DeepEnigma
Gold Member
This thread right now,
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Matt Booty: "We are in a unique position to spend Sony out of business"
- Thread starter BennyBlanco
- Start date
IFireflyl
Gold Member
Can we please stop spreading this lie? This was debunked forever ago. Console warriors need to be educated. Go read the SEC filing. Microsoft and Activision, per the SEC filing, state that Microsoft approached Activision to inquire about an acquisition.
This is just embarrassing at this point.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Yep. On a side note,
Publishers and developers shop around their exclusives or marketing deals, but that is never brought up in the great console war. Just mOnEyHaT™ for the evil enemy brand!
Last edited:
Sure dude sony never goes moneyhat hunting. Yes everyone begs jimbo for money lol.
Report: Sony Contacted All Major Third Parties for Exclusivity Deals, Offered More Money Than Microsoft
Report: Sony Contacted All Major Third Parties for Exclusivity Deals, Offered More Money Than Microsoft Kinda Funny’s Imran Khan said: There isn’t a major third party out there Sony failed to approach asking what kind of deals they could work out. Some had content, some had games, some had...
Three interpreting the context and content of an email from 2019 at his convenience and pretending that it is evidence of something new and relevant... Didn't expect any less.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Oh, the horror! MS was doing the same thing, they just couldn't get them cheaper. Phil admitted to that on the stand.Sure dude sony never goes moneyhat hunting. Yes everyone begs jimbo for money lol.
Report: Sony Contacted All Major Third Parties for Exclusivity Deals, Offered More Money Than Microsoft
Report: Sony Contacted All Major Third Parties for Exclusivity Deals, Offered More Money Than Microsoft Kinda Funny’s Imran Khan said: There isn’t a major third party out there Sony failed to approach asking what kind of deals they could work out. Some had content, some had games, some had...www.neogaf.com
This is a normal business practice, you nonce. Always has been. What isn't normal, is buying up all the largest third party publishers on a failing console and studio management brand.
It's always been an ebb and flow, either console brands approach with a, "what you got for us to see," or the pub/dev contacts the console brand with, "we have something you might be interested in."
But thanks for proving my point. That didn't take long at all.
Last edited:
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
JCK75
Member
I'm not a console warrior, I own them all.. I prefer PC and will be fine either way.
I don't like third party exclusives and the entire practice bugs the shit out of me
You just cannot convince me MS doing this is worse than the standard practices
if we are going to talk about educating on issues the quote we are arguing about was spending a few billion to secure exclusives not to buy a company.
And legally no matter how much it hurts our feels.. there is no reason MS cannot go through with this other than a bunch of nonsense about how people feel about it.
Calling 911 Melts Beams
Banned
what good is booty if you aint gonna spend it on grog and wenches?
Long Far Gone
Member
Microsoft, the monopolistic corporation, attempting to corner another monopoly? Shocking.
I think it's obvious now that MS is going to take the hit on making CoD exclusive if it means driving Sony to the wall. I can see why they bought Bungie.
I think it's obvious now that MS is going to take the hit on making CoD exclusive if it means driving Sony to the wall. I can see why they bought Bungie.
Last edited:
IFireflyl
Gold Member
Absolutely nothing you said has anything to do with me correcting your incorrect assertion that Activision approached Microsoft about this acquisition. That was the main thesis of my post. Stop spreading that lie. If you're not going to try to be educated on the acquisition, perhaps you should consider not posting about the acquisition.
JCK75
Member
that's what was reported on multiple sites, the common response has been that Kotick wanted a lifeline and that Google+Amazon said no.
Again Microsoft has every right to seek out games, publishers, studios to strengthen it's brand.
There is no legal reason to stop it.
I'm not trying to be educated on the Acquistition, I'm stating what sites had reported and the actual argument is nothing but feelings on the issue.
Last edited:
Mr.Phoenix
Member
You are just saying a lot of nonsense and untruths.
Yes, sony spent a fortune when they came into the game business, I said as much. But again.. how? They paid developers to make PS versions of their games. Not for exclusives, but to make PS versions. They offered lower royalties (30% vs the around 50% Nintendo was asking for) and gave third-party publishers more control over their IPs (third-party publishers could actually print their discs,vs Nitendo's policy of making all carts).. Mind you, things that Nintendo wasn't doing but that Sega already did.
None of that is bad.. or competing in bad faith. Developers didn't shift away from Nintendo because Sony bought them, they did because Nintendo stubbornly stuck to carts and their at that point, antiquated third-party policies. And all the other stuff you dismissed, saying I am saying MS is just evil.... well thats your conscience talking right there. Because I never said MS is evil, i said Sony is basically playing off the playbook MS created.
like if you are going to talk, then talk based on facts instead of doing this smart-ass nonsense but ultimately making no point. No one is saying MS should not leverage their resources, but to do it like they are doing it is competing in bad faith... its consolidation, its bad for the industry and the exact opposite of what they are even publicly claiming they are doing. and the proof of that is even evident in the fact that MS will never and has never openly admitted what they are actually doing. Is that MS is there playing the victim when they are the ones that spearheaded these practices.
And don't be silly, no one is saying MS needs to acquire the whole industry... you know what nvm... I have already explained this. There is no point. Carry on.
Last edited:
Kilau
Member
It’s funny how this statement is always followed with console warrior level justification.
havent they showed they are kind of following up on that though. What is it? 76? Billion, just for the two deals of Zenimax and ABK... so far... and now talks of Sega and no doubt their eyes on other huge pubs
PharaoTutAnchAmun
Member
It was Booty, what did you expect??
Don’t send that shit in an email bro.
I saw an interview with Phil and Booty, Booty was answering a question...and i saw on Phil's face that he was thinking: "Booty shut the fuck up, let me do the talking."
JCK75
Member
What justification? What am I justifying?
that I hate the practices but see no difference between them?
Unknown?
Member
Well they only have themselves to blame for that poor management.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Again, you’re just wrong. Sony had exclusive deals all the way back to PSone. We know this. Learn your history please, before talking down to others about facts. Nothing more needs to be said on the matter.
sloppyjoe_gamer
Gold Member
I'd expect a comment like that from someone with a last name like that.
PharaoTutAnchAmun
Member
When Apple would make a console, it would go on sale for about $2000, cous hey....you want the best you have to pay.
Proof? The Apple VR headset is yours for for the low price of $3.500
Last edited:
Kilau
Member
Yes, because you “refuse” to see the difference in anti consumer exclusivity deals and buying the largest 3rd party publisher.
They are clearly not comparable but you justify it by saying they are no different.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Unable to parse context and nuance is a you problem.
JCK75
Member
What is the difference other than scale?
If buying studios and properties is OK, it becomes wrong when it's more popular properties?
If I'm looking at the track record between MS and Sony as to which one supports more platforms MS has the best record.
Last edited:
Kilau
Member
What’s the point in this? You already said you cannot be convinced. Move along.
Gobjuduck
Banned
Irrelevant.
Xbox believes gamepass is a way to stand out against sony. Getting day one content like starfield and CoD is a way to support gamepass, and hurt sony.
You sony fans think gamepass is a money pit and only is hurting Xbox, so you shouldn’t be worried. Has starfield and redfall being exclusive really killed Sony?
Sony had private statements contradicting what they told regulators too dude.
Like this is damaging…
The console market argument is such a joke. Almost all regulators ditched the console aspect of the acquisition. Only the UK latched on the cloud market.
These emails might only concern the EC, because they are the only regulators who pressed Xbox on exclusivity regarding Bethesda.
It should be OBVIOUS that Xbox IS SPENDING to gain market share (aka hurt Sony). You don’t need private booty emails saying what’s obvious.
Last edited:
Gamer_By_Proxy
Member
Apple's headset is a laptop for your face. I don't even consider it a VR headset. Not comparable at all to gaming VR headsets.When Apple would make a console, it would go on sale for about $2000, cous hen you want the best you have to pay.
Proof? The Apple VR headset is yours for for the low price of $3.500
But they could have a console, have your subscription work on all apple devices, ipad, iphone, apple tv, etc.
They could get a pretty good foothold pretty easily and they make a ton of gaming revenue via their store as it is. So they have the money to blow.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
And again... nonsense. Of course, they did. As did Nintendo. Everyone has exclusive deals. Here or there.It's one thing having an exclusive deal, or paying for exclusives... its another thing buying out a publisher that takes that option off the table period. What the fuck are you even talking about?
Nintendo also had exclusive deals... and lets not even get started on the kinda shady practices Nintendo pulled back then. By the time Sony came in, they were literally looked at as a savior lol... you know your previous boss was fucked up when you are praising a new boss for sticking it to you less. The funny thing is, if Nintendo had just adopted CDs, and a royalty publishing model akin to what Sega and Sony used (both things the eventually adopted mind you), the PlayStation would never have been the success that it became. Here is a shocking fact, PlayStation didn't win the 5th generation, Nintendo lost it. FF7, RE1/2, and MGS... would have all been Nintendo 64 games.
Because I do not say something, does not mean I am saying that thing I never said never happened... and that you are repeatedly doing that shit is arguing in bad faith. Argue based on what I am saying.. not what I didn't mention.
I didn't bother mentioning that Sony had exclusive deals then because Nintendo had them too. A shit ton of them at that that were third party. and furthermore... Nintendo had been doing that shit since the NES... long before Sony even came into the industry.
So again, what is your point?
Last edited:
Unknown?
Member
Nothing he said was wrong though. Sony didn't start by buying up all the biggest franchises, they made their own and partnered with 3rd parties.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
That's why I'm super happy for the Steam Deck's success. Not only is it rapidly improving Proton it's also getting more studios to make Linux-native games.
PropellerEar
Member
Is it a success?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Look at Satya Nadella sitting to his left. Wonder what state secrets they bought
Corrupt as hell.
Last edited:
Kilau
Member
Look at Satya Nadella sitting to his left. Wonder what state secrets they bought
Bumblebeetuna
Member
So you’ve gone from “MS started the exclusive stuff” to “Sony didn’t pay to take content from Nintendo or Sega, they paid to have developers also make a PS version” to “they didn’t pay for exclusives, they paid for PS versions” to “uh well yeah everyone has exclusives!” blah blah. I should be the one asking you what your point is. Who cares. Again, learn your history. Everything you’re saying is wrong, regardless of how many times to try to shift the goalposts.
Basically you’re upset about the difference between paying to keep a developers games off of other platforms versus paying to buy the developer. Cool. I disagree.
If Capcom was in a dire place why did they also port a copy to Xbox after they created the PS version?
Bumblebeetuna
Member
He said Sony didn’t start by spending money. That’s false. He also said Sony didn’t pay to keep games off other platforms, also wrong. They did both of those, even games with an established player base on a Sega platform, like Tomb Raider. It’s irrelevant, who cares. These are all businesses.
Dr_Ifto
Member
Because they were in a better place, and maybe Sony allowed it?
Mr.Phoenix
Member
jesus....
I never said MS started the `exclusive stuf`, I said they started, timed exclusives, timed dlc... and now buying publishers.
ok. I give up.
S
Street Fighter 5 was released on Xbox? Genuine question as I didn’t know.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
You are a flat-out liar... and my post in this thread are proof of that.That you have to outright ie to make a point you dont even have says very disturbing things about the kinda person you are....
and that tomb raider thing you are even saying...you arek the one that doesn't now your facts. Yes Sony made an exclusive deal. They were not cutting out Nintendo, cause it never launched on the N64. They cut out the sega saturn tho, which mind you, was already a dying platform by the time tomb raider 2 was released... whch is the first entry that was exclusive to PS. Established player base? The sega saturn? Really?....
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Sony helped fund SF5, MS helped fund Dead Rising. They both chose what they wanted to fund.
I get that. I just hot confused that someone above said “port a copy to xbox…”
Unknown?
Member
What he said is they spent most of their money on making PS versions of their games.
Tomb Raider they didn't even continue TR3 was multiplatform.
hinch7
Member
They don't care. They print money from Windows, Office and Azure. And can afford to pump in money into Xbox and cloud until it becomes THE place to go for cloud gaming. Thats why they don't see Sony as competition. Sony simply can't compete with how much backing MS has. And only see's Amazon, Google and other big tech as a potential competitor(s). Now that both Google and Amazon have largely scaled back their cloud services after some failed launches, MS has free reign in that market.
By aquiring ABK they not can starve Sony from their big USP, but also can break in the mobile market with King and ofc ABK IP's. AND have some crazy leverage over massive IP's which they can force people to use their services (eventually).
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
He probably meant to say, "didn't."
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
Nope.
You're contradicting yourself. You spent money on Zenimax to provide content such as Starfiled day one. The same goes with Call of Duty. Those are acquired content
2019 was the beginning of their plan. It hasn't stopped after acquiring Zenimax.
And MS has a lot more as far as we know and Sony isn't the one trying to buy a major publisher.
They ditched it because they believe Sony would still be the market leader even if they decide to make Call of Duty exclusive.
CMA specifically mentioned making Call of Duty exclusivity as a reason why it might hurt cloud competition and make it harder for others to compete.
It should be obvious that this email is not irrelevant. Your comment offers nothing to prove that point wrong.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
And you’re still wrong. Timed exclusives go all the way back to Atari and have basically existed in every console generation. Still waiting on pins and needles for you to connect the dots as to why any of this matters.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked