Jim Ryan: "[Microsoft is] a tech giant with a long history of dominating industries, the choices gamers have today will disappear"

sinnergy

Member
😄 I'm being completely serious. They call it third party content and for Bloodborne say it's being excluded from xbox.



Bloodborne is a Sony owned IP and Sony published game. If it's third party content being excluded from xbox then I guess Ori, Recore, Quantum Break, and Ryse are third party content excluded from PS.

Sony owns Genshin Impact?
 

Gavon West

Member
I don’t know why ppl advocate for publishers to be swallowed up then attempt whataboutism, “if it were Sony…” to justify a point that doesn’t exist.

If you want it to be on gamepass, just say that. 😂

I don’t believe MS needs to purchase Activision-Blizzard anymore than Sony does. They both have TONS of games in development. Get those out first.
Crazy. It's like ABK didn't actually put themselves out there to be bought. lol. People acting like Microsoft just busted up in ABK and said, "Bish! We come to own y'all! Don't say a word and no one gets hurt!"

You can't have a sell without a seller! If ABK wants to actually sell themselves, and another company has the money to meet the requirements, there is no finger to point. It's business!
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Crazy. It's like ABK didn't actually put themselves out there to be bought. lol. People acting like Microsoft just busted up in ABK and said, "Bish! We come to own y'all! Don't say a word and no one gets hurt!"

You can't have a sell without a seller! If ABK wants to actually sell themselves, and another company has the money to meet the requirements, there is no finger to point. It's business!

Lots of people here confuse a mutually agreed upon merger as a hostile takeover, it's weird.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
If you want to feel better go on.

Also is not like Microsoft lacks studios
They have double than Sony already lol

You would have a point if Microsoft had like a couple of studios. Your arguments doesn't hold ground at all
And way back before MS started buying up studios, Sony surely had more game studios than MS. Sony probably had more than MS and Nintendo combined. Yet they still kept buying up studios too.

So all this really is is a see saw match of who buys studios this year, and then next year the other guy buys some.

I doubt you have ever complained once at at Sony acquisition.
 

Swift_Star

Banned
No, they are just listing "third-party" games PS has and they don't, in a bid to suggest they are on the back foot.
MS can pay them to port to Xbox, irrelevant point.
Lots of people here confuse a mutually agreed upon merger as a hostile takeover, it's weird.
To regulators that’s also irrelevant.

You people go miles and are in denial about Microsoft moves and goals. It’s amazing how people treat MS as some poor baby that aren’t doing anything bad while pursuing consolidation in the market. It’s worrying that they’re buying the biggest third party publishers and it’s even worse when they’re saying they’re not stopping. But go on living in fantasy land where MS can do nothing wrong and is just “competing”.
Thank goodness regulators are not that gullible.
 

DryvBy

Member
Is he really that terrified of losing Call of Duty?

Everyone should be. One of the biggest games being bought by a company that doesn't utilize the companies they buy very well.

I love the Xbox Series X after previously mocking it. It's the 2nd best Xbox they've ever put out as far as just style and hardware. Their game library even under Phil is atrocious. Forza is the only reason I play on it. Their entire library feels like early access and I hate it.

Will Activision be different? Who knows but I love COD and I don't want them making it more GaaS than it already is.
 

Neo_game

Member
Startups are built with prosperity technology in the sole purpose to be sold.

How are you going to try to dicate the basis of all buyouts based on video games?

I hope you do t actually think this is how business works.

lol. Activision is not a startup. It is a huge video game company. I know it is normal for companies to buy patent stuff and tech from smaller companies or buy them out as they see fit.
 

SLB1904

Banned
.

I doubt you have ever complained once at at Sony acquisition.
We are not the same.

I always made my feelings known about this buyout shit.
Bungie for me was the one who sticks out like sore thumb.

Small or new studios > any big publisher or game studio that releases the same shit over and over.
I want new games not the same crap the we already play to death.

I always said if Sony had to buy a studio it would be kojima, Insomniac, Housemarque and bluepoint.
 
Last edited:
And way back before MS started buying up studios, Sony surely had more game studios than MS. Sony probably had more than MS and Nintendo combined. Yet they still kept buying up studios too.

So all this really is is a see saw match of who buys studios this year, and then next year the other guy buys some.

I doubt you have ever complained once at at Sony acquisition.

As long as Sony doesn't buy a major publisher I won't complain about them. If they buy someone like Capcom that would be an issue even though Capcom isn't as large as Activision.
 
This deal would be great for xbox gamers but overall bad for the industry, buying one publisher was shocking enough but to buy two in such quick succession might just be a bridge too far for regulators. I would argue that if MS were more transparent after the Bethesda purchase then maybe Sony wouldn't be making such a big fuss because no doubt things have gotten ugly lol feels like the 90s all over again.
 
Not talking about regulators, talking about forum posters, a lot of us often have very spicy uninformed takes.

I wouldn't worry about those people to be honest. It's not like they have any influence on the regulators. Although I have seen some accuse the regulators of being corrupt. I don't believe they represent the majority though.
 
Zenimax, Activision, don't be surprised if EA and Take2 get bought by MS.

If this deal goes through with Activision, regulators won't let them buy any other major publishers. It's a reason why I think Sony shouldn't fight this acquisition that hard.

I'm theorizing that Sony is playing a win-win game. They're fighting this because if they can block it, it'll lead way for the PS5 to pretty easily outsell the X Series, but if they're unable to block it, it provides cover for them with their own acquisitions. "We made this argument against the ABK M&A, but that went through, and so should ours."

If Microsoft is able to buy ABK, they won't be able to buy EA or T2. I don't think regulators would let them buy anything over 10B in value. That really does clear the field for Sony as the only competitor outside of Tencent who can really afford to buy a major studio (you'll definitely see some mergers happen as well).

Sony's market cap has been kind of stuck for a long time, the biggest name in video games, but their profits have really been limited. They will start looking at expansion (they already have with PlayStation Productions, PC, VR, Mobile, e.t.c.).

To continue to compete with Microsoft, T2 is the obvious choice for them and the only other options T2 has would be an acquisition by a Chinese company or a merger with EA... As you'll remember EA tried to merge with T2 over 10 years ago. This was 2 billion dollars in 2008... T2 is now worth 17 billion dollars...
 
This deal would be great for xbox gamers but overall bad for the industry, buying one publisher was shocking enough but to buy two in such quick succession might just be a bridge too far for regulators. I would argue that if MS were more transparent after the Bethesda purchase then maybe Sony wouldn't be making such a big fuss because no doubt things have gotten ugly lol feels like the 90s all over again.

Activision is the largest 3rd party publisher on consoles and one of Sony's biggest revenue drivers. Obviously, Sony needs to put up a stink. That doesn't mean that Sony is actually worried about the deal going through.

I've mentioned this before, but Sony is probably putting quite a bit of money towards Firewalk and Deviation Games right now (maybe less so deviation with the mess that seems to be going on there), but fears over losing one franchise aren't that realistic. CoD is certainly important, but it's also particularly generic and as such replaceable.

I think that Sony didn't take the 10-year offer because

a) they're waiting to see if regulators outright kill the deal
b) they're confident that regulators will codify more scrutiny than a 10-year deal to this acquisition
c) they're ultimately not that worried even if the deal goes through because there are benefits to them if it does

10 years is nearly two generations of gaming. CoD has barely been this big for more than 10 years with the first major CoD game really being Modern Warfare, and even that didn't sell nearly as well as modern (no pun intended) CoD games.

Who knows what gaming will look like in 10 years? Maybe CoD is 10x bigger than it is now, maybe it's half as big. Maybe it's irrelevant...
 

Gavon West

Member
MS can pay them to port to Xbox, irrelevant point.

To regulators that’s also irrelevant.

You people go miles and are in denial about Microsoft moves and goals. It’s amazing how people treat MS as some poor baby that aren’t doing anything bad while pursuing consolidation in the market. It’s worrying that they’re buying the biggest third party publishers and it’s even worse when they’re saying they’re not stopping. But go on living in fantasy land where MS can do nothing wrong and is just “competing”.
Thank goodness regulators are not that gullible.
Gimme a break. Don't tell me you're screaming, "its a monopoly!" Lol.

I dig how all the sudden its about looking into the future and predicting the end of Sony because of this merger. Its not. Sony simply just doesn't have the capital to compete with Microsoft. Plain and simple.
 

Topher

Gold Member
When you see people make comments like "I don’t know why ppl advocate for publishers to be swallowed up then attempt whataboutism"

No publisher is being 'swallowed up', they're undergoing the process of a mutual acquisition.

I don't think "hostile takeover" is being implied here, but I'll let that poster respond instead of being alluded to indirectly.

I don’t know why ppl advocate for publishers to be swallowed up then attempt whataboutism, “if it were Sony…” to justify a point that doesn’t exist.

If you want it to be on gamepass, just say that. 😂

I don’t believe MS needs to purchase Activision-Blizzard anymore than Sony does. They both have TONS of games in development. Get those out first.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
This is just one very recent example, there's been a lot through out that massive thread and have been pointed out before as well.

Don't ask me to scan through the thread to find you quotes tho please lol
 

Topher

Gold Member
This is just one very recent example, there's been a lot through out that massive thread and have been pointed out before as well.

Don't ask me to scan through the thread to find you quotes tho please lol

I'm not asking you to do anything. But I think you should reply to these people instead of making these generalized comments addressed to no one at all.
 
When you see people make comments like "I don’t know why ppl advocate for publishers to be swallowed up then attempt whataboutism"

No publisher is being 'swallowed up', they're undergoing the process of a mutual acquisition.
Well I think the issue is when Sony purchases a company to help fill out an area where they thought they were lacking like Sony buying Bungie many didn't have too many issues with that at all. That acquisition would help them make F2P games. Part of why MS is buying Activision is to get a better foothold in mobile an area they felt they were lacking. The reaction was quite different. In many ways it just boils down to we like company X more than company Y. I get it but it's not too surprising. That explains the differences in reaction.
 

Swift_Star

Banned
Gimme a break. Don't tell me you're screaming, "its a monopoly!" Lol.

I dig how all the sudden its about looking into the future and predicting the end of Sony because of this merger. Its not. Sony simply just doesn't have the capital to compete with Microsoft. Plain and simple.
Cope
 
Gimme a break. Don't tell me you're screaming, "its a monopoly!" Lol.

I dig how all the sudden its about looking into the future and predicting the end of Sony because of this merger. Its not. Sony simply just doesn't have the capital to compete with Microsoft. Plain and simple.

Very interesting. This is far bigger than any soundbites the green rats have tried to manipulate.
I realize this after watching that Lina Khan interview.

This is beyond sony, ms or videogames.
 

Lupin25

Member
When you see people make comments like "I don’t know why ppl advocate for publishers to be swallowed up then attempt whataboutism"

No publisher is being 'swallowed up', they're undergoing the process of a mutual acquisition.

Or you could just tag me directly since I’m the only one to say it, I don’t bite. 🤣

I didn’t quote you or many others because there’s too many of you guys too count.

I also never claimed “hostile takeover”.

But I might as well if they acquire Acti-Blizzard too. They don’t need them with ZeniMax finalized.

MS needs to manage studios better and stop attempting to purchase publishers to cover up their shortcomings regarding CONSISTENT quality game output.
 
Last edited:

Gavon West

Member
Or you could just tag me directly since I’m the only one to say it, I don’t bite. 🤣

I didn’t quote you or many others because there’s too many of you guys too count.

I also never claimed “hostile takeover”.

But I might as well if they acquire Acti-Blizzard too. They don’t need them with ZeniMax finalized.

MS needs to manage studios better and stop attempting to purchase publishers to cover up their shortcomings regarding CONSISTENT quality game output.
Except, this is why Microsoft has made the purchases they've made.

For years people clamored for Microsoft to compete with sony. To bring more than halo, gears and forza. This is what it looks like when they fix their first party issues. They purchase talented devs and publishers who can assist in the remedy. People need to get over it. You asked for competition. You got it! Only many forgot Microsoft was a trillion dollar company. So did Sony. Oops!

Who cares. Like Nadella said, "if this is about competition. Let us compete!" You can't ask for competition then bitch about how it happens. You don't get to dictate that.
 

ChiefDada

Member
Except, this is why Microsoft has made the purchases they've made.

For years people clamored for Microsoft to compete with sony. To bring more than halo, gears and forza. This is what it looks like when they fix their first party issues. They purchase talented devs and publishers who can assist in the remedy. People need to get over it. You asked for competition. You got it! Only many forgot Microsoft was a trillion dollar company. So did Sony. Oops!

Who cares. Like Nadella said, "if this is about competition. Let us compete!" You can't ask for competition then bitch about how it happens. You don't get to dictate that.

This is factually incorrect and illustrates the gap in understanding that those in support of Microsoft constantly fall into. Vertical integration via M&A, aka what Microsoft is doing, is potentially illegal. The more consequential the target company is to it's related industry, the higher the chances the transaction violates antitrust laws. Vertical integration via internal organic growth, aka what Sony has been successful at, isn't and will never be illegal. Those are simply the rules governing business. Neither Sony nor their fans "dictate" this; regulators do. These are simply the rules. The reason why arguments in these threads go in continuous circle is people (Microsoft supporters) don't understand the basic parameters that all companies have to abide by. If we can't agree that these rules are independent of Sony and Microsoft, the back and forth will continue sans progress in understanding of this entire situation.
 
This is factually incorrect and illustrates the gap in understanding that those in support of Microsoft constantly fall into. Vertical integration via M&A, aka what Microsoft is doing, is potentially illegal. The more consequential the target company is to it's related industry, the higher the chances the transaction violates antitrust laws. Vertical integration via internal organic growth, aka what Sony has been successful at, isn't and will never be illegal. Those are simply the rules governing business. Neither Sony nor their fans "dictate" this; regulators do. These are simply the rules. The reason why arguments in these threads go in continuous circle is people (Microsoft supporters) don't understand the basic parameters that all companies have to abide by. If we can't agree that these rules are independent of Sony and Microsoft, the back and forth will continue sans progress in understanding of this entire situation.
The reason these arguments go in circles is that the rules in this particular case aren't really being followed. Historically the idea of an input to an industry focused on raw materials for instance like steel for a car company. Without that material the company couldn't produce cars.

Sony and by in part the CMA are now trying to argue that a single video game is an input rather than a finished product to be sold like it traditionally was. In addition regulators used to focus on consumer harm and now some are focusing on competitor harm instead which is an odd focus especially when that competitor leads the industry. With shifting rules it can never be clear what the ground rules actually are.

In the end courts may have to decide and regulators will have to prove that MS will or has broken the law. We'll then see what is actually true with regard to this acquisition.

Rick Hoeg has fantastic videos breaking down all of Sony's arguments and why they don't really hold much weight. I'd use his reasoning over anybody on this forum.
 
Not talking about regulators, talking about forum posters, a lot of us often have very spicy uninformed takes.
This. Reading some of these long-winded diatribes by people that have no experience in the industry outside of being a consumer, that have taken zero economics classes, who are not anything close to a lawyer let alone a legal assistant, trying to break things down because they are parroting other people is hilarious. I would consider every single real take ITT is about as uninformed as it gets unless we have users here that work for MS or Activision or these regulatory bodies that are willing to break the law to give us inside info.
 

Topher

Gold Member
This. Reading some of these long-winded diatribes by people that have no experience in the industry outside of being a consumer, that have taken zero economics classes, who are not anything close to a lawyer let alone a legal assistant, trying to break things down because they are parroting other people is hilarious. I would consider every single real take ITT is about as uninformed as it gets unless we have users here that work for MS or Activision or these regulatory bodies that are willing to break the law to give us inside info.

But no one has to have credentials or be an expert to have an opinion. Anyone can read the arguments being made on either side and no, they don't have to be an expert or a lawyer to talk about or even express an opinion on them. Just as you do not have to have a status in order to agree/disagree. You can take whatever take you want as uninformed if its makes you feel better, but that is not a valid argument.

 
The reason these arguments go in circles is that the rules in this particular case aren't really being followed. Historically the idea of an input to an industry focused on raw materials for instance like steel for a car company. Without that material the company couldn't produce cars.

Sony and by in part the CMA are now trying to argue that a single video game is an input rather than a finished product to be sold like it traditionally was. In addition regulators used to focus on consumer harm and now some are focusing on competitor harm instead which is an odd focus especially when that competitor leads the industry. With shifting rules it can never be clear what the ground rules actually are.

In the end courts may have to decide and regulators will have to prove that MS will or has broken the law. We'll then see what is actually true with regard to this acquisition.

Rick Hoeg has fantastic videos breaking down all of Sony's arguments and why they don't really hold much weight. I'd use his reasoning over anybody on this forum.

Your argument is sophomoric here...

Harm to a major competitor is harmful to consumers in the long run. There's no way to separate the two.

If Sony were to exit the industry or become significantly diminished, particularly as Microsoft shifts revenue streams from per unit sales to a subscription model, but eventually raises the price significantly, there will be no one around to dissuade them from doing this, leaving consumers no choice but to subscribe if they wish to partake in the industry.

There is no arguing against this. We've already seen it with the video industry and there was already significantly more competition in this space.

Streaming costs continue to rise dramatically. Netflix was 8 dollars per month in 2014 and has risen to 20 dollars in just 8 years.

Imagine a situation where Sony has exited the market or is diminished as a competitor and Microsoft increases GamePass from 10 dollars a month to eventually 25 dollars a month.

You used to be able to buy Microsoft Office as a stand alone suite in the Home and Student version for 150 dollars. Now you have to pay at least 70 dollars a year for it. The idea that GamePass isn't going to dramatically increase in price is a fantasy. The only thing preventing this is that Sony is the market leader and is absolutely eating Microsoft's lunch at the moment and Steam has similarly boxed them out on PC.

This deal is about changing that and it's clear as day.

Microsoft has spent 20 years trying to compete directly with Sony with mixed to poor results and Microsoft sees this window to transition from a storefront/platform holder to a subscription holder and be the principal market leader in that through only the means of their purse.
 
But no one has to have credentials or be an expert to have an opinion. Anyone can read the arguments being made on either side and no, they don't have to be an expert or a lawyer to talk about or even express an opinion on them. Just as you do not have to have a status in order to agree/disagree. You can take whatever take you want as uninformed if its makes you feel better, but that is not a valid argument.

I’m not going to engage further about my take. There are people here who think their opinions about this carry weight. They don’t. Have a nice day.
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
Your argument is sophomoric here...

Harm to a major competitor is harmful to consumers in the long run. There's no way to separate the two.

If Sony were to exit the industry or become significantly diminished, particularly as Microsoft shifts revenue streams from per unit sales to a subscription model, but eventually raises the price significantly, there will be no one around to dissuade them from doing this, leaving consumers no choice but to subscribe if they wish to partake in the industry.

There is no arguing against this. We've already seen it with the video industry and there was already significantly more competition in this space.

Streaming costs continue to rise dramatically. Netflix was 8 dollars per month in 2014 and has risen to 20 dollars in just 8 years.

Imagine a situation where Sony has exited the market or is diminished as a competitor and Microsoft increases GamePass from 10 dollars a month to eventually 25 dollars a month.

You used to be able to buy Microsoft Office as a stand alone suite in the Home and Student version for 150 dollars. Now you have to pay at least 70 dollars a year for it. The idea that GamePass isn't going to dramatically increase in price is a fantasy. The only thing preventing this is that Sony is the market leader and is absolutely eating Microsoft's lunch at the moment and Steam has similarly boxed them out on PC.

This deal is about changing that and it's clear as day.

Microsoft has spent 20 years trying to compete directly with Sony with mixed to poor results and Microsoft sees this window to transition from a storefront/platform holder to a subscription holder and be the principal market leader in that through only the means of their purse.

Looks like office is still 150 for 1 time purchase even 99 dollars black friday. Of course the price will eventually go up like everything else ever. If they raise prices they need a better product to justify it. It seems like a lot of hoping and projecting after Sony’s price increases in markets they face zero competition. If losing marketing rights and COD going to gamepass causes sony to go from 70% market share to out of business they have themselves to blame. If so little causes sony to be disrupted they have bad management.

 

ChiefDada

Member
The reason these arguments go in circles is that the rules in this particular case aren't really being followed. Historically the idea of an input to an industry focused on raw materials for instance like steel for a car company. Without that material the company couldn't produce cars.

Sony and by in part the CMA are now trying to argue that a single video game is an input rather than a finished product to be sold like it traditionally was. In addition regulators used to focus on consumer harm and now some are focusing on competitor harm instead which is an odd focus especially when that competitor leads the industry. With shifting rules it can never be clear what the ground rules actually are.

You are alluding to one of the better arguments in favor of the merger and I think it's an excellent one. I myself am not 100% convinced that CoD is irreplaceable, certainly not to the extent as Sony has described it. You're also right that regulators ultimate interests are with the well-being of the consumer, but by extension that requires them to maintain a fair competitive environment, which means they rightfully care about competitor well being. 20% of Sony annual profit can be directly linked to income generated from CoD alone. That's major. At the very least, it is a significant concern of competitor well being. To muddy the waters even more, politics does play a part in all this, for better or worse. This administration's agenda calls for greater scrutiny of big tech consolidation. Nothing wrong with this as all political administrations have their own priorities. Who's to say whether this particular focus at this particular time is fair or unfair? Perhaps the prior administrations should have been tougher on certain M&A deals but instead had a laissez faire attitude, and the current administration is steering the ship for proper scrutiny? From Microsoft's perspective, it looks like really unfortunate timing for all of this to go down. In short, the overarching principles of antitrust regulations are relatively straightforward, but measuring equitable application of regulations from one case outcome vs another is useless because of the changing ideologies/politics.

Rick Hoeg has fantastic videos breaking down all of Sony's arguments and why they don't really hold much weight. I'd use his reasoning over anybody on this forum.

Not a smart idea, imo. He is far from infallible and some of his reasonings have been soundly debunked in the other thread.
 
Your argument is sophomoric here...

Harm to a major competitor is harmful to consumers in the long run. There's no way to separate the two.
I disagree. Sony has proven that little competition hurts consumers directly. They were able to easily raise their prices because they knew they had no serious competition. Look to the US to what they would do with stronger competition.
If Sony were to exit the industry or become significantly diminished, particularly as Microsoft shifts revenue streams from per unit sales to a subscription model, but eventually raises the price significantly, there will be no one around to dissuade them from doing this, leaving consumers no choice but to subscribe if they wish to partake in the industry.
This is ridiculous speculation. There is no real reason Sony would go from industry leader to leaving the industry especially over one title that has been promised to remain on the platform for a decade. It's always 'what ifs' with MS. What if they raise prices a million dollars? What if their consoles gave you cancer? What if they force you on Game pass the optional service? How about what if Sony raised prices on consoles and games? Why are we more worried about a hypothetical than reality?

Here's another what if MS got more marketshare and got Sony to actually improve their products over attempting to make other products worse? That would absolutely benefit gamers. This acquisition will improve the level of competition between the companies and we would all benefit from that.
There is no arguing against this. We've already seen it with the video industry and there was already significantly more competition in this space.
There is plenty of argument because your speculation has no basis in reality. Game pass has never been forced on consumers. It remains an option to traditional retail. There is also nothing stopping Sony from pursuing the same path if they want to. It is silly to complain about what one company does yet refuse to follow the path the other company is following to greater success.
Streaming costs continue to rise dramatically. Netflix was 8 dollars per month in 2014 and has risen to 20 dollars in just 8 years.
Alright. What does this have to do with anything?
Imagine a situation where Sony has exited the market or is diminished as a competitor and Microsoft increases GamePass from 10 dollars a month to eventually 25 dollars a month.
Why? It is not likely to happen and a diminished Sony would protect consumers from price hikes. I prefer MS to spend its resources on customers than the reverse. Also in what world does MS dramatically increase Game pass costs with no repercussions? Part of the reason Game pass is popular is because of the value proposition. If it is almost as much as retail games people wouldn't subscribe. We have to be real.
You used to be able to buy Microsoft Office as a stand alone suite in the Home and Student version for 150 dollars. Now you have to pay at least 70 dollars a year for it. The idea that GamePass isn't going to dramatically increase in price is a fantasy. The only thing preventing this is that Sony is the market leader and is absolutely eating Microsoft's lunch at the moment and Steam has similarly boxed them out on PC.
You can obtain free productivity software. I still use an Office suite of software that is 15 years old. I won't ever need more. As you've stated Sony is the lead in marketshare and we are already seeing less than consumer friendly practices like the stars program forcing you to buy more products to get better customer service and a Sony only digital PS5 store limiting consumer choice. More competition would keep practices like this from happening and I'm for it.
This deal is about changing that and it's clear as day.

Microsoft has spent 20 years trying to compete directly with Sony with mixed to poor results and Microsoft sees this window to transition from a storefront/platform holder to a subscription holder and be the principal market leader in that through only the means of their purse.
I disagree. MS found a novel way to compete with Sony using a model they started with game subscription services. The fact that Sony isn't beating MS in the model they started speaks volumes about how complacent Sony has gotten recently. I hope MS's acquisitions will improve competition and get Sony to create better services and policies.
 

ChiefDada

Member
But no one has to have credentials or be an expert to have an opinion. Anyone can read the arguments being made on either side and no, they don't have to be an expert or a lawyer to talk about or even express an opinion on them. Just as you do not have to have a status in order to agree/disagree. You can take whatever take you want as uninformed if its makes you feel better, but that is not a valid argument.


Can't begin to tell you how sick people's blind appeal to authority makes me. I'm convinced this behavior is the reason for much of society's problems today.
 
Looks like office is still 150 for 1 time purchase even 99 dollars black friday. Of course the price will eventually go up like everything else ever. If they raise prices they need a better product to justify it. It seems like a lot of hoping and projecting after Sony’s price increases in markets they face zero competition. If losing marketing rights and COD going to gamepass causes sony to go from 70% market share to out of business they have themselves to blame. If so little causes sony to be disrupted they have bad management.


They aren't releasing any more stand alone versions after 2021.

Sony is increasing prices due to market demand not a lack of competition. Microsoft's consoles are also selling out. These price increases are temporary.

Microsoft isn't going permanently reduce the price of gamepass, it's only going to go up, they've said it themselves.

What you have to ask yourself is, what percent of market share can Sony drop to and stay in the market. If you think it's 1 percent, you're fooling yourself.

And I don't think anyone is arguing that this is going to push Sony directly out of the market, but diminished marketshare can have a knock on effect and GamePass eventually may be positioned as a service Sony can't compete with financially, which COULD push them out of the market.
 
i'm not sure why most gamers haven't woken up yet and moved onto Stadia. It's the future of gaming.



Get away from all this console fanboy nonsense.
 
Top Bottom