drganon
Banned
Can't spell ignorant without ign.Two IGN lads tweeted this about 10 minutes apart. When people checked those "journalists" hadn't an Xbox achievement in two weeks. Is this paid shilling or reporting?
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
GHG
Member
Yep, the best solution for PC gamers is for everybody to remain independent.
Mibu no ookami
Banned
The year is 2050.
You turn your TV on and you want to play the latest Madden. I guarantee you, it won't be on a console as we know it today.
It'll either be on a streaming stick or directly on the tv played through cloud gaming.
The question then becomes who owns the stick or who owns the app from your TV and who paid for it to be on the TV?
Does Samsung pay EA for an EA app that runs on Tizen? Does EA pay Samsung? Does EA put out their own streaming device that allows you to play all of their games? Are these games paid for individually or through a subscription? Can EA maintain a subscription on their own or do they need to buy several companies to warrant that?
That's the future we're going towards.
You're going to see 4-8 companies control everything in gaming and these console manufacturers know that. They have a set amount of time where they can raise as much revenue as they can so that they can buy as many companies as they can.
Microsoft has deep pockets. Sony is all in on video gaming they're now trying to use cross media to deepen their pockets. Nintendo lives in its own world. Tencent is coming. Amazon, Google, and Apple want a taste.
Companies like Embracer group are buying just to sell. They're literally a holding company.
Sony's own dominance has caused it to be late to the real dance, which is MTX and Gaas, because the real dance is about revenue and acquisition.
And you can't forget Valve and Epic who are major players.
The industry will be unrecognizable in 10 years.
You turn your TV on and you want to play the latest Madden. I guarantee you, it won't be on a console as we know it today.
It'll either be on a streaming stick or directly on the tv played through cloud gaming.
The question then becomes who owns the stick or who owns the app from your TV and who paid for it to be on the TV?
Does Samsung pay EA for an EA app that runs on Tizen? Does EA pay Samsung? Does EA put out their own streaming device that allows you to play all of their games? Are these games paid for individually or through a subscription? Can EA maintain a subscription on their own or do they need to buy several companies to warrant that?
That's the future we're going towards.
You're going to see 4-8 companies control everything in gaming and these console manufacturers know that. They have a set amount of time where they can raise as much revenue as they can so that they can buy as many companies as they can.
Microsoft has deep pockets. Sony is all in on video gaming they're now trying to use cross media to deepen their pockets. Nintendo lives in its own world. Tencent is coming. Amazon, Google, and Apple want a taste.
Companies like Embracer group are buying just to sell. They're literally a holding company.
Sony's own dominance has caused it to be late to the real dance, which is MTX and Gaas, because the real dance is about revenue and acquisition.
And you can't forget Valve and Epic who are major players.
The industry will be unrecognizable in 10 years.
Mibu no ookami
Banned
That's not going to happen. When one AAA or "AAAA" flop or canceled project that took 6-8 years bankrupts your company...
I don't think Activision is in any danger of going bankrupt but if your point is about the smaller studios then that flop would have been your company's mistake or failed product and you file for bankruptcy. Being propped by a single company who might cut your studio/department is no different I would argue. Consumers didn't choose the product you bet everything on, that's your mistake as a company and as a product. It's better than consumers being controlled though.
Mibu no ookami
Banned
Microsoft said they'll spend 70 billion dollars because ultimately the Xbox brand isn't that important and neither is the PlayStation brand.
In a future where the box you play on is irrelevant, because maybe you don't play on a box at all, the importance goes to content and content creation. The brands and IPs you own, control, and can market.
Microsoft would love to have GamePass on every device just like Netflix is on every device.
Apple TV+ is on every device and Apple isn't overly concerned about the Apple TV devices they make. They could stop making it right now. What did they do in the latest version of the Apple TV 4K? You can buy it for 130, but ultimately, they're going to put out a lower end cheaper streaming stick to compete directly with Roku and Amazon. Ultimately, they want everyone on tvOS because they don't want to pay Roku or Amazon any sort of carriage fees for including Apple TV+ and they want the reverse.
EA wants the same thing. They want EA Play Pro to be the future of their company. Take2, Nintendo, and Sony are the biggest companies holding out on this.
In a future where the box you play on is irrelevant, because maybe you don't play on a box at all, the importance goes to content and content creation. The brands and IPs you own, control, and can market.
Microsoft would love to have GamePass on every device just like Netflix is on every device.
Apple TV+ is on every device and Apple isn't overly concerned about the Apple TV devices they make. They could stop making it right now. What did they do in the latest version of the Apple TV 4K? You can buy it for 130, but ultimately, they're going to put out a lower end cheaper streaming stick to compete directly with Roku and Amazon. Ultimately, they want everyone on tvOS because they don't want to pay Roku or Amazon any sort of carriage fees for including Apple TV+ and they want the reverse.
EA wants the same thing. They want EA Play Pro to be the future of their company. Take2, Nintendo, and Sony are the biggest companies holding out on this.
Mibu no ookami
Banned
I wasn't talking about Activision. Activision is large enough on their own to sustain a bump in the road.
Making games is hard, especially new IP, to sum that up by saying it's your own fault, is a bit myopic.
Gamers want originality, but that comes with risks. Gamers also want sequels and bigger and bigger games. It's a rat race.
To mitigate the risks involved with the demands of consumers, you're going to see consolidation and that consolidation is likely to turn into subscription services or hybrid services.
harry mason 1989
Banned
I really think if this deal gets blocked
It will be the end of big publishers acquisitions imo of course
It will be the end of big publishers acquisitions imo of course
feynoob
Banned
Only for Sony and MS.
Others can still buy the big companies.
Topher
Identifies as young
Big tech across the board is going to have a challenge waiting for them. DOJ is already looking to break Google up.
Cheezewizz
Banned
If that's the case then where is the lie, and could you quote the "false public statement" that was made?
Again, you're outright claiming that Phil lied. In this instance, you're stating that Phil lied about Microsoft and Sony's private discussion. Where's the lie exactly?
Phil Spencer Confirms Call of Duty Will Remain on PlayStation Platforms
Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer comments on the company's desire to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation platforms, following calls with Sony.gamerant.com
read the subheading, "following calls with Sony." Phil involved Sony in a public statement. Sony responded back in public. Jim didn't initiate this.
From what you've provided here... Not only is there no lie, but not even a misrepresentation of events that happened. Breaking it down and we see that Phil stated via twitter...
• that "he'd had calls with leaders at Sony." Which is true and confirmed by Ryan.
• Phil said that the main purpose of the calls was to inform Sony that it was "MS's intent to honor the current Act/Sony agreements that were in place once the acquisition was finalized". This is also not a lie, as it speaks specifically about intent as well as what MS would do upon the deal being complete. Neither Ryan, nor anyone else has proven that Phil was lying about what their intentions were. And even if Phil were lying, not a soul on earth would be able to prove as much until after the acquisition was complete, and their actions differed from what Phil claimed they would.
• Phil also stated in that tweet that during those calls, he expressed MS's "desire to keep CoD on Playstation consoles".
Again, it's difficult to prove someone's lying about such things as their desires because of the subjective nature of such things. But even if we disregard that altogether, we have the multiple instances of MS offering to agree to a deal with Sony to ensure CoD stays on PS.
You've repeatedly claimed Phil was lying. Either provide the quote of Phil lying or just admit that you are.
feynoob
Banned
But that doesn't mean they can't buy them.
MS has Xbox and Sony has playstation. Either of them would gain advantage over the other one.
Outsiders like Amazon, etc have no advantage and would be a welcome addition as a 3rd competitor (if that is what they want to call them).
Google though will be little hard for them. FTC is under their arse.
Topher
Identifies as young
DOJ trying to break up Google means Google is going to have a harder time buying anything than anyone else. Come on man, that's just obvious.
feynoob
Banned
Topher
Identifies as young
Are you tired today?
Are you?
"But that doesn't mean they can't buy them."
A little hard is a massive understatement.
feynoob
Banned
They can.
Topher
Identifies as young
Chiggs
Gold Member
I read his article and it still seemed pro-MS. Example:
He might just be coming to the realization that there are some powerful forces against this deal.
Sony's influence on this deal is definitely going to come to light once this goes to court...at this point, I can't really predict what is going to happen, but I think "messy" won't even begin to describe the fallout for both MS and Sony.
Mibu no ookami
Banned
I think this ignores order of magnitude.
Big difference between Microsoft buying Activision for 70 billion and say Sony buying TakeTwo for 25 billion. I also think you're going to see some mergers as well. Japan already went through much of this. Ubi Soft is desparate for help, maybe they reach out to Konami lol or more realistically see if warner discovery will buy them.
The government is looking to break up big tech, but gaming isn't that big yet.
thismeinteil
Member
Boy, that victim complex just never dies, huh? "They're all out to get Xbox, it's not fair."
Good grief. Could they at least make it look like MS didn't just send them the ad and they posted it verbatim.Two IGN lads tweeted this about 10 minutes apart. When people checked those "journalists" hadn't an Xbox achievement in two weeks. Is this paid shilling or reporting?
Topher
Identifies as young
Sony isn't big tech. I'm talking about Microsoft, Google, Apple and Amazon.
Mibu no ookami
Banned
Feynoob suggest this would block sony from buying publishers, which I don't think is the case.
I think they'd be blocked from buying Activision most likely, but I think they could buy Taketwo without too much difficulty.
Topher
Identifies as young
Sony would be an interesting case since it isn't "big tech" but is also a leader in the market. I agree that it would depend on the size/impact of the acquisition.
Mibu no ookami
Banned
The reality is Sony couldn't afford to buy Activision, it would have needed to be a merger with a stock swap. I think regulators probably would have allowed that, simply due to the size of the companies.
Microsoft's size and overall position is what gives regulators pause.
If Sony wanted to merge with Nintendo. It would go through.
If regulators allow Microsoft to buy Activision, likely they wouldn't allow them to buy any other major publishers in the industry after the fact., but most others are relatively small. Most are under 10B.
Cheezewizz
Banned
Topher
Identifies as young
Cheezewizz
Banned
But that begs the question... Do we make CoD a Neogaf exclusive?
Topher
Identifies as young
feynoob
Banned
Take 2 would be difficult, due to GTA IP. Same with Activision COD. Same with other big pubs.
Last edited:
The crux of your argument though seems to be saftey from failed products with financial scale. I think that idea works with publishers already and doesn't need platform consolidation. Especially consolidation of those large independent publishers who have that ability already.
When we have this consolidation it doesn't even guarantee studio or job safety anyway, it just moves that responsibility to the single company who owns them instead. How many times have we heard of studio closures or layoffs at Sony (Evolution, Japan Studio downsizing) and MS (lionhead, Press Play, 343 downsizing)? It's no different.
It's the same with publishers like EA too having the ability to have a failed product financially and still getting rid of that studio anyway. To the point where it has become a meme for EA. A studio not performing well or a product failing would have the same effect anywhere regardless of the parent company.
Mibu no ookami
Banned
GTA generally comes out once a generation, with the last generation not even getting a new GTA. I don't think it has the same resonance as CoD as a result.
Take2 is a much smaller company as a result.
Maybe today, but as games shift from AAA to AAAA they begin to pose risks even for publishers.
Ubi Soft is one of the largest publishers in the industry and they're on the verge of collapse.
EA's ability to absorb loses on franchises is also diminishing.
The difference is the manufacturers have the revenue from their storefronts to help fuel their first party development.
Publishers will merge together to the point where they can sustain losses, but also probably negotiate better terms on royalties with storefront holders.
feynoob
Banned
Tell that to the FTC.
Take 2, Activision, EA and Ubisoft are off the limit for these 2 companies, if this deal fails.
BrutalTruth_
Banned
This thread is hilarious
So many posts like that, oh the ironyAll in the same post no less.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
That's just plain wrong. Sony was buying timed exclusivity of Bethesda games left and right. It was rumored they were in talks to buy timed exclusivity of Starfield before Microsoft announced they were acquiring them.
The 1 example of a studio Playstation has acquired staying multi-platform is Bungie, and I can almost guarantee that is because that's what Bungie wanted, not Sony. Bungie is the exception, not the rule.
Starfield would have been Playstation exclusive had Sony bought Bethesda, I doubt there would even be a day and date PC release.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Thing is Sony wouldn't have bought them.
Last edited:
I think timed exclusivity is different to not releasing ever and cutting multiplatform development in an acquisition. Especially for something that was already in development. The publisher/studio would want that in their asking price to recoup development cost.
Bungie isn't the sole example either but it's the most recent example of the very few acquisitions sony have done where they bought a publisher with IPs.
The only other time Sony bought a big multiplatform publisher GPolice, Wipeout, Destruction Derby still released on systems like N64, Saturn and PC. It's not the exception, it's just because publisher and big studio acquisitions with multiplatform games in the pipeline are rare from Sony.
Last edited:
suspicious mind
Member
Bungie said staying on all platforms was mandatory if they were to be acquired. This is nit sony doing this out of kindness.
Suggesting that sony would have kept bethesda games multiplat is just laughable. This is playstation we are talking about. They havent done anything else but using and abusing their weight in the industry.
If anyone should be blocked from doing anymore acquisitions its sony not ms.
Suggesting that sony would have kept bethesda games multiplat is just laughable. This is playstation we are talking about. They havent done anything else but using and abusing their weight in the industry.
If anyone should be blocked from doing anymore acquisitions its sony not ms.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
In Bungie's case, it makes sense.
It's really hard to have a successful GaaS and have it exclusive. I think Microsoft is running into that issue now with Halo.
bender
What time is it?
There will be no TVs in 2050. Samsung and Valve will also be part of the Taco Bell corporation.
Last edited:
POKEYCLYDE
Member
I think it would really boil down to if the game was announced and if it was, were the platforms announced? Starfield was announced but no platforms were mentioned, this gives Microsoft deniability of cutting multiplatform development. Something everyone can see through, but I doubt Sony wouldn't do the same if they were the ones acquiring Bethesda.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
I think Halo would have been successful had they actually had content AND an armour system that made sense and wasn't designed to grab as much money from players as possible.
If they released with forge, added community maps into the rotation every couple of months, had fun playlists, and didn't make each season 6 months... Halo would be doing fine.
I'm certain most if not all 10 GaaS games Sony is developing won't be coming to Xbox outside of Bungie.
suspicious mind
Member
I agree that gaas should probably be multiplat. However Its not the only problem halo has imo. Its horribly old fashioned. There is no loot, no interesting stuff to grind for or anything.
I played the campaign and it played very well but yeh empty hallway after hallway with just a couple of weapon racks in them and nothing else. Its just too boring if you ask me.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
You're probably right on the last point. But Destiny is pretty massive and maybe they needed to still operate in a fully multiplatform world to justify employing 1000 people just to work on it, whereas some of Sony's home grown GaaS don't need to be as big as Destiny and can forego an Xbox version.
But Sony comes in from the position of the biggest console, and releasing it on PC too means they cover a huge part of the market. Xbox being in third means they are at a larger disadvantage by being exclusive
Last edited:
sainraja
Member
The guys who hopes the deal doesn't get through and withdraw from the console market are the same clowns who cheered for Sony upping game prices because they would gladly pay extra for quality.
Which still is the minority in here, so be careful with generalising.
Those people are stupid, but far from the majority.
His post was literally 100 percent the opposite of what you made out of it.
Yet you manage to show your concern about your beloved company.
^^ When The_Mike finally looks at a mirror and realizes...
Of course it's not from "kindness". Companies are not your friends. It's always financial, which makes the publisher accepting that sunk cost less likely unless Sony pays for it through the acquisition price being inflated. If Sony pays for it they are more likely to recoup it through that multiplatform release because they have a lot less money to burn than MS who can afford to pay for that sunk cost of development.
I think they would just not purchase it personally but if they wanted Bethesda for other reasons they would be less likely to cut release on the competing platform for financial reasons.
sainraja
Member
Yeah, that is what I was thinking when I saw that article.
feynoob
Banned
It will be those futuristic sci-fi movies.
Not those sassy TV's we have now.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
I honestly think Bungie just craves their independence (while simultaneously looking for a daddy to keep them financially secure). They broke off from Microsoft and shopped themselves around and ended up with Activision with an unprecedented agreement that they would get to keep their IP. Then they broke off from Activision and maintained independence before shopping themselves around with the clause that they would basically be independent. It wouldn't surprise me if down the road Bungie splits from Sony lol.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked