Axios: 11 members of Congress argue Sony is unfairly hurting Xbox in Japan
- Thread starter Arubedo
- Start date
First on PS4, second on PC then PS5. First on PS4 isn't a clear indication of any Xbox version.
The most interesting thing to me is that Microsoft seemingly pressured lawmakers to go after Japan, but Japan is pretty hands off except for their national security companies (Can we please stop saying Japan would block any merger Microsoft would do? If that were true, that would be a legit concern from the US). The EU is a much smarter play if Microsoft does want regulators to crackdown on Sony's exclusive practices. There is a 80/20 split there, I believe the EC agrees with the "high-performance console market" definition, and the EU is far more likely to regulate stuff than the Japanese government IMO.
Well yesterday, they launched a new guideline package to address areas of exclusionary abuse of dominance.
This quote in particular seems to be very directed at gaming (even if it's not). Regulators have already determined that console gaming has a strong network effect (and seemingly a very high barrier of entry since regulators also determined that there are unlikely going to be new console makers anytime soon):
They're calling for feedback and I have to imagine Microsoft lawyers are ringing up their phones. Interesting times for the industry ahead.
Well yesterday, they launched a new guideline package to address areas of exclusionary abuse of dominance.
This quote in particular seems to be very directed at gaming (even if it's not). Regulators have already determined that console gaming has a strong network effect (and seemingly a very high barrier of entry since regulators also determined that there are unlikely going to be new console makers anytime soon):
They're calling for feedback and I have to imagine Microsoft lawyers are ringing up their phones. Interesting times for the industry ahead.
Last edited:
Honestly if it was any other company they may of had a point. But Microsoft?, they would do anything to protect their dominant markets in computing software and they have just bought 2 major publishers to pull games off another platform.
I disagree. If there were never plans to release on Xbox, Square would've made it clear like Capcom did with SF5 and EA did with Titanfall.
So it sounds like ABK deal may go down in history as not only the biggest deal made in gaming but possibly the start of change in the industry instead.The most interesting thing to me is that Microsoft seemingly pressured lawmakers to go after Japan, but Japan is pretty hands off except for their national security companies (Can we please stop saying Japan would block any merger Microsoft would do? If that were true, that would be a legit concern from the US). The EU is a much smarter play if Microsoft does want regulators to crackdown on Sony's exclusive practices. There is a 80/20 split there, I believe the EC agrees with the "high-performance console market" definition, and the EU is far more likely to regulate stuff than the Japanese government IMO.
Well yesterday, they launched a new guideline package to address areas of exclusionary abuse of dominance:
They're calling for feedback and I have to imagine Microsoft lawyers are ringing up their phones. Interesting times for the industry ahead.
Although I still think Sony buying Bungie and allowing them to be multi platform may factor into future acquisitions in the future.
Kinda funny that a pretty much European governance of US based SIE gave ammo to the congress for a trade deal with Jp
Jp trade minister probably woke up asking what the fuck happened
You'll probably gonna get a Midwest sirloin tariff removed or something
Jp trade minister probably woke up asking what the fuck happened
You'll probably gonna get a Midwest sirloin tariff removed or something
Am I misremembering something here, didn't the CMA omit Nintendo because the internal docs MS supplied them omitted Nintendo?
I do not care how Sony overplay or underplay their hands. This lobbying is some nationalistic garbage when Microsoft made 0 efforts to not just the Japanese market but also the Asia market.
Put aside Sony themselves has a poor result there in Japan this gen, successful AAA Japanese games in the West are mainly made with white main characters for the audience.
Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid etc.
Wake me up when Microsoft put in equivalent efforts for the Japanese audience beyond a couple jrpg exclusives in their best era.
I see no upside to artificially delaying a ready game just so it can launch alongside other platforms at a later date.
The problem with this line of arguing though, is that you basically argue that the more dominant an entity is, and as such the closer to being an actual monopoly they are, the more excusable actions that deprive competitors become, because that's where the audience already is. It's easy to argue basically any multiplatform IP as being linked to PlayStation... because PlayStation is by default the dominant platform for 3rd party games. This is what made the whole RotR drama so ridiculous. Everyone was falling over themselves to say the reason why this specific example was unacceptable is because it was historically linked to PlayStation. Which is like... no shit it was after Sony paid to ensure the IP couldn't be on any other console for a full generation.
Even if exclusivity isn't the primary reason for Xbox not doing well in Japan, using a more dominant market position to systematically target a smaller platform in order to ensure it doesn't find an audience is a classic example of anticompetitive behavior. Relative market positions are important context here, because clearly a weaker platform signing a deal can't have the same "foreclosure" effect on a dominant platform, and a dominant platform shouldn't have the need to aggressively target a weaker platform in that same manner. If exclusivity isn't causing Xbox to fail in Japan, then why is Sony constantly targeting them with it?
That's the reason why Nintendo gets to sit on the sidelines without finding themselves embroiled in all this, even at the heights of their successes.... because (with the exclusion of the NES days) they don't act like they're trying to furiously stamp out the smallest market competitor.
You're overthinking things.
This has nothing to do with any of the aforementioned, but moreso Microsoft using Sony's contrived "high-performance console market" against them for political points. Nothing more.
You do understand the same goes for every company that goes through regulatory acquisitions, sony already had to deal with that with the FTC and the bungie buy as well, also Microsoft had to submit tons of documentation, are now agreeing with concessions that are now legally binding etc.
On top of that you keep spreading the misinformation that sony were the ones that created this market. The market slice was determined by the CMA first based on documentation they saw From Microsoft where it showed they were not following nintendo as closely as they did sony, and the FTC also adopted the same market definition.
It's impacting Xbox content in other markets, it's very much something that needs to be looked into. Ultimately the decision is up to JFTC but getting more regulatory oversight is always a good thing.
You arent people are selectively applying it and it's been misinformation this whole time. This is exactly the origins of it. And that was their justification.
I don't know where to begin.... Even if we take you at face value Sony doubled down on it and convinced others that it's a valid market separation.
And CMA initial talking points mirrored Sony's talking points that CADE published. Go back and read the CMA PF, they used Sony response to form thier SLC
If there is an information that Sony is using it's market position to force Japanese companies to sign exclusive deals, may be you are right.
But there is also another possibility. Sony and Japanese publishers are independent companies and they can make deals if they both have mutual interest and benefits. If Microsoft is using politics to block Sony's deals with other Japanese Publishers this may backfires and hurt Microsoft image in Japan.
Wait, you realize that could still be a concern, right?
This is being reviewed by regulators and the DOJ:
Google Paid Apple Billions To Dominate Search On iPhones, Justice Department Says
Your first paragraph is wholly irrelevant to what you're quoting.
What I'm saying is not misinformation and has been posted by hundreds of people on this forum over the past week alone. Just because Sony wasn't the first one to utter the actual term "HPM," that doesn't negate their tactical usage of the contrived term to argue their reasoning for blocking the deal, which they've done handedly to multiple countries. They've also said the same thing in other words previously. I've also said, over a dozen times, both Sony and the FTC created this narrative.
Sony made the claim, MS said that's nonsense, CMA inspected MS internal docs and saw MS speaks about Sony more so which they said gives weight to SONY'S argument. CMA then used that as part of their PF. MS have comprehensive reasons why CMA and Sony were wrong, and Sony responded that "MS wants to make us like Nintendo"
Sony claims Microsoft’s ‘true strategy’ is to ‘make PlayStation like Nintendo’ | VGC
The company argues that Xbox will become the home of FPS games if its Activision deal is approved…
www.videogameschronicle.com
Let's not mischaracterised events
Seems to me Sony thought they run the world by trying to police and using their market leadership as influence to block this merger.
You dont have to take me at face value, I read the documents. The entire definition came from the CMA. And CADE had different critieria, they ONLY considered the traditional way of looking at mergers which is solely consumer impact. I read them. You all conflate these things as if they are working in concert for something and its not the case.
Thats fair. Bloodbourne is a great game. It should be everywhere so more people can play it.
Wait, you realize that could still be a concern, right?
This is being reviewed by regulators and the DOJ:
'Google pays enormous sums to ensure search-engine dominance'
DOJ attorney Kenneth Dintzer didn't disclose how much Google spends to be the default search engine on most browsers and all US mobile phones, but described the payments as "enormous numbers."economictimes.indiatimes.com
You are generally right, but in your particular example, Google secures literally full monopoly on Mobile Browsers.
Sony's deals with Square Enix for example are no different than Microsoft's deals for STALKER 2 or ARK 2 and etc.
it's free market only if you buy third party publishers. It's anticompetitive and anti consumer when you sign third party deals for some timed exclusives.
It's really impressive how Microsoft managed to spin the narrative of Sony being a huge unbreakable monopoly while at the same time spending over a half of Sony's market share on buying third party.
You are mischaracterizing it though. Sony did not coin the term high performance consoles etc. and the CMA had evidence to then carve it out as such.Sony made the claim, MS said that's nonsense, CMA inspected MS internal docs and saw MS speaks about Sony more so which they said gives weight to SONY'S argument. CMA then used that as part of their PF. MS have comprehensive reasons why CMA and Sony were wrong, and Sony responded that "MS wants to make us like Nintendo"
Sony claims Microsoft’s ‘true strategy’ is to ‘make PlayStation like Nintendo’ | VGC
The company argues that Xbox will become the home of FPS games if its Activision deal is approved…
Let's not mischaracterised events
For me simply if playstation did not exist in japan, xbox still wouldn't be doing much better. Square and Capcom would just pivot to doing smaller titles for the switch and maybe PC stuff. The claims that Sony is hurting xbox in Japan I believe to be completely and utterly false, which is essentially what the premise of the thread is about. Could maybe make the argument for Europe, but Japan? Nah.
Sony has even decreased their focus on japan. We have had numerous threads about this. A lot of games don't even release on playstation, they are focused on switch and pc, and maybe release on playstation later. They are doing a really really bad job if they are trying to establsh some form of monolopy. Its ridiculous. Japan simply doesn't care about xbox for a variety of reasons.
Sony has even decreased their focus on japan. We have had numerous threads about this. A lot of games don't even release on playstation, they are focused on switch and pc, and maybe release on playstation later. They are doing a really really bad job if they are trying to establsh some form of monolopy. Its ridiculous. Japan simply doesn't care about xbox for a variety of reasons.
If the concern is Japanese market, specifically with "high performance" consoles. Sony's deals with Square Enix are probably a bigger deal than Google search on Safari, especially since users can still change the default search engine, Xbox users only option to play FF16 is to get a PS5.
Again, they didn't need to "coin the term" if they were still using that argument previously. That's goalpost moving if I ever saw it.
With this logic, wouldn't we say MS and ABK have an agreement for sale/buy? why is it a federal case then..just saying
A serious acquisition of a Japanese publisher by either Sony or MS would absolutely draw Nintendo into the conversation.
The high end console business in Japan is such an irrelevant piece of the market comparatively to where the actual money resides.
The terms of such an acquisition would shift dramatically and would not need to operate under the same lens at ABK.
The high end console business in Japan is such an irrelevant piece of the market comparatively to where the actual money resides.
The terms of such an acquisition would shift dramatically and would not need to operate under the same lens at ABK.
Again. The CMA used it first.
look at the timeline.
The CMA issues statement came out in October Responses that you all say sony argued about previously did not come out before the CMA's issues statement.
So where exactly were they using this argument Before the CMA said so?
I mean, you can dance around the semantics as much as you like, but Sony literally argued that bringing COD to Nintendo systems was meaningless because they don't compete within the same sphere. Who uttered a specific phrase first makes no difference here. Sony drove home the High-Performance Console narrative at every turn and it stuck as a metric that MS then had to justify potential COD foreclosure against. Now that MS has successfully done so, that definition and argument that Sony worked so hard to drill home hasn't simply evaporated.
I don't know what you're arguing so hard for who "coined" it, when there's been literally hundreds of pages of discussions, that you were part of, where we saw precisely which entities argued for and against the definition.
Read above, Sony came up with the idea, and then argued for it. They may not have coined the term but they were instrumental in defining it. No other party made this argument. Tell me, from what we know, who was pushing for this separation, Sony or MS? The evidence is widely available.
Focusing on who coined it is a strawman.
Sony made the claim, MS said that's nonsense, CMA inspected MS internal docs and saw MS speaks about Sony more so which they said gives weight to SONY'S argument. CMA then used that as part of their PF. MS have comprehensive reasons why CMA and Sony were wrong, and Sony responded that "MS wants to make us like Nintendo"
Sony claims Microsoft’s ‘true strategy’ is to ‘make PlayStation like Nintendo’ | VGC
The company argues that Xbox will become the home of FPS games if its Activision deal is approved…
Let's not mischaracterised events
.
Now he's trying to argue that Sony didn't coin the term "HPM" so they didn't have a hand in anything, despite their previous arguments being virtually the same thing.
Precisely, thank you.
If that were the case, then Sony would completely ignore Xbox within Japan, just as Nintendo does. They do not, and have not however... and so yes, Sony has hurt Xbox in Japan, consistently. It does not matter if they would not have been successful anyways. Actions were taken that have made them perform worse.
Interesting......😁The most interesting thing to me is that Microsoft seemingly pressured lawmakers to go after Japan, but Japan is pretty hands off except for their national security companies (Can we please stop saying Japan would block any merger Microsoft would do? If that were true, that would be a legit concern from the US). The EU is a much smarter play if Microsoft does want regulators to crackdown on Sony's exclusive practices. There is a 80/20 split there, I believe the EC agrees with the "high-performance console market" definition, and the EU is far more likely to regulate stuff than the Japanese government IMO.
Well yesterday, they launched a new guideline package to address areas of exclusionary abuse of dominance.
This quote in particular seems to be very directed at gaming (even if it's not). Regulators have already determined that console gaming has a strong network effect (and seemingly a very high barrier of entry since regulators also determined that there are unlikely going to be new console makers anytime soon):
They're calling for feedback and I have to imagine Microsoft lawyers are ringing up their phones. Interesting times for the industry ahead.
exactly. They sure did..
Last edited:
Can you list them for the sake of your argument? Because I can point to numerous self-inflicted wounds Microsoft has done in the past past.