Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, as a serious reply, how do you expect Microsoft to juggle the prominence of other games on their store, along with Bethesda and ABK's catalogues, the other MGS games, and EA, Ubisoft and T2's AAA games?
Have they spent $80b on three publishers and other studios to just have that content tucked away at the back to make space for a Kena Bridge of Spirits or Sifu game - while needing the other games front and centre to sell game pass subs?
For the love of God, please put your phone down.
 
Last edited:
I remember you were on that Discord with the guy from DF before the PS5 came out. Organizing a FUD campaign. All the lies about the PS5 specs came from there. I'd keep a low profile about Discord chats if I were you 😘
I remember when your buddy went to the public r/xboxseriesx discord(a public where literally anybody can join and there are also a few employees from Microsoft) , wrote a bait post right below my rant about Microsoft being unable to count and Killzone 2 and posted it with another bait post from him talking to himself (obviously removing the part where we told him his post was irrelevant and got him banned) saying "I am scared, he is from the FUD discord", until I disproved him and posted the full context. Somehow you and your friends desperately try to group me with someone you had disagreement with on twitter, even though I was banned from ResetEra for being a troll within a day (that didn't stop you guys from trying to make up a FUD about that though). What you called the "Super Secret FUD discord" used to invite everyone who wanted in early January that year and I had already left after a few days.
If someone wanted the follow up(the real story, not the FUD that GhostOfTsu GhostOfTsu and his discord buddies use), apparently Klobrille was responsible for getting me banned and wanted me to apologize. Naturally, I refused.


Ex0Kd85VgAM8YjT

Keep trying to spread your FUD warrior. You keep posting the same screenshots(the first screenshot already proved how you worked to manufacture a FUD), but never proved why THEAP99 THEAP99 and his "source" could not take multiple screenshots of my message history in that server(like I did myself posting 60 of them before you guys started marketing the FUD). Keep posting that one screenshot without ever proving it or mentioning the source of those screenshots.
If your first attempt was to post a bait below my post and even after getting banned claiming the public r/XboxSeriesX discord was the "Super Secret FUD discord", then you have to don't have any standing to claim who is organizing a FUD campaign. It simply means that you can manufacture FUDs against people you disagree with. Well atleast I am glad that I am a topic of discussion among your discord friends as they ponder a way to manufacture another FUD about me.
 
Last edited:
I remember when your buddy went to the public r/xboxseriesx discord(a public where literally anybody can join and there are also a few employees from Microsoft) , wrote a bait post right below my rant about Microsoft being unable to count and Killzone 2 and posted it with another bait post from him talking to himself (obviously removing the part where we told him his post was irrelevant and got him banned) saying "I am scared, he is from the FUD discord", until I disproved him and posted the full context. Somehow you and your friends desperately try to group me with someone you had disagreement with on twitter, even though I was banned from ResetEra for being a troll within a day (that didn't stop you guys from trying to make up a FUD about that though). What you called the "Super Secret FUD discord" used to invite everyone who wanted in early January that year and I had already left after a few days.
If someone wanted the follow up(the real story, not the FUD that GhostOfTsu GhostOfTsu and his discord buddies use), apparently Klobrille was responsible for getting me banned and wanted me to apologize. Naturally, I refused.


Ex0Kd85VgAM8YjT

Keep trying to spread your FUD warrior. You keep posting the same screenshots(the first screenshot already proved how you worked to manufacture a FUD), but never proved why THEAP99 THEAP99 and his "source" could not take multiple screenshots of my message history in that server(like I did myself posting 60 of them before you guys started marketing the FUD). Keep posting that one screenshot without ever proving it or mentioning the source of those screenshots.
If your first attempt was to post a bait below my post and even after getting banned claiming the public r/XboxSeriesX discord was the "Super Secret FUD discord", then you have to don't have any standing to claim who is organizing a FUD campaign. It simply means that you can manufacture FUDs against people you disagree with. Well atleast I am glad that I am a topic of discussion among your discord friends as they ponder a way to manufacture another FUD about me.

Thank you for all these receipts but I'm not that deep into this drama so I don't know half of the things you're talking about or who you're referring to when you say "my friend". I know the AP99 from here or Twitter but I was never on a Discord with him.

I'm sure this will be useful for someone and I hope your reputation will be cleared one day. No hard feelings ❤
 
It is possible that this deal might actually be the trigger to Xbox's complete demise - if it goes through - because too many in the games industry rely on PlayStation to keep them creative and viable, with technological refresh every gen. Even Epic won't be happy that Microsoft has disrupted the status quo of competition and potentially damaged an important business partner for them - if the $70b acquisition completes.
You cannot be serious?…please tell me that you are being sarcastic?
 
The rules of the game shouldn't be defined by the players wallets. Microsoft "choosing to compete" requires paying significant overs and doesn't make sense when they can just buy the .

There are other ways to compete such as buying smaller studios or creating new ones. By growing those studios and producing high quality content it's possible to improve your market share. Something which Sony has shown is possible.

Microsoft has the largest wallet so they are most capable to making that happen. What they don't have is time because like Sony has shown it takes a while to get to where they are.

As for Microsoft they can also still compete for marketing deals especially since they are the ones with the most cash.

I'm not in favor of either company buying up the entire industry though. That kind of monopoly where competition isn't allowed isn't good for consumers. However having a market leader is fine ad long as the market allows for competition to thrive in.
 
In the event that this deal does get through UK and EU regulation - which I still doubt it will based on the CMA info from canvasing the opinion of the games industry - what could be quite interesting is if the industry - with exception of Ubisoft, EA, and T2 - completely close ranks and stop publishing on Xbox voluntarily, and start putting their handout for money just to do Series versions - by the logic that Microsoft seemingly has deep pockets to pay 40% over the value of ABK, and so can afford all content, even without a game pass deal.

Using PlayStation as a stalking horse in this way to make a lot of independent game developers millionaires from their studios getting bought out at +50% above their value could be a genuinely viable strategy for some in the west. In Japan, I would already expect them to close ranks - if this deal close - even maybe seeing Nintendo and PlayStation partnering on things if the damage ABK with game pass can do to PlayStation is real.

In Nintendo's situation, they'd maybe consider that Xbox winning is bad for their gaming landscape too, compared to helping PlayStation remain competitive - or remain as market leader IMO.


There is no logic other than wishful thinking on your behalf why these companies would stop putting games on Xbox. That's pure fanboyisim right there
 
That was mostly ps fans making that claim. Only a few xbox fans said anything close to that.
It was both set of fans. Even me included at that time. That was before we saw those mtx sales.

Our reasoning was the price. You dont spend that much money, and make it exclusive on the other device.

Turns out, we didn't know much to begin with.
 
Last edited:
There is no logic other than wishful thinking on your behalf why these companies would stop putting games on Xbox. That's pure fanboyisim right there
well let's look at from a financially embattled indie to AA developer situation, where in this thread, many including yourself IIRC have claimed that in the event of the acquisition failing Microsoft could/would use that $70b to buy up timed exclusivity on any game releasing.

So, point out the errors in the following.

Facts of day-to-day for most indie to AA developers:

They are financially embattled
They directly lack the ability to market their games with AAA exposure - No Man's Sky being the exception.
The majority of their game sales they need for a game's viability happen in the first month - or few weeks - on the market.
The majority of their game sales happen on PC (and Switch if targeted) + PlayStation console.
Only being an expected sleeper hit gives them leverage for PlayStation money hat deals.
Being vaguely timed-console-exclusive on PlayStation improves their indirect marketing and gives them more potential leverage for Xbox money hatting, and indirect marketing on Xbox's store.
They are more likely to see their games prominence and ability to sell diminish faster on a store that has a new vested interest in keeping the marketing wheels of ABK, Bethesda, Mojang turning as the owner, rather than just a platform marketing those third-party games.



Also, I presume more Xbox owners having made game pass such a success so far lean more towards the sub-buffet of games business model, compared to PlayStation gamers, meaning they would mostly get scraps from xbox from a lower profile game. And being time-console-exclusive - even if for just 2 weeks - gives lower profile games a second chance to launch.
 
There are other ways to compete such as buying smaller studios or creating new ones. By growing those studios and producing high quality content it's possible to improve your market share. Something which Sony has shown is possible.
Sure there are other ways to compete, and both MS and Sony have done that. The only difference here is that you seem to be ok with the way Sony competes (including using it's marketshare position to it's advantage), but have an issue with basically any way in which Sony doesn't have the advantage.
Microsoft has the largest wallet so they are most capable to making that happen. What they don't have is time because like Sony has shown it takes a while to get to where they are.
I disagree. Sony has had it's ups and downs throughout the years. The PS3 was a down gen for them, with few expecting them to be significantly better leading up to the XB1/PS4 gen. Due to MS shitting the bed in every and any way possible, Sony literally got to where it's at in a rather short amount of time.
As for Microsoft they can also still compete for marketing deals especially since they are the ones with the most cash.

I'm not in favor of either company buying up the entire industry though. That kind of monopoly where competition isn't allowed isn't good for consumers. However having a market leader is fine ad long as the market allows for competition to thrive in.
Of course nobody would want one company to basically own the entire industry. Perhaps the biggest issue here is what one considers the "entire industry". If MS acquires ABK, some people believe it would constitute as much. Others believe that it wouldn't. I personally don't think so. As has been stated before, If AB or to be specific CoD were that critically important to consoles, then Nintendo wouldn't be enjoying the success it currently is. As hard as Sony may try, they have yet to successfully counter that fact.
 
That wasn't PR. That was a failed business agreement that Ryan didn't think would even make it to the public. That is until Spencer whined to the public about Sony not taking the deal.

It was PR. Ryan was looking to gain sympathy with people and it worked on plenty. I mean, here you are.


I'm sure them talking publicly about being the nice guys and wanting as many people to play COD as possible, while behind closed doors giving Sony a cutoff date for COD on the PS, is something that pricked some interest at the CMA.

Doubtful, because the CMA undoubtedly has loads of experience dealing with confidential contracts and deals and understands how laughably stupid the idea is that Microsoft should offer Sony an olive branch in the form of a never-ending guarantee to always put CoD on PlayStation. Ignoring how stupid that is for all kinds of business reasons, MS doesn't even own CoD yet 😆

Like someone else pointed out, it's not as if Activision and Sony had a lifelong deal. Yet MS and Sony are supposed to? 😆

I guess on the bright side, if this doesn't go through, MS won't have to worry about having to "go above and beyond."

It'll go through and CoD will remain on PS just like Minecraft.
 
well let's look at from a financially embattled indie to AA developer situation, where in this thread, many including yourself IIRC have claimed that in the event of the acquisition failing Microsoft could/would use that $70b to buy up timed exclusivity on any game releasing.

So, point out the errors in the following.

Facts of day-to-day for most indie to AA developers:

They are financially embattled
They directly lack the ability to market their games with AAA exposure - No Man's Sky being the exception.
The majority of their game sales they need for a game's viability happen in the first month - or few weeks - on the market.
The majority of their game sales happen on PC (and Switch if targeted) + PlayStation console.
Only being an expected sleeper hit gives them leverage for PlayStation money hat deals.
Being vaguely timed-console-exclusive on PlayStation improves their indirect marketing and gives them more potential leverage for Xbox money hatting, and indirect marketing on Xbox's store.
They are more likely to see their games prominence and ability to sell diminish faster on a store that has a new vested interest in keeping the marketing wheels of ABK, Bethesda, Mojang turning as the owner, rather than just a platform marketing those third-party games.



Also, I presume more Xbox owners having made game pass such a success so far lean more towards the sub-buffet of games business model, compared to PlayStation gamers, meaning they would mostly get scraps from xbox from a lower profile game. And being time-console-exclusive - even if for just 2 weeks - gives lower profile games a second chance to launch.
Dude, you are embarrassing yourself more and more.

You remind me, when I was a kid, and I used to spew these bulshit stuff.

Save yourself sometime, and log off neogaf. You are not making any sense, other than type like a drunk person.

For your own sanity, take a break.
 
well let's look at from a financially embattled indie to AA developer situation, where in this thread, many including yourself IIRC have claimed that in the event of the acquisition failing Microsoft could/would use that $70b to buy up timed exclusivity on any game releasing.

So, point out the errors in the following.

Facts of day-to-day for most indie to AA developers:

They are financially embattled
They directly lack the ability to market their games with AAA exposure - No Man's Sky being the exception.
The majority of their game sales they need for a game's viability happen in the first month - or few weeks - on the market.
The majority of their game sales happen on PC (and Switch if targeted) + PlayStation console.
Only being an expected sleeper hit gives them leverage for PlayStation money hat deals.
Being vaguely timed-console-exclusive on PlayStation improves their indirect marketing and gives them more potential leverage for Xbox money hatting, and indirect marketing on Xbox's store.
They are more likely to see their games prominence and ability to sell diminish faster on a store that has a new vested interest in keeping the marketing wheels of ABK, Bethesda, Mojang turning as the owner, rather than just a platform marketing those third-party games.



Also, I presume more Xbox owners having made game pass such a success so far lean more towards the sub-buffet of games business model, compared to PlayStation gamers, meaning they would mostly get scraps from xbox from a lower profile game. And being time-console-exclusive - even if for just 2 weeks - gives lower profile games a second chance to launch.


facts we have indie developers STATING gamepass has been a success for them and brought in more revenue

Fact you claimed the studio that made cooking simulator game were a big studio earlier in the thread. the money that game pass made them was immense when you looked at the revenue for that year. why would they stop working with Microsoft.

your all facts about Microsoft but nothing on the deals the indie devs are getting to go on PS+
 
Last edited:
facts we have indie developers STATING gamepass has been a success for them and brought in more revenue

Fact you claimed the studio that made cooking simulator game were a big studio earlier in the thread. the money that game pass made them was immense when you looked at the revenue for that year. why would they stop working with Microsoft.

your all facts about Microsoft but nothing on the deals the indie devs are getting to go on PS+
And that is a fact before Microsoft would own all of ABK's catalogue, and just one indie example that may have looked like a sleeper hit - haven't played it or heard of it until now, so I wouldn't know :), I don't buy new hardware to play games that don't need new hardware typically.

For every success like that, there will be far more others that launched, and failed, unless you think gaming isn't a high-risk, high reward industry for creative indie to AA developers at the bottom of the tree.
 
Dude, you are embarrassing yourself more and more.

You remind me, when I was a kid, and I used to spew these bulshit stuff.

Save yourself sometime, and log off neogaf. You are not making any sense, other than type like a drunk person.

For your own sanity, take a break.
Please stop projecting your own problems on others, I'm perfectly happy with the line of discussion I'm persuing, if you aren't, just ignore.
 
well let's look at from a financially embattled indie to AA developer situation, where in this thread, many including yourself IIRC have claimed that in the event of the acquisition failing Microsoft could/would use that $70b to buy up timed exclusivity on any game releasing.
Except that's not how you're looking at it. Instead of "financially embattled indie" you're looking at it as unrealistically as possible.
So, point out the errors in the following.
Ok.
Facts of day-to-day for most indie to AA developers:

They are financially embattled
Not especially. They don't have the same finances or marketing budgets, but that doesn't make them embattled.
They directly lack the ability to market their games with AAA exposure - No Man's Sky being the exception.
Agreed.
The majority of their game sales they need for a game's viability happen in the first month - or few weeks - on the market.
Not especially. Of course everyone wants as quick a return on their investment as possible, and usually a games first month or so is a good indicator of when or if that will happen.
The majority of their game sales happen on PC (and Switch if targeted) + PlayStation console.
Seeing as you're specifically referring to indie devs. Outside of pc, this isn't really the case. You're trying to isolate the Xbox as an afterthought for these devs when that's not the case. Indie devs aren't as biased as you, and can often find success by teaming up with either Xbox or Playstation. For every Evolution, Studio liverpool, and Zipper there is a Playground, Compulsion, and Undead Labs.
Only being an expected sleeper hit gives them leverage for PlayStation money hat deals.
Is there really such a thing as an "expected sleeper hit"?
Being vaguely timed-console-exclusive on PlayStation improves their indirect marketing and gives them more potential leverage for Xbox money hatting, and indirect marketing on Xbox's store.
Wait, you're saying that being a timed exclusive on PS, not only somehow magically improves their indirect marketing there... but also does so for Xbox as well? Also, if said game is moneyhatted by Sony and is a timed exclusive on PS. How does that give them leverage to moneyhat MS? If it's a timed exclusive, that suggests that their game would be coming to Xbox when that exclusivity deal expires. How does that in any way give them any sort of leverage?
They are more likely to see their games prominence and ability to sell diminish faster on a store that has a new vested interest in keeping the marketing wheels of ABK, Bethesda, Mojang turning as the owner, rather than just a platform marketing those third-party games.
This assumption is wrong on several levels. First, there's nothing to suggest that MS couldn't adequately market their game, and Gamepass doesn't mean their game's prominence would suffer. You're also pretending Sony doesn't also have it's own subscription service to promote. And not only does it need to promote it, Sony needs to promote it much more prominently compared to Gamepass due to it's lackluster subscription rate so far.
Also, I presume more Xbox owners having made game pass such a success so far lean more towards the sub-buffet of games business model, compared to PlayStation gamers, meaning they would mostly get scraps from xbox from a lower profile game. And being time-console-exclusive - even if for just 2 weeks - gives lower profile games a second chance to launch.
Yeah, you might want to assume less often, as there's nothing to suggest as much.

I never in my life would've believed that someone would try and argue that having so many first party studios was actually a negative, and that it was detrimental to third party developers. Yet here we are.
 
That was mostly ps fans making that claim. Only a few xbox fans said anything close to that.

You misread. He didn't say anyone was making a "claim". He was pointing to those who were "bragging". I can assure you PS fans were not the ones bragging that COD was going to be Xbox exclusive. Even after MS said COD would remain multiplat, there were plenty of Xbox fans, including the OP, who were saying that only meant Warzone.
 
As has been stated before, If AB or to be specific CoD were that critically important to consoles, then Nintendo wouldn't be enjoying the success it currently is. As hard as Sony may try, they have yet to successfully counter that fact.

Yeah, I've read that argument and it really doesn't work. The subset of gamers that are attracted to Xbox and PlayStation consoles are not the same gamers that are attracted to Nintendo. There is a little overlap, but not much. Seems obvious to me that Call of Duty isn't on Nintendo because AB doesn't see much of a market there for them. So no, I don't buy this argument that Nintendo not having Call of Duty proves anything at all.

Just look at the dissimilarity in video games purchased by platform in 2021. Aside from exclusives, there are a lot of the same games for both Xbox and PlayStation even outside of Call of duty.

FJY8zk3VgAIcbds
FJY9AUuVkAEWBpP


And now look at Nintendo.

FJY8qhnUYAA3iGs


Nintendo's first party is its own market. I think it is fairly absurd for anyone, including Microsoft, to suggest Call of Duty has little impact on the industry. Clearly it does. Not being on Nintendo isn't evidence of anything. I think the better argument is that Microsoft owning the Call of Duty franchise will have little impact if it remains multiplatform and they should continue to push that it will be.
 
Last edited:
Except that's not how you're looking at it. Instead of "financially embattled indie" you're looking at it as unrealistically as possible.

Ok.

Not especially. They don't have the same finances or marketing budgets, but that doesn't make them embattled.

Agreed.

Not especially. Of course everyone wants as quick a return on their investment as possible, and usually a games first month or so is a good indicator of when or if that will happen.

Seeing as you're specifically referring to indie devs. Outside of pc, this isn't really the case. You're trying to isolate the Xbox as an afterthought for these devs when that's not the case. Indie devs aren't as biased as you, and can often find success by teaming up with either Xbox or Playstation. For every Evolution, Studio liverpool, and Zipper there is a Playground, Compulsion, and Undead Labs.

Is there really such a thing as an "expected sleeper hit"?

Wait, you're saying that being a timed exclusive on PS, not only somehow magically improves their indirect marketing there... but also does so for Xbox as well? Also, if said game is moneyhatted by Sony and is a timed exclusive on PS. How does that give them leverage to moneyhat MS? If it's a timed exclusive, that suggests that their game would be coming to Xbox when that exclusivity deal expires. How does that in any way give them any sort of leverage?

This assumption is wrong on several levels. First, there's nothing to suggest that MS couldn't adequately market their game, and Gamepass doesn't mean their game's prominence would suffer. You're also pretending Sony doesn't also have it's own subscription service to promote. And not only does it need to promote it, Sony needs to promote it much more prominently compared to Gamepass due to it's lackluster subscription rate so far.

Yeah, you might want to assume less often, as there's nothing to suggest as much.

I never in my life would've believed that someone would try and argue that having so many first party studios was actually a negative, and that it was detrimental to third party developers. Yet here we are.
The stat of normal businesses failing in their first year is high, the number of game developers failing in their first year is higher again, or historically was. Even highly successful publisher/developers like Codemasters had rounds and rounds of redundancies over their decades to stay financially viable before EA bought them recently.

Rebellion have been vocal over the decades about the difficulty of getting the project versus risk balance right, despite being very successful they haven't been rolling in money to just expand quickly to become a AAA game publisher/dev.

And most of your other answers are still talking about today's scenario, pre-acquisition which I would agree with in all likelihood but Microsoft's appetite to money hat smaller game deals - rather than buyouts - without external pressure will be suppressed following a $70b spend on the world's largest 3rd party publisher IMHO.

As for having too much content on the platform, you've taken the wrong angle from what I'm saying. The problem isn't having too much content, but the platform holder having too much content they need a return on to keep the value of the acquisition in their own business, and then becoming too big a competitor to their own platform's third-party indie - AA games. A problem Nintendo has when they don't sell Nintendo DS/3DS/WII and Switch console numbers, and recursively causes their third-party support to dry up quickly because their own games take all the sales.
 
Last edited:
Sony could just buy Activision.

Whoops, my bad. Forgot they couldn't afford it.

Activision's ass were out for a bidding, no one stopped Sony for stepping in.
Microsoft could just make their own 'good' games.

Whoops, my bad. Forgot they don't have the leadership for it.

All those studios, floundering under the control of MS's gaming division. The let's buy more approach should be ringing alarm bells for you rather than shouting from the rafters about how much money they have like that's going to make them not fuck up Activision. They already cannot look after what they have.

But I dont care, I'll be here for the meltdowns when it does or doesn't get approved as Activision have been irrelevant to me since the late 80s.
 
Last edited:
Please stop projecting your own problems on others, I'm perfectly happy with the line of discussion I'm persuing, if you aren't, just ignore.
You are going over the place.
Do you even know what you are talking about? Because what you typed isn't making any sense at all.
 
Just because the deal fails (it wont) doesn't mean Microsoft suddenly has 70B to give to the Xbox division. That's not how it works. Buying ABK is an investment that will pay off for a long time. A timed exclusive deal is a potential temporary boost to hardware sales to sell software they would have gotten anyway.

If MS viewed timed exclusives that highly, they'd already have been writing checks. Clearly deals like the ones Sony makes for games like FF7R or SFV or Silent Hill 2 are beyond what MS views as a worthwhile investment. That wont suddenly change because they don't get ABK.
 
Microsoft could just make their own 'good' games.

Whoops, my bad. Forgot they don't have the leadership for it.

All those studios, floundering under the control of MS's gaming division. The let's but more approach should be ringing alarm bells for you rather than shouting from the rafters about how much money they have like that's going to make them not fuck up Activision. They already cannot look after what they have.

But I dont care, I'll be here for the meltdowns when it does or doesn't get approved as Activision have been irrelevant to me since the late 80s.
?????????

Confused Little Girl GIF
 
Sony could just buy Activision.

Whoops, my bad. Forgot they couldn't afford it.

Activision's ass were out for a bidding, no one stopped Sony for stepping in.

This doesn't get enough traction. When it comes to all the deals and contracts Sony signs it's "oh well uh MS has a chance to compete too, they just don't bid or don't bid enough!". But when it comes to ABK, who were looking for a buyer, poor little Sony apparently couldn't compete and bid 🤷‍♂️
 
Microsoft could defang this whole thing by spinning off the COD team or being willing to put in writing that COD will always be available for all platforms that want it. They won't because COD is the crown jewel.

The Time-Warner/Comcast merger failed and the rumor around it failing was that they wanted NBC to be spun out. Comcast refused to do that and the deal crumbled. Not saying that this is what is going to happen but if this game isn't a big deal they would treat it like it wasn't a big deal.
First - MS has stated numerous times the intent all along to continue make COD available across all platforms - including Sony and even Nintendo if they wanted it.

Second - spinning off the COD team wouldn't work for a wide variety of reasons that aren't even really relevant to this particular M&A.

Third - No company in their right mind would agree to purchase another company and their IP and commit to providing everything exactly the same in perpetuity.

Not even Sony would sign up for what you're suggesting if the roles in this M&A were reversed.

The TimeWarner / Comcast deal isn't comparable to this deal at all and completely irrelevant.

Think about this - If MS were still just a software company, didn't have Xbox / Gamepass - and attempting this same deal - would there still be all this discussion?

People are way too attached to trying to align this wholly to impact to current gen consoles.
 
Sure there are other ways to compete, and both MS and Sony have done that. The only difference here is that you seem to be ok with the way Sony competes (including using it's marketshare position to it's advantage), but have an issue with basically any way in which Sony doesn't have the advantage.

Not really since anyone can gain that marketshare by competing. That's the whole point of this investigation. Also its not like Sony is a monopoly is this industry. Both Microsoft and Nintendo can choose to compete with them by engaging in 3rd parties if they choose.

The market is extremely competitive right now. Maybe you should just accept that.
 
Last edited:
Not really since anyone can gain that marketshare by competing. That's the whole point of this investigation. Also its not like Sony is a monopoly is this industry. Both Microsoft and Nintendo can choose to compete with them by engaging in 3rd parties if they choose.

The market is extremely competitive right now. Maybe you should just accept that.
The market isn't, as Sony currently have marketing rights for the biggest games in the industry.
They are essentially on the top of the food chain.
 
And that is a fact before Microsoft would own all of ABK's catalogue, and just one indie example that may have looked like a sleeper hit - haven't played it or heard of it until now, so I wouldn't know :), I don't buy new hardware to play games that don't need new hardware typically.

For every success like that, there will be far more others that launched, and failed, unless you think gaming isn't a high-risk, high reward industry for creative indie to AA developers at the bottom of the tree.

Guardians of the galaxy?
 
The market isn't, as Sony currently have marketing rights for the biggest games in the industry.
They are essentially on the top of the food chain.

Yes it is extremely competitive. Sony only has those deals because Microsoft didn't want to make them. It's why they both have deals with different developers. It's normal to have that in the industry.

Sony isn't a monopoly. You should accept that.
 
Yes it is extremely competitive. Sony only has those deals because Microsoft didn't want to make them. It's why they both have deals with different developers. It's normal to have that in the industry.

Sony isn't a monopoly. You should accept that.
The difference is that, Sony gained alot of grounds, due to those marketing they currently have.

Switch is very weak hardware, which caused big games to skip that console.

MS limited market share doesn't allow them to get deals like fifa, simply because they aren't big in Europe.

Most of Japanese devs won't pick MS.
 
Last edited:
The difference is that, Sony gained alot of grounds, due to those marketing they currently have.

Switch is very weak hardware, which caused big games to skip that console.

MS limited market share doesn't allow them to get deals like fifa, simply because they aren't big in Europe.

Most of Japanese devs won't pick MS.

No they haven't. They gained that market share because they made a product that more people want to buy. Its a simple as that and its normal in a competitive market.

No idea why you still believe that Sony is forcing 3rd parties to make deals with them.
 
The difference is that, Sony gained alot of grounds, due to those marketing they currently have.

No, not due to the marketing. Playstation became the market leader first and then the marketing deals followed. For example, it wasn't until 2015 that PlayStation was able to buy the marketing rights away from Xbox, which was the market leader in the US during the 360 years.
 
No they haven't. They gained that market share because they made a product that more people want to buy. Its a simple as that and its normal in a competitive market.

No idea why you still believe that Sony is forcing 3rd parties to make deals with them.
A competitive market, is when each provider has a chance to compete.
The current market doesn't show that at all.

  • Xbox is half of PS in term of userbase and console sales.
  • Xbox is nonexistent in certain markets like Europe and Japan.
  • Switch is essentially a weak hardware. Means, current demanded games don't drop on that console.
  • Xbox needs to pay double amounts of what PS is paying, in order to get those exclusives or those marketing rights.
  • Marketing rights and exclusives depend on your market share and userbase. If they are alot lower than your competition, then you have to pay higher premiums.
  • Xbox had to make gamepass, in order to make themselves relevant.
With all these, and you keep saying the market is competitive. I really don't see it that way. Especially, when 1 party is gaining huge advantage.

MS being required to pay huge amounts of money, compared to sony, is prove that this is not a competitive field.
 
A competitive market, is when each provider has a chance to compete.
The current market doesn't show that at all.

  • Xbox is half of PS in term of userbase and console sales.
  • Xbox is nonexistent in certain markets like Europe and Japan.
  • Switch is essentially a weak hardware. Means, current demanded games don't drop on that console.
  • Xbox needs to pay double amounts of what PS is paying, in order to get those exclusives or those marketing rights.
  • Marketing rights and exclusives depend on your market share and userbase. If they are alot lower than your competition, then you have to pay higher premiums.
  • Xbox had to make gamepass, in order to make themselves relevant.
With all these, and you keep saying the market is competitive. I really don't see it that way. Especially, when 1 party is gaining huge advantage.

MS being required to pay huge amounts of money, compared to sony, is prove that this is not a competitive field.

its kinda funny when we had a few years of posts bragging about PS outselling xbox in everything, games and hardware but now in this thread its like they are neck and neck to some people
 
No, not due to the marketing. Playstation became the market leader first and then the marketing deals followed. For example, it wasn't until 2015 that PlayStation was able to buy the marketing rights away from Xbox, which was the market leader in the US during the 360 years.
Wasn't the result of failed reputation of xbox one?
Once it was clear, xbox one wasn't kicking around, those companies turned to PS. And the rest is history.
 
Wasn't the result of failed reputation of xbox one?
Once it was clear, xbox one wasn't kicking around, those companies turned to PS. And the rest is history.

Correct. It was the result of the highly successful launch of PS4 along with the equally disastrous launch of Xbox One that led to PS4's dominance. My point is the marketing deal shifts to PS happened after and as a result of those events.
 
A competitive market, is when each provider has a chance to compete.
The current market doesn't show that at all.

  • Xbox is half of PS in term of userbase and console sales.
  • Xbox is nonexistent in certain markets like Europe and Japan.
  • Switch is essentially a weak hardware. Means, current demanded games don't drop on that console.
  • Xbox needs to pay double amounts of what PS is paying, in order to get those exclusives or those marketing rights.
  • Marketing rights and exclusives depend on your market share and userbase. If they are alot lower than your competition, then you have to pay higher premiums.
  • Xbox had to make gamepass, in order to make themselves relevant.
With all these, and you keep saying the market is competitive. I really don't see it that way. Especially, when 1 party is gaining huge advantage.

MS being required to pay huge amounts of money, compared to sony, is prove that this is not a competitive field.

That's the point of a competitive market. There's always going to be a market leader. The ones that are behind have an opportunity to improve their current situation. Which Microsoft was allowed to do. A monopoly wouldn't allow that to happen.

No idea why your viewing Sony as a monopoly in this when they are just competing for market share like everyone else is.
 
A competitive market, is when each provider has a chance to compete.
The current market doesn't show that at all.

  • Xbox is half of PS in term of userbase and console sales.
  • Xbox is nonexistent in certain markets like Europe and Japan.
  • Switch is essentially a weak hardware. Means, current demanded games don't drop on that console.
  • Xbox needs to pay double amounts of what PS is paying, in order to get those exclusives or those marketing rights.
  • Marketing rights and exclusives depend on your market share and userbase. If they are alot lower than your competition, then you have to pay higher premiums.
  • Xbox had to make gamepass, in order to make themselves relevant.
With all these, and you keep saying the market is competitive. I really don't see it that way. Especially, when 1 party is gaining huge advantage.

MS being required to pay huge amounts of money, compared to sony, is prove that this is not a competitive field.

How do you know how much MS or Sony pays for exclusives?
 
That's the point of a competitive market. There's always going to be a market leader. The ones that are behind have an opportunity to improve their current situation. Which Microsoft was allowed to do. A monopoly wouldn't allow that to happen.

No idea why your viewing Sony as a monopoly in this when they are just competing for market share like everyone else is.
No one is saying Sony is a monopoly.
I am disagreeing the part, where you said it's a competitive market.

It could change in the future. But as of now, that word doesn't exist.

Also, you can't be a monopoly in video gaming market. A single mistake can cost your position. Ps3/xbox one/ wii U.
 
Yeah, I've read that argument and it really doesn't work. The subset of gamers that are attracted to Xbox and PlayStation consoles are not the same gamers that are attracted to Nintendo. There is a little overlap, but not much. Seems obvious to me that Call of Duty isn't on Nintendo because AB doesn't see much of a market there for them. So no, I don't buy this argument that Nintendo not having Call of Duty proves anything at all.

Just look at the dissimilarity in video games purchased by platform in 2021. Aside from exclusives, there are a lot of the same games for both Xbox and PlayStation even outside of Call of duty.

FJY8zk3VgAIcbds
FJY9AUuVkAEWBpP


And now look at Nintendo.

FJY8qhnUYAA3iGs


Nintendo's first party is its own market. I think it is fairly absurd for anyone, including Microsoft, to suggest Call of Duty has little impact on the industry. Clearly it does. Not being on Nintendo isn't evidence of anything. I think the better argument is that Microsoft owning the Call of Duty franchise will have little impact if it remains multiplatform and they should continue to push that it will be.
The argument holds up in that CoD isn't required in order to have a successful console, as is proved by Nintendo.

That isn't to say that CoD isn't incredibly Important to PS or Xbox, maybe even critically so. But that would just mean that should CoD stop releasing on PS, that Sony would have to replace it with a compelling alternative.

To be clear, I agree with all your points. My opinion just differs in what it means. Let's say that CoD does represent such a large presence on PS, and is extremely important. So? Just because Sony has chosen to lean so extraordinary hard on a 3rd party title doesn't mean that it should dictate what that 3rd party is legally allowed to do, as well as it's competitor console maker. Ultimately this all boils down to MS and ABK not being able to make their own decisions or deals because of what's good for Sony.

Nintendo does just fine without CoD. If Sony were to no longer get CoD, then Sony should simply become similar to Nintendo. You pointing out how different their userbase is, is irrelevant. Sony is either dependent on CoD or it's not. If it is, then Sony shouldn't have done that, and taken steps long ago not to be. if it's not, then Sony is able to adjust and continue being successful.

I think after all the claims here over the past few years about how PS's success is due to their AAA first party output. Now all of the sudden, those AAA exclusives don't matter, and about how CoD is really the tentpole that holds it up all along.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom