And that will hand a win to MS by showing that Sony can compete without COD. Great strategy.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
And that will hand a win to MS by showing that Sony can compete without COD. Great strategy.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
I mean, I don't really know why you quoted me or how you could get all that out of my reply containing 13 words.
Pelta88
Member
Sony has said nope.
www.fosspatents.com
Sony doesn't want to provide documents and/or witnesses Microsoft requested in Federal Trade Commission adjudicative proceeding regarding its Activision Blizzard deal
On Wednesday, I wrote that Sony may live to regret the market definition and theory of harm it espouses in connection with Microsoft's acqu...
Proving that access to COD is essential to your business is difficult when the majority of your revenue comes from other channels. The revenue example shows that the merger would not result in a significant reduction in market players. The FTC allows far more egregious consolidation in other more critical industries.
Thats kinda the crux right? Most COD players are Activision customers that the console makers take a cut from. Microsoft is moving away from that model towards being more of a general publisher that also offers a console. The market is slowly evolving beyond walled gardens. Sony doesn't want that because it knows its first party is currently too weak to sustain itself. I think moves like the TV show are a step in the right direction though. Sony totally has the IP and media experience to remain a massive publisher.
Fabieter
Member
No doubt they will remain massive. They also go deeper and deeper into pc with all service games being day one and iam sure at one point even their single player games gonna be day one. But they cant win on this front so when the market change to this direction there is no way for sony to directly compete with Microsoft. Iam sure ftc would want Microsoft having direct competition.
Bojanglez
The Amiga Brotherhood
Fascinating, this will all make a great book in years to come. I wonder if SIE could do something like spin up a shell company still under the Sony umbrella and 'technically' transfer ownership of the IP and production pipeline outside of SIE to avoid disclosing this, probably not enough time and that alone may have to be divulged.
How does Sony stop competing with Microsoft if it sells great games and makes money?
gothmog
Gold Member
I think people are really taking some creative liberties with their "analysis" of what is basically a correction of a clerical error.
Fabieter
Member
When one is an exclusive box and the other one is a console where you can buy all previously multiplatform games than I would argue that they aint going for the same thing anymore. Sony will be in their own profitable niche at this point which means their doing won't directly affect xbox as it used to.
Son_of_Zardoz
Banned
That is still competition. Sony's products need to be good enough to convince somebody to buy them over others. Markets change. PC revenue already equals the entire console industry combined. Mobile gaming is slightly bigger than traditional gaming as a whole. The entire industry is in a state of change. Sony needs to adapt and build its business using what it can control. Apple is being forced to open up IOS. The days of locking people into ecosystems are slowly dying.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Why does this only apply to Sony in this situation?
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Apparently Sony said no.
Sony doesn't want to provide documents and/or witnesses Microsoft requested in Federal Trade Commission adjudicative proceeding regarding its Activision Blizzard deal
On Wednesday, I wrote that Sony may live to regret the market definition and theory of harm it espouses in connection with Microsoft's acqu...
Though I think Sony will share (limited) information.
Edit: Read the article. It is basing all on misconptions and assumptions. Sony did not say no.
Last edited:
Fabieter
Member
I get what you are saying but at that point close down any regulation and do completey free market. Your point would still stand if ms buy the next 5 big publisher.
Microsoft has technically the money to buy nintendo and sony. Hoe would real competition even work. Ms opend the whole warchest.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Yeah, just finished reading the article and added the Edit in my comment.
Extremely weird article and title, trying to justify his previous assumption.
Rykan
Member
It's not the exact same thing and I'm surprised you're asking what the difference is because it's literally in the post you quoted.
In that specific article, Microsoft refers to Moon studios as a first party developer. The contract Microsoft had with Moon Studios is not the same as the one Sony had with Sumo Digital. There is a big difference between "Publisher and developer come to an agreement that developer will work exclusively for Microsoft for X amount of time" and "Publisher and developer sign a contract for the development for 1 title.".
You claim MS is looking to "Mislead" regulators. Whether MS calls it First Party or Third Party is something that only gamers get worked up about. It's completely irrelevant for regulators as long as the nature of the development arrangement is clear, which it is.
Last edited:
PharaoTutAnchAmun
Member
No desperate move from MS
Last edited:
laynelane
Member
I think so too, given Sony made no attempt to challenge the subpoena.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
There is nothing about the time-frame of the agreement.
How many titles did Microsoft and Moon Studios make after Ori and Will of the Wisps? ZERO. They literally developed that 1 title, and that's it. On the other hand, FYI, Sony and Sumo Digital are working on another exclusive title.
You're just making up your own definitions and criteria as you go along, which is not right.
Facts are: A first-party IP is a first-party game, even if developed by an external studio. Microsoft knows this. They even call their own externally-developed games first-party (as I proved with evidence). The fact they're calling Sackboy and Bloodborne third-party exclusives and counting them among third-party exclusives to inflate the number and mislead the regulators is absurd and should be called out -- not defended.
NZ delayed their decision again, that is it.
Rykan
Member
The article you yourself posted says that Moon Studios became a first party developer in 2011. We know that the agreement ended somewhere last year. In that time period they've made two games, which means ALL games, including ports, they've developed (Including potential unannounced ones) during that timeframe were for Microsoft.
This is very different from both contracts with Sumo Digital and FromSoft, who were developing other games alongside the contracts for Sackboy and Bloodbourne.
You accuse me of making up my "Own definitions and criteria" as I go along, when you literally do the exact same thing. The bolded part is something you came up with entirely on your own. There is no set definition for the term first party and it's partly up to interpretation.
You seem to think that regulators are making lists of which game is first party exclusive and which one is third party when in actuality, that doesn't matter in this context. The whole point of the investigation is to see if the acquisition can lead to an unfair advantage that can lead to a monopoly. The point is whether other systems (Sony, in this case) can still offer their own exclusive content and whether that is through first party or third party is completely irrelevant to regulators because it doesn't matter.
Last edited:
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Sites are getting it wrong. It isn't a specific request about Sony's games production schedule. It's literally about ALL things that might be deemed remotely relevant to the transaction, so pretty much the common discovery process. This means potential depositions of execs at Playstation or Sony, sales data, usage data, microtransaction data, financial data, internal documents, contracts, you name it. The production referred to is document production by Sony as well as other things mentioned. Sony have injected themselves into this process pretty heavily to claim they will be severely harmed, so now they can easily be subjected to these kinds of legal maneuvers and, at some point, turn over documents and other evidence, and even give depositions on the Playstation business.
If Microsoft says Sony has contracts designed to hinder the ability of Xbox to compete, such as Sony's deal with Activision to keep Call of Duty off Game Pass, those are relevant. But we already know Activision has access to those contracts already. But Microsoft may request that depositions be done with Sony execs that have discussed things with Activision that are maybe NOT on the contracts, but were verbal understandings that transpired through phone calls or in person meetings, info that might not be on any of the contract paperwork, which is a very common thing in business. There was even such language in Sony's contract for Resident Evil Village.
Sony, due to their fear of producing this information, is very likely to seek to quash the subpoena altogether, or to significantly narrow what they need to hand over. And it might even work to a degree, but it won't keep working the further into the process we get. If it doesn't happen through the internal process with the FTC, it will happen through the gamer lawsuit in California. If it doesn't happen in those it could easily happen in a different case should the FTC decide to seek an injunction in Federal Court on its own later. Needless to say, I find it very impossible that Sony, having made the complaints they have, won't have to produce documentation they are unwilling to produce in the event of any court proceedings.
If Microsoft says Sony has contracts designed to hinder the ability of Xbox to compete, such as Sony's deal with Activision to keep Call of Duty off Game Pass, those are relevant. But we already know Activision has access to those contracts already. But Microsoft may request that depositions be done with Sony execs that have discussed things with Activision that are maybe NOT on the contracts, but were verbal understandings that transpired through phone calls or in person meetings, info that might not be on any of the contract paperwork, which is a very common thing in business. There was even such language in Sony's contract for Resident Evil Village.
Sony, due to their fear of producing this information, is very likely to seek to quash the subpoena altogether, or to significantly narrow what they need to hand over. And it might even work to a degree, but it won't keep working the further into the process we get. If it doesn't happen through the internal process with the FTC, it will happen through the gamer lawsuit in California. If it doesn't happen in those it could easily happen in a different case should the FTC decide to seek an injunction in Federal Court on its own later. Needless to say, I find it very impossible that Sony, having made the complaints they have, won't have to produce documentation they are unwilling to produce in the event of any court proceedings.
NickFire
Member
I think we all share the same hope. Which is that the people in charge of redacting documents completely poop their pants and leave in tons of juicy info nuggets. That last big lawsuit was a gold mine of stuff to rabble rabble over. I expect nothing less from this one.
Also, it's essentially guaranteed that Sony does not want to share information with MS. Expect them to seek protective orders left and right, and don't be shocked if they claim that MS is using discovery to try learning Sony's trade secrets on how to manage studios and release high demand games. I do wonder how much the discovery challenges will hold up the case though. Seeking too much could become a double edge sword for MS if the proceedings to address discovery disputes keep pushing the end date of the case(s) beyond certain dates.
clarky
Gold Member
What are you talking about? I'm not blaming anyone for anything , could you quote me on that? You're coming at me like I have any skin in this game. It makes zero difference to me if this deal goes through or not.
PharaoTutAnchAmun
Member
377 pages says otherwise
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Hey you don't know how many of these posts are from alts belonging to Spencer and Ryan.377 pages says otherwise
You said the same thing about Persona 5 while they (Atlus) were telling you the only way you would get a Switch port of that old game (not even on xbox but a popular in Japan device) is if fans showed there was demand for it by contacting Atlus and kept asking for it. How would that have helped if there was still an exclusivity contract in place?
Anyway there may still be one for FF7, not saying there definitely isn't but SE not bothering or sales being low isn't a stupid talking point. if you want to see how low it is on xbox just go look at the latest NPD results for Crisis Core FF7 Reunion, FF7R's prequel. I think what would convince SE is some upfront payment for it to come to gamepass like Persona 5 did.
Last edited:
SenjutsuSage
Banned
To demonstrate how easily Sony can be dragged into producing documents, just take a good look at the Epic vs Apple case. Sony was seen as barely relevant, and yet because parties involved found Sony and the way it does business relevant to the case, Sony was made to produce documentation they didn't want to. Remember that crossplay royalty document?
https://www.pcgamer.com/sony-charges-for-crossplay-support-to-protect-psn-revenue-documents-show/
Microsoft will want to have that document entered into evidence for this specific case also. That crossplay royalty or "fee" that Sony wants companies to pay them if a certain amount of game time happens on PlayStation without a sufficient amount of spending happening on Playstation can be viewed as a market leader forcing companies to offer greater incentives or bonuses and perks to Playstation customers over people who play on Xbox, just to encourage more spending on the Playstation side of things rather than Xbox. It might encourage game companies to enter into special agreements with Sony at the expense of Xbox. This is just one of many ways that Sony producing documents and other evidence can be relevant to this transaction.
https://www.pcgamer.com/sony-charges-for-crossplay-support-to-protect-psn-revenue-documents-show/
Microsoft will want to have that document entered into evidence for this specific case also. That crossplay royalty or "fee" that Sony wants companies to pay them if a certain amount of game time happens on PlayStation without a sufficient amount of spending happening on Playstation can be viewed as a market leader forcing companies to offer greater incentives or bonuses and perks to Playstation customers over people who play on Xbox, just to encourage more spending on the Playstation side of things rather than Xbox. It might encourage game companies to enter into special agreements with Sony at the expense of Xbox. This is just one of many ways that Sony producing documents and other evidence can be relevant to this transaction.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
Warzone is free to play now so don't need PS+ . Is Warzone the biggest mode for COD now? You maybe better qualified to answer that than I am
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
Well that sounds like bullshit to me from Atlus. Sounds like they knew the timing on a exclusivity agreement, and were just using it as an excuse for PR. Persona obviously would be a big seller on Switch, so it doesn't even make sense. Probably bigger than PS. Just like how the FFVII argument doesn't make any sense when lesser series are on Xbox, like DioField, Crisis Core, etc. Just like how it's dumb to put Octopath 1 on Xbox, build up an audience then skip 2. I would love to see the details behind the Sony exclusivity contracts, as they're always vague, secretive, and changing.
What makes you believe they presented that document or had an issue with it being presented in court? It was Epic who submitted that in discovery. It was a document Epic had and presented not Sony being dragged in.
Last edited:
Pelta88
Member
The speculative piece and the click bait headline caught me off guard on that one. Very misleading title. My bad.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
They didn't say they couldn't sustain without COD, they said that their market share would be negatively impacted, which is true. Because it's impossible to reliably make a FPS that competes with COD in terms of revenue and market share.
Which is also true, otherwise MS wouldn't need to buy ABK in order to get their hands on COD's revenue for themselves.
Actually MS made this public by talking about their BTS discussions with Sony publicly in order to look good to regulators on social media. Jim Ryan (and I assume others at Sony) didn't like that MS were using private discussions to try gaining public favor with regulators, and spoke out against it publicly.
MS tried buttering both sides of the bread before realizing they ran out of butter.
I somewhat disagree with this, because MS did "win" the 7th generation, at least in the biggest markets, and certainly in terms of mindshare and what system 3P devs prioritized for the majority of the time, with the 360. PS3 did nudge it out in the end and finished that gen stronger in terms of mindshare with core gamers (as well as helping recover the PS brand's reputation), but in the periods before that, particularly in the markets where the majority of the big AAA games were being made? It was 360.
The problem is MS don't have people at the Xbox division with that type of drive or I'd even say appreciation for the industry that way, anymore. Phil Spencer may be a nice guy but he's not bringing that energy.
How were the statements false? If COD accounts for some billions of PS's software revenue, and they lose access to it, that is some billions of software revenue now gone. That's a very clear cause-and-effect. If you subtract some sum from a number, the result is a smaller number. Basic math.
Could Sony "theoretically" make a COD competitor? Yes, as in they could make a FPS game with similar or better quality. But there is no guarantee that game gets anywhere near the market share or revenue of COD, which is the actual point. Epic stumbled into a massive hit with Fortnite after adding BR; Apex Legends had a lot of luck on its side even if it was building off TitanFall's mechanics and style of play (keep in mind that game came out in 2014, so it took ~5 years for it to finally find some footing as a completely different IP taking some of its concepts forward).
A scenario where Sony loses COD and has to stick it out with Killzone, or Resistance or some other FPS means they could be looking at 5 - 10 years of reduced revenue while trying to build that IP up into something of a big commercial success. Otherwise they have their marquee single-player AAA games but even games like GOWR and Spiderman don't have the revenue stream of annual COD & Warzone combined, and to match that Sony would have to make way more of those games and spend more in production costs as a result. If slagging 3P revenue sales (due to missing IP like COD) can't cover it, they'd have to siphon revenue from other parts of the company to do so, impacting those areas of operation.
The fact is a company like Sony can only sustain itself as they are in the areas they're in because each sector is pretty much self-sufficient and able to pull its own weight in revenue & profits without needing to draw resources from other sections of the company. Xbox as a division can operate in perpetuity of heavy losses and never have a need to be shuttered because it accounts for less than 10% of MS's annual revenue and even less of their annual profits, so their other sectors can spare resources to keep it going along for as long as upper brass are willing to entertain it.
At the end of the day, those are realities about the differences of the two companies MS still has to deal with as regulators scrutinize the deal, regardless of whatever they end up forcing Sony to share.
The reason that royalty probably exists is because crossplay inherently benefits the less popular console in that relationship by providing its community access to a more popular system's community, off the work of the platform holder of the more popular console, for what is essentially "free" to the platform holder of the less popular system in that dynamic.
In other words, the platform holder of the less popular platform can use crossplay as a marketing element to essentially advertise THEIR platform through the service of the competitor's platform, without paying the platform holder of the competing platform a fee for doing so. It also allows the owner of the less-popular platform to artificially grow their online userbase through a vector that is not earned by actually selling more of their hardware to customers.
Yes in some ways that can work both ways, i.e the platform holder of the more popular console can entice users on the less-popular console to come over, but the argument against that is, if the person on the less-popular console can play with people on the more popular console anyway, why would they need to switch over? So effectively, the holder of the more popular platform loses a sale because they've now lost a strong selling point, if a person can play with their friends "anywhere" regardless of what console they're on.
And sure, that message sounds find and liberating, pro-consumer and all the good buzzword feelies when you say it, but when you THINK about it, all of that is just a cover. More often than not the company expressing it wants a backdoor available to either stop bleed of userbase from their system to a competitor's, or to entice customers of the competitor to buy their product. I actually think if Sony & Microsoft had some official program where they agreed to some cut of shared services revenue for crossplay sessions of users in the two ecosystems, they would probably see Sony lax on their crossplay royalty.
So the question is, why hasn't Microsoft presented such an offer to Sony, if they really want crossplay? Why do they want to benefit from Sony's work with their audience, at no additional cost, and why should Sony be punished for wanting to protect the work of the ecosystem they've built up for years/decades? The onus is on Microsoft to make appealing terms and somewhere that's going to involve a revenue-sharing model for revenue generated through crossplay sessions. Because another way Sony could phrase it is, 3P publishers are only forced to pay those crossplay fees because Microsoft doesn't want to enter a revenue-sharing model with Sony on crossplay, because (seemingly) Microsoft want to ride off Sony's audience for free.
It's very similar actually to the objections Sony tried raising about Sony blocking games into Game Pass, except in that case it was also about Sony protecting their investments and only enforcing it with games they have comarketing deals on (and as such, Microsoft stipulates broadly similar exclusivity clauses with 3P content they have deals for, too). In the case of crossplay, it's bit more complicated but it still boils down to Sony protecting their financial investments and Microsoft wanting to benefit off Sony's financial investments at no additional cost of their own, in spite of being a direct competitor.
Last edited:
With the popularity of the switch now possibly but I think it's a stretch to suggest something coming from the horses mouth is bullshit PR 2yrs before release just because it doesn't align with your belief.
Those lesser series have been greenlit prior. The front loaded sales from a shorter exclusivity deals haven't happened. Octopath Traveller 2 I would say is proof of the opposite. Who paid for that exclusivity then, Nintendo or Sony? Octopath 1 got upfront payment to gamepass.
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
I don't want to do this stupid debate again. All I'm saying is I think it would be great to finally get some clarification on it from this court case.
twilo99
Member
They are being a very good protagonist thus far!
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Only if they cast Tom Holland to play Sony.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Tom Holland is the property and mascot of Sony Movie Pictures so thats kinda a given.Only if they cast Tom Holland to play Sony.
NickFire
Member
You might be joking. But I think you'd be right even if you were.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Sony has said nope.
Sony doesn't want to provide documents and/or witnesses Microsoft requested in Federal Trade Commission adjudicative proceeding regarding its Activision Blizzard deal
On Wednesday, I wrote that Sony may live to regret the market definition and theory of harm it espouses in connection with Microsoft's acqu...
That dude activated Supreme
Mode in haste!Someone tell that to Nintendo...oh wait...
Let's be honest, Microsoft's strategy is to STILL lock people into the Xbox ecosystem; they just want to leverage doing it off the back of other companies' products and ecosystem to do so!! They are therefore no different from Sony, or Google, or Apple, or Nintendo etc. They just want to appear more "holier than thou" by naming generic devices their ecosystem is on without acknowledging the elephant in the room: those devices are made by OTHER companies who already have their OWN ecosystems built onto them, that they've invested hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars, into.
Any single one of them can just as easy ask why does Microsoft feel they deserve to benefit off their own hard work in building up their products, brands and customer bases without paying out for it, be it some type of revenue sharing model, or a license to officially release products and services on their devices and storefronts, etc? They have just as much a claim to that as Microsoft has to the idea they should be allowed on all devices and ecosystems with as little to no payment to the makers of those products as possible.
Where is Sony's supposed fear in providing the info via the subpoena? Wasn't it Microsoft's own lawyers who couldn't write a hasty subpoena correctly in the first place? So the company that not only indicated to them "Hey, you did this wrong", but also then showed them how to do it correctly, is the "scared" one in this situation? Huh?
And again, you're acting like Sony weren't aware they would potentially be asked this type of information. If it's any financial info or contracts that won't pose a security or integrity risk to planned information rollout of Sony to customers or shareholders, then I'm pretty sure they were expecting this at some level, after all they had to do it in the Epic vs. Apple case (which wasn't the slam dunk against Sony you are wanting it to be, BTW).
Last edited:
lefty1117
Gold Member
Yeah discovery is a real bitch
Snake29
Banned
So you forgot you quoted someone?
HoofHearted
Member
Did this fucking deal get approved yet?
Astray
Member
I've been lurking for quite a while now, so I have a few scattered notes here and there about this deal, so please excuse the TL;DR as this has been pent up while I waited for the admins to approve my account:
- When people talk about Microsoft's deal as "good enough", they need to be able to tell us what it actually entails, just being on Sony's platforms is not the extent of the current existing deal between ABK and Sony, there's a console bundling agreement that seems to be in place for every new COD, there's exclusive maps etc. The latter ones are contributing to both Sony and ABK's interests in a virtuous cycle. Xbox's strategy this gen seems to be about breaking those virtuous cycles with any big publisher it can, for good or ill.
- The real question here isn't solely whether the FTC et all will be able to stop the deal on legal grounds, it's also whether ABK/MS can keep standing their ground in a united fashion, by the time June/July 2023 hits, there's gonna have to be a collective decision about what to do with this deal, will MS still be willing to pay $95/ABK share, or will they try to renegotiate? Will ABK be able to tolerate the risk of SIE trying to diversify their risk in the FPS GAAS/multiplayer market? Sony might not be able to completely replace ABK's contributions to its dominance, but it's entirely possible that they will have enough smaller hits on hand to reduce their reliance on ABK and essentially make them into a bigger Battlefield of sorts. The Sony/ABK relationship is critical for both parties rn, and if Kotick could lose out on Sony without an assured MS-funded golden parachute, then he might call it quits.
Another potential dividing factor here is Unions, MS has been really pushing unionization in both Activision and its other studios to show regulators that they are nice guys, but if this deal collapses, then Activision will be left to hold the bag on the burgeoning union movement in their ranks.
- Right now, Sony's on a tightrope so to speak: They need to give just enough info to keep the FTC's case alive, but not enough to give their opponent an indication of their future plans. There's a very high risk involved here and they need to consider their options carefully imo.
- Even if this deal does happen, I can totally see MS fucking things up yet again. I just feel that they never mastered the "meta" of interactive entertainment the way Sony or Nintendo did, you can see it in how many opportunities they wasted to bring properties that people want to the market, and in how badly they always execute even when given lots of time and patience. Even when they had the ascendancy amid Sony's weak PS3 and Nintendo's abandonment of the hardcore gaming market, they never really managed to capitalize on things properly.
- When people talk about Microsoft's deal as "good enough", they need to be able to tell us what it actually entails, just being on Sony's platforms is not the extent of the current existing deal between ABK and Sony, there's a console bundling agreement that seems to be in place for every new COD, there's exclusive maps etc. The latter ones are contributing to both Sony and ABK's interests in a virtuous cycle. Xbox's strategy this gen seems to be about breaking those virtuous cycles with any big publisher it can, for good or ill.
- The real question here isn't solely whether the FTC et all will be able to stop the deal on legal grounds, it's also whether ABK/MS can keep standing their ground in a united fashion, by the time June/July 2023 hits, there's gonna have to be a collective decision about what to do with this deal, will MS still be willing to pay $95/ABK share, or will they try to renegotiate? Will ABK be able to tolerate the risk of SIE trying to diversify their risk in the FPS GAAS/multiplayer market? Sony might not be able to completely replace ABK's contributions to its dominance, but it's entirely possible that they will have enough smaller hits on hand to reduce their reliance on ABK and essentially make them into a bigger Battlefield of sorts. The Sony/ABK relationship is critical for both parties rn, and if Kotick could lose out on Sony without an assured MS-funded golden parachute, then he might call it quits.
Another potential dividing factor here is Unions, MS has been really pushing unionization in both Activision and its other studios to show regulators that they are nice guys, but if this deal collapses, then Activision will be left to hold the bag on the burgeoning union movement in their ranks.
- Right now, Sony's on a tightrope so to speak: They need to give just enough info to keep the FTC's case alive, but not enough to give their opponent an indication of their future plans. There's a very high risk involved here and they need to consider their options carefully imo.
- Even if this deal does happen, I can totally see MS fucking things up yet again. I just feel that they never mastered the "meta" of interactive entertainment the way Sony or Nintendo did, you can see it in how many opportunities they wasted to bring properties that people want to the market, and in how badly they always execute even when given lots of time and patience. Even when they had the ascendancy amid Sony's weak PS3 and Nintendo's abandonment of the hardcore gaming market, they never really managed to capitalize on things properly.
What are you talking about? What agreement ended last year? Moon Studios were working with Private Division since July 2020. They have been working on a different multiplatform game for more than 2 years and worked on the Xbox Series version of Ori while working with Private Division on a different game.
No, that's not the point MS were making. Their lawyers called bloodborne and sackboy "third party content that's excluded from xbox". Which is exactly the same as Ori, or any other IP owned by MS where they hire some third party studio. Halo, Perfect dark, crackdown. Third party studios making those IPs published by MS and owned by MS. Bloodborne is published by Sony, they own the IP. Sackboy is published by Sony, they own the IP.
Not sure if MAU for Warzone has overtaken the others. Probably for a single title it has but combined players from all previous non-f2p CoDs I haven't a clue.
Last edited:
demigod
Member
- Status