thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Exactly. When some people bring up Sony's exclusivity deals, they act like Sony's doing what Nintendo did in the '80s. Sony aren't preventing 3P devs/pubs from working with Microsoft or Nintendo, they aren't forcing them to only release games on PlayStation. And AFAIK, they aren't preventing 3P devs/pubs from entertaining offers from Microsoft or Nintendo for marketing rights.
The only thing that would potentially get Sony in trouble is if they were locking 3P publishers out from accepting bids offered by Microsoft for 3P marketing deals & exclusivity. And by that I mean, it'd literally have to be Sony getting an offer by a 3P developer/publisher, who were otherwise considering making an offer to multiple parties, and then Sony came in with some placeholder offer but tied the 3P into not considering offers from Microsoft while waiting to finalize a placeholder offer.
To make a comparison in terms of the ABK acquisition, it'd be like if ABK came to Microsoft with an offer to be bought, then Microsoft puts in a placeholder but also tells ABK they can't shop around with other potential buyers until they (Microsoft) give a final decision on the offer ABK presented to them.
Something which Microsoft obviously didn't do, because it'd be illegal (and if they didn't do that, why would Sony do the equivalent with 3P deals?).
So something like SFV would not qualify there, as I'm pretty sure Capcom made that game's status known to multiple platform holders, but Sony providing a better offer (co-funding and marketing in exchange for console exclusivity) is not something where they (Sony) would have made Microsoft unable to provide a similar or better offer. Microsoft just simply didn't care to make a counteroffer. They chose not to compete in that instance, just like how Sony chose not to compete for a better offer to Dead Rising 3, which is why Microsoft got that as a console exclusive.
Another thing that'd be exempt from this is, say, Sony signing a multi-year and/or multi-game deal with a 3P. Because ultimately it is the choice of the 3P as to what items are in the deal; if a platform holder like Sony sweetens the pot to throw some extra stuff on top, that is simply in addition to a base offer which was already accepted and of which Sony would not have prevented another company (i.e Microsoft) from being able to outbid them on. So offering more to make the deal even more enticing for the winning bidder is ultimately to the 3P's benefit just as much as it is to the platform holder's. It's a mutually beneficial relationship and the 3P still operates as an independent entity.
Since I doubt Sony are locking Microsoft out from even being able to bid on 3P exclusivity deals that otherwise would have been presented by the 3P developer or publisher initially to multiple platform holders (aka Sony isn't tampering with the process of offer on a 3P product that is intended for multiple platforms), let alone preventing 3P from releasing games on Xbox platforms altogether, then arguments using that to claim they're being anti-competitive don't hold up.
Any instance where it's a 3P dev or pub specifically approaching Sony for a possible co-development/co-funding or co-marketing deal, or where multiple games or multiple years of rights are decided on at a time, or where Sony may themselves offer co-funding & co-marketing support in exchange for marketing &/or exclusivity rights on top of a known release or group of releases, are not anti-competitive. Microsoft could have done the same and in fact not only have, but continue to, and that's perfectly fine. At the end of the day, all of those deals still have a clear separation between the 3P entity and the platform holder, the former retains independence in terms of their corporate structure, and both sides see some mutual benefit.
There might be some parallels between that and a vertical M&A, but the difference is that a 3P developer (and especially publisher) still has to act within the best interest of their own business in terms of revenue, and the platform holder isn't going to go for deals that make no financial sense on their end. Sony could want GTA6 as a PS5 console exclusive or even launch exclusive (as in full launch exclusive i.e no Xbox & no PC) all they want, but they're not going to pay the (probably) $500 million or even $1 billion to make that happen and Take-Two aren't going to take that for the potential billions being left on the table by excluding Xbox and PC for even a month, let alone three. Since Sony doesn't have any corporate power over the publisher, developer, or IP, they can't just "force" that scenario into happening even if they by all accounts would want to.
OTOH, if Sony suddenly owned Take-Two, Rockstar and GTA? Yes, they very much could do that, even if there were initial upfront losses, because they'd know the insane amount of demand (and revenue) a move like making GTA6 exclusive to PS5 would do for the brand. And so would regulators, which is why they'd never allow that type of acquisition, at least not without a structural remedy involving divestiture of GTA, the same way regulators are pushing for MS to divest COD/Activision (and the associated studios) as a structural remedy, if they want the deal to be passed at all.
There's a massive scale of difference, from the money involved, to natural checks & balances, to the degree of leveraging the content against rivals, between exclusivity & marketing deals and acquisitions. Even if there are otherwise some similarities between the two. People who say otherwise are either trolling, disingenuous, or ignorant.
) and then Activision gets the money from the sale? Or Microsoft gets the money from the sale because they bought all of Acti/Blizz before the divesture? Etc etc
