• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Axios (Stephen Totilo) Lawyers: Email proves Microsoft’s ABK bid is designed to elimination (Update: MS claims it was a "thought experiment")

ZehDon

Member
The reason there was no rumble in the OG Sixaxis was due to a patent dispute at the time.

The Move was very obviously a response to the Wii, BUT Sony were doing motion based party games etc long before the Wii. So it's not like Sony never had the idea before copying Nintendo, they just never had the same success with it.

And no, the Sixaxis not having rumble wasn't because of that, that was just a bad excuse for what was really a patent dispute. And they rather quickly rectified it with the DS3.
I stand corrected. Looks like Sony was spreading some mis-information at the time, and I didn't catch - or don't remember catching - the correct reason for the missing feature. Thanks for the correction, I'll try to keep on top of that stuff better in the future.
 

Varteras

Member
Psygnosis was the largest publisher in Europe and a pilar for PS1 early days, and helped to cement their position in the continent. While Sony didn't buy the big publishers, they were sure to make their content as exclusive as possible until the OG Xbox was starting to crack in the sideways and fully with the Xbox 360 even before its release. Fast forward they made games like SF5 and FF7R and XVI as exclusives early on to capitalize their genres as almost exclusive to the platforms, Square for example has made a massive unseen backtrack on supporting a decent selling console (Xbox) for no public reason, and FF7R to this day hasn't seen an Xbox port despite the original contract expiring 12 months after its release. Companies won't copy line per line what's the other doing, they will instead create their own routes, Microsoft re-ignited their investment with acquisitions after closing a bunch of studios over its lifetime and expanded on that, its just business as it is for Sony to attempt to foreclosure X genres on their competitors by taking the big hits and taking advantages of the technologies they created.

Psygnosis did not have the impact that modern day publishers have. Not even close. Sony's acquisition of them didn't even impact the industry the way Zenimax did. And that was a smaller Western publisher compared to Ubisoft, T2, EA, and ABK. Sony's singular purchase of a publisher, 30 years ago, was meant to help solidify their entry into the market. Giving them a good foundation against multiple established competitors. None of whom experienced big negative consequences of the acquisition. Especially since Psygnosis continued making games for rival platforms for years. That is perfectly fine. It was about ease of entry. Not paid-for dominance.

Many games that were exclusive to PlayStation early on were that way because they were given a way out from Nintendo's predatory practices and because Sega fucked up the launch of Saturn. Making Sony a default choice, by the fault of their competitors. Sony went on to have great relationships with those companies that extended into the next generation. Many of their high profile exclusives being third-party Japanese games. But that kind of exclusivity did not last. Even during the PS2 era, companies began releasing their games elsewhere. The Metal Gear Solid remake released only on Gamecube. Resident Evil 4 also released on Gamecube well before a PS2 version. GTA and MGS games started releasing on Xbox. They would eventually lose Final Fantasy and Tekken. By the PS3 days, most franchises that had deals with PlayStation like that were largely gone.

You know what Sony didn't do? Buy all those major companies to control them and ensure they can never do anything Sony doesn't let them do. Instead, they focused on building up their first-party through smaller companies that they built relationships with. To no real direct detriment to competitors at the time. Moneyhat exclusivity has been the game for a long time. Every company engages in it. What every company does not engage in is acquiring massive publishers that have a calamitous consequence for competitors.

SF5 wouldn't have existed when it did without Sony having given Capcom the money to do so at a time when they were in a bad financial way. What did Sony not do? Take advantage and buy them out. When Squaresoft wanted to merge with Enix but were having financial difficulties after their Final Fantasy movie failed, Sony bought stock in them to give them a cash injection and enough stability to finish their games, convince Enix they were worth it, and complete the merger. What did Sony not do? Deny helping them and buy them out instead. They even sold off their shares later, making good on their word.

So a couple Final Fantasy games went exclusive. And? The history those two companies have is enough for that to not be a surprise. What about the time Xbox paid to have a Star Wars game exclusive to them? Or when they landed a one-year timed exclusive deal for a Tomb Raider sequel? Or when they made PlayStation Call of Duty players wait for new maps? Or paid to have Dead Rising 3 exclusive? Helped fund Ryse? What about the Ori games? Sorry, but only a desperate fanboy would point to moneyhat exclusives from a rival platform while conveniently ignoring the number of times all platform holders have done that. That is, and always will be, a whole other beast from outright buying the companies making those games and forever being the arbiter of their fate and availability.

Try as you might, there is no realistic way to compare anything Sony has done to what Microsoft is doing today. The sad part is, what Microsoft is doing may force their hand and behave like them, just to ensure they don't buy the industry from underneath them. The Xbox 360 itself, nevermind what Switch has accomplished, absolutely proved that you can compete without having to buy large chunks of the industry. Sadly, if Microsoft is allowed their way, that WILL be the only way you can compete. Assuming they leave anything for anyone else if they're unchecked. The reality is, an e-mail talking about eliminating Sony right before Microsoft tried to buy two major publishers, one of which is undergoing regulatory scrutiny the likes of which the industry has never seen. Both at values and market shares companies like Psygnosis, in the past, would have had a stroke trying to process.

Your argument is the same as so many other #SonyToo attempts. No real substance. Just finger pointing with no context, no parsing of scale, and no nuance.
 

Vognerful

Member
Because that $70 billion is not Xbox money, that's why. It's Azure/Windows/Office money that's being thrown over to the Xbox division. The 3P deals and exclusives Sony manages with PlayStation use PlayStation's money and market valuation/brand worth to leverage them.

The same is not the case for most of Xbox's 3P deals, especially WRT to the Zenimax or certainly the ABK acquisitions (but primarily the ABK one). If Xbox as a brand were driving market share and valuation to command $70 billion on its own for such deals, or bringing in big enough profits & revenue (but particularly profits) to make that $70 billion its own money for those 3P deals, very few would be complaining.

But that's not how it actually is.
This is stupid take; every new market or venture a company goes into utilizes existing funds forms other departments 9f the company. This was even the case for Sony when they entered the console market, or during PS3 era.

But again, let's your logic and let's they had enough money from Xbox to money hat every 3rd party AAA game for a year, would that be still ok?

Oh how about being more organic and just hire all the devs from Santa Monica, naughty dog and guerrilla games to work for them and make new studios, would that be still considered "acceptable competition"?
 

Three

Member
I'm sure they would not shed a tear if Sony dropped out of the market but to think they have a plan to force Sony out of the market is, well, stupid. They have failed to even compete with Sony since the Xbox, but now suddenly think they can not only compete but extinguish Sony? They totally failed to outcompete Steam on their own OS where they could add all the hooks they wanted along with money hatting GFWL exclusivity. Their own games still sell gangbusters on Steam even with tyem being 'free' on gamepass.
If they really thought they could push out Sony - either as a thought experiment or for real then they are stupid (they may be stupid, they have done lots of stupid things)
They tried this for a while even on their own PC platform. They made their games windows store exclusive (of course at the time they didn't own the studios they went on a shopping spree for) . The problem was that the windows store was shit and nobody liked using it. They even did the whole UWP thing where the likes of Tim Sweeny went on a rant like he has recently for Apple. Luckily the people and developers let that plan of theirs fail, not that MS didn't have that plan to corner the market. So nothing really stops them from planning to destroy or force Sony out of the market. It only depends on how willing the public are to go along with it.

Hahaha ok. We’re done here.
??

I'm confused, so those were random values? They weren't even proportional.
 
Last edited:

Vognerful

Member
All the all nighter water carriers seemed to run dry and abandoned thread. I wonder why that is?
Sorry doggy but the new lara croft fanfiction just dropped.


Leaving See Ya GIF by MOODMAN
 

Topher

Identifies as young
I'm sure they would not shed a tear if Sony dropped out of the market but to think they have a plan to force Sony out of the market is, well, stupid. They have failed to even compete with Sony since the Xbox, but now suddenly think they can not only compete but extinguish Sony? They totally failed to outcompete Steam on their own OS where they could add all the hooks they wanted along with money hatting GFWL exclusivity. Their own games still sell gangbusters on Steam even with tyem being 'free' on gamepass.
If they really thought they could push out Sony - either as a thought experiment or for real then they are stupid (they may be stupid, they have done lots of stupid things)

I'm trying to think of what Microsoft could possibly use to get the upper hand and push Sony out of the market....

im-584261


200.gif
 

poppabk

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
I'm trying to think of what Microsoft could possibly use to get the upper hand and push Sony out of the market....

im-584261


200.gif
It's not like MS's Great Aunt just died and they got an inheritance. It's weird that MS are apparently these ruthless motherfuckers with fuck you money but have also been treading water for 20+ years in this market.
 

Topher

Identifies as young
It's not like MS's Great Aunt just died and they got an inheritance. It's weird that MS are apparently these ruthless motherfuckers with fuck you money but have also been treading water for 20+ years in this market.

Well at some point prior to 2018 they had this revelation that if they spend a shitton of money then they could be successful at gaming. They started small with Ninja Theory/Inxile/Playground/etc and then ticked up slightly to Obsidian and then a big buy with Bethesda and now potentially the $69 billion ABK behemoth acquisition. So yeah, the light obviously came on and it seems someone said "let's use this fuck you money". The timing coincides perfect with Matt Booty's stated intention of running Sony out of gaming.
 

Dane

Member
Psygnosis did not have the impact that modern day publishers have. Not even close. Sony's acquisition of them didn't even impact the industry the way Zenimax did. And that was a smaller Western publisher compared to Ubisoft, T2, EA, and ABK. Sony's singular purchase of a publisher, 30 years ago, was meant to help solidify their entry into the market. Giving them a good foundation against multiple established competitors. None of whom experienced big negative consequences of the acquisition. Especially since Psygnosis continued making games for rival platforms for years. That is perfectly fine. It was about ease of entry. Not paid-for dominance.

Many games that were exclusive to PlayStation early on were that way because they were given a way out from Nintendo's predatory practices and because Sega fucked up the launch of Saturn. Making Sony a default choice, by the fault of their competitors. Sony went on to have great relationships with those companies that extended into the next generation. Many of their high profile exclusives being third-party Japanese games. But that kind of exclusivity did not last. Even during the PS2 era, companies began releasing their games elsewhere. The Metal Gear Solid remake released only on Gamecube. Resident Evil 4 also released on Gamecube well before a PS2 version. GTA and MGS games started releasing on Xbox. They would eventually lose Final Fantasy and Tekken. By the PS3 days, most franchises that had deals with PlayStation like that were largely gone.

You know what Sony didn't do? Buy all those major companies to control them and ensure they can never do anything Sony doesn't let them do. Instead, they focused on building up their first-party through smaller companies that they built relationships with. To no real direct detriment to competitors at the time. Moneyhat exclusivity has been the game for a long time. Every company engages in it. What every company does not engage in is acquiring massive publishers that have a calamitous consequence for competitors.

SF5 wouldn't have existed when it did without Sony having given Capcom the money to do so at a time when they were in a bad financial way. What did Sony not do? Take advantage and buy them out. When Squaresoft wanted to merge with Enix but were having financial difficulties after their Final Fantasy movie failed, Sony bought stock in them to give them a cash injection and enough stability to finish their games, convince Enix they were worth it, and complete the merger. What did Sony not do? Deny helping them and buy them out instead. They even sold off their shares later, making good on their word.

So a couple Final Fantasy games went exclusive. And? The history those two companies have is enough for that to not be a surprise. What about the time Xbox paid to have a Star Wars game exclusive to them? Or when they landed a one-year timed exclusive deal for a Tomb Raider sequel? Or when they made PlayStation Call of Duty players wait for new maps? Or paid to have Dead Rising 3 exclusive? Helped fund Ryse? What about the Ori games? Sorry, but only a desperate fanboy would point to moneyhat exclusives from a rival platform while conveniently ignoring the number of times all platform holders have done that. That is, and always will be, a whole other beast from outright buying the companies making those games and forever being the arbiter of their fate and availability.

Try as you might, there is no realistic way to compare anything Sony has done to what Microsoft is doing today. The sad part is, what Microsoft is doing may force their hand and behave like them, just to ensure they don't buy the industry from underneath them. The Xbox 360 itself, nevermind what Switch has accomplished, absolutely proved that you can compete without having to buy large chunks of the industry. Sadly, if Microsoft is allowed their way, that WILL be the only way you can compete. Assuming they leave anything for anyone else if they're unchecked. The reality is, an e-mail talking about eliminating Sony right before Microsoft tried to buy two major publishers, one of which is undergoing regulatory scrutiny the likes of which the industry has never seen. Both at values and market shares companies like Psygnosis, in the past, would have had a stroke trying to process.

Your argument is the same as so many other #SonyToo attempts. No real substance. Just finger pointing with no context, no parsing of scale, and no nuance.

Didn't Sony buy them because they didn't want... or because they didn't have the money? Psygnosis was definetely big at its time, you're comparing two eras without getting the proportion, Ubisoft was a small time company, Take two didn't even exist, Activision was getting off the ground after being nearly bankrupt, only EA was big. Sony had a massive amount of money at its time, so did Microsoft, the difference is that one had a growth in a single division while the other had growth in multiple fields.

Call of Duty would still remain multiplatform just like what Psygnosis did in early years, and Sony tried to get rid of them because of that only to realize its value but nonethless proceeded to make everything exclusive by late 2000.

So a couple Final Fantasy games went exclusive. And? The history those two companies have is enough for that to not be a surprise. What about the time Xbox paid to have a Star Wars game exclusive to them? Or when they landed a one-year timed exclusive deal for a Tomb Raider sequel? Or when they made PlayStation Call of Duty players wait for new maps? Or paid to have Dead Rising 3 exclusive? Helped fund Ryse? What about the Ori games? Sorry, but only a desperate fanboy would point to moneyhat exclusives from a rival platform while conveniently ignoring the number of times all platform holders have done that. That is, and always will be, a whole other beast from outright buying the companies making those games and forever being the arbiter of their fate and availability.

When Microsoft had something exclusive it was 12 month at worst, while Sony is god knows when like it its happening with FF7R, not even Call of Duty went that far with having modes locked for a year. But what i'm saying its just business, Sony decided to pay out for games, Microsoft decided to acquire studios, no company will mimick what the other will do quote by quote.
 
Well anything, and I'm not trying to tie down specifics because there's a whole host of things they could do so you can ignore that part and the question still gives me the desired answer.

You said that people underestimate how much money MS will make from the deal, and cite how King prints money. You then say that they don't have to remove COD. So the inference there is that there's going to be no burning need for MS to change anything for the deal make financial sense and thus hypothetically Microsoft could acquire ABK and keep it running as-is. They make zero changes, and that's OK because you think King makes so much money that the deal is still good for MS.

Is that in line with your thinking?

I would imagine they’d keep King as is and keep CoD multi platform. Outside of that is anyone’s guess. But those are the two key pieces in the deal and they’d leave them be.

They could make Diablo V or something Xbox/Windows exclusive, who knows.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I would imagine they’d keep King as is and keep CoD multi platform. Outside of that is anyone’s guess. But those are the two key pieces in the deal and they’d leave them be.

They could make Diablo V or something Xbox/Windows exclusive, who knows.

I don't think MS would want to fuck with Acti/bliz's development pipeline if the acquisition goes through.
 

ZehDon

Member
Never forget.......Phil Harrison? I think the gaming world collectively is trying to forget him.
I really do wonder how Harrison keeps getting work. Saw Sony into their darkest hours, short stint with Microsoft into their darkest hours, joined Google's game team right before it was closed, join Google's cloud team and saw the rise and fall of Stadia. Bad luck or is he cursed?
 

Topher

Identifies as young
I really do wonder how Harrison keeps getting work. Saw Sony into their darkest hours, short stint with Microsoft into their darkest hours, joined Google's game team right before it was closed, join Google's cloud team and saw the rise and fall of Stadia. Bad luck or is he cursed?

Don't forget his stint at Atari. I used to think he just had bad luck, but after the Stadia shitshow, I just don't think he is good at envisioning/making gaming products. I'll never know how he sold Sony on PlayStation Home.
 
Don't forget his stint at Atari. I used to think he just had bad luck, but after the Stadia shitshow, I just don't think he is good at envisioning/making gaming products. I'll never know how he sold Sony on PlayStation Home.
Hey, now. There was nothing wrong with Home. I liked getting on there every now and then and messing around. There were always plenty people on there. Apparently, it was profitable, too.

Honestly, with the power of the PS5 and better tech we have, I'd love to see a new version of it with VR support. Become PS's own VR Chat.
 

Topher

Identifies as young
Hey, now. There was nothing wrong with Home. I liked getting on there every now and then and messing around. There were always plenty people on there. Apparently, it was profitable, too.

Honestly, with the power of the PS5 and better tech we have, I'd love to see a new version of it with VR support. Become PS's own VR Chat.

Never clicked with me. To each their own. Glad others enjoyed it.
 
I don't understand why astroturfing isn't heavily punishable by law.
We would have clean internet conversations if corporate heads were facing jail time for disturbing it (and looking at what it does to politics and social issues, it should be jail time).

Same reason why lobbying isn’t illegal; megacorps run this country and want every advantage possible at the expense of everyone else

And it’s only going to get worse with AI. Astroturfing bots that will push forth an agenda, already happening
 

Varteras

Member
Didn't Sony buy them because they didn't want... or because they didn't have the money?

What are you even talking about?

Psygnosis was definetely big at its time, you're comparing two eras without getting the proportion, Ubisoft was a small time company, Take two didn't even exist, Activision was getting off the ground after being nearly bankrupt, only EA was big. Sony had a massive amount of money at its time, so did Microsoft, the difference is that one had a growth in a single division while the other had growth in multiple fields.

The one completely getting eras out of proportion is you. Psygnosis was nowhere near any modern publishers for how big of a deal it was. You're not even following what I said. I compared what Psygnosis was then to what Zenimax, Ubisoft, T2, EA, and ABK mean to gaming today. It wouldn't even compare to how important those publishers are now. Microsoft buying Zenimax today was a bigger deal than Sony buying Psygnosis back then. And Zenimax is small compared to the rest. Sony paid $30 million (20 in pounds) for Psygnosis in 1993. Your sources may vary, but video game sales in 1993 were $19.8 billion globally. That means Sony bought Psygnosis for the equivalent of 0.15% of video game sales that year. Microsoft paid $7.2 billion for Zenimax in 2021. That's close to 4% (3.8) to what video game sales were in 2021, which were $190 billion. Again sources vary, but not much.

Microsoft's attempted buyout of ABK, at $68.7 billion, would be the equivalent of 36.5% of video game sales in 2022. So think about that. 30 years ago, Sony bought a publisher for the equivalent of 0.15% of video game sales at the time. Microsoft is attempting two publisher purchases roughly worth 40% of video game sales in any given year the last couple years. You tell me whose purchases made bigger waves. Yeah, I'm sure there are some other things to consider, but the bottomline is that the publishers Microsoft is buying today represent far larger slices of the pie than Psygnosis could have ever hoped for decades ago.

Buying a publisher isn't even the big problem. Buying multiple of them, including the biggest one outside of Tencent, with a stated desire to remove Sony right before you do, while you've already been in the industry for over 20 years, is. Sony, in its entire 30 years in the console space, did not buy any of the actually big companies at any point. They didn't buy Konami or Capcom or Squaresoft or EA. They never bought anything that would be the equivalent to what Zenimax and ABK are today. Everything they bought was small and relatively ineffectual to their competitors at the time they bought them.

Call of Duty would still remain multiplatform just like what Psygnosis did in early years.

It doesn't matter if Call of Duty may or may not stay multiplat. You do not risk it. You do not risk a company with as much money as Microsoft, able to easily weather the financial losses of foreclosure, to be in control of that. You do not trust them to not take such a massive company and foreclose competitors with it. You (not you specifically) are a fucking idiot to be okay with that. You would be allowing them to grab two huge companies and hope they do the "right" thing. Microsoft's history shows that's a bad gamble. And it's not even just Call of Duty. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Doom, Overwatch, Diablo, Warcraft. All powerful franchises themselves.

When Microsoft had something exclusive it was 12 month at worst, while Sony is god knows when like it its happening with FF7R, not even Call of Duty went that far with having modes locked for a year.

Are you serious? Do you really not know how many times Xbox has had exclusive games from third parties? Knights of the Old Republic? Mass Effect? Call of Duty 2? Splinter Cell Conviction? Left 4 Dead and Left 4 Dead 2? Dead Rising 3? Ryse? Quake 4? Chronicles of Riddick? Elder Scrolls 3? Jade Empire? Lost Odyssey? Ace Combat 6? Dead or Alive 4? The Gears of War franchise before Epic sold it to them? I could go on. But Xbox had plenty of third party exclusives. New franchises and sequels to older ones that never went anywhere else. If they did, it was so incredibly long after that no one cared anymore. And there is nothing wrong with that. Moneyhatting has been going on forever. You make deals with other companies to get their games. You make a better offer than your competitor. Sometimes that's all money. Sometimes you throw in perks like free marketing or helping make the game.

What? You think that just because Microsoft has stopped moneyhatting and decided to just outright buy companies that they're somehow on a moral high ground or that it should be acceptable because they fucked up big and found themselves in a hole? That is such an asinine point to try and make. Microsoft is trying to shift the status quo from a game everyone has played to a game only a company like them could possibly win. We know their intent and they're showing their capability. This is something entirely unlike anything the market has ever seen. There is absolutely no equivalent to this. Someone trying to obfuscate that truth is doing little more than simping for a corporation.
 
Last edited:

Gamerguy84

Member
I seen gamepass as something MS believed would have a major market shift immediately. It didn't and the sales gap just kept widening.

When I heard the rumblings of the zenimax purchase I was shocked. One of my first posts/reactions was wtf are they trying to buy gaming?

The answer to that is apparently yes, yes they are.
 

ProtoByte

Weeb Underling
Well at some point prior to 2018 they had this revelation that if they spend a shitton of money then they could be successful at gaming. They started small with Ninja Theory/Inxile/Playground/etc and then ticked up slightly to Obsidian and then a big buy with Bethesda and now potentially the $69 billion ABK behemoth acquisition. So yeah, the light obviously came on and it seems someone said "let's use this fuck you money". The timing coincides perfect with Matt Booty's stated intention of running Sony out of gaming.
And when that inevitably fails, you can be sure that Sony will be blamed for Microsoft deciding to bet the house and losing entirely, all because they just couldn't figure out how to operate in a traditional gaming industry.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
All the all nighter water carriers seemed to run dry and abandoned thread. I wonder why that is?
Some of them are still here putting up a fight on Psygnosis, some are still finding no issue that Xbox is spending almost more MS’s monopolies money than their competitors are worth buying multiplatform third party publishers (which is why we need regulators being on point and scrutinising these deals), some have tried to post some 20 years old SonyToo meme and kept quoting and high giving each other (a group of three usual suspects) but stopped and left when they saw that it was not derailing the thread, and some others are busy defending the GamePass and Xbox price increases as positives.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Microsoft's attempted buyout of ABK, at $68.7 billion, would be the equivalent of 36.5% of video game sales in 2022. So think about that. 30 years ago, Sony bought a publisher for the equivalent of 0.15% of video game sales at the time. Microsoft is attempting two publisher purchases roughly worth 40% of video game sales in any given year the last couple years. You tell me whose purchases made bigger waves. Yeah, I'm sure there are some other things to consider, but the bottomline is that the publishers Microsoft is buying today represent far larger slices of the pie than Psygnosis could have ever hoped for decades ago
They know, this is just bog standard attempt at deflecting and derailing…
 
Last edited:

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
I don't think MS would want to fuck with Acti/bliz's development pipeline if the acquisition goes through.
Same thing as with Arkane, only a light touch with Redfall and left them free otherwise… now out of all the interventions they could have done, I wonder what they did do… mmmh, in the spirit of bringing the games to wider audiences and respecting what they told regulators too I mean…
 
Last edited:

hyperbertha

Member
Define underhand tactics.

The merger would make MS so much revenue over the years and CoD is a big part of that and having CoD on as many devices as possible is a key part of why CoD is what it is. They lose that by making it exclusive. Im not saying anything on ABK as a whole, we were discussing CoD.

They could lock up every other game ABK has in the works for all we know. But they’ve shown in the past that they value revenue over making something exclusive just for exclusives sake. This will continue to change on a case by case basis no doubt.
You are disingenuously looking at only the short term. Taking away cod will have disastrous consequences for sony, massively increase xbox and gamepass sales, and guarantee exponential revenue increase from ALL future games. That's how market share works. having a majority of gaming population on your platform is always far more profitable than multiplatform sales of a single aaa title. Of course you would conveniently overlook that fact.
 

Varteras

Member
Plus it's not like anyone was realistically going to the shop like:

seinfeld GIF by HULU

"oh shit Wipeout isn't on N64... guess I better buy a Playstation"

I mean, for fuck's sake, just look back through their releases prior to 1993 and tell me with a straight face they were some big force in gaming. Outside of Lemmings, every game they were really known for happened AFTER Sony bought them. I'm sure Terrorpods and Ballistix were big industry shakers 4 to 6 years before the purchase.
 

Azurro

Banned
This is stupid take; every new market or venture a company goes into utilizes existing funds forms other departments 9f the company. This was even the case for Sony when they entered the console market, or during PS3 era.

But again, let's your logic and let's they had enough money from Xbox to money hat every 3rd party AAA game for a year, would that be still ok?

Oh how about being more organic and just hire all the devs from Santa Monica, naughty dog and guerrilla games to work for them and make new studios, would that be still considered "acceptable competition"?

You know there are regulations against this right? That's monopolistic behaviour.

I get having an attachment to a brand, I have an attachment to Sony (and Nintendo to a much lesser degree), but I honestly can't believe that plastic boxes make people irrational enough to support this statement: "monopolistic practices are ok as long as it's MS doing them".
 

SF Kosmo

Banned
Isn't that the reason any business does anything? To get rid of their competition?
Isn't that the reason anti-trust laws exist? To stop businesses from doing that?

MS is definitely talking out of both sides of their mouth on this, and lying about their long term intentions. I like MS but I hope the deal doesn't go through, because I think it's a dog of a deal and they're paying 10 times more than it's going to be worth.
 

jumpship

Member
This news really recontextualises everything MS have said over the course of this generation. And they've said alot.

For instance this comment by Phil Spencer "Call of Duty will remain on PlayStation for as long as it exists" in light of this news takes on a far more sinister tone hinting at a sense of inevitabity for the demise of the brand.

Turns out that's exactly what they're hoping to achieve. It's just such a shame with their resources MS are unwilling to put in the hard work and really push gaming forward instead hell bent on being the only choice in town.
 
Don't forget his stint at Atari. I used to think he just had bad luck, but after the Stadia shitshow, I just don't think he is good at envisioning/making gaming products. I'll never know how he sold Sony on PlayStation Home.
PlayStation home was a really nice and futuristic product. Unfortunately it never really became big. Loved playing around in it for a few hours though. Pretty futuristic for the time it was released.

Besides that, Phil H is the perfect person to fail upwards apparently. I guess you can’t call yourself a respectable gaming company if he didn’t fail at yours yet.
 

Ar¢tos

Member
Didn't Sony buy them because they didn't want... or because they didn't have the money? Psygnosis was definetely big at its time, you're comparing two eras without getting the proportion, Ubisoft was a small time company, Take two didn't even exist, Activision was getting off the ground after being nearly bankrupt, only EA was big. Sony had a massive amount of money at its time, so did Microsoft, the difference is that one had a growth in a single division while the other had growth in multiple fields.

Call of Duty would still remain multiplatform just like what Psygnosis did in early years, and Sony tried to get rid of them because of that only to realize its value but nonethless proceeded to make everything exclusive by late 2000.



When Microsoft had something exclusive it was 12 month at worst, while Sony is god knows when like it its happening with FF7R, not even Call of Duty went that far with having modes locked for a year. But what i'm saying its just business, Sony decided to pay out for games, Microsoft decided to acquire studios, no company will mimick what the other will do quote by quote.
FF7R and FF7R Intergrade exclusivity period was very public and already ended.
If Square doesn't release it on XSX/S it's because they don't see the amount of potential profit from sales be worth what they would spend porting, debugging and optimizing 2 Xbox versions of the game, or some other reason unrelated to Sony.
Ask Square instead of crying about Sony.
 
Top Bottom