Support NeoGAF

[Heisenberg007]

• Destruction All Stars
• Sackboy
• Demon's Souls
• Returnal
• Gran Turismo 7
• Firewall
• Stellar Blade
• Dreams
• Persistence
• Death Stranding
• PS VR 2

But, yeah, 0 variety and innovation. All are 3rd person action-adventure games that play the same way. Sometimes, I can't even distinguish between Returnal and Astrobot. They play exactly the same.

 

[oldergamer]

Use your head, you're wrong and no one cares about Xbox Game Studios graphical output.
How would Sony games, which are graphically (whether you like the gameplay or not) in the upper tier lose out if Xbox stopped existing?

Thing happen for a reason. Sony putting out cg trailers that set the bar far too high, set them on a path to push graphical limits of hardware. of which would have put them in that place without xbox 360 being a visually capable console.

 

[akimbo009]

They are making a multiplayer game called Factions. Why you would ignore that confirmed game and concentrate on a rumour

Isn't Factions an rumor too of a MP game based in... Last of Us?

This isn't a list wars argument I'm making, and you already conceded the point that Sony is better with full competition which was my point.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

Only dumb people would argue/debate/focus on that..

I agree entirely.

Ounce? . Hyperbolic much?

Sure, a little hyperbolic, but when's the last time Sony devs made a game (outside of GT and MLB) that cannot be classified as 3rd person action adventure?

You are so transparent.

Yes, I specifically named off genres that MS-owned studios are producing. I wasn't trying to hide my preference for a wide variety of different videogames.

Yeah. Can't wait Naughty Dog to make the next Civilization and Sim City.

I said in the TLoU3 thread that I want ND to do literally anything else than zombies in current year. Yes, even if ND is incapable of making anything other than their 3rd person narrative action adventure games then let's do something new. Frankly I have much more respect for Sucker Punch, at least they can come up with a new idea in timescales measured in decades.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Isn't Factions an rumor too of a MP game based on... Last of Us?

This isn't a list wars argument I'm making, and you already conceded the point that Sony is better with full competition which was my point.

A rumor out of the director's mouth himself.

 

[Three]

Isn't Factions an rumor too of a MP game based in... Last of Us?

This isn't a list wars argument I'm making, and you already conceded the point that Sony is better with full competition which was my point.

No, it's not a rumour. They confirmed they are working on a multiplayer game and showed some art. Might not be called factions but a multiplayer game is confirmed and TLOU3 is only a rumour. Yes I 'conceded' that competition is great but just didn't agree with your view of recent Sony games being "remakes and number 3 or 4 sequels of decade old series" because obviously with those examples that's not true.

 

[akimbo009]

No, it's not a rumour. They confirmed they are working on a multiplayer game and showed some art. Might not be called factions but a multiplayer game is confirmed and TLOU3 is only a rumour. Yes I 'conceded' that competition is great but just didn't agree with your view of recent Sony games being "remakes and number 3 or 4 sequels of decade old series" because obviously with those examples that's not true.

Factions is based on the Last of Us world... Back to my point of 3 or 4.... And we really haven't seen anything from it yet so ... Shrug?

Anyway, MS being competitive drives Sony to be innovative and vice versa and it's clear they've pushed each other at critical times for the better. Which is the point - don't gotta get all triggered.

 

[THE DUCK]

I've decided to approve this deal.

 

[Three]

Factions is based on the Last of Us world... Back to my point of 3 or 4.... And we really haven't seen anything from it yet so ... Shrug?

You're mixing up conversations there though.

Like, can we have an ounce of variety? Where are the RPGs, the shooters, the 'immersive sims' (fuck I hate that term), the survival games, the multiplayer, the passion projects, or anything else that takes a modecum of risk? Sony used to make those games, and I know their d

Ounce? . Hyperbolic much?

You are so transparent.


Yeah. Can't wait Naughty Dog to make the next Civilization and Sim City.

You won't see them make a sim .. they are making... Checks notes... Last of Us 3! Exciting, I know.

For some reason you concentrated on a rumour and not the confirmed multiplayer, likely survival game, which may be in the TLOU universe but doesn't change what the game is.

 

[oldergamer]

Sony's first party (at least the big hitters) have all been around and working with Sony since well before Xbox 360 was a threat

It doesnt matter if they were around, they too a huge step forward graphically while 360 competed with ps3. Last of us, uncharted, god of war and a number of others took huge steps forward either late in the ps3 lifetime.

I know u dont want to admit it, but the 360 and crazy high bar set by sony when advertising ps3 put them on that visual path

 

[akimbo009]

You're mixing up conversations there though.





For some reason you concentrated on a rumour and not the confirmed multiplayer, likely survival game which may be in the TLOU universe but doesn't change what the game is.

I'm not. Point is Naughty Dog seems to have devolved into a last of Us factory which is... Unfortunate. And not innovating like they should - and probably would if MS actually got consistent with their delivery.

You're getting all defense force when at the core of this discussion is these companies both need to push each other than the lack of MS output isn't pushing Sony like they did in the 360 days.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

For some reason you concentrated on a rumour and not the confirmed multiplayer, likely survival game, which may be in the TLOU universe but doesn't change what the game is.

Brochacho I don't know if you know where you are, but unsubstantiated rumors are treated as gospel truth in these parts.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I'm not. Point is Naughty Dog seems to have devolved into a last of Us factory which is... Unfortunate. And not innovating like they should - and probably would if MS actually got consistent with their delivery.

Many would say that Naughty Dog making their first full-fledged story-based multiplayer game is an innovation. Isn't it?

You're getting all defense force when at the core of this discussion is these companies both need to push each other than the lack of MS output isn't pushing Sony like they did in the 360 days.

While companies do push each other as competitors, sure (GP vs. PS+ Extra is a good example), PlayStation has made good games regardless of competitors.

Like, they have 0 competition in the console VR space, yet they continue to make AAA VR games and is now even launching PS VR 2, where is no one competing with them. They are innovating and taking the medium forward on their own.

 

[Three]

It doesnt matter if they were around, they too a huge step forward graphically while 360 competed with ps3. Last of us, uncharted, god of war and a number of others took huge steps forward either late in the ps3 lifetime.

I know u dont want to admit it, but the 360 and crazy high bar set by sony when advertising ps3 put them on that visual path

So Sony studio games looked good because of MS? They always tried to push visuals before including on PS2 with GoW, Jak and Daxter, GT etc.

I'm not. Point is Naughty Dog seems to have devolved into a last of Us factory which is... Unfortunate. And not innovating like they should - and probably would if MS actually got consistent with their delivery.

You're getting all defense force when at the core of this discussion is these companies both need to push each other than the lack of MS output isn't pushing Sony like they did in the 360 days.

We already established competition is great (third time now?) but clearly the conversation there was about variety in games and what naughty dog were doing. They are making a multiplayer, likely survival game which was exactly what the guy was saying is missing.

 

[akimbo009]

Many would say that Naughty Dog making their first full-fledged story-based multiplayer game is an innovation. Isn't it?

While companies do push each other as competitors, sure (GP vs. PS+ Extra is a good example), PlayStation has made good games regardless of competitors.

Like, they have 0 competition in the console VR space, yet they continue to make AAA VR games and is now even launching PS VR 2, where is no one competing with them. They are innovating and taking the medium forward on their own.

They aren't alone on VR, meta and steam are doing a bunch here as well.

 

[3liteDragon]

I know u dont want to admit it, but the 360 and crazy high bar set by sony when advertising ps3 put them on that visual path

lmao

 

[MasterCornholio]

So Sony studio games looked good because of MS? They always tried to push visuals before including on PS2 with GoW, Jak and Daxter, GT etc.

I also doubt that theory. If Microsoft didn't exist GG would have still developed the Decima Engine and produced those great looking games.

Maybe Sony wouldn't have bought some devs if Microsoft wasn't on a buying spree. But I'm pretty sure games would have still looked really good even without Microsoft as a competitor.

Didn't oldergamer request a ban earlier? Im curious as to why he didn't leave yet.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I agree entirely.

Sure, a little hyperbolic, but when's the last time Sony devs made a game (outside of GT and MLB) that cannot be classified as 3rd person action adventure?

Dreams.

A bunch with PSVR and a new ones with PSVR2 about to lunch.

And yeah. Returnal is pretty weird game is like a bullet hell third person game.

Yes, I specifically named off genres that MS-owned studios are producing. I wasn't trying to hide my preference for a wide variety of different videogames.

So?....do you understand how your "argument" comes across right?

I said in the TLoU3 thread that I want ND to do literally anything else than zombies in current year. Yes, even if ND is incapable of making anything other than their 3rd person narrative action adventure games then let's do something new.

Frankly I have much more respect for Sucker Punch, at least they can come up with a new idea in timescales measured in decades.

So..don't you believe 343i is able to do something more than FPS/Halos?

What about The coalition...oh wait...listen to Phills's own words:

1:15:00



Naughty Dog literally created 2 Major AAA new IPs in a single generation. If you haven't figured a out: AAA development is getting increasingly expensive and time consuming.

GUERRILLA literally went form Making FPSs to an open world new third person IP.

Is like asking Bethesda to make a competitive multiplayer game.

And say:
See, see, see?!?!?! Bethesda only makes RPGs. Where is my Fornite form Bethesda?

Or:

Oh, is Id Sofware going to make another DooM...

"I want ND Id Software to do literally anything else than zombies demons in current year"


Sorry bro. Your argument is dumb and contrived by naming different genres that MS doesn't have any involvement creating in the first place.

You know what you are doing and is not very smart.

 

[Yoboman]

It doesnt matter if they were around, they too a huge step forward graphically while 360 competed with ps3. Last of us, uncharted, god of war and a number of others took huge steps forward either late in the ps3 lifetime.

I know u dont want to admit it, but the 360 and crazy high bar set by sony when advertising ps3 put them on that visual path

Lmao what load of nonsense. God of War was an existing PS2 title, Naughty Dog were always shifting to more realistic games as were Insomniac. Both of which switched from platformers as soon as the gen started

If anything influenced Naughty Dog and Insomniac it was the success of God of War

 

[Heisenberg007]

They aren't alone on VR, meta and steam are doing a bunch here as well.

They are not a competition in the console gaming industry as a platform holder, though.

If we are looking at companies beyond console gaming platformers, one can argue that even if Xbox bows out, it'd be fine because PlayStation will have competition in the form of third-party game publishers, such as Take Two, EA, Ubisoft, Capcom, etc.

 

[oldergamer]

Lmao what load of nonsense. God of War was an existing PS2 title, Naughty Dog were always shifting to more realistic games as were Insomniac. Both of which switched from platformers as soon as the gen started

If anything influenced Naughty Dog and Insomniac it was the success of God of War

God of war on ps3 was a big visual leap over previous titles, a massive leap and falls into the late gen timeframe i mentioned. Apparently you think competition had no affect on Sony it seems.

If you dont think actual competition had any impact on what you see today, then lmao. Im sure you think sony invented waggle, motion camera, controllers with rumble, and ps+ not due to competition, but they thought of it first.

 

[Warablo]

They are not a competition in the console gaming industry as a platform holder, though.

If we are looking at companies beyond console gaming platformers, one can argue that even if Xbox bows out, it'd be fine because PlayStation will have competition in the form of third-party game publishers, such as Take Two, EA, Ubisoft, Capcom, etc.

Umm no, because Sony would be making money from all those third party publishers just by existing.

 

[Yoboman]

God of war on ps3 was a big visual leap over previous titles, a massive leap and falls into the late gen timeframe i mentioned. Apparently you think competition had no affect on Sony it seems.

If you dont think actual competition had any impact on what you see today, then lmao. Im sure you think sony invented waggle, motion camera, controllers with rumble, and ps+ not due to competition, but they thought of it first.

Of course it was a massive leap. They went from PS2 hardware to PS3 hardware

All of those devs were cutting edge on PS2 hardware as well, it was just severely underpowered hardware

 

[Three]

God of war on ps3 was a big visual leap over previous titles, a massive leap and falls into the late gen timeframe i mentioned. Apparently you think competition had no affect on Sony it seems.

If you dont think actual competition had any impact on what you see today, then lmao. Im sure you think sony invented waggle, motion camera, controllers with rumble, and ps+ not due to competition, but they thought of it first.

Waggle and motion controls for a system are a little different to games competing on visuals on a single system though. Especially ones from different gens like GoW 2 vs GoW 3. They would have tried to make that massive leap regardless to sell the new system. Games would have competed for visuals on a single system regardless. If you had said competing on power on the system itself then that's true but to suggest that the Sony studios pushed visuals in their games due to MS I can't say I agree with.

Some of the ideas here as to what arises from competition is a little weird honestly. Sony Studios pushing visuals isn't one of them bar the system's specs itself and neither is a game not being a sequel or set in the same franchise.

Who knows maybe they are agreeing Nintendo isn't competition after all because they are on Mario Kart 8, Smash Bros 5, Zelda 29, Pokemon 47 and don't really push visuals at all.
Uncharted 4, GoW, TLOU2, Horizon Zero Dawn, GT, Infamous, Death Stranding, Dreams also looked really bad visually because Sony didn't have competition during the PS4. We really need MS to buy Activison so that future Sony studio games look good.

 

[Banjo64]

They are not a competition in the console gaming industry as a platform holder, though.

If we are looking at companies beyond console gaming platformers, one can argue that even if Xbox bows out, it'd be fine because PlayStation will have competition in the form of third-party game publishers, such as Take Two, EA, Ubisoft, Capcom, etc.

I disagree. The closest we ever came to Sony having no competition was the aftermath of the PS2 (150m sold vs 20m and 25m).

They followed up by released a console in the PS3 which they charged us £400+ for. With the exchange rate at the time that was equivalent to $800+ for Brits.

The PS3 had an infrastructure that developers literally hated, whilst the 360 pushed everyone towards PC-esque architecture.

The PS3 game selection was shocking until the second half of the system's life also.

It's not fair to say that without Xbox PS would carry on as they are, when the only actual evidence we have is extreme pricing, arrogant decisions and poorer quality games.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I disagree. The closest we ever came to Sony having no competition was the aftermath of the PS2 (150m sold vs 20m and 25m).

They followed up by released a console in the PS3 which they charged us £400+ for. With the exchange rate at the time that was equivalent to $800+ for Brits.

The PS3 had an infrastructure that developers literally hated, whilst the 360 pushed everyone towards PC-esque architecture.

The PS3 game selection was shocking until the second half of the system's life also.

It's not fair to say that without Xbox PS would carry on as they are, when the only actual evidence we have is extreme pricing, arrogant decisions and poorer quality games.

Competition does bring out the best in companies, I agree.

In my previous comment, I mentioned as such and even game the example of PS Plus Extra, which is a result of competition by Gamepass. But I also said that Sony has also kind of evolved and innovated on their own, too, and that they are not 100% completely dependent on competition to drive them.

VR and PS VR 2 are prime examples of it.

PlayStation has no competition in the console gaming industry whatsoever in VR gaming. But they keep investing in and pushing that medium because they want to.

 

[supernova8]

I'm not sure why Activision even gets a say in this matter beyond saying stuff along the lines of "we really need Microsoft to buy us otherwise we're going to go under", which doesn't seem likely given how much money the various ActiBliz IPs rake in.

Surely what Activision thinks in terms of Microsoft's incentive to take COD or other ActiBliz IP off Playstation is kinda irrelevant since.... if Microsoft bought them they would have no say in the matter anyway.

Am I missing something here?

 

[reksveks]

PlayStation has no competition in the console gaming industry whatsoever in VR gaming. But they keep investing in and pushing that medium because they want to.

I would argue that they invest in it because they believe it provides additional stickiness to their consoles especially in comparison to other platforms including the Quest.

Business decisions aren't usually as simple as as 'they want to'.

Companies invest in new platforms/technologies even without direct competition as it gives them first mover advantage against other current and future competitors.

I think I may be implying too much from 'they want to' but I think it's better to be clear behind the motives.

 

[Lex Tenebris]

Just stop with the console warring. Sony and Microsoft are both large corporations full of greed and shady activity. That's every major corporation in the world, and acting like Microsoft is somehow a pristine picture in comparison to the vileness of Sony is both pathetic and childish. Grow up. Microsoft doesn't make deals with Sony, and Sony doesn't make deals with Microsoft. As an example, Microsoft refuses to support true cross-play with Square Enix and Sony when it comes to Final Fantasy XIV. That's why Final Fantasy XIV isn't on Xbox, and that's a very real example of how Microsoft is harming their own consumers.

https://gamerant.com/final-fantasy-14-xbox-one/



What an absolutely ridiculous rule that is. It's 2022 and Microsoft still only supports cross-play so long as you can't communicate with players on PlayStation, Switch, et cetera. "What amazing! Much the best!" Quit fanboying. It's sad and ridiculous.

Dude, maybe this was true at the release of the game, but right now you can do all that in destiny 2 or warzone, just to name two successful games. Iirc they stated that the game isn't on MS platforms, right now,simply because they don't have enough work force for the port.

 

[Three]

I disagree. The closest we ever came to Sony having no competition was the aftermath of the PS2 (150m sold vs 20m and 25m).

They followed up by released a console in the PS3 which they charged us £400+ for. With the exchange rate at the time that was equivalent to $800+ for Brits.

The PS3 had an infrastructure that developers literally hated, whilst the 360 pushed everyone towards PC-esque architecture.

The PS3 game selection was shocking until the second half of the system's life also.

It's not fair to say that without Xbox PS would carry on as they are, when the only actual evidence we have is extreme pricing, arrogant decisions and poorer quality games.

I think the PS3 was a lesson in price but they had never taken a bigger loss on the cost of the console before and I don't think they ever will again. it wasn't extreme pricing and arrogance as much as it was a lesson not selling a heavily subsidised premium product. They tried to include everything and the kitchen sink on the PS3 (wifi, blu ray, card reader, hdd, bluetooth, etc) and hope that over time the economies of scale, game sales and cost reduction would make that viable. Somebody else eating into the market showed that plan was in trouble though and they had to reduce cost quicker by trimming the PS3 down wherever possible. It lost PS2 chips, card readers, and linux ( to think Sony were subsidising other peoples server farms and getting softmoded due to it too).

The 360 was not very PC-esque. It had a similar IBM instructionset as the PS3 but its memory wasn't PC-esque like the PS3 or PC. That's what actually made it great, it was innovative because it had a unified memory pool unlike PC or PS3. The Cell when it comes to innovation was also great but required experience and and an at the time new paradigm in parallelism. Most devs were not experienced in parallel programming, that's where the PC-esque really ended which was only recently slowly moving to more and more cores at the time.

I think we have actually lost innovation there with hardware and the similar SoCs from AMD. In a bid to reduce cost of development to several machines at a time PS and Xbox have become largely the same in hardware and each iteration means trying to maintain compatibility with the past.

 

[oldergamer]

Dude, maybe this was true at the release of the game, but right now you can do all that in destiny 2 or warzone, just to name two successful games. Iirc they stated that the game isn't on MS platforms, right now,simply because they don't have enough work force for the port.

Which game was there a statement on regarding workforce?

 

[phil_t98]

I disagree. Sony would still be competing with Nintendo, PC and other entertainment products. I believe people are giving Microsoft too much credit for Sony's innovation. Sony has always been an innovative company. I could argue that Sony is less innovative with the PlayStation brand because they are having to compete with Microsoft and not able to take as many risks as they did in the earlier days of PlayStation.

but we are constantly told Sony and Nintendo aren't in competition? they are only in competition with microsoft

 

[feynoob]

I'm not sure why Activision even gets a say in this matter beyond saying stuff along the lines of "we really need Microsoft to buy us otherwise we're going to go under", which doesn't seem likely given how much money the various ActiBliz IPs rake in.

Surely what Activision thinks in terms of Microsoft's incentive to take COD or other ActiBliz IP off Playstation is kinda irrelevant since.... if Microsoft bought them they would have no say in the matter anyway.

Am I missing something here?

Activision has hell waiting for them.
The lawsuit is still there and haven't left yet, their closest is full of skeletons. The company is too reliant on COD, to the point they are making most of there studios focus on CoD production.

It's perfect time for them to cash out, and leave the mess to MS.

 

[oldergamer]

Activision has hell waiting for them.
The lawsuit is still there and haven't left yet, their closest is full of skeletons. The company is too reliant on COD, to the point they are making most of there studios focus on CoD production.

It's perfect time for them to cash out, and leave the mess to MS.

Thats a pretty silly take on it. I think its less about the scandals and more about wanting the money. The board arent likely going to make more on the investment then taking this deal.

 

[oldergamer]

I'm not sure why Activision even gets a say in this matter beyond saying stuff along the lines of "we really need Microsoft to buy us otherwise we're going to go under", which doesn't seem likely given how much money the various ActiBliz IPs rake in.

Surely what Activision thinks in terms of Microsoft's incentive to take COD or other ActiBliz IP off Playstation is kinda irrelevant since.... if Microsoft bought them they would have no say in the matter anyway.

Am I missing something here?

Why wouldn't activision have a say in a deal to purchase them? That makes so little sense.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Why wouldn't activision have a say in a deal to purchase them? That makes so little sense.

They had their say when they decided to sell. Now their statements do not and should not be accounted for regulatory concerns, because they are not an affected party of the resulting anti-competitiveness. That's why.

 

[feynoob]

Thats a pretty silly take on it. I think its less about the scandals and more about wanting the money. The board arent likely going to make more on the investment then taking this deal.

It's about what I said.
This deal is distracting everyone from Activision real issues. And that is a good thing for Activision management.

 

[reksveks]

I'm not sure why Activision even gets a say in this matter beyond saying stuff along the lines of "we really need Microsoft to buy us otherwise we're going to go under", which doesn't seem likely given how much money the various ActiBliz IPs rake in.

Surely what Activision thinks in terms of Microsoft's incentive to take COD or other ActiBliz IP off Playstation is kinda irrelevant since.... if Microsoft bought them they would have no say in the matter anyway.

Am I missing something here?

They had their say when they decided to sell. Now their statements do not and should not be accounted for regulatory concerns, because they are not an affected party of the resulting anti-competitiveness. That's why.

Because they are one of two parties directly involved in a transaction and they will be impacted by whether the deal goes or doesn't go through.

The FTC had already implied some positions of ABK in their complaint that ABK has refuted so clearly they need to have some level of communication to the FTC. Obviously regulators should be asking more than just ABK and MS.

 

[feynoob]

MLex has a new report about the review process in Japan:

- It is believed that the deal has yet to be formally notified.

-In June 2022, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) called for third-party views about the deal, even though it was at a "Phase I review" (I guess they mean pre-notification talks if it hasn't been notified yet). It was due to a new initiative to seek information about competition concerns in the digital markets at an early stage.

- Similar issues that Western regulators are being analysed (gaming market, cloud gaming, ecosystem advantages, etc).

- There hasn't been an uproar against the planned merger from the Japanese gaming industry or community.

- The JFTC hasn't blocked a deal in decades and usually accepts behavioural remedies

- According to the "2022 CESA Games White Paper," published in August 2022, Nintendo has 74.8%, Sony 23.4% and Microsoft's 1.8% of the Japanese market.

- The JFTC is known to analyse global deals in similar ways as Western regulators and approving the same conditions soon after its peers' decisions.

- The timing of the Japanese review will depend on MS's strategy, but maybe the JFTC wants to avoid affecting the FTC's court battle by giving an early clearance with easy conditions.

- In any case, it's not even clear if the JFTC would announce its decision because they don't have a legal obligation to disclose an initial-review result.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Man, so much warring and bickering because someone dared suggest Xbox competing makes PlayStation better. Weird thread.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Because they are one of two parties directly involved in a transaction and they will be impacted by whether the deal goes or doesn't go through.

The FTC had already implied some positions of ABK in their complaint that ABK has refuted so clearly they need to have some level of communication to the FTC. Obviously regulators should be asking more than just ABK and MS.

They will hear them, of course, but on the state of the market and its potential competitiveness, the regulators won't be taking into account what ABK has to say.

 

[adamsapple]

• Destruction All Stars
• Sackboy
• Demon's Souls
• Returnal
• Gran Turismo 7
• Firewall
• Stellar Blade
• Dreams
• Persistence
• Death Stranding
• PS VR 2

But, yeah, 0 variety and innovation. All are 3rd person action-adventure games that play the same way. Sometimes, I can't even distinguish between Returnal and Astrobot. They play exactly the same.

Will your car be killed via golf club by a muscle car in GT8 ?

 

[reinking]

but we are constantly told Sony and Nintendo aren't in competition? they are only in competition with Microsoft

Funny how people keep saying this but the major console sales charts have Nintendo on them. Nintendo beats to their own drum but they are competing for some of the same dollars that Sony and Microsoft are competing for.

 

[ReBurn]

Will your car be killed via golf club by a muscle car in GT8 ?

That sounds like a version of Gran Turismo I'd like to play

 

[Iced Arcade]

Good acquisition talk fellas lol

 

[adamsapple]

Good acquisition talk fellas lol

It's 300+ pages, we need to spice it up every now and then to keep the spark going.

 

[reksveks]

but on the state of the market and its potential competitiveness, the regulators won't be taking into account what ABK has to say.

It does depends on the market definition is but clearly it is worth hearing from as well as other players.

The regulators stated that ABK were a potential supplier in the 'multi game service market, ABK dispute that. I think T2 would be saying something similar to ABK.

Ultimately the regulators should rely on defendable economic analysis and proper feedback on market participants.

 

[IFireflyl]

Dude, maybe this was true at the release of the game, but right now you can do all that in destiny 2 or warzone, just to name two successful games. Iirc they stated that the game isn't on MS platforms, right now,simply because they don't have enough work force for the port.

The article I linked was well after the game launched. It was written in 2019. Also:

To play an MMORPG [on Xbox], there are 2 regulations for Microsoft which stand in the way of making crossplay feasible. Unless these regulations are rejected, there is no meaning.

One of the regulations is that players with different platforms cannot chat with each other in-game. Then how do you play an MMO?

The other regulation is you cannot make a community with players on a different platform. You can't form a guild, you can't enter into a link shell, [and] no free company. So I would like to have Microsoft change their regulations.

That was from Naoki Yoshida, the director of Final Fantasy XIV. It doesn't matter if Microsoft is bridging the gap with cross-chat (finally). They still haven't allowed cross-platform communities. Guilds are a big part of Final Fantasy XIV. Don't blindly defend Microsoft. Like Sony, Nintendo, and all other corporations, they aren't your friend.

 

[feynoob]

Like Sony, Nintendo, and all other corporations, they aren't your friend.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

See, this is where you and I have something in common. While I don't agree MS "need" ABK in order to "balance out the power structure in gaming" (because that sounds like others are being punished for winning the free market where customers speak with their wallets), I do agree that after ABK, MS need to chill out and focus on getting everything they have under some sense of order. Their plate is pretty full as-is, and will risk spilling over if/when the ABK deal is approved.

Just about every major player has made acquisitions in some form to improve its competitive positioning. One to do better, or another to stay ahead. Microsoft's purchase is historically large, true, but I see it as not too different from Sony adding to its already great list of internal studios. The key difference between them is Microsoft is buying incredibly famous and popular gaming IP on top of game studios.

I also don't think Microsoft "need" ABK. I thought Bethesda alone and acquiring those studios plus IPs such as Dishonored, Doom, Elder Scrolls, Starfield and Fallout were more than enough to shift the competitive landscape. Activision Blizzard King joining Microsoft only does that even more, just not to a degree I would classify as dangerous to competition in the industry.

That said, I don't see Microsoft stopping after Activision Blizzard. I believe ones at the size of ABK are finished after the deal closes, but I firmly believe they're still interested in getting Crystal Dynamics and Eidos and the Tomb Raider and Deus Ex IPs from Embracer, and I truly believe Microsoft wants CD Projekt Red and the Cyberpunk IP (Witcher also) and will immediately divest something like GOG in order to get them. But if not CD Projekt Red, I definitely eventually see Microsoft acquiring Certain Affinity and possibly other developers they're working on first-party titles with, such as possibly IO interactive, the team working on Contraband, and who knows what other studios.

Microsoft wants a huge gaming factory to feed Game Pass with lots of major first-party games on a consistent basis. When one set of studios or publisher needs more time, the other studios or publishers are dropping big releases.

Any other big publisher after that should be called out for exactly what it will look like, especially if it's well before we start seeing consistent results and growth with what's already had: corporate greed and monopolization of power through resource hoarding. Because that's what it's going to end up looking like. You may end up with all the ABK studios and their IP. You already have Zenimax and their IP. You have Ninja Theory, Compulsion, Double Fine, inXile, Playground, Turn 10, Coalition, 343i, Rare, Mojang....

The consistent results and growth, I think, is already evident from 2021. Everything that transpired that year for Xbox from a first party perspective led to excellent results and momentum for Xbox Series consoles, as well as for Game Pass. Xbox even managed to gain some market share on Sony for about 2 straight quarters if I'm not mistaken.

That aught to be well more than enough for ALL of their current and future gaming ambitions. That includes console, cloud, and mobile.

I think it would be for the old Xbox. New Xbox is chasing something far more ambitious from Game Pass in terms of the regularity with which first-party content appears, and I think Microsoft is ever conscious of the 3-4 (even 5 year) gaps that can come between major releases and wants to be able to fill as many gaps as humanely possible.

Outside of maybe some smaller indie dev here or there (like the dev for High on Life, considering they'd seem like a shoe-in for a new Conker game), Microsoft shouldn't need any other developers or publishers IMHO. And no, they don't "need" a Japanese publisher for Japanese content; they already have Tango (a Japanese developer) and games like Minecraft are already pretty popular over there.

I don't think a Japanese publisher is off the table. I don't think they need one, but it wouldn't surprise me to see Microsoft try for one. I, for example, never thought they'd ever go for anything bigger than Bethesda. So at this point, I just stand and watch what they do.

My other issue with the ABK acquisition though is, should it go through, if there's not enough stipulated in terms of guidelines or potential concessions, it'll make things a lot easier for other companies to just outright buy up many of the other big 3P publishers. A domino effect of mass, rapid consolidation, which would be horrible. If the ABK deal gets approved, I think it should come come with some limitations.

The difference here is that not every other company that would make such a purchase as this one will necessarily have the same degree of commitment or respect for gaming as Microsoft has demonstrated through Xbox. They bought Minecraft, a juggernaut in its own right, and they've been pretty responsible caretakers of that IP. They've even continued releasing new games in the universe on rival consoles (Minecraft Dungeons), and are about to again with Minecraft Legends.

The reason I can't see any concession is because in every single segment of what ABK is as a gaming company, Microsoft isn't so commanding in any one area that I think regulators will demand specific things of them. Microsoft has very little presence of worth in the mobile space. In the console space, it has been demonstrated through Nintendo's success and dominance that games like Call of Duty aren't explicitly necessary to compete at a high level. And despite its popularity on Xbox, Playstation and PC, there are plenty other games from other publishers that ensure Call of Duty doesn't have too dominant a share of videogames published on either 3 platforms.

Call of Duty is ONLY released on PC operating systems currently, so Microsoft acquiring it also wouldn't really take anything essential for the success of other operating systems. In fact, Microsoft acquiring Call of Duty effectively brings it to even MORE operating systems thanks to Game Pass Cloud Streaming.

Whether those be concessions like divesting a part or two of it, or wherein companies can't acquire additional devs or pubs of certain sizes for a period of some years and where their overall output with previous acquisitions are reviewed to determine if they have a legitimate reason to make a new acquisition, there needs to be something along those lines.

Activision Blizzard have added multiple new game studios via acquisition in the 6 months prior to and the 6 months after the announcement of the acquisition. I don't see that being stopped because there are laws by which certain transactions below a specific threshold can't be reviewed.

There's two questions here not answered though. First is, what are the "real benefits" to consumers in ABK being acquired that aren't reliant on the content being very cheap in GamePass? And, could those benefits have been had without ABK being acquired? From the things you mentioned:

All those games on Game Pass for such an amazing price are really the only big benefit to consumers this transaction ever needs to have. It's that big a deal. And the benefits of Game Pass don't just stop with the price of the games themselves, but also the price of the hardware needed to access them. Cloud Streaming makes an Xbox console or even a high end PC not necessary for many of Activision Blizzards titles. Xbox Game Pass is on weaker PCs, tablets, smartphones, chromebooks, linux computers, samsung TVs, LG TVs, various cloud handheld devices. Those right there represent massive consumer benefits that are immediate upon closing of the transaction. That's one of the biggest tests for any merger, does it benefit consumers.

Not only that, because this is very much a vertical merger much more so than it's a horizontal one, money can and will be saved by Activision Blizzard King's operations over time, which will benefit consumers yet again by making it less likely that the cost of services go up. Any eventual rise of the price of games to $70 has no impact on Activision Blizzard content, since they were already $70 before Microsoft's involvement. So Activision Blizzard's games don't become more expensive after the transaction is complete. They only become more affordable and accessible through Game Pass.

There's also no guarantee that Call of Duty comes back to Steam if not for Microsoft buying Activision Blizzard. They've been away from steam for many years without issue.

-More studio freedom: I mean, maybe? But why have we still not necessarily seen that with some of MS's current studios? Coalition are nothing but a Gears studio, 343i are nothing but a Halo studio. I wouldn't be surprised if members from both have pitched new IP but were rejected. My understanding about so many ABK studios being put on COD was that ABK wanted a ton more content, and they needed those studios to create the content.

What do you mean we haven't seen any freedom with Microsoft's studios. That's simply not true. Obsidian is a perfect example of that. Pentiment, Grounded. They got Avowed greenlit and even a sequel to the Outer Worlds. They are the very example of "studio freedom."

Ninja Theory with their MP game, Double Fine is yet another example. They were granted so much more freedom and support that they vastly improved Psychonauts 2 in numerous ways, including boss fights, that were originally not going to be in. InXile has also talked extensively on the freedom they've been granted and are currently on a major AAA FPS RPG project. Turn 10 wasn't pressured to keep releasing more motorsport games and was allowed to take their time to reinvent Forza as they please. Rare is being given all the time they need to work out their next project. Playground CHOSE fable, and are getting to make it their own way and show it when they are ready. Ninja Theory is getting all the freedom they need on Hellblade II and are working on Project Mara. State of Decay dev and others have been continuously expanding, created a new studio focused, I think, on animation.

None of coalition or 343i's game ideas get rejected. 343i wants to make Halo. That's what they are there for. They may make something else one day, but it's literally what the studio was formed for, and also what they wish to make. That's not the case for coalition, but supposedly coalition is already working on a new IP, but possibly of a smaller variety. Gears isn't so popular in my eyes that it has the same pressure of release as a Halo title, which is loved by many more people in my view, especially the Master Chief focused campaigns with Cortana. And 343i is a very clear example of the freedom allowed at Microsoft first-party studios. 343i is getting as much budget and time as they need to keep working on Halo Infinite. Microsoft has literally hired so much extra help to assist 343i in expanding Halo, particularly with Certain Affinity's Halo project, which is believed to be a BR. 343i already has its next major Halo project underway, which is a brand new campaign and have been given the space and time to get their live service component together.

The Initiative is yet another example with Perfect Dark, pretty much getting its partner studio of choice in Crystal Dynamics, which is ideal considering the head of The Initiative use to be in charge of Crystal Dynamics. Microsoft has more big new games and IP announced/confirmed right now than at any other time that I can recall. And I know Bethesda is a new addition, so that might seem unfair, but every last one of those studios has been given extra time to work on their projects, have been growing, and have even been allowed to unionize without interference from Microsoft. Allowing unionization is another form of studio freedom also.

While having more teams via MS's teams to help create that content is a real thing, ABK could have also just hired more contractors or hired additional people for those positions. Granted, if some of them were hired away from say MS studios, that's a net negative for MS and there'd be a lot more steps involved in being able to work with those individuals (if at all), so that's a case where the acquisition could help with workforce flexibility of teams between studios.

I've never been worried about this part. That's how the industry works. People come and go. There's always another man or woman up next. Hell, the lead director for Deathloop was someone at a lower position on a previous game that had been promoted up. Same is true for the new head of 343i. They were someone who was tasked with working with the team assembled by Bonnie Ross to sort out Halo MCC, and now they're in charge of all 343i. One person stepped aside and here comes Joe Staten. So that's just a natural part of the industry as I see it. Talent is everywhere. And contracting will always be a thing, but there's something to be said about having your own internal firepower.

Two of the biggest gets in this entire transaction for Microsoft will be Demonware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonware a massive boost for MP game outsourcing but it's internal at Activision. They're one of the biggest reasons Activision can turn around yearly games as quickly as they do, but especially Activision Central Tech or Activision Research (pretty much Activision's equivalent of Microsoft's Advanced Technology Group or Sony's ICE Team)

https://research.activision.com/

Microsoft getting Activision quite literally scratches a ton of itches for their overall game development operations. The tech and knowledge sharing alone will be massive. There will be no doubt as to the more advanced featureset for Xbox getting utilization. I'm sure that was coming regardless, but getting all ABK studios on board is huge.

-ABK studios helping XGS & Zenimax studios with dev: I mean this is also a potential benefit, but unfortunately for MS they already have a situation where they prove you don't NEED to acquire in order to facilitate this: Perfect Dark reboot. That's a co-development between The Initiative (a studio MS owns) and Crystal Dynamics (a dev they very much don't own), and seems to be going well.

Yes, just because can work well with studios they don't own doesn't mean there's no advantage to having control of equally as talented studios internally. Remember, across Blizzard and Activision there are a whole host of top tier teams in motion capture, CG, animation etc. Microsoft will still utilize outsourcing as needed because why not, but ABK fulfills a major need for Microsoft on the manpower front.

Also unfortunately for Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo (but particularly Sony) can be used as counter-examples where you can get really deep co-development of games, sharing of resources etc. without a platform holder needing to acquire publishers or even developers. Games like Bayonetta 2 & 3 (co-developed by Nintendo & Platinum Games, Sega owning the IP but licensing it out to Nintendo), Bloodborne (Sony Japan Studio & From Software co-developed), Callisto Protocol (Sony VASG helping with mo-cap work & tech, in spite of the game being multiplat PS/Xbox/PC) etc. are all counter-examples to this idea.

For every example you brought up just now of great working collaborative relationships with outside studios without having to acquire them is an even stronger set of examples from internally acquired Nintendo and Sony studios that have proven how useful studios becoming internal still is. Naughty Dog, an acquired studio (their ICE Team has contributed tremendously to all Sony's first party development efforts since the PS3 launch), look at Sony's rationale for picking up Bungie. If Sony's telling you they needed Bungie under the SIE umbrella to fully gain access and usage to all its knowledgebase in the area of multiplayer and live service titles, I tend to believe them. There is a convenience factor and a cost factor that has to be weighed.

You can guarantee that it would be a lot more expensive to get that type of cooperation and usage out of bungie without them being internal. Same is true for Microsoft and Bethesda or for Microsoft and Activision Blizzard studios. Activision Blizzard will save quite a bit of money from its own operations by forming with a cloud giant such as Microsoft. Any additional funding areas they may have needed before that they weren't getting will come very easily through Microsoft. Anything Microsoft would want to do with Crystal Dynamics would also be a lot more affordable were they an internal studio instead of under Embracer. So there can be no question at all the tremendous benefits that come with internal studios. Look at what Insomniac has been producing under Sony.

Look at what happened with the support studios that assisted on God of War 2018. Those same studios helped with Halo Infinite, Forza, State of Decay 2 etc. Sony by buying them out and bringing them internal makes them cost Sony much less, and it removes any obstacles or other distractions from focusing on work Sony wants done internally, which again makes them more cost-effective for Sony. What Microsoft is doing will have the same effect, and the evidence of the acquisition of first party studios is already showcasing its benefits on Xbox. The work that id software has done to improve upon the Coalitions' implementation of Tier 2 Variable Rate Shading is just such an example.



Obsidian has confirmed that numerous studios have already reached out to them for their internal script/dialog tools, and Matt Booty has confirmed hundreds of tech and knowledge sharing sessions already under all studios including Bethesda and existing Xbox Game Studios. Playground shared some of their terrain tech with Bethesda even prior to the acquisition, which I would not be surprised to learn if it played a role in how planets are created in Starfield with the terrain mapping/wrapping that's done. Bethesda has been at this for quite a while with their open worlds, but you just never know where assistance comes from. Coalition is helping State of Decay 2 with Unreal 5 and animation, and so much more.