Think I hit a nerve with that one...
The issue your post has is a very simple one: does Sony have an inalienable right to every game on their platform if that game is so successful? Using history as a guide, they didn't have access to Halo during its hay-day, when it was the biggest entertainment product - in history. Last I checked, PlayStation still beat Xbox in every console generation, and made plenty of their own games that were immensely successful. If Sony didn't have a right to Halo when it was the biggest thing ever, then the answer is objectively no - Sony, as a platform holder, does not have the right to demand access to the biggest games simply because those games are big. Which is obvious: that's not how the world works.
I hear what you're saying, but since you're bringing up Halo, it's also important to understand the market conditions that existed in 6th gen which enabled PS2 to thrive even without access to a game that big.
For one, it was the first DVD player for many gamers and mainstream folks in general. It garnered a lot of loyalty from Japanese 3P devs thanks to PS1's success the gen prior, and many of those devs decided to make games that were defacto exclusive to the platform. The stark differences in architectures between PS2 and OG Xbox also basically ensured that many of those Japanese PS2 exclusives would remain that way, plus the fact Xbox's reputation (at the time) as the new kid on the block but not quite offering the "right place at the right time" benefits Sony did with the PS1, were all factors that helped PS2 thrive even while not getting games like Halo.
It's simply not like that anymore. A lot of the smaller Japanese 3P support has shifted from Sony to Nintendo. The PS5 and Xbox Series systems are both x86-64 based architectures, with the same GPU architectures (in most respects, some customizations notwithstanding). Those two changes alone have removed two innate advantages systems like the PS2 had: being the go-to for virtually all 3P Japanese devs, and having such a different architecture that it made porting less ubiquitous. The PS5 also doesn't have a built-in technology hook to capture the masses the way PS2 did with DVD; there are plenty of streaming boxes, nothing succeeding UHD Blu-Ray on the horizon (in terms of a physical home media for movies), 4K is already saturated in many homes, 8K isn't a big deal with the mainstream, etc. That's something else the PS2 had that the PS5 does not.
Now you can argue some of these were incidental and should never really be things to lean on as a platform holder to add value to your ecosystem for customers & developers in order to ensure you get the games you need for your platform. Nonetheless, they were factors that existed for the PS2 as an example, that the PS5 simply doesn't have, and they were factors that helped the PS2 do so well. Obviously, I'm not saying the PS5 can't do well lacking these factors (it's easily the best-selling of the current-gen systems ATM, it's even outselling the Switch in many Western territories now that supply is getting better), but I think it's a good question to wonder how well it can continue to do if the wider market's assumptive expectation that games like COD will be on the platform...are suddenly just not there, but are on the chief competitor's exclusively?
Sony chose a strategy that placed a third-party game they didn't own near-center to their platform adoption strategy - now, they're seeing the repercussions of that dependency.
You say that as if the strategy is inherently bad. That approach is how they beat Nintendo and Sega in the '90s; those two companies were very strict with 3P devs and prioritized 1P almost to the expense of treating 3P partners like burdens (especially Nintendo). Sony's model actually helped grow and proliferate 3P developers into the powerhouses quite a few became in the years since. That was of benefit to 3P devs/pubs and still is.
Them being hands-off in terms of buying out publishers during those gens (aside from Psygnosis), also benefited Nintendo, Sega, and Microsoft platforms during those very same gens. Say they did back then as what Microsoft is doing today, which seems to be what you think they should have done. Well guess what? Microsoft would've left the industry after OG Xbox or 360 gens, because now you'd of had Sony making even more 3P publisher acquisitions post Psygnosis, 3P publishers that would have impacted the content Microsoft would've been able to get on their brand-new Xbox. Instead of a couple exclusivity deals or getting exclusives out of the nature of the hardware architecture, you'd have quite a few 3P devs/pubs simply not putting out ANY content on platforms other than Sony's consoles, completely.
That approach would've also affected Nintendo and Sega, but we're talking about acquisitions in the current context of MS and Sony so I don't want to focus on how it would've affected those two. And keep in mind, that acquisition approach you seem to think Sony should've done, would have compounded on top of the other advantages they already had in those generations! You could almost say that by them not buying up 3P teams and pubs in their earlier gens, that was an ironic act of mercy to other platform holders so that they had more options in forging a better competitive product against Sony on the market.
Heck, I could
almost say that's not only pro-consumer, but pro-developer and pro-publisher too
They chose not to maintain an FPS in the same arena, to ignore all of their other potential franchises in the same vein and put all their eggs in the Call of Duty basket. They chose to focus virtually all of their studios on single player third person cinematic action-adventure games, and kill off their COD-competing franchises.
That's what you tend to do when you have repeated failures in a venture and can simply partner up with a company who's very successful in that same area to bring net benefits to both ecosystems. Keep in mind what you're describing isn't even the first time Sony's done this; they eventually ended the NFL Gameday series both because it usually sucked, and because why provide direct competition with a favored 3P partner in EA? Why not just...work with them instead?
What you're suggesting, is what companies like Sega did competing head-to-head with Namco in the '90s and played a part in why companies like Namco, eventually chose Sony instead: aside from an easier-to-use architecture and SDK, they realized they would get preferential treatment and spotlight attention on their games on a platform that was basically a "blue ocean" for them, rather than having to compete directly with Sega's own arcade ports on Sega's own home console, and likely getting second-rate treatment (since at that time Sega and Namco were competitors).
They - happily and proudly - used Call of Duty to compete against Microsoft
MS did the exact same thing (at even higher intensity) to Sony during 7th-gen, just FYI.
, and they tried to buy as many exclusives as they could prior to the PS5 to leave Microsoft with nothing.
Now you're just talking about rumors which were never really verified in the first place. Rumors playing into narratives stoked by games "journalists" who as we've seen since, have a history of getting many things wrong.
It was also partly fearmongering too, FWIW. Fact is, if it were true, we would've been seeing A LOT more 3P AAA games as PS4/PS5 exclusives (timed or not), like SF6, Tekken 8, Crisis Core, RE Village, Soul Hackers 2 etc. The facts just dispel this "worry", IMO.
If Sony have the freedom to pursue that kind of aggressive exclusive strategy, then so does everyone else. So, Microsoft bought up their own exclusives - one of which is a company central to Sony's strategy, an ill-advised dependency because Sony has no controlling stake in said company. Now, Sony will need to adapt to this change and compete. Welcome to the real world.
Adapt to a change, that inherently predicates itself on disrupting the stability of the open, free independent market of 3P developers, and restricts true freedom of choice for 3P developers & publishers along the way? That's the change you're advocating for here?
Keep in mind, the idea MS needed to "buy" ABK in order to compete, is a lie. They bought ABK because they saw an opportunity to boost gaming revenue, eat up several big IP (to use either as exclusives or bargaining chips against other platform holders in future deals), get a big client for touting further Azure growth, and make their stock prices look better. None of that is really "
competition" in the way most gamers tend of think of it.
MS already had the teams in their stable prior to going for ABK to compete. They simply just sucked at managing most of them. Sucked at helping curate talent among them and gradually grow their ambitions and sense of scale. Sucked at having any leadership at the top with true creative vision for their gaming software output that could balance the purely fiscally-driven approaches. And the truth is, unless those problems at the root change, we aren't going to see many of these newly acquired teams significantly improve, grow, or have grander ambitions. A lot of them are just going to keep doing the same thing they were doing before, only with a new financer.
That's probably the most boring idea of "
competition" I've seen in a long while.
"Naah, you're too big to fail" - said the $1750 billion company to the $83 billion one - "let me buy this modest $70 billion supplier and make it exclusive to me in a couple of years, so we can stand equally. You'll be fine!"
I had to Google their market cap but it's actually showing $79 billion now. That's wild. Remember before the ABK acquisition was announced how it was at like $120 billion?
...yeah. But apparently the mere mention of the acquisition had no long-term effects on the company. Sure. Strongly doubt they ever recovered the initial $20 billion market value lost when the announcement was made. This is probably something else regulators are looking at while discussions are ongoing, too.
