We're hearing a lot of discourse online about Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard and whether it's a good or bad thing for the industry.
In a recent video interview with The Grill, Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick was asked about his own thoughts, and mentioned how he's "in favour" and believes "it's a good thing for Microsoft and for the industry".
When asked about why he was in favour, Zelnick explained how the video game industry is a highly fragmented business, claiming there was plenty of room for creativity to go around - which not only strengthens Microsoft when united but also companies like Take-Two.
Take-Two also knows how its own successful properties and Microsoft's continued success are mutually beneficial.
"We're certainly of the belief that it's a good thing for Microsoft and the industry. We're in favour."
"This is a highly fragmented business and there's plenty of room for creativity to go around, and Microsoft is an ally of ours and if this makes their business more powerful, we think that's good for us."
When queried about the possible negatives, such as the potential of Microsoft putting too much of a focus on Activision Blizzard in the future compared to the likes of Take-Two, Zelnick mentioned how it was ultimately up to the consumer to vote on what they want to see, and as long as his company is still making hits, the "consumers will show up". He also went on to state how the industry is still "pulling in the same direction":
"If [Microsoft] is focused on the power and strength of their own business, they're going to want to be pushing the most successful properties, and if consumers are showing up for our properties and Microsoft isn't engaged, then that would be a bad thing for Microsoft. So, I think we're all essentially pulling in the same direction."
What do you think about Take-Two showing support for Microsoft's acquisition Activision Blizzard? Are you at all surprised to hear this? Comment below.
[source youtu.be]
Comments 16
Big corpo supports big corpo, who would've guessed Zelnick?
@Kaloudz Basically, he is saying that if people want to play a game, they will go where the games are. If a Platform holder doesn't help or make it easy for their Customers to access Take-Two's games that people want to play, that won't help Microsoft in the long run.
However, if the A/B deal makes more people engaged in Xbox as a brand and Xbox are working 'with' (not against) Take-Two (ie not promoting their own games more, not making other publishers games easy to find or making them jump through hoops to release on their platform etc) that benefits them both - high traffic, high visibility, high engagement and therefore both MS and Take-Two benefit from Xbox growth and services.
Take-Two may not be in a position to reach 'every' gamer with their releases. They don't have the infrastructure in place to offer games on 'Mobiles' or hardware below certain specs but with a partnership and strong user base of Xbox Game Pass subscribers, could reach a much larger audience.
In other words, its a symbiotic relationship where the growth of one helps out the others and enables them to reach far more people as they rely on the success of the Platforms to be able to reach gamers. If the Platform doesn't help the other publishers, those games (like GTA, Bioshock or other publisher games like Tomb Raider, Battlefield etc) may not release on that Platform and so gamers will go where they can play those.
A strong competitor to Sony is a good thing for the industry and for the other Publishers too as that gives them more reach, more options etc
@themightyant
In the gaming industry Sony is bigger and they are against this deal so its nothing about big corporations.
In the end this thing not really hurt us as gamers, for more than a decade if you want to play Sony game you buying a ps console, in the end we play where we want and even if I only have playstation this deal not gonna make me buy xbox + gamepass just for activision games bc in the end it gonna cost me more than 70usd a year.
I have pc and all the consoles and tbh I prefer playing on pc/xbox and already subscribed to gamepass so ofc it's great for me I'm just saying this deal is good for the players
jamescrowx wrote:
It doesn't really hurt US because we have an Xbox but it does hurt the millions of gamers, the vast majority, who can only afford one console.
Previously each major platform holder released a couple of exclusives per year you might want to play. If the consolidation keep going then we are going this is only going to increase and gamers WILL lose out. It will be far more like it is on TV subscription services where you can't watch a show because it is on Prime, Netflix, Disney, HBO, Sky, Paramount, etc. etc.
We will have a few giant walled gardens owned by Microsoft, Sony, Tencent, probably at least one of Amazon, Google, Meta or Apple and maybe a few for larger publishers. That's not a good future for most gamers who only have one console.
@themightyant
Big corpo supports big corpo, who would've guessed Zelnick
True, but Sony are not exactly the new (crying wolf) kid on the block here either. Add to that their record of aggressive pursuit of exclusive third-party game deals/content and optics do matters.
For more of Zelnick's thoughts on this, and other topics, feel free to read it in his emails, available for a limited time for only $39.99 only on 4Chan!
Of course he's backing it, without call of duty sony will have hundreds of millions spare to make deals with them instead. Get ready for GTA 6 exclusive content on playstation.
@themightyant Go back to the 80's when Consoles were 'mostly' exclusives and there were a 'few' games that each had in common. You couldn't play Sega on Nintendo or vice versa so if you only had the budget for 1, you had to decide which to buy. Even today, if Sony buys a developer, you don't expect to play their games on Xbox or Nintendo...
Xbox isn't really the same as Playstation or Nintendo consoles. Its not as if you have to buy an Xbox to play Xbox Studio games but you need to buy a Nintendo or Sony to play their games - especially when they are released - not wait a year or more.
If Sony opted to make Destiny 3 'exclusive', the ONLY way to play would be for you to have to buy a Sony Playstation but if CoD went Exclusive, the ONLY platforms you couldn't play it on would be Playstation/Switch. Now with over 3bn gamers, 120m of which are PS gamers, PS is a 'small' fraction, less than 1%. MS can still reach ALL 3bn gamers - OK so some may not play on their 'preferred/only' platform, but 'could' play on some device(s) they already own.
Gamers will go where the Games they want to play are. If that means having to choose between God of War, Last of Us, Destiny, GT7 etc and CoD, Starfield, Gears of War, Forza etc then that is no different from having to choose between Mario, Zelda, Starfox etc or Sonic, Jet Set Radio, Sega Rally etc. No different from having to 'choose' between Nintendo, Sony and Xbox today - albeit that MS will be much more 'competitive' with their 'exclusive' IP's now than they were at the start of the XB1 era when they only had about 4-5 studios to 'compete' with and all the complaints were that Xbox had 'no' games despite all those games they had in common.
Either you have 'Exclusives' to enable you to 'compete' (like Nintendo who never rely on 3rd Party Publishers for their games) for Hardware sales or you give up Hardware and just make Software and put it out on everything you can (like Sega opted) because your 'hardware' isn't offering ALL the games people want. If MS released 'everything' on PS, then people wouldn't buy an Xbox because they could still play those games as well as Sony's 'exclusives'.
How has Xbox sales been affected by Sony's practices over the past generation? Hypothetical question as we won't really know but with the most powerful hardware, BC, Game Pass, and everything MS did to overcome E32013, they couldn't 'compete' with PS4 because the common response was Xbox had 'no' exclusives compared to Sony who not only had more exclusives, they were also paying to weaken their competition by offering 'less' content than on PS in 3rd Party games (ACiv, Watchdogs, CoD, Avengers, Destiny etc), paying to keep historically significant IP's off of Xbox - IP's older than Playstation itself (Street Fighter, Final Fantasy etc) - but that's 'OK' for Sony to do?
At least if MS do it, it will be with their 'own' 1st party developed games that they have invested heavily in and financed the whole project. Instead of spending money on 3rd Party Publishers to keep games/content from their competition, how about putting that money into their own studios, their own IPs to build up a 'strong' line-up to compete? The 3rd Party games will still come to PS/Xbox etc and people will still buy Playstation to play their games - just like Nintendo competes today...
@BAMozzy Something that rarely comes up is Sony's own failure over the decades. Many will praise their internal studios games, but in reality they really don't have that many, and more of them have been misses, from a sales perspective, than hits (even though the misses are usually my favorites.) The "iconic" PlayStation games have mostly not actually been Sony games, but third parties. Back in the day it was the technical/storage media natural monopoly resulting from their CD/DVD media. Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Spyro, Crash, etc. Most "iconic" franchises everyone associates as being what makes PS great aren't actually PS's games. That's been a bane for them. Ms managed to do worse in that area (how many remember Mass Effect was brought to you by MS? Because it wasn't really theirs to control) which is why they're buying publishers to make up for it rapidly, but Sony err'd in waiting too long on their laurels raking in cash from games they didn't control while their own franchises seldom reached critical mass, running right through today with buying marketing/exclusive appearance from FF, GTA, CoD, etc, and it's biting them hard.
Of their own franchises, GoW, TLOU, Uncharted, maybe GT reached that level of critical mass, but they risk running into the "Halo/Forza/Gears" loop with those big tentpoles, while GoT, R&C etc play second fiddle in sales. Their "most iconic" games other than those series really remain third party games they have to keep buying preference on without owning.
And the biggest of those is now being bought by their competitor.... I can understand why they're panicking. But they did dig that hole themselves by relying so much on convincing people things they don't own are theirs. A big part of Sony's strategy has been to create an image for the public that "CoD is a PlayStation game". They lose that image, even if CoD is on PS forever and ever with total parity, when every time someone starts up the game they're greeted with the Xbox logo.
It worked as long as MS failed at that harder than they did, and as long as Nintendo pursued a totally different market.
@UltimateOtaku91 I'm confused, why would Sony have exclusive content in GTA6. They just told me exclusive content was a bad thing.
@BAMozzy I'm WELL aware of the past and console exclusives being the majority in the 80s... I was there, that's precisely why I don't want it to come back round to those dire days whereby you could only play a handful of games on your system. Gaming should strive to be inclusive not exclusive.
I fully accept SOME games are always going to be exclusive but right now that's the minority of titles. The way we are headed it will be the majority within 10 years.
I've seen the 3 billion gamers stat bandied about by Xbox, hell i've even used it in some of my arguments. But it's all theoretical right now . Sure IF, and it's a big IF, they manage to tap into even 10 percent of that that they are doing well, but right now that is a pipe dream. Even if they have the POTENITAL to reach a fraction of that many that isn't the reality NOW. Right now they are taking games away from gamers on other platforms.
As I keep saying, personally this doesn't affect me, I have all the consoles and these games coming to game pass day 1 is a boon. But for my fellow gamer, the vast majority of which will only ever have one device. This sucks ass.
@SplooshDmg Is it a console war, or is it Sony just throwing a toddler tantrum? I can't tell anymore. They seem to be the only party on Earth with an actual official argument, and their only argument is "it'll take away our monopoly we bought fair and square behind closed doors." The employees like it. The union likes it. The business partners (that are closer to Sony!) like it. The investors like it. The customers are split depending on if they wear a blue shirt, green shirt, or Che shirt. Who doesn't like it other than Jim's office? And his entire argument is "our business practices are underhanded and monopolistic and our competitors shouldn't be allowed to attain a position to use them." I mean that's not even internet snark. They're directly saying exactly that in slightly more flowery words.
@themightyant If I take the most cynical, war-strategy route, the end game is probably not taking CoD (or Diablo, or Overwatch, or Spyro) away from Sony owners, or even making it more desirable to play it on Xbox. The end game is likely to force an environment that Sony and even Nintendo have little to no choice but to allow a Game Pass app on their consoles, and force a sudden and rapid paradigm shift into subscription service platforms as the norm regardless of hardware, opening the door for GoogApplAzonCent but with themselves as the incumbent. MS doesn't care if they get Uncharted on Xbox. What they want is XGP on PS owners home screens. If they also get PS++ next to the Dorito ads on the XSXS home screen, that's just a bonus.
But the funny/ironic thing is PS players actually would benefit from that arrangement.... It would create the streaming wars exclusivity mess, but at the same time would start to tear down that wall'd garden ecosystem.
@NEStalgia I'm well aware of the history of both and of course I remember Mass Effect on Xbox only time too - I bought the ltd edition tin can version when it released. The first didn't come to PS until it was ported in 2012 and available as part of the Mass Effect trilogy - the first time it was available...
I know FF7 was intended to release on Nintendo butt the cost of cartridges and the relative storage capacity basically made it impossible - they'd have to release it on multiple cartridges and who'd pay double the price for a game but it would cost them more to release with Cartridges costing around £30-£35 each to make before you add on anything else...
I'd argue that in the last few years at least they have had some Global impact and are their Halo, Forza, Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy games - Flagship, Iconic characters instantly recognizable to gamers and even some 'non-gamers'. R&C are as iconic as Crash - had its own Movie too, I know wasn't created by a 'First Party' developer, but now is - like Uncharted, Last of Us are mainstream IP's now. Horizon/Aloy too - much more so than Killzone for example. They own Destiny too now of course and God of War/Kratos is another 'icon' who greatly increased the IP's status with the Reboot. Gran Turismo is certainly a massive IP - they even have GT race competitions on mainstream TV.
They have IP's in their catalogue that will bring Fans back and could 'reinvent' Killzone, Resistance etc to compete with Halo - or even do a remastered Resistance Trilogy with a 'competitive' MP with modernised features on maps from their games to offer their customers and fans of those games reasons to buy a Playstation. They have studio's and talented developers who could create their own military style FPS with an incredible cinematic Single Player campaign that people will want to play and enjoy their MP too...
If your whole business depends on the success and management of 3rd Parties, then there is something wrong. MS almost found that out by reducing their own 'output' and relying on all the 3rd Party games to sell their System thinking its 'multi-media' all in one design would give it enough of an edge to succeed in a Gaming market.
The strength of Sony's first party games built up during the PS3 era and was reinforced and built upon - especially compared to MS's output - during the PS4 era. When year after year you have at least 1 game in the GotY award nominations and often winning helps Sony now too. Even now, you still hear people talking about how great PS exclusives are and why they must have a PS, while with Xbox, its all 'promise' but nothing yet to really show for all these new acquisitions - except older games in Game Pass now...
@BAMozzy IDK that R&C is all that iconic. It's certainly not a Mario/Sonic/Pikachu level brand association and the games only sell ok. Horizon also is in that "it sells ok" category, but far from an iconic brand. Kratos? Iconic. Drake, Ellie (Iconic....or....was...)..Alloy? Not really iconic outside the core gamer sphere. Nowhere approaching Ezio or Sam Fisher, or Cloud Strife, or Lara Croft status. Maybe Adam Jensen status?
The thing with Sony and licensing is that's what they do and what they know. Their music business is their bulwhark and that's all based on the contracts. Film is in-house but contractual. They're GOOD at contracts and talent management. But they applied it wrong in the IP ownership game, where they never had to work that way with film and music.
@SplooshDmg Yeah, MS is doing the lawyer thing and you expect that. But Sony's outbursts are baffling. They make no sense, and are actually self-condemning in an area they should be staying really, REALLY quiet. I can't not fathom what they're thinking. I'd pawn it off on the UK lawyers being incompetent buffoons, but Jim himself personally joined in the ranting. I don't get it. Sony has good lawyers. Great lawyers. Scary lawyers. WTF is going on with them? Did Jim send them to pasture with Shaun and Shu and get some drinking buddies from the old pub in or something? Sony lawyers are sharks...how are they this incompetent suddenly? These are the people that tried to pull a fast one over on Hiroshi Yamauchi and walked way with 10 fingers remaining.
Of course their problem is there isn't an actual valid argument for them to make a perfectly legit acquisition blockable simply because it's bad for their market dominance.
"it's a good thing for Microsoft and for the industry". The word "consumer" is conspicuously absent from this quote.
Why should I care about what some big corporate suit has to say? It should be obvious how these people are just self-serving and don't have our best interests in mind, they are only in favor of whatever makes them the most money.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...