Support NeoGAF

[bitbydeath]

With all the exclusive deals between Sony and Square, Sony probably already acquired them. They just haven't made it official.

As for the subpoenaed, I'm curious to see what comes out of it.

Could Sony be forced into confirming it or is there some things the court can't request?

 

[Clintizzle]

So I guess this confirms that the FTC will sue at some point. Or have they already after saying they intend to..

 

[8BiTw0LF]

 

[Ozriel]

Maybe I misinterpreted what was mentioned, but the way I read it made it sound like they were asking for Sony's methodology and process for making their 1P games and how they assist 3P partners in making games they cofund/codevelop.

Why would they ask for this, in the context of this trial?

I guess though it would also include them wanting to know the budget costs for big marquee AAA games from Sony 1P teams

There's also absolutely no reason to ask for something like this either. The bulk of game development costs come from developers salaries and benefits, outsourcing costs etc,
then facility/infrastructure costs (incl rent) and then licensing fees. Sony's AAA games aren't an outlier in that regard.

 

[Ar¢tos]

Why would they ask for this, in the context of this trial?

They are going for the incompetence plea, saying that Sony studios are efficient* and MS's aren't and because of that they need Activision studios to be able to compete on the same level.


* except Japan Studio that had to be mostly hacked away... Oh and Media Molecule that has been sitting on PS5 dev kits for 3 years and hasn't bothered to even port Dreams to PS5.... and London Studios that haven't done anything since Blood & Truth and now decided on giving up life altogether (moving into GaaS), and maybe others.

 

[Sweep14]

Yet they would still be totally fine with the great games they produce themselves. Of course it would hurt them but the FTC's job is not to protect the market leader as far as I am aware. LMFAO.

Neither it is to bolster the other market challengers

 

[RoboFu]

They want to show all the exclusive deals and big games Sony has compared to MS. It's a solid move to show that MS is actually at a disadvantage.

 

[Gavon West]

There is a stat out there that shows how CoD is literally played by 55% of console players. It was from some market research firm. Sony should have hard data backing this up. With Warzone now being F2P, the percentage is probably even higher.

For example, GTAV which has sold over 150 million units is second with 45% among all console players. CoD sells 20-30 million a year and is played by more people. Go do the math. It is going to completely devastate Sony's Playstation business which relies heavily on 45 million PS+ subs that are primarily driven by yearly CoD and the 30% of digital sales cut which would take a massive hit even if half the console's CoD userbase decides to jump ship. Enough to turn Sony into a third party publisher or a smaller much less ambitious first party manufacturer like Nintendo who simply couldnt compete with the big boys and left the console market altogether. Or the handheld market. Pick whatever. They basically had to condense their handheld and console business into one to remain competitive. Sony will have to downscale to account for 50% less revenue.

Still isn't enough reason to block the deal. Sony will still remain competitive in the industry. They are the market leader and have been for decades. If anyone can figure out how to remain competitive after the merger, surely it's Sony?

 

[Gavon West]

The problem I see with it is the principal of it all. MS, a "struggling" platform holder (this is seemingly how they are describing themselves in this whole process), basically trying to force ONE platform holder (but not others, i.e Nintendo, Valve etc.) to "show" their process, when MS should know what a successful production pipeline and content securement strategy looks like because...THEY DID IT WITH THE 360!!!

This is nothing more than trying to get confidential info (that MS has themselves but will fight their hardest to not reveal) without breaking laws. The principal of the subpoena is flakey and rather ridiculous, even if there is no "secret sauce" to it. Keep in mind this is the same company that had to do an internal review on TLOU2 to try figuring out why it worked as a game.

It's all common sense stuff Microsoft should know by now having been in the industry as a platform holder for over 20 years, and being involved with PC gaming for even longer than that. This is just a trap to get confidential info normally protected by NDA, and to do so without actually violating any laws. It seems rather scummy.

