Support NeoGAF

[diffusionx]

Making a game exclusive is not by itself anticompetitive. Engaging in a buying spree of developers to keep games off other platforms with the explicit goal of forcing them out of the market is. It is not a hard line for sure but It’s the governments job to find that line.

 

[Spitfire098]

I am laughing too hard now when we say sony made many deals to make games like final fantasy ,ghostwire deathloop KOTOR Remake, Silent Hill 2, Forspoken, Ni Oh
Project eve ,SFV a Known ip ,Rise of Ronin etc etc exclusive to their platform and cancel xbox ver of some of the games here it is fine because its sony, even buying a publisher Psygnosis), they had many multiplatform games before , wipeout 3 and wipeout fusion was made exclusive to Sony platforms.
Now when we say microsoft has the right to make New ip's from bethesda etc exclusive to their platform from a company they own and they help and fund their projects" it is wrong and a big problem microsoft should stop!"

some of them said oh"( we know damn well ms made 360 what it was by 3rd party )".

did they even know sony was doing this since Ps1 and before xbox was even a thing?! i didn't know xbox was released before playstation.

Chris Deering
We targeted Microsoft from day one -- we were ruthless," he says. "I'm not of this mentality anymore, but at the time it was life or death as far as I was concerned. We had this expression in our business meetings: 'Kill them right at the start and take no prisoners
Chris Deering, who was Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) Europe's boss at the time.
says that the company still wanted to embrace a broad audience, including more mature demographics. One of his core focuses was -- as with the original PlayStation -- trying to nail down as many third-party exclusives as possible.

Damn bro, I hope Phil sees this

 

[Ansphn]

When did Jim Ryan or anyone at PlayStation say exclusivity was anti-consumer? The only people saying that were from Xbox.

 

[Ozriel]

All I ask is that uncle Jimbo just starts buying out studios to. This is an all-out war.

'Starts'?

whatyearisit.jpg

 

[a multicultural team of v]

You must not have been following the acquisition threads.

Considering Sony was going to make it a timed exclusive I don't really understand what kind of argument could even be made, but frankly I don't know if I could stomach pages of that thread to find out.

Besides I'm pretty sure Jim was using the term in the legal sense, which is probably different than how people would argue it.

 

[VAVA Mk2]

All I ask is that uncle Jimbo just starts buying out studios to. This is an all-out war.

Microsoft would crush them if it is just a battle of money....which is sorta why this ABK merger is being blocked.

 

[Vognerful]

Considering Sony was going to make it a timed exclusive I don't really understand what kind of argument could even be made, but frankly I don't know if I could stomach pages of that thread to find out.

Besides I'm pretty sure Jim was using the term in the legal sense, which is probably different than how people would argue it.

I am not sure way, but some people here are acting as if Microsoft promised to keep Bethesda Multiplatform, even to regulators before acquisition. So it comes as contrast to how people feel here about Bethesda acquisition (and accusation of lying in contracts negotiation) when Jim had no objection against it. Mind you, the guy had also no problem with Activision deal until negotiation broke down.

 

[lughnasadh123]

And my left hand says it's perfectly fair for my right hand to masturbate with.

 

[ZehDon]

That's hilarious.

 

[lh032]

he doesnt "admit:" it, he is just being honest.

 

[In Cold Blood]

Well he’s right. What people are calling out is Phil’s lies about exclusivity.. He says one thing and does the other. That’s what Phil is being called out on..

Stop with the Phil lying shit.
Tell me where he said that all Zenimax games will be on PS.
Tell me where Starfield and Redfall were announced for PS.
He didn't.

 

[GamesDontSuck]

I don't get this whole thing.
All is fair in love and war (which also means in business)

 

[twilo99]

That's hilarious.

ye its a nice bait, jimmy didn't like it very much

 

[supernova8]

You know there's an OT for this, hate to say it but... please stop spamming new threads

 

[Silent Viper]

Where's the "gotcha" in this?

FTC was using Starfield exclusivity against MS, that this will hurt PS blah blah. So that's why its important.

FTC was really fighting for Sony on topics, that even Sony didn't see as anti competitive lol

 

[Silent Viper]

Neogaf narrative change assemble!

PS army - Let change the narrative quick. Our leader made a fool out of us lol.


Jk mods. Pls dont delete this.

 

[Perrott]

I am laughing too hard now when we say sony made many deals to make games like final fantasy ,ghostwire deathloop KOTOR Remake, Silent Hill 2, Forspoken, Ni Oh
Project eve ,SFV a Known ip ,Rise of Ronin etc etc exclusive to their platform and cancel xbox ver of some of the games here it is fine because its sony, even buying a publisher Psygnosis), they had many multiplatform games before , wipeout 3 and wipeout fusion was made exclusive to Sony platforms.
Now when we say microsoft has the right to make New ip's from bethesda etc exclusive to their platform from a company they own and they help and fund their projects" it is wrong and a big problem microsoft should stop!"

Final Fantasy XVI, Final Fantasy VII Remake and Rebirth wouldn't have been possible at this level of quality and polish without the support and safety net provided by Sony's backing into their respective developments and marketing efforts. All sorts of Square Enix executives and creatives have stated this over and over again throughout the years, and in the case of Forspoken, it was Square Enix's CEO who said that the project wouldn't have been viable had Sony not been a partner from the very beginning - which was over half a decade ago.

Deathloop and Ghostwire were timed exclusives because Zenimax was in a rough spot financially and needed the cash so they could survive until Starfield without having to shutdown any other their studios, and PlayStation was the ideal partner for them in terms of marketing exposure and sales potential due to the larger anticipated next-gen install base. At the end of the day and nearly a year after the Microsoft/Zenimax merger had been finalized, it was Sony who Deathloop's game director thanked for their support at The Game Awards 2021.

Street Fighter V was having a troubled development at a time in which Capcom was not doing very well, but thanks to the Sony partnership, Ono was able to complete the game and mitigate risk. The Silent Hill 2 remake wouldn't have been possible with this level of insanely high production values without the financial assistance of a console maker because Silent Hill has never sold anywhere near as much as mainline Resident Evil games do, so again, a safety net of sorts was required for this project to get off the ground.

Hell, even the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic remake, which was in need of a publishing partner since Embracer doesn't want to foot a $150-200M bill for these gigantic AAA projects on their own (see how they've partnered with Amazon Games for Tomb Raider for instance), was offered first to Xbox but they passed on it. How can you condemn Sony for stepping up and signing that deal instead?

Regarding Ni-Oh, Stellar Blade (Project EVE) and Rise of the Ronin, those are all PlayStation-published titles, so I don't know what's up to debate or unfair about their console exclusivity.

None of these cases are comparable to buying an entire publisher and start cancelling PS5 versions behind closed doors while trying to sell this "we want our games to be playable for everyone, everywhere" narrative to the public and, now, to regulatory bodies so they can acquire yet another major gaming publisher.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Lying Phil and unknowlagable Jim...

Thank the stars we have Nintendo!

After yesterday's event I see why Jim didn't turn up live. That lawyer would have eaten him for breakfast, with the FTC for the main course.

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

Here you go.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/starfield-was-planned-for-ps5-prior-to-microsofts-zenimax-acquisition-ftc-says.1658106/

Link to a post, not a 13 page thread.

I’m sure someone somewhere las claimed that Starfield exclusivity is anti-competitive, but I don’t recall seeing them. Certainly, people have suggested that buying Zenimax is consistent with an intent to spend Sony out of the market, but not that this purchase on its own is problematic in this regard.

 

[Ozriel]

Final Fantasy XVI, Final Fantasy VII Remake and Rebirth wouldn't have been possible at this level of quality and polish without the support and safety net provided by Sony's backing into their respective developments and marketing efforts. All sorts of Square Enix executives and creatives have stated this over and over again throughout the years, and in the case of Forspoken, it was Square Enix's CEO who said that the project wouldn't have been viable had Sony not been a partner from the very beginning - which was over half a decade ago.

Deathloop and Ghostwire were timed exclusives because Zenimax was in a rough spot financially and needed the cash so they could survive until Starfield without having to shutdown any other their studios, and PlayStation was the ideal partner for them in terms of marketing exposure and sales potential due to the larger anticipated next-gen install base. At the end of the day and nearly a year after the Microsoft/Zenimax merger had been finalized, it was Sony who Deathloop's game director thanked for their support at The Game Awards 2021.

Street Fighter V was having a troubled development at a time in which Capcom was not doing very well, but thanks to the Sony partnership, Ono was able to complete the game and mitigate risk. The Silent Hill 2 remake wouldn't have been possible with at this level of insanely high production values without the financial assistance of a console maker because Silent Hill has never sold anywhere near as much as mainline Resident Evil games do, so again, a safety net of sorts was required for this project to get off the ground.

Hell, even the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic remake, which was in need of a publishing partner since Embracer doesn't want to foot a $150-200M bill for these gigantic AAA projects by themselves (see how they've partnered with Amazon Games for Tomb Raider for instance), was offered first to Xbox but they passed on it. How can you condemn Sony for stepping up and signing that deal?

Regarding Ni-Oh, Stellar Blade (Project EVE) and Rise of the Ronin, those are all PlayStation-published titles, so I don't know what's up to debate or unfair about their console exclusivity.

None of these cases are comparable to buying an entire publisher and start cancelling PS5 versions behind closed doors while trying to sell this "we want our games to be playable for everyone, everywhere" narrative to the public and, now, to regulatory bodies so they can acquire yet another major gaming publisher.

Well, going by your logic, you should support the Activision deal since Bobby Kotick says selling to Microsoft will improve quality of Activision games, deepen their talent pipeline and help them push out more IP.

Bobby Kotick interview: Why Activision Blizzard did the deal with Microsoft

Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick spoke with GamesBeat's Dean Takahashi to explain why he agreed to sell to Microsoft for $68.7 billion.

venturebeat.com

Seems hypocritical for you to cite ‘execs’ and ‘better funding’ in one case, and disregard in another case when it’s not your platform of choice.

 

[vkbest]

FTC was using Starfield exclusivity against MS, that this will hurt PS blah blah. So that's why its important.

FTC was really fighting for Sony on topics, that even Sony didn't see as anti competitive lol

Sure, he is saying exclusivities are not anti competitive.

His problem is MS buying publishers, that is the anti competitive move.

 

[Robb]

Nintendo’s president/Furukawa really need to step up his sayings, he’s getting stomped in terms of thread count on here.

 

[NEbeast]

Well, going by your logic, you should support the Activision deal since Bobby Kotick says selling to Microsoft will improve quality of Activision games, deepen their talent pipeline and help them push out more IP.

Bobby Kotick interview: Why Activision Blizzard did the deal with Microsoft

Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick spoke with GamesBeat's Dean Takahashi to explain why he agreed to sell to Microsoft for $68.7 billion.

venturebeat.com

Seems hypocritical for you to cite ‘execs’ and ‘better funding’ in one case, and disregard in another case when it’s not your platform of choice.

Yes, Bobby kotick! Such an admirable man. Let's definitely listen to what he says.

 

[Perrott]

Well, going by your logic, you should support the Activision deal since Bobby Kotick says selling to Microsoft will improve quality of Activision games, deepen their talent pipeline and help them push out more IP.

I'm sorry, but that's false given all we know from how Microsoft has been managing their first-party lineup (be it Xbox or Bethesda) these last couple of years.

They are hands off to the point that they didn't see the absolute disaster that Redfall was shaping up to be, so of course that they did nothing to prevent that game from being a total flop. I'm not telling you that they should've straight up cancelled it (although going down that avenue is ultimately better than putting out a bad product), but they didn't even raise an eyebrow at the fact that Arkane was working on a multiplayer, open-world looter shooter instead of their bread and butter: singleplayer immersive sims. And before you tell me that "Redfall was the game that they wanted to make", let me remind you that the whole multiplayer push was dictated by Zenimax after singleplayer-only games like Prey, Death of the Outsider, Wolfenstein II and The Evil Within 2 all flopped in 2017, so they greenlit a bunch of multiplayer games because they were desperate for money - something that surely was not a problem anymore after being acquired by Microsoft. So yeah, they mismanaged Arkane Austin by not managing them at all.

Same thing with Perfect Dark, which has been in preproduction for over half a decade now and is still three years or so away, based on the recent IGN article. Again, all because Microsoft couldn't be bothered to manage their teams. The worst example of this tendency is Everwild, which began to be worked on by Rare nearly a decade ago back in 2014, was announced in 2019 when they didn't even know what the gameplay was going to be, has been rebooted a couple times ever since, and still years away. What the fuck.

And I could talk about how Undead Labs has been suffering from the lack of management overseeing; about how no one fucking told Playground that making an open-world RPG with the Forza engine instead of an industry-standard toolset like Unreal would heavily backfire on them later on; about how the Coalition has lost precious time due to the cancellation of non-Gears projects and are only now beginning work on the next Gears game; about how Ninja Theory has spent nearly four years so far on Project Mara and somehow it is still not out in spite of it being a horror game said to be a small and experimental thing of the scale of P.T.; about how over the past two years they have fucked up over and over again with all sorts of Age of Empires-related developments; and for the love of god, don't get me started on 343 Industries.

Hell, they couldn't even get rid of bad seeds over at the Zenimax side of things following the acquisition, such as that shitbag Marty Stratton, producer of Doom over at idSoftware, who has a history of bullying collaborators like award-winning Mick Gordon to the detriment of the final product, apart from absolutely sucking at his producing job going by the development stories of Rage, the canned Doom 4, Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal - all of them crunch-loaded shitshows with no clear direction from a game-making perspective.

And you're telling me that this criminally hands off company is going to fix Activision's issues?

 

[Ozriel]

Yes, Bobby kotick! Such an admirable man. Let's definitely listen to what he says.

You really wanted to drop that gif, eh?

Because that’s got nothing to do with what I said

 

[Corndog]

Link to a post, not a 13 page thread.

I’m sure someone somewhere las claimed that Starfield exclusivity is anti-competitive, but I don’t recall seeing them. Certainly, people have suggested that buying Zenimax is consistent with an intent to spend Sony out of the market, but not that this purchase on its own is problematic in this regard.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/starfield-was-planned-for-ps5-prior-to-microsofts-zenimax-acquisition-ftc-says.1658106/page-4#post-268102760

Edit: someone saying that not putting starfield on PlayStation was breaking promises.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/starfield-was-planned-for-ps5-prior-to-microsofts-zenimax-acquisition-ftc-says.1658106/page-5#post-268103844

 

[Ozriel]

I'm sorry, but that's false given all we know from how Microsoft has been managing their first-party lineup (be it Xbox or Bethesda) these last couple of years.

They are hands off to the point that they didn't see the absolute disaster that Redfall was shaping up to be, so of course that they did nothing to prevent that game from being a total flop. I'm not telling you that they should've straight up cancelled it (although going down that avenue is ultimately better than putting out a bad product), but they didn't even raise an eyebrow at the fact that Arkane was working on a multiplayer, open-world looter shooter instead of their bread and butter: singleplayer immersive sims. And before you tell me that "Redfall was the game that they wanted to make", let me remind you that the whole multiplayer push was dictated by Zenimax after singleplayer-only games like Prey, Death of the Outsider, Wolfenstein II and The Evil Within 2 all flopped in 2017, so they greenlit a bunch of multiplayer games because they were desperate for money - something that surely was not a problem anymore after being acquired by Microsoft. So yeah, they mismanaged Arkane Austin by not managing them at all.

Same thing with Perfect Dark, which has been in preproduction for over half a decade now and is still three years or so away, based on the recent IGN article. Again, all because Microsoft couldn't be bothered to manage their teams. The worst example of this tendency is Everwild, which began to be worked on by Rare nearly a decade ago back in 2014, was announced in 2019 when they didn't even know what the gameplay was going to be, has been rebooted a couple times ever since, and still years away. What the fuck.

And I could talk about how Undead Labs has been suffering from the lack of management overseeing; about how no one fucking told Playground that making an open-world RPG with the Forza engine instead of an industry-standard toolset like Unreal would heavily backfire on them later on; about how the Coalition has lost precious time due to the cancellation of non-Gears projects and are only now beginning work on the next Gears game; about how Ninja Theory has spent nearly four years so far on Project Mara and somehow it is still not out in spite of it being a horror game with a scale as small as P.T.; and for the love of god, don't get me started on 343 Industries.

Hell, they couldn't even get rid of bad seeds over at the Zenimax side of things following the acquisition, such as that shitbag Marty Stratton, producer of Doom over at idSoftware, has a history of bullying collaborators like award-winning Mick Gordon to the detriment of the final product, apart from absolutely sucking at his producing job going by the development stories of Rage, the canned Doom 4, Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal - all of them crunch-loaded shitshows from a game-making perspective.

And you're telling me that this criminally hands off company is going to fix Activision's issues?

Being hands off means a well oiled machine will continue to work efficiently. What everyone says is that Microsoft provides funding AND talent via expanded hiring. Not to mention more technical support.

Using the likes of Redfall and Perfect Dark makes no sense. Redfall’s issues started years before the acquisition and it’s telling that the Arkane devs interviewed were hoping MS would cancel the game. The Initiative is a new studio, and the array of talent MS hired had struggled to gel.

It’s a dramatically different thing to expect an efficient, functional publisher to struggle post acquisition.

 

[Methos#1975]

I'm sorry, but that's false given all we know from how Microsoft has been managing their first-party lineup (be it Xbox or Bethesda) these last couple of years.

They are hands off to the point that they didn't see the absolute disaster that Redfall was shaping up to be, so of course that they did nothing to prevent that game from being a total flop. I'm not telling you that they should've straight up cancelled it (although going down that avenue is ultimately better than putting out a bad product), but they didn't even raise an eyebrow at the fact that Arkane was working on a multiplayer, open-world looter shooter instead of their bread and butter: singleplayer immersive sims. And before you tell me that "Redfall was the game that they wanted to make", let me remind you that the whole multiplayer push was dictated by Zenimax after singleplayer-only games like Prey, Death of the Outsider, Wolfenstein II and The Evil Within 2 all flopped in 2017, so they greenlit a bunch of multiplayer games because they were desperate for money - something that surely was not a problem anymore after being acquired by Microsoft. So yeah, they mismanaged Arkane Austin by not managing them at all.

Same thing with Perfect Dark, which has been in preproduction for over half a decade now and is still three years or so away, based on the recent IGN article. Again, all because Microsoft couldn't be bothered to manage their teams. The worst example of this tendency is Everwild, which began to be worked on by Rare nearly a decade ago back in 2014, was announced in 2019 when they didn't even know what the gameplay was going to be, has been rebooted a couple times ever since, and still years away. What the fuck.

And I could talk about how Undead Labs has been suffering from the lack of management overseeing; about how no one fucking told Playground that making an open-world RPG with the Forza engine instead of an industry-standard toolset like Unreal would heavily backfire on them later on; about how the Coalition has lost precious time due to the cancellation of non-Gears projects and are only now beginning work on the next Gears game; about how Ninja Theory has spent nearly four years so far on Project Mara and somehow it is still not out in spite of it being a horror game said to be a small and experimental thing of the scale of P.T.; about how over the past two years they have fucked up over and over again with all sorts of Age of Empires-related developments; and for the love of god, don't get me started on 343 Industries.

Hell, they couldn't even get rid of bad seeds over at the Zenimax side of things following the acquisition, such as that shitbag Marty Stratton, producer of Doom over at idSoftware, who has a history of bullying collaborators like award-winning Mick Gordon to the detriment of the final product, apart from absolutely sucking at his producing job going by the development stories of Rage, the canned Doom 4, Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal - all of them crunch-loaded shitshows with no clear direction from a game-making perspective.

And you're telling me that this criminally hands off company is going to fix Activision's issues?

Ultimately that really is the main point isn't it? Say what you will but Sony has a history of helping to ensure that studios and developers engaged in making exclusives for them get the support needed to provide the best version of their vision. Even if not a exclusive Sony will send in engineers and support staff to help polish the PS versions of even third party multiplats as in the case of Callie to Protocol.

MS has no such history of quality, they lack even the management oversight to ensure their own deeply rooted IPs get adequate support and if Phil Spencer has shown the world anything the past few years, it's that he is hands off to the point of being incompetantly absent when ensuring the studios they have purchased are hitting anything resembling quality benchmarks. It's pretty much now a case of when they do release good game, it was done so despite MS and not because of them. MS acquiring Activision would do absolutely nothing to ensure they release quality software. I don't even think it a worthwhile debate because let's be real here, the size of Activision itself means that they already really in reality have just as much resources to throw at a game as Microsoft Studios do, if not more.

 

[MMaRsu]

Thanks Jimbo

 

[Methos#1975]

Being hands off means a well oiled machine will continue to work efficiently. What everyone says is that Microsoft provides funding AND talent via expanded hiring. Not to mention more technical support.

Using the likes of Redfall and Perfect Dark makes no sense. Redfall’s issues started years before the acquisition and it’s telling that the Arkane devs interviewed were hoping MS would cancel the game. The Initiative is a new studio, and the array of talent MS hired had struggled to gel.

It’s a dramatically different thing to expect an efficient, functional publisher to struggle post acquisition.

Being hands off and not providing adequate oversight and management also means that when things fall apart as in the case of Redfall, there is no one making hard decisions such as to kill a project or retooled it and then as in the case of Redfall,we see the release of games that further tarnish the brand. In the mean while Sony has internally cancelled how many projects in just the last few months? There is a reason why Sony AAA exclusives score well and push hardware sales while over on Xbox it's games barely peg the meter and once great IPs like Halo have became a joke.

 

[cireza]

Jimbo was smart enough to detect the evident contradiction had he said it was anti-competitive.

yousmart.gif

 

[Ozriel]

Being hands off and not providing adequate oversight and management also means that when things fall apart as in the case of Redfall, there is no one making hard decisions such as to kill a project or retooled it and then as in the case of Redfall,we see the release of games that further tarnish the brand. In the mean while Sony has internally cancelled how many projects in just the last few months? There is a reason why Sony AAA exclusives score well and push hardware sales while over on Xbox it's games barely peg the meter and once great IPs like Halo have became a joke.

The majority of Xbox games over the past 4 years have landed in the 80 - 90 MC range, though, so its clear youre not here for a factual conversation.

That said, Activision has run without the wheels coming off for the past decade. Where does this logic come from, that post acquisition with better funding, more talent, unionized workers and less pressure on COD... The wheels will suddenly fall off?

You can't spew corporate speak from Square Enix et al to justify exclusivity, then reject it vehemently when it comes to Activision. That's hypocritical.

 

[Methos#1975]

The majority of Xbox games over the past 4 years have landed in the 80 - 90 MC range, though, so its clear youre not here for a factual conversation.

That said, Activision has run without the wheels coming off for the past decade. Where does this logic come from, that post acquisition with better funding, more talent, unionized workers and less pressure on COD... The wheels will suddenly fall off?

You can't spew corporate speak from Square Enix et al to justify exclusivity, then reject it vehemently when it comes to Activision. That's hypocritical.

And those games have done what to change the state of the Xbox? Absolutely nothing at all. I keep seeing Twitter Xbots like Peterovo and that Adriana twit post metacritic scores like it's some touchdown run but my question is, who the fuck cares that some indy level A games like Pentiment or Hifi Rush scored well in a lake of mediocrity? These titles while many hype them up, even here, aren't doing a damn thing at all to draw in new Xbox fans. Meanwhile the big AAA releases that are meant to do that are trash. That's as much a issue for Xbox and it's management as anything. No one is buying a Xbox for Pentiment. Good for them it wasn't another diaster but who cares? Personally I think we are going to see another diaster when it comes to Starfield as well. That's just how MS rolls, they fuck up everyone of their big titles lately

 

[Ozriel]

Ultimately that really is the main point isn't it? Say what you will but Sony has a history of helping to ensure that studios and developers engaged in making exclusives for them get the support needed to provide the best version of their vision. Even if not a exclusive Sony will send in engineers and support staff to help polish the PS versions of even third party multiplats as in the case of Callie to Protocol.

You mean like when Xbox engineers helped to bring PUBG to Xbox? Or Microsoft’s technical work to help Sega being PSO2 to Xbox and Windows, among others?

MS has no such history of quality, they lack even the management oversight to ensure their own deeply rooted IPs get adequate support and if Phil Spencer has shown the world anything the past few years, it's that he is hands off to the point of being incompetantly absent when ensuring the studios they have purchased are hitting anything resembling quality benchmarks. It's pretty much now a case of when they do release good game, it was done so despite MS and not because of them.

It's amazing how Redfall has now become the platform warrior's rallying cry, as if we didn't have super polished Hi-fi Rush releasing months before, to critic and consumer acclaim.

Or the fact that the likes of Grounded and Pentiment landed to excellent reviews, with multiple GOTY awards for Pentiment.

Or even the fact that Double Fine specifically credits Microsoft for funding improvements to Psychonauts 2, making it a better final product.

acquiring Activision would do absolutely nothing to ensure they release quality software. I don't even think it a worthwhile debate because let's be real here, the size of Activision itself means that they already really in reality have just as much resources to throw at a game as Microsoft Studios do, if not more.

Activision now has more resources than Microsoft? Lmao

I think I'll toe your line and take the exec's word for it.

 

[Ozriel]

And those games have done what to change the state of the Xbox? Absolutely nothing at all. I keep seeing Twitter Xbots like Peterovo and that Adriana twit post metacritic scores like it's some touchdown run but my question is, who the fuck cares that some indy level A games like Pentiment or Hifi Rush scored well in a lake of mediocrity? These titles while many hype them up, even here, aren't doing a damn thing at all to draw in new Xbox fans. Meanwhile the big AAA releases that are meant to do that are trash. That's as much a issue for Xbox and it's management as anything. No one is buying a Xbox for Pentiment. Good for them it wasn't another diaster but who cares?

Absolutely unsurprised to see you moving goalposts so flagrantly.

"Xbox mismanagement means they can't make quality games"

*some quality games get mentioned*

"See now, that was different"

Personally I think we are going to see another diaster when it comes to Starfield as well. That's just how MS rolls, they fuck up everyone of their big titles lately

Yeah, there's certainly a contingent of you here praying fervently for Starfield to fail.
I suspect you'll be gravely disappointed when September rolls by.

 

[Bernardougf]

And he's right

 

[Clear]

That's hilarious.

Its also irrelevant. The question isn't whether either Sony or Microsoft would benefit from acquiring whomever, its whether either should be allowed to.

This is not a subtle difference!

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/starfield-was-planned-for-ps5-prior-to-microsofts-zenimax-acquisition-ftc-says.1658106/page-4#post-268102760

Edit: someone saying that not putting starfield on PlayStation was breaking promises.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/starfield-was-planned-for-ps5-prior-to-microsofts-zenimax-acquisition-ftc-says.1658106/page-5#post-268103844

Thanks.

Yep, people are indeed saying that Starfield / Bethesda exclusivity is, in itself anti-competitive. That’s just stupid. In line with an anti-competitive approach, sure (as is much of what Sony does), but not sufficient to cross the line imo.

As for the broken promise thing - anyone who believes anything a CEO says - and even moreso anything they imply - publicly, that isn’t written into a contract, is an idiot. Too many people read into their words whatever justifies their biases or desires. Human nature, I guess…

 

[ZehDon]

Its also irrelevant. The question isn't whether either Sony or Microsoft would benefit from acquiring whomever, its whether either should be allowed to.

This is not a subtle difference!

You're putting the horse before the cart. The "allowed to" component with regards to the FTC's arguments boils down to: does [X] unfairly benefit [Party A] and does it unfairly harm [Party B] with respect to consumer interests. Thus the question of whether or not the biggest game in the world for nearly 10 years becomes exclusive to one party is entirely relevant. Ryan dodged the question because the answer is self-evident, which is why Microsoft's lawyers asked it in the first place: given the ability to do so, Ryan would absolutely make Call of Duty exclusive to PlayStation. And so would Microsoft without question. Therefore, we move on to: does either party actually have the ability to make COD exclusive? Given Sony isn't buying ABK, it's just down to can Microsoft actually make COD exclusive if they buy ABK? That's what this trial is all about. Microsoft say it doesn't make financial sense to do so given the sheer costs of the deal, and so they don't have the ability to make COD exclusive. They've demonstrated as such to other regulators who happily accepted that they wouldn't make COD exclusive. The FTC is trying to make lots of different points to attack Microsoft's deal from virtually every angle, while Microsoft is really just trying to make two points: it's too expensive to make COD exclusive and making everything exclusive isn't even their current strategy. How much of their points you believe is up to you, but it all comes back to: does Microsoft benefit enough that it harms the rest of the market.

 

[Tams]

I am laughing too hard now when we say sony made many deals to make games like final fantasy ,ghostwire deathloop KOTOR Remake, Silent Hill 2, Forspoken, Ni Oh
Project eve ,SFV a Known ip ,Rise of Ronin etc etc exclusive to their platform and cancel xbox ver of some of the games here it is fine because its sony, even buying a publisher Psygnosis), they had many multiplatform games before , wipeout 3 and wipeout fusion was made exclusive to Sony platforms.
Now when we say microsoft has the right to make New ip's from bethesda etc exclusive to their platform from a company they own and they help and fund their projects" it is wrong and a big problem microsoft should stop!"

some of them said oh"( we know damn well ms made 360 what it was by 3rd party )".

did they even know sony was doing this since Ps1 and before xbox was even a thing?! i didn't know xbox was released before playstation.

Chris Deering
We targeted Microsoft from day one -- we were ruthless," he says. "I'm not of this mentality anymore, but at the time it was life or death as far as I was concerned. We had this expression in our business meetings: 'Kill them right at the start and take no prisoners
Chris Deering, who was Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) Europe's boss at the time.
says that the company still wanted to embrace a broad audience, including more mature demographics. One of his core focuses was -- as with the original PlayStation -- trying to nail down as many third-party exclusives as possible.

That's a mighty long rant against singing no one with half a brain was saying.

You fell hook, line, and sinker for the clickbait title.

Go have a KitKat.

 

[Corndog]

Thanks.

Yep, people are indeed saying that Starfield / Bethesda exclusivity is, in itself anti-competitive. That’s just stupid. In line with an anti-competitive approach, sure (as is much of what Sony does), but not sufficient to cross the line imo.

As for the broken promise thing - anyone who believes anything a CEO says - and even moreso anything they imply - publicly, that isn’t written into a contract, is an idiot. Too many people read into their words whatever justifies their biases or desires. Human nature, I guess…

People just need to realize the ceo or similar job is to make money for the company. Just view what they say in that light.

 

[Fabieter]

I am laughing too hard now when we say sony made many deals to make games like final fantasy ,ghostwire deathloop KOTOR Remake, Silent Hill 2, Forspoken, Ni Oh
Project eve ,SFV a Known ip ,Rise of Ronin etc etc exclusive to their platform and cancel xbox ver of some of the games here it is fine because its sony, even buying a publisher Psygnosis), they had many multiplatform games before , wipeout 3 and wipeout fusion was made exclusive to Sony platforms.
Now when we say microsoft has the right to make New ip's from bethesda etc exclusive to their platform from a company they own and they help and fund their projects" it is wrong and a big problem microsoft should stop!"

some of them said oh"( we know damn well ms made 360 what it was by 3rd party )".

did they even know sony was doing this since Ps1 and before xbox was even a thing?! i didn't know xbox was released before playstation.

Chris Deering
We targeted Microsoft from day one -- we were ruthless," he says. "I'm not of this mentality anymore, but at the time it was life or death as far as I was concerned. We had this expression in our business meetings: 'Kill them right at the start and take no prisoners
Chris Deering, who was Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) Europe's boss at the time.
says that the company still wanted to embrace a broad audience, including more mature demographics. One of his core focuses was -- as with the original PlayStation -- trying to nail down as many third-party exclusives as possible.

What the actual point you are making.

I hope its not sony gets a pass and ms is a victim but I would puke right into my office if that's what you mean.

 

[Clear]

You're putting the horse before the cart. The "allowed to" component with regards to the FTC's arguments boils down to: does [X] unfairly benefit [Party A] and does it unfairly harm [Party B] with respect to consumer interests. Thus the question of whether or not the biggest game in the world for nearly 10 years becomes exclusive to one party is entirely relevant. Ryan dodged the question because the answer is self-evident, which is why Microsoft's lawyers asked it in the first place: given the ability to do so, Ryan would absolutely make Call of Duty exclusive to PlayStation. And so would Microsoft without question. Therefore, we move on to: does either party actually have the ability to make COD exclusive? Given Sony isn't buying ABK, it's just down to can Microsoft actually make COD exclusive if they buy ABK? That's what this trial is all about. Microsoft say it doesn't make financial sense to do so given the sheer costs of the deal, and so they don't have the ability to make COD exclusive. They've demonstrated as such to other regulators who happily accepted that they wouldn't make COD exclusive. The FTC is trying to make lots of different points to attack Microsoft's deal from virtually every angle, while Microsoft is really just trying to make two points: it's too expensive to make COD exclusive and making everything exclusive isn't even their current strategy. How much of their points you believe is up to you, but it all comes back to: does Microsoft benefit enough that it harms the rest of the market.

The sheer size/dollar value of this merger is unprecedented, $70b is a lot of wealth being transacted and as such demands scrutiny.

You simply cannot minimize this, as both parties directly involved with this deal agreed upon this price. Its a very significant piece of business.

What's more, when the (what all parties concur to be) market leader in the sector only has a market capitalization of ~$114b, then questions need to be asked as to what impact the deal will have on the overall state of competition.

Let me ask you this: If it were Sony buying ABK in order to expand and cement their dominance, do you think it should just be rubber-stamped by the regulators?

 

[ZehDon]

The sheer size/dollar value of this merger is unprecedented, $70b is a lot of wealth being transacted and as such demands scrutiny.

You simply cannot minimize this, as both parties directly involved with this deal agreed upon this price. Its a very significant piece of business.

What's more, when the (what all parties concur to be) market leader in the sector only has a market capitalization of ~$114b, then questions need to be asked as to what impact the deal will have on the overall state of competition.

Let me ask you this: If it were Sony buying ABK in order to expand and cement their dominance, do you think it should just be rubber-stamped by the regulators?

Nothing in this post relates to my post that you quoted. I in no way said this should deal be "minimized", I never said it shouldn't be scrutinised, and I certainly never said it should be "rubber-stamped". I simply explained that what "allowed" refers to in this case and moved on to highlight that I personally don't think Microsoft can afford to make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox. If you want to discuss this topic with me, please at least respond to what I actually said.

 

[Clear]

Nothing in this post relates to my post that you quoted. I in no way said this should deal be "minimized", I never said it shouldn't be scrutinised, and I certainly never said it should be "rubber-stamped". I simply explained that what "allowed" refers to in this case and moved on to highlight that I personally don't think Microsoft can afford to make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox. If you want to discuss this topic with me, please at least respond to what I actually said.

My point was simply that a deal of this size in a market where the current leader has a capitalization value of less than double of the transaction cost should be thoroughly investigated irrespective of whom is involved.

Nothing in my post addressed you directly. When I was talking about it being impossible to minimize the significance of the deal (due to its magnitude) I used "you" in a generalist, all-inclusive, sense as shorthand for anyone involved in the discussion with whatever position they may hold.

If you want a specific criticism, its your apparent unwillingness to accept that any transaction of this size should raise suspicions of anti-competitive practice irrespective of the parties involved.

 

[ZehDon]

... If you want a specific criticism, its your apparent unwillingness to accept that any transaction of this size should raise suspicions of anti-competitive practice irrespective of the parties involved.

Nothing I've said indicates this at all. I'm 100% for regulators looking into literally any merger, acquisition or corporate purchase of any kind. Their job is to protect the public - which is me. I believe well enforced strong regulation makes for better business for everyone, because it ensures good, health competition in the market which benefits the public - which is still me. All I said was that I don't see the financial sense for Microsoft in making Call of Duty exclusive.

 

[crackajack]

Competition in itself is anti-competitive as an inherent result.
You want to be on top in the end, and won't help your struggling competitor just because, to keep competition going or whatever altruistic nonsense that has no real place in businesses. Governments should make laws to avoid that and prevent big fish to swallow every little fish. Problem is that governments themselves have some interest that their local megacorps win against other countries' megacorps, but unchecked competition will end up anyway in destroying itself.
Having monopolies for entertainment might even work. It's still non essential and like ignoring high priced 4090 cards you can always not play games at all. The acceptable price for consoles is then not defined by competition between two or three companies but just by customers willing to pay up until a ceiling. Might exclude many people but to be profitable and to still have enough people for that it can never be obscenely sky high.

 

[Nocturno999]

He knows he can be easily roasted for doing the same.

 

[Clear]

Nothing I've said indicates this at all. I'm 100% for regulators looking into literally any merger, acquisition or corporate purchase of any kind. Their job is to protect the public - which is me. I believe well enforced strong regulation makes for better business for everyone, because it ensures good, health competition in the market which benefits the public - which is still me. All I said was that I don't see the financial sense for Microsoft in making Call of Duty exclusive.

My view is that a deal of this size is a giant red flag, in and of itself.

Businesses do not enter into such arrangements without thorough consideration of long-term impact. If MS believes this opportunity is worth the astronomical cost, then I find it implausible that they see this as anything less than a major coup for their ambitions.

In simple terms, this is not about improving competitiveness, the gains from that simply do not square with this level of investment.

Similarly the ridiculous dog and pony show where MS is actively foregrounding Playstation vs Xbox i take as a smokescreen, as subterfuge.

The way I see it, thanks to their existent and ongoing investment in Azure, MS have the infrastructural requirements covered better than anyone for creating what amounts to a globally dominant digital broadcast system. What they lack is the programming content to drive uptake to that system.

The "moat" they are building with these inordinately expensive IP grabs is not just against Sony, its to ensure long-term hegemony over the entire market.

That's why it makes financial sense.