Not having the same exclusivity agreement they have right now when it's over.I'm curious though..
"inadequate on many levels"
So far only one thing was mentioned right? Length of the guarantee. What else do you think he left out, that was (from his perspective) inadequate?
ah you mean like what they are doing with destiny after acquiring bungie?
No PlayStation Advantage™️ probably. Or maybe no guarantee that PS will get feature parityI'm curious though..
"inadequate on many levels"
So far only one thing was mentioned right? Length of the guarantee. What else do you think he left out, that was (from his perspective) inadequate?
The only thing I can really say on this topic is that most people here are pretty out of touch when it comes to antitrust and anti-competitive practices. Not a single one of us should be going to bat for a gigacorp. The last several decades of weak enforcement from antitrust commissions have been an absolute failure, finding us where we are today with these massive corporations wielding far too much power.
In my opinion, I think the majority of people should put the controller down long enough to read up on why we need watchdogs and various governmental bodies to hold all of these companies' feet to the fire. If you've ever thought "hey, it's just business, anybody with money can do whatever they want" then I'm pleading with you to step back and get some perspective.
I can see Sony wanting exactly the same they have now and guarantee that MS won't pull it from Sony consoles. Basically things that MS really don't want to guarantee if they don't have to, especially letting Sony just carry on like normal.I'm curious though..
"inadequate on many levels"
So far only one thing was mentioned right? Length of the guarantee. What else do you think he left out, that was (from his perspective) inadequate?
Of course it's not the same situation, but it's no less relevant in the discussion. The Sony "It's not the same" defense force continues to downplay the fact that Sony does the exact same things, but because they do it in smaller increments and slower, it's more acceptable than Microsoft's large purchases of utter shock. Sony acquiring developers, it's not the same. Sony creating a stranglehold on all sorts of exclusive content, it's not the same. Sony keeping games off other platforms, it's not the same. The end result is absolutely the same. Both companies using their power to stifle competition and raise their brand. Sony nearly put MS under last generation and just about choked out MS with all sorts of exclusive content. Developers were happy to deal with the market leader and its base. So, Microsoft countered with its money. Developers and publishers were willing to sell and Microsoft was eager to buy. My point is, if people are going to point the finger at one then point that same finger at the other. Especially , IMO, that part of Microsoft's reaction to acquire more developers was because Sony's exclusive deals were absurdly damaging to Xbox. Like I said in another post, I just find it insanely funny that CoD is what broke the camel's back to get Sony so flustered, lmao. And the fact that alluding to Microsoft needing to make concessions with CoD (if the acquisition goes through) is equally as funny. I mean, it's just one game. :)
They have spent money to right the ship.You state 'Sony nearly put MS under last generation' when it was Microsoft's own actions that saw them go from a strong position in the 360 generation to a weak one in the Xbox One generation. They started chasing the Wii casual audience with Kinect. Their first party stable weakened due to a lack of investment and closures. They planned to push towards an always online future people didn't want. They launched an underpowered, over priced console. They relied on third party deals garnering them exclusive features for major franchises like FIFA and timed exclusive AAA titles like Shadow of the Tomb Raider. The poor reception of the Xbox One was Microsoft's doing. Suggesting that Sony almost 'choked out MS', one of the biggest companies on Earth, is propaganda of the highest order.
Why do you feel the need to rewrite history to justify Microsoft's acquisition spree?
You state 'Sony nearly put MS under last generation' when it was Microsoft's own actions that saw them go from a strong position in the 360 generation to a weak one in the Xbox One generation. They started chasing the Wii casual audience with Kinect. Their first party stable weakened due to a lack of investment and closures. They planned to push towards an always online future people didn't want. They launched an underpowered, over priced console. They relied on third party deals garnering them exclusive features for major franchises like FIFA and timed exclusive AAA titles like Shadow of the Tomb Raider. The poor reception of the Xbox One was Microsoft's doing. Suggesting that Sony almost 'choked out MS', one of the biggest companies on Earth, is propaganda of the highest order.
Why do you feel the need to rewrite history to justify Microsoft's acquisition spree?
Here is a theoretical for you... Let's say either party made the decision to buy, EA, Ubisoft, Take Two and Tencent. Not one of them, all of them.They have spent money to right the ship.
They are spending money to try and be the best version of themselves in gaming. Nothing wrong with that.
They made a lot of mistakes and Sony capitalized, then tried going for the jugular.
Microsoft changed the game and people seem to have a problem with that.
Not me. Let companies spend as they see fit.
How am I rewriting history? Of course Xbox stumbled out of the gate at the beginning of the generation, but Sony took advantage of that at the very beginning as well. Sony literally and officially meme'd Xbox from the get go and used its power to capitalize on that stumble. I mean, did you see the amount of 3rd party exclusive content that Sony pulled in for the PS4 generation? https://www.gematsu.com/exclusives/ps4
Sony fixed themselves after the PS3 generation in terms of more powerful hardware, undercutting Xbox One's price, and setting themselves up to spend as much money as it would take to secure all these 3rd party deals. Again, why am I going to point the finger at Microsoft trying to do the exact same thing to turn themselves around this generation? As I see it, the wheel is turning again and Sony is having a very rough start to the generation. Increased game prices, increased hardware prices, scalpers, low inventory, is making Playstation a hard sell and Microsoft is capitalizing.
I'm curious though..
"inadequate on many levels"
So far only one thing was mentioned right? Length of the guarantee. What else do you think he left out, that was (from his perspective) inadequate?
Sony's been making some weird decisions this gen, but with the PS5 being the best selling console in the UK so far this year, I wouldn't exactly say it's a hard sell. It's still high in demand in Europe, at least.
Absolutely true. People will buy into the ecosystem that they're comfortable with. Believe it or not, there are still people that bought into an Xbox even after the launch of the Xbox One. In terms of my previous posts, Microsoft is trying to position themselves to be the better deal this generation. They are severely undercutting hardware price with the Series S with an insane amount of proposed first party content that will release Day 1 on a subscription service for $15 a month.
Yes… with 4 first party studios /s
Absolutely true. People will buy into the ecosystem that they're comfortable with. Believe it or not, there are still people that bought into an Xbox even after the launch of the Xbox One. In terms of my previous posts, Microsoft is trying to position themselves to be the better deal this generation. They are severely undercutting hardware price with the Series S with an insane amount of proposed first party content that will release Day 1 on a subscription service for $15 a month.
This is what is called hyperbole. There is no one getting in position to acquire all of those because............antitrust.Here is a theoretical for you... Let's say either party made the decision to buy, EA, Ubisoft, Take Two and Tencent. Not one of them, all of them.
What do you think would be the impact on the industry?
Activision is currently the sixth largest publisher in terms of revenue. Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony all being ahead of it. Activision is larger than all of the publishers that I listed above, except Tencent.
It's a worrying trend. Anyone who doesn't see the forest through the trees is actively rooting for a subscription only, less choice gaming model that'll be geared around big franchises and ultimately hurting smaller developers because they can't even compete.
It's terrible for any of the big three to be consuming publishers of any meaningful size long term. But gamepass is a steal, until in 5-10 years time when the price gets jacked up and we start moving towards a GaaS only model. Make no mistake, Sony's endgame is exactly the same shit.
MS are doing a lot of things right to position themselves as an alternative that provides more value for money this gen, and so far it seems to have worked well in the US. Not sure how it'll play out over here, so far they don't seem to have put much of a dent in the European PS panzertank.
No shit but many are rooting for regulators just to move on in the name of console wars. The Activision acquisition should be heavily scrutinized.This is what is called hyperbole. There is no one getting in position to acquire all of those because............antitrust.
At some point in time, it also becomes silly to keep acquiring. You acquire to keep a reliable content pipeline, but eventually, you hit the right cadence and compare it to market size. If costs rise faster than the market expansion can absorb, you stop buying because it is no longer economical.
Some behave like Microsoft will continue buying with no end in sight.
Subscription models are about choice, for now. How is cable television going? How are many of the streaming services doing cannibalizing themselves currently? How are game prices in general trending, not just in the US but internationally?Finally, subscription models are about choice. You will need some GAAS, you will need RPG's, shooters, pne and done games and smaller independent games. Microaoft is doing all of these.
Who on Earth thinks that releasing 40 GAAS titles is wise? They will cannibalize one another. Yet this is the myth that has been spread for years about Game Pass.
I'm curious though..
"inadequate on many levels"
So far only one thing was mentioned right? Length of the guarantee. What else do you think he left out, that was (from his perspective) inadequate?
I'm curious though..
"inadequate on many levels"
So far only one thing was mentioned right? Length of the guarantee. What else do you think he left out, that was (from his perspective) inadequate?
Damn it's pretty impressive how this thread hasn't progressed one bit in the 45 pages it's gone through lmao. Just the same arguments being formed into different sentences over and over and over.
View: https://giphy.com/gifs/bill-murray-groundhog-groundhogday-UVwoTQ0OvhqohViQqC
Forgot those incredible Activision Spiderman games where so incredibly huge that they decided to solely concentrate all of their devs on this single IP.
Wonder why they gave it away.
You.. you do know Sony doesn't own Spider-Man and Microsoft could license the character and make their own Spidey game if they so wished? Right?
Maybe do just the tiniest bit of research behind the whole current Spider-Man thing first.
The difference is MS doesn't own Activision and Call of Duty yet because their acquisition has not yet been approved by regulators.
You call other people dumb dumbs while somehow missing the most basic and crucial detail of this whole story. Amazing.
Damn it's pretty impressive how this thread hasn't progressed one bit in the 45 pages it's gone through lmao. Just the same arguments being formed into different sentences over and over and over.
View: https://giphy.com/gifs/bill-murray-groundhog-groundhogday-UVwoTQ0OvhqohViQqC
No? Do you? I know Sony don't outright own the IP in the gaming sphere - but I do know Sony owns the rights to the Spidey movies and thus have a cushy relationship with Disney. One that has resulted in exclusive Spiderman games - and one that further got cemented when that relationship resulted in an exclusive deal to get Spidey in the Avengers game on Playstation. I and you have no idea how feasible it would be to step in and acquire the rights to a full on Spidey game but I very much doubt it's a case of simply asking and making a reasonable offer given it would majorly piss off Sony - something I don't think Disney is interested in doing for obvious reasons. You stop to think for a minute that it's a bit weird no one else is interested in the rights given the cultural and sales potential of Spidey is at an all time high?
I didn't know joke posts are full blown essays without a single part of it being remotely funny. And it means you look like you're "warring"You can tell the console wars are getting maxxed out when a mostly jokey post gets 5+ replies but sure lets roll with it
What does this even mean
MS had the opportunity at Spider-Man and declined the offer in favor of further developing their own IP. That's how Sony ended up making the current Spider-Man games. Some "cushy relationship," alright.No? Do you? I know Sony don't outright own the IP in the gaming sphere - but I do know Sony owns the rights to the Spidey movies and thus have a cushy relationship with Disney. One that has resulted in exclusive Spiderman games - and one that further got cemented when that relationship resulted in an exclusive deal to get Spidey in the Avengers game on Playstation. I and you have no idea how feasible it would be to step in and acquire the rights to a full on Spidey game but I very much doubt it's a case of simply asking and making a reasonable offer given it would majorly piss off Sony - something I don't think Disney is interested in doing for obvious reasons. You stop to think for a minute that it's a bit weird no one else is interested in the rights given the cultural and sales potential of Spidey is at an all time high?
I'm fully aware of the situation as best I can be without being board level at the companies involved. Thanks
If you check the post history of some, you'll see they only complain in these threads about a specific company, and some wish it was the other company doing this stuff too.You can criticize Microsoft all you want and I can fully understand. But defending Sony while doing so is what's blowing my mind. Sony has been the worst example of blowing up exclusives to their advantage. And they've been at it for decades. DECADES!
Either criticize both of neither, anything else is being a hypocrit.
That's far from the story Insomniac told.MS had the opportunity at Spider-Man and declined the offer in favor of further developing their own IP. That's how Sony ended up making the current Spider-Man games. Some "cushy relationship," alright.
Don't care as to "why" I just hate it. It's like Windows skipping 9. FujiFilm Medical Systems skipped Synapse 6 (their medical PACS offering). Skipping numbers and doing gymnastics for what version number they're on are just infuriating to me.I really do wonder if there was some worry about being a smaller number that made them lean towards their weird naming scheme. Like "We can't be Xbox 4 when they're Playstation 5!"
They should have just went with greek alphabet or something, get on their own sequence path that's separate from numbers. Then we could have Xbox Δ vs Playstation 5.
You don't need to wonder, that's exactly why they called it Xbox 360. Very very old news!!I really do wonder if there was some worry about being a smaller number that made them lean towards their weird naming scheme. Like "We can't be Xbox 4 when they're Playstation 5!"
They should have just went with greek alphabet or something, get on their own sequence path that's separate from numbers. Then we could have Xbox Δ vs Playstation 5.
So which story is true?Report : Marvel's Spider-Man Originally Turned Down by Microsoft as a Potential Third-Party Exclusive
How Sony was able to snag the worlds most popular super hero as an exclusive first-party game franchise has been a long speculated topic. With the gamewww.google.com
You don't need to wonder, that's exactly why they called it Xbox 360. Very very old news!!
From what I remember of what Insomniac said, they just said Sony was approached by Marvel to make a game based on a Marvel IP and they chose Spider-Man. Those stories don't conflict.
1. Antitrust is not about stopping companies from competing, or even spending money.No shit but many are rooting for regulators just to move on in the name of console wars. The Activision acquisition should be heavily scrutinized.
Subscription models are about choice, for now. How is cable television going? How are many of the streaming services doing cannibalizing themselves currently? How are game prices in general trending, not just in the US but internationally?
Microsoft and Sony long term of course would want that monthly, guaranteed revenue. Every industry is trending towards *aaS, whether that be software, entertainment, even vehicle features. The economics of it are pretty simple and I wasn't talking about GaaS in terms of ongoing seasons in games or monetization, I was talking about paying a consistent monthly fee to access their content.
We are moving toward a no-ownership future in many industries. Do you honestly think this industry is immune to it? Ultimately both Gamepass and PS plus are in the growth stage, of course both companies want to present them as a bargain to ensure they get that baseline revenue and platform lock in.
Where did I say it was?1. Antitrust is not about stopping companies from competing, or even spending money.
Who says we have an option? Consumer behaviour is only part of the equation. Monopolization of the industry increases the risk to consumers.2. Who determines whether we want ownership or not? Is it the producer, or is it the consumer?
You'd have a point if CNN was one third of the global market share in simple terms. They weren't.The consumer drives these models, and they only exist as far as the consumer support exists. CNN tried a subscription service, how did that go?
I don't see how the quality of the service is relevant to what I'm saying. I have GPU as well but it's pretty easy to see how a $15/month subscription pays a hell of a lot more money over the course of a console generation when average attach rate is 6-10 units, dependent on the platform.Sony had PS Now for years, yet Game Pass has grown to surpass it. All services need value to keep people subscribed, and that value needs to be sufficient to keep a certain baseline of users. The likes of Microsoft and Sony are not going to kill sales either. In a digital world, that is simply more money for minimal cost.
there is no Monopoly in this industry. Gaming as an industry is way too distributed across way too many platforms and the only problem we have is people trying to limiting this industry too mainly mean consoles.Where did I say it was?
Who says we have an option? Consumer behaviour is only part of the equation. Monopolization of the industry increases the risk to consumers.
If CNN actually had a good product on offer then maybe the service would still be in operation today.You'd have a point if CNN was one third of the global market share in simple terms. They weren't
you do not see how a service offering value to the consumer is relevant as to whether it receives subscribers or not?I don't see how the quality of the service is relevant to what I'm saying. I have GPU as well but it's pretty easy to see how a $15/month subscription pays a hell of a lot more money over the course of a console generation when average attach rate is 6-10 units, dependent on the platform.
Personally, I'd much rather agreements like EA or Ubisoft have than outright massive acquisitions like Activision but it also won't surprise me if this trend continues, eventually resulting in a significantly fractured industry returning in many loathed problems of days gone returning and cranked up to 11.
Here is a theoretical for you... Let's say either party made the decision to buy, EA, Ubisoft, Take Two and Tencent. Not one of them, all of them.
What do you think would be the impact on the industry?
Activision is currently the sixth largest publisher in terms of revenue. Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony all being ahead of it. Activision is larger than all of the publishers that I listed above, except Tencent.
It's a worrying trend. Anyone who doesn't see the forest through the trees is actively rooting for a subscription only, less choice gaming model that'll be geared around big franchises and ultimately hurting smaller developers because they can't even compete.
It's terrible for any of the big three to be consuming publishers of any meaningful size long term. But gamepass is a steal, until in 5-10 years time when the price gets jacked up and we start moving towards a GaaS only model. Make no mistake, Sony's endgame is exactly the same shit.
I don't see how the quality of the service is relevant to what I'm saying. I have GPU as well but it's pretty easy to see how a $15/month subscription pays a hell of a lot more money over the course of a console generation when average attach rate is 6-10 units, dependent on the platform.
Personally, I'd much rather agreements like EA or Ubisoft have than outright massive acquisitions like Activision but it also won't surprise me if this trend continues, eventually resulting in a significantly fractured industry returning in many loathed problems of days gone returning and cranked up to 11.
Not having marketing rights, not having exclusive DLC, not having exclusive/early beta access, not having a Game Pass block clause.I'm curious though..
"inadequate on many levels"
So far only one thing was mentioned right? Length of the guarantee. What else do you think he left out, that was (from his perspective) inadequate?
Errrr obviously I'm aware it hasn't gone through. I mean......maybe you are right and I am being a dumb dumb because I have no idea what your point is or how to respond given what you are pointing out is the most obvious thing ever
I've seen this joke a lot in here, and people don't seem to realize this is EXACTLY what the CMA pointed out in their report.
The deal hasn't been altered it's being seen as inadequate by the company who claims that the product decides console purchasing trends. If they're willing to turn it down, and Nintendo doesn't have it, how impactful could the product really be?I've seen this joke a lot in here, and people don't seem to realize this is EXACTLY what the CMA pointed out in their report.