Support NeoGAF

[feynoob]

Microsoft has not managed the majority of their currently owned IP very well whatsoever

That is not exclusive thing to MS. It happens to all major big publishers too. Even Sony too.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

That is not exclusive thing to MS. It happens to all major big publishers too. Even Sony too.

MS is on another level.

 

[feynoob]

MS is on another level.

They presented TV to gamers. They are that dumb.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

People have been predicting doom and gloom because of MS being in the gaming industry for 20 years. At some point you get over it and realize they have just as much a right to be in the industry as Sony and Nintendo. They've been making consoles longer than Sega now.

Good luck waiting for some to get over it.

 

[feynoob]

Good luck waiting for some to get over it.

Industry without MS is a bad future for everyone.
Industry with MS having too much power is bad future for everyone.
You need balance there. And if that balance is broken, then its not a good thing for everyone.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

That is not exclusive thing to MS. It happens to all major big publishers too. Even Sony too.

I know, and that's true. But like ChorizoPicozo said, MS's on another level with it. Sony & Nintendo have much better track records in that regard than Microsoft, historically speaking.

Industry without MS is a bad future for everyone.
Industry with MS having too much power is bad future for everyone.
You need balance there. And if that balance is broken, then its not a good thing for everyone.

I mean, the truth is we don't "need" Microsoft, we don't even "need" Sony or Nintendo. If any were to for whatever reason leave the market as a platform holder, then another company would most likely take up the vacant slot. That's exactly what Microsoft did when Sega stepped down from making consoles, or Sony when NEC/Hudson did (they were the other of the "old" Big 3 alongside Nintendo & Sega before Sony jumped in).

However, as an emotional argument then yes, it would definitely suck if any of the current Big 3 left the market as a platform holder. Personally I would still rather Sega as a platform holder today than Microsoft, but it is what it is. My point being, it would hurt to see any of them (Sony the most, Microsoft the least, Nintendo somewhere in the middle for myself personally) stop making consoles and that would put a dent on the market as a whole, but naturally another company would come in to take their spot.

And just like Sony had to or Microsoft has had to, they'd need time to win over the trust and support of gamers and developers.

 

[feynoob]

I mean, the truth is we don't "need" Microsoft, we don't even "need" Sony or Nintendo. If any were to for whatever reason leave the market as a platform holder, then another company would most likely take up the vacant slot. That's exactly what Microsoft did when Sega stepped down from making consoles, or Sony when NEC/Hudson did (they were the other of the "old" Big 3 alongside Nintendo & Sega before Sony jumped in).

However, as an emotional argument then yes, it would definitely suck if any of the current Big 3 left the market as a platform holder. Personally I would still rather Sega as a platform holder today than Microsoft, but it is what it is. My point being, it would hurt to see any of them (Sony the most, Microsoft the least, Nintendo somewhere in the middle for myself personally) stop making consoles and that would put a dent on the market as a whole, but naturally another company would come in to take their spot.

And just like Sony had to or Microsoft has had to, they'd need time to win over the trust and support of gamers and developers.

The big 3 advanced gaming to a whole new level, and intruduced new audience to the market. If any of one of them leaves, the market would change to just 2 big company.

MS took online gaming, sub service and cloud to a new level. Without them, Sony wouldnt have improved their offering.

Competition is good, when companies push each other. We consumers benefit that massively.

Without MS, Sony wouldnt have made their current games.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

That is not exclusive thing to MS. It happens to all major big publishers too. Even Sony too.

I'd fucking buy a PS5 tomorrow if they announced another Sly Cooper game.

 

[Mr Moose]

Industry without MS is a bad future for everyone.
Industry with MS having too much power is bad future for everyone.
You need balance there. And if that balance is broken, then its not a good thing for everyone.

MicroSoft or Xbox?
I would lose nothing if Xbox Game Studios stopped existing.

 

[feynoob]

MicroSoft or Xbox?
I would lose nothing if Xbox Game Studios stopped existing.

You will lose alot.

 

[Mr Moose]

You will lose alot.

Like?

 

[feynoob]

Like?

Like current Sony games.

 

[Mr Moose]

Like current Sony games.

Yes because Sony produce Xbox Game Studio games.... WTF are you talking about?

 

[oldergamer]

Yes because Sony produce Xbox Game Studio games.... WTF are you talking about?

Use your head? He's obviously saying you wouldnt have the same quality of games you do now on playstation if xbox wasnt competing.

Ps3 started off like a shit show that started sony on a path to get better. The launch games didnt match the cg trailers they said were actual footage. It pushed them to refocus on visuals.

 

[Mr Moose]

Use your head? He's obviously saying you wouldnt have the same quality of games you do now on playstation if xbox wasnt competing.

Ps3 started off like a shit show that started sony on a path to get better. The launch games didnt match the cg trailers they said were actual footage. It pushed them to refocus on visuals.

Use your head, you're wrong and no one cares about Xbox Game Studios graphical output.
How would Sony games, which are graphically (whether you like the gameplay or not) in the upper tier lose out if Xbox stopped existing?

 

[feynoob]

Yes because Sony produce Xbox Game Studio games.... WTF are you talking about?

I think you got the wrong end there.
Topic was competition.

 

[Mr Moose]

I think you got the wrong end there.
Topic was competition.

Oh, probably, I am drinking at the moment lol.

 

[reinking]

Use your head? He's obviously saying you wouldnt have the same quality of games you do now on playstation if xbox wasnt competing.

Ps3 started off like a shit show that started sony on a path to get better. The launch games didnt match the cg trailers they said were actual footage. It pushed them to refocus on visuals.

Last I checked Sony was doing okay before Microsoft entered the market. PS3 started off like a shit show because they tried to push the envelope too far with the cell processor. It was the opposite of lacking innovation and had very little to do with MS. The only thing that MS can take credit for in relation to that is Sony most likely would not have dropped the price as quickly without the competition.

 

[feynoob]

Use your head, you're wrong and no one cares about Xbox Game Studios graphical output.
How would Sony games, which are graphically (whether you like the gameplay or not) in the upper tier lose out if Xbox stopped existing?

Because competition man.
Look at Sony PS2 vs PS3.
If Xbox didn't exist, and weren't stealing 3rd party games, or have shooter games like halo and gears, Sony wouldn't have put that much effort in to their studios, and only relied on 3rd party like Xbox was doing during x360.

The competition allowed Sony to change their strategy and rely on their 1st party output, which gave us uncharted, the last of us, infamous and all PS4 and PS5 games.

If Xbox and their 1st party studios weren't in the competition, you wouldnt have seen those games at all.

P.s. it's ok. I am busy playing here too, since it's boring.

 

[Mr Moose]

Because competition man.
Look at Sony PS2 vs PS3.
If Xbox didn't exist, and weren't stealing 3rd party games, or have shooter games like halo and gears, Sony wouldn't have put that much effort in to their studios, and only relied on 3rd party like Xbox was doing during x360.

The competition allowed Sony to change their strategy and rely on their 1st party output, which gave us uncharted, the last of us, infamous and all PS4 and PS5 games.

If Xbox and their 1st party studios weren't in the competition, you wouldnt have seen those games at all.

P.s. it's ok. I am busy playing here too, since it's boring.

Maybe some of it would've pushed them to compete, but they would also need to be competing with 3rd parties too or be left behind.
It would honestly be fun to look at with or without MS and Sony, seeing their output one way or another (though without PS, Xbox wouldn't exist).

 

[adamsapple]

I'd fucking buy a PS5 tomorrow if they announced another Sly Cooper game.

 

[reinking]

Because competition man.
Look at Sony PS2 vs PS3.
If Xbox didn't exist, and weren't stealing 3rd party games, or have shooter games like halo and gears, Sony wouldn't have put that much effort in to their studios, and only relied on 3rd party like Xbox was doing during x360.

The competition allowed Sony to change their strategy and rely on their 1st party output, which gave us uncharted, the last of us, infamous and all PS4 and PS5 games.

If Xbox and their 1st party studios weren't in the competition, you wouldnt have seen those games at all.

P.s. it's ok. I am busy playing here too, since it's boring.

I disagree. Sony would still be competing with Nintendo, PC and other entertainment products. I believe people are giving Microsoft too much credit for Sony's innovation. Sony has always been an innovative company. I could argue that Sony is less innovative with the PlayStation brand because they are having to compete with Microsoft and not able to take as many risks as they did in the earlier days of PlayStation.

 

[feynoob]

I disagree. Sony would still be competing with Nintendo, PC and other entertainment products. I believe people are giving Microsoft too much credit for Sony's innovation. Sony has always been an innovative company. I could argue that Sony is less innovative with the PlayStation brand because they are having to compete with Microsoft and not able to take as many risks as they did in the earlier days of PlayStation.

Competition with nintendo wouldnt have resulted current Sony. That is the difference.

Both Sony and MS have pushed each other alot, in order to reach where they are now. While Nintendo went and did their business.

 

[Mr Moose]

I disagree. Sony would still be competing with Nintendo, PC and other entertainment products. I believe people are giving Microsoft too much credit for Sony's innovation. Sony has always been an innovative company. I could argue that Sony is less innovative with the PlayStation brand because they are having to compete with Microsoft and not able to take as many risks as they did in the earlier days of PlayStation.

I think it would make more sense in the PS2 gen, otherwise MS would not have had a console now. It's honestly hard to say how things would turn out, but it would be interesting to see how it would if different factors happened now (no MS, no Sony. no Sega, no Nintendo and so on, as long as at least two of those existed during this time).

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I disagree. Sony would still be competing with Nintendo, PC and other entertainment products. I believe people are giving Microsoft too much credit for Sony's innovation. Sony has always been an innovative company. I could argue that Sony is less innovative with the PlayStation brand because they are having to compete with Microsoft and not able to take as many risks as they did in the earlier days of PlayStation.

I think nuance is the key aspect.

Sony has been competing with itself from a technological and video game production point of view.

Xbox pushes PlayStation from a business and value to consumers. PS+ and now with Game Pass. but that's about it.

 

[feynoob]

T Three
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...memaker?sref=uE15RiYa&leadSource=uverify wall

Kotick and the board weren’t sold on Microsoft as the acquirer, two people familiar with the matter said. Activision made calls to try to find other interested parties, said the people, who asked not to be identified talking about private conversations. Those included Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc. and at least one other big company. But no other serious interest materialized. In an interview, Spencer declined to discuss how the deal went down. A Meta spokesperson declined to comment, and a representative for Activision didn’t return requests for comment.

Picking up on Activision’s hesitations, Microsoft backed off, telling the game publisher it was happy to remain partners and work on selling more Activision titles on Xbox. Ultimately Activision came back to the table and both companies’ teams worked through the holidays to get the deal done. Microsoft brought in Dan Dees of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Activision hired Nancy Peretsman at Allen & Co. While Nadella was involved when needed, the bulk of the merger talks took place between Spencer and Kotick, said the person.

 

[Mr Moose]

T Three
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...memaker?sref=uE15RiYa&leadSource=uverify wall

Probably legit, because 69 BILLION, there's not a lot than can afford that shit.

 

[reinking]

Competition with nintendo wouldnt have resulted current Sony. That is the difference.

Both Sony and MS have pushed each other alot, in order to reach where they are now. While Nintendo went and did their business.

You can't say that with certainty because we do not even know what Nintendo would look like today if MS had never entered the market. Again, I think people are giving MS too much credit for Sony's innovation. Going back to the PS3. They were trying to push the envelope with a new architecture. This wasn't about Microsoft; it was about what they were trying to achieve. Look at VR. That is not about Microsoft. Look at the titles they put out vs Microsoft. It is Microsoft trying to tap into Sony's market, not the other way around. This whole thread is about Microsoft trying to buy their way to the top, not to innovate and push the competition to innovate as well.

I do understand what you are saying but I just do not agree with it 100%. Sony pushes PlayStation innovation more than their competition and if anyone really pushed Sony early on it was Nintendo. I really think Sony has held back on being as innovative with their titles as they were early on because of Microsoft. Not the other way around.

 

[adamsapple]

I do understand what you are saying but I just do not agree with it 100%. Sony pushes PlayStation innovation more than their competition and if anyone really pushed Sony early on it was Nintendo. I really think Sony has held back on being as innovative with their titles as they were early on because of Microsoft. Not the other way around.

That makes absolutely no sense. Why would Sony stop innovating because of Microsoft. There's no logical reason behind that statement outside of you wanting to blame MS for an arbitrary thing.

 

[reinking]

That makes absolutely no sense. Why would Sony stop innovating because of Microsoft. There's no logical reason behind that statement outside of you wanting to blame MS for an arbitrary thing.

I believe they take less risks with offbeat titles than they used to due to the increased competition. It makes perfect sense. I don't give a flip to blame MS for anything so you are barking up the wrong tree there.

 

[adamsapple]

I believe they take less risks with offbeat titles than they used to due to the increased competition. It makes perfect sense. I don't give a flip to blame MS for anything so you are barking up the wrong tree there.

That has nothing to do with MS and more to do with ROI.

Off beat titles often don't sell well regardless of competition or region. Even Nintendo only releases tried and tested games these days.

 

[reinking]

That has nothing to do with MS and more to do with ROI.

Off beat titles often don't sell well regardless of competition or region. Even Nintendo only releases tried and tested games these days.

Competition can cause companies to reduce risks. If you do not understand how that is possible that is fine. We can disagree.

 

[adamsapple]

Competition can cause companies to reduce risks. If you do not understand how that is possible that is fine. We can disagree.

I understand that, but you are looking outward for the competition.

The majority of competition comes from within. Which titles sell the most on the PS platforms since the PS3 days, we all know. it's the shooters and sports games. Those will always be there and sell irrespective of hardware vendor. When publisher X sees that his type of niche games aren't selling on PS4/5 and publisher Y is making millions in revenue, what kind of project do you think publisher X will greenlight next.

 

[feynoob]

You can't say that with certainty because we do not even know what Nintendo would look like today if MS had never entered the market. Again, I think people are giving MS too much credit for Sony's innovation. Going back to the PS3. They were trying to push the envelope with a new architecture. This wasn't about Microsoft; it was about what they were trying to achieve. Look at VR. That is not about Microsoft. Look at the titles they put out vs Microsoft. It is Microsoft trying to tap into Sony's market, not the other way around. This whole thread is about Microsoft trying to buy their way to the top, not to innovate and push the competition to innovate as well.

I do understand what you are saying but I just do not agree with it 100%. Sony pushes PlayStation innovation more than their competition and if anyone really pushed Sony early on it was Nintendo. I really think Sony has held back on being as innovative with their titles as they were early on because of Microsoft. Not the other way around.

the point is both Sony and MS pushed each other to produce the best medium.
Their resource was much bigger than nintendo, and allowed them to use their external resources to push themselves.

Sony is innovation, due to them being an entertainment company. They dont push themselves because of PS, but from their other business as well. And with MS in the gaming industry, this means more invesment on their gaming division too.

ChorizoPicozo explained it well.

 

[reinking]

I understand that, but you are looking outward for the competition.

The majority of competition comes from within. Which titles sell the most on the PS platforms since the PS3 days, we all know. it's the shooters and sports games. Those will always be there and sell irrespective of hardware vendor.

Last I checked Sony was doing okay before Microsoft entered the market. PS3 started off like a shit show because they tried to push the envelope too far with the cell processor. It was the opposite of lacking innovation and had very little to do with MS. The only thing that MS can take credit for in relation to that is Sony most likely would not have dropped the price as quickly without the competition.

 

[adamsapple]

I don't see the relation between the bolded part and your quoted post .. but ok

 

[reinking]

I don't see the relation between the bolded part and your quoted post .. but ok

Because I started the whole conversation saying that Sony was pushing themselves to innovate and it had little to do with MS maybe? You know, from within? But whatever, the conversation was not intended to rustle jimmies.

 

[adamsapple]

Because I started the whole conversation saying that Sony was pushing themselves to innovate and it had little to do with MS maybe? You know, from within? But whatever, the conversation was not intended to rustle jimmies.

No jimmies rustled fam. I just think your focusing on the wrong thing as to why it feels like they stopped innovating.

 

[akimbo009]

Because I started the whole conversation saying that Sony was pushing themselves to innovate and it had little to do with MS maybe? You know, from within? But whatever, the conversation was not intended to rustle jimmies.

Man... I dunno..Sony right now is littered with remakes, remasters, and releasing number 3 or 4s of decade old series. And their best exclusives are paying 3rd parties (mostly From Soft) for newer IPs and game development. Not feeling totally blown away by Sony "innovation" lately.

I'll take alternative ways to consume content since it maximizes my opportunity to be exposed to innovation even if the publisher is not exactly burning up the skies with their releases.

 

[reinking]

Man... I dunno..Sony right now is littered with remakes, remasters, and releasing number 3 or 4s of decade old series. And their best exclusives are paying 3rd parties (mostly From Soft) for newer IPs and game development. Not feeling totally blown away by Sony "innovation" lately.

I'll take alternative ways to consume content since it maximizes my opportunity to be exposed to innovation even if the publisher is not exactly burning up the skies with their releases.

You're not tricking me into going back to the conversation about how competition might be part of the reason they have held back on innovative titles lately.

 

[Three]

Man... I dunno..Sony right now is littered with remakes, remasters, and releasing number 3 or 4s of decade old series. And their best exclusives are paying 3rd parties (mostly From Soft) for newer IPs and game development. Not feeling totally blown away by Sony "innovation" lately.

The fact that you don't realise that Returnal, Dreams, DAS, Death Stranding, GoT etc exist just goes to show you wouldn't care about it to begin with.

 

[Yoboman]

Use your head? He's obviously saying you wouldnt have the same quality of games you do now on playstation if xbox wasnt competing.

Ps3 started off like a shit show that started sony on a path to get better. The launch games didnt match the cg trailers they said were actual footage. It pushed them to refocus on visuals.

Sony's first party (at least the big hitters) have all been around and working with Sony since well before Xbox 360 was a threat

 

[akimbo009]

The fact that you don't realise that Returnal, Dreams, DAS, Death Stranding, GoT etc exist just goes to show you wouldn't care about it to begin with.

I dunno..it's been a long time since I've been consistently blown away by 1st party games, and none of those really interest me. Even so, I wouldn't go out of the way to call them innovative (maybe Death Stranding but that's also a fever dream).

Either way, there's a lot of ways platform owners can be innovative (pricing, delivery, games) and the industry is better with the Big 3 than without (one or many). Hungry Sony is better than Arrogant Sony, etc.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

Are we really arguing that it's MS's fault Sony abandoned everything outside of 3rd person narrative action adventure (outside of GT and MLB)?

Like, can we have an ounce of variety? Where are the RPGs, the shooters, the 'immersive sims' (fuck I hate that term), the survival games, the multiplayer, the passion projects, or anything else that takes a modecum of risk? Sony used to make those games, and I know their devs are skilled enough to make them.

Sony studios are incredibly good at the one thing they do, let's see them do something different.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Are we really arguing that it's MS's fault Sony abandoned everything outside of 3rd person narrative action adventure (outside of GT and MLB)?

Only dumb people would argue/debate/focus on that..

Like, can we have an ounce of variety?

Ounce? . Hyperbolic much?

Where are the RPGs, the shooters, the 'immersive sims' (fuck I hate that term), the survival games, the multiplayer, the passion projects, or anything else that takes a modecum of risk?

You are so transparent.

Sony used to make those games, and I know their devs are skilled enough to make them.

Sony studios are incredibly good at the one thing they do, let's see them do something different.

Yeah. Can't wait Naughty Dog to make the next Civilization and Sim City.

 

[akimbo009]

Only dumb people would argue/debate/focus on that..


Ounce? . Hyperbolic much?

You are so transparent.


Yeah. Can't wait Naughty Dog to make the next Civilization and Sim City.

You won't see them make a sim .. they are making... Checks notes... Last of Us 3! Exciting, I know.

 

[Three]

I dunno..it's been a long time since I've been consistently blown away by 1st party games, and none of those really interest me. Even so, I wouldn't go out of the way to call them innovative (maybe Death Stranding but that's also a fever dream).Either way, there's a lot of ways platform owners can be innovative (pricing, delivery, games) and the industry is better with the Big 3 than without (one or many). Hungry Sony is better than Arrogant Sony, etc.

Couldn't agree more that the industry is better with more, was just disagreeing with you regarding Sony games being littered with "remakes or number 3 or 4 of decades old series" when the bigger recent releases like Ghost of Tsushima, Death Stranding, even Horizon Forbidden West and arguably Spiderman 2/Wolverine are none of those things and Xboxs bigger releases Forza H5/8, Gears 6 and Halo Infinite are. I think it's the complete opposite when it comes to new IPs. It will be different with the acquisitions but I'm really not sure what the delay is with their current studios. Hellblade 2 should have released by now IMO, everybody was saying xbox is poised for games on Xbox Series launch but it was a crap launch in terms of games. It concentrated on boosting performance for old games and little on actual new ones.

Anyway, competition is always good. If we didn't have competition PSN would suck, there would be no trophies, xbox would still be charging for f2p games, etc. Some pricing innovation I don't like though, xbox charging for online play even when most of it was/is p2p. game release competition and visuals I believe would have happened anyway though.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

You won't see them make a sim .. they are making... Checks notes... Last of Us 3! Exciting, I know.

Is a Violence Simulator.

 

[Three]

You won't see them make a sim .. they are making... Checks notes... Last of Us 3! Exciting, I know.

They are making a multiplayer game called Factions. Why you would ignore that confirmed game and concentrate on a rumour

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

They are making a multiplayer game called Factions. Why you would ignore that confirmed game and concentrate on a rumour

He is butthurt.