@BBB the difference is that a) I think in 25 years insomniac had like 2 titles that weren't exclusive to PlayStation and that Sony didn't own the IP/have the publishing rights to the ip for. Most of housemarques games were funded by Sony and as for guerilla games I think they released one flop of a multiplatform title sometime in the early 1990's? The thing is here without working with Sony and without dony's funding none of these developers would be what they are today. Sony grew those developers into what they are today. That's healthy for the industry. Microsoft is just buying developers that are already successful multiplatform developers with multiple AAA titles under their belt and a publisher with the rights to literally hundreds of IP.
Also the price they are paying fir the company is a questionable one, I know there are actually court cases occuring that the company's own investors and board have taken out over the fact that clearly activision is worth more than they are being bought for. Just look at how much money call of duty made in the past year and what MW2 and warzone 2 are on track to make over the next 12 months. That one franchise makes the price for activision look cheap that's before you look at King mobile games and franchises like warcraft, diablo and Starcraft to name but a few.
@BBB you can't have actually just said something so dense? If the studio has been multiplatform for like 2 decades (as is the case with all activisiton studios and Bethesda studios) then as a general rule anything they were working on woukd have been a multiplatform title and released on all platforms. Even with a timed exclusivity deal it eventually releases on other platforms just with a delay. So not publishing new entries in existing IP on other platforms, or new IP in development for years already - games like starfield. Buying these studios that have always been multiplatform studios and restricting their output is without ding content from a large number of gamers. It is not the same as a first party studio Sony have owned since the ps1- crating a NEW IP and releasing it as an exclusive. That is VERY different to restricting the output of a previously 3rd party developer and purchasing multiplatform developers and making them exclusive ones.
@Green-Bandit This is completely incorrect. A) the uk is actually a pretty significant market for gaming. B) It isn't just the UK, the EU regulatory have been saying almost exactly the same thing. C) the companies are multinational and operate in the uk- therefore technically the deal can't go ahead without uk approval. If you actually read the UK's CMA initial findings and responses to Microsofts response you woukd realise thst the UK CMA actually only considered the issue of Sony and console markets as their final point, almost an afterthought. Their primary concerns relate to a monopoly in the game streaming and gaming subscription services area of the business and that due to how expensive and time consuming it is to setup server infrastructure that the costs of entry may mean it's not viable for new competitors to enter the market, or for companies like amazon or gogogle tot take the risk. With all the existing IP's MS could make exclusive to their streaming services as a result of this deal it could according to thr regulator tip the balance and give them a monopoly in thjs area. That is their primary concern.
@OriginalDrGonzo so moat of anyway studios they helped fund from their early stages and built up to what they are today. The one exception woukd be the recent purchase of bungie but that isn't their normal purchase- they aren't part of the first party PlayStation studios and sit separately as a multiplatforn developer. But that is one studio. There is nothing wrong with Microsoft having its own exclusive studios. Nothing wrong with them working together with indie studios on ip's that are xbox only titles and purchasing those studios eventually.
There is however everything wrong and it is awful for the health of the gaming industry in general for them to come along and purchase whole publishers acquiring a multitude of big established developer most of whom have been multiplatform developers for decades.
The reason why is because one method grows the industry and creates new jobs and new IP. The other method doesn't grow the industry, restricts gamers choices and simply blocks IP of various platforms permanently.
It's completely incomparable to temporary 3rd party timed exclusivity deals etc. Something Microsoft basically introduced as the norm and could organise plenty of, if they wanted.
Comments 5
Re: Jim Ryan Denies Sony Is Misleading Regulators Over Xbox's Activision Blizzard Deal
@BBB the difference is that a) I think in 25 years insomniac had like 2 titles that weren't exclusive to PlayStation and that Sony didn't own the IP/have the publishing rights to the ip for. Most of housemarques games were funded by Sony and as for guerilla games I think they released one flop of a multiplatform title sometime in the early 1990's? The thing is here without working with Sony and without dony's funding none of these developers would be what they are today. Sony grew those developers into what they are today. That's healthy for the industry. Microsoft is just buying developers that are already successful multiplatform developers with multiple AAA titles under their belt and a publisher with the rights to literally hundreds of IP.
Also the price they are paying fir the company is a questionable one, I know there are actually court cases occuring that the company's own investors and board have taken out over the fact that clearly activision is worth more than they are being bought for. Just look at how much money call of duty made in the past year and what MW2 and warzone 2 are on track to make over the next 12 months. That one franchise makes the price for activision look cheap that's before you look at King mobile games and franchises like warcraft, diablo and Starcraft to name but a few.
Re: Jim Ryan Denies Sony Is Misleading Regulators Over Xbox's Activision Blizzard Deal
@Jaded_Uniped timed. It will come to other platforms.
Re: Jim Ryan Denies Sony Is Misleading Regulators Over Xbox's Activision Blizzard Deal
@BBB you can't have actually just said something so dense? If the studio has been multiplatform for like 2 decades (as is the case with all activisiton studios and Bethesda studios) then as a general rule anything they were working on woukd have been a multiplatform title and released on all platforms. Even with a timed exclusivity deal it eventually releases on other platforms just with a delay. So not publishing new entries in existing IP on other platforms, or new IP in development for years already - games like starfield. Buying these studios that have always been multiplatform studios and restricting their output is without ding content from a large number of gamers. It is not the same as a first party studio Sony have owned since the ps1- crating a NEW IP and releasing it as an exclusive. That is VERY different to restricting the output of a previously 3rd party developer and purchasing multiplatform developers and making them exclusive ones.
Re: Jim Ryan Denies Sony Is Misleading Regulators Over Xbox's Activision Blizzard Deal
@Green-Bandit This is completely incorrect. A) the uk is actually a pretty significant market for gaming. B) It isn't just the UK, the EU regulatory have been saying almost exactly the same thing. C) the companies are multinational and operate in the uk- therefore technically the deal can't go ahead without uk approval. If you actually read the UK's CMA initial findings and responses to Microsofts response you woukd realise thst the UK CMA actually only considered the issue of Sony and console markets as their final point, almost an afterthought. Their primary concerns relate to a monopoly in the game streaming and gaming subscription services area of the business and that due to how expensive and time consuming it is to setup server infrastructure that the costs of entry may mean it's not viable for new competitors to enter the market, or for companies like amazon or gogogle tot take the risk. With all the existing IP's MS could make exclusive to their streaming services as a result of this deal it could according to thr regulator tip the balance and give them a monopoly in thjs area. That is their primary concern.
Re: Jim Ryan Denies Sony Is Misleading Regulators Over Xbox's Activision Blizzard Deal
@OriginalDrGonzo so moat of anyway studios they helped fund from their early stages and built up to what they are today. The one exception woukd be the recent purchase of bungie but that isn't their normal purchase- they aren't part of the first party PlayStation studios and sit separately as a multiplatforn developer. But that is one studio. There is nothing wrong with Microsoft having its own exclusive studios. Nothing wrong with them working together with indie studios on ip's that are xbox only titles and purchasing those studios eventually.
There is however everything wrong and it is awful for the health of the gaming industry in general for them to come along and purchase whole publishers acquiring a multitude of big established developer most of whom have been multiplatform developers for decades.
The reason why is because one method grows the industry and creates new jobs and new IP. The other method doesn't grow the industry, restricts gamers choices and simply blocks IP of various platforms permanently.
It's completely incomparable to temporary 3rd party timed exclusivity deals etc. Something Microsoft basically introduced as the norm and could organise plenty of, if they wanted.