Support NeoGAF

[Unknown?]

I'm not missing a big part. I never said anything about me agreeing or disagreeing with it, I'm just clarifying that argument that MS has laid forward for approval of the acquisition, and that it doesn't matter to differentiate between self published or not in that context.

Nah it's just a bad argument in general. I see what they're trying to do but it won't hold much water.

 

[Neofire]

Oh so MS is trying to equate having a 3 games(some yet to be released) on Playstation and not on Xbox to dozens of IPs going exclusive (forever) on Xbox if they are allowed to buy ABK.......yeaaaah okay.

 

[Danjin44]

Some people might get triggered by this but if you fan of Japanese games and JRPGs, you better off getting PS5, Switch and PC over Xbox, this has been know even near end of 360 era.

 

[adamsapple]

Some people might get triggered by this but if you fan of Japanese games and JRPGs, you better off getting PS5, Switch and PC over Xbox, this has been know even near end of 360 era.

You're missing the point, one company is actively making money deals to prevent those games from coming to Xbox possibly in perpetuity. Of course that would make it seem like that x console is the only place to play y type of games.

It wouldn't be an issue if those games were readily available everywhere.

Oh so MS is trying to equate having a 3 games(some yet to be released) on Playstation and not on Xbox to dozens of IPs going exclusive (forever) on Xbox if they are allowed to buy ABK.......yeaaaah okay.

Talk about taking the completely wrong takeaway lol

 

[Iced Arcade]

Said multiple times.... Can't wait for all the dirty laundry to be put out in display over this acquisition. Shit stains everywhere

 

[Kagey K]

Said multiple times.... Can't wait for all the dirty laundry to be put out in display over this acquisition.

I think we've seen basically all we are going to see, between Brazil and the CMA both sides have said all they have to say.

 

[Danjin44]

You're missing the point, one company is actively making money deals to prevent those games from coming to Xbox possibly in perpetuity. Of course that would make it seem like that x console is the only place to play y type of games.

It wouldn't be an issue if those games were readily available everywhere.

I myself hate that Sony waste money to keep games like Final Fantasy VIIR and XVI exclusive, even it wast exclusive the game would still sell better on playstation. I would rather Sony would put that resource on making their own first party JRPG.

 

[Topher]

You're missing the point, one company is actively making money deals to prevent those games from coming to Xbox possibly in perpetuity. Of course that would make it seem like that x console is the only place to play y type of games.

It wouldn't be an issue if those games were readily available everywhere.

Microsoft is also making money deals to keep games off of PlayStation. Folks have been raving about High on Life, including me, but can't get that on PS5.

 

[Dick Jones]

So Kojima's game partnered with Xbox is coming to PlayStation based on the argument. Otherwise why the fuck is Bloodborne brought up. If the defence document can make basic errors here, where else have they fucked up.

 

[SenkiDala]

Isn't this just... 3rd party exclusives then ? I has always existed, you think Dead or Alive 3, Sega GT, Jet Set Radio Future couldn't be ported to PS2 ? Or NGC ? What prevented those developpers to do so ? Probably a signed agreement... Both parties accepted those deals.

Why everyone is so surprised about those things ?

And stop with those "but MS is paying to bring games to more people while Sony is paying to bring games to less people", that's so dumb... If so, why are they making Starfield exclusive ? The game was announced before the potential acquisition of ABK by MS, and what about Elder Scroll VI that has been announced as exclusive too ? PlayStation gamers too loved Oblivion and Skyrim, Skyrim sold way more on PS systems than Xbox ones.

But that's what those companies do, they use money to get exclusive stuff. Content is king, right ?

 

[RCU005]

f we assume sales splits are still around 80/20 in favor of PS, then Sony pays SQEX enough to offset 20% sales. SQEX gets the 80% sales plus a check

But it's still 100% Square Enix decision to sign exclusivity deal. If Sony tells them they will pay them not release on Xbox, it's them who decide to agree, not Sony. Also, it can't be true because it's explicitly shown in trailers when the deal is over, so after that, Square Enix can do whatever they want.

 

[adamsapple]

Microsoft is also making money deals to keep games off of PlayStation. Folks have been raving about High on Life, including me, but can't get that on PS5.

High on Life, while excellent, is nowhere near a name brand like FF or SH, which is the point the document raised.

Otherwise we can talk about games like Stray, Kena and more for a while.

 

[nial]

Why are people getting so upset over Bloodborne being mentioned there? It makes perfect sense in the context. It says that Sony entered arrangements with third party publishers (In this case, the term publisher should also be read as developer) to require the exclusion of the Xbox platform. Sony indeed entered arrangements with FromSoft to develop bloodborne and to not release it on Xbox Platforms. The fact that the deal includes Sony getting full ownership of the IP is kind of irrelevant to the point. The context is to "Prove" that Sony will still have plenty of exclusive content and that content exclusivity is normal.

Sony has made agreements with third-party publishers that require Xbox to be 'excluded' from the pool of platforms that those publishers can distribute their games on

That's the thing, Bloodborne is not a third party published game. There was no contractual agreement for the game to exclude Xbox, Sony simply did not (of course) order a non-PS4 version of the title.

There's no reason to differentiate between an exclusive obtained by paying off a third party publisher or acting as the publisher for a third party developer yourself

Surprise, Bloodborne was co-developed with first-party Studio SCE Japan, so I don't know how it would count here.

 

[Hendrick's]

Good to see them finally calling out the hypocrisy. I expect a lot more of this to be hitting the news.

 

[adamsapple]

Good to see them finally calling out the hypocrisy. I expect a lot more of this to be hitting the news.

If this goes to court, expect a lot of juicy stuff like figures paid for content to come out ala the Epic lawsuit.

 

[Punished Miku]

But it's still 100% Square Enix decision to sign exclusivity deal. If Sony tells them they will pay them not release on Xbox, it's them who decide to agree, not Sony. Also, it can't be true because it's explicitly shown in trailers when the deal is over, so after that, Square Enix can do whatever they want.

Activision decision to sell also. Doesn't really say much obviously.

 

[Topher]

High on Life, while excellent, is nowhere near a name brand like FF or SH, which is the point the document raised.

Otherwise we can talk about games like Stray, Kena and more for a while.

Of course the document raises that point. The document is written by Microsoft. So they ignore their own moneyhatting and point to Sony's. Doesn't matter if we are talking about name brands or not, it is still hypocrisy.

And I'm completely fine talking about any game when it comes to moneyhatting games. I think it is silly to say one is bad and the other is ok. It is all bad.

If this goes to court, expect a lot of juicy stuff like figures paid for content to come out ala the Epic lawsuit.

I bet Microsoft isn't relishing that thought any more than Sony is.

 

[K' Dash]

its actually Sony the one crying like a bitch, lol

 

[Kagey K]

But it's still 100% Square Enix decision to sign exclusivity deal. If Sony tells them they will pay them not release on Xbox, it's them who decide to agree, not Sony. Also, it can't be true because it's explicitly shown in trailers when the deal is over, so after that, Square Enix can do whatever they want.

It actually doesn't it says at least until Day X, we've seen in some of these contracts that Sony gets rights of first refusal and can choose to extend it if they wish. So it's not as simple as the date posted in the trailer.

 

[reinking]

 

[TGO]

So it's a good ol'fashioned exclusive

Source ?

like, just think about it for a second. Square is putting Crisis Core on Xbox, but not FFVII remake. Do you *really* think it's because they don't deem it worthwhile, or because Sony paid to extend the exclusivity, which they already did once for Intergrade and beyond.

c'mon

I mean during Development the option is wide open, but when you have Exclusivity deals like this for as long as they are.
You asking the Devs to go back and port.
And in the case of FFVIIR they are busy working on the second chapter
Yes they can hand off to another team while they do that but that cost money which don't always come back to them when the fanbase is already catered for.
For you it's worth it, but for SE & the Devs that would have to do it....not so much.

 

[K' Dash]

at some point MS will get tired of this shit and just hand blank checks to Phil to brute force through the red tape, they can afford it and I'm surprised they have not done it yet.

 

[Kacho]

Not sure why Microsoft stopped doing these deals themselves. The low budget indie trash like High on Life doesn't count. What was the last big exclusive they paid for? Tomb Raider? It must cost them a fourtune because they're so far behind the other companies.

 

[adamsapple]

Of course the document raises that point. The document is written by Microsoft. So they ignore their own moneyhatting and point to Sony's. Doesn't matter if we are talking about name brands or not, it is still hypocrisy.

And I'm completely fine talking about any game when it comes to moneyhatting games. I think it is silly to say one is bad and the other is ok. It is all bad.

