Support NeoGAF

[mckmas8808]

Xbox has always had less dev studio than PS. What is BS is the fact that we got people you now pretending like they didn't shit on Xbox for ages for only releasing Halo, Forza, and Gears, when those were their primary studios.

You guys also want to pretend that PS didn't go out of their way to keep games off Xbox by paying for exclusivity significantly more aswell. Xbox has only with the acquisition of Bethesda/Zenimax overtaken PS on the studio count to the point that it can start matching the output of PS and now every one is whinning and bitching how its unfair that they're buying publishers, because that is how far Xbox was behind PS for so long.

Are you getting paid by Microsoft?

 

[Fabieter]

Xbox has always had less dev studio than PS. What is BS is the fact that we got people you now pretending like they didn't shit on Xbox for ages for only releasing Halo, Forza, and Gears, when those were their primary studios.

You guys also want to pretend that PS didn't go out of their way to keep games off Xbox by paying for exclusivity significantly more aswell. Xbox has only with the acquisition of Bethesda/Zenimax overtaken PS on the studio count to the point that it can start matching the output of PS and now every one is whinning and bitching how its unfair that they're buying publishers, because that is how far Xbox was behind PS for so long.

Are you for Real?

 

[Ar¢tos]

Are you for Real?

These people always forget what MS was doing it the 360 era...

 

[DForce]

Xbox has always had less dev studio than PS. What is BS is the fact that we got people you now pretending like they didn't shit on Xbox for ages for only releasing Halo, Forza, and Gears, when those were their primary studios.

You guys also want to pretend that PS didn't go out of their way to keep games off Xbox by paying for exclusivity significantly more aswell. Xbox has only with the acquisition of Bethesda/Zenimax overtaken PS on the studio count to the point that it can start matching the output of PS and now every one is whinning and bitching how its unfair that they're buying publishers, because that is how far Xbox was behind PS for so long.

You guys try hard to make Xbox out to be the victim. lol

Sony was getting beat during the 360 era and what did they do? They made games and gained back market share. This was during the time Xbox had time exclusive deals for the biggest titles such as Oblivion, Mass Effect, and Dead or Alive 4.

This was when Xbox was actually being competitive. Not only did they have time-exclusive deals, but they also had a strong first-party lineup and a great price point.

Many people didn't complain about the Zenimax acquisition because it wasn't a move that actually tried to hurt the market. The only thing people are really complaining about is Phil lying to the media when we know what he was saying was bullshit.

We told you guys that the "case-by-case" was bullshit, but you guys were in denial for months until now when Phil's emails have finally been revealed. The problem with a lot of the hardcore Xbox fanboys is that they're so quick to make excuses for Microsoft and blame everyone else besides them.

 

[thebigmanjosh]

Xbox has always had less dev studio than PS. What is BS is the fact that we got people you now pretending like they didn't shit on Xbox for ages for only releasing Halo, Forza, and Gears, when those were their primary studios.

You guys also want to pretend that PS didn't go out of their way to keep games off Xbox by paying for exclusivity significantly more aswell. Xbox has only with the acquisition of Bethesda/Zenimax overtaken PS on the studio count to the point that it can start matching the output of PS and now every one is whinning and bitching how its unfair that they're buying publishers, because that is how far Xbox was behind PS for so long.

Do people forget the Xbox exclusives during the 360 era? Rise of the Tomb Raider? Dead Rising? Rare?

Most people are upset because they don’t want the industry to consolidate under a company who ran their own product into the ground through mismanagement. Their failure during the XB1 era isn’t the fault of Sony or any other company besides Microsoft. This goes as far back as Rare, which is a shell of the company it was pre-acquisition.

I’d love to see more from XB first party, but they’d rather invest in acquisition than their own studios because their goal is subscriptions through content, regardless of quality.

 

[Topher]

This back and forth "you guys" thing is really getting silly. Every post represents the opinion of exactly one person. Pitting side against side is just embracing the console war tribalism. This thread hasn't had a lot of that and that has been refreshing. Really hope this thread does go further down that rabbit hole.

alright......getting off my soapbox.

 

[Pelta88]

You guys also want to pretend that PS didn't go out of their way to keep games off Xbox by paying for exclusivity significantly more aswell.

This is a common misconception and not really how those deals are structured. Think about, is Sony really 'outspending' Microsoft for marketing deals? Andrew house is on record saying that PlayStation leverages instal base during negotiations. Essentially...

XBOX: We'll offer you X amount coupled with sales in the United States

PS: We'll off you the same amount and sales in Europe, Latin America, United States, and ROTW.

Who are you leaning towards?

Also remember that Kotic threatened Microsoft with not shipping the most profitable annual game, COD, on their platform unless they gave them more revenue. Which means XBOX sales of COD were so insignificant, Activision could skip the XBOX platform and not miss a financial beat...

 

[kvltus lvlzvs]

Wow, this thread just became very educational for me. Ty for the various bits of info about 3dfx, everyone

 

[gothmog]

I miss the AAA shilling.

 

[Bernardougf]

These people always forget what MS was doing it the 360 era...

Too young probably... must have started playing during the kinect dance games on xbox one

 

[Ogbert]

This is a common misconception and not really how those deals are structured. Think about, is Sony really 'outspending' Microsoft for marketing deals? Andrew house is on record saying that PlayStation leverages instal base during negotiations. Essentially...

XBOX: We'll offer you X amount coupled with sales in the United States

PS: We'll off you the same amount and sales in Europe, Latin America, United States, and ROTW.

Who are you leaning towards?

Also remember that Kotic threatened Microsoft with not shipping the most profitable annual game, COD, on their platform unless they gave them more revenue. Which means XBOX sales of COD were so insignificant, Activision could skip the XBOX platform and not miss a financial beat...

So if you negotiate from a position of market dominance, marketing deals are ok?

 

[Pelta88]

So if you negotiate from a position of market dominance, marketing deals are ok?

Sony dominating the second richest company on the planet?

How?

 

[Ogbert]

Sony dominating the second richest company on the planet?

How?

I’m trying to understand the point you’re making.

You appeared to be suggesting that because Sony has a larger install base, their marketing deals aren’t the same, as they don’t have to ‘outspend’ MS. As if it’s somehow more honourable.

By definition, in that scenario, any competitor with a smaller footprint is going to have to spend more money.

 

[Calverz]

I have it on good authority that judge will publish decision on Tuesday to not grant PI. Ms will close merger in ROI later that day. (Xbox wire blog being drafted as I speak). Then on Wednesday announce sega being acquired.

 

[Topher]

I have it on good authority that judge will publish decision on Tuesday to not grant PI. Ms will close merger in ROI later that day. (Xbox wire blog being drafted as I speak). Then on Wednesday announce sega being acquired.

You been talking to senshitsage again haven't you?

 

[Banjo64]

You been talking to senshitsage again haven't you?

Could be one of his many personalities

 

[tryDEATH]

Are you getting paid by Microsoft?

Sorry, but no. I wish I had the post count like some in this thread so I could leverage a contract that way, but some of you guys should definitely approach Sony.

Are you for Real?

Yes.

This is a common misconception and not really how those deals are structured. Think about, is Sony really 'outspending' Microsoft for marketing deals? Andrew house is on record saying that PlayStation leverages instal base during negotiations. Essentially...

XBOX: We'll offer you X amount coupled with sales in the United States

PS: We'll off you the same amount and sales in Europe, Latin America, United States, and ROTW.

Who are you leaning towards?

Also remember that Kotic threatened Microsoft with not shipping the most profitable annual game, COD, on their platform unless they gave them more revenue. Which means XBOX sales of COD were so insignificant, Activision could skip the XBOX platform and not miss a financial beat...

This sort of argument is the perfect example of what I said when it comes to Sony exclusives and how they are treated, which is why I said MS is now stepping up and buying stuff out so it stops happening and why I think the merger is perfectly acceptable.

Do people forget the Xbox exclusives during the 360 era? Rise of the Tomb Raider? Dead Rising? Rare?

Most people are upset because they don’t want the industry to consolidate under a company who ran their own product into the ground through mismanagement. Their failure during the XB1 era isn’t the fault of Sony or any other company besides Microsoft. This goes as far back as Rare, which is a shell of the company it was pre-acquisition.

I’d love to see more from XB first party, but they’d rather invest in acquisition than their own studios because their goal is subscriptions through content, regardless of quality.

You do not want to go tit-for-tat when it comes to 3rd party exclusives since the 360 era between Xbox and PS, there's only one winner in the amount of games and it ain't Xbox.

Also did you see how far behind MS was in dev studios behind Sony, MS would need to open 10 brand new studios that is simply insane to ask them to do.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I have it on good authority that judge will publish decision on Tuesday to not grant PI. Ms will close merger in ROI later that day. (Xbox wire blog being drafted as I speak). Then on Wednesday announce sega being acquired.

This reads like a post from one of our old "Friend."

 

[Heisenberg007]

PSA - Compiled a lot of the FTC Hearings stuff we found and shared in this mega-thread to in this new thread: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/ctrl...lols-we-found-during-ftc-vs-microsoft.1658430

It'd be easier to find information and references now. If anybody knows anything big that I have missed, please let me know so I can add it. Thanks!

 

[Pelta88]

I’m trying to understand the point you’re making.

You appeared to be suggesting that because Sony has a larger install base, their marketing deals aren’t the same, as they don’t have to ‘outspend’ MS. As if it’s somehow more honourable.

By definition, in that scenario, any competitor with a smaller footprint is going to have to spend more money.

It's capitalism, not chivalry. There is no honour involved here. XBOX has defined budget as expressed in court docs and testimony. Marketing deals proposed by Microsoft need to compensate for the PS instal. It's that simple.

 

[Pelta88]

Interesting.

MSN

 

[PaintTinJr]

I’m trying to understand the point you’re making.

You appeared to be suggesting that because Sony has a larger install base, their marketing deals aren’t the same, as they don’t have to ‘outspend’ MS. As if it’s somehow more honourable.

By definition, in that scenario, any competitor with a smaller footprint is going to have to spend more money.

I would see it another way. Prior to PlayStation the market was a 1/3 or a 1/4 of the size, and Sony outspent the market on human ingenuity to define the market audience by delivering a hardware product that provided synergies with dev/pubs and consumers beyond the niche gamer of the time.

Marketing deals are easier for them because they continue to outspend Microsoft in human endeavour and ingenuity in hardware and first party IP to maintain those synergies in spite of being the David to Microsoft's Goliath in marketing spend and ability to absorb losses in a competition that Microsoft should easily win with superior talent to manage and execute; which is the ultimate problem, because people of that calibre know who Microsoft are and what they've been about, and probably don't wish to empower such a company further that was never in it for the creative achievement and cultural impact as a synergy of making money.

 

[Fabieter]

Sorry, but no. I wish I had the post count like some in this thread so I could leverage a contract that way, but some of you guys should definitely approach Sony.

Yes.

This sort of argument is the perfect example of what I said when it comes to Sony exclusives and how they are treated, which is why I said MS is now stepping up and buying stuff out so it stops happening and why I think the merger is perfectly acceptable.

You do not want to go tit-for-tat when it comes to 3rd party exclusives since the 360 era between Xbox and PS, there's only one winner in the amount of games and it ain't Xbox.

Also did you see how far behind MS was in dev studios behind Sony, MS would need to open 10 brand new studios that is simply insane to ask them to do.

No I dont think you are for Real. So much nonsense.

 

[Ogbert]

It's capitalism, not chivalry. There is no honour involved here. XBOX has defined budget as expressed in court docs and testimony. Marketing deals proposed by Microsoft need to compensate for the PS instal. It's that simple.

Of course. That I agree with.

I thought you were trying to argue that as Sony were able to leverage their larger install base, somehow it made their marketing deals less questionable. Or perhaps more ‘deserved’.

 

[tryDEATH]

No I dont think you are for Real. So much nonsense.

Ok, thanks for the valuable input. Have a nice day.

 

[thebigmanjosh]

You do not want to go tit-for-tat when it comes to 3rd party exclusives since the 360 era between Xbox and PS, there's only one winner in the amount of games and it ain't Xbox.

Also did you see how far behind MS was in dev studios behind Sony, MS would need to open 10 brand new studios that is simply insane to ask them to do.

Here’s a pretty comprehensive list because you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/lets-look-back-at-ps3-and-xbox-360-exclusives.1218723/

MS exclusive output dropped off in 2009/2010 which lines up with Mattrick taking over. Shift went to Kinect and then TV TV TV.

Regardless, this isn’t about exclusives or studios. It’s about MS acquiring publishers

 

[Pelta88]

Of course. That I agree with.

I thought you were trying to argue that as Sony were able to leverage their larger install base, somehow it made their marketing deals less questionable. Or perhaps more ‘deserved’.

Not deserved. Just business. Sony admitted they use their instal via Andrew House. Phil Spencer has admitted that these marketing deals are devastating and "Harm" XB.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

So if you negotiate from a position of market dominance, marketing deals are ok?

Sony dominating the second richest company on the planet?

How?

I actually think some of Sony's dealings may fall under anti-competitive practices.

Using your market position to leverage deals in a way your competition can not maybe be monopolistic, especially if the conditions of those deals become more one-sided to Sony vs the publisher they are dealing with as their market share increases.

Basically, you're buying market share with market share and that can become problematic.

"Hey, you can come out on PC, but you can't come out on Xbox, which allows us to save on the cost of foreclosure of PC, and because the Xbox has a small market share, it doesn't cost too much to get the exclusivity deal, pushing them out of the market."

"Also you can put this game on Switch because we aren't directly competing with Switch and we'd rather not pay for that foreclosure either"

Meanwhile, for Microsoft to make that same deal, they might have to pay 2, 3, or 4 times as much, and even then a publisher may refuse because their subsequent game may sell less on PlayStation.

 

[tryDEATH]

Here’s a pretty comprehensive list because you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/lets-look-back-at-ps3-and-xbox-360-exclusives.1218723/

MS 1P output dropped off in 2009/2010 which lines up with Mattrick taking over. Shift went to Kinect and then TV TV TV.

Regardless, this isn’t about exclusives or studios. It’s about MS acquiring publishers

I did not mention a single thing about 1st party output. YOU mentioned and brought up the point of exclusives YOURSELF by naming games such as Tomb Raider and Dead Rising, which were 3rd party games with console exclusivity. So look at that list and see who has more of those 3rd party exclusives.

Stop trying to shift the narrative and push the argument into a whole other area I wasn't even arguing or talking about.

The dev studio discrepancy was there from the start of the original XBOX and could only be addressed with larger acquisitions that is the reality like it or not. Those people that expected "organic growth" are just pretentious snobs.

If you can't stay on point with YOUR OWN argument don't bother with stupid bait. Enjoy your day.

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

Say what you will, but I genuinely miss Ballmer, easily best MS CEO

Say what you will, but I genuinely miss Ballmer, easily best MS CEO

I remember that lunatic. Every time the guy was on stage, his nose was still white from...you know what.....

That "developers developers developers developers developers developers!"
Stumbeling on stage like drunken monkey....that was emberassing....but also kind of funny.

 

[Pelta88]

Basically, you're buying market share with market share and that can become problematic.

I don't disagree with anything you said but this specific part needs context.

People, myself included, often forget that during the 360 gen XBOX had their pick of marketing deals. PS was an afterthought. The difference, PS worked on building momentum and mindshare via great games. Year in year out that was their only goal.

XBOX refuses to. Despite the deepest pockets in gaming, they refuse to. Phil even went live on air and said great games wont make a difference. He's wrong.

 

[Wulfer]

It's capitalism, not chivalry. There is no honour involved here. XBOX has defined budget as expressed in court docs and testimony. Marketing deals proposed by Microsoft need to compensate for the PS instal. It's that simple.

Or they can purchase enough studios that they won't be ignored. "It's that simple" It worked for Disney and Hollywood. - Just saying.... Disney got tired of being ignored for films like the Avengers so, they purchased enough studios that Hollywood could no longer ignore Disney. I didn't see people calling for Disney's head when they bought Fox? Disney screwed up when they made things political. Disney lost its way and forgot they need everyone to see their films not just one group to see its films. Your right it is capitalism... " Some guys have all the luck, some guys have all the breaks" Rod Stewart

 

[KingT731]

Sorry, but no. I wish I had the post count like some in this thread so I could leverage a contract that way, but some of you guys should definitely approach Sony.

Yes.

This sort of argument is the perfect example of what I said when it comes to Sony exclusives and how they are treated, which is why I said MS is now stepping up and buying stuff out so it stops happening and why I think the merger is perfectly acceptable.

You do not want to go tit-for-tat when it comes to 3rd party exclusives since the 360 era between Xbox and PS, there's only one winner in the amount of games and it ain't Xbox.

Also did you see how far behind MS was in dev studios behind Sony, MS would need to open 10 brand new studios that is simply insane to ask them to do.

Are you counting everything that is "exclusive" as in including the myriad of Japanese games that just skipped Xbox for obvious reasons? What about Nintendo's 3rd party exclusives and paid timed exclusives(there's a lot)?

 

[drganon]

This reads like a post from one of our old "Friend."

It has the same combination of confidence and stupidity.

 

[Pelta88]

Or they can purchase enough studios that they won't be ignored. "It's that simple" It worked for Disney and Hollywood. - Just saying.... Disney got tired of being ignored for films like the Avengers so, they purchased enough studios that Hollywood could no longer ignore Disney. I didn't see people calling for Disney's head when they bought Fox?

You can't be serious, right?

You're comparing Microsoft's nefarious and destructive intentions with the movie industry... Movies which are released globally in movie theaters... And then sold again, globally, via bluray?

 

[kungfuian]

It's interesting to see so much back and forth about Microsoft's smaller install base and this being the reason for their inability to equally negotiate for third-party exclusives versus Sony.

While there is some logic to this, that Sony is in a better negotiating position for these types of deals, everyone keeps making it seem like it's shady business practices by Sony that are the cause. But the real cause is Microsoft's decision to focus their strategy on game pass which has clearly led to a decrease in their market share and more importantly significant decreases in traditional software sales on their platform.

They chose to go that route and publishers and developers are just aligning themselves with the business model that best suits them. It's not merely a matter of traditional market share anymore. And Microsoft's only way out is to buy up everything, because who the hell else is going to make expensive software and put it on a loss leading platform except for heavily monetized GAAS games, Indies trying to get eyes on their software, and those Microsoft is willing to throw big dollars at while they try and artificially grow their platform.

It's a war of business models not simply install base and to argue otherwise is disingenuous. The exclusives are going where the money is because game pass IS 'value destructive' and anyone with opposable thumbs can see that it's an unsustainable business model for almost everyone in the industry except Microsoft.

 

[Yoboman]

Xbox has always had less dev studio than PS. What is BS is the fact that we got people you now pretending like they didn't shit on Xbox for ages for only releasing Halo, Forza, and Gears, when those were their primary studios.

You guys also want to pretend that PS didn't go out of their way to keep games off Xbox by paying for exclusivity significantly more aswell. Xbox has only with the acquisition of Bethesda/Zenimax overtaken PS on the studio count to the point that it can start matching the output of PS and now every one is whinning and bitching how its unfair that they're buying publishers, because that is how far Xbox was behind PS for so long.

Xbox had less developers because they closed Lionhead, FASA, Microsoft Studios Japan, Ensemble. They sold Bungie. They failed to continue relationships or buy with second parties like Bioware, Epic, Team Ninja, Mistwalker, Bizarre Creations. They mismanaged Rare to the point they went from the most renowned dev in gaming to a non factor

But yeah, blame Sony for Xbox self inflicted wounds

 

[Astray]

XBOX refuses to. Despite the deepest pockets in gaming, they refuse to. Phil even went live on air and said great games wont make a difference. He's wrong.

That's why even though their latest showcase was far more fun than PS's, I simply have no blind faith in any of the games to be actual bangers, because if the guy who has infinitely more access to me to the actual product had any confidence in it, he simply wouldn't have gone out on that Xcast public cry session.

People who know great games make great games, and people who make great games know that they are the lifeblood of a gaming platform. The fact of the matter is, Phil Spencer and his team are simply amateurs at this, how else can you explain them getting schooled by companies a tenth of their size?

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I don't disagree with anything you said but this specific part needs context.

People, myself included, often forget that during the 360 gen XBOX had their pick of marketing deals. PS was an afterthought. The difference, PS worked on building momentum and mindshare via great games. Year in year out that was their only goal.

XBOX refuses to. Despite the deepest pockets in gaming, they refuse to. Phil even went live on air and said great games wont make a difference. He's wrong.

I don't disagree with you either, but that's actually because the userbases were similar in size and actually larger in the US by a large number.

What Sony is doing is actually leveraging its market share to get deals that Microsoft can't. This would be largely effective against most companies, but Microsoft has a much larger parent company with much deeper pockets, and the result is they've escalated the situation to buying large publishers, something Sony can't do.

I think both are anti-competitive and both are bad for the industry.

I'm not totally against exclusivity deals, but they shouldn't be brokered around market share and when there is an inbalance like we're seeing here, there's really no way to do them without market share being leveraged in order to get it done. In reality, publishers should be charging a set price for exclusivity regardless of the platform, but that isn't realistic either.

Ultimately, Microsoft built the boat they're in right now, and it's sink or swim from here.

 

[Celcius]

1300+ pages, holy moly. Is this the longest thread in the history of GAF?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

1300+ pages, holy moly. Is this the longest thread in the history of GAF?

Dude bro COD is a big deal in gaming.

Nobody even brings up Warcraft, King mobile games, Diablo, etc....

 

[Thirty7ven]

It seems like the standards for a PI are way too high. Prove immediate risk for consumers? That’s…

Because ABK will continue to operate under limited integration? So what?

They would have to sell it after, it’s insane. The judge finding that there’s a chance the FTC can later prove its point and they have raised enough legitimate questions now, and considering concerns by EC, CMA, Canada, then it should be enough. What’s the risk here, that ABK doesn’t extend? That isn’t a risk, it’s a decision and they are responsible for it.

 

[bender]

I smell an alt.

 

[tryDEATH]

Are you counting everything that is "exclusive" as in including the myriad of Japanese games that just skipped Xbox for obvious reasons? What about Nintendo's 3rd party exclusives and paid timed exclusives(there's a lot)?

Yes, everything that is exclusive. The "obvious reasons" narrative is what I am talking about, people simple accepted that narrative, which then gets applied to larger franchises such as FF and SFV and everyone acts like it isn't a huge problem and instead act like it is acceptable for "obvious reasons".

Xbox had less developers because they closed Lionhead, FASA, Microsoft Studios Japan, Ensemble. They sold Bungie. They failed to continue relationships or buy with second parties like Bioware, Epic, Team Ninja, Mistwalker, Bizarre Creations. They mismanaged Rare to the point they went from the most renowned dev in gaming to a non factor

But yeah, blame Sony for Xbox self inflicted wounds

PS closed as many studio and still had twice as many studio before Xbox started to go on a buying spree in 2018 and still had less studios until the Zenimax/Bethesda acquisitions to over take them based on how your counting dev studios and are now try to overtaken then properly with the ABK acquisition, but still won't have more than twice as many studios as PS had one point in the early 2010's.

And again at no point am I blaming Sony. In my original post I simply said that MS for the first time is investing heavily into acquiring studios/publisher to bolster they offerings, because thus far they have always been behind Sony when it comes to developers.

 

[mckmas8808]

I'm not sticking around long, I just wanted to come in and apologize for my behavior yesterday. There's no valid excuse for it so I'm not even going to pretend there is.

It was immature and unwarranted.

I'm sorry to @Not_A-Cop_Maybe and everyone else who saw my outburst in the thread.

It's not so bad that you have to abandon everyone.

 

[mckmas8808]

So the Judge in the FTC case says it's the harm to consumers, not to Sony that matters.
So who's to say allowing Sony to continue in a dominant position isn't harmful to consumers? I mean ask yourself, how much do you think your games would be if MS decided to quit tomorrow instead of fighting on?
It's an interesting proposition. In light of all the info found in this case in the last few weeks, neither big dog is out for consumers, just for themselves. Putting Nintendo aside for a minute, since they seem to target more of a mobile audience and one less focused on cutting edge consoles, Forcing a smaller company (in terms of game sales) to remain smaller, is that in the best interests of gamers?

I'm not saying it is or it isn't, it's an interesting quandary. And who's to say government is in the best position to decide what will happen 10 years from now? Lets check out some scenarios:

Scenario 1: MS is denied acquisition of Activision, decides that it want's to refocus it's energy into software development and who knows what else. They decide not to release a new Xbox in 2027. Just for fun lets say Nintendo only releases a lower power switch 2.
This leaves Sony in a power position over the traditional console market. Revenue sharing from developers goes up to 40% and games are now $99. PS Plus is doubled in price, or dropped completely. PS6 launches for $599.

Scenario 2: MS is allowed acquisition of Activision, continues on the good fight. But it doesn't stop there. They buy square, they buy Sega, they buy UBISoft, EA, and squeeze Sony out little by little. Down the road, games are increased to $119, gamepass is $30, and Series Z is $699.
A robot stands in your house to make sure you never turn off your xbox. (ok maybe not that last point)

Scenario 3. MS is allowed acquisition of Activision and it gives them enough juice to continue, they trade blows back and forth with Sony for the console crown for many years to come. Gamers win as price competition continues.

Of course there is a middle ground and all other kinds of things that could come into play like a legit next gen Nintendo console. But maybe you get a hint at what I am getting at - the FTC doesn't really know what will happen, we don't know what will happen.
We aren't sure what is best for consumers.....how can this judge be?

So you want to penalize Sony for being good at their jobs? Because you can only say Sony is dominating if you exclude Nintendo from the picture. And I'm not sure you're doing that. Or do you want MS to be allowed to get an unfair upper hand, since they've underperformed over the last 10 years? And underperformed is relative because their revenue amount is more than Nintendo.

If I'm the judge I give the injunction since it doesn't kill the deal. Not directly at least. It just stops MS from finishing the deal before the CAT\CMA appeal. And MS closing the deal illegally before the CMA deal will only be a bad thing for all parties. How do people honestly think this will look to the government of the UK? Do you all honestly believe they can allow a foreign country to ignore their laws and just walk all over them with little to no penalty? The regulation body in the UK will cease to exist if they allow MS to do this at this point.

 

[Pelta88]

I'm not totally against exclusivity deals, but they shouldn't be brokered around market share and when there is an inbalance like we're seeing here, there's really no way to do them without market share being leveraged in order to get it done. In reality, publishers should be charging a set price for exclusivity regardless of the platform, but that isn't realistic either.

Ultimately we're dancing around the same point but I don't think you understanding the structure of how these deals are formed

There is a set price, the crucial point is that "XBOX" as a division, has a limited budget and can't match those prices.

While XBOX goes to great lengths to hide their instal, when dealing with other publishers they have to present their current instal along with projected instal and equally as important, projected sales before that marketing deal is signed. Those stats, not PR, or Phil's sound bites, those actual stats which XB legally have to provide in order negotiate said deal... Those stats are bleak. Almost counterproductive when a publisher compares those stats to PS.

You're here in this thread so I know you've seen the stats Microsoft provided to regulators. They exist in the states. Beyond those borders, they're pretty much a non factor. Jim Ryan and Kotic are on record, at risk of perjury, telling you that in the industry, GP is seen as "Value Destructive."

All of this is Microsoft's own doing. None of this is about a fair approach to marketing deals. These publishers, studios, and devs are obligated to make a profit. The industry knows there are two options.

Option A: PR fluff coupled with a value destructive distribution service
Option B: Sales

 

[Wulfer]

I don't disagree with you either, but that's actually because the userbases were similar in size and actually larger in the US by a large number.

What Sony is doing is actually leveraging its market share to get deals that Microsoft can't. This would be largely effective against most companies, but Microsoft has a much larger parent company with much deeper pockets, and the result is they've escalated the situation to buying large publishers, something Sony can't do.

I think both are anti-competitive and both are bad for the industry.

I'm not totally against exclusivity deals, but they shouldn't be brokered around market share and when there is an inbalance like we're seeing here, there's really no way to do them without market share being leveraged in order to get it done. In reality, publishers should be charging a set price for exclusivity regardless of the platform, but that isn't realistic either.

Ultimately, Microsoft built the boat they're in right now, and it's sink or swim from here.

This is real talk and its as clear as it gets!

 

[In Cold Blood]

Hopefully this can all be over one way or the other this week.
If the TI is not granted, there will be cries of impropriety as her son works at Microsoft.
If the TI is granted, there will again be cries of impropriety, as she is a lifelong Democrat and was appointed in 2022 by Joe Biden.

As for me, I don't see why it shouldn't go through, I think the FTC looked pretty weak in the trial, but you can never be certain of anything.
I think she grants the TI, and that's the end of the road for MS and ABK.

Hopefully this makes Microsoft more aggressive and hard arsed in the console space.
Let's see alot more aquisitions and even more exclusives.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Ultimately we're dancing around the same point but I don't think you understanding the structure of how these deals are formed

There is a set price, the crucial point is that "XBOX" as a division, has a limited budget and can't match those prices.

While XBOX goes to great lengths to hide their instal, when dealing with other publishers they have to present their current instal along with projected instal and equally as important, projected sales before that marketing deal is signed. Those stats, not PR, or Phil's sound bites, those actual stats which XB legally have to provide in order negotiate said deal... Those stats are bleak. Almost counterproductive when a publisher compares those stats to PS.

You're here in this thread so I know you've seen the stats Microsoft provided to regulators. They exist in the states. Beyond those borders, they're pretty much a non factor. Jim Ryan and Kotic are on record, at risk of perjury, telling you that in the industry, GP is seen as "Value Destructive."

All of this is Microsoft's own doing. None of this is about a fair approach to marketing deals. These publishers, studios, and devs are obligated to make a profit. The industry knows there are two options.

Option A: PR fluff coupled with a value destructive distribution service
Option B: Sales

Don't think you read my whole post.

I'm well aware of the realities of their market share. What I said is that Sony using their market share to get deals that Microsoft can't afford to is also anti-competitive. It's a barrier to competition. Just as much as Microsoft (parent) swopping in and making a purchase that Sony can't compete with.

It's pretty complicated actually.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/at...ive dealing is common and can take many forms.