• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Microsoft and Sony relationship question.

Mr Reasonable

Completely Unreasonable
If we assume that PlayStation 5 is outselling Xbox 2:1, then the calculation is that it’s easier for Sony to ignore 1/3 of the high end market than for Xbox to ignore 2/3 of the market. Publishers take that into consideration when doing marketing deals
This is untrue, apparently.

It's just who wants to pay the most. Sony don't get to undercut other platforms with their marketing deal proposals because they're currently selling more consoles.
 
Last edited:
This is untrue, apparently.

It's just who wants to pay the most. Sony don't get to undercut other platforms with their marketing deal proposals because they're currently selling more consoles.
The modern marketing deals also contain clauses about GamePass and PlayStation Plus inclusion. They absolutely do take into consideration those platforms when making a decision.

Their contracts give them a period of exclusivity (or a period to negotiate exclusivity) for the sub service. Those figures and limitations are considered.

But in general yes, if Xbox pay more money and that amount of money offsets any losses (if there are any) then a deal can be made. That comment of mine referred more to exclusivity rather than just marketing but I take your point.

When the EA FC deal comes around again it would be insane for Microsoft not to go all out on it.
 
Last edited:

Dr. Claus

Vincit qui se vincit
If MS are serious about gaming, they will spend alot of money to block games from Sony.
They need to stop acting like nice guys and show their true color.

Until then, it will be the usual business. At the end of the day, its all about $$$$.

If MS was serious about gaming, they would learn to manage the studios they have and release games in a decent time frame, not letting them languish in development hell.
 

Tsaki

Member
MS does no good will gestures to Sony. They do it because they believe it benefits them in whatever capacity they value, which is fine in and of itself if you ask me, but I think when you say "good will" you insinuate "it would benefit them more not to, but they just can't help themselves".
Also MS has a long history of doing timed or full exclusives themselves. The reason they do not do it as much at the moment is because Playstation is a much bigger brand than Xbox so it's exponentially riskier to skip that platform. The opposite is also true. It's much easier for games (especially Japanese ones) to skip Xbox when the sales are so low. All it takes is varying degrees of backing and guarantees from Sony (pay-up-front, marketing help, publishing help, development help, etc)
 
Last edited:

fermcr

Member
Phil is too righteous, too saintly to lead the Xbox division. Microsoft needs someone more vicious, more hardball, no prisoners type of person for Xbox to compete with Sony.
If Sony go after one or two 3rd party AAA exclusives, Microsoft need to go after three or four...
Microsoft Xbox are behind, they need to do more.
 
Last edited:

Dick Jones

Gold Member
Phil is too righteous, too saintly to lead the Xbox division. Microsoft needs someone more vicious, more hardball, no prisoners type of person for Xbox to compete with Sony.
If Sony go after one or two 3rd party AAA exclusives, Microsoft need to go after three or four...
Microsoft Xbox are behind, they need to do more.
That's the Chicago way
 

Snake29

RSI Employee of the Year
If Sony is actually paying to keep certain games off of Xbox, do you expect MS to continue doing goodwill gestures such as the Fallout 4, Doom Eternal and Skyrim next gen patches?

Should Microsoft continue giving them games like the quake remaster or Mineshaft games day and date? Curious what everyone thinks and please be respectful.

So the new words for “timed exclusive” is “paying to keep games of bla bla bla”?

This narrative change is really weird.
 

Snake29

RSI Employee of the Year
Ark 2, stalker 2, 12 minutes, medium, high on life, etc. Is yall memory selective, or you're literally oblivious to exclusive deals MS makes?

Playing nice is one of the most cringe takes out here. This ABK block by cma is really producing some good content.

Warhammer Darktide, ExoMecha, Valheim, Scorn, Replaced and i can go on. But yet Xbox fans pretend these do not exist and only use these “payed to cockblock nonsense for all PS deals”.
 

envyzeal

Member
Phil is too righteous, too saintly to lead the Xbox division. Microsoft needs someone more vicious, more hardball, no prisoners type of person for Xbox to compete with Sony.
If Sony go after one or two 3rd party AAA exclusives, Microsoft need to go after three or four...
Microsoft Xbox are behind, they need to do more.
Righteous, Saintly? For fucks sake
 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
If MS are serious about gaming, they will spend alot of money to block games from Sony.
They need to stop acting like nice guys and show their true color.

Until then, it will be the usual business. At the end of the day, its all about $$$$.
What they need to do is what Sony did at the beginning of the PS3 generation. Invest in their 1st party studios by hiring competent people and having an actual plan instead of just throwing money at them without any oversight.

A huge win would be for them to hire some of these former Sony execs such as Jack Tretton, Shawn Laydon and give them control. Pry Rodd Ferguson away from Diablo 4 when its complete and put him in charge of 1st party development.

What's crazy is that I would be the happiest person in the world if MS would do some simple thing(s):
1. Re-release/remaster Fallout 3 and New Vegas so that they are running at 4K/120 with updated visuals and mod support. That's a straightforward project and shouldn't require too many resources. A lot of people would dig it. People have been wanting this for years.
2. Next gen patch for Doom 2016 with 4K/120. How is this game still not on PC Gamepass? It's the most noticeable omission from the Bethesda catalog.

Contrary, to be popular belief I very much want MS to be a major player, but I have NEVER had faith that Gamepass would be a sustainable model and that it would do more harm than good long run. I still think that.
 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
If we assume that PlayStation 5 is outselling Xbox 2:1, then the calculation is that it’s easier for Sony to ignore 1/3 of the high end market than for Xbox to ignore 2/3 of the market. Publishers take that into consideration when doing marketing and or exclusivity deals.

Look at the PS4 for example. You’d need to basically offset all of the money a game would be projected to make, and the negative PR hit, to forgo a PlayStation release and do an exclusivity deal with Xbox. Currently the PS5 is on a similar sales trajectory to the PS4. If you are a publisher, what deal makes the most sense?

Now you could argue that Xbox have a lot of money and it doesn’t matter - pay the money be damned. The issue is that not all Xbox gamers will buy those ‘deal’ games so it’s entirely possible they’d make a loss on each deal of that kind. So they’d make a loss on their hardware, potentially make a loss on including it in GamePass (some will increase subs and some won’t) and then make a loss on getting some games on the platform.

I’m quite interested in when Microsoft have their games releasing at a good rate of knots (3-4 big games a year, with smaller games supplementing the GamePass service). Games cost hundreds of million to make, and to an extent, and we don’t know how much as the data isn’t released, being included in GamePass eats into full-priced sales. Starfield has been in development for a decade or so and will have significant development costs assosiated, and every year COD has 3000 or so developers working on it. Hugely expensive games like that of course release physically and digitally as well, but I’m interested to know how much GamePass eats into that. If Xbox get a lot of subscribers then they’ll be able to offset most/all game development costs. If they can do that then they’ll be fine. That’s why I think getting devices out there that run GamePass is such a priority. It’s where the money will be for them.

However, the more successful GamePass is alongside a successful PlayStation business, the more money it’ll cost to get big third party games on the service or as timed exclusives. At that point the publishers will want to offset PlayStation userbase losses and not making as many $70 sales on Xbox as well.

It’s quite a fiddly calculation.

If I’m Microsoft, I’m putting my games on as many viable platforms as possible until GamePass reaches critical mass and the cost can be significantly increased.

If I’m Sony or someone like Take 2 then I’m going to make my hundreds of million/billions on a game before I put it in a sub service. That way they get their huge payday at the start and then the royalties/sub fees of the subscription subscribers. Much less risk overall. Their issue is whether they are converting PS+ essential users into PS+ extra users. We don’t have those numbers and they’ve been quiet.

If I’m a 3rd party publisher I’m gonna align myself with the platform that best allows me to do that.
People can hate me for saying this all they want. but I think MS big time screwed up making their big time AAA games available on Gamepass Day 1. I just simply cannot believe that is sustainable.

But then again, MS rereleases so few exclusive AAA games, that maybe it is possible.
 
Microsoft needs to stop playing nice huh? Yeah, because trying to buy Bethesda and Activision were such nice and friendly moves weren't they? Microsoft were already the dirtiest player in the game and always have been. Who introduced paid online? Who tried to take away used games? Acting like Microsoft were some amazing friendly corporation is ridiculous. They have always been the worst out of the 3.
 
Last edited:

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Microsoft needs to stop playing nice huh? Yeah, because trying to buy Bethesda and Activision were such nice and friendly moves weren't they? Microsoft were already the dirtiest player in the game and always have been. Who introduced paid online? Who tried to take away used games? Acting like Microsoft were some amazing friendly corporation is ridiculous. They have always been the worst out of the 3.
MS has yet to get anything worthwhile out of their acquisitions. Insomniac, Sucker Punch, Nixxes are already paying dividends. In terms of acquisitions, nothing can touch the value of what Sony has been able to extract from Insomniac.
 

feynoob

Member
People can hate me for saying this all they want. but I think MS big time screwed up making their big time AAA games available on Gamepass Day 1. I just simply cannot believe that is sustainable.

But then again, MS rereleases so few exclusive AAA games, that maybe it is possible.
The screw up is not having steady release of AAA games. Gamepass isn't the issue here.

without gamepass, Xbox would have had major issues in having content.

as for sales, it's better having people spend x amount of money monthly than full money for products on your first party. This can hurt other party games, but it will beneficial to the platform holder.

the reason for that is due to the long term gain vs instant gain. Not every game sells 10+m copies on first year. so having sales+X payment is preferable, as that prints a lot of guaranteed money.

MS needs consistent money, and not worry about gamepass supposedly cannibalizing their sales.
 

K2D

Banned
I fully expect franchises as big as Fallout and TES (and Skyrim which is practically on every conceivable platform..!) to receive releases on PlayStation, which has previously received;

-multiple Skyrim releases, as well as the
-TES Online mmo and
-Oblivion,
-three mainline Fallouts and
-a live service fallout game.

I will buy a pc for TES VI if I have to, but I'd rather play it on PS5 day 1.
 

93xfan

Banned
I love the narrative that paints Microsoft as plucky underdog with the heart of gold.
I have no illusions about their incentives being business. Nonetheless, will they start aggressively firing back, or continuing to give things that Sony would never do? Will they not leverage their Minecraft IP a little or not? Is their current “nice guy” facade doing them any favors?

These are reasonable questions and I’m leaving it open for people to discuss. I’m not saying I have any answers here. I just want to hear what knowledgeable people have to say.
 

Topher

Gold Member
If MS was serious about gaming, they would learn to manage the studios they have and release games in a decent time frame, not letting them languish in development hell.

That's it in a nutshell. Focus on the product they are trying to make and release some damn good games. So far Microsoft still has not shown they can do that on a consistent basis. Great first party games are hell of a lot more important than this moneyhatting nonsense.
 

Gorgon

Member
The modern marketing deals also contain clauses about GamePass and PlayStation Plus inclusion. They absolutely do take into consideration those platforms when making a decision.

Their contracts give them a period of exclusivity (or a period to negotiate exclusivity) for the sub service. Those figures and limitations are considered.

But in general yes, if Xbox pay more money and that amount of money offsets any losses (if there are any) then a deal can be made. That comment of mine referred more to exclusivity rather than just marketing but I take your point.

When the EA FC deal comes around again it would be insane for Microsoft not to go all out on it.

What EA FC deal?
 
What games are they paying to keep off of Xbox? Like, give actual examples, and they better not include Final Fantasy or games from last gen for that matter.

Ridiculous how people try making it sound like it's rampant, not to mention Microsoft have their own 3P exclusives that don't come to PlayStation but that's just fine for some reason.
 
This is untrue, apparently.

It's just who wants to pay the most. Sony don't get to undercut other platforms with their marketing deal proposals because they're currently selling more consoles.
Not true. It costs a company more to keep their game off a platform with 100 million potential buyers than it does one with 40 million, for example.

The less popular machine would have to offer more incentive to get exclusive access, simply because the publisher will sell fewer copies.
 

Mr Reasonable

Completely Unreasonable
Not true. It costs a company more to keep their game off a platform with 100 million potential buyers than it does one with 40 million, for example.

The less popular machine would have to offer more incentive to get exclusive access, simply because the publisher will sell fewer copies.
Does my post say "exclusivity" or "marketing"?
 

graywolf323

Member
I have a hard time believing that there’s a contract for next GEN patches.

And even if it’s about money for some of these releases, they could always choose to do timed exclusives if they wanted, m other incentives. If I was them, I would do something to incentivize the practice of blocking games on Xbox to stop.
I mean they already didn’t bother with Psychonauts 2 and that was long before the ABK purchase
 

Davesky

Member
Sony will probably give them a console version of Ever Crisis to buy on the online store, and probably only a couple of months before the release of FFVII Rebirth. That pretty much sums up their relationship.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom