Support NeoGAF

[bluecowboys]

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 replys of lies Lognor.


Try reading next time.

This is the exact quote from your previous statement "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.

There are final fantasy fans on xbox. Why do you think square enix made FF paradise on xbox series consoles or the new FF Crisis game? Why was FF15 on xbox one which is less successful than the Xbox series consoles? There are fans of FF games on Xbox but square enix was money hatted by Sony to take the main line FF games off of Xbox. Stop lying please.

 

[adamsapple]

There are final fantasy fans on xbox. Why do you think square enix made FF paradise on xbox series consoles or the new FF Crisis game? Why was FF15 on xbox one which is less successful than the Xbox series consoles? There are fans of FF games on Xbox but square enix was money hatted by Sony to take the main line FF games off of Xbox. Stop lying please.

They're putting out Crisis Core, a much lesser known game, on Xbox but not FF7 Remake. Just think about it. It's very obvious Sony are paying them a lot of money to keep the FF7 games off of Xbox despite it being year(s) old now.

 

[Three]

This is the exact quote from your previous statement "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. SE made that decision for its own self interest, not for the interests of the platform holder. "

There are final fantasy fans on xbox. Why do you think square enix made FF paradise on xbox series consoles or the new FF Crisis game? Why was FF15 on xbox one which is less successful than the Xbox series consoles? There are fans of FF games on Xbox but square enix was money hatted by Sony to take the main line FF games off of Xbox. Stop lying please.

What are you having trouble understanding?

"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"

That's my sentence right there. MS didn't go and sign that deal because it projects that its sales on xbox would not warrant it.

SE releasing smaller games on xbox had nothing to do with that. SE did what it thinks is best for SE. If that meant signing a multigame deal for a game not in production yet then that is what it did.

 

[bluecowboys]

What are you having trouble understanding?

"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"

That's my sentence right there. MS didn't go and sign that deal because it projects that its sales on xbox would not warrant it.

SE releasing smaller games on xbox had nothing to do with that. SE did what it thinks is best for SE. If that meant signing a multigame deal for a game not in production yet then that is what it did.

Let me break it down with your full statement once again.

(1)You didn't get games like FF7 because MS didn't go and sign that deal, it easily could have. (2 )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. 3. SE made that decision for its own self interest, not for the interests of the platform holder.

1. Why should MS have to pay a third party publisher to get a game on Xbox for a major franchise? This isn't like some indie game. This is a AAA game with a pretty huge following.

2. You said FF fans aren't on Xbox but yet the lesser FF games are coming to Xbox still. Square Enix must still think there are FF fans on Xbox especially being a major franchise. Not to mention Xbox been getting a lot of JRPGs as of recent that isn't as big as the mainline FF games.

3. Square enix didn't make the decision on their own self interest. It is because Sony is paying them to keep the games off of Xbox. Square enix has no business reason to keep FF exclusive unless someone is paying them.

 

[Three]

They're putting out Crisis Core, a much lesser known game, on Xbox but not FF7 Remake. Just think about it. It's very obvious Sony are paying them a lot of money to keep the FF7 games off of Xbox despite it being year(s) old now.

Sony paid them to make the games in 2015. They made the multi-game contract then. MS could have and didn't because it didn't believe in FF7 having a huge selling potential on their platform. Square enix did what's best for square enix. Much the same as the developers making gamepass exclusivity agreements.

 

[bluecowboys]

Sony paid them to make the games in 2015. They made the multi-game contract then. MS could have and didn't because it didn't believe in FF7 having a huge selling potential on their platform. Square enix did what's best for square enix. Much the same as the developers making gamepass exclusivity agreements.

Okay, so you agree this Activision acquisition is a good thing. Remember, it was Activision that came to MS and not the other way around. Activision is just doing what is best for Activision.

 

[Three]

Let me break it down with your full statement once again.

(1)You didn't get games like FF7 because MS didn't go and sign that deal, it easily could have. (2 )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. 3. SE made that decision for its own self interest, not for the interests of the platform holder.

1. Why should MS have to pay a third party publisher to get a game on Xbox for a major franchise? This isn't like some indie game or something. This is a AAA game.

Maybe because the multi game agreement is partly funding the game before production? Ever thought of that? Why did MS pay Capcom for Dead Rising 3 that was xbox only and Sony didn't ? Could I argue that there are Dead Rising fans on PS and MS kept it off too? Would that damage MS reputation for apparently not doing that sort of thing?

2. You said FF fans aren't on Xbox but yet the lesser FF games are coming to Xbox still. Square Enix must still think there are FF fans on Xbox especially being a major franchise. Not to mention Xbox been getting a lot of JRPGs as of recent that isn't as big as the mainline FF games.

Because SE is selling a Crisis Core Remake now. Does that mean MS saw fit to fund FF7 Remake though? No it didn't. That's the point. Not whether Sony signed the deal or not. That's not what's being refuted.

3. Square enix didn't make the decision on their own self interest. It is because Sony is paying them to keep the games off of Xbox. Square enix has no business reason to keep FF exclusive unless someone is paying them.

Sony paid them to make FF7 in 2015. It wasn't in production or confirmed for anything. It made a decision to acvept funding and make a 3 part FF7 remake exclusive. SE did what's best for SE.

 

[Darsxx82]

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.

And you are trying to make believe that the strength and power of the Playstation brand is on par with that of Xbox, especially in markets as important as Japan and Europe? Really??

There is no doubt that the 2+:1 in sales also has to do with MS errors, but far from it to its full extent. Thinking that is lying to yourself. The difference is that a bad start to a generation means Xbox loses 2:1, while Sony ends up winning a generation (X60 vs PS3) when Xbox was better. The reason?? The market leader position and power of the brand as the main reason that opens many doors for Sony to sign agreements that are not within the reach of MS.

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,

LOl, those agreements were signed at the beginning of the X360 generation The agreement with Fifa when PES had marketing with Playstation and Fifa sell 4:1 less.... When PS4 generation started Sony had already signed with EA and Activision. It was not later as a result of XBO's bad start as you want us to believe.

first Titanfall deal,

Xbox second parte Xbox global plublising. New IP financed by MS. Rally?

Tomb Raider deal with SE,

LOl, To achieve this, MS had to pay the astronomical amount 100 MILLONS deal and I don't want to get into the different yardstick of media vs PS when it comes to receiving these kinds of deals. If TR is of any use, it is an example of the exaggerated figures that the Studios ask of MS vs what they ask of PS.

Dead Rising 3 exclusive with Capcom, Ryse with Crytek, Quantum Break with Remedy.

Are you serius??For what reason do you include Xbox games globally plublising as if they were agreements of the same type as FFR, FFXVI, Forspoken, SilentHill, etc. multiplatform AAA moneyhat?

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.

Taking advantage of the strength of the Playstation brand, taking advantage of its quad monopoly vs. Xbox in markets like Europe and Japan/Asia to achieve agreements that are not within the reach of MS.

For not remembering that Using its economic strength against Sega and Nintendo when it was the most economically powerful company. But maybe you don't want to remember that...because before it was fine...right?

And certainly not within the reach of any company that decided to enter the console market. In fact, it is that power of the PS brand that makes seeing new players in the console market a pipe dream.

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.

Have you read MS's response to CADE and CMA?? If you have done it, you will see how MS says that having the best hardware, the best prices, first party exclusives and better subscriptions are not enough to compete equally with the Playstation brand, especially in certain markets. That Sony uses that position of dominance to maintain its status quo and market leadership and reach agreements that are not available to other agents... It's a joke that someone with minimal knowledge of the console market does not see such a situation

As it is also a joke to want to make believe that FF is not on Xbox simply because MS does not want or bet on it while Sony did.

 

[bluecowboys]

1. Maybe because the multi game agreement is partly funding the game before production? Ever thought of that? Why did MS pay Capcom for Dead Rising 3 that was xbox only and Sony didn't ? Could I argue that there are Dead Rising fans on PS and MS kept it off too? Would that damage MS reputation for apparently not doing that sort of thing?


2. Because SE is selling a Crisis Core Remake now. Does that mean MS saw fit to fund FF7 Remake though? No it didn't. That's the point. Not whether Sony signed the deal or not. That's not what's being refuted.

3. Sony paid them to make FF7 in 2015. It wasn't in production or confirmed for anything. It made a decision to acvept funding and make a 3 part FF7 remake exclusive. SE did what's best for SE.

1.I'm sure Square Enix biggest franchise that sells millions especially the biggest FF main line game (FF7) doesn't need Sony funding it. It would've made a profit especially considering the huge following that the game has. Sony just paid to keep the game off of Xbox. It is as simple as that. Dead rising isn't a major franchise that is why its been dead for a while now. In fact, I wouldn't be surprise if the game wouldn't have been made without MS since it was a niche game.

2. What? Since when does MS need to fund Crisis core remake? SE knows there are FF fans on xbox and that is why they are releasing the game on Xbox.

3. FF7 remake was published by Square Enix, not Sony.

 

[Three]

Okay, so you agree this Activision acquisition is a good thing. Remember, it was Activision that came to MS and not the other way around. Activision is just doing what is best for Activision.

I wasn't arguing if it was a bad or good thing. I'm not a fan of consolidation but I'm pointing out why Ms didn't make the FF deal. It's not that it's making acquisitions because it thought it wasn't fair. It still made deals that it thought was best for itself though. It's the xbox fans who are pusing the silly narrative that MS couldn't compete with some kind of unfair boogeyman.

 

[Hendrick's]

I think it's time for a new avatar bet.

#DealApproved

#DealDenied

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

And you are trying to make believe that the strength and power of the Playstation brand is on par with that of Xbox, especially in markets as important as Japan and Europe? Really??

There is no doubt that the 2+:1 in sales also has to do with MS errors, but far from it to its full extent. Thinking that is lying to yourself. The difference is that a bad start to a generation means Xbox loses 2:1, while Sony ends up winning a generation (X60 vs PS3) when Xbox was better. The reason?? The market leader position and power of the brand as the main reason that opens many doors for Sony to sign agreements that are not within the reach of MS.


LOl, those agreements were signed at the beginning of the X360 generation The agreement with Fifa when PES had marketing with Playstation and Fifa sell 4:1 less.... When PS4 generation started Sony had already signed with EA and Activision. It was not later as a result of XBO's bad start as you want us to believe.

Xbox second parte Xbox global plublising. New IP financed by MS. Rally?



LOl, To achieve this, MS had to pay the astronomical amount 100 MILLONS deal and I don't want to get into the different yardstick of media vs PS when it comes to receiving these kinds of deals. If TR is of any use, it is an example of the exaggerated figures that the Studios ask of MS vs what they ask of PS.


Are you serius??For what reason do you include Xbox games globally plublising as if they were agreements of the same type as FFR, FFXVI, Forspoken, SilentHill, etc. multiplatform AAA moneyhat?



Taking advantage of the strength of the Playstation brand, taking advantage of its quad monopoly vs. Xbox in markets like Europe and Japan/Asia to achieve agreements that are not within the reach of MS.

For not remembering that Using its economic strength against Sega and Nintendo when it was the most economically powerful company. But maybe you don't want to remember that...because before it was fine...right?

And certainly not within the reach of any company that decided to enter the console market. In fact, it is that power of the PS brand that makes seeing new players in the console market a pipe dream.



Have you read MS's response to CADE and CMA?? If you have done it, you will see how MS says that having the best hardware, the best prices, first party exclusives and better subscriptions are not enough to compete equally with the Playstation brand, especially in certain markets. That Sony uses that position of dominance to maintain its status quo and market leadership and reach agreements that are not available to other agents... It's a joke that someone with minimal knowledge of the console market does not see such a situation

As it is also a joke to want to make believe that FF is not on Xbox simply because MS does not want or bet on it while Sony did.

Great post.

 

[bluecowboys]

I wasn't arguing if it was a bad or good thing. I'm not a fan of consolidation but I'm pointing out why Ms didn't make the FF deal. It's not that it's making acquisitions because it thought it wasn't fair. It still made deals that it thought was best for itself though. It's the xbox fans who are pusing the silly narrative that MS couldn't compete with some kind of unfair boogeyman.

You were justifying the decision of square enix by saying that they are acting on their best interest. Activision is doing the same thing by going to MS wanting to be acquired. So no need to play the victim anymore? This is all good, right?

 

[Three]

And you are trying to make believe that the strength and power of the Playstation brand is on par with that of Xbox, especially in markets as important as Japan and Europe? Really??

No, but MS could build that brand.

There is no doubt that the 2+:1 in sales also has to do with MS errors, but far from it to its full extent. Thinking that is lying to yourself. The difference is that a bad start to a generation means Xbox loses 2:1, while Sony ends up winning a generation (X60 vs PS3) when Xbox was better. The reason?? The market leader position and power of the brand as the main reason that opens many doors for Sony to sign agreements that are not within the reach of MS.

What deals did PS3 have? MS had them all Bioshock, ME, COD, GTA. Sony released games on the PS3 with its first party.

LOl, those agreements were signed at the beginning of the X360 generation The agreement with Fifa when PES had marketing with Playstation and Fifa sell 4:1 less.... When PS4 generation started Sony had already signed with EA and Activision. It was not later as a result of XBO's bad start as you want us to believe.

The CoD deal was signed 2 years after the PS4 release. It wasn't at the start.

Xbox second parte Xbox global plublising. New IP financed by MS. Rally?

So the difference is that Sony didn't ask for the publishing rights and SE got to keep it?

LOl, To achieve this, MS had to pay the astronomical amount 100 MILLONS deal and I don't want to get into the different yardstick of media vs PS when it comes to receiving these kinds of deals. If TR is of any use, it is an example of the exaggerated figures that the Studios ask of MS vs what they ask of PS.

Do you know how much Sony paid SE?

Are you serius??For what reason do you include Xbox games globally plublising as if they were agreements of the same type as FFR, FFXVI, Forspoken, SilentHill, etc. multiplatform AAA moneyhat?

Because you think it's publishing when MS did not publish games like Plants vs Zombies, or even Titanfall I think. You want to ignore those and pretend that moneyhatting is OK if you take away even more rights from the studio who owns the IP and is developing the game.

And certainly not within the reach of any company that decided to enter the console market. In fact, it is that power of the PS brand that makes seeing new players in the console market a pipe dream.

Nothing stops it. If a console maker comes along, an Oni skin in CoD is going to be a far smaller deterrence than a game being indefinitely blocked from ever coming to the new player in the console market. Let's pretend it will though. At least be honest.

s it is also a joke to want to make believe that FF is not on Xbox simply because MS does not want or bet on it while Sony did.

MS did not make the deal with SE because it didn't want to bet on the FF7 remake. Yes. Not sure why you think otherwise. I'm sure MS would like FF7 though and they can't have it but MS did not make that deal before the game was in production like Sony did. After all you think it was without risk and for a tuppence whereas MS were justified for all theirs because it cost more and took away even more studio rights.

 

[Three]

You were justifying the decision of square enix by saying that they are acting on their best interest. Activision is doing the same thing by going to MS wanting to be acquired. So no need to play the victim anymore? This is all good, right?

The only people playing victim are the countless xbox fanboys that are saying there was some kind of unfair market practice that they are fighting with worse, when MS are absolutely for and participate in both practices. Even worse ones now, which we should see as good because they are the victim.

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

What? Bethesda games were on Stadia.

Perhaps is it that MS does not own Bethesda yet and Bethesda can bring they'r games on every platform they want?

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

When will the CMA stop Silent Hill 2 Remake from being a PS exclusive?

Its Konami's decision Sony does not own Konami, and Konami is working with Sony for about 20 years. Sony and Konami are working together on SH2. This has nothing nadda to do with the CMA. You are comparing a rabbit with an Blue Whale here

 

[TheGodfather07]

Its Konami's decision Sony does not own Konami, and Konami is working with Sony for about 20 years. Sony and Konami are working together on SH2. This has nothing nadda to do with the CMA. You are comparing a rabbit with an Blue Whale here

Don't they understand that cma looks into acquisitions? Sony didn't acquire konami you dumbasses. Theres nothing to stop.

 

[CatLady]

I think it's time for a new avatar bet.

#DealApproved

#DealDenied

Look at the avatar I am currently sporting. I'm NEVER making another avatar bet.

 

[bluecowboys]

Its Konami's decision Sony does not own Konami, and Konami is working with Sony for about 20 years. Sony and Konami are working together on SH2. This has nothing nadda to do with the CMA. You are comparing a rabbit with an Blue Whale here

However, it won't help Sony's case. MS can claim that Sony is using their first place status and huge influence on the console market to get third party exclusives. They can also bring up the fact that Sony denied a lot of third party games for the Sega platforms to prevent Sega from competing in the past.

 

[TheGodfather07]

However, it won't help Sony's case. MS can claim that Sony is using their first place status and huge influence on the console market to get third party exclusives. They can also bring up the fact that Sony denied a lot of third party games for the Sega platforms to prevent Sega from competing.

Going all the way back to Sega to make a point? Lmao

 

[IFireflyl]

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.

The bolded part is what I'm taking issue with. As I said, if Sony is strong-arming the industry to bend to their will then that is illegal. If you can provide evidence to support this then please share it, and at the same time send it to the appropriate authorities so that Sony can get fined and slapped back into their place.

The issue I'm having is that you and others are claiming that Sony is throwing their weight around to get better deals at the expense of Microsoft. There is no evidence being supplied to support this claim, only that if they're the dominant player then that must be what's happening.

What you don't seem to consider is that Sony might not being throwing their weight around, and that studios, publishers, and developers might just like doing business with them more than with Microsoft. If that's the case then there's no illegal action.

No regulatory body can force one business to do business with someone else just because the other business wants them to. In my analogy I stated that that would be like me deciding to sell merchandise on Amazon, and then a regulatory body coming in to tell me that I also have to sell my merchandise on Newegg. That's preposterous.

 

[PaintTinJr]

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.

The CMA are well aware that "tipping points" (their words in the CMA phase 1 document, not mine) are natural for a market, where some winner - or winners - take it all, eventually and they aren't against that outcome when it occurs organically by consumer choice in a competitive market. What they take issue with is when acquisition foreclosure strategies will hasten that event - reducing the "let them fight" time - and foreclosure strategies weaken competition - from external means outside that market, like a $70b bag of money made from MSFT's other businesses to buy ABK/CoD for Xbox.

If this purchase was funded by consumers choosing xbox/XGP to pay for it, the CMA would have to consider that it was a tipping point by consumer choice in MSFT's favour, which is exactly the natural tipping point PlayStation is at and rewarded with good timed exclusive deals. Success with customers leads to success with businesses wanting to reach those customers to maximise the returns from their IPs. It is symbiotic, and MSFT's phase 1 and 2 submissions make the argument (in their own words) that PlayStation makes technically superior console hardware and makes far more critically acclaimed exclusive games and provides significantly more exclusive games.

 

[bluecowboys]

Going all the way back to Sega to make a point? Lmao

Sony is using the same strategy on MS that they used on Sega. Get 3rd party exclusives and make their consumers worried about missing key big games.

Also, all this talk about Sony that we are missing the biggest reason for this acquisition. That is mobile gaming wether we like it or not. Apple/Google both have a monopoly on mobile apps. MSFT can help break this monopoly and add more competition with this purchase too. That would be great for consumers and judging by previous CMA concerns they would agree.

 

[drganon]

Going all the way back to Sega to make a point? Lmao

It was all sonys fault sega made one bad decision after another.

 

[bluecowboys]

It was all sonys fault sega made one bad decision after another.

It was Sony's fault for stopping a lot of third party games from going to Sega's game system. Sega never had a chance to bounce back and the third party games being denied on their platform probably stopped Sega from wanting to invest in game consoles. Also, it is the reason why Nintendo doesn't make a traditional console anymore. Microsoft only was able to compete by making acquisitions and capitalizing on PS3 launch failure.

 

[64gigabyteram]

It was Sony's fault for stopping a lot of third party games from going to Sega's game system.

It was Sega's fault for not capitalising on the Genesis momentum and using that to get the 3rd parties on their system

Sony's approach of supporting the shit ouf of third parties is why every japanese third party fawns over them, they entered the industry, shone their shoes and kissed their boots, the result is that nobody wants to work for anyone else. Not Sony's fault sega didn't realize the value of third parties

 

[MScarpa]

It's rather enjoyable.

Ok, to each their own but I mean, at some point doesn't it get repetitive and boring? Some of you guys must not have a family/job/life/etc to be posting here 24/7.

 

[drganon]

It was Sony's fault for stopping a lot of third party games from going to Sega's game system. Sega never had a chance to bounce back and the third party games being denied on their platform probably stopped Sega from wanting to invest in game consoles. Also, it is the reason why Nintendo doesn't make a traditional console anymore. Microsoft only was able to compete by making acquisitions and capitalizing on PS3 launch failure.

Yes, it was sonys fault sega made a console that was a pain in the ass to program for, didn't do 3d as well, more expensive, a botched us launch, and coming off the failures of the cd and 32x. Sony masterminded the whole thing.

 

[Topher]

Sega? Dafuq any of this have to do with Sega?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Sega? Dafuq any of this have to do with Sega?

Sony turned them into a third world company

 

[Topher]

Sony turned them into a third world company

Ah....are we on that script again? I swear there is a console warrior playbook out there with a "your evil company is more evil than my evil company" chapter in it.

 

[64gigabyteram]

Yes, it was sonys fault sega made a console that was a pain in the ass to program for, didn't do 3d as well, more expensive, a botched us launch, and coming off the failures of the cd and 32x. Sony masterminded the whole thing.

Yes. Ken Kutaragi went undercover as a secret spy and sabotaged the saturn in order to bring Sega down. It was one of the biggest obstacles to making the Playstation 1 very successful, and he dealt with it in an amazing way

 

[TheGodfather07]

Sony is using the same strategy on MS that they used on Sega. Get 3rd party exclusives and make their consumers worried about missing key big games.

so what? Nobody complained about timed exclusivity for the last 30 years but now all of a sudden its a problem? Also its only a problem when sony does it, even though Microsoft have numerous exclusive deals of their own? Your arguments make no sense. Your accusing Sony of the same thing Microsoft does. I expect your going to move the goal posts again because that's what hypocrites do.

 

[drganon]

Sega? Dafuq any of this have to do with Sega?

Not a damn thing. But there isn't anything worth talking about in this thread till the end of November when the ftc makes a decision or whatever anyway.

 

[phil_t98]

No, but MS could build that brand.

What deals did PS3 have? MS had them all Bioshock, ME, COD, GTA. Sony released games on the PS3 with its first party.

The CoD deal was signed 2 years after the PS4 release. It wasn't at the start.

So the difference is that Sony didn't ask for the publishing rights and SE got to keep it?

Do you know how much Sony paid SE?


Because you think it's publishing when MS did not publish games like Plants vs Zombies, or even Titanfall I think. You want to ignore those and pretend that moneyhatting is OK if you take away even more rights from the studio who owns the IP and is developing the game.

Nothing stops it. If a console maker comes along, an Oni skin in CoD is going to be a far smaller deterrence than a game being indefinitely blocked from ever coming to the new player in the console market. Let's pretend it will though. At least be honest.


MS did not make the deal with SE because it didn't want to bet on the FF7 remake. Yes. Not sure why you think otherwise. I'm sure MS would like FF7 though and they can't have it but MS did not make that deal before the game was in production like Sony did. After all you think it was without risk and for a tuppence whereas MS were justified for all theirs because it cost more and took away even more studio rights.

yes but Sony will always have that power for years, Microsoft can build it but it aint gonna happen overnight. hence why things like the Activision deal came to the table. one thing that nobody mentions is Activision are happy to be sold to Microsoft. why aren't they getting a say in the CMA

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

yes but Sony will always have that power for years, Microsoft can build it but it aint gonna happen overnight. hence why things like the Activision deal came to the table. one thing that nobody mentions is Activision are happy to be sold to Microsoft. why aren't they getting a say in the CMA

Because what Activision thinks is irrelevant

 

[drganon]

Because what Activision thinks is irrelevant

What would they say anyway? "Yeah, the company is on fire and infested with sex pests, of course we said yes to the check".

 

[adamsapple]

yes but Sony will always have that power for years, Microsoft can build it but it aint gonna happen overnight. hence why things like the Activision deal came to the table. one thing that nobody mentions is Activision are happy to be sold to Microsoft. why aren't they getting a say in the CMA

Yeah, folks like to bring up points like "Activision chose to make a deal with Sony for the marketing" or "Square chose to make a deal with Sony". If we can bring up what they chose to do there, bringing up that they're choosing to be acquired by MS, and that it's not a hostile take over, is just as relevant.

 

[Three]

yes but Sony will always have that power for years, Microsoft can build it but it aint gonna happen overnight. hence why things like the Activision deal came to the table. one thing that nobody mentions is Activision are happy to be sold to Microsoft. why aren't they getting a say in the CMA

So how did it have that power and worse throughout xbox 360? You don't remember the GTA DLC deal, CoD, ME, timed Bioshock deals? Today we actually have it much better even if some xbox fans are really power hungry to be on top.

 

[Barlow]

What could go wrong

 

[drganon]

So how did it have that power and worse throughout xbox 360? You don't remember the GTA DLC deal, CoD, ME, timed Bioshock deals? Today we actually have it much better even if some xbox fans are really power hungry to be on top.

When Microsoft does exclusive deals its okay, when Sony does it, it's the work of the devil.

 

[phil_t98]

So how did it have that power and worse throughout xbox 360? You don't remember the GTA DLC deal, CoD, ME, timed Bioshock deals? Today we actually have it much better even if some xbox fans are really power hungry to be on top.

what was the sales comparison last gen? 2-1?

what's the sales comparison this gen?

with supply constraints? Sony still way in the lead.

uk boxed sales?


all of these are constantly spouted on this forum about how Sony has a massive lead. when ever they go to do a marketing deal they always have the upper hand with Microsoft due to sales of consoles. if Microsoft want to do a deal it probably costs them double maybe triple what it would Sony because of sales numbers. Microsoft must not see the valuer in those type of deals any more and gone down the route of buying studios and bolstering what they own

 

[reksveks]

Feel sorry for the people reading that inbox

 

[Topher]

Yeah, folks like to bring up points like "Activision chose to make a deal with Sony for the marketing" or "Square chose to make a deal with Sony". If we can bring up what they chose to do there, bringing up that they're choosing to be acquired by MS, and that it's not a hostile take over, is just as relevant.

Absolutely. It works both ways. This isn't a hostile takeover by Microsoft in any shape or form. Likewise, folks pointing fingers at Sony for marketing deals and timed exclusivity need to also point their fingers at Capcom, AB and Bethesda as well.

They have no idea what they have just done.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

What could go wrong

Alright boys let's give them our impartial and fair views on the matter

 

[adamsapple]

What could go wrong

This will only end very well.

 

[phil_t98]

Because what Activision thinks is irrelevant

why though? I mean there could be massive financial problems and they need selling? I aint saying that there is but we don't know if they aint asked. I mean in the future a deal like this could be knocked back and the company go bust because they could support themselves

 

[bluecowboys]

so what? Nobody complained about timed exclusivity for the last 30 years but now all of a sudden its a problem? Also its only a problem when sony does it, even though Microsoft have numerous exclusive deals of their own? Your arguments make no sense. Your accusing Sony of the same thing Microsoft does. I expect your going to move the goal posts again because that's what hypocrites do.

People did complain about 3rd party exclusivity. Where have you been? Why are you lying and pretending nobody cares?

Sony is getting these AAA third party exclusives over MS indie games this generation. These AAA games are console sellers and the reason why people buy these consoles. Multiple Final Fantasy games, Death loop, Ghost Wire, Star wars KOTR, and apparently the new silent hill game too which could be a AAA game. If MS didn't buy out Bethesda games, you can bet Star field would've been a PS timed exclusive. Hell, there are rumors that the new Bioshock game will be PS exclusive too.

MS are getting these smaller game studio exclusives who probably need their help to make sure the game is profitable.

 

[sainraja]

exactly my point. they could of used the 3.6 Billion to invest in their own FPS which somebody suggested the Microsoft should invest the 70 billion in games. same can be said of both sides

Sony already invested internally during the PS3 generation and I do realize that you switched your point later to focus on FPS but Sony did that too (e.g. Resistance (3 games)/Killzone (3 games)). I loved both Resistance and Killzone but not enough people did unfortunately. They definitely did try what you are suggesting and with Bungie, they are continuing to do that; their plan is to use Bungie's expertise in shaping their future multiplayer efforts that they are already working on.

So, you can't say the same about Sony, since they are and have been doing that. Also, I don't think you can put Bungie and call it the same as the Activision acquisition of MS.