Thirty7ven
Banned
Don't forget bad china man coming to conquer the country of god and Jesus Christ our lord and savior.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Don't forget bad china man coming to conquer the country of god and Jesus Christ our lord and savior.
GHG
Gold Member
Fair enough. My issue is how Xbox as a company seem to reinforce and validate these types of people. I don't see Sony and Nintendo doing this so it's a bit strange to see, especially when they want to claim to be against that type of thing.
Last edited:
SSfox
Member
There are a lot of other devs other than Bungie that make FPS games.
But gotta admit MS has absorbed a lot of them by buying Beth and Acti. Thanks Phil for his amazing contribution for the gaming advancement land.
Last edited:
SSfox
Member
IDK if this guy is ignorant in purpuse, or he's legit ignorant. MS were already doing that. The only reason they don't do it as much is because they can't and most 3rd party won't accept the deals cause MS consoles share hasn't been significant since Xbox 360 (they still do it today when the dev accept like Stalkers 2 case.)
Microsoft pays $50 million for exclusive GTA IV downloadable content
Grand Theft Auto IV downloadable content is only coming to the 360, but that …
arstechnica.com
Microsoft apparently paid $100 million for Rise of The Tomb Raider Xbox exclusivity
Microsoft's strangest exclusive game now makes a bit more sense if true.
www.theloadout.com
And now people that were cheering this are crying now because Sony are doing it? lmao...
Rise of TR Xbox exclusivity almost causes the death of the franchise, as most fans were on PlayStation (60 to 70% sales were on PlayStation in the first game, so...)
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
There are people who like listening to that guy, just imagine where on the IQ scale you need to be for that shit.
HeisenbergFX4
Member
And sorry if posted already I can't keep up with this thread but I agree here
KingT731
Member
Would you pay for a marketing deal and advertise something just for it to go on to a competing service for "free" ? I know people aren't that dense....come on now.
HeisenbergFX4
Member
I think its shitty as fuck for Sony to block games heading to Game Pass.
How about they spend that money and make their own service as good as Game Pass if they are so concerned over it?
Topher
Identifies as young
This is about the nature of marketing deals. It would make no sense to pay for marketing rights and allow a competitor to effectively market that same game on their service. And we have no reason to believe those games were "heading to Game Pass" either way. Microsoft has the marketing rights to Cyberpunk 2077 and that game isn't on Game Pass either. Game sales still matter to the big AAA games that garner these type of marketing deals.
KingT731
Member
That would be circular logic in regards to this situation, now wouldn't it? Not saying it's a great thing to happen but definitely a pot meet kettle thing. It's the same with timed exclusive deals or even as seen with MS GP showcase where multiplat games that were shown had embargo period before devs/pubs could even mention that the titles would be on other platforms (some were between 3-5 Days as seen with the Persona 3/4/5 announcements).
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Member
I don't see these as the same thing as paying money to keep a certain game totally off a service, but we can agree to disagree
If it was such an issue for Sony just put it on one of your tiered plans and problem solved
Helghan
Member
Marketing rights? The game is still available on the Xbox. They are paying so Microsoft can't put it on Game Pass. It's not like Sony is paying to have it on PSNow, they are paying to block it from Game Pass. That's basically throwing money away that could've been spent on games for PS gamers.
COD doesn't need a "marketing deal". A more appropriate descriptions of what Sony does would be The money hating for extra/early content and handicapping competing platforms deal. It's been exposed in confidential documents how slimy Sony is in these exclusivity deals. Technical parity, really?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Because as
Topher
said, sales matter more to the parties involved.If you think these very same contracts aren't there for MS, the one that had the decades long "Indie clause," then IDK what else there is to be said.
It's the damned publishers shopping out these deals. Nobody is strong arming them. If the biggest game every year shops a deal, platform holders are going to bite.
IFireflyl
Gold Member
HeisenbergFX4
Member
I honestly didn't know MS paid to keep games off PS servicesBecause as
If you think these very same contracts aren't there for MS, the one that had the decades long "Indie clause," then IDK what else there is to be said.
Topher
Identifies as young
It is a clause in the marketing deal so it is all part of the same agreement.
Of course it is still available on Xbox. Marketing rights do not make games exclusive. Marketing rights are bought so that one platform can promote the game. And the games that get these marketing deals are not typically going to be on any service any time soon after release. I referenced Cyberpunk 2077 which MS has the rights to. It isn't on Game Pass. Sony obviously isn't blocking it. They want the sales.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
And you didn't know there was a clause with Sony until this was revealed as well. You know how contracts like these work, especially with your time with the MLB.
The whole partnerships, etc, through contracts and licensing, agreements, etc etc etc
Protecting investments on a return.
Last edited:
KingT731
Member
Technical parity just means something has the same available features as long as the hardware/platform supports it or in layman's terms...you can't "gimp" our version of the game. The game this even allegedly stems from , Resident Evil Village, runs better on the XSX.
I'm not exactly disagreeing with you though. We've just seen similar things happen before and we shouldn't act like it's a behavior that isn't business standard or practiced by all parties.
HeisenbergFX4
Member
So the clause for MS and the Indies have not been revealed yet?
My contract in the 1990s were pretty straight forward and most of us knew what the others made anyhow
I couldn't imagine the clauses in todays contracts, poor Kyler Murray
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
They keep games off PS consoles. Of course they do it for services too
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It was revealed years ago. MS has an Indie clause where Indies cannot release on PS before Xbox, they have to release simultaneously. If they do release first, then extra special (exclusive content) has to be in the Xbox version when it releases.
For small Indie studios who don't have the financial backing or manpower, it was crippling to them... so some had to choose to publish on only one or the other since they did not have the means to do both at the same time, nor alter their game for extra content.
It became a gamble for a lot of them. Very few could do it, most were forced into exclusivity on either side.
Yeah, I am going off of today (the last 2 decades) when licensing restrictions shifted big time. Hence why a lot of sports game franchises went belly up, etc.. I seen some of the things SSD had to go through with MLB The Show back in 2010-2013, and it was a nightmare on the licensing side of things. Lots of red tape and back and forth with the MLB their partners, lawyers, etc..
It's a little smoother now that there are licensing and ad packages are more available, but also more expensive than in the past as well.
Last edited:
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
Slimy? Microsoft currently has marketing deals.
Xbox fans thought the "Technical parity" meant that Resident Evil 8 had to run better on PlayStation when the Xbox Version ran slightly better. Technical parity means it needs to have the same features console is capable of.
People ignored the fact that this also applied to PC and it runs much better than both consoles.
HeisenbergFX4
Member
Again my 2 cents having a game as a timed exclusive is way different than going out of their way to keep a game off Game Pass
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It's not kept off the system entirely though. That is the rub.
And just because that clause is in their marketing, doesn't automatically mean Sony blocked it. Activision would have never Day 1'ed CoD on Game Pass. The best they would get is way later with old versions like GWG or PS+.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
IFireflyl
Gold Member
I don't know why the people complaining about things like exclusivity agreements are trying to relate this to the Microsoft/Activision Blizzard deal.
Sony offers X amount of money for an exclusivity deal. That's not anti-competitive as Microsoft can offer more money or do the same with another IP that Sony doesn't have a history with (like Final Fantasy) to prevent a bidding war from the two companies. Competition can still occur even with exclusivity agreements. I don't even like exclusivity agreements and I can see that.
By contrast, with acquisitions you're effectively terminating competition. The only real way to compete at that point is for all parties to just buy up every studio/publisher. Microsoft has proven time and time again that they don't know how to manage the studios they already have. I'm not saying that they don't have great games or content, mind you. Some of their stuff is top-notch. But Halo is a great example of a studio (343i) that has consistently missed the mark, and Microsoft can't seem to get them to get their act together. Halo: Infinite had promise, but it was so badly managed that its become a joke. They released the game without key features, promised they would add the additional content, and a year later we keep getting the same pushback.
Sony, by contrast, actually works closely with its studios to increase the quality. That's a benefit to consumers. Failing to follow suit, Microsoft's end goal appears to be to buy up established content. That doesn't have any consumer benefit (except for a short-term gain for the Game Pass lovers), and, assuming they keep mismanaging their studios, it can actually be harmful to consumers.
TL;DR - the acquisition and exclusivity agreements are not comparable. One still allows competition (though it is up to the other party to actually try and compete) while the other shuts down competition entirely.
Sony offers X amount of money for an exclusivity deal. That's not anti-competitive as Microsoft can offer more money or do the same with another IP that Sony doesn't have a history with (like Final Fantasy) to prevent a bidding war from the two companies. Competition can still occur even with exclusivity agreements. I don't even like exclusivity agreements and I can see that.
By contrast, with acquisitions you're effectively terminating competition. The only real way to compete at that point is for all parties to just buy up every studio/publisher. Microsoft has proven time and time again that they don't know how to manage the studios they already have. I'm not saying that they don't have great games or content, mind you. Some of their stuff is top-notch. But Halo is a great example of a studio (343i) that has consistently missed the mark, and Microsoft can't seem to get them to get their act together. Halo: Infinite had promise, but it was so badly managed that its become a joke. They released the game without key features, promised they would add the additional content, and a year later we keep getting the same pushback.
Sony, by contrast, actually works closely with its studios to increase the quality. That's a benefit to consumers. Failing to follow suit, Microsoft's end goal appears to be to buy up established content. That doesn't have any consumer benefit (except for a short-term gain for the Game Pass lovers), and, assuming they keep mismanaging their studios, it can actually be harmful to consumers.
TL;DR - the acquisition and exclusivity agreements are not comparable. One still allows competition (though it is up to the other party to actually try and compete) while the other shuts down competition entirely.
HeisenbergFX4
Member
I just think there is a big difference when company A talks with a game dev and say here is X amount of dollars to be on our system first for a whole year vs company A paying a game saying it can come out on all systems but I get to dictate how company B launches the game
Just to me its way different than any kind of "marketing"
But again we can agree to disagree and still be friends at the end of the day
Topher
Identifies as young
But again we can agree to disagree and still be friends at the end of the day
Nope
Last edited:
twilo99
Member
Who is stopping Sony from buying their own Activision?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Activision signing that deal shows they have no interest putting their CoD sales charts jewel on GP day 1.I just think there is a big difference when company A talks with a game dev and say here is X amount of dollars to be on our system first for a whole year vs company A paying a game saying it can come out on all systems but I get to dictate how company B launches the game
Just to me its way different than any kind of "marketing"
But again we can agree to disagree and still be friends at the end of the day
They won't even put it on PS+ day 1. They liked the traditional revenue/profits that juggernaut provides them.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
I just think there is a big difference when company A talks with a game dev and say here is X amount of dollars to be on our system first for a whole year vs company A paying a game saying it can come out on all systems but I get to dictate how company B launches the game
Just to me its way different than any kind of "marketing"
But again we can agree to disagree and still be friends at the end of the day
I don't know about friends but we can still be close acquaintances bro
Last edited:
IFireflyl
Gold Member
First, Sony and Microsoft are not in the same league, financially speaking. Microsoft can afford to burn $70 billion. Sony can't.
Second, this decreases competition. Even if Sony were as large as Microsoft this type of attitude would be harmful to consumers. The big players would buy up all of the studios, and there would be reduced output (with quality, quantity, or both) and increased exclusivity across the board.
I'm a PC gamer. The Activision Blizzard acquisition would benefit me in the short term since Microsoft releases all Xbox games on PC from day one. I'm against these moves because I'm looking at the big picture, and I don't want these giant companies consolidating all of the studios under their individual umbrellas.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I wouldn't want that and they would be going through the very same motions with regulators that MS is. And people would be flip flopping worse than 5 minutes into the World Cup play.
Last edited:
HoofHearted
Member
In that case - agreed - there aren't any recent idiots that immediately come to mind that matches the level of engagement you've noted..
ToTTenTranz
Banned
So if Sony had paid for full console exclusivity of CoD that would be fine.
But paying for not appearing on Gamepass, while letting xbox owners buy and play the game on day one is not fine?
But paying for not appearing on Gamepass, while letting xbox owners buy and play the game on day one is not fine?
bender
What time is it?
That's my dream scenario that will never happen. The Microsoft deal falls apart (doubtful), Sony purchases Activision (impossible), and then we get to see all the boot lickers swiftly pulling a 180 on their positions (100% likely).
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
Who is this Colt Eastwood moron?
twilo99
Member
Who's fault is that?
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
What? Neither? Both are hugely successful companies. MS is just more successful. Very little to do with their Xbox division mind you.
HoofHearted
Member
But again we can agree to disagree and still be friends at the end of the day
Nope
bender
What time is it?
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Do you have a source for Xbox blocking games on Sony Sub services? I looked up that indie clause thing and it just talks about the games have to be released at the same time or have something extra added.
Sounds like it's not blocking anything from PS, just trying to get equal treatment for Xbox, barring that get something else extra to make up for it. I will admit I may have missed something saying Xbox had a clause to block games from Sony's services.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Topher
Identifies as young
Varteras
Member
bender
What time is it?
- Status