promised nor removed the titles from anywhere. Along with very carefully worded statements about not removing existing content (which they haven't done).

If they think that being transparent and honest regarding their intentions for any acquisition could harm their chances of said acquisition going through then that's a red flag in itself.

They will ask them what their intentions and plans are. If they feel they are not getting a straight answer then this is the result. Not all regulators around the world are the same, the processes are different and some are more strict/stringent on certain things than others. Citing Brazil in this case is of no relevance to the UK, they will do their own due diligence and follow their own process, not Brazil's.

 

[adamsapple]

Took some great detective work to find that "pattern".

Citing Tae Kim is the Sony equivalent of Tom Warren, I suppose

 

[SportsFan581]

Exactly.

Maybe we just haven't seen the "cases" that result in multi-platform releases yet. Presumably, the MMO releases.

 

[GHG]

Citing Tae Kim is the Sony equivalent of Tom Warren, I suppose

Sony are about to hit the CMA with a link to the twitter page of the esteemed "industry commentator" Tae Kim.

The CMA will be floored.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

It's not about the exclusivity part per se, that in itself is not an issue. It's more to do with whether on not they are being honest with their intentions/plans or not. The regulators will be looking at all of this asking if they are being lied to and if the feeling is yes, what else might be untoward as a result.

It's just years of PR double speak that surrounded previous acquisitions coming back to bite them in the ass, only have themselves to blame in this case.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Maybe we just haven't seen the "cases" that result in multi-platform releases yet. Presumably, the MMO releases.

GHG explained why they are asking more finite questions for purchasing the largest publisher in the industry, after already purchasing another one of the largest publishers with much ambiguity.

This is par for the course.

 

[Pelta88]

Microsoft's promise to regulators is pretty worthless since there is nothing that legally binds them to a promise.

Bingo.

I believe MS' actual goal is to make COD a GP only game. If you want it on any platform, that platform has to support GP. These promises MS is giving to regulators is just PR smoke. Once they own ATVI... They own it. And can do whatever they please with it. The manouver will be to pivot heavily on PR about why GP is the only outlet and then turn to PS gamers and in effect say

"It's Playstation's fault that you don't have access to COD because Playstation wont support GP."

We know for certain that PS is about "protecting" their eco system first and foremost. COD being "Exclusive to GP" is really what this conversation is really about.

 

[SportsFan581]

If they think that being transparent and honest regarding their intentions for any acquisition could harm their chances of said acquisition going through then that's a red flag in itself.

Like I said if they weren't transparent and made arguments to these regulatory bodies that they reneged on in the Zenimax deal, that could be a hurdle for them. I have no idea what they were saying officially to the regulators about that.

Obviously, Brazil and the UK, US, EU etc. are all doing their own thing in regards to regulation. I was just pointing out that I thought Brazil did the right thing by presuming exclusivity regardless of what MS has said about the transaction. Seems like a reasonable way to approach things. It then becomes MS's job to make the argument that the "worst case scenario" brought forward by the deal won't destroy the video game market as a whole (regardless of whether or not that scenario is even feasible or not), as they did successfully in Brazil. I think the CMA has taken some foolish positions regarding the ABK deal, but considering the possibility of exclusivity isn't one of them.

Ultimately, I think that even if part of MS's strategy is to go in and demonstrate how exclusivity doesn't make sense for them in regards to CoD, they should be prepared to demonstrate how even with that exclusivity, competition would remain strong and the market healthy.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Citing Tae Kim is the Sony equivalent of Tom Warren, I suppose

It's also very eye-opening how MS is basically copy/pasting the same arguments from their Twitter warriors and their astroboys like you and Senjutsu.

Y'all are getting your talking points from MS HQ

 

[DeepEnigma]

It's also very eye-opening how MS is basically copy/pasting the same arguments from their Twitter warriors and their astroboys like you and Senjutsu.

Y'all are getting your talking points from MS HQ

 

[MatrixReloaded101]

Bingo.

I believe MS' actual goal is to make COD a GP only game. If you want it on any platform, that platform has to support GP. These promises MS is giving to regulators is just PR smoke. Once they own ATVI... They own it. And can do whatever they please with it. The manouver will be to pivot heavily on PR about why GP is the only outlet and then turn to PS gamers and in effect say

"It's Playstation's fault that you don't have access to COD because Playstation wont support GP."

We know for certain that PS is about "protecting" their eco system first and foremost. COD being "Exclusive to GP" is really what this conversation is really about.

This isn't happening because Playstation players account for the biggest pool of COD players. If they cut that user base off that will hurt the game's revenue.

 

[SlimySnake]

Interesting combined with this…