• 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

Three

Member
No, paying to block Gamepass deals without a marketing agreement.
What? sounds to me more like you are asking for me to prove some conspiracy doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on you to show that such a thing is happening not on me proving that it doesn't. Who was even discussing this though?
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I didn't attribute that to you though. Reading comprehension failure after saying I'm the one with that issue?


You turned

"not going to gamepass day one is beneficial to third party publishers who rely on game sales, it's not desperation"





Alright fam, it's clear you're only posting here to antagonize, not in good faith. I'll leave you to it from this post onward.
 

Three

Member



Alright fam, it's clear you're only posting here to antagonize, not in good faith. I'll leave you to it from this post onward.

If I turn an orgy into a shootout does that mean I was the one who suggested the orgy? Are you failing to understand what "you turned" means when referring to the topic people were discussing before you replied to them?
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
Absence of evidence is not evidence itself. I agree that publishers want game sales but that doesn't mean Sony is not blocking some of those deals. Microsoft is saying in a heavily reacted legal document that Sony is doing it. Unless you have evidence that has never happened I don't know why the fuck are still arguing about this. There are multiple reasons why a publisher would not want their game in Gamepass, it's true, but that doesn't imply Sony has never blocked a game from going there without a marketing agreement.

The publishers themselves are equally responsible for "blocking" deals with others during the agreed upon period of time. Sony didn't put a gun to anyone's head here. The terms of these marketing deals have been known for months so no idea why you would think I suggested it "never happened" when we have concrete evidence that this clause in the marketing agreement exists. My argument is that the clause is largely irrelevant for games with high sales expectations as they were not going to be on Game Pass during the first year and a half regardless. If you want to dismiss the examples of similar games that I provided as "no evidence" then that is up to you, but the examples are still very relevant.

And I'll argue about whatever "the fuck" I want to. If that bothers you then I guess you'll just have to be bothered.

Awkward John Krasinski GIF by Saturday Night Live
 
Last edited:
The publishers themselves are equally responsible for "blocking" deals with others during the agreed upon period of time. Sony didn't put a gun to anyone's head here. The terms of these marketing deals have been known for months so no idea why you would think I suggested it "never happened" when we have concrete evidence that this clause exists. My argument is that the clause is largely irrelevant for games with high sales expectations as they were not going to be on Game Pass during the first year and a half regardless. If you want to dismiss the examples of similar games that I provided as "no evidence" then that is up to you, but the examples are still very relevant.

And I'll argue about whatever "the fuck" I want to. If that bothers you then I guess you'll just have to be bothered.

Awkward John Krasinski GIF by Saturday Night Live

If i'm understanding this right, the narrative that's being pushed is Sony is contacting devs/pubs with the sole purpose of blocking gamepass, regardless of whether Sony has a marketing contract or not.
 

DForce

Member
Please provide proof that BioWare, the most successful RPG developer at the time, needed help resulting in them being exclusive to the only console that they were developing on at the time.

Otherwise you‘re inventing a conspiracy that wasn’t there.

Uh, if you publish a game, then you literally help with marketing, distributing, and oftentimes funding. Knowing that Microsoft helped with some aspects of development and Bioware was on the brink of bankruptcy, they CLEARLY needed help financially to get this game to the market.

That's literally how publishing works.
 

Topher

Gold Member
If i'm understanding this right, the narrative that's being pushed is Sony is contacting devs/pubs with the sole purpose of blocking gamepass, regardless of whether Sony has a marketing contract or not.

Anyone who has been paying any attention to this knows that is bullshit. Both adamsapple adamsapple and myself provided the relevant portions of the marketing contract that were leaked during the Apple-Epic trial which is the source for all of this.
 
Last edited:

HeisenbergFX4

Gold Member
If i'm understanding this right, the narrative that's being pushed is Sony is contacting devs/pubs with the sole purpose of blocking gamepass, regardless of whether Sony has a marketing contract or not.
Anyone who has been paying any attention to this knows that is bullshit. Both adamsapple adamsapple and myself provided the relevant portions of the marketing contract that were leaked during the Apple-Epic trial which is the source for all of this.
But people are still running with said narrative sadly for reasons

war face GIF
 

ManaByte

Member
Uh, if you publish a game, then you literally help with marketing, distributing, and oftentimes funding. Knowing that Microsoft helped with some aspects of development and Bioware was on the brink of bankruptcy, they CLEARLY needed help financially to get this game to the market.

That's literally how publishing works.
BioWare was never a publisher.

And during the KOTOR/Jade Empire/Mass Effect era they were not on the brink of bankruptcy. What are you talking about?
 
Last edited:

DForce

Member
EA and Squaresoft did not publish a single game on the most easy to develop for console of its era.
Not a single NBA live, Madden or NHL game. not a single Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest.
If you think it has nothing to do with Sony's moneyhatting, you probably also think that Bethesda doesn't want to relase Deathloop on the Xbox. What else can I tell you?
Sony is who they are. They've made us accept it.
Their time to accept competition from someone their size has arrived.

EA wanted to support Dreamcast only if they were in direct competition. Sega bought Visual Concepts to make their own sports titles.

“[Former Electronic Arts CEO] Larry Probst is a dear friend of mine. Larry came to me and said, ‘Bernie, we’ll do Dreamcast games, but we want sports exclusivity.’ I said, ‘You want to be on the system with no other third-party sports games?

“I looked at him and said, ‘You know what? I’ll do it, but there’s one caveat here: I just bought a company called Visual Concepts for $10 million, so you’ll have to compete with them.’ Larry says, ‘No, you can’t even put them on the system.’ I said ‘Then Larry, you and I are not going to be partners on this system.'” – Bernie Stolar, Ex-SEGA America President and CEO

Where was it reported that Sony moneyhatted to keep EA games off Dreamcast? Their games were released on Xbox, N64, and Gamecube.

Sony paid for exclusive rights, and EA Was not one of them. Games like Final Fantasy 7 could've appeared on other consoles, but it didn't.

You guys are acting like MS is out there to be the victim. I showed yo evidence that Microsoft paid for exclusive rights, but you guys ignore it.

 

DForce

Member
BioWare was never a publisher.
And?

And during the KOTOR/Jade Empire/Mass Effect era they were not on the brink of bankruptcy. What are you talking about?

The panel, consisting of former Mass Effect lead writer Patrick Weekes, lead editor Karin Weekes, and former Dragon Age writer David Gaider, talked about how Electronic Arts' acquisition of BioWare prevented the studio from going bankrupt. The panel admitted that Dragon Age 2 was "very rushed" because EA had just recently acquired the studio. However, the game still became critically-acclaimed, scoring high marks from critics.

The game's rushed nature was apparently a byproduct of BioWare's need to show EA a finished product. But without the acquisition, BioWare would not have lasted much longer, as the studio had "essentially run out of money."

While on the topic of money, the panelists mentioned how Electronic Arts' "chief concern is money," but they quickly elaborated that EA"rarely push[es] for anything specific or [tells] BioWare what to do." The BioWare devs clearly wanted to squash any presuppositions that EA forces specific features or decisions onto studios.

Mass Effect was released 2007. They were bought by EA in 2007.

They were not swimming in money and they clearly needed help publishing/funding.
 
Could have gotten Elden Ring, Dying Light 2, The Quarry, maybe even Lego Star Wars.

The Quarry? If they’d gotten that game you’d just be trashing it as too small.

Two of those other ones are huge titles. But thanks for proving my point. You listed one of the greatest games of all time, a Lego game, and a smaller scale title. Yeah, we’ve been swimming in huge AAA third party games in 2022. Clearly MS should have gotten more.
 
The Quarry? If they’d gotten that game you’d just be trashing it as too small.

Two of those other ones are huge titles. But thanks for proving my point. You listed one of the greatest games of all time, a Lego game, and a smaller scale title. Yeah, we’ve been swimming in huge AAA third party games in 2022. Clearly MS should have gotten more.

Was Sony stopping Microsoft from getting those two huge titles then?
 

ManaByte

Member
they clearly needed help publishing/funding.
Again they were never a publisher. They developed games for publishers. You‘re trying to invent MS exclusivity thing with Mass Effect while ignoring the context of how BioWare operated back then. There was no timed exclusivity. It was 360 exclusive because MS published the game. It became multi platform when EA bought the developer.
 

DForce

Member
Again they were never a publisher. They developed games for publishers. You‘re trying to invent MS exclusivity thing with Mass Effect while ignoring the context of how BioWare operated back then. There was no timed exclusivity. It was 360 exclusive because MS published the game. It became multi platform when EA bought the developer.
I never said they were a publisher.

You tried to dispute the fact that they needed help and I provided evidence that they did.

Publishing agreements have exclusive durations, which was likely part of the Mass Effect agreement. You tried to tell me that this ended when EA acquired Bioware when in fact Mass Effect 2 had a 1 year exclusive window, and it was announced 2 YEARS EARLIER that Mass Effect 2 would be TIMED EXCLUSIVE. The first game did not release on PS3 until 2 years after Mass Effect 2 was released on PS3.

Facts are going against everything that you're saying.



Either provide evidence that suggests something else or move on. You're only arguing because you disagree with me without proving a shred of evidence.
 

ManaByte

Member
I never said they were a publisher.

You tried to dispute the fact that they needed help and I provided evidence that they did.

Publishing agreements have exclusive durations, which was likely part of the Mass Effect agreement. You tried to tell me that this ended when EA acquired Bioware when in fact Mass Effect 2 had a 1 year exclusive window, and it was announced 2 YEARS EARLIER that Mass Effect 2 would be TIMED EXCLUSIVE. The first game did not release on PS3 until 2 years after Mass Effect 2 was released on PS3.

Facts are going against everything that you're saying.



Either provide evidence that suggests something else or move on. You're only arguing because you disagree with me without proving a shred of evidence.
The evidence is the fact that Microsoft published Mass Effect and BioWare was an independent developer when developing Mass Effect. Development started in 2004 when they finished the PC KOTOR and BioWare made it on the 360 due to their experience on the Xbox, not because MS was paying them. BioWare owned the IP. When EA bought BioWare/Pandemic they made the series multi plat.
 

DForce

Member
The evidence is the fact that Microsoft published Mass Effect and BioWare was an independent developer when developing Mass Effect. Development started in 2004 when they finished the PC KOTOR and BioWare made it on the 360 due to their experience on the Xbox, not because MS was paying them. BioWare owned the IP. When EA bought BioWare/Pandemic they made the series multi plat.
I said MS helped published the game, which often times includes funding. The fact that they helped with parts of the development backs that up.

You're just repeating the same stuff and can't dispute anything that I said.

They didn't need help when they were close to going bankrupt?
They didn't need funding for publishing?
Mass Effect 2 didn't have time exclusive tied to it despite the fact that it was announced years prior?

I linked many articles that back up these claims. Either provide evidence or move on, dude.
 

ManaByte

Member
I said MS helped published the game, which often times includes funding. The fact that they helped with parts of the development backs that up.

You're just repeating the same stuff and can't dispute anything that I said.

They didn't need help when they were close to going bankrupt?
They didn't need funding for publishing?
Mass Effect 2 didn't have time exclusive tied to it despite the fact that it was announced years prior?

I linked many articles that back up these claims. Either provide evidence or move on, dude.
You’re trying to pretend that Mass Effect was Microsoft paying to keep a game off the PlayStation when the reality and context of what was happening in 2004 is completely different.
 

DForce

Member
You’re trying to pretend that Mass Effect was Microsoft paying to keep a game off the PlayStation when the reality and context of what was happening in 2004 is completely different.

I said Microsoft paid for exclusive rights and the duration for ME1 likely ranout. ME2 had a 1 year time exclusive duration a move that would happen if they wanted to keep it off of other platforms.

