Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
phil_t98
#SonyToo
a lot is always talked on these forums about profit and revenue
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
That's because one of the big 3 stopped disclosing numbers a long time ago, so it shifted to MAU for a while, but now it shifts to revenue/profits, which you can't get a full picture either with one leaving the profits out as well.
Before all that secrecy to the public, it was strictly about sales numbers. They sure climb out of the woodwork in Famitsu threads every once in a while.
Last edited:
TheGodfather07
Member
I know but ultimately, whoever is actually selling the most units and getting them into actual consumers hands, are the market leaders. That's the only absolute indicator of how successful your product is in the actual market. Who is making the most profits or has the most subscribers on their subscription is another discussion.
Last edited:
3liteDragon
Member
Ah yes, poor old Microsoft you see were unable to outbid Sony for third-party timed exclusives so they went out, spent about $75 billion on two big publishers (clearly the same thing) & now are looking to make future multiplat titles that were already coming to Xbox, permanent console exclusives. I mean, the only reasonable way to respond to Sony having a timed exclusive quest in Hogwarts Legacy must be to acquire EA & Take Two, it's the only way to stop Sony's dominance this gen & protect us from the bad guys at Apple & Amazon. Lol at that last sentence, as if that isn't gonna happen anyway.
Sony have reportedly locked timed exclusivity for huge multiplatform games
According to a reliable Imran Khan, Sony will shock gamers with timed exclusivity deals for some huge and widely popular multiplatform games, which could be revealed in the next couple of months.www.altchar.com
just a reminder that Sony is paying for multipltform games to be exclusive or timed exclusive. Microsoft had to respond to this or it would of been another gen like last gen with PS dominance
Last edited:
DarkMage619
$MSFT
It is a fallacy that all 3rd party games will hit Xbox anyway. There is plenty of evidence that many 3rd party games are either blocked by a timed exclusive or blocked entirely. MS has decided to not pay to keep a title off other platforms temporarily but purchase the studio and get a new continuous source of content for their platform. That makes way more sense for the long term. As someone else said MS preferred to 'buy over rent'. Some posters here should be able to appreciate that.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
See this is the thing, Microsoft didn't see the value in paying high money (possibly) to get the rights to exclusive DLC or timed exclusives. They went down a route if purchasing studios to bolster their own games . Sony is buying studios also maybe on a smaller scale but they are doing it
SportsFan581
Member
Very true. After this deal closes MS is guaranteed access to the Activision games, they weren't before, Just because they had always been there doesn't mean that they couldn't suddenly go timed exclusive. SFV is proof enough of that.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
I mean I get it. I was disappointed when street fighter went exclusive last gen but I got over it by playing killer instinct insted. On paper not as good as street fighter but still fun to play
GhostOfTsu
Banned
Ark 2
Ashen
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2
Phantasy Star Online 2 New Genesis (Time Exclusive Western Release)
Crossfire X
Valheim
Echo Generation
Sable
Warhammer 40,000: Darktide
Slime Rancher 2
High On Life
Somerville
Lightyear Frontier
CACOON
Replaced
The Last Case of Benedict Fox
Ereban: Shadow Legacy
ExoMecha
Shredders
PowerWash Simulator
PUBG
NARAKA
The Medium
The Ascent
Scorn
Palworld
Tunic
Immortality
You were saying? I know all your posts are written by an AI robot but please update your firmware. Thanks.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
most of Sony's recent investments is in developers making live service GAAS multiplayer games. That's where they're chasing the money. Not really surprising they didn't bid for declining single player IP.
They've made very early concessions, though. From leadership promising to keep Call of Duty multiplatform to Spencer providing a legal guarantee to keep it on PlayStation until at least the end of the gen. Including release parity.
bender
What time is it?
Pelta88
Member
Chukhopops
Member
To me SFV being exclusive was a turning point because SF4 was at least as big on 360 as on PS3 (I even think it was bigger due to less input lag and bigger online scene but I can't prove it).
To me it was the moment after which everything was fair game when it came to moneyhats. At least they're not doing the same mistake with SF6.
bender
What time is it?
Pretty weird line to draw in the sand especially considering how much Capcom loves giving out exclusives.
Chukhopops
Member
Street Fighter has always been kind of everywhere though:
- 2 was on SNES / MegaDrive as well as countless others;
- 3 was initially on Dreamcast but got then ported to PS2 / Xbox;
- 4 was on both PS3 and 360 (and PC too);
- 5 will never be anywhere other than PC / PS4 despite its predecessor selling 9 million as a multiplat.
Unforgivable imo.
bender
What time is it?
My memory is a little fuzzy but I'm pretty sure Street Fighter 5 wasn't happening unless someone stepped in and covered development costs which is kind of like the Bayonetta situation. The 2-3 logic is also a little faulty as those were arcade games that were ported to tons of systems, but I digress.
onesvenus
Member
We shouldn't start a list wars but there's nothing on this list as big as final fantasy for example. MS and Sony third party exclusives are in a whole different level.
I have heard this story multiple times. Is there any evidence Capcom didn't want to release SFV? SF4 sold around 10 million.
Chukhopops
Member
I've read it too but I always find it difficult to believe because:
- The port of USFIV to PS4 was also exclusive (there was no XBO port ever) at a time where there was no backwards compatibility from 360 games. I doubt this port was expensive to make or couldn't be done without Sony money - seems like a deliberate moneyhat to me;
- SFIV had sold 9M copies, which would at the time make it the #5 best selling Capcom game of all time. So I find it dubious they couldn't green light a sequel, or if not at least port it to the new generation (which they did but only for PS4).
- SFV was inexplicably rushed to release less than two years after USFIV, in a less than feature complete stage that did considerable damage to the entire franchise. This never really made sense to me other than to honor contractual agreements.
Sorry for going off topic but it's a franchise that's close to my heart.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
I just wonder too if this impending deal will have much impact on this new COD sales wise.
Texted my nephew to see if he got nailed by Epic since he uses one of those newly banned cheating devices and he hasn't played yet
Then asked if he was going to buy the new COD since he has been playing the beta and he replies "Why would I it should be on Gamepass soon enough, will just play Warzone 2 until then".
Similar thing just happened to my son. He has a PS5, but now all Bethesda games and COD will be Xbox exclusive, he sold all his old Lego sets, minifigures and Pokémon cards to buy his own Xbox Series S. He didn't see the point of using the PS5 if COD will be making its way to Gamepass.
I already have a series S, but he wanted his own. Fine for me because it means I get the PS5 downstairs! I'll also probably upgrade my S to an X this year as well.
Anyway, it's not just my son. Another reason he wanted his own series S is because all his friends have now switched to Xbox from PlayStation. It's been interesting to see because a few years ago all of them had a PS4, but now they're team green.
bender
What time is it?
Considering SFV has never been ported to other systems and other money hats of Capcom's small (Lost Planet), medium (Dead Rising), and large (Resident Evil) titles have found there way elsewhere in pretty short order leads me to believe Sony's involvement runs a little deeper than the norm. Maybe it's an urban legend though. Ono on the subject matter:
We wanted to really unify the community. In previous titles we'd say 'we're having a tournament' and it's like 'which version? Is it PC, Xbox, PlayStation? Which joystick should I bring? Which framerate should I practice in?' It was all over the place. We wanted to have it be one place to play Street Fighter."
Ultimately, the support we were able to get – not just in terms of community building support, but also technological support and advice – Sony was able to provide to us. It's really helped us achieve that goal. It's all on one place and it's one community and everyone can play together.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
I think any game is fair game tbh, u just don't understand the anger off some with this deal. Microsoft are saying they are gonna keep COD on PS of at least 6 years, they said 3 after the currant Sony deal ends which leaves plenty of time to negotiate longer after that.
Sony buy companies to, obvs bungie and insomniac recently. we won't get a sunset overdrive sequel on xbox, before anybody says it didn't sell well it sold 2 million copies, doesn't sound a lot but it came out very early in the life span of xbox one. compare that to Returnal which apparently sold well at half a million copies.i really liked sunset overdrive but if a sequel came out for it on PS I would just buy it there
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Capcom said SFV would have happened but it happened sooner thanks to Sony. It's not as if the game wasn't coming at all, that would be silly. SFIV sold tons.
Personally I don't see how anyone can be surprised at MS making big deals. Sony kept poking the bear, it was bound to happen. MS has moved away from the strategy of keeping pieces of games off other platforms and their timed exclusive deals they do get, tend to be AA type titles and 3-6 month windows. There's only so much of watching Sony moneyhat big AAA third party games for 12+ months deals and lock up pieces of such a vast amount of multi platform games for 12+ months deals before MS was going to respond. And they have GamePass to grow, which is of even more importance to them than returning fire at Sony. Of course they were going to go big.
The strangest part of all the warring online is this sudden narrative that Sony didn't make it to where they are by spending money. Of course they did. Hell right now in this thread people are trying to excuse away Sony locking up goddamn Street Fighter, as if Capcom otherwise would have passed on it. Sony bought third party games all the way back to the PSone era. They also used their electronics money to eat losses by losing money on hardware and luring publishers with lower licensing costs. And this stable of great developer studios they have… most of them they just bought.
Here's where people say "but those studios are different!! they were already making Sony exclusives!!!" Is that supposed to make it better? Would it be better if MS didn't buy Bethesda but instead just paid them to make games no other platform would ever see? What's the difference? There isn't one.
Personally I don't see how anyone can be surprised at MS making big deals. Sony kept poking the bear, it was bound to happen. MS has moved away from the strategy of keeping pieces of games off other platforms and their timed exclusive deals they do get, tend to be AA type titles and 3-6 month windows. There's only so much of watching Sony moneyhat big AAA third party games for 12+ months deals and lock up pieces of such a vast amount of multi platform games for 12+ months deals before MS was going to respond. And they have GamePass to grow, which is of even more importance to them than returning fire at Sony. Of course they were going to go big.
The strangest part of all the warring online is this sudden narrative that Sony didn't make it to where they are by spending money. Of course they did. Hell right now in this thread people are trying to excuse away Sony locking up goddamn Street Fighter, as if Capcom otherwise would have passed on it. Sony bought third party games all the way back to the PSone era. They also used their electronics money to eat losses by losing money on hardware and luring publishers with lower licensing costs. And this stable of great developer studios they have… most of them they just bought.
Here's where people say "but those studios are different!! they were already making Sony exclusives!!!" Is that supposed to make it better? Would it be better if MS didn't buy Bethesda but instead just paid them to make games no other platform would ever see? What's the difference? There isn't one.
Last edited:
Gavon West
Spread's Cheeks for Intrusive Ads
Not anymore. Actually, that's a pretty archaic way of looking at the market these days. Console sales worked well when it was strictly consoles and digital was in it's infancy. The market is much too diverse for that today. Consoles sold only tell one part of a bigger story.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It just reads like 'ultimately they paid us the most money' said in so many words TBH.
If they were literally not able to make the game without Sony's funding, like Bayonetta 2 and Nintendo, I can see it being justified in some form.
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Don't start the list wars nonsense here please, it doesn't end well for anyone when we all start slinging competing lists
Last edited:
pasterpl
Member
Quick question, which approach do you prefer and you find that is more pro gamer, based on recent game announcement;
Team ninja Wo Long - all platforms, gamepass day one (ms moneyhatting)
Team ninja Rise of Ronin - ps console exclusive, not available on other platforms (Sony moneyhatting)
Team ninja Wo Long - all platforms, gamepass day one (ms moneyhatting)
Team ninja Rise of Ronin - ps console exclusive, not available on other platforms (Sony moneyhatting)
TheGodfather07
Member
But Microsoft do the exact same thing? Why are sony always the guilty ones? Or are people not even aware of these timed exclusives for some reason.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Not to mention, certain genres are just a lot more lucrative in terms of revenue than others. I know there are a lot of people who've been angry with PlayStation solidifying its connection with fighting games for example, but outside of Smash Bros (which is exclusively Nintendo) and Mortal Kombat, what other fighters brought in a ton of revenue last gen? Maybe SFV and Tekken 7, but I bet if you took the revenue from those games, and ALL other fighters besides Smash & MK, COMBINED, you would get total revenue valued only at maybe the bottom 20% of revenue from all FPS games on the market from last generation. With Smash & MK included, maybe total revenue equal to the bottom 30% of all FPS games, at best.
And, just like with fighters, the majority of that revenue would be from just a small stable of IP, chief among them COD. COD, Apex, and Fortnite probably constitute 50% of all revenue from FPS/FPS-like games last generation. And soon, the one with the biggest cut of that revenue, which was built up over years by a once 3P, independent publisher, is going to soon be owned by a platform holder. I'm not bringing this up because it's a "problem", per se; after all Sony now owns the Destiny IP. However, at least you can argue that Destiny is as big as it is today thanks to Sony's involvement with Bungie and helping to propel that game along. People simply cannot claim that COD is as big as it is today due to Microsoft's involvement, given it's Sony who have helped with that IP including tying its identity to the PlayStation brand for the past several years.
So of course it's just going to feel "off" for a lot of people that MS are now cashing in on the efforts of COD's modern relevancy, when for the past several years it's been Sony both benefiting the brand (PS association) and benefiting from the brand. Maybe if MS purchased ABK during the peak of the 360 generation that sentiment would be a lot different to many of those conflicted with the acquisition now, but the simple truth is, that's not how this has gone down.
1) No not really. You're conflating "cornering the market" with "monopolize"; you can be #1 in a market without having a monopoly in the sense where you've abused your growing position and resources to do so.
All companies may want to be #1 but the laws ensure they at least try their best to do so through means in accordance with fair competition. Stuff like offering a superior product, avoiding price-fixing, not pricing out competitors on supply securement to the point said competitors can't realistically pay any prices for those supplies, offering better advertising, generally not paying for resources/shelf space/distribution etc. in ways to directly harm or limit competitors (like with certain clauses blocking them out or paying such a premium that no other competitor could hope to pay), etc.
That's why groups like the DOJ, FTC, CMA etc. exist in the first place.
2)Yes but there are ways to do that. Mergers & acquisitions are only one such answer, and if we're to a point where it feels necessary, then that's symptomatic of a deeper problem. But we know that you don't need massive acquisitions to see revenue growth even as costs increase, because both Sony and Nintendo have seen record-breaking growth over the past couple of years with either no acquisitions, or relatively small acquisitions at best. Unfortunately like with Xbox, some of the growth over the past year or two was due to COVID lockdowns, but it'd seem most of that growth was of substance as revenue has either remained stable or increased QoQ.
So yes, the way economies are set up basically push public companies to keep pursuing growth, but that does not necessarily mean that acquisitions are the only or in some cases, even the best, option to seek for that. And at the very worst, if a company feels pressured to, they can just go private, that way they don't need to keep pursuing potentially unrealistic growth models for shareholders and board members.
Either that or offer shares to more modest-expectation buyers, and replace members of the board. Although those options involve corporate politics.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
I prefer investing in the games themselves, so Ronin
pasterpl
Member
As another poster mention don't go into the list wars, we all know both companies are doing it, but it seems that ms might be slightly switching their approach now, release on anything you want and we will pay you to have it day 1 on game pass (lower cost of this sort of agreement I assume) while Sony is still doing traditional moneyhatting (sift, stray, kena etc.) with some non-gamepass clauses in them. I have asked on the example that is very recent, which one of these approaches is better for the players.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
pasterpl
Member
So cutting out pc, Xbox, Nintendo players is okay, and it is more pro gamer in your opinion? I am also sure that wo long gamepass money were not invested in development.
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
I miss the days when the systems libraries were completely different. The Snes and Genesis for example. Nowadays you're getting probably 85 percent of the same content no matter which console you choose. The Switch is the exception of course.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Sony's directly involved in the development so what's the issue?
TheGodfather07
Member
But its a new ip and Sony are helping develop it. It isn't an established ip, that is popular on other platforms. Its a big difference. This is actually an example of how to do it right.
Last edited:
GhostOfTsu
Banned
Ok so you're against the game Xbox is doing with Avalanche studios and Kojima, right?
And you're still angry about Ninja Gaiden, Dead or Alive 3 and 4 (same Team Ninja).
You can add Alan Wake, Quantum Break, Ryse, Mass Effect, Sunset Overdrive, Dead Rising 3, Dino Crisis 3 and all the games MS did with third-parties (moneyhats according to you).
My turning point was when Dead or Alive 1 and 2 were multiplatforms and then MS moneyhatted Dead or Alive 3 and 4. The series was never the same
Last edited:
geary
Member
Rise of Ronin is coming to PC as well.
pasterpl
Member
So scorn, NAKAMA, the ascent etc. are all okay then? Is it only established IPs that we have problem with? Even stalker 2 is okay as it never was on playstation. Got it.
pasterpl
Member
Wasn't aware of that. Is this confirmed?
pasterpl
Member
Yeah, I am not a fan of this approach, I would rather see ms getting more day one AAA games on gamepass but not timed exclusivity. Release it everywhere, save money and make it day 1 on gamepass instead. I am working with assumption that this kind of deal would cost less. Of course this is based on assumption that completion wouldn't make timed exclusive deals with gamepass exclusion requirement. Then we are back to full time exclusivity plus day 1 game pass.
And all of this can be avoided by simply purchasing publishers. Everything becomes first party and it is their decision which platforms it will be released on. Ms will always be better in my books as they support pc as well as xbox.
Last edited:
geary
Member
According to the trailer is Console Exclusive, not Playstation Exclusive. After PS hype will settle down, we will see an official announcement.
I don't want to say lazy dev but it feels like it however its not really about laziness.
I didnt touch the topic about about monopolistic practices for a reason. I know that you can get a monopoly without doing any practices that would be deemed illegal or anticompetitive
Again wasn't talking about acquisitions, I was just saying that companies will increase prices regardless of whether they are renting you a product/service or selling it to you.
Last edited:
TheGodfather07
Member
Your the one saying its wrong to do, not me. I was merely pointing out that its a standard business practice. Why are you trying to make it into a negative for sony, but not Microsoft? Atleast be consistent. I'm totally fine with both of them making exclusive deals. Especially if they are fostering new ip. I dont see whats the problem is here?
SportsFan581
Member
I definitely would never make the assumption that one company purchasing marketing rights for a game grants them some kind of credit for the success of said game. If you want to look at CoD through that lens, than Xbox was already responsible for making them worth partnering with to begin with. All that talk is just noise. CoD is successful on its own merits, not because of anything Sony, MS or Nintendo ever brought to the table.
At this point the only statements MS has made regarding CoD is that it will stay multi-platform. Thus, it will still be available for PS the same as it is today.
At this point the only statements MS has made regarding CoD is that it will stay multi-platform. Thus, it will still be available for PS the same as it is today.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Obviously the more pro gamer move is the one that has the game on the most platforms.
I prefer the first one, because I am an Xbox guy. So give me GamePass games. If I were a PS guy, I'd still prefer the first one because it's on all platforms. As a PS guy, nothing at all would change for me in either of those scenarios.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Exactly. Sony was able to block 2 Bethesda games from Xbox and Game Pass before Xbox bought Bethesda. If the rumors are true, it's possible Xbox gamers would be blocked for a year or more from Starfield if they hadn't bought Bethesda. By purchasing them Sony will never be able to block any Bethesda games from Xbox again. Same with CoD and any perks like early access, different game modes, exclusive betas, etc.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I've said this before as well, a wing like Activision under MS is far more likely to put out games on more platforms like Switch than it would have done so before. It's a net gain for more platforms/folks in general.
- Status