I mean, no one's denying that MS isn't moneyhatting stuff too, but the points made in the OP are very specifically talking about the big named marquee franchises that are good for selling hardware.

Like I said, we can talk about smaller games like Kena, Tunic, Medium, High on Life, Stary, Valkyrie Elysium etc etc all day long, but that is another topic altogether.

I bet Microsoft isn't relishing that thought any more than Sony is.

It would be nice to have transparency all round.

 

[Punished Miku]

Not sure why Microsoft stopped doing these deals themselves. The low budget indie trash like High on Life doesn't count. What was the last big exclusive they paid for? Tomb Raider? It must cost them a fourtune because they're so far behind the other companies.

Its a waste of money for them. I explained why earlier. They're being much smarter now.

 

[Topher]

It actually doesn't it says at least until Day X, we've seen in some of these contracts that Sony gets rights of first refusal and can choose to extend it if they wish. So it's not as simple as the date posted in the trailer.

No, those were marketing agreements that stipulated the game could not be on Game Pass for a year and Sony had 6 months after that year to match any offer. There was no clause to extend past those 6 months.

I mean, no one's denying that MS isn't moneyhatting stuff too, but the points made in the OP are very specifically talking about the big named marquee franchises that are good for selling hardware.

Like I said, we can talk about smaller games like Kena, Tunic, Medium, High on Life, Stary, Valkyrie Elysium etc etc all day long, but that is another topic altogether.

Except that you said there was "one company" doing these "money deals" and that needed to be corrected. Either way, the topic is timed exclusives and Microsoft's moneyhatting is absolutely fair game and on topic. The fact that Microsoft doesn't want to talk about it doesn't change that.

It would be nice to have transparency all round.

Agreed.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Not sure why Microsoft stopped doing these deals themselves. The low budget indie trash like High on Life doesn't count. What was the last big exclusive they paid for? Tomb Raider? It must cost them a fourtune because they're so far behind the other companies.

MS abandoned this strategy years ago. Why they expected Sony to follow suit and also stop doing them, who the fuck knows.

The silver lining for Xbox fans here is Sonys track record of moneyhats recently has been awful. Avengers, Babylons Fall, Forspoken, Godfall. That is a murderers row of games that stink.

 

[Rykan]

That's the thing, Bloodborne is not a third party published game. There was no contractual agreement for the game to exclude Xbox, Sony simply did not (of course) order a non-PS4 version of the title.

Once again, the comment needs to be taken into context. There was a contractual agreement with a third party developer to develop Bloodborne exclusively for the PS4. That is, in practice and in context, the exact same thing as paying for excluding the game on the Xbox platform. Again, the point of the argument is to highlight that Sony has different methods of obtaining exclusive games and that exclusives are both normal and common. This is nitpicking over terminology that has no relevancy to the argument laid forward.

You can have a discussion of which you personally prefer as a consumer (IE console manufacturer financing new games entirely vs purchasing exclusivity rights of already existing games) but that's an entirely different discussion that is completely separate from the context in which these comments were made.

Surprise, Bloodborne was co-developed...

The game was primarily developed by FromSoft. It's called "Co development" but what they really mean is publishing duties. Any other studio besides FromSoft was a supporting studio at best. Callisto Protocol was also partly developed with the aid of Playstation studios.

 

[adamsapple]

Not sure why Microsoft stopped doing these deals themselves. The low budget indie trash like High on Life doesn't count. What was the last big exclusive they paid for? Tomb Raider? It must cost them a fourtune because they're so far behind the other companies.

I think them not doing the deals almost entirely through the XBO gen bit them bad (along with various other issues through out that console) and they're looking to remedy that hence the multiple studio acquisitions on the verge of and following the Series console launch.

MS abandoned this strategy years ago. Why they expected Sony to follow suit and also stop doing them, who the fuck knows.

The silver lining for Xbox fans here is Sonys track record of moneyhats recently has been awful. Avengers, Babylons Fall, Forspoken, Godfall. That is a murderers row of games that stink.

I'm extremely intrigued at the kind of critical reception Forspoken gets, whether it'll be as bad as this years Babylon's Fall or better.

 

[lh032]

Does Sony own square or something?

For those who think this is series, nope, just poking fun here. Game is timed exclusive. nothing more. It will come to xbox eventually.

 

[K2D]

If MS or Nintendo strikes a deal with, let's say Square Enix, to develop a 3rd party exclusive akin to Bloodborne - That's great! Might be a game that otherwise wouldn't see the light of day.

Hey guess what..? Xbox fans are already getting that through Kojima productions!

What are you crying about? Silly console warriors..

 

[Swift_Star]

MS is embarrassing themselves with this document. Pure desperation.
They're also distorting reality and lying. This is going to backfire massively.

 

[Swift_Star]

Good to see them finally calling out the hypocrisy. I expect a lot more of this to be hitting the news.

lol but everyone does this… this is backfiring hard

 

[Ansphn]

Microsoft, the master of crying and hypocrisy. They really think people are brain dead.

 

[RCU005]

Activision decision to sell also. Doesn't really say much obviously.

Not true. Activation deal has to go through many external regulations, hence this thread. So it's definitely not just a decision to sell.

 

[Valedix]

 

[bender]

Does Sony own square or something?

Sony owns the Xbox gaming division, not Square.

 

[Lord Malachite]

I love how it's not mentioned that the publisher actually has to have a desire to release the games on other platforms. Microsoft is trying to make it out like publishers are desperate to release games on Xbox but Big Bad Sony will beat them up if they try. These are timed exclusives and if the games fail to materialize on Xbox after that exclusivity ends that is because the publisher decided there were better uses of their resources than rereleasing an aging game on a platform they don't feel it would have performed well on to begin with.

 

[SSfox]

MS was doing this, Ninja Gaiden, DOA, TR, GTA, and so on.

But now they need to whine about Sony doing it to justify their buying big 3rd party publishers.

 

[adamsapple]

Microsoft, the master of crying and hypocrisy. They really think people are brain dead.

Welcome back !

Not true. Activation deal has to go through many external regulations, hence this thread. So it's definitely not just a decision to sell.

I think it's kinda obvious Miku is talking about Activision's willingness to put themselves up for sale, and this not being a hostile takeover.

 

[ANDS]

Not true. The dynamics of the current market make it extremely favorable to the dominant system.

If we assume sales splits are still around 80/20 in favor of PS, then Sony pays SQEX enough to offset 20% sales. SQEX gets the 80% sales plus a check. Xbox has to cover 80% sales. It's probably 3x more expensive to get a timed exclusive for them, or more. And then Xbox only sells a smaller amount as well. Do this over and over and you bleed your competition dry from a position of market dominance. The systemic forces favor Sony. It's preventing any other players from competing directly on merit. They're priced out.

Then take a loss and offer more money. There's nothing that says any of this has to be fair, just legal. If MS was serious about throwing their money around, then they'd be okay taking on unfavorable deals. Look at FF:SOP, you can't tell me MS couldn't have stepped in at some point and tossed some money at a risky project like that for exclusive rights.

 

[adamsapple]

Then take a loss and offer more money. There's nothing that says any of this has to be fair, just legal. If MS was serious about throwing their money around, then they'd be okay taking on unfavorable deals. Look at FF:SOP, you can't tell me MS couldn't have stepped in at some point and tossed some money at a risky project like that for exclusive rights.

This is assuming there aren't any existing / longstanding agreements between Sony and Square about rights to refusal or thereabout.

 

[GHG]

As I said before, Sony is a greedy snake that doesn't want any sort of competition. They crying like a baby about the MS Cod deal because they don't want any competition.

For that reason alone I hope MS wins it.

If there is a company that is Anti-competitive and fair play its Sony.

Not like MS are bunch of Angels. But fuck. to release a game on every platform but not Xbox is an ass move no matter how you see it.

Nah, fuck em.

 

[Umbasaborne]

If sony wants to buy square then fine they should just do it. Instead of this fucking horse shit

 

[feynoob]

Sony owns MS

 

[Cyber_hunter026]

Idk what's sadder, that Microsoft or Sony behaving like children on a playground. bickering back and forth. or some of the users in this thread playing the victim for a corporation?

 

[feynoob]

Idk what's sadder, that Microsoft or Sony behaving like children on a playground. bickering back and forth. or some of the users in this thread playing the victim for a corporation?

Their fans.
Sony and MS are crying with pockets full of money

 

[Kumomeme]

lol microsoft really desperate lmao

 

[remember_spinal]

 

[Jormatar]

So how does that differ from any other exclusive deal? I'm sure we would see games like Sunset Overdrive release on PlayStation if Microsoft allows it.