You're just in denial at this point.
 

DForce

Member
Prove it.
I already did. It was published by them. Just about every game published by them was a console exclusive to their platform. I also told you what publishing includes. If you don't then look it up.


After all of this, you still can't explain why they would publish it.
 
Can you point to something more recent recent than 2006?
Oh the fact that ms bought nearly every 3rd party available?

Can't believe this circus of who is the most anti consumer is still going. Both companies do shady marketing and exclusive crap.

One thing I can't understand is how the Xbox fans can't take their goggles off and see that Xbox buying up all the publishers and Devs of 3rd party games isn't anti consumer. They were always going to get these games no matter what, all Xbox is doing is stopping others from playing them. But apparently when Xbox does this kind of shit it's handwaved away as good business, but when Sony guys marketing rights their evil and greedy.

Completely baffling stance; I'd love someone to actually explain this other than 'to grow game pass lol'. You could spend 80 billion developing your own games to grow gamepass.
 

Helghan

Member
If i'm understanding this right, the narrative that's being pushed is Sony is contacting devs/pubs with the sole purpose of blocking gamepass, regardless of whether Sony has a marketing contract or not.
Isn't that the case then? That's how I understood it, and I don't understand what the Apple-Epic trial has to do with the documents in Brazil now. But I might not know enough about the whole situation.
 

Greggy

Member
EA wanted to support Dreamcast only if they were in direct competition. Sega bought Visual Concepts to make their own sports titles.



Where was it reported that Sony moneyhatted to keep EA games off Dreamcast? Their games were released on Xbox, N64, and Gamecube.

Sony paid for exclusive rights, and EA Was not one of them. Games like Final Fantasy 7 could've appeared on other consoles, but it didn't.

You guys are acting like MS is out there to be the victim. I showed yo evidence that Microsoft paid for exclusive rights, but you guys ignore it.

There is no precedent to paying to keep MULTIPLATFORM games off the competition's subscription service. Sony invented that.
Name a game that Microsoft paid not to have exclusive rights to, but just to block from getting on PS Plus.
You know it doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
Isn't that the case then? That's how I understood it, and I don't understand what the Apple-Epic trial has to do with the documents in Brazil now. But I might not know enough about the whole situation.

We haven't learned anything new from Microsoft here. We already knew Sony was blocking gamepass due to the leaked marketing contract from the apple-epic trial. There's no evidence to suggest they're blocking gamepass outside of those
 
Last edited:
There is no precedent for paying to keep MULTIPLATFORM games off the competition's subscription service. Sony invented that.
Name a game that Microsoft paid not to have exclusive rights to, but just to block from getting on PS Plus.
You know it doesn't exist.

Lol be real. They both probably did this for GWG and PS+ before gamepass was even a thing
 
Last edited:

Greggy

Member
Oh the fact that ms bought nearly every 3rd party available?

Can't believe this circus of who is the most anti consumer is still going. Both companies do shady marketing and exclusive crap.

One thing I can't understand is how the Xbox fans can't take their goggles off and see that Xbox buying up all the publishers and Devs of 3rd party games isn't anti consumer. They were always going to get these games no matter what, all Xbox is doing is stopping others from playing them. But apparently when Xbox does this kind of shit it's handwaved away as good business, but when Sony guys marketing rights their evil and greedy.

Completely baffling stance; I'd love someone to actually explain this other than 'to grow game pass lol'. You could spend 80 billion developing your own games to grow gamepass.
You're conveniently forgetting to mention that they put those games from publishers they bought on game pass and don't fore anybody to spend 500 bucks to have access to them. they run on your tablet, on your phone, on your PC and soon on your TV. If that's anti-consumer, I think it's a great time to be a consumer.
COD will be on Playstation. As it should.
 
I would like to see a direct translation of this line below because MS admitting failure in console wars is kinda funny.



I also dont understand why they think streaming would save them. GAMES will save them. It's the games that matter. Thats why they went and bought all those studios. MS wasnt successful in the 360 era because of Gamepass, it was because they had the best exclusives from 2006 to 2010 or so. After that kinect took over and their output went down, but they won that 'console war' thanks to games like Halo 3, Gears of War, Bioshock, Mass Effect and massively improved versions of third party titles.

P.S Whats absolutely disheartening is seeing Sony effectively say that neither we nor our third party partners can create a COD quality game. Absolutely ridiculous. You can. Fortnite, PubG, Warzone, Battlefield 1. and even Destiny have all gone up against CoD and were able to either create their own niche or post sales just as impressive as COD. Sony just didnt try last gen. And they simply werent ready this gen. Shouldve had Factions and another FPS shooter out by now.
They didn't say streaming would save them, they said catalogue subscription model would allow them to succeed in a greater manner than with the buy 2 play model, which they have struggled with. They are making their own success via a different method.
 

Ansphn

Banned
I mean...sony could f got in there first.




If Ms went to every company and said call me if u get any exclusivity offer we will outbid it.
I dont think it would be that simple. I mean the companies could just say they got offers for rediculous amounts...or the companies might say lets just do a deal now but ms may not want to.
All i heard is excuses from you for Microsoft's lack of giving a fuck about getting games for Gamepass. Yeah go ahead and blame another company while Gamepass give you shit games.
 

DForce

Member
There is no precedent to paying to keep MULTIPLATFORM games off the competition's subscription service. Sony invented that.
Name a game that Microsoft paid not to have exclusive rights to, but just to block from getting on PS Plus.
You know it doesn't exist.
Why do you guys keep moving the goalpost when you're losing an argument?

Where's your proof Sony paid to keep EA Sport games off Dreamcast?

Microsoft paid for exclusives so they kept games off PS Plus.
 
Why do you guys keep moving the goalpost when you're losing an argument?

Where's your proof Sony paid to keep EA Sport games off Dreamcast?

Microsoft paid for exclusives so they kept games off PS Plus.
The guy sounds like a clown. He just quoted me where I make a point about ms buying up 3rd parties and making them exclusive and here he is complaining about sony paying for a marketing deal.
 

Greggy

Member
The guy sounds like a clown. He just quoted me where I make a point about ms buying up 3rd parties and making them exclusive and here he is complaining about sony paying for a marketing deal.
I remember Insomniac being a prolific 3rd party, how come they are now making exclusives for Sony?
But making Bethesda's games exclusive is wrong because... ok I see.
Enjoy your evening.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
I remember Insomniac being a prolific 3rd party, how come they are now making exclusives for Sony?
But making Bethesda's games exclusive is wrong because... ok I see.
Enjoy your evening.
How many multiplatform games did Insomniac make vs Bethesda? How many did Zenimax and Bethesda do over the last 20 years? Oh come on…
 
I already did. It was published by them. Just about every game published by them was a console exclusive to their platform. I also told you what publishing includes. If you don't then look it up.


After all of this, you still can't explain why they would publish it.
Game studios go to publishers for funding for their games, not the other way around. If Microsoft published the original Mass Effect its because they thought the IP had potential and perhaps other publishers had denied Bioware the funding and creative oversight they needed to make the game.

Also, your argument that Microsoft made game game exclusive because they published it...ummm duh. Why would they allow the game to release on PlayStation or Wii when Microsoft is the one who took the financial risk on the project? Besides MLB The Show 2022, which Sony published games have made it to Xbox or Nintendo systems?
 

DForce

Member
Game studios go to publishers for funding for their games, not the other way around. If Microsoft published the original Mass Effect its because they thought the IP had potential and perhaps other publishers had denied Bioware the funding and creative oversight they needed to make the game.
It can actually happen both ways.

Game studios pitch their games to publishers and that's how they typically get funding. Microsoft and Bioware had agreements before with games like Jade Empire and Knights of the Old Republic and Microsoft simply could've asked them what other games they were working on and wanted exclusive rights.

Also, your argument that Microsoft made game game exclusive because they published it...ummm duh. Why would they allow the game to release on PlayStation or Wii when Microsoft is the one who took the financial risk on the project? Besides MLB The Show 2022, which Sony published games have made it to Xbox or Nintendo systems?

Maybe you should take a few minutes to READ the conversation.

He wanted me to prove that Bioware needed help, and I told him it was obvious because they published the game and they were on the brink of going bankrupt. Publishing the game likely meant they had an exclusive deal in place and it probably expired years later.

Mass Effect 2 was published by EA and Microsoft likely bought a 1 year exclusive deal.
 
Eh I think it's interesting that Sony is all butthurt about MS owning the Call of Duty series. Sony, who hasn't produced shit when it comes to 1st person shooters, was all too happy to ride the coattails of 3rd party shooters like CoD and Battlefield. I hope the Activision deal goes through just to watch Sony whine some more. It is a fascinating situation though, because Sony could get away with not making 1st person shooters in the past. Now they're like oh shit what do we do! Almost hypocritical in a way. No wonder they bought Bungie.
 

Pallas

Gold Member
How many multiplatform games did Insomniac make vs Bethesda? How many did Zenimax and Bethesda do over the last 20 years? Oh come on…
To be fair, Microsoft and Zenimax had a very long, close working relationship and the plans of acquiring them stretched all the way back to 2018 iirc. I believe there’s a YouTube video between Todd, Phil and the guy in charge of Zenimax talking about it.

As for Activision, idk man. I’m actually not a huge fan of it but will see what happens when and if it gets approved.

As for Sony making blocking deals or whatever, it is what it is, just two companies going at it. It’s nothing new between corporations.
 

DenchDeckard

Gold Member
I never said they were a publisher.

You tried to dispute the fact that they needed help and I provided evidence that they did.

Publishing agreements have exclusive durations, which was likely part of the Mass Effect agreement. You tried to tell me that this ended when EA acquired Bioware when in fact Mass Effect 2 had a 1 year exclusive window, and it was announced 2 YEARS EARLIER that Mass Effect 2 would be TIMED EXCLUSIVE. The first game did not release on PS3 until 2 years after Mass Effect 2 was released on PS3.

Facts are going against everything that you're saying.



Either provide evidence that suggests something else or move on. You're only arguing because you disagree with me without proving a shred of evidence.
Back then it was as innocent as a developer shopping their ip out to publishers, similar to how Remedy and many other studios handle their projects. Yes you could say the publisher "helps" them or you could say the publisher does their job and bids and publishes a project that they think will be successful for them.

That's what happened with mass effect, nothing more, nothing less. Microsoft had a relationship with bioware because of kotor and jade empire and they backed a studio they believed in.

It's just business, you could use the terminology helped but that's what every publisher does, its their job. It's nefarious when we know a platform holder is purposely paying marketing to stop a game coming ro another platform when it's not really required. Street fighter 5 is a perfect example.
 
Last edited:

DForce

Member
Back then it was as innocent as a developer shopping their ip out to publishers, similar to how Remedy and many other studios handle their projects. Yes you could say the publisher "helps" them or you could say the publisher does their job and bids and publishes a project that they think will be successful for them.

That's what happened with mass effect, nothing more, nothing less. Microsoft had a relationship with bioware because of kotor and jade empire and they backed a studio they believed in.

It's just business, you could use the terminology helped but that's what every publisher does, its their job. It's nefarious when we know a platform holder is purposely paying marketing to stop a game coming ro another platform when it's not really required. Street fighter 5 is a perfect example.
Street Fighter V wouldn't exist without funding from Sony. Microsoft had an opportunity to fund the project, but they refused to help.
 

Menzies

Member
Street Fighter V wouldn't exist without funding from Sony. Microsoft had an opportunity to fund the project, but they refused to help.
Hook, line and sinker. Poor little Capcom desperate for funding for little, unknown 50+ million seller IP; Street Fighter. Come on.
 
Top Bottom