Support NeoGAF

[DarkMage619]

They should be monitored more tightly than Sony and Nintendo because they own their own infrastructure, yes.

This is the same infrastructure that many laughed at with 'power of the cloud memes'? How large is game streaming now in this current marketplace? It is a side feature and hardly something to prevent an acquisition over. If this acquisition is approved how would that prevent Sony from competing in gaming? MS made its pivot based on market conditions just like Nintendo did.

It’s more their near unparalleled ability to take losses in the short to medium term (if needed) for their subscription service.

Taking losses is part of being in business when you are trying to compete with entrenched competitors like Sony and Nintendo. Again MS has been taking losses for decades and I'm certainly glad we aren't left solely with Nintendo and Sony as the only console makers. If you care about consumers which the CMA should be, more competitors are better than fewer.

They don’t own their own infrastructure.

Who says they have to own the infrastructure? Owning is incredibly expensive. They are several providers that would compete for Sony's cloud business IF they were interested in pursuing that venture. Sony is not interested hence them removing PS Now from devices other their console. That is not MS' fault. Sony is doing what's best for Sony.

Game Pass and PS Plus (Essential) are different services, but I think you know this.

Well the narrative on this shifts. One day Game pass is 'losing to PS+' the next Game pass is a dominant force in gaming. From Sony's perspective PS+ is their subscription service so there is no distinction on their part. Pretty sure you know this too.

Their recent/current strategy is what matters. They weren’t buying publishers 20 years ago. They are now.

At this point they have brought one publisher. Historically they have put their IP on other platforms.

? Blocking a mode temporarily vs taking a franchise away for ever. Please don’t be disingenuous.

Well I don't know if you weep for Xbox gamers waiting for Street Fighter 5 and Final Fantasy 7 Remake but some sometimes games don't come out for your preferred platform. There is no proof they are taking anything from anyone. This is especially hilarious because Xbox gamers generally get stuff taken regularly. Sony can block IP from Xbox and they don't have to take the extraordinary step in purchasing the entire studio to ensure content hits their platform. Even if content is made exclusive to Xbox what is wrong with that? Is Sony the only platform that can secure content for their platform?

The fact remains that that there are many examples of MS putting their IP on other platforms and CoD specifically has been assured till the end of the generation. If you have to make up a scenario that turns MS it to a monopolisitc villain it's clear who is being disingenuous. The CMA document is full of disingenuous takes.

Hoeg thankfully breaks the whole thing down. You should watch it.

I may be in the minority here but I am having a hard time buying the whole Xbox Influencers are wanting this deal to go through because they care so deeply about wanting Acti employees to be free of Kotick

This sounds like a cooperate script handed down by Xbox to those influencers

For all the complaints about the culture at Activision those influencers have really been the only ones really talking about the state of those employees there. They are also pretty excited about Activision making more than just CoD.

MS has certainly offered to do more at Activision than any other entity and that includes Sony. It's always easier to accuse anyone who isn't following the most popular brand as being a shill. Sometimes herd mentality isn't good. It can make one short-sighted.

 

[reksveks]

There was a reason why Seinfeld never came to Netflix until their deal with Hulu expired, and a reason why it’s only on Netflix now.

HBO, Netflix, Peacock....hell, even cable networks make deals to keep content off competitors streaming services/network.

Think you are missing the persons argument/point (not saying I am agreeing with it)

Using computerblue's analogy, this would be if Hulu was blocking Seinfeld from Netflix despite not actually streaming Seinfeld themselves.

 

[Clintizzle]

Its just Bidnez. Move on.

 

[DForce]

Think you are missing the persons argument/point (not saying I am agreeing with it)

Using computerblue's analogy, this would be if Hulu was blocking Seinfeld from Netflix despite not actually streaming Seinfeld themselves.

I didn't miss the person's argument.

He's saying Sony is spending money to block content from appearing on Game Pass. Quest then asked for proof when they blocked content from appearing on other platforms. Marketing deals and streaming rights are common, but people want to use this to scream "anti-consumer."

 

[twilo99]

It’s never going to appear because the Activision deal is not happening.

The UK CMA is protecting all gamepass subscribers

 

[reksveks]

I didn't miss the person's argument.

He's saying Sony is spending money to block content from appearing on Game Pass. Quest then asked for proof when they blocked content from appearing on other platforms. Marketing deals and streaming rights are common, but people want to use this to scream "anti-consumer."

He is specifically calling out the fact that Sony isn't adding it to their service aka ps plus/extra. That's the difference to Quest.

I would assuming that a marketing deal that gets the game blocked from GP but on PS Plus Extra would be fine for Quest

I don't think the analogy works for gaming but that the one they are using.

It's 2am and think I am not sure I will be more succinct so may return in the morning.

 

[ZehDon]

This is all running under the assumption that Activision would have been willing to negotiate a deal for their annual best seller to be on gamepass. If we look at other other publishers that own IP with the capability of competing with COD in terms of sales they don't seem to be so keen, regardless of any clauses that may or may not exist. At the end of the day these companies take care of themselves and if they felt that the opportunity to be on gamepass was greater than the 3rd party marketing deal Sony was offering them for COD then they wouldn't have signed it...

You don't ask for legally binding assurances for things that can't happen - and I doubt Activision Blizzard requested its inclusion. Sony wanted the clause in the contract restricting it from Game Pass because it foresaw an avenue where it ended up there, and it wanted to prevent that scenario because it didn't want to compete with it. It's as simple as that.

... But I'll say one thing, if it turns out Microsoft has similar clauses in their contracts with regards to competing subscription services I'm on all of your necks.

Depends on the nature of the deal, frankly. If it's a Sony-style "It's not exclusive to us, but we want to make sure it costs more for another platform because fuck them" then it's just as anti-competitive, and it's fucked. If the deal is "Xbox exclusive" then I wouldn't expect it to land of PS Plus until that exclusivity period is over.

 

[ZehDon]

I'm...pretty sure Xbox does the same with their Gamepass deals...and Netflix, HBO, etc.

This is everyone on their services.

Might be a bit of a false equivalency: Call of Duty isn't a PlayStation exclusive. Sony didn't lock it up for their platform, explaining its absence from Game Pass. It's still on Xbox and on PC. In this case, Sony doesn't want it to appear on Game Pass specifically, because it would represent a more attractive value proposition than their platform. They can't afford to make it fully exclusive, and they don't want to compete, so they simply made sure it stays as expensive as it can be on everyone else's platform. Reads different to me.

 

[DForce]

He is specifically calling out the fact that Sony isn't adding it to their service aka ps plus/extra. That's the difference to Quest.

I would assuming that a marketing deal that gets the game blocked from GP but on PS Plus Extra would be fine for Quest

I don't think the analogy works for gaming but that the one they are using.

It's 2am and think I am not sure I will be more succinct so may return in the morning.

He specifically asked for proof and it was provided in this thread.

What you're saying isn't what was said during their argument.

 

[lordrand11]

Let's be real here?....lol. More like let's be delusional.

First day on the internet not detecting the sarcasm?

Sony makes no money from those ips…and neither does Activision since the original games were remade lol.
Crash 4 flopped hard after the success of the trilogy remake.

Sony cares abou COD only

I'm fairly positive you guys are reading literally when it was posted as a joke.

Sony **only** cares about exclusivity arrangements and attempting to add those games or a timed exclusivity of them to their own Plus Premier.

 

[SportsFan581]

Where do you think their millions of dollars are being spent?

HBO, Netflix, Peacock....hell, even cable networks make deals to keep content off competitors streaming services/network.


This should be common knowledge.

You're misunderstanding what he's saying there. He's not talking about games that appear on PS+ being blocked from GP, that's the normal way it goes. He's talking about the hypothetical situation where deals with Sony block games NOT on PS+ from coming to competing services.

The comparison is not perfect though because there aren't really marketing deals in TV streaming, plus the only connection Netflix has to shows is things that are on their service, where the consoles have those games on their platform regardless.

 

[DForce]

You're misunderstanding what he's saying there. He's not talking about games that appear on PS+ being blocked from GP, that's the normal way it goes. He's talking about the hypothetical situation where deals with Sony block games NOT on PS+ from coming to competing services.

The comparison is not perfect though because there aren't really marketing deals in TV streaming, plus the only connection Netflix has to shows is things that are on their service, where the consoles have those games on their platform regardless.

This wasn't about games that appear on PS+ being blocked from GP.

If Microsoft has a time-exclusive deal and the game appears on Game Pass, then that means the game is blocked from appearing on PS+ AND the PlayStation consoles.

Quest think asked for proof that HBO and Netflix block content that doesn't appear on their service - well this often happens with streaming deals. Once a deal is made, then the content is in fact blocked from appearing on streaming services.

This is comparable because two parties made a deal.

Why would Sony make a marketing deal with third party developers if Microsoft could just put all the games on Game Pass? That would defeat the purpose of marketing deals.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

People keep blaming Sony for Xbox's misfortunes?....And I thought Jimmy was the crying one.

 

[poppabk]

The best analogy I can come up with:
Amazon and Apple both have subscription streaming services and also the option to buy digital content. For the sake of argument, let's imagine a new LotR movie comes out from New Line Cinema. It is available to buy digitally on both services but Amazon is also paying to advertise it in a marketing deal. Amazon does not have streaming rights but they do include in their marketing deal that Apple cannot have streaming rights.
I'm not sure this has ever happened.

 

[HoofHearted]

Its just Bidnez. Move on.

 

[DavidGzz]

And thankfully they did, the day Sony allows Gamepass in Playstation i will sell my PS console and won't buy one ever again.

Imagine the level of fanboy you have to be to sell a console because of a move that would benefit you as a gamer because of your aversion to a particular brand.

 

[Fess]

So sad to see this industry going down so badly... This acquisition was just the thing that speeded all up. Ms acquiring Activison, in the future Sony will do a shitty move to respond like for example buying CD Project... and at the end who is the only one who takes the big fat eggplant up their popo holes? us gamers lol

This is the truth.

The more I learn about the behind the scenes stuff the worse the whole industry seems.

Maybe the same dirty exclusivity war happens with TV Shows on streaming services but we don’t hear about it, there we just sign up to everything and go on with our life. The upside there is that we don’t need specific hardware for Netflix and another for HBO, etc.

For gaming, and for enthusiasts, having access to all platforms will be the norm. There won’t be one platform that’ll give an enthusiast gamer access to the best games, multiple is the norm.

So in the end, get ready to pay minimum $1500 on console hardware each generation, $2500 if you want the best experience since mid gen upgrades will be the norm for Sony and MS. Or go with $4000+ for a highend PC + Nintendo console.

 

[Iced Arcade]

This deal will go down in history as a rollercoaster passes or not.

And thankfully they did, the day Sony allows Gamepass in Playstation i will sell my PS console and won't buy one ever again.

Posts that gif then types that out

Lol love This place.

 

[phil_t98]

And thankfully they did, the day Sony allows Gamepass in Playstation i will sell my PS console and won't buy one ever again.

so if Sony allow gamepass on PS and increase your option to play more games you will get rid of your Playstation?

you do realise it will be the most consumer friendly thing they done, increasing your option to play more games

 

[Three]

COD is the game I was referring to and Sony removed it from Stadia, GeoForce, and Xbox game pass. Essentially they are using the market dominance to stop cloud gaming and hurting the consumer.

So dumb. You do know that when Activision removed their games from Geforce Now Sony were putting their own games on Geforce Now right?
Next we'll be blaming Sony for the death of Jesus.

 

[Three]

This is the truth.

The more I learn about the behind the scenes stuff the worse the whole industry seems.

Maybe the same dirty exclusivity war happens with TV Shows on streaming services but we don’t hear about it, there we just sign up to everything and go on with our life. The upside there is that we don’t need specific hardware for Netflix and another for HBO, etc.

For gaming, and for enthusiasts, having access to all platforms will be the norm. There won’t be one platform that’ll give an enthusiast gamer access to the best games, multiple is the norm.

So in the end, get ready to pay minimum $1500 on console hardware each generation, $2500 if you want the best experience since mid gen upgrades will be the norm for Sony and MS. Or go with $4000+ for a highend PC + Nintendo console.

Trust me owning two or 3 pieces of hardware is far better than paying $180x3 every year to play the games you want.

 

[bitbydeath]

This legal?
3.7M shares sold!

 

[reksveks]

This legal?
3.7M shares sold!

GS divisions are kept separate from each other so that's how they can get away with representing MS and ABK and still sell shares.

https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/ATVI

0.40% ish drop since that news story

 

[bitbydeath]

GS divisions are kept separate from each other so that's how they can get away with representing MS and ABK and still sell shares.

https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/ATVI

0.40% ish drop since that news story

Seems like a crazy time to sell, unless you know something.

 

[Menzies]

Let's be very clear about something: if a developer/publisher chooses to offer Sony a better deal of their own volition, not due to strong-arming by Sony, that isn't something that can be used against Sony. If I sell a product and want to make an exclusivity agreement with Amazon and not Newegg, that's entirely within my right and it isn't anti-competitive. It becomes anti-competitive if Amazon, as an example, tells me I'm not allowed to do business with Newegg. There is no evidence that I have seen (and if it's there please point it out to me) that shows that Sony is strong-arming developers/publishers to Microsoft's detriment. If that IS the case then I'm fully onboard that they should be punished, and if that is known to be the case then I don't understand how they aren't being punished as that violates anti-competition laws in multiple countries.

I’m really struggling with this one, help me understand the value and purpose of a consumer and competition watchdog body then?

In summary, the CMA has found that Sony and Microsoft are in a two-horse race, they have comfortably separated Nintendo and others due to offering differentiated content that doesn’t rely on CoD. Sony historically, and currently enjoys market dominance. Essential input, such as CoD, and other significant 'input' titles are subject to business deals which include marketing rights, timed exclusivity, and exclusive content. One player can exercise their dominance in the market to affect such deals, which adds up to overall greater platform appeal at significantly lower cost than their rival due to sales estimates and opportunity cost.

And this isn’t a concern for a consumer and competition regulator, in a market with, (what they've determined) - 2 players?

If Microsoft was a company smaller than Sony, they would have bowed out years ago.

 

[reksveks]

Seems like a crazy time to sell, unless you know something.

If they knew something then it would be akin to insider trading aka the rules to keeping them separate. GS got in trouble with this kind of thing before.

I suspect that this move is based on largely public information aka the CMA.

This roller-coaster is still going to be going until Q2 2023.

 

[Three]

I need proof hbo and netflix spend money to keep content off competitors they don't have on their service. It makes zero sense for netflix to pay to keep content off hbo max when they don't have it on their sevice. That money would be spent making content or buying content. If Sony put the games on PlayStation extra it be a different story. These deals are just to try and cripple the growth of subscription and streaming services not add content to PlayStation eco system.

You are going into movies but I'll give you one. Roma, released in cinemas, was not on Netflix until Netflix had their cinema revenue. Now, do you think Alfonso Cuarón didn't have a contract that prevented him signing up with HBO to stream Roma while it was in cinema and wasn't on Netflix?

Granted in the Movie world it's usually 1 month of Cinema until sales dry but this is a parallel to gaming where games don't come to subscription services even when it's "your own" subscription service because games sell.

 

[Three]

But I'll say one thing, if it turns out Microsoft has similar clauses in their contracts with regards to competing subscription services I'm on all of your necks.

Of course they do. Under NDA but they do. MS aren't even kicking up a stink about it but the xbox fans are doing their part and MS is remaining quiet. It's obvious though if you look at what's happening.

 

[Banjo64]

This is the same infrastructure that many laughed at with 'power of the cloud memes'?

People laughed at that meme because Xbox failed to leverage the cloud in the way they promised. Not because their data centres are meagre and pathetic.

How large is game streaming now in this current marketplace? It is a side feature and hardly something to prevent an acquisition over.

The CMA are considering how large it could be in the future.

If this acquisition is approved how would that prevent Sony from competing in gaming?

This isn’t just about Sony. They are one of many, many considerations. You should look at it through a wider lens.

Taking losses is part of being in business when you are trying to compete with entrenched competitors like Sony and Nintendo. Again MS has been taking losses for decades and I'm certainly glad we aren't left solely with Nintendo and Sony as the only console makers.

All three are entrenched. The 60m Xbox One’s sold is not some puny amount, no matter what Sony fanboys try to make you believe. And that was a poor generation from Xbox. It’s fair to say they’re on track for a 70-80m generation this time around. They’ve done that without Zenimax or ABK.

If you care about consumers which the CMA should be, more competitors are better than fewer.

Which is exactly why they are concerned that MS buying ABK could be a catalyst for fewer entrants to the market in the future.

Who says they have to own the infrastructure? Owning is incredibly expensive.

The CMA, and I suspect the EU, consider that it places MS in an advantageous position - not only due to costings (for themselves and rivals) but because they can essentially data mine everyone’s play information.

Well the narrative on this shifts. One day Game pass is 'losing to PS+' the next Game pass is a dominant force in gaming. From Sony's perspective PS+ is their subscription service so there is no distinction on their part. Pretty sure you know this too.

You’re not talking to me in good faith Mage. You know that I game on Xbox (it’s actually still my main system with my PS5 on the way out). I have never shifted narrative. PS Plus (Essential) has been mandatory for online play since the PS4 era. No form of Game Pass is mandatory. People pay for PS Plus because they want to play online. People pay for Game Pass because it has a huge catalogue of games, they don’t need it for online play. The devices aren’t compatible.

At this point they have brought one publisher. Historically they have put their IP on other platforms.

The ones that matter to me (Starfield, TES and Fallout) have actually been made console exclusive.

Well I don't know if you weep for Xbox gamers waiting for Street Fighter 5 and Final Fantasy 7 Remake but some sometimes games don't come out for your preferred platform.

I’m sad for my Xbro’s that want to play those games on Xbox, absolutely. I wish they could play them on Xbox.

There is no proof they are taking anything from anyone. This is especially hilarious because Xbox gamers generally get stuff taken regularly.

Starfield, TES and Fallout are the biggest indication of what will happen to ABK’s big games.

Sony can block IP from Xbox and they don't have to take the extraordinary step in purchasing the entire studio to ensure content hits their platform

So can Microsoft, and they have done, even recently with Game Pass launches taking a while to hit PS.

Even if content is made exclusive to Xbox what is wrong with that? Is Sony the only platform that can secure content for their platform?

Because by permanently adding ABK to their existing studios, on top of their infrastructure and brand power, there’s a risk that future potential entrants to the market won’t bother.

The fact remains that that there are many examples of MS putting their IP on other platforms and CoD specifically has been assured till the end of the generation.

There’s also many examples of them pulling future big games like Starfield and TES.

If you have to make up a scenario that turns MS it to a monopolisitc villain it's clear who is being disingenuous. The CMA document is full of disingenuous takes.

Realm of make belief. Both MS and Sony are corporations who want to make as much money from you and I as possible. IMO you’d have to have a twisted mindset to think that.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Of course they do. Under NDA but they do. MS aren't even kicking up a stink about it but the xbox fans are doing their part and MS is remaining quiet. It's obvious though if you look at what's happening.

Activision never supported Game Pass. None of their games would be on Game Pass Day 1 even without that marketing deal.

This is just a standard marketing clause everybody does. What would be the point of marketing deals if you could turn around and get a bigger check from MS to get it on GP while Sony pays for the marketing?

 

[intheinbetween]

If they knew something then it would be akin to insider trading aka the rules to keeping them separate. GS got in trouble with this kind of thing before.

I suspect that this move is based on largely public information aka the CMA.

This roller-coaster is still going to be going until Q2 2023.

IIRC the deal was expected to be closed by June 2023

 

[Yoboman]

If they knew something then it would be akin to insider trading aka the rules to keeping them separate. GS got in trouble with this kind of thing before.

I suspect that this move is based on largely public information aka the CMA.

This roller-coaster is still going to be going until Q2 2023.

They may not know anything official but can see MS'S combative stance isn't going to win them any favours

 

[reksveks]

IIRC the deal was expected to be closed by June 2023

Yeah, that's the timeline that MS has said and is in their merger document, think the CMA may be the last hold-out/blocker.

 

[reksveks]

They may not know anything official but can see MS'S combative stance isn't going to win them any favours

Maybe but that's all still speculation based on publicly available material.

Think the MS response to the CMA raised some good points and was too combative in tone. Whether that's going to be an issue, not sure cause there are much more important factors.

 

[Three]

Activision never supported Game Pass. None of their games would be on Game Pass Day 1 even without that marketing deal.

This is just a standard marketing clause everybody does. What would be the point of marketing deals if you could turn around and get a bigger check from MS to get it on GP while Sony pays for the marketing?

Exactly, both Capcom and Activision wanted to sell games because their games actually sell. If they wanted to go on gamepass they wouldn't have signed the agreement in the first place.

That clause is just to prevent making their marketing agreement absolutely pointless if they go and sign another but even post agreement they have not gone to gamepass. Cyberpunk 2077 had a marketing agreement with MS. Do people honestly think it doesn't have a clause preventing it from releasing on PS+ for whatever period the agreement is for? Would they have released on PS+ or gamepass? Probably not because the publisher didn't want to.

 

[Fess]

This legal?
3.7M shares sold!

And if you follow the link:

”Goldman Sachs was said to have shopped the block earlier Monday”

Someone knows something. The seller or the buyer. Who’s the seller?

 

[Pelta88]

For all the complaints about the culture at Activision those influencers have really been the only ones really talking about the state of those employees there. They are also pretty excited about Activision making more than just CoD.

DarkMage619 I intend no disrespect to you as an individual but this has to be the most disingenuous narrative I've seen in this thread...

These influencers and the wider gaming media touted their relationships with Acti devs and despite Activision's notoriously bad working environment, stayed absolutely silent. It wasn't until the story broke and hit the mainstream news media that they spoke about it and even then, kept their criticism to a podcast or two. They all went right back to vague rumours and cosying up to publishers/ceos for access. The idea that XBOX influencers were concerned or as you put it "Really been the only ones talking about the state of those employees..." To put it politely, simply is not true.

The entire gaming media and said influencers quickly forgot about the heinous treatment of ATVI employees in favour of the latest breaking gaming news. The XBOX influencers only came back to "concern" for ATVI employees as a way to deflect criticism for their shift in behaviour. Influencers like Jez being called out, across social media, for comically bad articles where he attacks Sony, only to then claim he's doing it for the ATVI employees is like ODB insisting that "Wu Tang Clan is for the children" when he didn't win the award he was expecting to.

Start with WindowsCentral article history or their associated podcast with Rand. You'll find next to nothing outside of what correlates to the mainstream media coverage. And then in January 2022, a torrent of Activision coverage. The culture of influencers is disingenuous by design. Outside of gaming, governments are legislating against the paid influencer culture because the public increasingly see them as scammers. A few articles with some frightening but necessary stats if you ever get the time.

How influencers became the scam artists of the digital age

Author Symeon Brown talks through his new book, Get Rich Or Lie Trying – a book about deceit, ‘cloutrage’ and aspiration on social media

www.dazeddigital.com

More than half of Instagram influencers 'engaged in fraud', with 45 per cent of accounts 'fake'

More than half (55 per cent) of Instagram influencers were involved in some form of social media fraud and fakery in 2020, despite an eight percentage point decrease from 2019. A new study by HypeAuditor also found 45 per cent of Instagram accounts were fake.

www.prweek.com

Brand Support for Social Causes is Disingenuous, say 59% of Young Brits - IPM Bitesize

24 August 2020 – Cynical attempts to align businesses with popular social causes are eroding trust in brands. Over half (59%) of Young Brits think most brand support for charitable causes and social issues isn’t genuine and 15% see it as an attempt to avoid criticism. But the biggest surprise is...

www.promomarketing.info

Is 'influencer fatigue' signaling the end of influencer marketing?

Social media feeds are crowded with influencer ads and sponsored posts, and users are experiencing influencer fatigue. What does this mean for marketers?

www.impactplus.com

 

[Gone]

Who says they have to own the infrastructure? Owning is incredibly expensive. They are several providers that would compete for Sony's cloud business IF they were interested in pursuing that venture. Sony is not interested hence them removing PS Now from devices other their console. That is not MS' fault. Sony is doing what's best for Sony.

Didn't Sony sign a partnership with Microsoft for Cloud Gaming.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

I don’t think anyone is surprised that Sony has clauses in their marketing deals preventing publishers from putting games Sony pays marketing for into GamePass. Microsoft surely has the same thing. What’s troubling is the length of the time these clauses are. The MS CMA response says “years”. A small window after a game launches is fine. No one expects MS to sign Call of Duty or RE to GamePass day one, it would cost too much. But maybe six months after launch? 12? Apparently not possible.

Same for their timed exclusive deals. FF7R is still not on Xbox. Silent Hill is rumored or maybe confirmed to be one year. Even CoD itself has content locked to PS platforms for one year. Among other games. When MS signs a deal it’s like three months typically. So if the CMA is super totes worried about MS maybe possibly eventually using their make believe future market power to disrupt competition, that’s great, that’s their job. So when do they start cracking down on Sony’s practices?

 

[Three]

Playstation's market share is more than 2:1 vs Xbox globally and much higher in key markets like Europe and Japan the gap is much bigger.

When MS goes to studio publishers it has a much harder time convincing them that their AAA game from famous IP is interesting to release exclusively on Xbox and leave out a 2x larger user base. That is, either they are denied or they are convinced that it costs much more to compensate for the loss of sales in PS. It is common knowledge.
For MS, or any other agent that wants to "compete" in the console market, it must face that situation of power and strength of Sony in the market...

The logical thing is that each company uses its strengths, and that of MS is economic as Sony is its market leading position and brand power and takes advantage of it.

Have you tried blaming MS?
The reason it had fewer customers and so publishers cared less for their platform this gen is because MS let people down and had few customers. Nothing else, not because of a boogeyman stopping them.

You have no recollection of xbox one launch. MS at the start of that gen had all of the marketing agreements. Complete DLC exclusive to Xbox One for COD (not just some skin but maps and no crossplay), FIFA FUT mode/players exclusive to xbox, EAs Plants vs Zombies exclusive to xbox for a year, first Titanfall deal, Tomb Raider deal with SE, Dead Rising 3 exclusive with Capcom, Ryse with Crytek, Quantum Break with Remedy.

How did the PS4 compete? Not by Sony buying up big studios and their IPs because it wasn't fair before, that's for sure. By selling good hardware and releasing games. By making their console attractive.

I get it FF7 and marketing agreements for some skin now has you justifying a trillion dollar conglomerate buying up the industry "because it wasn't fair" but the reality is that MS changed strategy to gamepass aquisitions and they didn’t invest in those games where they usually would have. You got aquisitions instead. You didn't get games like FF7 because MS didn't go and sign that deal, it easily could have. It didn't because FF fans aren't on xbox after multiple attempts. SE made that decision for its own self interest, not for the interests of the platform holder. The platform holder and publisher/IP owner weren't one entity.

 

[Three]

So if the CMA is super totes worried about MS maybe possibly eventually using their make believe future market power to disrupt competition, that’s great, that’s their job. So when do they start cracking down on Sony’s practices?

It's not make believe when they already have bought many studios and made sure sequels indefinitely don't come to competing platforms due it it. If they wanted to crack down on "Sony's practices" (I'm sure you mean industry wide practice including MS) then they would have done it a decade ago. It's been happening forever.
The exclusivity timing thing is a weird thing to bring up. 3 or 6 months isn't 12 but how is forever better?

 

[twilo99]

And if you follow the link:

”Goldman Sachs was said to have shopped the block earlier Monday”

Someone knows something. The seller or the buyer. Who’s the seller?

It could be speculation..

 

[GHG]

And if you follow the link:

”Goldman Sachs was said to have shopped the block earlier Monday”

Someone knows something. The seller or the buyer. Who’s the seller?

Shopping a block means you are the seller.

It involves selling the shares to a broker at an agreed price and then it's the broker's responsibility to distribute those shares to the market over a period of time (usually happens within the same day if the price goes above whatever was agreed - it means the broker can make a profit). The whole point of it is to avoid flooding the market with shares in a single transaction which would inevitably drive the price down if there's not enough liquidity at their desired sell price.

It could be speculation..

No.

 

[bluecowboys]

Have you tried blaming MS?
The reason it had fewer customers and so publishers cared less for their platform this gen is because MS let people down and had few customers. Nothing else, not because of a boogeyman stopping them.

You have no recollection of xbox one launch. MS at the start of that gen had all of the marketing agreements. Complete DLC exclusive to xbox one for COD (not just some skin but maps and no crossplay), FIFA FUT mode/players exclusive to xbox, EAs Plants vs Zombies exclusive to xbox for a year, first Titanfall deal, Tomb Raider deal with SE, Dead Rising 3 exclusive with Capcom, Ryse with Crytek, Quantum Break with Remedy.

How did the PS4 compete? Not by Sony buying up big studios and their IPs because it wasn't fair, that's for sure. By selling good hardware and releasing games. By making their console attractive.

I get it FF7 and marketing agreements for some skin has you justifying a trillion dollar conglomerate buying up the industry "because it wasn't fair" but the reality is that MS changed strategy to gamepass aquisitions and they didn’t invest in those games where they usually would have. You got aquisitions instead. You didn't get games like FF7 because MS didn't go and sign that deal, it easily could have. It didn't because FF fans aren't on xbox after multiple attempts. SE made that decision for its own self interest, not for the interests of the platform holder. The platform holder and publisher/IP owner weren't one entity.

Stop lying, the major final fantasy games isnt on Xbox because Sony money hatted it. Xbox still received some of the lesser FF games like FF paradise and the upcoming FF crisis. If square enix thinks FF paradise is worth making for Xbox then why not the major FF games that would sell better? Because Sony is paying to keep the games off of Xbox that’s why.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

It's not make believe when they already have bought many studios and made sure sequels indefinitely don't come to competing platforms due it it. If they wanted to crack down on "Sony's practices" (I'm sure you mean industry wide practice including MS) then they would have done it a decade ago. It's been happening forever.

PC isn’t a competing platform? Aren’t all their games on Steam? Also isn’t it a common warrior meme that none of MS’s acquisitions have put out exclusive games yet? You guys need to make up your minds.

Also it’s make believe because it doesn’t exist, it’s projecting into the future. Yes, if MS buys ABK and makes their games console exclusive, that can disrupt the industry and make it harder for others to compete. No different than how Sony makes it harder for MS to compete by leveraging their position into long exclusive deals and preventing games from going on GamePass.

Personally it all sounds like competition to me and the deal will be fine. But they need to pick a cause and apply it equally.

 

[Fess]

Shopping a block means you are the seller.

Ah okay, I’m not native english speaking, where I come from shopping means buying.
If GS is selling then I would sell too. Unless the buyer is someone with insight. Who’s the buyer?

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Stop lying, the major final fantasy games isnt on Xbox because Sony money hatted it. Xbox still received some of the lesser FF games like FF paradise and the upcoming FF crisis. If square enix thinks FF paradise is worth making for Xbox then why not the major FF games that would sell better? Because Sony is paying to keep the games off of Xbox that’s why.

The hoops some will jump through to excuse obvious practices is baffling sometimes. Yes, Xbox owners can have this other FF title but this huge popular one that would sell much better, uh nah, not worth it to SE obviously. And no way does it have anything to do with a moneyhat deal!

It’s silly.

 

[Three]

PC isn’t a competing platform? Aren’t all their games on Steam?

FF7 is on Steam. So are numerous first party games. I guess we are all alright then and there are no practices to worry about. I can't believe this is an actual response. Don't be ridiculous.

Also isn’t it a common warrior meme that none of MS’s acquisitions have put out exclusive games yet? You guys need to make up your minds.
exist, it’s projecting into the future. Yes, if MS buys ABK and makes their games console exclusive, that can disrupt the industry and make it harder for others to compete. No different than how Sony makes it harder for MA to compete by leveraging their position into long exclusive deals and preventing games from going on GamePass.

Personally it all sounds like competition to me and the deal will be fine. But they need to pick a cause and apply it equally.

The important word being released "yet". All the sequels announced though are not coming to competing platforms. No need to act obtuse about it.

 

[Three]

Stop lying, the major final fantasy games isnt on Xbox because Sony money hatted it. Xbox still received some of the lesser FF games like FF paradise and the upcoming FF crisis. If square enix thinks FF paradise is worth making for Xbox then why not the major FF games that would sell better? Because Sony is paying to keep the games off of Xbox that’s why.

Yes Sony went and signed a possible 3 game deal with SE. MS didn't go and sign a 3 game deal with SE because FF fans aren't on xbox. It easily could have went and signed that deal. It wasn't a game in production that was removed from a platform. Read what you are replying to instead of resorting to infantile replies of lies Lognor.

The hoops some will jump through to excuse obvious practices is baffling sometimes. Yes, Xbox owners can have this other FF title but this huge popular one that would sell much better, uh nah, not worth it to SE obviously. And no way does it have anything to do with a moneyhat deal!

It’s silly.

Try reading next time.

 

[GHG]

Ah okay, I’m not native english speaking, where I come from shopping means buying.
If GS is selling then I would sell too. Unless the buyer is someone with insight. Who’s the buyer?

A broker (most of the large brokers have block trading departments who are responsible for handling these kinds of transactions):

It involves selling the shares to a broker at an agreed price and then it's the broker's responsibility to distribute those shares to the market over a period of time (usually happens within the same day if the price goes above whatever was agreed - it means the broker can make a profit). The whole point of it is to avoid flooding the market with shares in a single transaction which would inevitably drive the price down if there's not enough liquidity at their desired sell price.

You can see when they decided to dump the shares on Monday as well as indicated by the volume spikes: