
Before all the Game Awards and FTC lawsuit madness that took place this week, Xbox boss Phil Spencer made an appearance on the Second Request podcast where he had some very interesting things to say about Sony's position in relation to Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard.
The Head of Xbox was discussing Sony's continued concerns over the deal, explaining that the company is "trying to protect their dominance on console", and suggesting the way PlayStation grows "is by making Xbox smaller".
"There's really only been one major opposer to the deal, and it's Sony. And Sony is trying to protect their dominance on console, and the way they grow is by making Xbox smaller. They have a very different view of the industry than we do."
"They don't ship their games day-and-date on PC, they don't put their games in [PS Plus] when they launch their games... but because Sony is leading all the dialogue about why this deal shouldn't go through to protect their dominant position in console, the thing that they grab onto is Call of Duty."
Spencer went on to talk about Sony's Call of Duty complaints in more detail, once again confirming that Microsoft has offered a 10-year deal to provide the franchise on PlayStation, therefore calling the situation a "challenging" one.
He even revealed that a call was made to Sony on the day the Activision Blizzard deal was announced:
"We've said over and over we'll make a 10-year commitment to PlayStation... Satya Nadella (Microsoft CEO) and I made a call to the CEO of Sony the day that the deal was announced, to say that it's our intent to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation, and they actually publically affirmed that at the time."
"I find it challenging that the largest console maker in the world is raising an objection about one franchise that we've said we will continue to ship on the platform, and it's a deal that benefits customers through choice and access..."
Despite this 10-year deal for Call of Duty having been acknowledged by Nintendo and Valve over the past few days, Sony has yet to respond, which Microsoft openly showed frustration about earlier this week.
And now, with the news that the FTC is filing a suit against the Activision Blizzard acquisition, Microsoft has definitely got a challenging few weeks and months ahead, although the company remains confident the deal will go through.
What are your thoughts on Phil Spencer's comments here? Tell us down below.
[source podcasts.google.com]
Comments 141
Of course they do!!! Sony are playing the same tactics that killed Sega off.
It is really questionable how the FTC has any legs to stand on here. The public facts really don't support the FTC's case.
stupid comment.
of course Sony grows by taking sales off Xbox.
just as Xbox grows by taking sales from Sony.
only so much organic growth to be made
Phil Spencer spot on
I hope this just spurs on Xbox even more
@uptownsoul careful you are talking sense.
No more Mr Nice guy.
@stvevan I imagine he's talking about bringing games to markets and demographics that haven't traditionally been gamers, while Sony is focused very much on the same hardcore market
Because sony knows what will happen after the 10 years are up, it will become xbox exclusive. Also is it not only naturally that the company at the top would be concerned if its position is challenged? Phil needs to learn how businesses work.
Also getting Activision and Bethesda would be taking games and players from playstation hence making playstation smaller, just more hypocritical BS from Phil.
Yea, this gen has definitely highlighted how terrible the leadership at Sony is AND how toxic their worst fans are. I definitely believe Sony not just wants a world where they don’t have an Xbox in the picture but is actively trying to bring that dream to fruition.
The thing is though…. With years like 2022, Xbox is helping them out a ton. I’m hopeful 2023 starts a permanent wave of delivery.
@UltimateOtaku91 I'm sure Phil will be happy to take any business advice you have to give randon ps fanboy on a comment section
@StylesT and I'd be happy to give it.
Also Phil should know that sony aren't the ones who decide the fate of this deal, it's the regulators. Even if sony signed the call of duty contract the regulators would still scrutinise the deal. And If the regulators decide the deal is fine in the end then its sonys fault if they lose call of duty becuase they didn't sign the deal.
@stvevan exactly, if neither of them didn't care about taking sales off each other then why do they both have timed exclusives.
@stvevan I think what he meant by this was Sony buying up 'extra' content in Multi-platform, 3rd Party made IP's. If you look at CoD, since Sony took over, they have had 'extra' content that Sony paid to keep off their 'competition', thus making them smaller by reducing their content.
You have extra 'missions', extra Characters, extra modes, extra cosmetics, extra 'bonuses' (like 2XP to unlock more 'gear' quicker). Paying to keep games off Xbox (Street Fighter, Final Fantasy etc) and off of Game Pass.
Instead of 'investing' their Money to 'expanding' Sony to make themselves 'bigger', they are spending their money on 'reducing' the what the 'competition' can offer - even in games that 'should' have Parity across ALL platforms.
IF MS can close the deal on A/B, CoD will have Parity on EVERY platform. Xbox consoles won't get extra content. If you are a 'CoD' fanboy and want the 'full' package, you are currently 'forced' to buy a PS or miss out on some content despite having to be the same for the game. In the future, you will have the freedom to choose where to play because EVERY platform will offer the SAME content. If you 'prefer' PS (the Controller, your friends, your trophies and exclusive games etc), CoD will still be an Option on PS. It just won't be a 'reason' to buy PS because you can literally play it ANYWHERE and get the FULL PACKAGE
Sony has exclusivity deals and purchases left and right, even buying EVO solidating the entire fighting genre after solidating the jrpg and action adventure genres, but when Xbox plays by the same rules they get whistled back by the ftc.
The persons at the ftc were probably able to grab a ps5 early and are now afraid they will have nothing to play.
@BAMozzy you seem correct. Thank you for the write-up. Great comment
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
@trashboxlastplace Tell me you have no life without telling me you have no life
I'm a PC guy if I don't see game released simultaneously on PC and Consoles I don't play that game at all. Simple as that. Sony may make some of the best games in the industry but their business practice doesn't ring with me. So yeah Sony can drown in their own misery once this deal goes through.
@BAMozzy and MS cant buy any timed exclusive? behave.
you think ABK/SE didnt run to MS to try to get them to offer more?
ultimately its MS who decided timed exclusive isnt worth it.
theres a big difference of that to paying 70b. many cant grasp that. and it is Sonys job to oppose it. its like they think MS would wave it through if Sony was buying ABK.
both Jim and Phil are giant c**kwombles who only care about making $$$. none of the tweets from either side look good, it shouldnt be aired in public until all info is out.
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
I guess the irony is lost on this guy calling Xbox fans the most toxic...not the brightest fella
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
Rich elitist CEO mad he isn’t making more money, blames other rich elitist CEO for wanting to make more money.
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
@trashboxlastplace you're not going to last long with a name like that on here lol
Edit: Told ya!
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
@trashboxlastplace I am sure that would give you some sense of accomplishment in your life (lack of) if I was butthurt ...so I will allow you to believe it...enjoy your single bed tonight kiddo
P.s if you ever get a job you will find there is no reason to be a fanboy to such a level as you can just afford both consoles
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
@UltimateOtaku91 Even if it does become 'exclusive' after that 10yrs is up, So What? Will CoD still be as Popular and if it is, why upset their community by reducing its 'reach' and the 'choice' of Consumers?
You also have to remember that it is a MS owned IP made by MS owned Studio's on MS money so it should be 'up to them' to decide where to release their game - just like Minecraft, DOOM, Halo, Crash or Elder Scrolls. A decade is a LONG time to offer Parity and should at least take you to the end of the 'next' gen hardware.
That's plenty of time for Sony to prepare, to build their own competition, maybe even use Destiny as an bargaining chip - give us CoD or lose Destiny on Xbox. I don't expect Destiny to ever be on Game Pass and IF the console do become 'Obsolete' as people prefer to 'stream' direct to their TV, CoD may well be 'exclusive' to Game Pass on that Platform and Destiny available on Sony's streaming service. If there is NO Playstation Console to 'ship' to, then MS isn't breaking any promises.
They are promising to make CoD available on Platforms that people want to Play CoD on. If your 'primary' gaming Platform is your TV, your Mobile, your Laptop etc, MS has Game Pass to bring CoD to that 'platform'. If Playstation hardware 'exists', they are saying that CoD will release because that's someone's 'Primary' platform to play CoD and the only way they can reach those gamers is to release a PS specific build.
If Consoles no longer 'exist', then MS has no obligation to release to non-existent hardware. If you want to play via streaming, then MS will have an option. Its NOT platform exclusive as you can play on ANY platform so its not stopping gamers from playing on their 'hardware' of choice...
@BAMozzy Microsoft started all this CoD exclusivity stuff in the 360 era, every CoD from MW2 to Advanced Warfare had all its DLC 1 month exclusive to Xbox. It's very clear that at the very least there'll be some kind of Game Pass exclusive perks similar to the monthly Halo Infinite drops if the deal goes through.
@trashboxlastplace you created a troll account.
at least have a proper discussion.
not be a total idiot
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
Kind of have to wonder what the hell Microsoft has been doing the past 20 years instead of building up the Xbox ecosystem without them resorting to carving up huge chunks of the market. I’m all for acquisitions like Rare and Double Fine, as these are talented studios that stand to gain a lot from the backing of a platform holder. Activision is not that, not to mention the only reason they’re supporting the buyout is because it provides a cushy exit strategy for the abusive management.
Must be a foreign concept to your kind, I can own both consoles and enjoy what both offer but also have an opinion about which company goes about things in a more consumer friendly way
@BAMozzy From a consumer point of view there's not much wrong with that, I mean I wouldn't mind call of duty going exclusive as I own both and so do many other people, but to sony that's a billion dollar income they would lose instantly hence why they are against the acquisition and why they won't sign the deal they have been offered. I think they know that if they sign the deal xbox will include all the exclusive content to gamepass over the next 10 years to try and get playstations call of duty players to switch to xbox, to soften the financial impact when they finally do make call of duty xbox exclusive. Again my comment is aimed at why Sony would not be happy about that prospect and I don't see how anyone would expect sony to be happy signing that deal.
Phil, Nadia and other people online keep blaming sony for the deal taking so long but I honestly fail to see what people expect sony to do in this situation. Roll over and let another company take their top spot? That's not what companies do. They defend their position and try to strengthen it, and the former is what xbox is also trying to do.
Xbox are trying to become stronger in the gaming market whilst sony is trying to defend itself from becoming weaker. There's nothing wrong with either of those and the FTC solely will decide the outcome based on facts and views from both sides. Sony aren't evil like everyone says, they are a business trying to make money and hope its a profit.
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
@psmasterrace No it's not you clown...arguing with people who are blatant psnfanboys who comes to trash Xbox on a Xbox site
You don't see me going on pushsquare trashing playstation
You are so sad you have made your second account... because you just got banned
..try getting a life
@Grumblevolcano MS may well of had 1 month of timed 'exclusivity' on DLC map packs back in the 360 era, that was a very different era, different MS and a different business model.
That was also a time when games like Halo, Gears, Forza etc were also 'exclusive' to the Console - didn't release on PC day and date. Didn't have Game Pass to bring their games to everyone day and date etc.
The only thing Game Pass offers is a Cosmetic skin in Halo - I don't believe that any Content (Maps, weapons etc) things that actually matter, are 'exclusive' to Game Pass customers and those Cosmetics can be earned/purchased by EVERYONE. There isn't any 'exclusive' content to Game Pass players.
You can't keep bringing up 'bad practices' from over a decade ago. That's like bringing up what the Nazi's did when talking about Germany for example instead of considering where the Company are now. In the 360 era, buying Mojang would of resulted in Minecraft being a 360 only Exclusive, but under NEW management, with a 'Different' business model, one that makes the Xbox console an 'option', not a necessity to play ANY game, then Xbox 'console' exclusivity is obsolete.
You don't 'need' an Xbox Console to play any MS game, not even to play day and date. You need to buy a PS to play Sony games day and date because they are NOT released on PC's, not released to PS+ and playable via Streaming on you mobile, laptop, TV etc - you have NO choice with PS, but you have 'choice' with Microsoft.
That is a 'big' difference between Sony and MS, something that really changed after Phil Spencer took over and MS decided to stop making the Console their primary platform and give gamers much more choice on where they actually want to play their Games.
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
I will leave you to your delusions...I hope for your sake you are still a spotty teenager and there is time for you to sort your life out.
Well, predictably the comments section on these articles becomes a tribalistic nonsense spewing mess. I keep reading some thought provoking comments, yet when smeared with such ridiculous insults and rhetoric it all gets lost.
Regarding what I think of this deal going through/not going through - I believe corporations have far to much power as it is. What with their bribes to governments and so forth, and how entire markets can be swayed and manipulated by just a few.
A few that value their customers and their privacy a whole lot less than they’d like to portray.
So I don’t care if the deal goes through as far as how I’ll play. I play Call of Duty games and other Activision games on a mixture of PlayStation and Xbox.
What matters to me is that it’s made clear to the public that Microsoft nor Sony care about the consumer, nor should they be defended by said consumer. This is a fight for the legal teams and a fight that a mainly uneducated on the matter public, shouldn’t waste their time with.
Microsoft consolidating the industry and gaining a larger foothold doesn’t benefit me, or hinder me, but as is the case, it should be investigated. That’s all I care for.
It’s not like the deal would happen or not and instantly I can’t play the generic but addictive shooter anymore.
@UltimateOtaku91 "and I'd be happy to give it."
Thanks for making me laugh this morning!!
The hell happened in this comment section?
Anyways if this gets blocked, just means Microsoft needs to play Sony’s game of timed exclusives. Maybe start locking Yakuza or Non Sony Marvel games up for timed exclusivity or something.
Hopefully it doesn’t come to that, but it seems to be what their options would be if this merger is blocked.
@psmasterrace The fact that it has the 'most' exclusives is also anti-consumer as it forces gamers to buy a Playstation to play those games. As a 'consumer', the more choices you have, the less anti-consumer it is.
Take R&C, to play that day and date, I'd need to buy a PS5 (at least $400 and spend $70 on the game - the only option. To play Starfield Day and Date, I don't need an Xbox console at all, in fact I could play on my Android Smart Phone, on my old Student' laptop (with no dedicated GPU), on my Gaming PC/Laptop - even on a brand new Samsung TV - all for a 'small' monthly fee.
Its not limiting Starfield to just the 'few' that are rich or lucky enough to buy the Hardware. Sony's games are 'only' on Playstation, Xbox games are available day and date on Hardware 'everybody' owns. Even Playstation gamers could play Starfield on a device they have (Mobile, PC/laptop) without being 'forced' to buy an Xbox console.
Sony has the highest brand loyalty (take that to mean what you will) of the three console manufacturers. I honestly don't think they need COD as much as they want to be able to say PS has the best version of the games.
I hate it when I miss out on a banned troll's comments...
Trolls seem to be out in full force today! Thanks to everyone who reported the comments and brought them to our attention 💚
@psmasterrace lets see the MS expansion card is a better option for parents... they dont have to go and look fo the corect size, style, format, and speed... they just go i need the series x expansion cad in 1 of 3 storage sizes... million times easier for parents(who btw are the ones who buy the majority of consoles for their kids) psvr (yea dont give to *****, didnt care about the first one) exclusives cut both ways, as i can play any of MS games on multiple screens where as the ps exclusives and sony made games yea i cant, unless im playing MLB the Show on my xbox... nand personally i hate sonys ps5 controller so that is just a preference thing....hell i use my xbox controller on my ps5 thats how badly i hate the setup of that controller. nothing you stated matters except maybe the games and thats just cause sony wont let anyone play them outside of the walled garden sony has made.... so yea between sony and MS, MS is better for consumer...
Here’s some sensible rationality for everybody.
No one in this deal is good or bad.
Xbox purchased Bethesda group to make game’s exclusive to Xbox eco system and now they trying to do it with Activision. So gamers and general public will buy Xbox.
Sony purchase studios, insomniac, Bungie to make exclusive games for PlayStation. So gamers and general public will buy PlayStation.
They both want more market share, they both want to make more money and survive.
All around the world in my industry companies are buying up raw materials, a lot more than they need to safe keep the future of their business. As there is a raw material shortage.
More companies around the world will get purchased by bigger companies to survive.
It’s is simple business, like it or not.
And just for my personal opinion.
Both Microsoft and Sony as companies
Absolutely suck and I can’t stand either of them.
They both are the biggest in different ways scammers of the planet.
They both do things anti consumer or mess things up and annoy the hell out of me.
Business is business.
@Moonglow so by your logic so is Sony, but with VR not subscription.
if the xbox way was best for everyone then they would surpass Sony without ABK, games are already on the platform.
2bil is spouting nonsense, growth is slowing at what is it 50mil subscribers?
@Moonglow yes that is a possibility that xbox offer another contract, but it's not a guarantee, Sony can't work based on possibilities. Maybe a rolling contract that's up to sony to renew after the 10 years.
things would have been different if Xbox acquire Take-two/Ubisoft/Square-Enix.. they wouldn't get sued by FTC & Sony won't complain. ABK is just too big...
@UltimateOtaku91 so let me get this right , Sony can have as many exclusives ( some your forced to buy a console to play) as they can get Thier hands on and 10 year contract isn't enough on a game they don't OWN ? But Microsoft buys a company nooooo it's a monopoly/ they have too much etc etc I can't wait for McDonald's to stop selling milkshakes because kfc doesn't sell em how is that fair right? Lmfao
@Sebatrox unfortunately they still will , they will move the goalposts to they don't have any games they haven't purchased the company to own ....I'd put money on that
I think Sony’s problem is MS putting COD on Game Pass. I bought Mod Warfare 2 on release on PS5. Had it been on Game Pass i’d play it on my XSX. People comparing this acquisition to Playstation having exclusive content is dumb!! As ya know MS has far more cash than Sony! Why don’t MS get their own exclusive content or outbid Sony??? As for exclusivity, exclusives are fine. But throwing ya wallet about simply buying already huge, well established, multi platform franchises then making them exclusive is a ***** thing to do!!
@Martsmall I'm not saying sony can or can't I'm just saying that's why Sony won't sign the deal in my opinion, they won't be able to control the future of their biggest cash cow hence why they don't like this acquisition. Its just normal for a business to defend one of their biggest income sources.
@UltimateOtaku91 exactly it's about control , YOU buy the studio we will benefit from it , u can't put dlc on GP cause we want all dlc on our console ,and 10 years contact wow how are we supposed to make a game to challenge cod on just a small 10 years ? Poor us at Sony , oh and we can buy up whatever exclusives we like but you can't buy companies and have them as exclusives cause that's just wrong ..... was almost in tears writing this I got very emotional for em
@Moonglow I understand that, for Activision it makes sense to get call of duty on as many platforms as possible, for Microsoft its a good deal for them as it means more income as more people will be able to spend of microtransactions and if they do make it console exclusive then more people will buy into the xbox ecosystem and gamepass subs meaning more profit for them, the only ones losing out here are sony, and thats the point I'm trying to make, I'm not saying this deal is anti consumer or bad for the industry, I'm just trying to put across why Sony would be against the deal and why sony would be expected to defend their biggest cash cow, doesn't mean they are evil like some suggest and people like Phil blaming sony for trying to block the deal yet surely its a natural thing to do. I'm pretty sure Microsoft would be the same if sony were getting Rockstar and the future of GTA was on the line.
@Martsmall that's not just bad on sonys part then is it? Activision could of said no? Xbox could of rivalled their offer? Xbox could of got more AAA timed exclusives as well? Playstation getting final fantasy timed exclusive doesn't mean the rest of square enix line up is exclusive to sony.
There's a difference from getting one game from one publisher as an exclusive to getting that whole publishers line up of games and making them exclusive, like what xbox did with Bethesda and will do with Activision apart from call of duty, for now.
Xbox could of competed with playstation by doing the same as them and getting timed exclusive AAA games, but they went with an option they knew sony couldn't compete with and buy billion dollar publishers knowing sony couldnt afford to make any counter offers.
@UltimateOtaku91 it's business, every business that can afford to grow and buy other businesses and more future income is business , Microsoft obviously don't want to put the future of Thier business on short term exclusive growth like most companies ( Sony )it's about the long game and I'm 110% sure if Sony could afford activison they would b the ones buying right now
Edit : publishing is the way to make money ,you even get your rivals to sell your products for you
Edit 2 : what Bethesda games that have been on playstation did Microsoft make exclusive ? None that I know of
That even still do updates for ps users on fallout/ other games
@Martsmall sony can't afford to play that kind of long game that Microsoft are aiming for, hence why they buy timed exclusives as its cheaper and all they can afford. Yet people still hate on them for it.
Also for all we know taking that billion dollar revenue from call of duty away from playstation will effect their games in the future, we dont know if that money goes back into playstation studios to make their games the quality they are now, without that call of duty money would they of bought bunjie etc the money they've made off call of duty is more than what they've spent on their Studio acquisitions (prior bunjie), this deal may have major implications on playstation that we just don't know about, hence their strong opposition to the deal. Especially when sonys other sectors are failing (TV, laptops, phones) whilst Microsoft are tuning over billions in the computer software sector which is obviously being used to find their console business.
But then again, that's not Microsoft or Activisions problem to care about, its down to FTC/CMA to care or not.
Phil is starting to sound ridiculous to me with these "they made me miss class and shoved me in my locker" beggings. You are sitting on top of gaming division in a Top 5 richest software company, trying to close 70 billion deal. You ain't no underdog, no weakling, you are not being bullied. You are just in a dirty business race, you yourself made as dirty. And people are actually eating this up (just as they did great 2020/2021/2022 year for exclusives on GP).
@Martsmall Future Bethesda games will be exclusive, such as Fallout, Elder scrolls, Doom, Evil within etc and any new IP's that would of been on playstation prior to the deal such as starfield. Deathloop and Ghostwire were kept due to honoring existing contracts.
@UltimateOtaku91 that's like saying is because Sony didn't have the forethought of making loads more money with publishing it's Microsoft's fault ?????
And there is no proof at all about future games , not one person has come and said outright that fallout/elder scrolls/doom etc will be Xbox exclusive so they haven't taken anything have they ?
And for starfield that's never been on Sony consoles and not any consoles including the Xbox
@FraserG On a separate note, I'm surprised you haven't done an article on this.
https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2022/12/09/microsoft-acquires-lumenisity-an-innovator-in-hollow-core-fiber-hcf-cable/
Could help benefit xbox cloud gaming in the future..
@Martsmall didn't they say elder scrolls was xbox exclusive
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/xbox-boss-confirms-elder-scrolls-vi-wont-come-to-playstation-5/
So you would assume the same for other existing ip's?
And starfield would of been on playstation if not for the takeover, that was my point. Will be the same about Activision. Have you noticed how Phil hasn't mentioned any of the other games such as crash, spyro, diablo, Tony hawk etc just call of duty.
@uptownsoul The difference is that when MS have some 'exclusivity' - whether its 'timed' or not, its not exclusive to just their Xbox Console. You are 'never' forced to buy an Xbox console to play that game and as a 'consumer', you have more choice.
As I tried to say, if you want to play Spider-Man 2, Wolverine or any future Playstation Exclusive on the 'day' it releases, as a Consumer you have only one choice - that is to buy a Playstation Console. If you want to Play Starfield, Forza or Redfall, you can literally play on 'ANY' hardware. You do NOT need to buy a MS branded product (inc Controller) and no doubt, could even use a DS4/5 connected to your Laptop/Mobile to play those games. OK so its 'not' your preferred Platform to game on, but at least you are not forced to spend $500+ to play a game or miss out.
Why would people give up their prefered platform, their friends, their trophies, their Library of games etc on Playstation, just to play the exact same game with the exact same content as available on their favourite platform, just because its also available on Xbox and their Sub service?
Sony will 'lose' sales because Gamers are NOT forced to buy it on Playstation to get ALL the content. In fact they don't 'need' to buy ANY hardware to play CoD (inc Xbox Consoles) but its more like Minecraft in that respect.
Minecraft is the 'biggest' selling game ever, yet it doesn't ever factor in to peoples decision on their Hardware of choice because whatever their 'preferred' platform is, Minecraft is on it. The same with CoD. It also doesn't make sense to leave Playstation with all their Exclusives, leave your friends, games, trophies etc behind, just because you can get to play CoD on a Sub Service instead of buying it. The cost of Subscribing for a year to play CoD for just 1yr is still more expensive than buying the game outright on PS/Xbox and playing it for as long as you want...
Sony will 'lose' sales because CoD gamers will have much more choice on where to play, not be 'forced' into buying hardware they don't really want to play all the content. If they 'prefer' to play on Switch, on Steam, on Xbox or on their Mobile, they have that freedom to choose and won't lose out on content.
If you 'prefer' to play on PS, CoD will still be released to buy, like it always has and as a gamer, you'll get the same content at the same time regardless. Sony will still get their 30% retailer money for all digital sales on their Platform but they can NO longer use 'exclusive' content in CoD, paying to keep content away from other gamers and have to rely more on their 'own' software - games like Spider-Man, Uncharted, R&C etc
Lets not forget that Sony own Destiny and Bungie too so have their own FPS that they could use too...
@UltimateOtaku91 u drag up a year old article to prove your point yet if you have gone for a most recent article
https://gameranx.com/updates/id/405858/article/microsoft-implies-elder-scrolls-6-will-be-xbox-exclusive-to-regulator/
I'll save you the time
We may as well assume that Bethesda's next Elder Scrolls isn't coming to PlayStation.
Assume
Sony don't need to make Xbox smaller, Xbox is already smaller compared to PlayStation.
@Martsmall no need to assume, its a clear as day in that article, elder scrolls will be an exclusive as it fits the criteria they told the CMA, if its not a niche game its not coming to playstation, hence why psychonauts released on playstation as they classed it as niche and wanted as many sales as possible (in the article) . This means games like fallout, doom, Wolfenstein and the evil within are xbox exclusive as they are not niche.
@UltimateOtaku91 there's zero.proof it 100% will be at all , and if taking away stuff from other consoles is soooooo bad. Ok ...spider man ..oh wait Sony purchased the rights to Spiderman so it can do what it please with him ( avengers game) ? Ok it's not a company but it's what Sony could afford but it's the same thing
Oh and just so we are clear I don't care if they did ,I'm just making a point that EVEN if they do stop elder scrolls ( yet again they haven't yet so they taken nothing ) why is it so bad ? With the spider man case for example they could have offered him as dlc on the Xbox version and made money but didnt ...at least if elder scrolls is exclusive ppl can still play on pc/tablet/phone/TV and they have the balls to say Xbox buying activison will take away choice
Whatever the eventual outcome of this take over is, its phil who is shown to be the media manipulator he is. No class at all, all spoiled brat.
I've no time for Jim, whos even less likable, but at least he has the dignity to keep his thoughts or tantrums behind clossed doors.
Articles about this simply engender hate and disharmony, but you look at the hits and know they have no choice but roll with the trolls...
@Martsmall Disney own the rights to spiderman, not Sony.
Disney offered the rights to MS but they said no, so the game rights were offered to Sony. Thats how IPs are made, nothing was taken from xbox, who could have had exclusive rights themselves.
Its a poor example.
Im not sure if Sony have paid square to keep ff7 remake off the xbox, but I think that may be a better example of what you are trying to say?
I still think the comparison is a little unbalanced, one game compared to the purchase of an entire publishing house, but I understand the point.
@Titntin because Spiderman was multi platform when acti owned the Spidey games license between 2010 to 2014 , just like IF elder scrolls was taken from ps it's exactly the same , one company held the rights it was multi then another company owned em and took em away
@uptownsoul I'm not saying it's Sony fault I'm saying it's exactly the same acti owned the game rights taht was multiplatform then Sony stopped him being multiplatform
But Microsoft do it with say elder scrolls and it's bad
@UltimateOtaku91 So it's ok for Sony to buy Bungie, and Insomniac and keep games off of Xbox and Switch?
I don't see Spider-man on Xbox and Destiny is multiplatform now but at any point Sony can pull it.
Well… what have I missed… 🤣
Sony trolls and fake accounts, Uncle Phil can have that effect. Phil’s not wrong in this instance, Sony are using their dominant market position to try and influence Regulators and keep the status quo. On the other hand Xbox could have been more competitive by releasing higher quality games while under uncle Phil’s leadership, something that’s been lacking for a decade.
This is my issue with Sony. They want to use their resources to hold Xbox back instead of bettering themselves. Ruining an industry we all love.
Imagine if Playstation and Xbox were both at their peak - competing of course, but not wasting their time and money on each other but on new projects (e.g. new IPs).
I actually said this all a few weeks back so good to know i’m one step ahead of Phil 😉.
@Tasuki I never said it was ok, and bunjie have said all future games from them will remain multiplatform as part of their terms for the sale
@uptownsoul Sony's policy is to make their Playstation the ONLY option to play certain games giving gamers NO choice but to buy a Sony Playstation to play that game or miss out.
MS's current direction isn't the same at all. You NEVER need to buy a Microsoft Xbox to play their games as you can play on devices you already own. You never have to buy an Xbox or miss out because that game is available 'everywhere' inc devices you already own. OK so it may not be your 'prefered' console to play that game, but its not like you are forced to buy an Xbox or miss out...
If you don't want to buy a Microsoft Xbox, you still have multiple options open to you. Of course streaming allows people to play on devices they already own - so don't have to spend $500 on hardware to play Xbox games. If you have a Smart Phone (which most, if not ALL gamers own), you can still play Xbox games. If you have a cheap 'student' Laptop or PC, you can still play Xbox games - don't need to buy a high end gaming Laptop/PC or 'upgrade' to play. Don't need to buy ANY Microsoft branded hardware at all.
There is a BIG difference to keeping Content to just one platform, limiting the game to just Sony branded hardware that people 'have' to buy to play versus having a Game and ALL its content available on 'EVERY' platform (except PS/Switch) - inc the devices that PS gamers likely own so 'could' still play if they wanted - just not their 'preferred' platform.
Its not limiting a game to say '25m' because that's how many Playstation 5 consoles have been sold or 'limiting' it to just 20m because that's how many Xbox consoles were sold. Its opening up more choice, more options for consumers/gamers to play on devices they already have...
If there are 3bn gamers in the world, all 3bn can access Xbox games on devices they have. So even if Starfield is 'exclusive' to PC and Series S/X - to run 'locally' on, its not limiting the game to 'just' those gamers - even if its a much larger group than 'just' PS5 owners. As stated, those with a mobile, a new Samsung TV, a tablet/laptop etc are still able to play...
You have to get the 'Console' vs 'Console' mindset out of this and look at the 'bigger' picture. In the 360 era, it was 'Console' vs 'Console' because if you wanted to play Xbox games, you had to buy MS branded hardware. However, since about 2016, Xbox 'consoles' are nothing more than 'an option'. ALL games are released on PC too day and date so they don't 'miss' out and now with Streaming, every gamer can play - just not necessarily on their 'preferred' platform, but then they don't have to spend $500 on an Xbox either, but Xbox/PC/Steam/Nintendo and ANY other gamer has to buy a Playstation or miss out completely, no choice!!!
Yep that's why they're buying up all the biggest publishers ...oh wait lol
@K1LLEGAL we’ve already seen it to some extent. A strong Xbox 360 Vs PS3 led to Sony pumping out some of their iconic franchises and absolutely smashing it with the release of the PS4, yes Xbox scored an own goal and helped with the disaster that was the Xbox one, but a strong generation with the 360 definitely improved Sony and they kicked on from there.
The problem now is that Xbox has been struggling ever since the Xbox one release and haven’t provided the strong competitiveness we seen during the 360 era, which as we know has led to Sonys dominance and recent fight to maintain the status quo, while taking every advantage they can (price hikes and paid upgrade paths etc) of the loyal fanbase they picked up with the PS4 and boy did they pick up some loyal followers, some of which I wouldn’t be surprised if they have a picture of a PlayStation above their sofa just like the North Koreans do of their dear leader.
@Sakisa That’s one mistake I think Sony is failing to recognize. If this deal gets blocked, MS will have $68bn (not that it would take that much) to play Sony’s game and just spend the capital to starve PlayStation of 3rd party content.
@uptownsoul Xbox gamers complained because Sony had paid to keep a game off of Xbox Console but by the time it released, I don't know that they were all that bothered to buy a PS5 to play it so whether it had the same impact Sony expected when they made the 'deal', who knows.
Again, you are totally missing the point here. Sony is paying to make their games and other content exclusive to Playstation hardware exclusively - keeping it from EVERY other gamer. There are exceptions where they paid to ensure that they had the 'ONLY' affordable platform release version for a period of time - meaning that the 'most affordable' way to play is with Playstation meaning that if you can afford a decent PC, you probably wouldn't be buying a PS5 for a timed console exclusive anyway.
With Xbox, the most 'affordable' way to play is on a device you already have and pay just a 'small' monthly fee to play it - even if you have a Playstation, non-gaming PC/Laptop tablet etc everyone has a Smart Phone so they could play the games. You do not have to buy an Xbox branded box to play ANY Xbox game these days day and date - even if it's 'exclusive' to the Xbox ecosystem, every gamer can 'access' that ecosystem via countless devices. Even its 'only' releasing on Series S/X, PC's you could still play it via Game Pass streaming on a wide range of devices...
@uptownsoul on serious damage control! I’m sure Sony is grateful for your service.
Anyway Sony pays for timed exclusivity a lot more than Xbox.
Merry Christmas 🎄 Everyone.
@uptownsoul
even with call of duty they not going to be bigger than Sony
It's no surprise Sony is doing this, is a bit dirty perhaps and bla bla bla, but that's the corporate world. I do actually think Microsoft are a lot more open with how you can play games on their ecosystem than any other equivalent company out there. I think as a consumer you can play Xbox games in many different ways, even been playing some Octopath Traveler on my phone occasionally with xcloud and runs surprisingly good.
As far as consumers access to games go, I do truly think that if you wanted to play an Xbox "exclusive" you definitely could, many options put there (e.g series S dirt cheap in black Friday etc.) Monopoly wise, well... perhaps an argument to be had here but still MS doesn't force you to buy a Xbox to play it as said, yeah they'll see some part of the profit in various ways but I truly don't think is such a big deal. Could very well be wrong, but ultimately I don't care if the the deal doesn't come through we'll still be able to play AB games anyway; this is something worth remembering...
@uptownsoul And yes I do agree that 'both' have and continue to work with 3rd Party developers and 'invest' in their development in favour of some benefits to their customers, but that's part of the 'older/traditional' landscape and again you are looking at it as a 'Console' vs 'Console' perspective and Xbox is 'NOT' just a Console. Instead, consider it as different ecosystems - its just that Sony's is ALL limited to their Playstation, but Microsofts is EVERY gaming platform not 'owned' by Sony/Nintendo.
That means that 3rd Party deals that 'benefit' Playstation, are just those 25m+ console gamers who bought PS5, if it benefits 'Xbox', it benefits EVERY gamer, except those who 'ONLY' play on Playstation/Switch - which could be 'billions' of gamers.
If Sony had a Streaming service and their games were available day and date EVERYWHERE except Xbox consoles and Switch, I'd say the same - but that's the difference when you stop being a 'fanboy' blinkered console gamer and look at it in terms of the bigger picture, the ecosystems that each are representing, the reach of each and what that means for 'everyone' - from the cost to access which is a barrier for a 'luxury' item like a console and prevents many from playing - not just the 18-24 demographic with the disposable income to spend on games...
When you talk about 'benefits' to their respective 'ecosystem' - yes MS deals do benefit their Console gamers, but also the PC and/or Game Pass customers too which has the 'potential' to reach 'every' gamer, not just a select few...
@Dezzy70 Merry Christmas 🎄
@Dezzy70 Merry Christmas! 🎄
That's the pure truth and I said it on Friday's thread. Sony is the biggest "monopoly" or at least first on the ranking and yet they buy third-party exclusivity and third-party exclusive content to specifically damage the competition, mainly Xbox and Game Pass. That's paying other publishers to keep games and/or DLC away from the competition and that might be illegal soon, at least at this part of the Atlantic.
Imagine Sony being questioned about all their hypocrisy in court 😂.
Microsoft bad! No - Sony bad!
I'm glad Phil has spoken out about this and it really makes Sony look bad!
Xbox gas a much bigger first party family. Stupid comment, dont hide your own incompetence behind the competition
@cragis0001 the single most reason why I hate PlayStation
I have all three consoles, but I’m not blind enough to see what Microsoft are doing.
They are buying studios and gaming to become a gaming empire, as simple as that.
The more studios and developers you buy mainly the more games that hopefully gamers and general public want are on your eco system that then makes you money.
Why are Sony kicking up a fuss, well if Microsoft manage those studios well and create games everybody wants then it’s the Xbox eco system that people will buy into and not PlayStation, or at least take business away from playstation.
Phil’s back up ace card is, well put game pass cloud on playstation, which makes Sony look bad if they don’t, or Sony lose business if they don’t as people will buy into the Xbox eco system.
The big question if Microsoft do all this well and correctly is not if but when will Sony have to join some sort of Xbox eco system party or become smaller in the gaming world.
Playstation's stance over the ABK deal is that they seem to want Microsoft to be 'smaller' while they remain as is. Things like how Playstation owners are the only ones who can take advantage of a perk to get one of the SF2 versions on the in-game arcade completely free in Street Fighter 6,
And the ongoing exclusivity of numerous titles, with no end in sight over other systems.
Microsoft want to erase Sony's stack o' perks in CoD, and make all versions equal on all platforms, even if CoD Modern Warfare III is using Azure to stream to the Switch.
Sony promote inequality in the market, with most of their E3 and State Of Play presentations trumpeting about 'Only On Playstation' or 'Timed Exclusive' while failing to commit to future expansion to other systems.
Microsoft meanwhile want a more open gaming ecosystem, where you can get a phone or tablet, go to a website and play games as if you're on the latest console, and feature parity is a required part of multi-platform releases, and total transparency is also used over exclusivity periods.
Microsoft? Want you to play the games you enjoy, whatever system you own.
Sony? Just want you to buy a Playstation 4, 5, 6, 7, 8...
Sony made it clear in their arguments: they dont see XBox as friendly competition. They see XBox as something they need to defeat and destroy. I really am not sure how XBox continues to play nice with Sony after all this bad blood being thrown out there.
Sony has been telling the entire industry how little they think of all of them. Nintendo, EA, XBox, all of them have been insulted by Sony through this entire saga. I am not sure how they come out of this and keep friendly ties with quite a few of these players. Mind you, although Nintendo is not very expressive, I am sure they have zero sympathy for Sony.
Sony have pretty much told the entire industry 'I am the biggest company on the planet, what I say goes, you will do what I say, when I say it. I can buy any one of you if you step out of line'.
While Microsoft is building bridges by just sitting there and going 'We made the offer, they refused.'
@uptownsoul no read my comment #104. It’s a waste of resources in my opinion. I hate timed exclusives full stop; they are more annoying than anything. Even something like Final Fantasy VII Remake - it would be better if it was just simply announced as a permanent (console) exclusive because otherwise it just causes confusion and someone might wait to play it on Xbox etc. Looks like the same thing is about to happen with FFXVI.
If Sony or Microsoft does it, it is a waste of resources and it’s taking content away from people just to piss them off really. And yes both consoles will have their exclusives and thats fine; but timed is a different thing. I only forgive it when it’s either a small indie studio where releasing on one console first makes sense (like Fall Guys and even Rocket League); or the project is financed by the console maker (like maybe Octopath Traveller? Not sure about that one but things like that). So yes circumstance comes into it (especially with Indie releases); but if Xbox announced the next Assassins Creed or Need For Speed as timed exclusive I would not be impressed.
Anyway your defending of Sony knows no bounds. And either they really really appreciate all the time of your life you waste defending them… or they don’t give a shiny ***** about you. I wonder which one it is!
Sounds like Sony wants to have a monopoly on the gaming industry while they cry about competitors.
Also lol @ all the banned Sony fanboy comments. What is wrong with these people? Why are the always trying to invade and troll every other gaming community?
More people really ought to ignore or block uptownsoul, just a disingenuous troll and Sony fanboy.
For a change I’ve kept out of this topic.
Because it’s the same old now.
There is absolutely nothing anyone on here can do about it either way the result goes.
I’m sure Sony and Microsoft are not standing in your corner sticking up for you or fighting for you and your life.
They only thing both are fighting for is you hard earned money.
May peace be with us all.
@BAMozzy Really, really, really disagree with you. MS I'm thinking will look to give COD items timed exclusive or complete exclusive things. Much like Sony did and will be doing with destiny and even Harry Potter Hogwarts extra Sony exclusive level. Sony have done this garbage for years now.
Funny when they do it, they are ok with it. But moment someone else does it they cry and moan and throw huge temper tantrum like 2 year old that wants it toy back.
@GuyinPA75 Ever since the PS4 became a thing, Sony fanboys have been the worst and most toxic thing to happen to the gaming industry.
@JayJ To be fair, I’d say some of the male staff at studios Activision have, have been the most toxic and worst thing in the gaming industry.
As for fan base drama, Xbox tends to have far more immature fans on audio during gaming I’ve experienced, whereas Sony just bicker more online
But realistically I’ve seen **** been thrown on both sides since both came to be. I remember when the original Xbox was released, and there’s been nothing but trash thrown at people from either the Sony or Xbox community.
The majority of gamers don’t even comment on websites like these, otherwise they’d have hundreds of thousands if not millions of comments per article. So it’s important we remember these interactions with one another are a remarkably small percentage of the fan base.
If I mainly read Xbox stuff for a week, I see a lot of people defending Xbox, and hating Sony. Yet if I read Sony for a week, same in reverse.
The worst thing I’ve found in gaming has been lack of proper refunds being fully offered on some platforms for years, shipping unfinished products that would be illegal if it were another sales category in some cases, staff being treated like crap, customers in general being treated like wallets so openly, I mean the list goes on.
The fans of every corporation is a bad thing when defending a company. As all it serves to do is provide them free advertisement, and whilst I’m a fan of both PlayStation and Xbox, time is money, and if I’m to defend either one, I’ll be billing them.
In short: I’ve read people time again on here slate PlayStation and their fans, yet over on PushSquare I read them slate Xbox and their fans. Wherever I spend my time I just have to accept that it’s tribal and essentially everyone but the (sometimes) factual words in the article need to be ignored. As it’s usually free unpaid corporate advertising humans are doing off their own back just to feel self worth.
Yet just like an elite university, the main focus of these companies is always going to be on their parents wallet.
Ignore the trolls, and have a great Christmas matey! 🎉
Of course PlayStation is going to try and protect its market lead. Yes they do it different than Xbox and Spencer pointed it out. They don’t bring their games day and date to PC and they don’t put their games day and date on their subscription services. They don’t have to. They want to sell the games and that’s fine. Just a different strategy from Xbox.
The issue most of us have is the games Sony has been playing to try and get the Activision acquisition deal blocked. Claiming Xbox is going to do the things PlayStation already does. Insisting CoD will be exclusive when Xbox has been on record saying they weren’t going to pull it from PlayStation. Those are the issues many of us have with this situation. I’m hoping now that it’s going to end up in the courts, Ryan and Spencer can start acting like adults, but I’m not holding my breath on that.
I question this play on any system that MS talks of. Is streaming that good now? How is Fallout 4, Red Dead 2, or Dying Light 2 streamed when compared to play from internal storage and on a large screen?
Overall my favorite and most played games since PS2 are third party games. Sony to date has the better exclusives library compared to MS but on my PS3 & 4 it has only been Uncharted 1 & 2 that I have multiple plays and I would not trade those for any of my favorite multiplatform games.
MS purchasing companies to keep games from Sony is part of corporate warfare. I'll let the FTC and courts sort it out.
@EvilSilentFrame Spencer has been talking like an adult, well trying to anyways, but as for Ryan... yeah, he has a lot of work to do in that department.
Guys.....just play videogames. Stop caring so much about companies who dont care about us.
This is interesting insofar as the statement that when the buyout was first agreed upon Phil and Satya went over Jim's head and went straight to Ken Yoshida to detail CoD remaining on PS. I wonder how much of this drama is coming from Tokyo and how much is Jim running scorched earth to seem in control?
@Sakisa
More people really ought to ignore or block uptownsoul, just a disingenuous troll and Sony fanboy
I personally too think he is a Sony fanboy and he himself makes no qualms about it, but I think the best approach is to treat people like that as just white noise with which we engage from time to time 😁.
@Titntin
I've no time for Jim, whos even less likable, but at least he has the dignity to keep his thoughts or tantrums behind clossed doors
Ohhh, I don't know mate. A bit of digging in this whole takeover drama will show you that Jim throws plenty tantrums to rival a two year-old. And dignity with corporate bosses? Yeah, as likely as flying lead balloons...
That however is besides the point, because the REAL drama happens on gaming sites were both sets of fans make this more personal than an attack on a family member😅...First World problems and all that.
@Sol4ris Lol - agreed with all of it, I just don't see Jim briefing public news sites. He did release a public statement earlier in this mess when he felt that Phil was talking publicly about something they had talked of in private (this was the 'three year offer' thing).
Not seen him spreading fud since - but I'm sure someone will provide links if I'm wrong!
I have no time for either of them, but especially not when they are dropping comments like this in public.
No one is making Xbox smaller - they just don't want to allow them to swallow up the industry. For perspective Sonys entire dev studios number maybe 5000 employees. This deal ALONE is for 10000 dev staff.
Theres a legitimate argument to be made either way on this whole deal, but let’s not forget that Phil Spencer says he’s a white knight while playing a game of misdirection, insinuating that Xbox is a scruffy third place when they have the money to buy Activision in the first place. Meanwhile, Jim Ryan seems to think CoD is the Playstation fanbase in totality from some of these comments he’s made. It becomes apparent why Xbox releases so few exclusives and why Sony plays it so safe with their exclusives now from reading both companies’ comments on this whole deal. I surely hope this is swiftly decided, so we can move on to better things that make our industry look more savory. Whatever the result is, I just hope better things are done about Activision. I’m on the fence about who i support in this ordeal, but if MS does get Activision in the end, i truly hope the huge boost in developers helps them release some legitimate blockbusters internally.
Phil tells it as it is. Sony are being ridiculous, just as much as the FTC, it’ll all come out in court though. This deal will go through and if Sony aren’t careful, it’ll be with zero concessions for them.
@somnambulance "insinuating that Xbox is a scruffy third place when they have the money to buy Activision in the first place."
People get confused on this. Xbox is a scruffy third place (for now, pre-acquisition anyway). Xbox doesn't have the money to buy Activision, it's the parent organization that does through other industries. They're just using Windows/Office/Azure money as an investment to grow the Xbox business.
Sony on the other hand, PS IS their primary profit generator, and it's PS money they use as investments to grow some of their OTHER businesses in the same way. I'm sure Nikon and Pentax don't love that PlayStation keeps pouring money into Sony cameras for example.
" Jim Ryan seems to think CoD is the Playstation fanbase in totality "
For his part he's not wrong. By engagement hours and revenues, they could probably float on just CoD, Fortnite and GTA. They don't even need exclusives.
@Sol4ris @Titntin There's an argument to be made that Jim's endless silence is part of the problem with PS leadership currently though. It's kind of his job to be dong PR ("manipulating media" as you put it) or staffing someone that is....and he just doesn't, and when someone does, they suck at it, either throwing nonsensical tantrums, or throwing their weight around as inevitable. PS PR presence is "business men in a sealed room counting their money" which is a bad look for an entertainment company. Even Bob Iger's more personable than that. Still punchable, but more personable.
Their response to the 10 year Nintendo deal was classic Ryan era, calling it "smoke and mirrors" because they "don't believe CoD could run on Switch" (disingenuously ignoring that the deal almost certainly revolves around Nintendo's next hardware, not Switch), and that "Nintendo’s younger audience is not interested in the first-person shooter” (conveniently ignoring that CoD has been successful on Nintendo before, leaning into stereotypes of competitors they've used in marketing since the 90's, and ignoring Nintendo's own demographics chart for switch showing the median age in the 20-40 bracket.) Their PR comes from their own marketing department and they actually believe their own fallacies and use them as PR arguments.
The thing is Phil's not actually wrong about this. It's easy to laugh off stopping MS from a massive acquisition making them "smaller" as slimy but in a business sense what he's describing about Sony's overall strategy is absolutely true. Their strategy absolutely involves securing dominance by simply controlling key content so that competitors, can not grow market. Which is itself slimy because they can use their market leader position to not HAVE to buy large acquisitions like this, they can just pay for important content (including the exclusives in CoD) to lock down the market, an option available to them only because of their power as the overwhelming leader. Were they not the leader, publishers would not bite on meager offerings to tie content to them, but as-is they don't lose much market by locking to PS-only so it's worth the payout.
How do you compete against a market leader that's so entrenched they can cut off competition simply by paying relatively small stipends to lock down key tent-poles in key market segments? You don't. Which Sony counted on. Unless you're MS/Apple/Google/Amazon and you realize you can just buy the producer that's tilting the table.
There's no real win here. It seems unfair for MS to just buy up key producers, but on the other hand, if they don't, Sony just keeps tilting the table in their direction with nothing to change their inertia. It creates a lot of oxymorons. Allowing titanic company to make titanic acquisitions actually increases competition in the market because they're not the market leader in this market, and the actual market leader has worked out a bribe economy to have the industry wrapped around its finger. That's the ugly part. This wouldn't have ever happened had Sony not operated like an organized crime outfit complete with protection money. Something they started mid-PS4 generation. They no doubt thought they could just finish off xbox and have the market to themselves next to Nintendo, which they relentlessly spin as "for kids." (From the recent comment above, to Shu Yoshida mentioning he has it for his kids, they never stop talking about Nintendo being for kids. Well, that was before Jim threw Shu in the basement. After that he tweeted about his launch day XSX and Steam Deck. ) But it backfired, and MS decided to treat it as a core business rather than a side one, and that meant facing their full financial power. MS called Sony's bluff, is using Sony's own Sega-era tactics against them, and here we are.
One thing that gets lost in all this is what happens if there was no acquisition? Everyone keeps talking like "independent activision" is ideal, but there was never going to be an independent activision, they were up for sale. They were either going to sell to someone like MS or Amazon, or try like EA did with Comcast/AT&T, Disney, or go Tencent which actually feeds a bigger monster in this business than Microsoft. Or, like EA, would end up failing negotiation with all the above and maybe or maybe not go bankrupt, where their IP goes to auction and probably gets gobbled by Embracer.
There really was no good result no matter what, so it's a matter of picking lesser evils. Heck, even independent activision would suck, the company is a cesspit nobody likes working there, and the only thing of value they ever produce is CoD and t he occasional "good but not what it once was" Blizzard thing comes out.
@NEStalgia You make some reasonable points, well argued.
But you are seriously over stating 'securing dominance' by controlling key content. They have kept their dominance by making creative hardware and developing some of the best rated games of the last 10 years. The vast majority of titles, including some of the very best sellers, are not subject to these one off deals at all, and lets not forget, MS have all the money in the world to make their own deals and have done so in the past. Its up to them to explain why they have never pursued this options recently - they are certainly not averse to making similar deals as history clearly shows ($100 million to keep Rise of the Tomb Raider exclusive to Xbox for instance).
I'm afraid you are overstating the importance of such exclusivity deals, and trying to equate such deals on a few titles with the purchase of multi plat publisher of this scale is clearly seriously unbalanced. However, if you wish to use this flawed logic to support an argument in favour of this level of industry consolidation, I know I wont persuade you otherwise, I've been locked in these walls of text before and the one thing I learnt is that you give no ground at all, so there's no point in the debate!
I may not share your views, but I do at least appreciate the manner in which you share them and hope you have a great day.
@NEStalgia
The thing is Phil's not actually wrong about this. It's easy to laugh off stopping MS from a massive acquisition making them "smaller" as slimy but in a business sense what he's describing about Sony's overall strategy is absolutely true
That reply @Titntin was more about him saying that Jim has a more dignified approach or that he keeps his thoughts and tantrums behind close doors. That isn't the case of course, since Jim has spoken and shared his thoughts (I'll stop short of calling them tantrums) publicly on the deal.
The thing is Phil's not actually wrong about this. It's easy to laugh off stopping MS from a massive acquisition making them "smaller" as slimy but in a business sense what he's describing about Sony's overall strategy is absolutely true. Their strategy absolutely involves securing dominance by simply controlling key content so that competitors, can not grow market. Which is itself slimy because they can use their market leader position to not HAVE to buy large acquisitions like this, they can just pay for important content (including the exclusives in CoD) to lock down the market, an option available to them only because of their power as the overwhelming leader
I agree and you make a valid argument. My position is that regulators should seek concessions from Microsoft besides just COD, perhaps going as far as allowing them to release any/all ABK games on Gamepass day one, but with the caveat of keeping them multiplatform.
@Titntin Appreciated!
I'd say though that I think the value of PS exclusives is seriously overrated in terms of market power by the "enthusiast"/in the know/"journalist" crowd. Yes, they're highly rated, yes, they sell pretty well for a single platform title, but I don't think that's what secures PS's dominance in the mass market, and I'm pretty sure Jim, clueless as he can be, is very well aware of that, which is a big part of the drama. He's pretty clueless about his fans, but he's pretty savvy about his customers which is not actually the "fans."
They honestly don't need GoW as much as they need enough features secured in CoD to make it a "PS game" or as much as they need FF versions to "secure the J-gamer market", exclusive Hotwarts content to secure a pop culture tentpole as a "game best on PS", SFV secured to lock the whole fighting genre market to the platform, etc. They're shrewdly tactical with how they spend money, and a combination of little money targeting the right things combined with their market dominance makes it possible. If they are not dominant, their entire strategy crumbles because they lose the leverage to buy tactical content for relatively small payouts. Being dominant to begin with is the only way to use this tactic to remain dominant. That's why they're so worried. They do know this, and their whole strategy is dependent on no competitor leveling that playing field (by any means.)
Of the first party stable, it's the disney licensed content that's actually pulling in the big market for exclusivity more than their own IPs. IDK what made MS turn that down. Spiderman would have sold millions even if it were as bad as Crackdown 3.
Ok so I have a patch of land. I grow strawberries on it. I sell strawberries to Barry and Joe.
Joe buys lots of strawberries so he negotiated for some extra apples from me that he sells in a pack.
Barry buys a few strawberries to sell on there own. But Barry wants to start delivering a new pack of fruit straight to people's doors. He thinks if he packs it with a lot of strawberries people will sign up.
Barry wants to buy the land and all the strawberries for this purpose.
He offers me a good price and I accept.
Then Joe comes along and calls the cops saying I can't sell my land to Barry because he still wants not only the strawberries but also the apples.
How is this fair I say. Joe you can offer me more than Barry and the strawberry farm is yours. But Joe just wants his deal.
It is my farm and I now am already thinking about what I will do with the money. But I won't so it for a year or maybe at all because Joe is a *****.
I came for the comment and was not disappointed! 😂
Sony isn't going anywhere, no matter how much the try to play the poor cousins. MS is looking past exclusives to the future of streaming. Meanwhile, Sony is desperate to hold onto their cash cow of "exclusives."
I want Sony and MS competing by offering better products and services, not by trying to hoard content. Competition is good for the gamers, aka us. MS being forced to make CoD cross platform for 10 years is all but a guarantee it will remain so. MS won't want to cut off a larger profit margin for the sake of the console war when GP is performing so spectacularly.
Sony has gotten used to coasting to success on exclusives. That ship is sailing fast. High profile gamers/Streamers talking smack about Xbox aren't putting games in front of players. Maybe now Sony can try to compete with a better console, platform, AND services. Currently, the consoles are all but identical in power and speed. MS is eating Sony's lunch in the subscription model.
I look forward to the day when we can play with whomever we want regardless of console.
We still don’t know the ins and outs of the fine print here. Nintendo had nothing to lose by signing up to whatever terms Microsoft wanted because they don’t even have Call of Duty on Switch. The Sony deal could have locked them out of DLC, made it clear COD was coming to Game Pass day 1 or even cut off cross-platform play.
In the long-term I wonder how much value Call of Duty has as a franchise anyway? Traditionally it sells to a more casual sort of player who tends to buy their annual COD and FIFA releases for whatever console they own. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
But Microsoft and Sony are both losing money to these players. There is no way the 30% cut of FUT and COD DLC over a few years makes up for the loss made on selling them a console. Nintendo and Sony both make their profits from quality first party software and Microsoft have never been profitable with the Xbox at all.
Most of the COD money went to Activision but if COD becomes just another GamePass title and the casual players move over to Xbox there is no way they’re making that $70bn back any time soon.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...