James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
Apples and oranges, how does that work?
Why doesn’t Microsoft sign a deal with Sony to market Bungie’s games?
Because anyone with a brain knows that marketing spend is better served on your own titles
-
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.
Apples and oranges, how does that work?
Why doesn’t Microsoft sign a deal with Sony to market Bungie’s games?
Because anyone with a brain knows that marketing spend is better served on your own titles
Salty Popsicle
Banned
I never said I believe this. But if you take a gander at the Microsoft/Activision merger thread, almost every single person against this deal was saying that Microsoft's end goal was to have Sony go out of business.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
No, you will be looking at more acquisitions and foreclosures on both sides of the aisle like MS has done for almost all of its properties thus far
Last edited:
THE DUCK
voted poster of the decade by bots
What? Ms doesn't need this at all, they were 100% buying Cod to make it all exclusive. They don't need the cash flow, and we're totally prepared to sacrifice it to grow gamepass long term.
ByWatterson
Member
They were gonna do something exclusive-y, but full exclusivity was never a realistic possibility (Warzone, at the very least, would have been there).
Last edited:
Ulysses 31
Member
Chukhopops
Member
That’s cool for everyone involved. Shows that despite fierce competition, nobody really wants to kill the chicken that lays golden eggs every year.
Thirty7ven
Banned
They will double down on it and some people will beg for MS to break the contract and make COD exclusive.
Last edited:
Salty Popsicle
Banned
Capitalism =/= Meritocracy
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
The negotiations between Sony & ABK would have been done on the grounds of ABK operating as an independent corporation, not as a subsidiary under Microsoft. That's how they would have been legally required to operate prior to the close of the deal. And, at least back a few months earlier into the year, I'd say after the CMA's block, Sony had the most leveraging power.
They could have easily stipulated Day 1 exclusion clauses for Game Pass since ABK themselves seem generally apprehensive towards doing anything Day 1 for any subscription service. It would not have costed Sony that much, either. And, that's in addition to still having marketing rights, preferred early beta access, and various DLC & MTX perks. Anything Microsoft would have wanted would have been ignored, because they did not own ABK yet, and ABK is legally required to operate in the best interests of an independent entity until the actual acquisition is completed (and that's if it's even completed; back in March it seemed very unlikely that would have been the case).
Nothing stops people from buying multiple platforms to access the games they want. Let's just stop this fake "pro-consumer" BS; MS have 1P & PLENTY of 3P exclusives too, as does Nintendo.
"Gamers" have no issue buying multiple devices to play their games. It's the weird single-platform types who either can't afford (not the fault of console makers BTW), don't want to buy multiple systems, or are shills for a very specific company, that have adopted this "exclusives are bad" mentality.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It's not apples to oranges, MS was not given the option to be Bungie's exclusive marketing partner for year(s) after they got acquired, Sony was and Jim refused it.
Sony would still get the same platform holder share from sales, the only difference is that Activision now reports to a different parent company. That wouldn't change how much money Sony would get from the sales and even more related to the exclusive marketing.
Fabieter
Member
Ninja gaiden black is still xbox exclusives. Gears started as a moneyhat, dead rising 1-3 way moneyhattey. Dead rising 4 was timed exclusives to xbox. Titanfall 1 with the argueable better multiplayer never made it to Playstation and there is a big upcoming game in stalker 2 which also isn't releasing on Playstation. Yet sony never bought a big publisher. Talking about double standards. The victim complex is something else. They both suck I get it but consolidation is still considerably worse.
DAHGAMING
Member
To be fair if I had the chance I would eat hes shit direct from hes anus, id suck it out.
Syphon Filter
Member
COD is mainly casuals and casuals dont care where the game is, they just want to play the game.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
I think part of this is a realization from MS that if they really wanted to Extinguish Sony they'd need to buy essentially the entire industry, that even with Activision it's just not going to happen fast enough to keep shareholders happy. I honestly don't know if we get another dedicated home console from Xbox or not even with this win.
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
Activision is not going to negotiate a deal as an independent entity after already selling themselves to Microsoft
The only casual talks with Bobby occurred assuming the deal were to fail
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
Because Microsoft didn’t propose a good enough marketing deal. If they wanted it, they could have afforded it
It makes zero sense to fund/capitalize and invest into entrenching yourself even more to CoD when there’s high risk of it going away in 10 years
Last edited:
GHG
Gold Member
Fabieter
Member
You will see sony buying more ips and publishers. It will get worse as it is now.
M1987
Member
Buying Activision and FF being PlayStation exclusive is completely different ffs
Last edited:
MarkMe2525
Member
This is what I'm saying. Sony hasn't released a homegrown fps since signing it's original marketing agreements with Destiny and CoD.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Kenneth Haight
Gold Member
Sony will now be forced to respond. I imagine Square, Capcom and many others are having serious conversations about acquisition now if not already at an advanced stage. This opens the door for basically any publisher/dev to get purchased at any time.
dem
Member
The problem with Microsoft is they aren’t cool. They were never cool… they will never be cool. They are almost incapable of art. Even the low bar that counts for “art” in gaming. They are a dork ass software company. They are Jay Allard in a hoodie.
I say this as someone who sees nothing wrong with MS buying Activision. That’s exactly what they should be doing. This isn’t a monopoly.
Sony is a media empire in all aspects. They know cool. They know the culture. They somehow made boring ass Gran Turismo into an interesting looking movie. Sony will be the dominant player for a long time. They will be fine.
I say this as someone who sees nothing wrong with MS buying Activision. That’s exactly what they should be doing. This isn’t a monopoly.
Sony is a media empire in all aspects. They know cool. They know the culture. They somehow made boring ass Gran Turismo into an interesting looking movie. Sony will be the dominant player for a long time. They will be fine.
Last edited:
MarkMe2525
Member
I wouldn't mind seeing a source that disputes my understanding of the situation, but I thought I read that the agreement you are referring to is MS agreement with Nvidia for GeForce Now. This is Nvidia's standard agreement with publishers as they only make money from the use of their cloud servers, and not the games themselves.
Syphon Filter
Member
GHG
Gold Member
* After 10 years
You'll be an old man like me by then.
At that point you'll only take part in these discussions for the banter due to lacking the necessary reflexes to even play COD.
M1987
Member
Last time I checked Gears,Halo and Forza wasn't on my PS5
Last edited:
PatientGamer
Member
Now this deal is all but done, I'm curious as to what Sony's strategy will be next? To retaliate with a purchase of their own? Or more investment in their own properties.
Now Microsoft are essentially 3rd and 1st party; they don't even need to sell consoles to compete anymore as revenue and active paying subscribers is the name of the game now.
Now Microsoft are essentially 3rd and 1st party; they don't even need to sell consoles to compete anymore as revenue and active paying subscribers is the name of the game now.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
You'll be an old man like me by then.
At that point you'll only take part in these discussions for the banter due to lacking the necessary reflexes to even play COD.
I will train the next Adam in all the ways of his forefathers. Never forget the valiant efforts of one Major Larry Hryb. He fought for our right.
Last edited:
GHG
Gold Member
No, you don't understand. It's only ok for Microsoft to have 1st and 3rd party exclusives.
MarkMe2525
Member
I don't believe Sony would want to lose their 20-30% cut of sales revenue.
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
Thanks to your buddies at microsoft, you will be looking down at more mergers, more foreclosures, more exclusives. Think video streaming services. That's our future, thanks to your friends.
Bumblebeetuna
Gold Member
The extension offered by ABK was before the deal was done. It wasn’t to a rival.
Also, the deal would have kept marketing on PS and prevented the games from going into GamePass. Your argument is purely an emotional one, not a logical one.
Sony wouldn’t look at it as “omg we’re paying to market an XGS game!”. They’d look at it as “omg I am too busy counting these nearly one billion of annual revenue these games bring in to care who publishes it. They’re also blocked from GamePass!”
At the end of the day these companies don’t care about feelings or console warz they care about money.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
No, 20~30% sounds small on paper but when you realize that it's 20~30% of a multi billion total, it would be stupid. Quite frankly any "fan" whose saying things like Sony should boycott and refuse certification, they're gonna make Sony lose a not-insignificant chunk of the PS brands revenue stream.
Last edited:
Malcolm9
Member
A monster to deal with like Halo was?
Salty Popsicle
Banned
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
It was offered under the assumption that the deal were to fail
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
MS has a ton of money and theoretically could afford to do this, but it would be insanely stupid. MS didn't get to be a $2.5T by being insanely stupid. They'd lose billions in lost PS sales and fines.And on the other side of those arguments we had some folks saying the moment the deal was done then Microsoft would be free to yank COD away from PS and regulators could do nothing about it. So all kind of theories have come out of this drama. I find myself repeatedly asking people why they think Phil Spencer is a blatant liar because many are still convinced COD will be exclusive.
WilliamB
Neo Member
So nothing more, huge win to Microsoft it seems.
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
That’s always was going to be the end of this acquisition.
MarkMe2525
Member
It depends, in MS eyes their ideal situation is people join for CoD to then stay for other titles. That's what all the studios are for. It's always a risk, so all they can do is play their cards and hope for a good draw. Time will tell if it works out.
Where did they gain leverage for better terms? Does MS even need this deal in order to publish the game on Playstation. Is Sony in the habit of blocking the release of games that generate as much revenue for them as CoD? I really don't think so.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked