But couldn't you make the same argument for acquisitions mid generation? The next Elder Scrolls for instance PlayStation owners would have assumed they would have gotten it. At least with moneyhats it tends to be limited exclusivity (there are some exceptions of course.)
I don't know, I find it crazy. Going by Era logic, it would have been better for Sony to buy Konami then pay for a limited release window on Silent Hill 2 remake. There is an obvious difference there.
If Konami is now first party, isn't the usual justification for
any first party console game basically the idea that "now, developers can focus on fewer platforms, and really take advantage of the hardware and put out a higher quality game, since they're now owned and funded by the console manufacturer". After all, that's the justification for Naughty Dog games, Guerilla Games, Nintendo games, Turn 10 games, etc. The drawback for customers of course, is that you may have to buy a new platform to play them.
I guess I don't understand why the same pros/cons that people generally use to explain first party software in every other case don't apply to this hypothetical Konami first party Silent Hill 2 remake, Starfield, or Microsoft's Spyro 2025 or any other first party game.
Theoretically, you're getting higher quality versions of those, because of those first party business restrictions, so it seems like people who are fans of exclusive software for that reason would be excited for that.
At least, that's what people used to always tell me when I would argue in favor of a single console standard that everyone developed for, heh.
I guess I never understood this weird moral parsing of which exclusive gaming software is "good" vs "bad" anyway. In 99% of cases, it's all exclusive for arbitrary business reasons and not anything technological, lol. MLB The Show was exclusive to Sony platforms not because it required the power of the Cell to function, or some unique chip that only Playstations possessed, it's because Sony had a good game, and wanted people to buy Playstations, and they took advantage of that until the business realities (and contracts with the MLB) changed. Then it came out on Xbox and it's...perfectly fine. Like most software that runs on same generation hardware and doesn't require special controllers or VR, there was nothing technologically special about The Show that
required it to be a Playstation exclusive all these years. It just happened to be because Sony had the rights to that specific game. If Congress passed some weird new law came out that said The Last of Us 3 had to be on the newest Xbox system, I'm sure Naughty Dog would adapt and it'd be pretty high quality as well, haha.
And more directly on topic, unless Microsoft owning the rights to ABK stuff causes such an extreme disruption that it causes Sony/Nintendo/Valve/whoever to not be able to compete or function in the marketplace, I don't see the big deal with the acquisition. "People might have to buy an Xbox now" isn't "harm" imo, unless "I might have to buy a Playstation or Nintendo now" was also considered "harm" for the past 40 years of video gaming.
Maybe if Microsoft was buying AMD/Nvidia or something I could see the disruption, but otherwise, *shrug*