The UK government authority on market competition has laid out its timeline for delivering a verdict on Xbox's Activision Blizzard deal. Phase 2 of its analysis in now underway, and the final report is said to be delivered by March 1st, 2023.
In theory, this means the deal won't go through until at least that date and even then, other regions could have a verdict date set out even further on than that. We know that the Saudi Arabian authority has approved the deal, but most other territories are still working through their analysis of the merger.
That includes the EU, which has set its own internal deadline of November 8th for deciding on whether to press on with a second phase of investigations. Rumours are also swirling that PlayStation CEO Jim Ryan recently travelled to Brussels to discuss the deal with the EU, which could add another wrinkle to proceedings.
Leading up to the UK authority's March deadline is a set of milestones that must be completed at certain stages. These include hearings from all involved parties, potential changes to the deal outlined and more. The full timeline is available to view online, if you're interested in taking a look!
Did you expect the deal to be done by then? Do you think it'll happen at all? Let us know your thoughts.
[source assets.publishing.service.gov.uk, via videogameschronicle.com]
Comments 59
Ah man I want the deal to go through just so I can play their games on Game Pass
Just let it be over 😩
Whilst I agree that deals by these tech giants should be scrutinised, I think that as long as games like COD are going to be Multi-Platform, I believe that this deal is good for competition and gives us the customers much more value.
Sony's domination in the last generation has caused them to become extremely anti-consumer and I feel this deal balances the playing field. Not to mention cause them to innovate and offer better deals to the consumers again.
I get the deal will now take longer but can't Microsoft make a separate deal with Activision in the mean time to put call of duty onto gamepass? Even if the deal failed altogether Microsoft and Activision could make a deal to make call of duty exclusive anyway couldn't they? There's nothing stopping any publisher from making a game exclusive for xbox without a takeover, just like how Sony have valkyrie elysium and final fantasy etc
Feels like this has been going on for many many years. Yet its only been like 10 months
@Solidchief same here. I’m just ready for a he additions to gamepass.
But Jim Ryan will cry about this until it’s done in 8 months or so. He knows he will get a deal where COD is still on PlayStation. He just doesn’t wanna lose the DLC exclusive advantage. They’re super afraid of losing their cut on COD sales and micro transactions.
I thought it was 8th November?
BRT15 wrote:
It was a balanced playing field last-gen, dominance has little to do with it. I didn't like Sony's practises but Microsoft also could have negotiated and paid for the occasional AAA timed exclusive. In fact they have a FAR larger wallet to do so.
If this deal goes through it is no longer a level playing field, Sony can't do anything to get those games on their service, it is entirely in Microsoft's hands. And like Bethesda games we will likely not see most, non live service, ABK games on PlayStation ever again. That simply isn't good for gamers as a whole, even if it is good for us Game Pass subscribers.
I hate all this industry consolidation, even if there are some positives, ultimately it is making many games available to a smaller number of actual players. Sad times.
@Snake_V5 that was phase 1 but because the CMA have a problem with the deal they are moving onto phase 2 to investigate it further
@UltimateOtaku91 if this deal doesn’t go through you’d hope MS Xbox division would wake the hell up and start chasing marketing rights. Sonys cod marketing deal is going to be up for renew…if they don’t own activision then MS should ensure they win that next bid for marketing.
But Xbox continue to this day to drop the ball when it comes to marketing rights so I wouldn’t at all be surprised if the deal doesn’t go through and then we learn Sony have cods marketing secured for the remainder of this gen - meaning no cod day 1 on gamepass
MS would lose so much more than cod though if this deal doesn’t go through…cod isn’t even the main course for them in this deal…I don’t think a lot of gamers understand that. The mobile potential is what MS really want
@BRT15 If this deal does go through, and assuming it goes through without MS ending up bending over and releasing all their games going forward as multiplatform, I honestly think we will see Sony partnering up for their PlayStation division and making big acquisitions of their own. And It makes all the sense in the world to do that with Google…not only allowing them access to Google’s wallet but also their, arguably, superior cloud infrastructure
@UltimateOtaku91 Xbox would have to pay a ton of money for CoD exclusivity, and even then, Sony already has signed deals with Activision that mean any such deal would not kick in until about 2 years from now.
Best they could get now is get older CoD games on Game Pass. At the end it’s best just to wait for the deal to close.
Nothing to really add to this. These deals take time, I can understand why Big Jim is campaigning against it, I also fully expect it to still go through. Time will tell.
@themightyant Yeah, Sony haven't done anything wrong... Bull.
Sony recently had scrutiny put on the fact it's bought rolling exclusivity on the Final Fantasy games, and Street Fighter 5 was completely exclusive. There's a list of games Microsoft are waiting for the publisher to tell them 'OK, You can have them now'.
Deathloop was published by Bethesda while the deal was going on, and Microsoft honoured the exclusivity until the year was up, then, well, we got it in the last couple of months. That shows to me that Microsoft will keep to deals in play, and won't make games exclusive to Microsoft.
If they were going to, the deal would have already collapsed. Sony likely are preparing to get their lawyers to slice a nice big CoD shaped chunk out of the ABK deal, for as little of their own money as possible, and if they manage it...
I bet you 100 of anyone's currency that the exclusive content will get worse and worse on the CoD games after they forced a settlement in their favour.
Seems like they are allowing themselves quite a bit of time to mull it over. Wish I could push my work deadlines to next March 😀
@ValentineMeikin Read again. I didn't say Sony haven't done anything 'wrong' quite the opposite. I'm well aware of their anti-consumer practises and even said I don't like it.
But buying a few select AAA exclusives, which Microsoft can do too - THAT is level playing field - is not the same as buying up whole publishers and making most of their games exclusives. Orders of magnitude of difference. There is a valid reason why one is investigated by monopolies and anti-competitive commissions and the other isn't.
Two 'wrongs' have never made a right.
@UltimateOtaku91 it could be complicated with Activisions current deal with Sony. They typically include a clause that games they pay for marketing rights to can't be included in other subscription services. It's possible that call of duty won't be in gamepass until that contract is over (rumored to be 3 more years.) But I believe they could grab other games for gamepass diablo, spyro, etc.
Why the fudge do all countries have to approve it lol....Surely if one business wants to buy another business all that should matter is that them 2 businesses agree
@themightyant The deal isn't bad for gamers. It's bad for Sony. Game Pass is available on Xbox, PC, and smartphones via streaming. It reaches WAY more people than a PlayStation console.
Also, this deal isn't anti-competition. There is nothing about this deal that prevents other studios from doing something else. That is the whole point of these hearings - whether it creates a monopoly. It shouldn't have anything to do with Sony losing out on privileges it gladly paid for and can probably still pay for if it's in Microsoft's interest to take said money.
If we want to talk about bad for gamers, then let's scrutinize the new Wolverine game being Sony-only. Let's talk about Spider-man being locked up. Heck let's talk about Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc. being locked up to Nintendo. Let's talk about ANY exclusive being bad for gamers because it's locked behind one ecosystem. Aren't those being exclusive "bad for gamers" too?
I guess my point is this: it doesn't matter what one company or the other has or hasn't done. It's all about whether this deal legal under anti-trust laws across the globe. That's it. Do you honestly think Microsoft's lawyers didn't comb through anti-trust laws before even offering?
Honestly, if Sony didn't have some kind of personal interest in the acquisition (i.e. losing out on all that exclusivity it's maintained for years), I would be more prone to being understanding to their argument. But it really more looks like a toddler throwing a fit because someone got the same color plate they did.
I think this will go through because it's not breaking any laws. People will hate on it; but there is nothing about it that screams monopoly.
@themightyant how do you know they’re making most of their games exclusive though?
@GamingFan4Lyf even without the takeover call of duty is on xbox and pc, so potentialy this deal is making sonys player base of over 100 million miss out whilst yes it will mean people can stream it on mobile but that won't be viable to most people due to it not having touch screen controls and the cloud not running well on 4G/5G with lag and audio delay via Bluetooth and added more delay if they use a Bluetooth controller. Not many people will be playing call of duty via cloud on mobile. Maybe a couple of million at most, so you're gaming a few million mobile players but losing 15+ million playstation players, so this deal is not good for the gaming industry in terms of call of duty. But that's only if it ever goes fully xbox exclusive.
@UltimateOtaku91 they won't go cod on Xbox exclusive they already said that , bit I betcha they will have exclusive game pass perks like new weapons/levels etc ...like Sony have now
@Martsmall oh yeah most definitely, plus early betas and maybe a week early access etc
Maybe they will look to bring warzone to the switch as well, I think cod is the only big multiplayer game out now that's not on the switch yet, I mean rocket league, apex legends, overwatch 2, fortnite, smite are all there.
@Bleachedsmiles They said after Bethesda was bought that it would be on a case by case basis but "they are delivering great exclusive games for you that ship on platforms where Game Pass exists". That isn't PlayStation or Nintendo. Almost every game announced since is only coming to Xbox and PC except perhaps a few live service titles where it makes sense to have a larger player base paying for MTX.
As for ABK so far they have ONLY mentioned COD which has an existing deal in place and is the big names title, nothing else. Do you really expect it to be any different? Besides COD is a live service, MTX led game that always a title likely to come out multiplatform... at least the multiplayer part anyway. Wouldn't surprise me if they separated SP and MP and made the SP exclusive.
GamingFan4Lyf wrote:
Why can't it be both? It's ONLY good for Xbox/PC/Game Pass players bad for every other gamer, who WILL lose titles on their platform. Hence this IS bad for gamers as a whole.
I agree Sony's paid for exclusives can be bad for gamers too. I've said so SEVERAL times. But whataboutism doesn't make this right.
And no, it's not about monopolies, Microsoft definitely doesn't have that. It's about anti-competitive practises, which this is. Don't conflate the two, they aren't the same.
FWIW I also think this deal will go through. But hopefully with some assurances or safegaurds to protect the vast majority of gamers who only own one system. Else the next generation of gaming will be more fractured than any in recent memory and that sucks for gamers and gaming.
@UltimateOtaku91 Pretty sure by the time CoD goes exclusive (if at all), that 100 million PS4 crowd will be long left in the dust. At least, I would hope! At some point developers need to cut the last-gen cord.
No, gamers probably wouldn't play via cloud, but what matters is what's on paper. It's there and available to more people. Whether or not gamers use that access isn't Microsoft's problem - it's there for use.
If Microsoft loses out on 15+ million gamers, that's Microsoft's problem, not gamers. So it would behoove Microsoft to not lose that access. Right?
You are talking as if gamers are entitled to CoD access.
@themightyant Almost every game announced…meaning 4?…one being Indiana jones which is already heavily rumoured to be multiplatform.
Bethesda have loads of studios under them. And of course they should keep the majority exclusive to Xbox platforms to compete. Just as PlayStation and Nintendo keep their exclusives exclusive…I really don’t see how that’s anti competitive.
Plus it’s safe to assume that had ms not acquired Bethesda we’d have seen the continued years worth of timed exclusivity on their games for PlayStation going forward. We already know discussions of starfield were there.
MS would gladly have gamepass on both Nintendo and Sony today. They’re not interested in that as it risks potentially taking revenue from them.
Sony are already competing how they’re able, and doing a great job with it, by buying up the marketing rights for every big 3rd party release…preventing it going to gamepass day 1. Ensuring technical parity…whilst also promoting content exclusivity. This will continue to work well for Sony.
If xbox want to compete but can’t be arsed buying marketing rights to 3rd party then they should definitely keep as many games they own as exclusive to xbox platforms as they’re able to… otherwise they’ll never get out of 3rd place
Personally I think until they sort out their own marketing division and show an ability to market their own games, let alone 3rd party, they could buy every big publisher out there and still stay in 3rd place.
@themightyant Explain to me how this is anti-competitive. Where, on paper, have you seen that Microsoft plans to definitively cut off other platforms once current contracts expire?
You can't use vague wording as a definitive answer that Microsoft is simply going to make everything exclusive once contracts expire - it's also not a definitive answer that it will continue to keep games multiplatform either.
Vague wording is "Corporate CYA" speak to ensure that bargaining is always on the table. Contracts and deals have definitive start and end dates. Saying so otherwise is contract negotiation suicide. I would honestly say that any deal two companies make is based on an idea of potential FOMO - Business 101.
Is Microsoft blocking developers from making military FPS shooters? Is Microsoft stopping people from making MMO's? Diablo-style RPGs? Mascot-based platform games? Any of the genre's that Activision Blizzard creates?
The answer is no. Just because Activision Blizzard has been successful and the games it makes, doesn't mean they are the only ones capable of making said games. If anything, this promotes markets to be more competitive. To try harder - not simply accept the status quo.
Does it draw people to pay more attention to Microsoft? Yes. But, again, that's Business 101. It doesn't prevent other companies from competing.
Xbox staying in the video game business is good for competition; so anything that keeps them alive is good from my perspective. But this convo is going to be ongoing until the deal goes through and beyond. Kinda bored of seeing the same talk about it going in circles; but even more bored of Sony getting to do whatever they want and gamers just slurping that ***** up whilst Xbox gets criticised at every turn.
@K1LLEGAL
"but even more bored of Sony getting to do whatever they want and gamers just slurping that ***** up whilst Xbox gets criticised at every turn."
Maybe we all just see what we want to see, but that's the exact opposite of what I've seen for the last 12 months at least!
Sony have taken a complete drubbing in online spaces for almost everything, even when its good and even places it really shouldn't, nothing is more toxic against Sony than the Push Square comment sections.
By contrast I rarely see MS getting any stick, even the DRM shananigans seemed glossed over, and the fact we are now 2 years into this gens cycle with hardly a 1st party AAA to look at seems to be ignored in most spaces. I see it as a sign of how easily people are bought by GP.
Obviously this conversation is way beyond this thread and I don't imagine for one second you are convinced by my own view, but I did wish to point out that some people might see it differently.
@xMightyMatt14x There is no DLC exclusive deal with CoD anymore since there's really no DLC so to speak.
Jim Ryan is just an ass that's all.
@Bleachedsmiles Yes it's only a few announced so far, can't do anything about that, can only judge on what they have announced. But are you really expecting them to start announcing the games for PS or Nintendo too? Really?
Far more likely Starfield, Redfall, ES VI, Fallout 5, next Doom and Wolfenstein will all only be available on Microsoft platforms Indiana Jones will only be on other systems if they don't have full control. Very likely anything from ABK will be exactly same unless they change their strategy.
For me personally, it's great, they will all be included in Game Pass, but that doesn't mean I don't think it sucks for everyone else. Less games available to most gamers, who only have one system, is never something to celebrate.
Anybody that laments they can't get Spider-man, or FF7R on their platform should understand that and not want to double down on this with dozens, and eventually hundreds, more exclusive games. The big difference here is the scale of it.
GamingFan4Lyf wrote:
I quoted it above but Phil Spencer said very clearly that most games would come exclusively to platforms with Game Pass. That's about as definitive as you get, not wooly at all. They are judged on their actions which has been to make games exclusive. Unless they change strategy, which they haven't announced, that is their plan.
How is it anti-competitive?
They are using their unique position as one of the richest companies in the world, third by market cap, to buy whole swathes of the industry (Including in the last three years alone over 20 development studios) specifically with an aim, as quoted by Spencer, to locking down exclusive content for their platform. The fact that none of the other major players could do a deal of this magnitude is in itself anti-competitive. They are leveraging their buying power to do a power-play that no one else can. That's precisely the sort of action these commissions are meant to prevent. Sadly the deal will likely go through regardless. US commissions are only interested in empowering US interests when it comes to international business. Hopefully the EU can get some assurances.
@GamingFan4Lyf absolutely and completely, perfectly said.
@themightyant But that’s the big sell isn’t it…it’s not less games available for those that only have one system with gamepass - gamepass is a platform that’s available to more gamers through being available on more devices than Sony and nintendos exclusives…you don’t need to be tied to an Xbox console. Before this gen is over they want gamepass coming with every smart tv…meaning more gamers than ever will have access to these games.
Your big difference of today is hypothetical. The reality today is that more games are currently being locked behind either years worth of timed exclusivity for PlayStation as well as flat out exclusivity - particularly AAA games. The eventuality of possible ‘hundreds’ of exclusives coming from MS acquisitions isn’t taking into account the scale of time. MS already have a load of studios and struggle to get out one game let alone hundreds. For Xbox to have hundreds of exclusives from these deals we’re realistically looking at waiting for a few generations to pass…who knows how the gaming landscape looks by then - both Nintendo and Sony may be 3rd party publishers by then. Gamepass may be on every platform by then. Who knows. Why concern yourself?
Competition is good. Exclusive content breeds competition. It leads to each platform investing in their own exclusives. It leads to better gaming deals, better subscription offerings. You want to really win as a gamer and reap the rewards of competition you invest in all platforms…that’s how it’s always been.
Potentially removing games from PlayStation doesn’t result in PlayStation suddenly having no games…like I said, they’re competing by buying up marketing rights…which leads to their install base getting these games first, or with more content…regardless of how many billions MS just spent on buying those publishers.
They’re also spurred on to make their own acquisitions…since ms bought Bethesda Sony have been on their own spending spree.
@themightyant You clearly feel strongly about MS ‘leveraging their buying power to do a power play’. My suggestion to you then is to lead by example…don’t play these games when they come to gamepass. If they’re on PlayStation buy them there instead. The more people who opt to purchase them on PlayStation rather than play them day 1 on gamepass the more likely it is Xbox will release future titles on PlayStation.
Meanwhile those of us with less morales than your good self will put ourselves first and be enjoying the value gamepass offers us.
I wish you luck in your good fight friend 🫡
@Bleachedsmiles IF, and it's a big IF, cloud gaming starts to be a viable alternative then great. I'd love to drop the need to buy a box, or several boxes in my case, every X years. But right now cloud isn't a worthy alternative. Suggesting gamers can play on cloud and get a similar experience is disingenuous at best. Right now it is a poor imitation of full gaming with sub-1080p resolutions, stream drops and laggy controls when compared to native gaming. Might as well go back to my Xbox 360 or Xbox One if we wanted to play at 720-1080p with a low bitrate.
Why concern myself? Because I don't want to see gaming become more fragmented than it already is. You are 100% right Sony will also spurred on to make their own acquisitions, THAT is the problem. A segmented future where each platform has a huge catalog of exclusives you want to play every generation, rather than just a handful as it is not. It will be like TV streaming is right now.
You said it will take generations for hundreds. Perhaps that was a little overstated. But Activision ALONE published over 70 games since the start of the last generation, add in Bethesda's 8 studios, Blizzard, King and anyone else MS gobbles up and that number could easily get near, or exceed, a hundred in a generation. Granted they won't all be exclusive but gives an idea of scale. Versus what Spider-man, FF7R and a handful of other paid exclusives you are locked out of. The scale of it all DOES matter.
I agree competition is good. 100%. But buying up whole swathes of the industry because you have far more money than anyone else, to a point where they cannot do the same, isn't a fair competition.
I never said PlayStation would have "no games", don't put words in my mouth, I said gamers would have access to less games. No one can deny that. Anyone who is on PlayStation won't be able to play Starfield for example, a game many have been anticipating for much longer than the official 2018 announcement as it had been teased years prior. For anyone that loves Bethesda RPGs (a lot of people) that is a real shame.
On your last point. If the games actually came to PS I might occasionally do that but they won't. Regardless your 'solutions' seem to be:
1) 'Cut off one's nose to spite one's face'
2) 'Be happy with Game Pass while others get screwed'
neither's a great idea
@themightyant
You're saying that [Microsoft] buying Bethesda, buying ABK, buying... whatever studio is next... is somehow ten times worse than one of the most anticipated remakes in RPG history hasn't even had a whiff of release scheduling on XBOX.
Street Fighter 5 was not a timed exclusive or a limited exclusive, it was an absolute exclusive. Sony don't own Capcom, they're not even planning to buy Capcom, but they still, for no reason other than that they could, bought Street Fighter 5 permanently.
Microsoft and Nintendo have first party developers, where it's understandable why they're exclusive. Square Enix and Capcom don't belong to any of the big three... but Sony is still buying indefinite exclusivity from developers who aren't under their umbrella, which is anti-competition, plain and simple.
In comparison, did Microsoft get Deathloop at release because they bought the company? No, they honoured existing agreements.
Tell me where in Microsoft's statement they say they're going to force Sony to sacrifice one of their first party titles just to get a Playstation Plus perk or two or into the beta for the next Crash or Spyro title.
Because I don't see it. Skyrim Special Edition dropped on Switch in the last few weeks, and last I knew, they weren't Microsoft. I see the same with ABK. Exclusivity isn't on the table.
@themightyant but those of us who had chosen Xbox as our primary platform were getting screwed over by Sonys practices last gen. When it came out that Sony was actively preventing studios from adding crossplay even if they wanted to (or otherwise preventing the game from being offered on PS) and when it came out that Sony was using their market advantage to garner better third party deals, and controlling a large percentage of the games micro transactions, holding the cards with their market advantage to then control what they wanted with third parties, that absolutely hurt gamers. And as a gamer (who I’m guessing) has a PS as their primary console, wasn’t that also a situation of “cut off your nose to spite your face”?
You said nothing was stopping MS from buying up third party exclusives. But in fact there was. It was the mob mentality of the gaming news media. I mentioned this a couple weeks ago. But the infamous Rise of the Tomb Raider situation is a great example. When that was announced, the entire gaming news conglomerate and every online thread overreacted to a crazy extreme. Before that instance, MS had Titanfall, Dead Rising 3, and others as full or timed exclusives. After? I can’t think of one. Because everyone flipped their s*** at the time over something that only a few years later Sony would be famous for (FF7R, SFV and others).
Now if I’m MS and I’m trying to regain some momentum in the market, and I make a deal like Rise of the Tomb Raider timed exclusivity, and then everyone flips out, what am I to do? MS clearly had less leverage in bringing third party deals to their platform, so basically they started doing the only thing they could, buying developers to bring more first party studios in house. Now everyone is flipping out about that.
I bet, if everyone would have been a little more chill about the ROtTR deal, then MS and Sony would now just be trading third party deals at this point. Instead, the media and online gaming community (who have mostly leaned Sony for years anyway) threw such a big fit, I would argue, they in part created this whole situation.
@Titntin okay fair points. Playstation have been getting criticised too recently (because they are being *****) as you say. But gamers still eat it up. I just feel like Xbox have been having to fight to comeback since 2013 but they get shat on a lot. Playstation ups their prices and people complain but they still manage to steamroll through the market. Xbox tries to do a steamroll and it gets investigated lol.
@UltimateOtaku91 they already have a deal with Sony for call of duty they couldn't put the new cod's on gamepass because it would breach the marketing contract they signed with Sony the older games they probably could but don't want to spend more money when they'll own them soon enough anyway
@ValentineMeikin street fighter V was funded by Sony why would they allow it on Xbox when capcoms dead rising 3 that was funded by Microsoft never came to playstation 🙃
@K1LLEGAL I would argue MS have been fighting a narrative disadvantage since even much earlier than 2013. It’s true that the 360 outsold the PS3 (at least prior to the start of the XB1 and PS4 gens, with PS3 passing 360 later). But anyone who actively watched gaming conferences and tracked gaming media then saw the narrative disadvantage. Best example is E3 2010. It was the height of the “motion controller” craze so everyone was showing stupid stuff. Kinect was infamously dumb, but people forget that the Xbox conference that year also showed off Halo Reach, Gears of War 3, and Fable III, even if it turned out bad. Sony showed us a tease of Twisted Metal (ok), a tease of Infamous 2 (probably their best one) and a fifteen minute wonder book segment with a kid playing with the PS Move in a long, boring part of the show. Afterwards, I swore people would see these conferences for what they were, but then I looked, and IGNs online poll had Sony “winning” E3 with well over 50% of the votes compared to Xbox, Nintendo splitting much smaller percentages. And everyone in gaming media was going on and on about how great Sonys show was. I knew then that MS was actually in for rough years ahead because of a clear narrative disadvantage. Then they didn’t do themselves any favors with their XB1 decisions, which made it even worse after 2013.
@themightyant You quoted Phil Spencer on the Zenimax acquisition, not this acquisition.
Different acquisition, different strategy with the studio(s).
So again, show me, in writing, where Microsoft has said with THIS acquisition that it would cut off other consoles especially when this site says otherwise:
https://news.microsoft.com/activision-blizzard-acquisition/
There it is. In writing. Support for platforms including Xbox and PlayStation. You can't get more cut and dry than that.
@Would_you_kindly The major difference was that SF5 was trumpeted as the go-to game for the Capcom Pro Tour and other Capcom-sponsored tournaments. Sony wanted to get into the pro tournament circuit and effectively forced everyone to be using one system.
Notably, Street Fighter 6 doesn't have the same restriction. Wonder why?
@ValentineMeikin if Microsoft could fund dead rising 3 then they could've funded street fighter 5 they just didn't want to & sony did theres no conspiracy lol
@GamingFan4Lyf
That rise of gaming revenue chart is fascinating and makes me want to cry at the same time.
GamingFan4Lyf wrote:
Perhaps. But we can only judge them on their ACTIONS not their words. You say it's cut and dry but words are meaningless compared to their actions and so far they have started to make almost all their acquired studios games exclusive. There are a few exceptions, almost all either were already released in some form, had publishing agreements or were live services.
Perhaps I am wrong, and they will make the next games in the Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Doom, Wolfenstein, Crash, Spyro, Tony Hawk and many, many more legendary IP multi-platform so more gamers who are already deeply embedded in those series can play them. I'd dearly love that to be the case, but I don't see it happening, other than the occasional token game. Do you? That's not even mentioning the dozen or so games in new IP from all these studios.
@ValentineMeikin As @Would_you_kindly said SFV is a bad example as it was heavily funded by Sony, similar to Bayonetta 2 & 3 on Switch which won't come multiplatform for the same reason. Skyrim also a bad example as it was already on Switch it's just a patch/DLC and they've said they will continue to support games already on platforms. Deathloop again Microsoft had to honour those agreements or would have easily lost in court.
However I agree I don't like the practice of third party exclusives, on any platform, but understand why publishers want to do them, it gets them cash upfront and lessens their risk.
I also agree it is better when they are at least temporary timed exclusives which Microsoft seems to prefer especially for a lot of their game pass fare. e.g. Off the top of my head Tunic, Immortality, Death's Door, Stalker 2, High on Life, Scorn, Warhammer 40K Darktide, Ark 2, As Dusk Falls, The Ascent, Planet of Lana, Twelve minutes, Call of the Sea, and many more I can't remember are/were/will be timed Xbox exclusives for usually 3 - 12 months on Xbox, sometimes longer.
Regardless your argument seems to be "Sony did this <insert potentially anti-competitive thing here> I didn't like therefore it's good that Microsoft do it too". That's a bad faith argument that doesn't help gaming.
@themightyant I hope Microsoft keeps its word about Activision Blizzard. The Starfield exclusivity kind of makes sense. I mean, it technically a new franchise despite people already knowing what kind of game it will be (we are talking Bethesda here). But Microsoft could always continue to put Fallout, Doom, Wolfenstein, Tony Hawk, Spyro, etc. on multiple platforms as there is legacy there. Time will tell.
I agree RotTR got a disproportionate backlash, but I think it was handled very badly in PR at the time, I don't buy that's why they don't do exclusive deals anymore... most obviously because they still do... all the time.
Dozens of games have been (mostly timed) exclusives on Xbox especially on Game Pass where games will launch exclusively 3-12 months earlier than other platforms, sometimes longer. Granted these aren't all as high profile as RotTR or FF7R but there's a solid mix of AAA games (High on Life, Stalker 2, Warhammer 40K Darktide, Ark 2) and indie bangers, many in GOTY contention (Death's Door, Immortality, Cuphead, Tunic, Unpacking, etc.) and many, many more.
Similar to the poster above your argument seems to be "Sony do this (and then complain about it) therefore Microsoft should too" Frankly that's never a great argument, it's a purely selfish one. If it's bad for one, it's bad for the other.
For the record I don't have a primary console. I bought both XSX and PS5 day 1, as I did XBO & PS4. I play wherever there are good games... which is everywhere, Switch, PC and mobile too. I play more games on Xbox due to Game Pass, but probably more hours on PS5 due to a Genshin Impact addiction. lol
As for the online gaming community leaning Sony for years... are you mad? Not a week can go by without Sony being pilloried in games media. Even PlayStation only websites like sister site Push Square are in on them. (and rightly so in my opinion fwiw)
@GamingFan4Lyf Indeed time will tell. I hope so bro, for fellow gamers everywhere.
But they've already stated ES VI will be xbox exclusive why not all the other existing IP?
@themightyant but like you said, most are low profile timed exclusives. High on Life might be being treated as high profile but that’s more in reaction to how interesting it seems. It’s not at the same level as FF7R and ROtTR. Stuff like Deaths Door is nice but short lived and not game changing. So my point on that shift in MS strategy I believe still stands because we weren’t getting the high profile third party exclusives on Xbox after ROtTR.
And as far as the “Sony does this so Ms should do it too” it’s a competitive market. Businesses are going to do what they’re going to do. I accept business decisions and just hope decisions are made to benefit me as a consumer. And as far as the Sony “lean”, “mad is an interesting, if not incomplete word. It’s more a reaction to life experience that, over time, I noticed negatively impacted my potential gaming experience. I did own a PS3 alongside a 360 (and I would argue the PS3 had way better games for its time than the PS4 but that’s personal preference. In my opinion, Uncharted > Last of Us. But that’s neither here nor there)
But back to my point, when I was getting into the next gen I only had enough time and money for one system, and Halo was my favorite gaming series, so I went Xbox. Then it seemed like Xbox was never getting enough credit for what they were trying to do, dating back to even the late 360 days (Not Kinect, but games like Gears 3, Halo Reach and 4, etc.). They didn’t help themselves with the XB1 launch on DRM, but even today you can’t just pop in a game and play, you have to have a download. They spoke a lot about TV but arguably had a better launch window lineup than PS4 (especially when you see how Killzone Shadowfall was compared to Xbox exclusive Titanfall). Over time, mere observation noticed that MS’s decisions were scrutinized, whereas Sonys noticeable lack of AAA games in the first two years if the PS4s existence was ignored. Every article was about graphics comparison, not “quality of games” when Sony was lacking in the quality games, but had the better hardware. Then when the late gen came, and MS released XB1X, I all of a sudden saw much less graphical comparison articles and more “quality games” arguments since Sony was finally starting to release their big hitters.
So how did this affect me? Well ROtTR is again, a great example. Any unique Xbox deal got tore apart, and the effect of online narrative and communities (combined with COD exclusive deals) kept Xbox from getting credit and growth from its better decisions under Phil. Who knows? Maybe if people don’t flip out and want Sony to have everything Xbox gets, but fully support Sony forcing obedience from its better gained position (crossplay, cheaper third party deals) maybe I get more to enjoy on my Xbox? Instead, the abnormal slight against MS left them with less opportunity, which yes, did affect me. So “mad” is incomplete. It’s more “noticing a trend” in coverage and narrative that didn’t fully reflect actual efforts, influencing market shifts, that arguably negatively affected me, and I don’t really think positively of that. The last year has been interesting, because for the first time it seems like MS is getting recognition for what it’s done well (Gamepass, Back Compat., etc.) while people are finally calling out Sony for its negative tactics.
@xMightyMatt14x Interesting post, thanks for sharing. My view of history is a little different but interesting to compare.
I agree there are times, especially during XBO, that MS got a bad rap but they deserved plenty, much like Sony do now. There were so many poor decisions and a dearth of games.
It's true the launch lineup was a little better on XBO, but neither were great, the best games were multi-platform. The largest distinguishing factors were PS4 was noticeably more powerful, cost $100 less, and didn't have bad will from the XBO conference. Microsoft truly shot themselves in the foot there.
While both were slow to take off the PS4s catalogue steadily went from strength to strength with all time classics like Bloodborne, God of War, Persona 5, TLOU2, Astro Bot, Spider-man, and more... whereas XBO mostly dried up. I know, I was waiting for the good exclusive games! Even their staples like Gears 4 & Halo 5 weren't as good as previous entries.
Ori & the Blind Forest was one early styandout, a truly magical game, as was it's sequel, Forza was amazing too but only scratched one itch. I personally loved Sunset Overdrive - so fun - and Rise of the Tomb Raider was a good game, but a bit too safe and iterative. But the wait after each good exclusive really long & there was a LOT of really average fare from Recore to Ryse, Crackdown 3 to Crimson Dragon, State of Decay 2 to Super Lucky's Tale. The bar was just not as high, or as frequent, as Sony's output - though of course we all like different things.
There were so few worthwhile exclusives for me personally that it is the one console i've owned that I ALMOST feel I should have skipped. Of course if it was all you had it was a perfectly decent system, after all 85+% of the games were the same as PS4.
I say 'almost' but of course Game Pass changed all that. Especially once it morphed towards the service it is now - at launch it wasn't great. But they later added first party day 1 and more day 1 games. Great indies flocked to it, and their curation is truly outstanding. Then there were the other great decisions like backwards compatibility which was rightly warmly welcomed. But all quite late.
But by the time the XB1X came out it was far too late in the generation. XB1X was a beast of a machine but there was little that really made the most of it. In some ways it was a bit like being the richest man in the graveyard, all that power yet very little to use it on and show off. A real shame it ended up a bit of a niche console. It didn't help it released a year after PS4 Pro - a noticeably worse system but far better supported - and crucially by then discourse had already started on the next generation. Again a misstep from Microsoft - great console, poor software support, and poor timing.
Despite this they were steadily building good rep which rolled into this gen.
That's why I am thrilled to see Microsoft slugging it out again this generation. Series X and S are brilliant, well priced, machines, Game Pass continues to be the best deal in
gamingentertainment and on the whole they are making most of the right moves... albeit still a little slowly on the software front.It's just this industry consolidation that gets me down - despite benefitting directly through Game Pass - seeing games and series get taken away from gamers, on both sides, isn't cool... but I fear we are likely going to see much more of it
March 2023 is just too late...
It's worth the wait for massive deals like this to be scrutinised and make sure the proper provisions are made to ensure healthy competition. This'll be an impact for years to come so it's worth extra months of investigations.
Sony are being baby's now thinking Microsoft aren't gonna honour the deals made between Activision and Sony which they will but the thing is Sony have there exclusives that ain't on Xbox but u don't see Xbox players complaining about it.
Let's for example take the Call of duty modern warfare 2 beta how many betas did Sony players get compared to Xbox, Pc players the fact that you don't see Xbox and pc players complain about it they just get on with it but if it was the opposite way around and Xbox/pc players had more betas than Sony players then all of a sudden you will have the PlayStation community crying saying it unfair.
Sony need to grow the hell up and stop being a baby because after all the way Activision staff feel with there current CEO proves that Xbox want to help make Activision better just because Xbox want to buy it Sony want to moan, where was Sony's cash at the time when this deal was made.
Just because Sony and Microsoft are big companies that can have there arguments back and forth but in truth it should be down to players no matter what console they play as it's about the players.
Xbox is trying to do right and bring games to more devices if Sony has a problem with Microsoft then how many laptops that are made by Sony have Microsoft Windows on it because you don't see Sony release a laptop with it's own operating system so why should Sony moan about a game franchise that's had more exclusive right on PlayStation then Xbox.
I hope the UK competitive market favours Xbox.
Cross-play and cross platform wouldn't be a thing if Sony continued to whine about playing with others on different devices.
Players have a right to choose which console they play no matter if a game is on it or not,
I have played Xbox since 2001 and yeah I have played and owned PlayStation consoles but the fact is I don't have a preference over who is better as each console has its own exclusive games.
The thing is let Sony moan about it because it feels like Sony don't care about Microsoft but soon if this deal is approved Sony would probably be up Microsoft's behind expecting more for PlayStation
I have expressed my feelings on this topic a number of times already so I'll just say this: Jimbo didn't get his wish, but at least threw a snowball at MS. Before ActiBlizz games hit Game Pass it'll be summer 2023. Oh well, can't wait for this to be over so we can actually focus on gaming rather than this TMZ drama.
@xMightyMatt14x Unfortunately for Jim Ryan, he won't be getting a deal. Realistically, as soon as this goes through, Microsoft will do what they want. I do believe Phil Spencer will play nice for the remainder of this generation of consoles. But as soon as the next consoles come out, it's bye bye for COD on Playstation. Again, Microsoft didn't spend $70 billion just so Jim Ryan can tell them what to do.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...