• 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.

MS's Response to Sony's "No AAA Studio Can Match CoD" Statement + Confirms Sony Pays To Blocks Games From Game Pass

Menzies

Member
I'm not claiming it's worse if that's what you're saying. Microsoft's gone down the route of M&As. Sony is being aggressive with third party deals. Both are fair play strategies as far as i'm concerned.
Well there's a tone implied with the earlier comment about 'they just buy them permanently'.

There's still a view from some that Microsoft's purchase of Bethesda is some super-aggressive and unfair move, when the realty at the time Microsoft was just emerging from having like 5 studios against Sony's 16 or thereabouts.

I'm sure if we could rewind the tape to 360-era, the overwhelmingly majority accepted tone on timed-exclusivity was a dick move. As you're paying to deny content versus footing the bill for the costs the create something. Has this changed over time?
 

Menzies

Member
You mentioned Triple A blockbusters, and you named Deathloop, Ghostwire Tokyo, and Forspoken, which aren't Triple A blockbusters. I said Xbox gamers are acting like Sony is acquiring them left and right.

The Final Fantasy 7 deal was made years ago, likely before 2015.
The only thing reported regarding Final Fantasy 14 was that it was due to Xbox Live regulations.
Resident Evil 8 isn't exclusive.

Final Fantasy 16 and Forspoken are probably time-exclusive titles, which only one being a tripel A title.


Ark II is timed exclusive on Xbox, considering how big the original game is, it's bigger than the likes of Deathloop, Ghostwire, and Forspoken (likely). You also had PUBG and Rise of the Tomb Raider. Microsoft has MANY other non-triple A titles (a lot of double a) titles locked down.
I'll leave it to others to debate the merits on defining AAA.

The general recent deals from the Microsoft side are 3-6 months terms.
 
Well there's a tone implied with the earlier comment about 'they just buy them permanently'.

There's still a view from some that Microsoft's purchase of Bethesda is some super-aggressive and unfair move, when the realty at the time Microsoft was just emerging from having like 5 studios against Sony's 16 or thereabouts.

I'm sure if we could rewind the tape to 360-era, the overwhelmingly majority accepted tone on timed-exclusivity was a dick move. As you're paying to deny content versus footing the bill for the costs the create something. Has this changed over time?

Well it's true lol. Deathloop and Ghostwire are exclusives for 1 year. Starfield and Redfall are permenant. I'm not of the opinion that one is worse than the other.

They're aggressive as hell. They've gone from 5 to over 30 if ActBliz goes through. I don't think it's unfair though.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It only took a second to google search the article.

The article linked the tweet.


If you can assume similar clauses, then we can assume Microsoft has made similar deals.

I'm gonna say that tweet from Phil is likely in part him saving face.

Because we also have statements from Capcom reps who straight up say there will never be a version of SFV on Xbox because of the deep partnership with Sony.


-

I guess either Sony didn't pursue Capcom aggressive enough or Phil gave a better offer now hence Street Fighter VI is coming to both PS and Xbox.



I'll leave it to others to debate the merits on defining AAA.

The general recent deals from the Microsoft side are 3-6 months terms.

At the very least PC gamers aren't left out if MS secures a timed exclusive. MS caters to console and PC equally in 99.9% cases.
 

Ozriel

Member
I see you in Sony threads. Are you in there because those upset you then? I'd get that checked

On a serious note I'm here discussing. If that offends you just put me on ignore

You...see me in Sony threads?

What does that even mean? Did you mistake me for someone else? Don't rope me into your console wars nonsense. I probably got my PS5 before you got yours.
 

DForce

Member
I'm gonna say that tweet from Phil is likely in part him saving face.

Because we also have statements from Capcom reps who straight up say there will never be a version of SFV on Xbox because of the deep partnership with Sony.

-

I guess either Sony didn't pursue Capcom aggressive enough or Phil gave a better offer now hence Street Fighter VI is coming to both PS and Xbox.
Of course, they will make a statement after a deal was completed. MS likely had a chance to help before but chose not to.
 

Menzies

Member
Well it's true lol. Deathloop and Ghostwire are exclusives for 1 year. Starfield and Redfall are permenant. I'm not of the opinion that one is worse than the other.

They're aggressive as hell. They've gone from 5 to over 30 if ActBliz goes through. I don't think it's unfair though.
But who has more permanent exclusives? Or at least has enjoyed them for far longer...
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
At the very least PC gamers aren't left out if MS secures a timed exclusive. MS caters to console and PC equally in 99.9% cases.
Exactly.

At least for MS, the deals they do are going to be Xbox and PC accessible, day one, and game pass. There's options. Heck, by the looks of it, you could even do GP on Samsung TVs where you dont even have to own any console or PC hardware. On the other hand, Sony stripped away PS Now from TVs years ago. Only some dedicated games stay platform specific (ie. Age of Empires is a PC only game and always has been). Even Flight Simulator came out for console so it shows the effort they put in towards two platforms.

Cant say the same for Sony and Nintendo who are almost all walled off ecosystems. Only recently have they dabbled in PC/mobile gaming with old games or Mario Run.

So anyone to compare MS to Sony (or Nintendo) trying to make it look like MS is equal or worse than the other two is a farce.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
Exactly.

At least for MS, the deals they do are going to be Xbox and PC accessible, day one, and game pass. There's options. Only some dedicated games stay platform specific (ie. Age of Empires is a PC only game and always has been). Even Flight Simulator came out for console so it shows the effort they put in towards two platforms.

Cant say the same for Sony and Nintendo who are almost all walled off ecosystems. Only recently have they dabbled in PC/mobile gaming with old games or Mario Run.

So anyone to compare MS to Sony (or Nintendo) trying to make it look like MS is equal or worse than the other two is a farce.

That's using PC to deflect the fact that MS uses the same tactics as anyone else in the realm of exclusivity. Look.....if Starfield were coming to PlayStation then you might have an argument, but it isn't and no, sorry, PC doesn't change that. If exclusivity gets your hands dirty then Microsoft's hands are dirty. Simple as that.
 

Menzies

Member
Sorry not following where you're doing with this?
Correct me if I'm wrong - you're seemingly discounting the previous 20 years. Sony was more aggressive earlier, purchasd more studios and secured more exclusives.

Now when Microsoft has 'minimized the gulf' - they're the ones guilty of 'permanent exclusives' when the reality is there's starting to become an even parity?
 

Ozriel

Member
You just jumped in to say i'm crying about MS aquistions, and i'm the one who roped you into a console war?

Lmao okay chap.

I don't consider complaints about 'consolidation' or acquisitions to be out and out console warring. I don't believe I've ever said that.

Your whole bit about 'coming into Sony threads' is what I find weird.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
That's using PC to deflect the fact that MS uses the same tactics as anyone else in the realm of exclusivity. Look.....if Starfield were coming to PlayStation then you might have an argument, but it isn't and no, sorry, PC doesn't change that. If exclusivity gets your hands dirty then Microsoft's hands are dirty. Simple as that.
Never said MS doesn't do deals. I even said it in an earlier post that everyone does deals. Heck, I'm sure Atari and Coleco did their share of deals 40 years ago.

But there's no way you can say MS's deals are worse than Sony (or Nintendo), when history has shown their games go to PC, day one, game pass and all their existing games are still multi platform. There's always an out with gamers having access on PC (or even mobile or Samsung TVs with whatever games work using xcloud or GP). There's a lot more options, so dont deny that.

They even try to do that Play Anywhere thing for some games (up to the publisher), so you buy it once and get it for console and PC for one price.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong - you're seemingly discounting the previous 20 years. Sony was more aggressive earlier, purchasd more studios and secured more exclusives.

Now when Microsoft has 'minimized the gulf' - they're the ones guilty of 'permanent exclusives' when the reality is there's starting to become an even parity?

Again, i'm not applying "guilt".

I'm not using the term aggressive with a negative connotation if that's what you mean. They've spent close to $100 billion in a mere few years and are going to have more than double the amount of studios as Sony. It is what it is
 
Last edited:
I don't consider complaints about 'consolidation' or acquisitions to be out and out console warring. I don't believe I've ever said that.

Your whole bit about 'coming into Sony threads' is what I find weird.

I consider your need to jump in just to bait me into some nonsense argument to be console warring.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
Never said MS doesn't do deals. I even said it in an earlier post that everyone does deals. Heck, I'm sure Atari and Coleco did their share of deals 40 years ago.

But there's no way you can say MS's deals are worse than Sony (or Nintendo), when history has shown their games go to PC, day one, game pass and all their existing games are still multi platform. There's always an out with gamers having access on PC (or even mobile or Samsung TVs with whatever games work using xcloud or GP). There's a lot more options, so dont deny that.

They even try to do that Play Anywhere thing for some games (up to the publisher), so you buy it once and get it for console and PC for one price.

Doesn't change the fact that Starfield and Elder Scrolls would have been on PlayStation and Microsoft decided not to support those platforms post-acquisition. Are there more options for playing Microsoft games? Yes, I'll grant you that. But exclusivity (by definition) is more about what platforms are excluded, not included. That is where MS is just as bad as anyone else.
 
Last edited:

Ozriel

Member
I consider your need to jump in just to bait me into some nonsense argument to be console warring.

I don't think you getting upset about the trend of a discussion translates to what is commonly accepted as 'console warring'. I'm not putting down any platform, asserting the superiority of any platform or making derogatory statements about where you play your games.

At least you've got one thing right. This has devolved into a nonsense argument. Moving on...
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Doesn't change the fact that Starfield and Elder Scrolls would have been on PlayStation and Microsoft decided not to support those platforms post-acquisition. Are there more options for playing Microsoft games? Yes, I'll grant you that. But exclusivity (by definition) is more about what platforms are excluded, not included. That is where MS is just as bad as anyone else.
Regarding games going forward, it looks like every console maker locks it in their ecosystem unless it's a big cash grab like COD, Destiny or Minecraft which look like will keep on being multiplatform for the foreseeable future.

But MS still has the most non-console options out there. And they treat PC on par with Xbox. It even goes beyond PC, as there's even some limited action from xcloud mobile gaming and Samsung TV gamepass. Not unknown PC ports possibly 4 years later like Sony, or zero port forever like Nintendo.
 
I don't think you getting upset about the trend of a discussion translates to what is commonly accepted as 'console warring'. I'm not putting down any platform, asserting the superiority of any platform or making derogatory statements about where you play your games.

I'm in here to about the consolidation, aquisitions and the like, because yeah it's pretty significant. According to you that's crying. So yes that's just console warring as far as i'm concerned

Don't get me wrong I've engaged in it, but you should self-reflect a little before complaining about getting roped into warring which you started
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
Regarding games going forward, it looks like every console maker locks it in their ecosystem unless it's a big cash grab like COD, Destiny or Minecraft which look like will keep on being multiplatform for the foreseeable future.

But MS still has the most non-console options out there. And they treat PC on par with Xbox. It even goes beyond PC, as there's even some limited action from xcloud mobile gaming and Samsung TV gamepass. Not unknown PC ports possibly 4 years later like Sony, or zero port forever like Nintendo.

That's all fine. I've said before I wish Sony were on PC day one with their games. That doesn't make excluded platforms any less excluded. Sorry man, you can't have it both ways.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Doesn't change the fact that Starfield and Elder Scrolls would have been on PlayStation and Microsoft decided not to support those platforms post-acquisition. Are there more options for playing Microsoft games? Yes, I'll grant you that. But exclusivity (by definition) is more about what platforms are excluded, not included. That is where MS is just as bad as anyone else.

But one case objectively excludes more platforms more often than the other. They both have dirty hands but one set of hands a little more grimier all things considered.

I'm still maintaining that by 2024 Sony will start putting their first party stuff day and date on PC as well, but until then it's kinda one-sided right now.
 
Last edited:

Ozriel

Member
I'm in here to about the consolidation, aquisitions and the like, because yeah it's pretty significant. According to you that's crying. So yes that's just console warring as far as i'm concerned

Don't get me wrong I've engaged in it, but you should self-reflect a little before complaining about getting roped into warring which you started

Want to scroll up to see that in my post you responded to, the word 'crying' was never used?
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
That's all fine. I've said before I wish Sony were on PC day one with their games. That doesn't make excluded platforms any less excluded. Sorry man, you can't have it both ways.
Sure it helps.

There's different levels of exclusivity. Exclusivity the Nintendo/Sony way is hard locked on a console platform (with exception of the 5 Sony games going PC lately). MS has more options.

Just because PC and mobile are considered neutral platforms compared to console ecosystems like Sony, MS or Nintendo, it doesn't mean they should be excluded to fit your narrative.

Excluding PC, mobile and even Samsung TVs makes your MS vs Sony argument close to your narrative. Acknowledging MS' approach to supporting PC and other ways of playing kills your agenda.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Sure it helps.

There's different levels of exclusivity. Exclusivity the Nintendo/Sony way is hard locked on a console platform (with exception of the 5 Sony games going PC lately). MS has more options.

Just because PC and mobile are considered neutral platforms compared to console ecosystems like Sony, MS or Nintendo, it doesn't mean they should be excluded to fit your narrative.

Excluding PC, mobile and even Samsung TVs makes your MS vs Sony argument close to your narrative. Acknowledging MS' approach to supporting PC and other ways of playing kills your agenda.

But you are still excluding...sorry, my "agenda" is about exclusion and Microsoft does that.
 
Last edited:
There's something interesting to watch. I heard that Sont had clauses in their contracts that games couldn't go to GP, and I heard that this was in both Ghostwire and Death Loop contracts.
Let's see when Death Loop releases for Xbox if it goes straight into GP or not.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
There's something interesting to watch. I heard that Sont had clauses in their contracts that games couldn't go to GP, and I heard that this was in both Ghostwire and Death Loop contracts.
Let's see when Death Loop releases for Xbox if it goes straight into GP or not.

Good point, we don't know what kind of deal Sony signed with Bethesda before the buyout happened.

This is the only relevant 'leak' I can find about it online. According to this insider the game will launch on both game pass and PS+ simultaneously as a result of an agreement between MS and Sony about its distribution. If this turns out to be true, likely the same will happen with Ghostwire next year.

 
Last edited:

Three

Member
At the very least PC gamers aren't left out if MS secures a timed exclusive. MS caters to console and PC equally in 99.9% cases.
But one case objectively excludes more platforms more often than the other. They both have dirty hands but one set of hands a little more grimier all things considered.

I'm still maintaining that by 2024 Sony will start putting their first party stuff day and date on PC as well, but until then it's kinda one-sided right now.
Complains that not enough people complained about Sony acquiring Nixxes while simultaneously praising MS for PC releases even though nixxes was bought as Sony's PC porting studio. Hur durr get that testicle out of your mouth.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Complains that not enough people complained about Sony acquiring Nixxes while simultaneously praising MS for PC releases even though nixxes was bought as Sony's PC porting studio. Hur durr get that testicle out of your mouth.

Anything is possible if you quote people out of context. Also you need to share the second one with Ass of Can Whooping. He called dibs.


 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Anything is possible if you quote people out of context.

What's the context now? Should we be happy that Sony's hands are getting 'less grimmy' or should we kick up a fuss for a PC porting studio being bought and xbox not losing multiplatform games due to Nixxes or Bluepoint. You can't have it both ways, is Sony buying nixxes a bad or good thing now? Still haven't said what multiplat games were lost in the bluepoint acquisition either.
They're first party now, besides even if/when the Activision deal goes through, MS has already pledged to continue making CoD games available to PS, that'll be them delivering first party content on another platform. I don't recall people making that much of a fuss when Sony bought Activision, Blue Point or Nixxess without any such commitments. All those seemed to be pretty hunky dory.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
What's the context now? Should we be happy that Sony's hands are getting 'less grimmy' or should we kick up a fuss for a PC porting studio being bought and xbox not losing multiplatform games due to Nixxes or Bluepoint. You can't have it both ways, is Sony buying nixxes a bad or good thing now?

The context is bringing up first party stuff in the first place in a topic that's mostly about blocking third party multiplatform content. If people are going to keep shoehorning Bethesda/Zenimax in this argument, it's only fair to bring up other recent acquisitions as well.

However that doesn't change anything I said regarding availability on PC. Nixxess is a PC porting studio, yes, but so far the only project under Sony they've been associated with is a 2018 game. It will be noteworthy if/when they start doing day-and-date releases on PC as well.

Until then it's a moot point to bring them up because they just happen to be a good PC port-house.

Still haven't said what multiplat games were lost in the bluepoint acquisition either.

Why limit it to only known quantity IPs here, if I reply like the folks who kept bringing up Zenimax, we should include "all future games" as well.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Topher Topher
People are posting more excerpts from the leaked Village contract on twitter, thought you might find this interesting.

Apparently Sony paid $5 million for the marketing deal. Not sure if this is just for the "marketing support" like it outlines or if more was paid for the other stuff like the first rights of refusal etc.


 

Topher

Gold Member
Topher Topher
People are posting more excerpts from the leaked Village contract on twitter, thought you might find this interesting.

Apparently Sony paid $5 million for the marketing deal. Not sure if this is just for the "marketing support" like it outlines or if more was paid for the other stuff like the first rights of refusal etc.



Good stuff. Thanks
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Good stuff. Thanks

I found a link which has the full contract if you want to read:


There is some wild shit in there, like that for a period of 7 years the game must have content, feature *and* technical parity on PS platforms within reasonable hardware limits lol.

I would love if someone can leak a boiler plate MS contract to see if they also have terms as specific as this.
 
Last edited:

3liteDragon

Member
Topher Topher
People are posting more excerpts from the leaked Village contract on twitter, thought you might find this interesting.

Apparently Sony paid $5 million for the marketing deal. Not sure if this is just for the "marketing support" like it outlines or if more was paid for the other stuff like the first rights of refusal etc.


I don't get the wording in this, they're paying $5M to advertise on their own channels?
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I don't get the wording in this, they're paying $5M to advertise on their own channels?

PSN and all SIE controlled channels, controlled likely includes all social media, youtube, TV spots etc where they can put the playstation branding in all the footage and banners.

And I can confirm this game was definitely getting a lot of TV spots around its release. I saw many first hand.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
The context is bringing up first party stuff in the first place in a topic that's mostly about blocking third party multiplatform content. If people are going to keep shoehorning Bethesda/Zenimax in this argument, it's only fair to bring up other recent acquisitions as well.
You talk about context and you don't get that this is about what's become/becoming 'first party stuff'?

Sure bring acquisitions up but don't be daft about it. Surely you could see why nobody was upset when MS bought Playground games or Sony bought Bluepoint because no multiplatform game/IP went exclusive because of it. Keep dodging that pertinent point though.

Why are you limit it to only known quantity IPs here, if I reply like the folks who kept bringing up Zenimax, we should include "all future games" as well.
Because it's franchises people are getting riled up by, not devs in a studio. Known quantity IP is the main point for a game to have been multiplatform to then become exclusive. Even for MS IP is the main point. Phil straight after the purchase started talking about IPs they now own. They didn't even name Activision in the bolded news title of the aquisition but their franchises. People don't care that some studio talent like Bluepoint or Playground Games were purchased. They care about known IPs/franchises prior to purchase that may have gone exclusive due to it. That is the context, one that you sideline to make a silly argument about why people should be riled up about other acquisitions, similar ones that even MS themselves made but nobody was riled up.
 
Last edited:

CatLady

Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
I found a link which has the full contract if you want to read:

[/URL]

There is some wild shit in there, like that for a period of 7 years the game must have content, feature *and* technical parity on PS platforms within reasonable hardware limits lol.

I would love if someone can leak a boiler plate MS contract to see if they also have terms as specific as this.

Wow, that's some contract there.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Because it's franchises people are getting riled up by, not devs in a studio. Known quantity IP is the main point for a game to have been multiplatform to then become exclusive.

Just within this topic.






Anyway, we're just extending what I've been calling a moot point. First party studios are expected to have exclusives so they don't belong in this particular discussion.
 

KingT731

Member
I found a link which has the full contract if you want to read:

[/URL]

There is some wild shit in there, like that for a period of 7 years the game must have content, feature *and* technical parity on PS platforms within reasonable hardware limits lol.

I would love if someone can leak a boiler plate MS contract to see if they also have terms as specific as this.
There's nothing wild about that at all actually. It literally means "You can't gimp the PS version of the game intentionally"
 

Topher

Gold Member
I found a link which has the full contract if you want to read:


There is some wild shit in there, like that for a period of 7 years the game must have content, feature *and* technical parity on PS platforms within reasonable hardware limits lol.

I would love if someone can leak a boiler plate MS contract to see if they also have terms as specific as this.

This isn't new info. This was revealed at the same time as the other stuff from the Apple Epic leaks. And industry insiders said this is typical.

 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
This isn't new info. This was revealed at the same time as the other stuff from the Apple Epic leaks. And industry insiders said this is typical.


If anyone wants to be real anal about it, the sample Xbox agreement Zhuge linked only mentions parity in content and feature, not any technical parity unlike the Village one. :messenger_grinning_sweat:

It's the AC Unity parity kerfuffle all over again.
 

Topher

Gold Member
If anyone wants to be real anal about it, the sample Xbox agreement Zhuge linked only mentions parity in content and feature, not any technical parity unlike the Village one. :messenger_grinning_sweat:

It's the AC Unity parity kerfuffle all over again.

And he says it isn't a marketing agreement. Look.....find a comparable MS or Nintendo marketing agreement or drop it. You are comparing apples and something in your mind that could or could not be apples or oranges.
 

Ansphn

Member
Hilarious.. Trillion dollar company that just bought the biggest publisher in gaming for an unprecedented 68 billion (probably the biggest purchase ever in entertainment) is crying about blocking games. Xbox/Microsoft is full of shit. They can outbid anyone 10 fold. They're just using this blocking BS as an excuse because they don't want to spend on Gamepass because their subs is too low to make profit. This is a game of narratives and blames.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
Hilarious.. Trillion dollar company that just bought the biggest publisher in gaming for an unprecedented 68 billion (probably the biggest purchase ever in entertainment) is crying about blocking games. Xbox/Microsoft is full of shit. They can outbid anyone 10 fold. They're just using this blocking BS as an excuse because they don't want to spend on Gamepass because their subs is too low to make profit. This is a game of narratives and blames.

Chicago Bulls What GIF by NBA
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom