Support NeoGAF

[Topher]

Same shit… different day…

 

[ToTTenTranz]

Best thing to come out of this thread is Microsoft's admission that they need more first party games. No "what about GP?" spin or "Wait till..." meaningless PR.

Microsoft is pushing so hard for this "we have no exclusives" victim card to get the public to feel sorry for them that it's starting to sound like they'll just axe the whole Xbox division if the regulators don't let them buy Activision Blizzard.

I wonder if they're not actually damaging the brand value, at this point.
Which is so stupid because they're locking Playstation out of any future releases of Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein, Prey and Rage plus the new IPs Ghostwire, Deathloop, Redfall and Starfield. And yet these people running Xbox still feel they must lock Playstation out of even more IPs otherwise they're not competitive?


Is there even one of these super successful 1st party Playstation IPs that wasn't created well after Microsoft entered the console market?
God of War is from 2005, Ratchet & Clank from 2002, Uncharted and TLoU are from the PS3 era, Horizon and Ghost of Tsushima from the PS4, Returnal and Stray from the PS5.
The only IP that predates the OG Xbox is probably Gran Turismo, but it's also the one that Xbox successfully countered with the Forza series.

If Spider Man was such a problem to Microsoft, then why didn't they secure their own set of Marvel characters like Square Enix did with Guardians of the Galaxy? It's not like Spider Man is the only interesting character in the entire Marvel roster.


What is that guy's logic on publicly complaining about Playstation's successful 1st-party IPs, other than demonstrating his own incompetence?

 

[Chaplain]

MS giving a 10-year contract to keep releasing Call of Duty on PlayStation is a "Trojan Horse." I think MS is focused on the next couple of decades. Giving Sony and others 10-year contracts is a drop in the bucket when a company's sole goal is to control the global gaming market permanently.

 

[feynoob]

MS giving a 10-year contract to keep releasing Call of Duty on PlayStation is a "Trojan Horse." I think MS is focused on the next couple of decades. Giving Sony and others 10-year contracts is a drop in the bucket when a company's sole goal is to control the global gaming market permanently.

That is literally impossible for MS to do that.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

That is literally impossible for MS to do that.

Microsoft will only have 10% of the gaming market with this acquisition. I don't think realize how big gaming truly is.

Microsoft to gobble up Activision in $69 billion metaverse bet

Shares of Sony slid after Microsoft said it would buy "Call of Duty" maker Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion.

www.reuters.com

According to Newzoo, Microsoft's gaming market share was 6.5% in 2020 and adding Activision would have taken it to 10.7%.

 

[feynoob]

Microsoft will only have 10% of the gaming market with this acquisition. I don't think realize how big gaming truly is.

http://[URL]https://www.reuters.com...ivision-blizzard-deal-687-billion-2022-01-18/

[/URL]

It's not even the percentage.
Gaming market is huge. There tons of IPs and studios out there, with switch, and PC in the mix. Even mobile studios have the ability to make a console/PC games.

MS would need to have more than what they own, plus Activision to even come close to 5% of the market.

 

[IFireflyl]

Microsoft will only have 10% of the gaming market with this acquisition. I don't think realize how big gaming truly is.

Microsoft to gobble up Activision in $69 billion metaverse bet

Shares of Sony slid after Microsoft said it would buy "Call of Duty" maker Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion.

www.reuters.com

It's not even the percentage.
Gaming market is huge. There tons of IPs and studios out there, with switch, and PC in the mix. Even mobile studios have the ability to make a console/PC games.

MS would need to have more than what they own, plus Activision to even come close to 5% of the market.

I'm not saying the person you're responding to is right, but controlling does not equal owning. It is possible for companies to "control" a market without "owning" that market.

 

[feynoob]

I'm not saying the person you're responding to is right, but controlling does not equal owning. It is possible for companies to "control" a market without "owning" that market.

The issue is MS would need way more than that to control the market.

Steam literally cracked their asses off on PC storefront, and epic even shat on them. Their windows store is utterly garbage.

Activision won't change any of that. They have a long way to go, to have some kind of impact on the industry.

Remember, gaming market changes fast. Any mishaps and you lose any potential gains . For example, x360 to Xbox one. There is nothing guaranteed there. MS can't simply use their money, as epic failed miserably when they tried that.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

The issue is MS would need way more than that to control the market.

Steam literally cracked their asses off on PC storefront, and epic even shat on them. Their windows store is utterly garbage.

Activision won't change any of that. They have a long way to go, to have some kind of impact on the industry.

Remember, gaming market changes fast. Any mishaps and you lose any potential gains . For example, x360 to Xbox one. There is nothing guaranteed there. MS can't simply use their money, as epic failed miserably when they tried that.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Starfield is a weird hill for warriors to die on. Obviously without a MS acquisition, Bethesda would have released a PlayStation version. But we all know it would have been just another title Sony used their market position to sign an exclusive deal with. Maybe another one year deal like Deathloop or Ghostwire, maybe another one that starts at a year and then gets extended, like FF7. Hell maybe they go all out SFV style, who knows.

God forbid MS pushes back

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Sony was involved since the beginning.

Second Party then First Party.

And if you listen to Todd Howard and Bethesda, Microsoft has seemingly always been heavily involved with the making of their games. Todd Howard says Xbox has been the lead platform on all Bethesda Game Studios singleplayer RPGs since Xbox brought them to console with Morrowind, even

So just because they weren't fully exclusive to Xbox from Morrowind and Oblivion all the way to Fallout 3, Skyrim and Fallout 4 doesn't mean Microsoft and Xbox haven't played an integral in the development of Bethesda's biggest games. Bethesda has quite literally said Xbox and Microsoft have helped create the technology and tools that were used to develop its games over the years. And Todd Howard recently mentioned that Xbox's best engineers are helping on Starfield. So, even though we know that had Microsoft not purchased Bethesda the game would have likely been on PS5, it's entirely possible Microsoft sought to purchase Bethesda because their role or investment into Starfield was much more than some might have known.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

And if you listen to Todd Howard and Bethesda, Microsoft has seemingly always been heavily involved with the making of their games. Todd Howard says Xbox has been the lead platform on all Bethesda Game Studios singleplayer RPGs since Xbox brought them to console with Morrowind, even

So just because they weren't fully exclusive to Xbox from Morrowind and Oblivion all the way to Fallout 3, Skyrim and Fallout 4 doesn't mean Microsoft and Xbox haven't played an integral in the development of Bethesda's biggest games. Bethesda has quite literally said Xbox and Microsoft have helped create the technology and tools that were used to develop its games over the years. And Todd Howard recently mentioned that Xbox's best engineers are helping on Starfield. So, even though we know that had Microsoft not purchased Bethesda the game would have likely been on PS5, it's entirely possible Microsoft sought to purchase Bethesda because their role or investment into Starfield was much more than some might have known.

MS didn't greenlit Starfied. We are talking about Starfield.

I made a prior comment alluding to their past relationship.

 

[DarkMage619]

It's speculation?

Ok.

Where's proof that Sony kept Street Fighter and Final Fantasy 7 from Xbox? You said it was blocked so I want to see proof.

It's speculation that those were 'blocked' too. Now what? It doesn't change my fundamental point that no title is guaranteed on a platform. Also MS has the right to what they want with their IP. No one took anything from PlayStation.

Microsoft will only have 10% of the gaming market with this acquisition. I don't think realize how big gaming truly is.

Microsoft to gobble up Activision in $69 billion metaverse bet

Shares of Sony slid after Microsoft said it would buy "Call of Duty" maker Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion.

www.reuters.com

Let's not forget Xbox has been a brand for 20 years. When are they going to execute their plan to take over all of gaming? It is amazing what conspiracy theories will tell you.

And if you listen to Todd Howard and Bethesda, Microsoft has seemingly always been heavily involved with the making of their games. Todd Howard says Xbox has been the lead platform on all Bethesda Game Studios singleplayer RPGs since Xbox brought them to console with Morrowind, even

So just because they weren't fully exclusive to Xbox from Morrowind and Oblivion all the way to Fallout 3, Skyrim and Fallout 4 doesn't mean Microsoft and Xbox haven't played an integral in the development of Bethesda's biggest games. Bethesda has quite literally said Xbox and Microsoft have helped create the technology and tools that were used to develop its games over the years. And Todd Howard recently mentioned that Xbox's best engineers are helping on Starfield. So, even though we know that had Microsoft not purchased Bethesda the game would have likely been on PS5, it's entirely possible Microsoft sought to purchase Bethesda because their role or investment into Starfield was much more than some might have known.

People seem to think MS hasn't cultivated relationships with developers just like other platforms have. Some had no idea Bethesda released exclusive games on Xbox. I fully expect Starfield to be improved just like Pyschonauts 2 was due to MS's funding and support.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Starfield is a weird hill for warriors to die on. Obviously without a MS acquisition, Bethesda would have released a PlayStation version. But we all know it would have been just another title Sony used their market position to sign an exclusive deal with. Maybe another one year deal like Deathloop or Ghostwire, maybe another one that starts at a year and then gets extended, like FF7. Hell maybe they go all out SFV style, who knows.

God forbid MS pushes back

Assuming that rumor was true it was only going to be a timed exclusive like Deathloop was. So eventually it would have come to other platforms.

But of course that's only assuming it was true.

Anyways there will be no more Bethesda games on PlayStation. People just need to accept that.

 

[dwish]

Maybe Sony sponsored the creation of FF7R in exchange for some deal? Maybe the game wouldn't exist otherwise? Or, at least, in the current shape/form.

I think many are against this deal as it revolves around existing established multiplatform franchises (just as Bethesda/Id) and not new studios or long standing exclusive partnerships such as Firesprite/Insomniac/Bluepoint/Haven. That would be more like Microsoft buying Epic back in the Gears of War days.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Maybe Sony sponsored the creation of FF7R in exchange for some deal? Maybe the game wouldn't exist otherwise? Or, at least, in the current shape/form.

I remember there was that list thing they were doing. I'm guessing it was to check one off on it. I remember the demand started with that PS3 demo.

 

[Three]

It's speculation that those were 'blocked' too. Now what?

You're the one arguing that there is no proof that Bethesda games were coming to PS prior to the acquisition while simultaneously arguing other games would have come to xbox if not for Sony without said proof either.

It doesn't change my fundamental point that no title is guaranteed on a platform.

Thanks Aristotle.

 

[dwish]

I remember there was that list thing they were doing. I'm guessing it was to check one off on it. I remember the demand started with that PS3 demo.

And it took like 10 years after that until the game was announced. Square was in no rush.

 

[DForce]

It's speculation that those were 'blocked' too. Now what? It doesn't change my fundamental point that no title is guaranteed on a platform. Also MS has the right to what they want with their IP. No one took anything from PlayStation.

Now you're saying it's speculating? LOL

Let's look at your previous comments.

My point is an exclusive game made from the bottom up on PlayStation is not the same as paying to prevent an established franchise from coming out on another platform. The Spider-Man game was never an example of a money hat. Sony absolutely moneyhatted Street Fighter and Final Fantasy. Spider-Man is a completely different story.

You must have missed Final Fantasy 7 remake blocked on Xbox or all the Destiny 2 exclusive guns and strikes. Street Fighter 5 says hi. The Bethesda purchase did not stop the games from hitting PC, being streamed, and MS makes 2 consoles for people of different economic means. It's not the same at all.

Sony has blocked numerous titles off of the Xbox console. Even games MS owns like Ghostwire Toyko and Deathloop aren't on Xbox currently. Games that have been on Xbox previously like Final Fantasy and Street Fighter were also denied. As mentioned earlier MS continued making Minecraft games on other platforms even after that acquisition.

MS is doing what they need to so support their customers. Sony has proven that they are clearly not too worried about Xbox gamers being denied games but MS at least was nice enough to make assurances on content they intend to purchase will be available on PlayStation for a time.

If Jim Ryan is not happy about the terms Phil Spencer offered he is free to put in a higher bid for Activision. He can then guarantee those titles will be on PlayStation forever and can even block them from ever hitting an Xbox again. It's business and he is free to compete. For now he should be grateful since he is hardly in a position to make demands.

Yup and like I said Xbox gamers expected Street Fighter and Final Fantasy. It's pretty normal to expect 3rd party titles to hit all platforms it's weird to expect 1st party titles to be multiplatform. MS doesn't look bad because they didn't do anything wrong. Providing their customers with content is what a games business is supposed to do.

It's weird to be upset with MS for providing content for their customers but being more accepting of Sony blocking content on other platforms. One of life's mysteries I suppose.

This doesn't come off as "speculation." You made it clear that Sony denied\blocked games from appearing on Xbox.

You were back into a corner where you must contradict your previous comments on this forum to defend the new narrative. This is a common theme among Xbox fanboys that I see across social media. You guys change narratives all the time and you guys don't like it when people call you out.


Anyone can see that you weren't speculating. You made it clear that Sony blocked games from appearing on Xbox consoles. You even made the statement that Sony money hatted games.

 

[MasterCornholio]

And it took like 10 years after that until the game was announced. Square was in no rush.

I guess Sony could have gave them an incentive to start making it. If it wasn't going to exist without Sonys funding then I can see why it's ok. However if Sony paid for a multiplat to be a permanent exclusive than that's something else.

 

[akimbo009]

Now you're saying it's speculating? LOL

Let's look at your previous comments.










This doesn't come off as "speculation." You made it clear that Sony denied\blocked games from appearing on Xbox.

You were back into a corner where you must contradict your previous comments on this forum to defend the new narrative. This is a common theme among Xbox fanboys that I see across social media. You guys change narratives all the time and you guys don't like it when people call you out.


Anyone can see that you weren't speculating. You made it clear that Sony blocked games from appearing on Xbox consoles. You even made the statement that Sony money hatted games.

Sony doesn't moneyhat?..

 

[Three]

Sony doesn't moneyhat?..

MS doesn't acquire?...

Of course Sony moneyhats. The issue is that Darkmage is doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to suggest that Bethesda games not coming to PS is not because they were blocked, since there is no proof it was coming. while the games not coming to xbox were clearly blocked in his eyes even when there is no proof either.

I did no such thing.

1) There is no evidence that Starfield was coming to PlayStation. It's speculation.

2) Starfield was formally given a platform after the acquisition. For all we know it could have been a PC exclusive but MS paid to have an Xbox version added.

He was saying Bethesda games not releasing due to an acquisition is just speculation. Now he is saying PS exclusives not coming to xbox would be speculation too when his previous posts in other threads show that's not how he saw it at all.

 

[reksveks]

Maybe Sony sponsored the creation of FF7R in exchange for some deal? Maybe the game wouldn't exist otherwise? Or, at least, in the current shape/form.

Could be true of literally any exclusive deals, the issue is that there is a greyness to the impact of marketing/exclusive deals that we as consumers will never know.

Since there is no good way to figure out what impact it was, these conversations (especially around the validity of exclusive deals) are generally a bit of an non-topic to me.

 

[DarkMage619]

You're the one arguing that there is no proof that Bethesda games were coming to PS prior to the acquisition while simultaneously arguing other games would have come to xbox if not for Sony without said proof either.

I am arguing that no game is promised to any platform and it is without any evidence that Starfield was coming to PlayStation. MS said case by case basis. I pointed out Street Fighter and Final Fantasy as games that at least previously were on Xbox but the sequels were not further supporting my claim nothing is guaranteed. Starfield wasn't previously on PlayStation so it has even less of a reason for it to be on that system than Final Fantasy and Street Fighter would be on Xbox. If you want to believe that those games just randomly didn't show up on Xbox it's speculation just like mine. I acknowledged I have no proof.

He was saying Bethesda games not releasing due to an acquisition is just speculation. Now he is saying PS exclusives not coming to xbox would be speculation too when his previous posts in other threads show that's not how he saw it at all.

The acquisition didn't stop Deathloop and Ghostwire Toyko from hitting PlayStation. MS could have paid to buy those contracts out and would have had that right. They honored them. It should also be noted that those titles WERE officially announced for PlayStation and low and behold they were released. I never claimed I had proof that Sony blocked those games from Xbox, it was always speculation.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Could be true of literally any exclusive deals, the issue is that there is a greyness to the impact of marketing/exclusive deals that we as consumers will never know.

Since there is no good way to figure out what impact it was, these conversations (especially around the validity of exclusive deals) are generally a bit of an non-topic to me.

I really wish we knew more info but those deals are private.

 

[Pelta88]

Microsoft is pushing so hard for this "we have no exclusives" victim card to get the public to feel sorry for them that it's starting to sound like they'll just axe the whole Xbox division if the regulators don't let them buy Activision Blizzard.

I wonder if they're not actually damaging the brand value, at this point.
Which is so stupid because they're locking Playstation out of any future releases of Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein, Prey and Rage plus the new IPs Ghostwire, Deathloop, Redfall and Starfield. And yet these people running Xbox still feel they must lock Playstation out of even more IPs otherwise they're not competitive?


Is there even one of these super successful 1st party Playstation IPs that wasn't created well after Microsoft entered the console market?
God of War is from 2005, Ratchet & Clank from 2002, Uncharted and TLoU are from the PS3 era, Horizon and Ghost of Tsushima from the PS4, Returnal and Stray from the PS5.
The only IP that predates the OG Xbox is probably Gran Turismo, but it's also the one that Xbox successfully countered with the Forza series.

If Spider Man was such a problem to Microsoft, then why didn't they secure their own set of Marvel characters like Square Enix did with Guardians of the Galaxy? It's not like Spider Man is the only interesting character in the entire Marvel roster.


What is that guy's logic on publicly complaining about Playstation's successful 1st-party IPs, other than demonstrating his own incompetence?

Solid points!!!

What I find almost jaw dropping about this process is the reality of XBOX VS their PR. I honestly thought they didn't care about gaming but the truth is that they're utterly incompetent. Their admissions to regulators after 2 decades + in this hobby are actually insane. GP, CLOUD, Console, Momentum, Mindshare, install, etc etc have collapsed. Previously, that would be a fan boy statement, except these admissions are coming from the very top of Microsoft.

Prior to this, the only other peek behind the curtain was the epic VS apple court case. Where MS' released their internal review of TLOU2 where they stated internally, that they don't have the talent to create something remotely close to TLOU.

In many ways Microsoft needs COD. Make no mistake, once in MS' hands COD will falter and fail. Because it'll be forced to align with whatever Microsoft latest strategy is and historically, Microsoft's strategy has an unintended consequence of diminishing the XBOX brand and studios.

They purchased and then cremated Halo. They've already reduced the scope and expectations of Fable. Crackdown went from being a XBOX staple to an actual laughing stock. Pushing out "Passion projects" that get abandoned because they have zero player base. So now they're purchasing the biggest third party game along with 900 +devs.

When Microsoft first entered the market I figured the future of gaming would be brighter. Instead we've all watched this slow motion car crash play out over 2 decades +

 

[feynoob]

In many ways Microsoft needs COD. Make no mistake, once in MS' hands COD will falter and fail. Because it'll be forced to align with whatever Microsoft latest strategy is and historically, Microsoft's strategy has an unintended consequence of diminishing the XBOX brand and studios.

Or could succeed. It won't be any different than current COD.
If anything, current COD is shit with yearly releases that is full of bugs. Community is outraged as of now, despite mw2 success.
They need to lay down yearly releases, but that won't work, due to how much money it generates.

They purchased and then cremated Halo

Blame 343i for that. They couldn't get with time. Old halo MP wasnt going to work with current gamers. Which companies decided to release MP without enough content. MS should have fired their asses off during early production. Could have saved sometime.

They've already reduced the scope and expectations of Fable

Kinetic was a shit stain on their history. It also affected rare too. MS shouldn't have went in to this mode.
Glad Sony isn't investing most of their stock on VR.

When Microsoft first entered the market I figured the future of gaming would be brighter. Instead we've all watched this slow motion car crash play out over 2 decades +

A software company like Google, Amazon, and MS don't really have a passion. They are a software companies. Their model is profit over passion.
If MS had any film industry under their wrap, Xbox could have looked different, since film industry requires creativity and passion.

 

[bxrz]

Solid points!!!

What I find almost jaw dropping about this process is the reality of XBOX VS their PR. I honestly thought they didn't care about gaming but the truth is that they're utterly incompetent. Their admissions to regulators after 2 decades + in this hobby are actually insane. GP, CLOUD, Console, Momentum, Mindshare, install, etc etc have collapsed. Previously, that would be a fan boy statement, except these admissions are coming from the very top of Microsoft.

Prior to this, the only other peek behind the curtain was the epic VS apple court case. Where MS' released their internal review of TLOU2 where they stated internally, that they don't have the talent to create something remotely close to TLOU.

In many ways Microsoft needs COD. Make no mistake, once in MS' hands COD will falter and fail. Because it'll be forced to align with whatever Microsoft latest strategy is and historically, Microsoft's strategy has an unintended consequence of diminishing the XBOX brand and studios.

They purchased and then cremated Halo. They've already reduced the scope and expectations of Fable. Crackdown went from being a XBOX staple to an actual laughing stock. Pushing out "Passion projects" that get abandoned because they have zero player base. So now they're purchasing the biggest third party game along with 900 +devs.

When Microsoft first entered the market I figured the future of gaming would be brighter. Instead we've all watched this slow motion car crash play out over 2 decades +

A lot of wrong in this post:

1. Regarding Xbox's TLOU2 review. They were talking about graphics only. They said graphically its ahead of everyone else. Which at its time, it was. Nothing about their talent

2. Thinking COD will fail under Microsoft is pure stupidity with no actual facts or logic to back it up. COD is a well-oiled machine thats going nowhere for the foreseeable future, no matter who owns it

3. Games reduce their scope during the planning/designing process all the time. Thats literally apart of the process. Expectations were never lowered. You made that up

Overall, a very ignorant post

 

[reksveks]

A software company like Google, Amazon, and MS don't really have a passion. They are a software companies. Their model is profit over passion.

Feel slightly uncomfortable with the 'personification' and oversimplification of companies like this, both positive or negative. Companies are much too complex for that.

 

[reksveks]

Thinking COD will fail under Microsoft is pure stupidity with no actual facts or logic to back it up. COD is a well-oiled machine thats going nowhere for the foreseeable future, no matter who owns it

Either way according to Pelta, ABK and maybe Microsoft is in trouble.
- either COD is going to fail under MS
- or the deal will fall through and there will be a massacre of the stock price (MS to go back to 2019 prices)

 

[feynoob]

Feel slightly uncomfortable with the 'personification' and oversimplification of companies like this, both positive or negative. Companies are much too complex for that.

Not having creative products which are dominant in your business, usually causes like of creative in those sectors.

When you have a successful product, you want the best talent to manage those. So far, these 3 companies have a bad track.

 

[ToTTenTranz]

They purchased and then cremated Halo. They've already reduced the scope and expectations of Fable. Crackdown went from being a XBOX staple to an actual laughing stock.

They bought and killed more franchises than Sony/Playstation created and nurtured.
So many more franchises got screwed under Microsoft's wing.

- Freelancer could have evolved to become the next Eve or Elite Dangerous but Microsoft decided to close the IP and disband the studio 20 years ago

- Fable was the reference for western action RPGs but was put on hold for over a decade.

- Flight Simulator was the reference for avionics enthusiasts but it was put on hold for almost 15 years.

- Age of Empires was the reference for historical RTS with a successful fork on Age of Mythology but they were put on hold for a decade after trying to make it a free to play MMO (??).

- Mechwarrior was shelved for 11 years, after which they tried to make it free to play MMO and then shelved it again for another 6 years (17 years total between Mechwarrior 4 and 5).

- Crimsons Skies was a cult classic with great review scores but they dropped it and there hasn't been anything for 20 years.

- Ryse set the stage for a franchise that could achieve epic proportions competing directly with 2018 God of War but Microsoft decided to drop it a decade ago.

- Quantum Break set the stage for a new universe in the action 3rd person genre but Microsoft dropped it completely after release, 7 years ago.



Add these to all the Bethesda franchises and how many more "exclusives" does Micrososft need to be competitive?
Past experiences seem to imply that Xbox's executives are driven by FOMO and obsession over the next big thing instead of catering to the IPs they already own and growing their respective audiences.




The fact that they're playing victim now, just so they can try to suffocate Sony out of 3rd party suppliers, is making them look so inept and desperate.

 

[bxrz]

They bought and killed more franchises than Sony/Playstation created and nurtured.
So many more franchises got screwed under Microsoft's wing.

- Freelancer could have evolved to become the next Eve or Elite Dangerous but Microsoft decided to close the IP and disband the studio 20 years ago

- Fable was the reference for western action RPGs but was put on hold for over a decade.

- Flight Simulator was the reference for avionics enthusiasts but it was put on hold for almost 15 years.

- Age of Empires was the reference for historical RTS with a successful fork on Age of Mythology but they were put on hold for a decade after trying to make it a free to play MMO (??).

- Mechwarrior was shelved for 11 years, after which they tried to make it free to play MMO and then shelved it again for another 6 years (17 years total between Mechwarrior 4 and 5).

- Crimsons Skies was a cult classic with great review scores but they dropped it and there hasn't been anything for 20 years.

- Ryse set the stage for a franchise that could achieve epic proportions competing directly with 2018 God of War but Microsoft decided to drop it a decade ago.

- Quantum Break set the stage for a new universe in the action 3rd person genre but Microsoft dropped it completely after release, 7 years ago.



Add these to all the Bethesda franchises and how many more "exclusives" does Micrososft need to be competitive?
Past experiences seem to imply that Xbox's executives are driven by FOMO and obsession over the next big thing instead of catering to the IPs they already own and growing their respective audiences.




The fact that they're playing victim now, just so they can try to suffocate Sony out of 3rd party suppliers, is making them look so inept and desperate.

Everyone has shelved IPs. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. They have ALL shelved IPs. And thats cause some IPs don't translate to modern times. To make it seem like only Microsoft has shelved IPs is hilarious.

 

[ToTTenTranz]

Everyone has shelved IPs. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. They have ALL shelved IPs. And thats cause some IPs don't translate to modern times. To make it seem like only Microsoft has shelved IPs is hilarious.

Big difference is that Sony isn't crying around asking for people to feel sorry for them for not having enough exclusives.

Point being that Microsoft isn't lacking in exclusive IPs. They're lacking in managing their studios to nurture their existing IPs, but since they can't seem to be able to do that they'd rather be in the business of taking 3rd parties away from the competition.

 

[gothmog]

Everyone has shelved IPs. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. They have ALL shelved IPs. And thats cause some IPs don't translate to modern times. To make it seem like only Microsoft has shelved IPs is hilarious.

Sure but I would point out that Sony and Nintendo successfully replaced those shelved IPs with others. They even resuscitated some shelved IPs as well. Microsoft not so much although I appreciate that older MS IPs are coming back slowly. It's not an all or nothing thing.

I think MS has a studio management problem here they need to figure out. It doesn't help when your leader gets kudos for writing big checks instead of ensuring the release of the next TLOU or BOTW.

 

[bxrz]

Big difference is that Sony isn't crying around asking for people to feel sorry for them for not having enough exclusives.

Point being that Microsoft isn't lacking in exclusive IPs. They're lacking in managing their studios to nurture their existing IPs, but since they can't seem to be able to do that they'd rather be in the business of taking 3rd parties away from the competition.

Microsoft isn't asking people to feel sorry for them. They are trying to get an acquisition approved

Sure but I would point out that Sony and Nintendo successfully replaced those shelved IPs with others. They even resuscitated some shelved IPs as well. Microsoft not so much although I appreciate that older MS IPs are coming back slowly. It's not an all or nothing thing.

I think MS has a studio management problem here they need to figure out. It doesn't help when your leader gets kudos for writing big checks instead of ensuring the release of the next TLOU or BOTW.

Well, you're wrong. Sony has not replaced Killzone and Resistance. They left the FPS shooter genre altogether. Same with the platformer genre after Crash, Spyro, Jak and Daxter and Sly Cooper got shelved. Same with vehicle combat genre after Twisted Metal got shelved

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Microsoft is pushing so hard for this "we have no exclusives" victim card to get the public to feel sorry for them that it's starting to sound like they'll just axe the whole Xbox division if the regulators don't let them buy Activision Blizzard.

I wonder if they're not actually damaging the brand value, at this point.
Which is so stupid because they're locking Playstation out of any future releases of Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein, Prey and Rage plus the new IPs Ghostwire, Deathloop, Redfall and Starfield. And yet these people running Xbox still feel they must lock Playstation out of even more IPs otherwise they're not competitive?


Is there even one of these super successful 1st party Playstation IPs that wasn't created well after Microsoft entered the console market?
God of War is from 2005, Ratchet & Clank from 2002, Uncharted and TLoU are from the PS3 era, Horizon and Ghost of Tsushima from the PS4, Returnal and Stray from the PS5.
The only IP that predates the OG Xbox is probably Gran Turismo, but it's also the one that Xbox successfully countered with the Forza series.

If Spider Man was such a problem to Microsoft, then why didn't they secure their own set of Marvel characters like Square Enix did with Guardians of the Galaxy? It's not like Spider Man is the only interesting character in the entire Marvel roster.


What is that guy's logic on publicly complaining about Playstation's successful 1st-party IPs, other than demonstrating his own incompetence?

They aren't damaging their brand because we're the .01% who actually hear and see this. If you ask a random gamer or individual about Microsoft, or Activision Blizzard, they'll tell you they have no idea about it.

I don't think they'll close Xbox down if this merger fails, but I do think they'll close Xbox down if GamePass fails and GamePass is more likely to fail if the merger fails.

Microsoft is in a tough situation right now that they're in this race for subscriber dollars. You see what's happening with Netflix, Apple, and Disney... they're all raising their prices because their margins are tightening and costs are increasing.

The same is true for the console industry as well. It's why Microsoft is selling Series S consoles for nothing. They just want to increase their subscriber base to GamePass.

Microsoft wants to buy Activision because they're in a rush to compete, they could have easily spent half that amount on smaller studios that would have given them more IP immediately. That wasn't the strategy they went with. They realize now that supply constraints are easing, Sony is about to run away with the bag and the more distance Sony puts behind them, the more difficult it will be for GamePass to gain additional traction.

Halo Infinite was their ace in the hole and it largely failed to accomplish what it set out to. Everyone is pinning their hopes on Starfield, but I'm telling you it's going to be a disappointment. It was delayed for a reason. Not saying it'll be a bad game, but I don't see it pushing 20 million units.

The quiet we see right now is reminiscent of before the Series X/S and PS5 were announced. Sony is holding its cards tight. They're still sitting on about 10 billion dollars and they have strategic investments in studios like Deviation and Firewalk.

Regardless of what happens with this Activision deal, the industry is going to change forever as a result.

 

[feynoob]

Sure but I would point out that Sony and Nintendo successfully replaced those shelved IPs with others. They even resuscitated some shelved IPs as well. Microsoft not so much although I appreciate that older MS IPs are coming back slowly. It's not an all or nothing thing.

I think MS has a studio management problem here they need to figure out. It doesn't help when your leader gets kudos for writing big checks instead of ensuring the release of the next TLOU or BOTW.

MS problem is the studios number.

Their numbers increased since 2018. Before that, it was small.

You can't maintain your IPs if you don't have enough studios to work on those IPs.

 

[feynoob]

GamePass is more likely to fail if the merger fails.

Come on people. Don't make these stupid points.

 

[Dick Jones]

A lot of wrong in this post:

1. Regarding Xbox's TLOU2 review. They were talking about graphics only. They said graphically its ahead of everyone else. Which at its time, it was. Nothing about their talent

Overall, a very ignorant post

You know internet search engines exists, right?

 

[ToTTenTranz]

Well, you're wrong. Sony has not replaced Killzone and Resistance.

Perhaps because those games were competing with Call of Duty, Battlefield, Wolfenstein, Doom, Far Cry, Prey, Destiny, Overwatch, Bioshock and Titanfall/Apex.

And out of those 10 IPs, Phil Spencer already threw money to lock 4 of them out of Playstation, and he's trying to do the same for two more (one of them being by far the largest, Call of Duty).

Same with the platformer genre after Crash, Spyro, Jak and Daxter and Sly Cooper got shelved.

- Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart released 18 months ago.
- Crash wasn't axed, its last game released 2 years ago and it was never Sony's to begin with.
- Spyro wasn't axed by Sony, they were sold to Activision 14 years ago and its last game came out 4 years ago.

Same with vehicle combat genre after Twisted Metal got shelved

Destruction AllStars released less than 2 years ago, and Sony already confirmed they're working on a new Twisted Metal.

Microsoft isn't asking people to feel sorry for them. They are trying to get an acquisition approved

By going to mainstream media and crying about not having enough exclusives to get public approval.

 

[feynoob]

By going to mainstream media and crying about not having enough exclusives to get public approval.

 

[feynoob]

Wsj article.

Microsoft Corp. MSFT -1.73%decrease; red down pointing triangle has signaled it plans to challenge the Federal Trade Commission's lawsuit to block its $75 billion deal for Activision ATVI -0.38%decrease; red down pointing triangle Blizzard Inc., and is expected to argue that it is an underdog in videogame developing.

The personal-computing company has been publicizing its position for months, saying the acquisition wouldn't threaten competition in the industry because Microsoft trails rivals in videogame consoles and has a limited presence in mobile-game development. The company has also said it expects the industry to get more competitive in the future with the rise of cloud gaming.

Legal experts say Microsoft will likely build its case around those talking points as well as the fact that it is pursuing what is called a vertical merger, meaning it is buying a company in its supply chain as opposed to a direct competitor.

The deal "is fundamentally good for gamers, good for consumers, good for game developers and good for competition," said Brad Smith, Microsoft's president and vice chair, at the company's annual shareholders meeting Tuesday. "We will have to present this case to a judge in a court because this is a case in which I have great confidence."

Microsoft has until Thursday to respond to the FTC's suit, which was filed Dec. 8 in the agency's administrative court.

In its complaint, the FTC alleged the deal is illegal because it would give Microsoft the ability to control how consumers access Activision's games beyond the Redmond, Wash., company's own Xbox consoles and subscription services. The company could raise prices or degrade Activision's content for people who don't use its hardware to access the developer's games, or even cut off access to the games entirely, the FTC said.

 

[adamsapple]

$75bn ? Did it go up in price ?

And for the court, well if MS are gonna wait it out for the court battle, doesn't bode well for FTC. Their only hope of winning this is if MS backs out themselves.

 

[feynoob]

$75bn ? Did it go up in price ?

And for the court, well if MS are gonna wait it out for the court battle, doesn't bode well for FTC. Their only hope of winning this is if MS backs out themselves.

The price is Bethesda + this merger I think.

As for FTC, their hope is CMA and EU. By blocking and suing the deal, they hope their friends will also block the deal.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Makes sense as it would be very hard to prove that Microsoft is too strong in gaming. In consoles they are at 20% at best, on Windows they are behind Steam and other launchers, on mobile they are not really relevant and cloud is too small for now.

People still are parroting the same stuff that Xbox has no games, no shows etc. And at the same type are crying that Microsoft is a monopoly. You can't have both ways

The price is Bethesda + this merger I think.

I think it is 75b due to ABK debt. 68b + debt = 75b.

 

[gothmog]

Wsj article.

So literally nothing new. Big tears. Big fight. Poor Microsoft.

 

[feynoob]

So literally nothing new. Big tears. Big fight. Poor Microsoft.

5 days left for any relevant news.

 

[Rick Dangerous]

Let's be real here. A majority of gamers are on playstation.
If IPs owned by ABK goes to Microsoft and Microsoft does not release them on PlayStation, it effectively removes something for the majority of gamers. It's called an attrition war, and whoever has the biggest warchest wins at the end. Guess who ?
So bottom line : for the majority of gamers, this deal is bad.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Big difference is that Sony isn't crying around asking for people to feel sorry for them for not having enough exclusives.

Point being that Microsoft isn't lacking in exclusive IPs. They're lacking in managing their studios to nurture their existing IPs, but since they can't seem to be able to do that they'd rather be in the business of taking 3rd parties away from the competition.

Not trying to bash Microsoft here, but they really kind of just got lucky with Bungie and Halo in 2001. If you look at all of their major IP, they weren't able to maintain relationships with the developers.

Bungie left in a pretty unprecedented way. Epic Games broke off from working on Gears. Peter Molyneux sold his company to Microsoft and within 6 years that experiment was over basically putting an end to Fable.

I think that Microsoft failed to really invest in gaming until recently. They were kind of just one toe in before and Sony started out a similar way until gaming became their primary source of revenue, and software sales became a key source of revenue for PlayStation.

Sony just invests more into these studios and games than Microsoft does and that has more to do with just money, it's about maturation and career development. Barlog was lead animator for God of War and then became a game director, creative director, and producer. Neil Druckman started off as an intern and programmer at Naughty Dog before becoming Co-President...

Phil Spencer has been with Microsoft a long time, but he comes from kind of poor fruit. He was promoted to head of XGS, but what did he accomplish to deserve the promotion? It certainly wasn't developing relationships, growing studios, or IP.

Who is the studio head at 343i now? Pierre Hintze. How long has he been with Microsoft or 343? 5 years. Started as executive producer for publishing at 343 coming from an outside company Scopely that mainly made shitty games. What did he do before that probably got him the job? He worked as Director of Product Development for Sony, but if you read his resume, what he was responsible for is mostly a failure at Sony. GaaS, Kill Strain, mobile game development, getting San Diego studios to be able to launch multiple games.

They made the Coalition and 343 to take up after Epic and Bungie and they're both kind of trash studios.

23 studios and only a couple rank with Sony's top studios, which means you're going to put out A LOT of trash with the name Xbox Game Studio attached. That's something that Sony MOSTLY avoids. They don't have many misses either. When they buy studios, they don't usually shutter them often and when they do cut ties with a company they rarely show promise afterward.

Microsoft bought Ninja Theory after Sony worked with them. Why didn't Sony buy them? Because Heavenly Sword was a disappointment and that game saved the company from going bankrupt earlier. It was a bad studio and they'll continue to make bad games. 23 Studios the majority of which making bad or average games will sully the brand and divert from resources that could have gone towards making some over their better games more polished.

What has Sony done recently? They've invested in PC porting companies and support studios who can help their primary studios polish their games. They contract out with 2nd/3rd party studios and give them opportunities without bogging down their own efforts.

With 23 studios and poor management, I bet you the rate of canceled games from Microsoft is probably 3 times higher than Sony's.

23 studios but only published 5 games in 2022 one of which was DLC and one was a deluxe edition. It's almost hilarious that Spencer wasn't fired as a result...

Meanwhile, Sony put out God of War, GT7, TLOUP1, Uncharted Port, Director's cut for Death Stranding, Horizon, among others.

The maturation of the two companies are completely different and there is probably no catching up at this point.