MS's Response to Sony's "No AAA Studio Can Match CoD" Statement + Confirms Sony Pays To Blocks Games From Game Pass
- Thread starter adamsapple
- Start date
Topher
Identifies as young
I guess Microsoft got "strong armed" into buying Bethesda because Sony had better studios. Nah....not really. This "strong armed" nonsense is really just companies being competitive.
It is always refreshing to see clear-minded industry professionals throwing water on console warrior fake outrage.
Last edited:
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
Why would Sony pay for a marketing agreement if Microsoft countered by offering Capcom money to put the game on Game Pass on day one?
Marketing agreements are designed to attract players to their platform. They're not going to pay for marketing rights if someone else decides to step in and offer something better.
Do you think they pay just to promote the game? LOL.
You guys seriously don't think things through.
Fess
Member
Unless I misunderstand that wouldn't change if they acquire them, they would still be stuck with a contract they need to break to get CoD to Gamepass.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
That's not how marketing deals have traditionally worked in the past. It has always been a way to have your platform be front and center on ads and other marketing material, and never about excluding the game from releasing on another platform. We have all clearly had this basic understanding of marketing deals vs paid exclusivity in the past, so I'm not sure why you are trying to argue that marketing deals now are the same thing as exclusive deals.
It would certainly help if these same folks level headed thoughts are cited when people hysterically complain about big acquisitions.
Like they say, it's just business.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
They've never been just about ads. Case in point timed DLC for COD on the 360. This is the way it's always worked. Just because we're not privy to the details doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
The marketing deals in question don't prevent a game from releasing on another platform at all. They have nothing to do with exclusivity.
Marketing deals are made to attract gamers to the platform holders version of the game. It makes no sense for any platform holder to buy marketing rights and allow all the marketing to be undercut by a competing platform that offers the same exact game as part of a monthly subscription. Would Microsoft pay for marketing rights to a game and allow that game to be included with a PS+ subscription? Nope. Not gonna happen.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
??????????
what is this post even lol ...
Uncharted, TLoU, Bloodborne, Spider Man 2018, none of those are on Xbox.
"Log into Xbox when you get on it". What does that even mean ? You need to log into Steam if you want to play Steam games, you need to log into EGS when you want to play EGS games.
Logging into a service is not DRM. No one said anything about anyone being saints. It is a fact that "MS Moneyhatted" games are 99.9% available on console & PC day 1.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Its business in both cases, but acquisitions and mergers result in permanent and/or long-term change.
Its how IP's end up getting "lost" because especially when the new owner is corporate, they'll hang on to it on contingency even when they have no will to do anything with it.
The worst thing you can say about timed exclusivity deals is that they are based on artificial scarcity; i.e. you want to play this franchise, then you need to own x platform for the next undisclosed period. Impact tends to be less permanent in terms of the perceived market value of the IP.
ResilientBanana
Member
They've already said they were keeping it multi-platform. There are other ways to entice people to play on Xbox, such as exclusive content.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
And availability on game pass which probably ain't happening in 2022/2023. They're playing a bit of a longer "wait out the marketing contract" game.
Last edited:
Nah, IP gets 'lost' even when acquisitions aren't an issue. Square's doing nothing with Vagrant Story. Capcom last left Dino Crisis to pasture. Konami put Silent Hill on ice for a decade. Activision has multiple IPs that have been frozen for ages.
I suspect increased funding post-merger can also increase the likelihood of popular IP being used.
Given how hardware falls dramatically in price down the line, nothing is truly permanent. Especially going forward to a future when Cloud gaming kicks off and hardware becomes a non-existent barrier.
SteelCurtain 59
Member
It's simple, timed exclusives don't help the consumer at all, acquisitions have large potential to help the consumer, especially in xbox's case (day 1 game pass, more financial security for the studio leading to better quality and/or more games being released, potential market share shifts that make it more expensive for Sony to do exclusivity deals, meaning more games for Xbox consumers).
Also to the people saying "they could just pay to put COD on game pass day 1", well for 1 that wouldn't stop Sony making a deal to stop that, it would have to be renewed yearly meaning constant renegotiation and increases on price depending on Activision's demands, they'd have no control over the direction of the studios and limited to no way for cross studio collaboration. They wouldn't have access to Activision's massive back catalog, they wouldn't get the revenue from Activision, and they wouldn't own the treasure trove of IP they have (including possibly the true biggest benefit and reason for the acquisition, King and Candy Crush, giving them a massive player in the huge mobile space)
Also to the people saying "they could just pay to put COD on game pass day 1", well for 1 that wouldn't stop Sony making a deal to stop that, it would have to be renewed yearly meaning constant renegotiation and increases on price depending on Activision's demands, they'd have no control over the direction of the studios and limited to no way for cross studio collaboration. They wouldn't have access to Activision's massive back catalog, they wouldn't get the revenue from Activision, and they wouldn't own the treasure trove of IP they have (including possibly the true biggest benefit and reason for the acquisition, King and Candy Crush, giving them a massive player in the huge mobile space)
No sir.
Sony has been paying publishers to get an exclusive negotiation window for subscription services AFTER having paid off publishers to keep their games off Game Pass.
in other words:
I'll market your game and you're not allowed to put in on any subscription service for a year.
Once that year has passed, you're not allowed to negotiate with anybody else but Sony with regards to putting it on a subscription service. If I'm not interested in putting it on Playstation Plus, then you can talk to Xbox and Nintendo.
That's the kind of deals that Sony has been pushing out there.
Not to say that nobody else has ever done it, but let's be very clear on what Sony's business practices have been and we can also all reflect on how it's affected us individually as gamers.
Regardless of how you feel about the above shenanigans by Sony, the only reason why I even bother replying on this thread is that they are complaining about Microsoft buying a publisher that has in their view "irreplaceable games", although those games will be coming day and date to Playstation. The nerve. Even microsoft's own games are not coming to Xbox because of Sony's moneyhatting. I still can't play Deathloop or Ghostwire Tokyo on game pass BECAUSE of Sony paying off people. and Microsoft owns those games. We can be fanboys but we're not entitled to our own reality.
I hope Sony goes back to focussing on big AAA and selling PS5s. They also have every right to moneyhat whoever will take their money. That's the model they have been proud to push since their creation, that's how they ran the Dreamcast out of business (by paying publishers away from Sega). Just don't whine when someone else does it in an actually way more inclusive way,. Sony is not losing any of the ABK games. It's pure greed driven insecurity.
Last edited:
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Yes it can happen regardless, but that doesn't disprove that takeovers provide many more additional reasons and circumstances that end up with IP being lost.
Getting access to idle, devalued, IP is a very poor reason by itself to acquire an entire developer or publisher. Its pretty much a bonus, so it follows the primary motivators for the acquisition will get priority in terms of future funding.
Licensing issues are a far more common cause of product not being republished than technical limitations. You think, for example, Activision PS1-era product is going to get more likely to appear on PSNow Classics following MS' takeover? Dream on!
Sony bought Activision? That's news to me. What IPs should Bluepoint or Nixxes have pledged to keep multiplatform? You don't know what you're saying here. They pledged to keep Bungie games multiplatform. You know, because they own a popular IP.
Last edited:
Razvedka
Banned
Yeah I think it was pretty clear Microsoft went the Gamepass route because they understood they weren't going to win conventionally.
Sony is nervous this new approach by MS will hurt or supercede their business model. And that's understandable because it totally could in the long term. The only solution is for them to innovate.
That said, I don't think Microsoft should be allowed to acquire these huge publishers. Nobody should.
Topher
Identifies as young
That is not quite accurate. This is all part of one marketing agreement. During the term of the marketing agreement, the game publisher cannot put the game on a competing subscription service. The year following release, Sony can negotiate with the publisher to put the game on PS+. There is nothing stipulated in the marketing agreement after that year has passed.
Here is the section of the marketing agreement covering sub services:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
A text slip.
Also, clearly you either purposefully or unconsciously ignored the actua matter of thel post for the zany quote, where I'm quoting the user who brought up first party studios that it's not comparable to blocking access from an already third-party multiplatform game from one service with paid deals.
jimmypython
Member
"Sony pays publishers to block their games from gamepass. So we buy publishers"
No I didn't ignore anything. Here, I'll make it easier. Here are the games developed by Bluepoint. Now tell me of the games they develop and never owned the IP of which one should they commit to remaining multiplatform:
| Year | Title | Platform(s) | Publisher(s) | Ref(s). |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | Blast Factor | PlayStation 3 | Sony Computer Entertainment | [2] |
| 2009 | God of War Collection | [2] | ||
| 2011 | The Ico & Shadow of the Colossus Collection | [2] | ||
| Metal Gear Solid HD Collection | PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 | Konami | [2] | |
| 2012 | PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale (port) | PlayStation Vita | Sony Computer Entertainment | [2] |
| 2013 | Flower (port) | PlayStation 4, PlayStation Vita | [2] | |
| 2014 | Titanfall (port) | Xbox 360 | Electronic Arts | [2] |
| 2015 | Uncharted: The Nathan Drake Collection | PlayStation 4 | Sony Computer Entertainment | [23] |
| Gravity Rush Remastered | [24] | |||
| 2018 | Shadow of the Colossus | Sony Interactive Entertainment | [25] | |
| 2020 | Demon's Souls | PlayStation 5 |
You clearly are doing a silly equivalence of Bethesda and Elder Scrolls 6 being now blocked with... , well, I don't know what. What do you want Bluepoint to commit to? You're arguing in bad faith as usual.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Once again, you are purposefully ignoring the context of the post for list warz ™. I was not the one who was bringing in first party IP into the argument as a gacha. Nor was I the one who started the equivalency with first party IP.
You're creating a separate splinter tangent here.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
It's the same thing
alabtrosMyster
Member
Seriously though, who's gonna be surprised that there are deals in the industry?
And why being upset? Preventing the competition from destroying the market in a price war because they can't make their own good games is a good thing.
Also, what kind of marketing person would prepare a multimillion dollar deal with a partner without making sure that it's not undone by some other deal with the competition?
HeisenbergFX4
Member
The sad part is a lot of that outrage isn't fake and many just want to be pissed off because people don't agree their plastic box is best (and I am not sure they actually even game)
Oh come off it and don't play dumb. So try and explain the context then. This is what the context is
Your reply to that
What fuss do you want people to make? what game is now becoming exclusive with the bluepoint purchase that you want people to get riled up about?
Don't be daft with 'list wars'. You don't even understand what list wars are. List wars would be trying to compare two lists of games. I'm trying to ask you what bluepoint game has now suddenly become exclusive and what you think Bluepoint can commit to to make things 'hunky dory' for such a transgression.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
I hope this deal is closed ASAP. Just to see the massive clusterfuck of disappointment afterward.
MS is going to feel scammed.
MS is going to feel scammed.
SportsFan581
Member
In some ways that is the argument that MS is bringing forward. Basically that the dominant player in the space uses its position as leverage to limit competition in the space, thus making it necessary for MS to purchase content in order to stay competitive. A bit dramatic, possibly, but you can't say it isn't somewhat true.
Last edited:
Bernd Lauert
Banned
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
Marketing deals are more than just buying the right to advertise the game.
Sony and Microsoft paid for marketing deals and also received exclusive content (or time exclusive) for their platform. This is PART of the marketing deal.
onesvenus
Member
The thing is that they won't renew that contract once it expires. That's the power they have buying them that they wouldn't have otherwise.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
If you believe that that contract is representative of the ABK contract, yes. I will say that's the understandable position but it's still an assumption.
I read it slightly differently as in it's first right and last refusal so not technically exclusive. Obviously Sony could try to make the deal to be exclusive but it could come out on both platforms at the same time. So MS could go to Capcom for a GP, Sony would have to be informed and then it's normal negotiation process.
Back to the topic, I think this is relatively business, everyone does it so not fussed. More annoyed at the cross platform 'fee' really.
I stand corrected. They only keep games off Gamepass for a year in this specific deal. The case of FF7 Remake however strongly suggests that there is an even more punishing (from gamers' perspective) agreement out there between Sony and Square Enix. The game has been out since 2020 and still hasn't come near Xbox, never mind game pass.That is not quite accurate. This is all part of one marketing agreement. During the term of the marketing agreement, the game publisher cannot put the game on a competing subscription service. The year following release, Sony can negotiate with the publisher to put the game on PS+. There is nothing stipulated in the marketing agreement after that year has passed.
Here is the section of the marketing agreement covering sub services:
If you think it's Japanese solidarity against Xbox, Deathloop won't be released on Xbox in 2022 and I don't think it's because Bethesda chooses not to.
I wouldn't take this agreement as the baseline for Sony's moneyhatting.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Torrent of Pork
Banned
Do you think the intimate details of every contract ABK was involved in wasn't one of the first things MS looked into?
They know exactly what they can and cannot do regarding COD and Gamepass, and they knew it half a year ago.
MikeM
Member
Yep. Gamers are so brutal sometimes. Publishers and console makers want things that give them an edge. No different than any other business.
Fess
Member
Couldn't they have secured a similar contract like Sony have instead of a buying the whole company?
It's supposedly a multi-year contract. Is anything stopping Sony from releasing CoD day 1 on PS+ the coming years to one-up MS on using CoD's market power to gain an advantage?
Helghan
Member
Not really. Let's say you've got GTA6 coming out whenever the following years, and you're Jim from Sony.
Exclusive rights mean that you make sure GTA6 is only playable on your console (PS5), and you pay Take-Two/Rockstar for this.
Blocking rights mean that you don't want GTA6 to be available on Game Pass, but it can be available on Xbox, and you pay Take-Two/Rockstar to not make a deal with Microsoft if they want it on Game Pass.
That's a huge difference. The blocking rights, don't give you any exclusivity, but you are just trying to slow down the growth of a competitors subscription service.
SportsFan581
Member
The publisher would have to agree to the terms, something that is unlikely once MS owns AB. AB hasn't been putting CoD day 1 on these services, so that is unlikely to be included in the current agreements.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
I am not talking about COD. I am talking about the two companies themselves. (Acti-Blizz).
I think it's fair for Sony to try to hamper Game Pass by blocking games from going to it, and I also think it's fair for MS to get around that by outright buying publishers. MS is 100% behind Game Pass, and they'll do what they have to for it to succeed.
The cope lol.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
All you're doing is rephrasing
An alternative way of saying GTA 6 is only playable on PS is that we paid to block GTA 6 from coming from Xbox. Same shit. Different expression
Kagey K
Banned
I remember ppl saying the same thing about Mojang and Minecraft.
That worked out well for them.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Those are two separate things.
Again, it's still a business decision to corner a certain segment of the market. Bluepoint were a studio for hire, and would absolutely have worked for MS on a project if approached, and if they had the bandwidth for that. Same approach Platinum takes. You can see from the chart above that Bluepoint did the 360 port of Titanfall after 3/4 of decade of working practically exclusively on PlayStation projects.
Sony buying Bluepoint essentially takes that talent off the market and brings it in-house.
I think the problem many of you have is that you see these things as IP only, while mergers/acquisitions cover IP and talent.
Of course, I'm not comparing Bluepoint vs Bethesda in terms of scope, but both purchases are firmly in the 'industry consolidation' camp.
graywolf323
Member
why game when you can argue on NeoGAF instead?