C'mon broooo...smh

Sony claims that CoD is this behemoth sized property they can't keep sustained without, the onus is on them to prove it. Nothing scummy about it in the least bit. You guys are reaching....

 

[ManaByte]

People forget that Sony claimed that losing Call of Duty (which they won't do) would basically cause PlayStation to go out of business. This is MS forcing them to legally prove that claim.

 

[Pelta88]

Standard corporate/legal processes, potentially legally enforceable peek under the competitor's hood for basically peanuts. Meanwhile you also get to discover and gather evidence against Sony's claim while seeing a roadmap or inner workings. There isn't anything hasty or out of frustration about it.

Serving a subpoena is indeed a standard manoeuvre. We can debate the merits of Microsoft's request but ultimately, that will play out in court within a few days. But saying this wasn't made in haste is being disingenuous. Microsoft has an army of lawyers stationed across the globe but this is how this particular subpoena played out...

Microsoft has sent a subpoena to Sony in its lawsuit with the FTC. Sony was meant to have until January 20, 2023 to attempt to either limit, quash, or respond in other fashion to the subpoena, but requested for an extension to January 27, 2023, which was approved.The subpoena was first sent, though incorrectly, to Sony on January 12, 2023, after which Sony had to send it back to Microsoft over a lack of specificity as to who is "the proper recipient" as the filing put it. It was revised and sent back on January 17, though at the time Sony was still expected to respond by January 20, 2023.

Microsoft Subpoenas Sony In Lawsuit With The FTC - PlayStation Universe

Microsoft has subpoenaed Sony in its lawsuit against the FTC, to which Sony now has until January 27, 2023 to respond to in some form.

www.psu.com

Those are basic legal errors. A student in their first year of law school would know how to file properly. Given the law firm Microsoft has engaged and the fees that they reportedly charge for legal council, you'd expect a basic level of competence. Sending a subpoena back to the recipient because it isn't legally applicable is, as an analyst put in Bloomberg live, "A slap in the face."

And ultimately feeds into the broader, analyst opinion/narrative, that Microsoft was unprepared for any challenge to this acquisition. Something us neogaf armchair analysts figured out months ago before that narrative went mainstream.

 

[jm89]

They want to show all the exclusive deals and big games Sony has compared to MS. It's a solid move to show that MS is actually at a disadvantage.

It's pretty terrible when a lot of the exclusives advantage sony have is them actually knowing how to manage their studios. Why should MS get any brownie points for showing bad they are not being able to compete with more money and more studios?

And folks always overblow the exclusivity deals, like Microsoft have not being doing exclusivity deals.

If anything this really show how MS shouldn't be put in charge of a large publisher for being so incompetent.

 

[TomFoolery1]

Well in that case, it should be rejected. MS LOVE leaks; getting their hands on Sony's release plans will give them a convenient way to leak that out through their litany of channels of "insiders" and that could have negative impact on planned reveals by Sony themselves, could even negatively affect their stocks (shareholders may not like plans being leaked like that).

Then MS could just claim that stuff got leaked without their knowledge, and there's not much that could be done after the fact. So yeah, that smells like a form of corporate espionage just with the cover of a legally enforced subpoena to get the desired info, IF it includes things like Sony having to provide their release schedule of 1P games, 3P exclusives set up etc.

microsoft could get all this info without a lawsuit , they are WAY more powerful and have way more resources than sony , and corporate espionage isnt hard . Microsoft likely knows everything sony is working on . As weve seen in the past with hacks , leaks and psn going down for weeks sonys cybersecurity is garbage and its not really up for debate . even their movie studios have been hacked , its embarassing lol

 

[MasterCornholio]

microsoft could get all this info without a lawsuit , they are WAY more powerful and have way more resources than sony , and corporate espionage isnt hard . Microsoft likely knows everything sony is working on . As weve seen in the past with hacks , leaks and psn going down for weeks sonys cybersecurity is garbage and its not really up for debate . even their movie studios have been hacked , its embarassing lol

I don't think Microsoft wants to steal the information and then present it as evidence in a courtroom.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Still isn't enough reason to block the deal. Sony will still remain competitive in the industry. They are the market leader and have been for decades. If anyone can figure out how to remain competitive after the merger, surely it's Sony?

= So let's be anti-competitive because the other party can probably take it.

 

[TomFoolery1]

I don't think Microsoft wants to steal the information and then present it as evidence in a courtroom.

no im not saying that , im responding to the people saying they want to learn how sony makes games etc. Microsoft likely knows everything sony does and everything they have coming out , they just cant replicate it or compete. You dont become a trillion dollar company without spying on competitors. Apple for instance isnt sitting around guessing what samsungs working on technology wise , they spy , they investigate , they know what the other guys are doing.

 

[MasterCornholio]

no im not saying that , im responding to the people saying they want to learn how sony makes games etc. Microsoft likely knows everything sony does and everything they have coming out , they just cant replicate it or compete. You dont become a trillion dollar company without spying on competitors.

I can understand that. Microsoft knows this and wants Sony to reveal the information so they can use it in court.

 

[RoboFu]

It's pretty terrible when a lot of the exclusives advantage sony have is them actually knowing how to manage their studios. Why should MS get any brownie points for showing bad they are not being able to compete with more money and more studios?

And folks always overblow the exclusivity deals, like Microsoft have not being doing exclusivity deals.

If anything this really show how MS shouldn't be put in charge of a large publisher for being so incompetent.

Sony has ties (and owns stock ) to big Japanese games and exclusive deals for years with big western games. The argument is that there is no way to compete with such ingrained arrangements like that.
There has been plenty of historical hearings to back up such claims if MS can prove Sony has a history and current active examples of such deals.

What ms has going against them is their own history as a whole company and not just a video game platform holder.. having near monopoly's in the computer enterprise space.

 

[ProtoByte]

There is a stat out there that shows how CoD is literally played by 55% of console players. It was from some market research firm. Sony should have hard data backing this up. With Warzone now being F2P, the percentage is probably even higher.

That stat is such obvious bs though. All you have to do is look at the sales to figure that out. And it's not like Warzone has ever touched registerations or consistent MAU around the ~50-something percent mark of console players. The reality is that COD will sell no more than 15 million on PlayStation, just over 10% of their plaher base. Even if you triple that in terms of players (and thats wishful thinking even if players means "launched the game once), it's still a ways away from 50% of their userbase.

Plus, Sony's already given figures much more important than just COD's sales, which are statistically significant to their userbase anyway. The percentages are redacted for the public, but first-person shooters rank highest in terms of playtime, and COD ranks the highest amongst them all. A (seemingly) double-digit factor more than all of Sony's top selling first party games combined.

There's enough there to argue against Xbox being able to have control over that, despite not building it themselves and after 15 years of annual installments to entrench the IP like no other in the game industry. For no other reason than because their parent company has deep pockets that have nothing to do with gaming.

 

[jm89]

Sony has ties (and owns stock ) to big Japanese games and exclusive deals for years with big western games. The argument is that there is no way to compete with such ingrained arrangements like that.
There has been plenty of historical hearings to back up such claims if MS can prove Sony has a history and current active examples of such deals.

More japanese games are coming to xbox this generation, the only significant one that hasn't is final fantasy and i can tell you right now final fantasy is not changing any fortunes for MS, it certainly didn't last gen or the previous one.

The big western exclusive deal i can think of is the cod marketing and dlc but historically microsoft have done the exact same thing when they had better market share during the 360 era, can't come crying to the regulators with the same shit they pulled when they had the advantage.

 

[DenchDeckard]

microsoft could get all this info without a lawsuit , they are WAY more powerful and have way more resources than sony , and corporate espionage isnt hard . Microsoft likely knows everything sony is working on . As weve seen in the past with hacks , leaks and psn going down for weeks sonys cybersecurity is garbage and its not really up for debate . even their movie studios have been hacked , its embarassing lol

Sony took this to the public so MS is doing the same thing. They want the world to see it all in an open forum. It could back fire but no matter what this is going to be one for the ages.

 

[ProtoByte]

Not going through, not anytime soon.

This is such a ridiculous statement from Nadella.

I'm all for competition. The thing is that Microsoft lost. There hasn't been a generation where they seem to be able to perform on their own merits. They have never been able to win on the foundations of: "Sell console, sell games". Now, they want to change the nature of the competition by buying up huge segments of the market and undercutting the value of games. They don't even want to compete, they want to control the industry entirely. It's been that way since day one.

 

[Lasha]

Yep, both good points.

For 3rd party exclusivity, Sony can easily say that they don't have the kind of money that Microsoft has, so they can't acquire all these studios to create first-party games. And because Xbox now has more studios than PlayStation, they have to rely on these third-party exclusivity deals to keep up and stay competitive with XGS's in-pipeline output.

Exclusivity is easier to purchase as a market leader since it requires compensating the third party for fewer copies sold. Any deep investigation into Sony's own anticompetitive moves will hurt it's case. Especially since its claim is functionally "we cant compete if big titles go exclusive".

 

[trikster40]

If I can't buy Activision, you have to at least divulge all your secrets which I will then use to my advantage.

That's like an NFL tram demanding another teams playbook if they wont trade their top 3 players to them.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Serving a subpoena is indeed a standard manoeuvre. We can debate the merits of Microsoft's request but ultimately, that will play out in court within a few days. But saying this wasn't made in haste is being disingenuous. Microsoft has an army of lawyers stationed across the globe but this is how this particular subpoena played out...

Microsoft has sent a subpoena to Sony in its lawsuit with the FTC. Sony was meant to have until January 20, 2023 to attempt to either limit, quash, or respond in other fashion to the subpoena, but requested for an extension to January 27, 2023, which was approved.The subpoena was first sent, though incorrectly, to Sony on January 12, 2023, after which Sony had to send it back to Microsoft over a lack of specificity as to who is "the proper recipient" as the filing put it. It was revised and sent back on January 17, though at the time Sony was still expected to respond by January 20, 2023.

Microsoft Subpoenas Sony In Lawsuit With The FTC - PlayStation Universe

Microsoft has subpoenaed Sony in its lawsuit against the FTC, to which Sony now has until January 27, 2023 to respond to in some form.

www.psu.com

Those are basic legal errors. A student in their first year of law school would know how to file properly. Given the law firm Microsoft has engaged and the fees that they reportedly charge for legal council, you'd expect a basic level of competence. Sending a subpoena back to the recipient because it isn't legally applicable is, as an analyst put in Bloomberg live, "A slap in the face."

And ultimately feeds into the broader, analyst opinion/narrative, that Microsoft was unprepared for any challenge to this acquisition. Something us neogaf armchair analysts figured out months ago before that narrative went mainstream.

LMAO, what did MS lawyers have wrong? what a set of idiots haha. Embarassing.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Exclusivity is easier to purchase as a market leader since it requires compensating the third party for fewer copies sold. Any deep investigation into Sony's own anticompetitive moves will hurt it's case. Especially since its claim is functionally "we cant compete if big titles go exclusive".

It does help if you've a bigger share, but should Sony be punished for acquiring a bigger market share (without being anti-competitive or acquiring multiplatform entities)?

At the end of the 7th generation, both Xbox (84 million) and PlayStation (88 million) had the same level of market share. PlayStation produced high-quality titles and released a cheaper but more powerful PS4 system to take the market share. On the other hand, Microsoft said, "we have a product for people who can't get online [for Xbox One], it's called Xbox 360."

Sony should not be punished for gaining a bigger market share after that.

Second, third-party exclusivity is not done exclusively by Sony. Microsoft also has done and continues to do timed-exclusive deals. They recently released Scorn and High on Life as timed-exclusives. Upcoming timed-exclusives include Stalker 2 and Ark 2. Since both are doing the same thing, it cancels out.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

With all the exclusive deals between Sony and Square, Sony probably already acquired them. They just haven't made it official.

As for the subpoenaed, I'm curious to see what comes out of it.

It doesn't work like that. Purchases of this size have to be reported to shareholders and regulators within a finite amount of time. I believe they have like 20 days after an agreement has been reached. Don't quote me on that though.

Could they be in talks? Sure, but you can't sit on an agreement or conduct business as if you had either.

 

[Fabieter]

To make it make sense ms would need to show their own production pipeline imo. So the ftc could see that both companys are already highly competitive as it is.

 

[Gavon West]

= So let's be anti-competitive because the other party can probably take it.

Its not anti competitive either. You just don't like it. Xbox fans have been going through this for decades with Sony buying up 3rd party deals. Price of business, I suppose and one of the perks of being market leader.

Nice try though.

 

[Kilau]

With all the exclusive deals between Sony and Square, Sony probably already acquired them. They just haven't made it official.

As for the subpoenaed, I'm curious to see what comes out of it.

Yes, Sony already acquired Square but it's only for two years.

 

[Three]

Exclusivity is easier to purchase as a market leader since it requires compensating the third party for fewer copies sold. Any deep investigation into Sony's own anticompetitive moves will hurt it's case. Especially since its claim is functionally "we cant compete if big titles go exclusive".

This is like saying somebody selling their product exclusively at Costco is easier for them because they have more stores. That's true but the person who created the product to sell is free to sell at any store they like or exclusively. Target coming in and buying up major suppliers of other stores is a little different.

 

[Gavon West]

To make it make sense ms would need to show their own production pipeline imo. So the ftc could see that both companys are already highly competitive as it is.

Microsoft wouldn't request something they weren't ready to provide themselves. Sony knows this.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Its not anti competitive either. You just don't like it. Xbox fans have been going through this for decades with Sony buying up 3rd party deals. Price of business, I suppose and one of the perks of being market leader.

Nice try though.

MS has also made third party deals. So i'm not sure you have any point there. They could make more but they don't want too. They don't want to buy the steak. They want the whole cow.

 

[ManaByte]

I can understand that. Microsoft knows this and wants Sony to reveal the information so they can use it in court.

It has nothing to with how Sony makes games. This all stems from false statements Sony made in writing to the CMA about how they (the #1 console game publisher in the world) cannot compete against Call of Duty and losing it (again which they won't) will cause their business to contract.

MS knows that was bullshit, but since those statements caused regulators unfamiliar with the gaming industry to take this to the courts, MS is calling Sony to the carpet to prove their game production pipeline is not capable in competing.

Sony was being cocky and started a dick measuring contest and now MS is telling them to unzip.

 

[quest]

It does help if you've a bigger share, but should Sony be punished for acquiring a bigger market share (without being anti-competitive or acquiring multiplatform entities)?

At the end of the 7th generation, both Xbox (84 million) and PlayStation (88 million) had the same level of market share. PlayStation produced high-quality titles and released a cheaper but more powerful PS4 system to take the market share. On the other hand, Microsoft said, "we have a product for people who can't get online [for Xbox One], it's called Xbox 360."

Sony should not be punished for gaining a bigger market share after that.

Second, third-party exclusivity is not done exclusively by Sony. Microsoft also has done and continues to do timed-exclusive deals. They recently released Scorn and High on Life as timed-exclusives. Upcoming timed-exclusives include Stalker 2 and Ark 2. Since both are doing the same thing, it cancels out.

Your comparing indy games and major 3rd party studios lol. Its like saying buying abk is the same as buying bungie. Sony bought blue point it canceled out zenimax wtf. High life equals SE games gtfo .

 

[Heisenberg007]

Its not anti competitive either. You just don't like it. Xbox fans have been going through this for decades with Sony buying up 3rd party deals. Price of business, I suppose and one of the perks of being market leader.

Nice try though.

According to whom? You?

Here are what 3 regulatory bodies from 3 different regions are saying:

 

[Fabieter]

Microsoft wouldn't request something they weren't ready to provide themselves. Sony knows this.

They already have 23 studios with some of them having like 2 to 3 teams. There is no way Microsoft havent enough in the pipeline to Show they dont actually need avb.

 

[RGB'D]

LMAO. Is it just me or does this read like Phil wants to know just how Sony is able to continue releasing first party exclusive after exclusive every year lol.

It's not that hard Phil. Just dont layoff developers the year they are supposed to ship a game.

That said, I'm all for this. Jimbo is running his PS division like the Manhattan project. As if just revealing the existence of some games is some kind of top secret thats going to jeopardize national security. If they have to reveal what they are working on in a filing then at least we will know what these studios have been working on for the past 3-5 years.

It's just you. This is standard discovery and a counter move from MS to the moves SONY has been making in opposing this acquisition.

 

[Kilau]

It has nothing to with how Sony makes games. This all stems from false statements Sony made in writing to the CMA about how they (the #1 console game publisher in the world) cannot compete against Call of Duty and losing it (again which they won't) will cause their business to contract.

MS knows that was bullshit, but since those statements caused regulators unfamiliar with the gaming industry to take this to the courts, MS is calling Sony to the carpet to prove their game production pipeline is not capable in competing.

Sony was being cocky and started a dick measuring contest and now MS is telling them to unzip.

 

[Fabieter]

Your comparing indy games and major 3rd party studios lol. Its like saying buying abk is the same as buying bungie. Sony bought blue point it canceled out zenimax wtf. High life equals SE games gtfo .

Ark has more sales than probably every sony timed exclusives combined. Not sure about indie not relevant thing.

 

[Lasha]

It does help if you've a bigger share, but should Sony be punished for acquiring a bigger market share (without being anti-competitive or acquiring multiplatform entities)?

At the end of the 7th generation, both Xbox (84 million) and PlayStation (88 million) had the same level of market share. PlayStation produced high-quality titles and released a cheaper but more powerful PS4 system to take the market share. On the other hand, Microsoft said, "we have a product for people who can't get online [for Xbox One], it's called Xbox 360."

Sony should be punished for gaining a bigger market share after that.

Second, third-party exclusivity is not done exclusively by Sony. Microsoft also has done and continues to do timed-exclusive deals. They recently released Scorn and High on Life as timed-exclusives. Upcoming timed-exclusives include Stalker 2 and Ark 2. Since both are doing the same thing, it cancels out.

Sony should be punished if it leverages its market share to stifle competition. Microsoft should be punished too. Sony definitely has no right to any regulator action which protects its market position. Sony is going to have a tough time proving that Microsoft becoming the owner of ATVI will hurt its ability to compete while it is leveraging its position to negotiate deals that would require MS to take a loss to sign. Especially in an environment where Microsoft "exclusives" (including first party games) are available on Gamepass and multiple PC storefronts. That is why any focus on exclusivity paints Sony in a bad light.

 

[VAVA Mk2]

The fuck does it have to do with them? Is it because they can't manage their own shit properly?

Sony is the biggest party against this merger so whatever they complain to the FTC about having this be a negative impact on Playstation is relevant to the decision of the acquisition.

 

[anothertech]

Xbox tried to show their pipeline but had nothing to show so they need Sony's.

Ice cold

 

[Three]

It has nothing to with how Sony makes games. This all stems from false statements Sony made in writing to the CMA about how they (the #1 console game publisher in the world) cannot compete against Call of Duty and losing it (again which they won't) will cause their business to contract.

MS knows that was bullshit, but since those statements caused regulators unfamiliar with the gaming industry to take this to the courts, MS is calling Sony to the carpet to prove their game production pipeline is not capable in competing.

Sony was being cocky and started a dick measuring contest and now MS is telling them to unzip.

What exactly is bullshit about that? That's a given. Especially as PS+ relies so heavily on COD for subscribers.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Sony should be punished if it leverages its market share to stifle competition. Microsoft should be punished too. Sony definitely has no right to any regulator action which protects its market position. Sony is going to have a tough time proving that Microsoft becoming the owner of ATVI will hurt its ability to compete while it is leveraging its position to negotiate deals that would require MS to take a loss to sign. Especially in an environment where Microsoft "exclusives" (including first party games) are available on Gamepass and multiple PC storefronts. That is why any focus on exclusivity paints Sony in a bad light.

How does Sony's timed exclusivity deals affect Xbox's position though? Microsoft will also have to prove that.

If games do not sell as much on Xbox, devs will not port their games to Xbox. Take FFVII Remake as an example.

Final Fantasy 7 Remake's exclusivity is already over, but SquareEnix isn't porting their game to Xbox. It's not Sony's responsibility to make SquareEnix publish their game on Xbox.

If SquareEnix isn't even willing to port a game on Xbox (because it doesn't make financial sense for them to do so), how does Sony getting a timed exclusive agreement for that game hurts Xbox?

 

[Heisenberg007]

Xbox tried to show their pipeline but had nothing to show so they need Sony's.

 

[RGB'D]

How does Sony's timed exclusivity deals affect Xbox's position though? Microsoft will also have to prove that.

If games do not sell as much on Xbox, devs will not port their games to Xbox. Take FFVII Remake as an example.

Final Fantasy 7 Remake's exclusivity is already over, but SquareEnix isn't porting their game to Xbox. It's not Sony's responsibility to make SquareEnix publish their game on Xbox.

If SquareEnix isn't even willing to port a game on Xbox (because it doesn't make financial sense for them to do so), how does Sony getting a timed exclusive agreement for that game hurts Xbox?

How are you sure that Sony didn't pay to extend the exclusivity period? This seems likely considering Crisis Core coming to Xbox speaks against your entire argument.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

How are you sure that Sony didn't pay to extend the exclusivity period? This seems likely considering Crisis Core coming to Xbox speaks against your entire argument.

Why doens't ms offer them more money? They can. Why don't they?

 

[DenchDeckard]

How does Sony's timed exclusivity deals affect Xbox's position though? Microsoft will also have to prove that.

If games do not sell as much on Xbox, devs will not port their games to Xbox. Take FFVII Remake as an example.

Final Fantasy 7 Remake's exclusivity is already over, but SquareEnix isn't porting their game to Xbox. It's not Sony's responsibility to make SquareEnix publish their game on Xbox.

If SquareEnix isn't even willing to port a game on Xbox (because it doesn't make financial sense for them to do so), how does Sony getting a timed exclusive agreement for that game hurts Xbox?

This court case may actually provide us some clear answers as to why these games aren't launching on Xbox and if there is a reason, Xbox lawyers will be pressing questions to make the world know about it. Maybe it is as you say, or maybe it isn't. Wouldn't you be interested to find out?

I sure as hell am, it will put a lot of misconceptions to rest from both sides.

 

[Heisenberg007]

How are you sure that Sony didn't pay to extend the exclusivity period? This seems likely considering Crisis Core coming to Xbox speaks against your entire argument.

Is there any credible evidence for it? No.

Here's last official evidence/data point we have.

There are stupid articles like this on the Internet, which presents literally 0 source.

It's the same thing as Persona and Final Fantasy XIV. For the longest time, everybody blamed Sony for keeping those games exclusive. Turned out they never were.

• Persona is now on Xbox when Atlus was presented with a bag of cash that guaranteed their ROI, and
• FF XIV's director confirmed that the game isn't on Xbox because of Xbox's server policies. And Phil Spencer has also said multiple times that he is trying to bring it to Xbox (which wouldn't be possible if there was an exclusivity agreement).