MS's Response to Sony's "No AAA Studio Can Match CoD" Statement + Confirms Sony Pays To Blocks Games From Game Pass

Hendrick's said:
No it's not. Marketing agreements are for marketing. This falls in line with paid exclusivity and is a bullshit tactic no matter who is doing it.
Click to expand...
And what do you suppose marketing is for? Could it be to make sure people buy the game on your platform in exchange for exposure?
lovetalkgames said:
Corporate profiting is good because I can explain it: the post.
Click to expand...
I haven't said this is neither good or bad, it just is what it is.
 
adamsapple said:
That's certainly a take no one would ever realistically have after reading any of the text in the OP :messenger_tears_of_joy:





arnold schwarzenegger predator GIF



We're all here for the corporate bitching.
Click to expand...
Seriously. "MS is just being monopolistic" is a funny take when the whole point to Sony's opposition to the acquisition is to get the government to protect their position of market dominance while simultaneously throwing around cash and using their weight as head honcho of console video games to prevent developers from doing business with the competition.
 
I would like to see a direct translation of this line below because MS admitting failure in console wars is kinda funny.

MS believes that Sony's isolated position can likely be explained by the fact that Microsoft's subscription game offering, Game Pass, was launched as Microsoft's competitive response to Xbox's failure in the "console wars" and the need to offer players additional value compared to the "buy-to-play" traditional model. In this way, Game Pass threatens to compete more effectively with the buy-to-play model, which Sony has successfully adopted.
Click to expand...

I also dont understand why they think streaming would save them. GAMES will save them. It's the games that matter. Thats why they went and bought all those studios. MS wasnt successful in the 360 era because of Gamepass, it was because they had the best exclusives from 2006 to 2010 or so. After that kinect took over and their output went down, but they won that 'console war' thanks to games like Halo 3, Gears of War, Bioshock, Mass Effect and massively improved versions of third party titles.

P.S Whats absolutely disheartening is seeing Sony effectively say that neither we nor our third party partners can create a COD quality game. Absolutely ridiculous. You can. Fortnite, PubG, Warzone, Battlefield 1. and even Destiny have all gone up against CoD and were able to either create their own niche or post sales just as impressive as COD. Sony just didnt try last gen. And they simply werent ready this gen. Shouldve had Factions and another FPS shooter out by now.
 
Honest question from someone that doesn't belong in this thread. (me)
But can anyone list any actual deals that Microsoft has made that prevented a game from showing up on Playstation?
 
Umbasaborne said:
giphy-downsized-large.gif

As a multi console owner i dont give a shit lol
Click to expand...
At the end of the day, this. I can already play whatever I want. The main reason I really care about this is because it's putting pressure on Sony to make a good subscription service. They always come through when their back is against the wall. I'm perfectly fine with owning nothing and liking it.
 
Salty Popsicle said:
Microsoft carved themselves a very nice slice of the console market with Xbox, but it was always going to be an uphill battle trying to dethrone Nintendo and PlayStation in terms of console sales as both competitors already had decades to foster a faithful userbase and established gaming franchises.
Click to expand...
We should stop with this narrative.

PS One release outside of Japan: 9 September 1995
Original Xbox release date: November 15, 2001

There was 6 years and 2 months from the moment Sony conquered the console business and Microsoft entered it.

Where is the "both competitors already had decades to foster a faithful userbase and established gaming franchises" narrative here?

Sony just knew what the market wanted and MS kept screwing up everything with all studios they collaborated with: Bungie, Rare, etc.
Even right now during Phil Spencer's years the older studios they have like 343i (Halo) and The Coalition (Gears of War) somehow managed to turn 2 of the 3 biggest franchises Microsoft had into much more irrelevant IPs than they were just 10 years ago. The exception? Forza. And remember Fable's next sequel? The game they announced like god knows how long that's barely a game in 2022?

Microsoft has the money to buy everything in this industry...but that's it.

Meanwhile in the past half a decade, half of Sony's studios managed to double in size and have 2 teams making 2 different videogames instead of one at the same time, with much less resources.

You can have all the money in the world, but Microsoft managing skills always lacked in this business, even today. It's not about how long they've been in this industry that's the issue. They are a multimillionaire company. One of the biggest in the world. They have been in the business for 20 years and look where they are now.
 
Last edited:
mckmas8808 said:
The hell is wrong with some of you people? Do yall understand how business works?
Click to expand...
Can't believe this has to be said but you do know ps + premium an all that is literally them competing with gamepass right? MS in the right, Sony in the wrong. If it wasn't that case, then google, apple, Ubisoft, EA, etc etc would've agreed with Sony. Hell apple has a bigger stake in gaming than Sony & MS, candy crush and cod mobile are HUGE games for them. Yet only Sony's mad, then they go out there way to say COD wouldn't make us money going exclusive so it'll still be on PS. There literally bitching over marketing right after another company bought out the thing they wanted to market. Idk how anyone with the ability to use common sense would see Sony in the right here.
 
Ozriel said:
I guess this would also be an apt response to all the complaints about publisher acquisitions?
Click to expand...

You think Sony paying money to have games on its own game subscription service (meaning that they will add language to keep it off of competing sub-services for a specific amount of time) is the same as buying Bethesda, Activision, and Blizzard?
 
poppabk said:
This is kinda the next level of that kind of bullshit. It's not paying to give your customers exclusive access, but paying so you can dictate how your competitors customers can access the content. It would be like say Hulu paying to prevent a show from being available as an off-line download on Netflix.
Click to expand...
FEB 03, 2020
Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Epic Mickey 2: The Power of Two, Pumped BMX Pro, RAGE, and The Jackbox Party Pack 2 will be leaving the service within the next few weeks.
https://www.thegamer.com/xbox-game-pass-removing-games-shadow-tomb-raider/#:~:text=Xbox Game Pass will soon,the best deals in gaming

March 3, 2020

Shadow of the Tomb Raider join PS Now

https://blog.playstation.com/archiv...lfenstein-ii-join-the-ps4-service-next-month/
 
Last edited:
ReBurn said:
At the end of the day, this. I can already play whatever I want. The main reason I really care about this is because it's putting pressure on Sony to make a good subscription service. They always come through when their back is against the wall. I'm perfectly fine with owning nothing and liking it.
Click to expand...
I agree, i think sony has become rather complacent. Part of the reason ps4 was so awesome was because they had to win back their audience. Thats why we had awesome events like psx, and they were just alot more consumer friendly. Under ryan it seems like they shoved all that out of the way and are hardly trying these days. I hope competition actually gets them to swing back the other way a little more. Of course microsoft has the opposite problem. They announced like 20 games, and when people ask where tf they are, their just like "lol idk"
 
Last edited:
Shit like this puts me off gaming. Both Sony and Microsoft act like children. Do MS have receipts? I want to know what games were blocked.
 
IDKFA said:
Shit like this puts me off gaming. Both Sony and Microsoft act like children. Do MS have receipts? I want to know what games were blocked.
Click to expand...
Probably listed in the stuff that's redacted as they would get in trouble legally by publicly saying it.
 
Magic Carpet said:
Honest question from someone that doesn't belong in this thread. (me)
But can anyone list any actual deals that Microsoft has made that prevented a game from showing up on Playstation?
Click to expand...

The better question is how many acquisitions have sony made that really affect xbox? Which games did xbox lose from Sonys acquisitions? I really can't think of many. Most of them were already making exclusive ip for PlayStation before they were acquired. Like insomniac, bluepoint, and housemarque. Now compare that to microsofts acquisitions. The difference between how they operate is clear.
 
Last edited:
IDKFA said:
Shit like this puts me off gaming. Both Sony and Microsoft act like children. Do MS have receipts? I want to know what games were blocked.
Click to expand...
We know about Resident Evil because the contract leaked. It's no surprise that Sony has done this with several games now. What we still don't know is whether Sony also did it with CoD.
 
  • Quote from source: "Almost literal, MS says that: "In short, Sony is not resigned to having to compete with Microsoft's subscription service. Sony's public outcry on subscription games and the company's response are clear: Sony doesn't want attractive subscription services to threaten its dominance in the market for digital distribution of console games. In other words, Sony rails against the introduction of new monetization models capable of challenging its business model".



  • Sony believes that subscription services compete with games purchased for a one-time fee ("buy-to-play"). [...] The games are substantially the same, regardless of whether the consumer made a one-time payment or accessed the titles through a subscription service." MS says that Sony's statement reveals the illogic of the claim that the addition of "Activision games to this content would represent a tipping point." According to MS: "If (i) subscription services compete with the buy-to-play model, as recognized by Sony itself, and (ii) Activision content will continue to be distributed through the buy-to-play channel, then players can simply continue to choose which payment model they prefer to access Activision content."



  • MS says that Microsoft's ability to continue expanding Game Pass has been hampered by Sony's desire to inhibit such growth. Sony pays for "blocking rights" to prevent developers from adding content to Game Pass and other competing subscription services (then there is a bunch of redacted content).



  • MS believes that what Sony fails to mention when it insinuates that Game Pass could achieve unattainable leadership in subscription services, is its own leadership position in digital distribution of console games: "Sony is, in fact, the largest digital distributor of console games. Therefore, Sony's concern with the potential competition of Game Pass simply reflects the usual resistance of traditional incumbents to competition on merit represented by disruptive players."


n1YqAVP.gif


This deal is going through and Sony fighting this is just making them look whiney and silly.
 
Magic Carpet said:
Honest question from someone that doesn't belong in this thread. (me)
But can anyone list any actual deals that Microsoft has made that prevented a game from showing up on Playstation?
Click to expand...
www.giantbomb.com

Microsoft demands content, release date parity for 360 games - General Discussion - Giant Bomb

In an interview with Eurogamer, European Xbox boss Chris Lewis revealed that per their third-party release guidelines all titles must have content and
www.giantbomb.com www.giantbomb.com
www.windowscentral.com

Here's why Microsoft should abolish its ID@Xbox parity clause for Xbox One

The latest News,/news,,news, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at Windows Central
www.windowscentral.com www.windowscentral.com
www.gamesindustry.biz

Gang Beasts dev: Parity clause means we can't commit to Xbox One release

Microsoft's oft-criticised parity clause is still coming under fire from independent developers. Gang Beasts creator Bo…
www.gamesindustry.biz www.gamesindustry.biz
 
mckmas8808 said:
You think Sony paying money to have games on its own game subscription service (meaning that they will add language to keep it off of competing sub-services for a specific amount of time) is the same as buying Bethesda, Activision, and Blizzard?
Click to expand...

First off, paying to keep a game off competing sub services isn't the same thing as 'paying to have it on their subscription service'.

And No, my post was clear. I'm not equating these two things. You seem to imply that actions like these are fine since "it's how business works" to spend money to ensure their ecosystem is better than the competition.
 
ReBurn said:
If by "destroy the market" you mean move to a model where I can play games for $15 instead of $70 then sign me up for destruction. Game pass and PS+ Extra are exactly how I want to pay for and consume video games.
Click to expand...
So you've chosen to not have a choice. Separately, you realize $15 is just to lock people in - to later increase the rates. At $15 a month, MS is burning money. They use the same tactics in their Azure services, taking on loss with each customer since they know customers too invested into the ecosystem. But yea, I'd say destroying the market isn't inaccurate of a statement. People used to tout the Azure prices too, until MS jacked up the rates. Ask yourself how game pass makes sense being cheaper than Netflix, while utilizing exponentially more resources.

People want to pretend that MS is a different company to the 90s anti-competitive MS. Spoiler, the company hasn't changed, and has simply rebranded its pursuit of monopolies. The first hit is always free with them.
 
IDKFA said:
Shit like this puts me off gaming. Both Sony and Microsoft act like children. Do MS have receipts? I want to know what games were blocked.
Click to expand...

They can't for legal and contractual reasons, it's redacted in the publicly available info:

In fact, MS says that Microsoft's ability to continue expanding Game Pass has been hampered by Sony's desire to inhibit such growth. Sony pays for "blocking rights" to prevent developers from adding content to Game Pass and other competing subscription services (then there is a bunch of redacted content).
Click to expand...
 
a multicultural team of v said:
[/URL]
[/URL]
[/URL]
Click to expand...

Did you read the question you replied to, as well as your own links?

The parity clause didn't keep games from releasing on PlayStation. In fact, it backfired and kept some content off Xbox
 
NickFire said:
I find it so refreshing when they take direct shots at each other. Much better to debate what was said than what was implied / not-said.

The argument that Sony is trying to prevent MS from being in a better position to compete with Sony is fair. I do think nuance and context takes some air out of the argument, but it is still valid.

I'd also like to know more about blocking gamepass access. If the situations involve co-marketing deals, well, duh! It would be bad business to enter a co-marketing deal for something "given away" elsewhere. Unless, of course, Sony is considered the publisher and gets MTX cuts like with MLB. But back on point, if Sony is only paying to block access without a co-marketing deal, that would be rather anti-competitive on Sony's part and shouldn't occur IMO.

Final point regards "not distributing them in rival console stores, would simply not be profitable for Microsoft." Sounds pretty close to an admission that MS is using non-gaming revenue to soften a huge income loss from making a certain non-Activision game exclusive IMO. In all honesty, this is the type of stuff that makes me concerned about MS buying up publishers but not really concerned about Sony buying big names like Bungie. I feel like Sony's anti-competitive behavior is designed to make it's eco-system more attractive by addition, whereas MS just wants to take things away until the audience capitulates and buys in. Reasonable minds can disagree of course.
Click to expand...

The bolded is the key. It's what MS is doing with Starfield. They are using their big MS bucks from Windows, Azure, etc. to backfill the losses that Starfield "not" being on the PS5 will bring.
 
Hendrick's said:
No it's not. Marketing agreements are for marketing. This falls in line with paid exclusivity and is a bullshit tactic no matter who is doing it.
Click to expand...
Paid Exclusivity is Marketing you doofus lol

It's like when McDonalds sells movie toys in happy meals and you can only get that at McDonalds - they benefit from kids loving that movie. Same as Sony getting exclusive maps in COD, everyone can play COD but you can only get maps (the happy meal toys) on a Sony Platform
 
nocsi said:
So you've chosen to not have a choice. Separately, you realize $15 is just to lock people in - to later increase the rates. At $15 a month, MS is burning money. They use the same tactics in their Azure services, taking on loss with each customer since they know customers too invested into the ecosystem.
Click to expand...

How can you say he doesn't have a choice when Gamepass games are also retail games and are also sold on Steam?

It's perfectly fine if the price goes up as long as the value doesn't drop.

nocsi said:
But yea, I'd say destroying the market isn't inaccurate of a statement. People used to tout the Azure prices too, until MS jacked up the rates. Ask yourself how game pass makes sense being cheaper than Netflix, while utilizing exponentially more resources.

People want to pretend that MS is a different company to the 90s anti-competitive MS. Spoiler, the company hasn't changed, and has simply rebranded its pursuit of monopolies. The first hit is always free with them.
Click to expand...

Azure isn't the biggest in the cloud space, so it's clear their prices are still attractive or else they wouldn't be growing while viable alternatives exist like AWS (the biggest player in the space).
Customers would desert Azure if their pricing was much worse than Amazon or Google.

Comparing Gamepass pricing with Netflix is extremely ignorant. Netflix spent $17 billion last year on content. Microsoft spends a fraction of that on making their games, and their games generate extra revenue when sold at retail. Forza Horizon 5 is on GP, but has sold millions of units on console and Steam outside that. Netflix doesn't have that luxury.

Such a weird comparison.
 
Hendrick's said:
Do you have a point or counter argument or are you just shit-posting?
Click to expand...

Some of you guys are acting as if you don't live on planet Earth within the last 10 years. You think Netflix will pay to have the Uncharted movie on its sub-service "AND" allow Hulu to pay to have it at the same time also?
 
ManaByte said:
If MS completes the merger, someone can walk into a store with $250-$300 and go home with a console that'll play next-gen COD right out of the box.
Click to expand...
Not if Sony has a marketing deal for years that block COD from appearing on a competitor's subscription service.
 
Magic Carpet said:
Honest question from someone that doesn't belong in this thread. (me)
But can anyone list any actual deals that Microsoft has made that prevented a game from showing up on Playstation?
Click to expand...
Bethesda > Starfield
mckmas8808 said:
Some of you guys are acting as if you don't live on planet Earth within the last 10 years. You think Netflix will pay to have the Uncharted movie on its sub-service "AND" allow Hulu to pay to have it at the same time also?
Click to expand...
I don't know what that has to do with the post you quoted and the section you bolded. Sony does not want to put their first party games on their service day and date, and they certainly don't want to pay MS to have CoD on there. Yet they could do either of those things and MS is not doing anything they could not compete with if they so chose.
 
Last edited:
ManaByte said:
If MS completes the merger, someone can walk into a store with $250-$300 and go home with a console that'll play next-gen COD right out of the box.
Click to expand...
Yea, it's going to completely shake up the gaming landscape, so it's funny when people on here try to downplay it.
 
Complaining to regulators because MS is buying a publisher that will remain multiplatform? I mean its essentially a marketing advantage only if the games are still coming to Playstation.

Sony just looks whiny and lazy for complaining about this. we don't want them to have the same marketing advantage we had last gen.

And not only that but they are screaming bloody murder all the while they are also making third party games exclusive, buying publishers and keeping games of Game Pass. Nobody is going to block this deal so its just making them look weak. Stop playing the victim and show some dignity and compete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Remedy Explains Difference of AA to AAA Games to the Studio
33
2K
MrTroubleMaker replied
(Pushsquare) According to Shuhei Yoshida, no first-party Sony studio has been forced to make live service games
2 3
126
5K
Negotiator replied
Sony opens new Bungie spinoff studio. Team LFG.
2 3 4 5 6
275
497
ChorizoPicozo replied
[Windows Central] Xbox Game Pass is going to be harder to pay for with Microsoft Rewards from April, it seems
2
60
5K
ManaByte replied
People Can Fly has entered into an agreement with Sony Interactive Entertainment on production of a game using Sony's IP, codenamed "Project Delta"
News  2 3
136
10K
yurinka replied
Top Bottom