IFireflyl
Gold Member
Last edited:
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Rykan
Member
I may have been off on the exact moment, but MS had an agreement with Moon Studios that ended due to allegations regarding the work environment. Moon Studios had to look for another publisher because of that. The news came out last year, but the arrangement may have ended earlier.
Let me break it down: At its core, the question regulators are looking to answer is this: Will the AB acquisition lead to an unfair advantage if AB content were to be made exclusive to the Xbox platform, or more specifically: Call of Duty.
This is what Microsoft lays forward: Microsoft argues that exclusive content, meaning content that won't be released on competing consoles, are a common practice in the video game industry which all console platform holders make use of and that a possible Call of Duty exclusivity to the Xbox Platform should not be an objection to MS acquiring AB. MS points out that Sony is still capable of competing and getting exclusive content for its own through either its own studios or by contracting third party developers to develop exclusive games for them.
This is the actual argument that Microsoft lays forward and the fact that Sony acts as the publisher of Bloodborne and Sackboy is completely besides the point and completely irrelevant Because the POINT that MS is making is that Sony can get exclusive content of its own through agreements with third party developers. They call it third party content because in the context of the situation, it is.
You can certainly have a discussion whether you think that argument is good or bad, but arguing over the fact that they are cited as third party developed title instead of "first party" because Sony happens to be the publisher is missing the forest for the trees.
The irony is big with this one.
Last edited:
So why did you try and argue that Moon Studios is somehow different? Moon studios was a contracted third party developer too much like any other listed. I'm not interested in why they may not have signed for any future games because that's irrelevant. They were a third party developer and they were contracted to make a first party game for MS. Much like From were with Bloodborne or Sumo with Sackboy.
I think the person missing the forest for the trees is anybody referring to Bloodborne as third party content 'excluded from xbox' in the same vein as FF. You clearly haven't read the statements by the MS lawyers. Heisenberg007's point was that the lawyers are probably clueless based on that and not doing the subpoena correctly.
For reference this is what the lawyers stated:
"In addition to having outright
exclusive content, Sony has also entered into arrangements with third-party publishers which require the "exclusion" of Xbox from the set of platforms these publishers can
distribute their games on. Some prominent examples of these agreements include Final
Fantasy VII Remake (Square Enix), Bloodborne (From Software),... "
Notice it says "in addition to", notice it says "their games" when referring to "these publishers". Now imagine saying
"in addition to outright exclusive content MS has also entered into arrangements with third-party publishers which require the "exclusion" of Playstation
from the set of platforms these publishers can distribute their games on, prominent examples of these agreements include Titanfall (EA), Ori (Moon Studio), Halo (Certain Affinity) , Crackdown (Sumo Digital) , Perfect Dark (Crystal Dynamics), ..."
Bloodborne is Sony's game much like those are MS'. The fact that a third party developer was contracted to develop them doesn't make them third party publisher's games excluded from distribution on xbox or vice versa.
Rykan
Member
Because a contract with a studio to only produce titles for one publisher (MS, in this case) is not the same as a contract with a developer to produce one single game while that same developer can simultaneously develop games for other platforms or publisher. That is why MS called them First Party. The poster I was having the discussion with incorrectly accused Microsoft of hypocrisy because he ignored the contest in which the statements were made.
Sony has an agreement with SE to develop FF7: Remake for the PS4 and to not release in on Xbox console. Sony also has an agreement with FromSoft to develop a game exclusively for the Playstation 4 and to not develop a version for Xbox platforms. The fact that one game is published by Sony themselves and the other by SE is not relevant to the point. The fact that these games are exclusive for different reasons is not relevant to the point.
The point is to highlight that Sony has several ways to acquire exclusive content through their own studios as well as contracts with third party developers.
Go ahead and try to explain how the fact that Bloodborne is published by Sony themselves changes anything about the essence of argument which is that Sony has the option, as demonstrated in the past, to acquire exclusive content in partnership with other developers.
This is simply not accurate. Sony has an agreement with FromSoft to develop Bloodborne for PS4, which means that the contract specifically states that the title cannot be developed for other platforms. So yes, it is a third party developed game that is excluded from distribution on Xbox. It does not matter that it's sony's game, because the only part that is relevant is that it is is a third party developed title exclusive to PS4. Everything else is not relevant for this particular case.
Last edited:
Can you point me to anything suggesting that the independent Moon Studio were not allowed to do anything else while meeting contractual obligations with MS? I showed that contrary to your beliefs Moon Studios was signing with other publishers like Private Division while still doing ports for MS, 2 years prior to any controversy you're suggesting is the reason they are 'no longer first party now'.
Go ahead and ignore what's being presented to you. That this wasn't the argument being made. How can Sony Interactive Entertainment have an agreement with Sony Interactive Entertainment to exclude "their game" from xbox. Why would that exclusion be different to other "outright exclusive content" if their only point was Sony can contract third party developers for their games.
Right, so I guess if Sony had told FromSoft that they weren't allowed to develop Dark Souls 3 with Bandai Namco Entertainment then Bloodborne would have truly become "Sony Interactive Entertainment's game" and wouldn't need an agreement with itself to exclude xbox. From Software would also have been "first party" until they wouldn't be later on.
Or hear this crazy theory out, maybe MS using the term first party developer was just referring to the fact that they were a developer on a first party game and the laywer who suggested that FromSoft is the publisher of Bloodborne who entered an agreement to exclude xbox was just clueless.
From Software aren't prevented from distributing anything because they don't actually do that, they are developers, the publisher does.
Last edited:
Ar¢tos
Member
Bloodborne was a co-development between From Software and Japan Studios, Japan Studios logo shows up right after From Software and Japan Studio staff (and Sony staff show in the credits).
As From Software has confirmed, Sony was the one to approach the studio to make the game TOGETHER.
How is this paying From Software to keep the game from other platforms?
How is this not a 1st party game?
By your definition, then there is absolutely no such thing as a first party game since studios constantly outsource work to other studios they don't own and those studios get credited.
Last edited:
Rykan
Member
Moon studios was signing with a different publisher after Microsoft quit their agreement, not during it. That's the reason they had to look for a different publisher in the first place.
Are you being serious right now? You literally snip the entire argument I made from the post you quoted and then try call me out for "ignoring what's being presented to you"? You fail to grasp that the term Publisher in this context is also referring to developer, because in practice it doesn't matter. Sony Interactive Entertainment has an agreement with FromSoftware to develop a game exclusively (which, by definition, means the contract says it cannot release on other platform)
That's not what is being said. Here is what is actually being said.
Are Square Enix and Bloodborne third party publishers? Yes they are. They're not saying that FromSoft is publishing Bloodborne, they're saying that FromSoft is a third party publisher that has a contract with Sony to develop a game exclusively for PS4 (which again, means it can't be released on Xbox) and the fact that the game is being published by Sony (which is the reason its not multiplatform) is completely irrelevant to the point being made, which was to show that Sony has multiple ways of getting exclusives of their own.
All of this is irrelevant to the point being made here.
Because Sony went into an agreement with Fromsoft to develop a game exclusively for PS4. Microsoft isn't saying "Sony just paid to keep games off Xbox platform". It says that Sony has entered an arrangement with third party publishers which requires the exclusion of the Xbox platform, which is correct because developing a game exclusively for PS4 means it can't be released on other platforms. It doesn't say that Sony straight up paid for exclusivity outright in every case. Just that exclusivity was part of the arrangement.
It doesn't matter! The point is that Sony has demonstrated that it is capable of making arrangement with third party developers get exclusive content for its system. It is completely irrelevant if that makes the title first party or third party.
Eh..No?
Last edited:
Ar¢tos
Member
LOL.... Just... LOL
Sony should sue MS then, for holding its own IP hostage with an unfair publishing license... (Sunset Overdrive).
Rykan
Member
What are you even talking about?
You do understand that Microsoft is not complaining about these arrangements, and they are not calling these type of contracts unfair, right? You do understand that they only highlight them to prove that acquiring AB wouldn't lead to a monopoly position / unfair advantage that is insurmountable for competition and that exclusive content is common in the gaming industry, right?
Last edited:
I give up. You clearly can't see how stupid the argument is. You are twisting a paragraph about publisher agreements excluding xbox from game distribution into an entirely different meaning; the fact that Sony can contract developers for their own game, which could have been said in a single sentence and has no relevance to what was actually said.
This would be like Nvidia saying MS make agreements with hardware manufacturers to exclude the Sony store, prominent example xbox (AMD/IBM). Then you coming in and saying what that actually means is MS is capable of making arrangements with chipmakers like AMD for their own hardware even if ARM was bought.
It's their property created by another company, nothing has been excluded through an arrangement with AMD/IBM.
I dont understand why it's difficult for you to admit the lawyer was misleading/clueless with that paragraph and instead we are doing some mental gymnastics about what you think it actually means.
This is just downright embarrassing. Bloodborne is a third party publisher? What the actual fuck. Sony is the publisher of bloodborne and there is nothing third party about sony to sony. From Software is also not a publisher, it's a development studio here. I think it's time for me to stop responding to you
Last edited:
Rykan
Member
This is projection at its finest. You are the one that continues to try to twist their argument into something it is not.
You are now like what, three posts into this discussion with me and you have yet to even begin to prove how labeling Bloodborne as a first party game changes anything about the argument. We both know why: Because it doesn't change anything and you are now grasping at straws.
Sony has an arrangement with FromSoft, a third party developer/publisher, to develop an exclusive game for the PS4 which means by definition that the agreement says it cannot be developed for other platforms outside of the agreement. The fact that Bloodborne is a Sony property and that the game could therefore be considered first party changes absolutely nothing about the argument that Sony is capable of getting exclusive content of their own.
If part of the agreement says "This can only be used exclusively for MS" then part of the arrangement is to exclude the hardware from other systems.
Because you're trying to apply gaming message board mentality into the "grown up" world. Gaming fans are extremely obsessed with concepts such as "First party" or "Third party" but in the "real world", such as in the context of this acquisition, it doesn't matter if a game is labeled as first party or third party. The point is to prove Sony is capable of acquiring exclusive video game content of its own.
I think it's pretty obvious that I simply misspoke here. I meant FromSoft, obviously. Bloodborne is the game in question, not the developer. FromSoftware is a third party developer/publisher working with Sony to develop exclusive content. They didn't say that Bloodborne isn't first party content, they said that FromSoft is a third party developer/publisher which had an agreement with Sony. You're trying to argue that they need to mention the fact that BB is therefore technically a first party product without being able to argue how that would change anything to the argument laid forward or why that is relevant.
You claim they are misleading but you can't actually explain how it would change anything.
Last edited:
I've told you plenty of times but you just fail to grasp the concept of it. It changes it because the MS lawyer was arguing about "Sony agreements with publishers for the exclusion of xbox", for a Sony published game. ie Sony entering an agreement with Sony about where they distribute their own property. The developer is irrelevant because they are not the one who own and distribute it, Sony are.
Again could I say that MS has entered agreements with hardware manufacturers about where they can distribute their hardware, xbox (AMD), excluding Sony, Alienware etc, because MS contracted AMD to design it?
You just had a difficult time writing Sony is the publisher because it wouldn't have made sense to your argument that the content is somehow third party.
"MS has entered an arrangement with AMD a chipmaker/hardware manufacturer to design a chip which means by definition that the agreement says it cannot be used in other products outside the agreement. Therefore MS is excluding other wouldbe console makers like Sony from that chip."
What I mean to say is MS can create a product with AMD so Nvidia buying ARM is fine.
Of course the owner of the property changes absolutely everything in the argument being made, except you are contorting that to a completely different meaning which wasn't said. The lawyer was talking about agreements with publishers to exclude xbox and didn't have a clue that Bloodborne is a Sony published game, you just don't want to admit that.
Last edited:
Rykan
Member
This is becoming straight up parody. You have absolutely not even the slightest idea of what you're talking about.
"The developer is irrelevant" No it isn't. You quite literally have this backwards. It's the publisher that is irrelevant, not the developer. The developer creates the content, the publisher just distributes it. You keep saying that Sony has an agreement with Sony, but the fact that FromSoft is the developer means that Sony has a contract with FromSoft to develop the game exclusively. The FTC and other legislators are interested in knowing if competitors can acquire exclusive content of their own. Who publishes the content isn't relevant.
Did Sony develop Bloodborne? No? FromSoft did? Then Sony has an arrangement with FromSoft (third party dev) to create exclusive content, which means by definition that it can't be released on other platforms. My argument isn't that Bloodborne is third party content. My argument as is MS's, is that FromSoft is a third party developer/publisher that had an agreement with Sony to develop exclusive content. That is a fact.
You seem to think that the fact that BB is published by Sony means that this sentence is inaccurate:
"Sony has also entered into arrangements with third-party publishers which require the "exclusion" of Xbox from the set of platforms these publishers can
distribute their games on. Some prominent examples of these agreements include Final
Fantasy VII Remake (Square Enix), Bloodborne (From Software),... "
But it's not. Here are the facts:
"Sony has also entered into arrangement with third party publishers" - Fact. Sony has entered an arrangement with a third party publisher (which can also be read as developer in this context) to develop Bloodborne. The dev is FromSoft
"...Which require the exclusion" of xbox from the set of platforms these publishers can distribute their game on" - Also a fact. The arrangement with FromSoft is for an exclusive game, which by definition means that it can't be released on Xbox platforms.
Nothing about Microsofts statement here is misleading or inaccurate. The fact that BB is published by Sony doesn't change anything about the facts mentioned above.
Okay so then what does it change? You say it changes absolutely everything and yet you can't cite even a single example of how it changes anything to the argument that Sony can contract third party developers to develop exclusive content for them.
Last edited:
The developers Japan Studios and From Software creates the content but you think the publisher just distributes it? Bloody hell. They fully own, completely pay for the development, and distribute the product.
I wonder what's more relevant when discussing "agreements for the exclusion of distribution".
Contracting a developer to make something for you doesn't need an agreement for the exclusion of distribution because the developer doesn't do that, they don't own anything to do that, the publisher does. It's the publishers property.
It's like talking to a brick wall. I'm truly out because this isn't getting anywhere.
Rykan
Member
And who do you think actually develops and thus provides the exclusive content, sherlock? THAT is the what is relevant.
Here is the question:
"Can other platform holders like Sony obtain exclusive content of their own so that the acquisition of AB won't lead to a monopoly?"
To which Microsofts answer is:
Yes they can. Sony has several studios of their own to develop exclusive content and they have also demonstrated that they can make arrangements with third party publishers/developers to develop exclusive content for them".
That's it. That's ALL there is to it. anything else, like who owns the IP or who the publisher is, is completely irrelevant
Yes it does!
That is literally the definition of an exclusive agreement. Sony pays Fromsoft to develop a game for them of which part of the agreement is that it can only be developed for the Playstation 4. Who owns the property is irrelevant to regulators: Sony can get exclusive content by making agreements with third party developers. That's the only part that is relevant. In contractual terms, "Developing exclusively for" and "will abstain from releasing on X platform" are exactly the same thing. The fact that you can't actually answer the question how labeling it first party instead of third party changes anything to the argument should have let you know that you don't actually have a valid point.
Last edited:
splattered
Member
Wtf haha... no black people or no black censor bars? You can't have no black people AND get big boobs too China, sorry. If you want big boobs you gotta stop being racist.
twilo99
Member
I only care about the boob part
Aroged is a clickbait site that shows porn when you visit it. I wouldn't pay too much attention to it. They post some truly ridiculous stuff that can't be verified:
IFireflyl
Gold Member
It really is.
And this is the reason that this discussion is "becoming a straight up parody". You are the only person that is on your side. Everyone in this thread that has responded to both of you has sided with your opponent and against you. That's not because of fanboyism. It's because everyone except for you (and Microsoft's lawyers) actually know what first-party content is. You and Microsoft's legal team are the only ones in agreement with your viewpoint (which makes no sense).
First-party games means games that are fully owned by the publisher releasing the game. Microsoft owns Ori, so that is first-party content. Sony owns Bloodborne and Sackboy, so that is first-party content. It doesn't matter what second-party or third-party resources were contracted to develop the games. All content that was created (regardless of who created it) is owned by the publisher. If I create an IP and then outsource a third-party to create the game for it, and then I publish/release the game, that is a first-party release. I may have used a second-party or third-party contractor to create the game, but the game itself would still be first-party. This was even confirmed by Insomniac (before they were acquired by Sony) back in 2017. You ignored those tweets because they didn't fit your narrative. That's because neither you nor Microsoft's lawyers know what you are talking about.
To be clear, I'm not trying to disrespect you. It's just that you're making up definitions that have NEVER been used prior to this acquisition to describe first-party games. Maybe you're conflating first-party games and first-party developers? First-party games can use second-party and third-party developers to create content for the first-party games. First-party developers (meaning studios that are owned by the publisher releasing the game) could also create content for third-party games as well (although I don't recall a time where I have ever seen that occur since normally the point of acquiring first-party developers/studios means that you are trying to keep the developers/studios to yourself).
Either way, when it comes to this subject T Three and the others defending him have been correct, and you and Microsoft's lawyers have been incorrect. It doesn't matter who creates the content. It matters who owns and publishes/releases the content. If the owner of the content (the IP owner) is also the one who publishes/releases the content, then it is first-party. If the owner of the content (the IP owner) is not the one who publishes/releases the content then it is third-party. Sony owns Bloodborne and Sackboy. Sony also published/released Sackboy. That makes those first-party games. Microsoft owns Ori: The Will of the Wisps and Sunset Overdrive. Sony also published/released Ori: The Will of the Wisps and Sunset Overdrive. That makes those first-party games. The only way those could have been considered third-party games would be if Microsoft/Sony did not own the respective IPs.
Rykan
Member
Here is the thing: I genuinely do not care that I'm the, as you put it, only person that is on this side of the argument. A lot of people still participating in this discussion, if you can even call it that, have not even the slightest clue of what they are talking about. They are used to having discussions about video games on message boards, which in itself is often only one step above playground arguments, trying to comment on something that they don't fully understand (Anti Trust Legislation) using the same logic that they typically use for video game discourse. This is evident in the outright bizarre obsession with labeling content as first party or third party or even in more extreme cases: Actually thinking that certain arguments should be omitted simply because it includes first party content, not realizing that in the world outside of video game message board discourse, those terms hold no value and don't matter in this context.
I didn't ignore those tweets because they didn't "Fit my narrative". I ignored them because they have nothing to do with the subject. My position on this has always been in the context of the situation
In fact, let's look at what Microsoft actually argues. Highlighted part is important
They didn't say that BB was third party content in this context. What they did say is that they entered an arrangement with Third Party Publishers/Developers. Which is accurate. Even if BB is technically a first party IP, Fromsoft is very much a third party dev/publisher They did that to highlight that Sony is capable of obtaining exclusive content for their platform. The fact that the title is exclusive because it's a first party game is completely and utterly irrelevant to the point being made. In fact: let's do a little thought experiment. Let's say, for example, that Microsoft would use slightly different wording.
Lets say the wording would be : "Sony has entered into arrangements with third party publishers which require the exclusion of Xbox, this includes BloodBorne (From Software) for which Sony acts as the publisher" What would this change about the argument laid forward? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Because the point of the argument is to highlight that Sony is capable of securing exclusive content from third party developers besides the content of their own developers. Whether they are acting as the publisher (such as BB) or not (FF) doesn't matter because the result is exactly the same: Its exclusive content for Playstation.
What you're doing here is basically repeating what Three has said which is why, unsurprisingly, your argument falls flat and fails in the exact same manner: Insisting that Microsoft cannot use games such as Bloodborne as an example of Sony securing exclusive content from third party publishers/developers, because Sony acts as the publisher (which technically makes the game first party) without being able to argue why. You don't have to explain what is or isn't first party, You have to argue why the fact the title is technically first party means that can't be used as an example of Sony entering an arrangement with a third party developer to exclusively provide content for their system, even though that is exactly what it is.
Something which both you and Three and have utterly failed to do so.
Yes, whoever publishes the game is important if you were to have a discussion strictly about whether an IP is first party or not, but NOT in a discussion of whether Sony can obtain exclusive content in arrangements with third party developers.
Last edited:
IFireflyl
Gold Member
That's good, because otherwise you'd be a wreck right now.
That's funny, because you're actually missing the context of the situation. I'll elaborate further on this next point.
As T Three said, which you have stupidly ignored, the above quote says this:
"Current Sony exclusive content includes prominent first-party titles such as The Last of Us, Ghosts of Tsushima, God of War, and Spiderman. In addition to having outright exclusive content, Sony has also entered into arrangements with third-party publishers which require the "exclusion" of Xbox from the set of platforms these publishers can distribute their games on."
The "in addition to" is a context statement. This means are adding something similar, but different, from the statement that is preceding the "in addition to", and that addition is found in the statement immediately following the "in addition to". The statement immediately preceding "in addition to" is the statement regarding first-party games. It then says, "In addition to," which translates (based on the context) to, "In addition to having outright exclusive content with their first-party titles," and then the rest of the statement. So the full translation would be this:
"Current Sony exclusive content includes prominent first-party titles such as The Last of Us, Ghosts of Tsushima, God of War, and Spiderman. In addition to having outright exclusive content with their first-party titles, Sony has also entered into arrangements with third-party publishers which require the "exclusion" of Xbox from the set of platforms these publishers can distribute their games on."
The "Sony has also" statement is saying that Sony has done something else "in addition to" (or on top of) having first-party content. The thing Sony is accused of doing is entering into exclusivity agreements with third-party publishers.
Microsoft's lawyers then add on to this with the following:
"Some prominent examples of these agreements include Final Fantasy VII Remake (Square Enix), Bloodborne (From Software), the upcoming Final Fantasy XVI (Square Enix) and the recently announced Silent Hill 2 remastered (Bloober team)."
You're the only one in this thread that doesn't understand the context. Everyone else gets what Microsoft's lawyers are saying, and they are wrong. I guarantee that I have had far more education in English literature than you, and you're absolutely incorrect when you try to say that Microsoft's lawyers aren't calling Bloodborne a third-party exclusive. Microsoft's lawyers messed up, and instead of admitting that (which, by the way, why wouldn't you be able to agree that they messed that up?) you have doubled down and defended the lawyers who have messed up at least twice now.
This is where you show an amazing level of ignorance. The reason why Bloodborne being a first-party title means that it can't be used as an example of Sony entering an arrangement with a third-party developer to exclusively provide content for their system is because there was no exclusivity arrangement made with FromSoftware. I shouldn't have to spell this out, but there is a big difference between Bloodborne and Final Fantasy VII Remake in terms of exclusivity.
For Final Fantasy VII Remake, Sony had to pay Square Enix to not put Square Enix's game on another platform. For Bloodborne, Sony just paid FromSoftware to make the game that Sony already owned. There was no exclusivity agreement with Bloodborne because FromSoftware did not own any part of the game that they made. Sony didn't need to make an exclusivity agreement because FromSoftware couldn't have sold the game regardless since it was Sony's IP.
Car manufacturers outsource work to other companies all the time. If Ford designs a new engine, then they own that engine. It is their proprietary property. They can then outsource the building of that engine to Ferrari (just as an example). Ferrari can build and manufacture that engine for Ford (for whatever price is agreed upon), but Ferrari CAN NOT sell that engine to anyone else. Not because of an exclusivity agreement, but because they don't own the rights to that engine even though they built it.
You need to figure out what context actually means, because you keep saying things aren't being reviewed in context, and then you ignore the context. Don't argue about how the English language works if you're not educated on the subject. I have spent decades in literature. I am well versed in the meaning of the word "context", and I am well versed in the English language. You are acting like a teenager who thinks they're as wise and knowledgeable as the adults.
Last edited:
Rykan
Member
It's absolutely hilarious to watch you try to argue from a point of authority ("I have had far more education in English literature, fucking LOL mate) in an attempt to grasp at even the tiniest of straws to keep your failing argument alive. Microsoft specifically uses the term "In addition to having outright exclusive content" but doesn't specify what they mean by that. Looking at the examples, it's clear they are referring to games that are developed by Sony's own First Party studios. The fact that they use the phrase "In addition to having outright exclusive content with their first - party titles, Sony has also..."does in No. Way. Shape. Or Form means that they are labelling every single content after that as strictly third party content. Let me repeat that for the people in the back: In this context, Microsoft did not call BB a third party game. they called it a third party publisher/developer developed game.. Which it is
Trying to pull a "Trust me bro, I'm an English Major. Even though they didn't outright call it a third party game, they totally did" is funny.
You've quickly become one of my favorite posters. The way in which you viscously attack your opponent by calling them ignorant all while being so blissfully unaware of just how incredibly weak your own argument really is, is certainly a very appealing factor.
But in this case, you're right. Actually, you're not. But you're at least partly right, so you're making progress.
You're correct in stating that the partnership Sony has with FromSoftware for BB and Sony has with SE for Final Fantasy is not the same. The agreement with SE is for an exclusivity period for a certain amount of time (We still don't know how long exactly, doesn't really matter) where as the agreement with FromSoft was for the funding of the entire project.
But here is the kicker: In this context (yea I know, that word again right?) it doesn't matter because the result is exactly the same: Both Bloodborne and Final Fantasy (Developed by third party developers) can only be played on Playstation and that is the only relevant fact for Microsofts argument or indeed, anyone from anti trust looking into this deal. The only thing they want to know is if Sony is capable of obtaining exclusive content for their own platform. The exact nature of the agreement or contract is completely irrelevant.
Also just for clarification, because you seem to be unaware of this: When Sony contracts another developer to work on a first party project, like Fromsoft for Bloodborne, you can be absolutely certain that this contract specifically states that FromSoftware can only develop the game for Playstation 4 and that it is prohibited from developing the game for any other platform. That is absolutely, 100% in the contract Sony has with FromSoft.
I don't quite understand why we're having these strange analogies, but we'll roll with it.
Here's a better one:
Ferrari contracts Ford to develop a new engine. Ferrari doesn't own Ford, So Ford is a third party entity. The contract states that Ford will develop a new engine exclusively for Ferrari's specified car. Ferrari will have full ownership of the engine. The contract between Ferrari and Ford specifically states that Ford can only develop the engine for Ferrari's specified cars. Ford cannot and will not share or develop the same engine for other cars or for another car manufacturer unless specified by Ferrari.
Sounds familiar?
Every contract that includes exclusivity will specify that the content cannot be released or developed on anything else unless specified by the owner of the content. The argument Microsoft has laid forward is absolutely correct.
I fully believe and acknowledge that you are well versed in English Literature. I'm also well aware that you have come to the realization that your argument is poorly founded and that you have resorted to argue from a Point of Authority in an attempt to fill the glaring holes in your already poorly thought out argument, no doubt fueled primarily by your preference for a certain specific platform.
Last edited:
IFireflyl
Gold Member
Your wall of text doesn't fix your idiocy. Welcome to my block list you poor, ignorant fool.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
weak
Rykan
Member
Your petty insults don't compensate for your stunning lack of knowledge on this particular subject.
The people in the back:
Page 42 of the MS lawyers response :
"Sony also has a portfolio of high-quality exclusive third-party content including Genshin Impact, Final Fantasy 16, Bloodborne, Sackboy: A Big Adventure, Street Fighter V, Sifu and the Silent Hill 2 remake. "
I look forward to your English literature skills and jumping through hoops to suggest calling it "third party content" isn't equivalent to labelling it "third party content" now and what they actually mean is something else entirely.
Last edited:
Rykan
Member
Different context. The first describes the nature of the acquisition of new content. The other simply lists them as such.
Are you ever going to actually come up with a valid reason how this labelling changes or affect the argument laid forward in any shape or form, or have you settled for cheap "Gotchas!"instead?
How did I know you would try and make up your own stupidly laughable "context" out of thin air.
When are going to man up and stop trying to weasel your way out of simply accepting the fact the lawyer was incorrect for calling it third party content and excluding xbox with publisher agreements?
"Sony has a strong catalogue of first and third-party exclusive games: Sony
publishes iconic first-party franchises, [examples] ,
Sony also has a portfolio of high-quality exclusive third-party content including [examples]"
But no what they meant was bloodborne and sackboy is a Sony published first party franchise too, the context for "third party content" there was "the nature of the acquisition of new content" obviously.
Last edited:
IFireflyl
Gold Member
He's just a fanboy. You can't win a logical debate with an illogical person.
Rykan
Member
Look at the actual titles being listed. Take a good look at them. Notice something they have in common? They are all developed by a third party developer as in a developer that Sony doesn't own. Because that's the point they are making. Everyone gets this. It's blatantly obvious. It doesn't matter if they are technically first party IP. They are developed by third party devs, and that's the relevant part.
How do you think that goes?
MS: Sony can get exclusive content through their first party development studios or third party games like Genshin Impact, Final Fantasy 16, Bloodborne, Sackboy: A Big Adventure, Street Fighter V, Sifu and the Silent Hill 2 remake.
Sony: OBJECTION! We own Sackboy and the Bloodborne IP. That technically speaking makes them first party IP.
Anti trust: Okay but they are developed by third party developers, correct? This demonstrates that you can obtain exclusive content through third party developers, right?
Sony: Well..Yes?
Anti Trust: Then what difference does it make?
Sony:....Carry on.
Here is what you need to keep in mind: contrary to popular belief, there is actually not a clear definition of first party or third party. There is a common understanding by those participating in discourse about video games what we call first party and third party, but by no means is this an official or "legal" definition, especially when the discourse is taken outside the realm of traditional video game discussion as is the case here. Or in other words: Your definition of what you consider strictly first or third party simply don't apply here. Microsoft absolutely has some of the best lawyers on this case. This is about a 70bn dollar deal.
If their definitions of the term third party/first party differ from the norm, that can mean one of the following things:
1: There is no actual set definition for either term., or it differs from the definition used in gaming discourse.
2: It is completely unimportant and irrelevant.
3: Both of the above.
Last edited:
Iced Arcade
Member
that meltdown and reading English literature flex doe
Pelta88
Member
One thing Microsoft has inadvertently made clear through this process is just how damaging they view Sony's exclusives and third party exclusives to their efforts.
To be crystal clear, when I say "damaging" I'm talking about XBOX not Microsoft as a whole. Their entire argument against PS basically boils down to "But Playstation got games."
To be crystal clear, when I say "damaging" I'm talking about XBOX not Microsoft as a whole. Their entire argument against PS basically boils down to "But Playstation got games."
Try a logical conversation based on what was actually discussed instead of a fictional story
MS: Bloodborne is exclusive third party content. Sony enters agreements with publishers to exclude these publisher's games from xbox, like Bloodborne (From Software).
Me: MS lawyers are incorrect here. Sony are the publisher of bloodborne not From Software. It's first party content they own.
You: the context of that is Sony can still develop games with other developers to create first party content.
Me: ok, but that's not what they said at all.
Fin
Instead what we have is you trying to say what they said is correct if we use your bizzare definitions and completely irrelevant interpretations. Even your own arguments of them "in no way shape or form labelling it third party content" changes based on being presented with new evidence that shows you're wrong. so you simply invent a reason why the definition changes again instead of just admitting they clearly did.
Last edited:
IFireflyl
Gold Member
Rykan
Member
It is interesting that this is your observation of our conversation. Please allow me to take your conversation and elaborate on how our conversations really went. For clarification: Me is Me and you is you.
MS: Sony produces a lot of content through their own studios. Furthermore, Sony enters arrangements with third party publishers/developers to release games exclusively for Playstation hardware/exclude from Software. Examples of this are Bloodborne, FF and idk, Sack boy I guess?
You: MS lawyers are incorrect here. Sony are the publisher of bloodborne not From Software. It's first party content they own.
Me: MS is highlighting the fact that Sony has plenty of exclusive content of its own and that they have several ways to acquire it: Through their own studios or partnership with other developers. In the context of the argument laid forward, it makes sense to label them as third party content because they are developed by third party developers.
You: ok, but that's not what they said at all.
Me: Labelling it as third party content here makes sense in context.
You: It should be labeled as first party content because Sony owns the IP
Me: How would that change the argument? These games are still developed by third party developers, proving Sony has multiple ways to acquire exclusive content.
You: It would change everything!
Me: Like what?
And that's where we are at now. Still waiting how calling it first party would change anything about the argument Microsoft presented.
Last edited:
Varteras
Member
I'll make this easy.
Person A, Person B, and Person C are all into selling bikes.
Person A decides they want a new line of bikes that only they can sell but they want someone else to make this new bike line. So they pay Bike Builder Bob to make these bikes for them so that they own this new bike line. This new line of bikes would not have existed if Person A had not paid Bike Builder Bob. Bike Builder Bob makes those bikes for them but continues to make other bikes for other people. He may be willing to do something else for Person A later if they pay him but may also enter into an agreement with Person B or Person C if he chooses. But that new bike line belongs to Person A.
Person B really likes one of Bike Builder Bob's bike lines that he has been making for other people but are owned by Bike Builder Bob, not Person A, Person B, or Person C. So Person B pays Bike Builder Bob to let them sell the bikes from a particular bike line he owns. This is not necessarily a permanent deal as Person B has to repeatedly pay Bike Builder Bob for the bikes they want to themselves which used to be sold by other people. Bike Builder Bob can choose to stop making those bikes just for Person B and go back to also making them for Person A and Person C. He can also agree to make them just for Person A or Person C if they approach him with a good deal or Person B lost interest.
Person C decides they don't want Bike Builder Bob to make bikes for anyone else but them ever again. Person C buys Bike Builder Bob who cannot make bikes for Person A or Person B unless Person C says it's okay and they get money from it. Person C now owns Bike Builder Bob and everything he makes for good, including any line of bikes that Person A or Person B did not already own.
These are the differences Microsoft's lawyers are seemingly not aware of when it comes to who owns what and how.
Person A, Person B, and Person C are all into selling bikes.
Person A decides they want a new line of bikes that only they can sell but they want someone else to make this new bike line. So they pay Bike Builder Bob to make these bikes for them so that they own this new bike line. This new line of bikes would not have existed if Person A had not paid Bike Builder Bob. Bike Builder Bob makes those bikes for them but continues to make other bikes for other people. He may be willing to do something else for Person A later if they pay him but may also enter into an agreement with Person B or Person C if he chooses. But that new bike line belongs to Person A.
Person B really likes one of Bike Builder Bob's bike lines that he has been making for other people but are owned by Bike Builder Bob, not Person A, Person B, or Person C. So Person B pays Bike Builder Bob to let them sell the bikes from a particular bike line he owns. This is not necessarily a permanent deal as Person B has to repeatedly pay Bike Builder Bob for the bikes they want to themselves which used to be sold by other people. Bike Builder Bob can choose to stop making those bikes just for Person B and go back to also making them for Person A and Person C. He can also agree to make them just for Person A or Person C if they approach him with a good deal or Person B lost interest.
Person C decides they don't want Bike Builder Bob to make bikes for anyone else but them ever again. Person C buys Bike Builder Bob who cannot make bikes for Person A or Person B unless Person C says it's okay and they get money from it. Person C now owns Bike Builder Bob and everything he makes for good, including any line of bikes that Person A or Person B did not already own.
These are the differences Microsoft's lawyers are seemingly not aware of when it comes to who owns what and how.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
A bike is a bike.
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
ChorizoPicozo
Member
that is bassed
12Dannu123
Member
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
The consequences of "factual evidence" are up to interpretation.
12Dannu123
Member
If they had actual evidence that the ABK acquisition should be blocked, they wouldn't be talking to the EU, who was about to talk to MS for remedies hours before launching a lawsuit to block the acquisition. If they had a case, they would have gone through federal court, which has the authority to block the deal, and not go through their internal court.
All their actions scream political ideology over facts.
Last edited:
Edmund
is waiting for Starfield 7
I'm appreciating the fact that discussions about the acquisition are allowed here. Over at Resetera, if you disapprove of the acquisition, you get gang banged by the frat boys there like Iron Eddie, BobLobLaw, T0kenAussie etc. And you even get permabanned over there if you try to argue that the acquisition isn't a good thing.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Edmund
is waiting for Starfield 7
No I'm talking about how discussions are allowed here and u don't get permabanned for being against the acquisition.
Granted I haven't read through all 378 pages here but has anyone gotten banned for being for or against the acquisition?
Last edited:
- Status