That's the entire reason they got Insomniac and Housmarque on the cheap. They owned their IPs from exclusivity/marketing deals.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Yes, really. The trailer's title is speculative. Here's the reveal trailer with logos.
Project Eve - Reveal Trailer | PlayStation Showcase 2021
Get a grisly look at the apocalyptic sci-fi action of Project Eve.#IGN #Gaming #PlayStationShowcase2021youtu.be
They had a page up on their webpage but it's been removed, and now your saying it wasn't in development before sony threw money at it even though I just provided a trailer by shiftup from 2019 with a splash screen at the end specifying xbox, your playstation trailer is from 2 years after the one I posted............. Sony got a time machine now I guess.
edit:
The xbox one logo is literally in the trailer with the 'speculative' title.Yes, really. That trailer's title is speculative. Here's the reveal trailer with logos.
It's off-topic, I apologize for that.Project Eve - Reveal Trailer | PlayStation Showcase 2021
Get a grisly look at the apocalyptic sci-fi action of Project Eve.#IGN #Gaming #PlayStationShowcase2021
Others have covered it pretty well, you can't just take the CMA to court in the same way you could the other regulators. A block from them would probably be fatal. Conversely, an Approval from them would likely sway the other major regions, leaving the FTC with an even more uphill battle over in the states. Would just be a waiting game at that point
Yes, really. That trailer's title is speculative. Here's the reveal trailer with logos.
It's off-topic, I apologize for that.Project Eve - Reveal Trailer | PlayStation Showcase 2021
Get a grisly look at the apocalyptic sci-fi action of Project Eve.#IGN #Gaming #PlayStationShowcase2021
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean about the trailer title being "speculative" and how that negates Xbox as a target platform on promotional footage released for the public?
Sure but there is a clear distinction between publishing and paying for limited exclusivity. Sony isn't publishing ff16, they are just giving a heap of money for marketing. However Sony paid Insomniac to make Ratchet and Clank.
In any case, both are the lesser of two evils.
You guys are right. I stupidly scrolled past the splash screens straight to the end. My sincerest apologies, I will edit my post to reflect my error.
No there's not. MS published Mass Effect and Tomb Raider. It's just a more acceptable term for moneyhat. Especially nowadays when any 1 person indie studio can self publish.
The way I see it, money hats (especially timed exclusives) are designed to punish people for choosing the 'wrong' console, through FUD and FOMO. Whereas with acquisitions you already know beforehand the game will never come to your platform. So, I'd rather have acquisitions than money hats.
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.
Bobby Kotick just appeared on Fox News, to talk about the quarter and of course, the pending acquisition :
www.foxbusiness.com
Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick reacts to Warren Buffett's stake: 'Nothing more flattering'
Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby joins "The Claman Countdown" to break down the company's "record fourth quarter" and shares how "flattering" it is to know Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger own equity in the company.
www.foxbusiness.com
jeez bobby sounds like shitBobby Kotick just appeared on Fox News, to talk about the quarter and of course, the pending acquisition :
Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick reacts to Warren Buffett's stake: 'Nothing more flattering'
Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby joins "The Claman Countdown" to break down the company's "record fourth quarter" and shares how "flattering" it is to know Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger own equity in the company.
lmao Bobby: "That's the thing, Sony's not on the phone with us. In fact, they're the ones not returning our phone calls."
…this doesn't make sense.
If given the choice between:
- Waiting a year to play a game
- Never playing a game
There is one objectively 'worse' punishment.
MS would have to remove all of their products and move out all of their offices and studios in the UK.
I think it's fair to say Sony's success in Japan is meager compared to Nintendo, but when you say that you implicitly concede that Nintendo exists in the console market and competes with Sony and Microsoft. And this whole case that Satya is referring to rests on a couple of regulators defining Nintendo out of the console market.
By all means bring up Nintendo.
Yes, but now you know TES6 will never make it to the PS. Now you get to decide whether to buy into the Xbox or PC, and still have like 6 years to save money and prepare yourself, or find something else to fill the hole. As opposed to playing the waiting game for, say, FF7r. To me that's way better, since I get to decide for myself where I put my money on with the less amount of uncertainty.
That's undoubtedly a nonsensical claim. Nintendo's as much a direct competitor as any of them.
But Ff7 is one game. So going by your logic then, you would have preferred Sony to buy Square then rather then moneyhat a couple of games?
I never gave those choices. My choices are buy a console knowing 100% a specific game will come, versus buying a console and not knowing whether I'll be able to play it.
I think many of these discussions devolve into being too black-and-white. No I don't think a single moneyhat would be viewed as worse than the acquisition of an entire publisher. That's creating opposite extremes that have no connection to the reality of what's actually happening. Studio and publisher acquisitions are rare. There's no tit-for-tat of Sony signing an timed exclusive and then MS runs out and signs away another publisher. The reason so many people emphasize the point that MS dropping acquisition money on signing deals instead would be so painful, is because such deals are a la carte... you get to pick and choose whatever is most damaging across the range of the ecosystem, in a manner that doesn't happen with an acquisition. If you take on Bethesda because you think Elder Scrolls or Skyrim is da bomb... you are now responsible for bringing their entire slate to market in perpetuity.
You argued in favor of moneyhats earlier in how they can be helpful because game development is expensive. But firstly that logic logically applies better to an acquisition anyways, because then you're funding and supporting those teams not just for that one game, but for everything they create going forwards... and secondly, games that legitimately need this kind of support to bring to market are the absolute lowest on the ladder for being moneyhatted. Moneyhats are mostly concentrated securing IP that's known or reliably forecasted to be successful, and so it's the games that require it least that receive it the most.
Yes. I'd rather Sony to buy SE, this way I know 100% that, if I want to play FF or DragonQuest or whatever, I'll have to buy a PS5 for certain.
Might as well. It would change very little for the Xbox ecosystem at this point.
I just went to the Square website, picked Games in the header, filtered to 'Series X' and 'Coming Soon' and got the following result:
Your search did not match any results.
In other words, a timed exclusive.
In other words, the acquisition of publishers that we have seen so far?
*checks*
They released six games for the Xbox platform last year…and seven games the year before.
Last edited:
To be fair, except for FF I don't think many other Square games have announced platforms.
Square also released five games on Xbox last year. They actually release more games in there then probably close to any other publisher, including Microsoft themselves. For a company that apparently won't matter if Sony acquires them, five games is a lot.
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*
Not according to the FTC and phase 1 of the CMA. I mean, I don't agree with it, but it's a foundational part of their case against Microsoft.
S-E releases about as many titles exclusively on Nintendo. So that would also take that away.
Or is Nintendo just a different market we should ignore?
A timed exclusive is not a guarantee that the game will come to a specific platform, as evidenced by FF7R, whose timed exclusivity expired like a year ago at the least, and the game it's not on the Xbox. And please stop trying to twist my words and try to give them a different meaning.
We've been down this rabbit hole so many times.
The majority in this thread will now tell you those games they released don't count/matter because they weren't their biggest games. In other words they weren't FF7R so fuck everything else.
Which is nuts considering so many around here tout and scream to the mountain tops about all the AA and indie games MS gets on Gamepass.
Nope, there's an important distinction. Microsoft funded and published Mass Effect 1. It wasn't a money hat. BioWare pitched the game to them, and Microsoft people even worked on it (Bonnie Ross, Kiki Wolfkill, to name a few). They didn't own the IP, and their exclusive publishing rights expired a few years later, but it was not a money hat. They would have published the sequels had EA not bought BioWare.
Tomb Raider is closer to a "money hat". Microsoft of course paid for timed exclusivity, but also took over some of the publishing duties on the Xbox version (such as distribution and marketing). However, it isn't labeled as an Xbox Game Studios game the way other published games are. This is a similar set up to what Sony did with No Man's Sky, and is doing with KotOR. They both even use different labels.
Thats how you organic growth, you feed the studio projects until they grow so big they can't self sustain because they own no IP, then buy them on the low. It's genius really.
That's true, I didn't highlight the impact on Nintendo. I suppose I still wouldn't personally mind if Sony acquired Square...but I was just addressing a posed hypothetical.
This is sort of a tangent, but I suspect this industry will soon see a shift in the paradigm of the 'platform independent AAA third party publishers'. I'm not entirely sure what that will look like, but we see increasing evidence that that model is being strained from a wide variety of factors. I don't think platform holders will acquire most, but I suspect some changes; maybe even new(ish) entrants into the gaming industry making company or IP acquisitions. AAA gaming is becoming a high risk venture in itself. A fair number of companies are relying on one or two Live Service/GaaS style breakout hits to fund and prop up their remaining catalog of traditional/creative releases.
PlayStation's evil plan to fund game development has been revealed.
MB, to emphasize that I should've said they do that while standing over a pentagram and going mwahahahaahha.
On one hand, none of the face button shapes on a PS controller has 5 sides/points. On the other hand, if you connect them all with the touchpad using a reverse bubble sort...
OP
OP
I see that Kotick also talked with the Financial Times and shots were fired 😬
About the CMA:
About UK government:
About Sony:
About the future of the deal and the FTC:
Activision Blizzard chief says UK will lose out if it blocks Microsoft deal
Bobby Kotick appeals to ‘fragile’ government as video game maker awaits decision on $75bn salewww.ft.com
About the CMA:
About UK government:
About Sony:
About the future of the deal and the FTC:
Interesting. and about the bolded, even I could tell you that Kotick. lol
Kotick the piece of shit, Get fucked you asshole.
This but confirms the CMA is opposing or blocking the deal. GOOD.
When Kotic talks about CMA like that, does that mean he knows the CMA wont accept the deal?
You think it's good Kotic will stay in charge?
Absurd if this gets blocked. Why talk about it still closing if you just get done going on a rant about the CMA blocking the deal?
This guilt tripping of (Think of the employees, or Kotic will be gone) is a tired argument and no longer works on me after all the layofs Microsoft did and after all the praisings Kotic keeps getting from Phil Spencer and Satya Nadella.
I think they may get it an hour or two before it's released, so he wouldn't know it yet. He's clearly getting bad vibes from something.