• 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.

Sony appreciates "the CMA’s focus on protecting gamers" as it welcomes the announcement to further investigate the Activision acquisition

Neofire

Member
I agree totally that what you wrote is a legitimate formulation of what constitutes growth, but I'd argue that as we're essentially talking about art/entertainment there's more to it than simple economic metrics. The cultural aspect is very important for sustainability and depth/breadth of audience enthusiasm in non-essential goods.



As someone who's been gaming since the 1970's I'd counter that gaming has always had relatively low-barriers to entry. I don't believe its ever been prohibitively expensive, and in fact I suspect that when inflation and income levels are factored in its at worst remained fairly static cost-wise over the decades. Its hard to quantify because the market's always been multi-dimensional, and obviously technology has greatly broadened the range of gaming devices available.

Your other points I agree are all positives, although there's a lot of wiggle-room on their exact meaning! Which is where I feel we're not on the same page exactly.

For example, I feel like your opinion is that services like Gamepass are a net positive for both the industry and the audience, and your belief is rooted (at least in part) in the factors listed above.

I don't find that take (if indeed, it is where you stand) to be ignorant or unreasonable, I just disagree with the position.



I don't think subjectivity is avoidable to be truthful. I try and support my arguments with objective observations, but ultimately the cumulative picture is always going to be a subjective take because we're trying to predict future outcomes! No crystal ball here, all I can do is look at past and present performance and try and extrapolate forwards.

I'm not, and never have tried to make an argument that Sony are "good" and MS are "bad". As I wrote in an earlier post I don't fault MS in the slightest for their chosen strategy, taking a radically disruptive approach is the right move for them.

I just happen to believe that a number of elements of their business plan are not broadly beneficial to the industry and gaming culture generally. These are things I've believed for years, and are not reactionary to the fact that MS is employing them.

For example I've always believed massive corporate consolidation is bad because when you have so many eggs in the same basket it becomes more about maintaining the integrity of the basket than items contained within. Similarly "a-la-carte" services have always concerned me because I feel like they cheapen the perceived value of the product, its an effect I've seen many times over the years going back to 80's when I saw what happened with people in the "warez" scene. Abundance blunts enthusiasm, it doesn't sharpen it.
Bingo, I've said this several times that Microsoft is a disruptor and that they had little success following the traditional formula that Nintendo and Sony has followed. So they do that they do best and that is disrupt an industry and form it into what they can succeed in. The thing is Sony should have seen this mile away when they seen Xbox restructuring after the failed Xbox one launch at the helm of Don Mattrick.
 
You guys are like a bunch of parrots.
A. Bungie is a devleoper and will stay multiplatform.
B. Buying a developer ore buying 2 complete publishers with all the inhouse franchises and keeping them of a other console IS NOT THE SAME.
The only flaw with this argument is people adding the whole line of keeping these games off other consoles because people feel like it when all we have heard is the plan is to keep games multiplat
 
So, if this does go through....is the offering soured with Sony. I can totally see MS being a dick with them on COD after this which is understandable all things considered but no one can expect Sony to just take this laying down. They have to fight this thing tooth and nail.

I just want it to be over one way or another, but now thanks to it going public...theres major damage. Whichever way it goes its going to be insufferable dealing with the "winning" sides craziest fans. Either side.

And if the deal doesn't go through because all of the efforts Sony is making, then Activision Blizzard will be very pleased with their attitude, and I'm afraid they might consider future partnerships with them.
 

Interfectum

Member
At the point where reading these threads makes me wish the deal goes through and Sony then goes out there and buys Take Two + Capcom because that’s what Xbox fanboys think it’s good for the industry.
There is little doubt Sony is going to make a big purchase soon. I have a feeling they could go big to counter COD, like Epic.
 

GreatnessRD

Member
Every single gamer wants gamers protected. It's good to see Sony on the side of gamers. I hope the CMA does a good job of making sure we are protected all the way through the eventual merger and up until CoD is on Gamepass.
Tell Sony to retract their price hike since they're for the gamers all of a sudden. Protect their pockets!
 

Agent Icebeezy

Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
Of recent years, I've been a lurker but I felt compelled to say something here.

Jim ain't stupid, he sees what's happening. Jim is trying to play by the old/current rules. Phil is trying to flip the table upside down and say, new rules. I'm guessing that they have done the calculations here and decided that going on the offensive was the play but the fact that they are vocal in this regard is a key indicator of why this will go through. Sony doesn't want to compete and they want to keep Microsoft under their thumb. By allowing this deal, Microsoft gets a bigger seat at the table that Sony will still have a bigger seat at, as far as revenue at the time of completion. It is not the CMA's, FTC, whomever else's job to save Blockbuster because they weren't prepared for Redbox/Netflix hitting the scene.

When it comes to cloud gaming, it simply comes down to Sony not even trying because it doesn't work with their current business model. The fault, if you would call it fault at all, lies with Sony. No one is prohibiting them from doing anything in that space.

Crazy thing is, Microsoft wants this acquisition for King more than it does Activision or Blizzard but Sony is shouting from the rooftops because COD means more to them than it does to Microsoft.

Phil isn't engaging in double speak here. It's not Phil's job to continue to make the Playstation environment a viable platform. That's Sony's job. By reaching more gamers than ever, putting it on other existing platforms accomplishes just that. People need to get away from thinking that Playstation = gaming when it represents a segment of gaming.
 

Kenneth Haight

Gold Member
Of recent years, I've been a lurker but I felt compelled to say something here.

Jim ain't stupid, he sees what's happening. Jim is trying to play by the old/current rules. Phil is trying to flip the table upside down and say, new rules. I'm guessing that they have done the calculations here and decided that going on the offensive was the play but the fact that they are vocal in this regard is a key indicator of why this will go through. Sony doesn't want to compete and they want to keep Microsoft under their thumb. By allowing this deal, Microsoft gets a bigger seat at the table that Sony will still have a bigger seat at, as far as revenue at the time of completion. It is not the CMA's, FTC, whomever else's job to save Blockbuster because they weren't prepared for Redbox/Netflix hitting the scene.

When it comes to cloud gaming, it simply comes down to Sony not even trying because it doesn't work with their current business model. The fault, if you would call it fault at all, lies with Sony. No one is prohibiting them from doing anything in that space.

Crazy thing is, Microsoft wants this acquisition for King more than it does Activision or Blizzard but Sony is shouting from the rooftops because COD means more to them than it does to Microsoft.

Phil isn't engaging in double speak here. It's not Phil's job to continue to make the Playstation environment a viable platform. That's Sony's job. By reaching more gamers than ever, putting it on other existing platforms accomplishes just that. People need to get away from thinking that Playstation = gaming when it represents a segment of gaming.
Enjoy your first reaction score from me :)

Really good post, although I disagree about the double speak, I believe both companies are clearly playing some sort of mind-games here. They ALWAYS are!

I want the deal to close, even though it may affect my primary platform (PS) in a "negative" way.

Jim coming out in the public like this has made him look a little silly. The regulators and Competition and Market Authority are perfectly capable of investigating this without Jimbo coming out and crying about it in the public domain.

At the end of the day if MS decide they are going to make the game exclusive then so be it. We have 5-6 years before that will happen I believe, Sony saying "We can't compete with CoD and we need it" comes across as a little bit pathetic.

At the same time MS will be losing a big amount of cash flow, IF they decide to pull of Playstation, IF they do that, that is their bean counters who will decide that, if they can take the hit to bleed the competition dry.

This is Capitalism.
 

xHunter

Member
At the point where reading these threads makes me wish the deal goes through and Sony then goes out there and buys Take Two + Capcom because that’s what Xbox fanboys think it’s good for the industry.
People also dont realize that all the money Sony pumps into CoD marketing every year will be available to get exclusive deals with other publishers.

Does anyone know how much Sony payed for the CoD deal? Imagine all the moneyhats they will be able to do when they dont have to for that shit anymore.
 
What are you talking about? So you are sugesting buying a developer aka Bungie (that demands that all theyr games will be multiplatform and Sony agreed to that, so all new games from Bungie are coming to Xbox) And buying complete publishers and all the franchises of the publishers and keeping games from another platform is the same? O, boy......
Pretty sure sony only cares about cod. Hence,they can make a deal with Bungie whom they acquire to make a godam shooter exclusive. New deal happens all the time.
 
Last edited:

hinch7

Member
Pure gaslighting. As Phil points out, Sony’s piece of the overall pie of console game production is larger than Microsoft’s.
To be fair Acitivision games are of high importance to Sony's business. Microsoft taking that away will significantly affect their PS revenue when Call of Duty (most likely mainline entries not Warzone) is eventually pulled from their store.

In the long haul it will sway heavily in Microsoft's favour as they increasingly cutting off big IP's from their competition. The fact that this is passing regulators is absolute farce as we can all see what this is..

Its Jim and Sony/PS kicking up a fuss now before MS gobbles up more, and they should.. MS shouldn't go around buying up a lot of major studio's/IP, weakening its competitors by practices like this and huge acquisitions should be scrutinized at lot more. And not just by regulators, but by normal people. If consumers found that that Modern Warfare games were only exclusive to Xbox, millions would straight up stop buying/playing PlayStations and get Xbox's.
 
Last edited:

SLB1904

Member
Tell Sony to retract their price hike since they're for the gamers all of a sudden. Protect their pockets!
They should actually give for free. Since they are so for the gamers.
Dude pro consumers doesn't exist. You will never find a non profit organisation being pro consumer ever.
Do you think the car companies are going green because they love the environment 😆
 
I have no issue Sony fighting this, it would be silly for them not to. But fuck me am I tired of this rhetoric. Sony is not for the gamers and hasn't been for awhile. They are one of if not THE main culprit for the recent price hike of day one games, are clearly in support of scalping as they have done practically nothing to stifle it and they have been scooping up exclusives for years (not something I care about but the irony is real.)

Its bad for business Sony, just say that. This false narrative about them wanting to protect gamers is a fucking joke. Meanwhile, in a cost of living crisis, they hiked their console price (unprecedented btw) and are fully in support of unjustifiable $70 games, which is an idea spreading through the industry like a cancer, an idea they champion.

I love Sony games but this false pandering to gamers is getting out of hand. Acting like heroes while spitting in your face.
 

DenchDeckard

Gold Member
I wonder how much of Sonys yearly PSN money is on COD. It cant be anywhere near fortnite, surely?

I am sure that its enough to cause a serious dent if people did switch though.

Just let everyone buy everyone and get it over with. Im sure Tencent will buy every one soon anyway.
 

NickFire

Member
So, if this does go through....is the offering soured with Sony. I can totally see MS being a dick with them on COD after this which is understandable all things considered but no one can expect Sony to just take this laying down. They have to fight this thing tooth and nail.

I just want it to be over one way or another, but now thanks to it going public...theres major damage. Whichever way it goes its going to be insufferable dealing with the "winning" sides craziest fans. Either side.
The chances that MS decides if they make or forego a year's revenue from COD (or more), based on whether Sony was nice or not nice, are less than .01%. Encouraging console wars to keep the brand name in conversation and letting console wars determine how to run the company are totally different things.
 

CeeJay

Member
I agree totally that what you wrote is a legitimate formulation of what constitutes growth, but I'd argue that as we're essentially talking about art/entertainment there's more to it than simple economic metrics. The cultural aspect is very important for sustainability and depth/breadth of audience enthusiasm in non-essential goods.



As someone who's been gaming since the 1970's I'd counter that gaming has always had relatively low-barriers to entry. I don't believe its ever been prohibitively expensive, and in fact I suspect that when inflation and income levels are factored in its at worst remained fairly static cost-wise over the decades. Its hard to quantify because the market's always been multi-dimensional, and obviously technology has greatly broadened the range of gaming devices available.

Your other points I agree are all positives, although there's a lot of wiggle-room on their exact meaning! Which is where I feel we're not on the same page exactly.

For example, I feel like your opinion is that services like Gamepass are a net positive for both the industry and the audience, and your belief is rooted (at least in part) in the factors listed above.

I don't find that take (if indeed, it is where you stand) to be ignorant or unreasonable, I just disagree with the position.



I don't think subjectivity is avoidable to be truthful. I try and support my arguments with objective observations, but ultimately the cumulative picture is always going to be a subjective take because we're trying to predict future outcomes! No crystal ball here, all I can do is look at past and present performance and try and extrapolate forwards.

I'm not, and never have tried to make an argument that Sony are "good" and MS are "bad". As I wrote in an earlier post I don't fault MS in the slightest for their chosen strategy, taking a radically disruptive approach is the right move for them.

I just happen to believe that a number of elements of their business plan are not broadly beneficial to the industry and gaming culture generally. These are things I've believed for years, and are not reactionary to the fact that MS is employing them.

For example I've always believed massive corporate consolidation is bad because when you have so many eggs in the same basket it becomes more about maintaining the integrity of the basket than items contained within. Similarly "a-la-carte" services have always concerned me because I feel like they cheapen the perceived value of the product, its an effect I've seen many times over the years going back to 80's when I saw what happened with people in the "warez" scene. Abundance blunts enthusiasm, it doesn't sharpen it.
OK, sounds like we found some common ground :)

So my list of what constitutes growth of an industry that you didn't want to add to is below with more fleshed out examples relating to Xbox and Playstation;

Lower barriers to entry
Xbox
- As you say, gaming has always had a reasonably low barrier to entry (console gaming especially), it has to as a mass market product. However, to grow further you can lower that barrier further. I believe that Gamepass does lower that barrier further. Xbox have done nothing to raise that bar as far as I can remember.
Playstation - If anything Sony have raised the barrier to entry by increasing prices of both consoles and games whilst doing little to lower it.

Winner - Xbox and it's not even close

Making current products and services more accessible/appealing
Xbox
- Gamepass, Xcloud, Play anywhere, Smart delivery, Backwards compatibility, XSX/XSS, adaptive controller, the All Access plan are all aimed at making Xbox both more appealing and more accessible. Transition from previous Xboxes to the new gen is by far the best that any console company have ever done even down to the fact that the previous gen controllers work with the new consoles and they position ports in the same place on the back. It's a pretty impressive set of initiatives to unify the Xbox experience and make it consistent across lots of different devices. Nowadays being an Xbox gamer doesn't limit you to console only.
Playstation - Playstation have not done as much in this space as they could either, transition from PS4 to PS5 for a user is inconsistent and can be confusing with the upgrade path for games and game saves. On the plus side they have a DE that gives a cheaper console option for those who want to go all digital. They have also reformed their service tiers to offer more choice and variety in the offering.

Winner - Xbox

Increase appeal to a wider range of demographics
Xbox
- Again I think Gamepass is trying to satisfy this as well by providing a wide range of games. Unfortunately by widening the appeal you also generally have to turn down the hardcore dial and turn up the casual dial. But, because there is a huge variety of games you can tailor individual games to those individual demographics and just accept that at no point will every game ever appeal to ever person. Just like with tins of chocolates at Christmas there are always going to be the coconut and nut ones left (i'm sure someone reading this will say that those are their personal favourites!). On the negative side we have seen evidence (mainly aimed at 343) of hiring by diversity and putting social justice above the business of making great games.
Playstation - Playstation have done little to try and increase appeal to a wider range of people but they do have huge appeal built up judged by worldwide sales and strength in all the markets they are currently in. Their initiative of bringing games to PC as well as their presence in the VR space are really good ways to broaden their appeal. The one thing they have done that's been seen by some as a miss-step is the censoring of games although arguably this has been done to widen appeal.

Winner - Playstation but close

New experiences
Xbox
- Generally I think this is Xboxes weakness in the list, they are currently not bringing much in the way of new experiences in the last couple of generations. Maybe design labs can be put into this category, custom controllers have upto this point been something only the elite gamer would have chosen whereas now you could see granny going on and designing a controller for little Jimmy for Christmas. Gamepass does not create new experiences inherently.
Playstation - Sony have really put the effort in to innovate and bring new experiences with PSVR and also the dual sense.

Winner - Playstation

Expanding into untapped territories/markets
Xbox
- has expanded into various emerging markets where it can most recently China and India and have also increased efforts in Japan whilst losing ground since 360 in their own home market of USA.
Playstation - Have also expanded into the same emerging markets as well but possibly dropped the ball somewhat in their native Japan.

Winner - A Draw is probably right for this one

I know a common theme running through your posts have been about quality and why not, we all want to play high quality games that appeal to us. However, there is a unavoidable trade off there between making products appeal to a wider market (industry growth) and tailoring games to the core fanbase (quality). The more that these companies try to appeal to a wider base the less they are going to be perfect for any individual We have seen that when hardcore titles try to target a wider audience by numbing down the gameplay, sometimes it pays off sometimes not. Maybe you need to re-evaluate exactly what it is that you want? If you want Sony to concentrate on making the games that you want to play then a consequence of that is that those games are not going to appeal to a wider audience and not going to grow the industry. I think (evidenced above) that Xbox are doing more to bring new people into gaming but that can be seen as potentially been at the detriment of them producing high quality games that appeal to the core fans whereas Sony so far have doubled down on delivering a quality product with little compromise. Microsoft are attempting to mitigate that wider appeal causing a degradation in quality games for their core market by offering a larger variety of games and as such are on a spending spree. This is a valid concern but so far we have not seen an average drop off in quality and as long as the sub numbers go up then that increase in revenue means they can also carry on with both the high quality games and the more casual game whist still making bank. Conversely with Sony we know they have the quality for their core market in their games at the moment but with their drive to appeal to a wider audience there has got to be question marks about whether that drive will have a knock on effect on quality.

Currently we just don't know which approach is going to work the best for us as core gamers but, both approaches could spectacularly pay off or could spectacularly backfire. Interestingly though this gen, the hardware is as close as it has ever been yet the strategy that both companies are taking has diverged somewhat and been turned on it's head from what they have both done previously.

For example I've always believed massive corporate consolidation is bad because when you have so many eggs in the same basket it becomes more about maintaining the integrity of the basket than items contained within. Similarly "a-la-carte" services have always concerned me because I feel like they cheapen the perceived value of the product, its an effect I've seen many times over the years going back to 80's when I saw what happened with people in the "warez" scene. Abundance blunts enthusiasm, it doesn't sharpen it.
This is an interesting comment because I see it as the opposite to you. Microsoft have spread their eggs in as many baskets (console, PC, streaming, native mobile) as possible whilst Sony have put most of theirs into the offline 3rd person action adventure console exclusive basket. I take your comment about the warez scene on board too, I also grew up in the same era as yourself and always looked at Nintendo games as being the high water mark in part due to them being totally unavailable to get a copy of from the guy down the street, they came of carts that I couldn't copy them like i could with tapes or disks for the computers i played on. Nowadays money is not a barrier for me, I don't pirate games anymore and if i want a game I can just buy it. Abundance has blunted my enthusiasm for most AAA stuff out there, i've played those same safe mechanics many many times before and am no longer wowed by cutting edge graphics. Gamepass however has re-invigorated by gaming habits and allows me to try loads of games quickly via Xcloud until I find something that feels fresh to me. I can then download that game and play the shit out of it without worrying about wasting money on buying a load of games I don't want to play.
 

CeeJay

Member
There is little doubt Sony is going to make a big purchase soon. I have a feeling they could go big to counter COD, like Epic.
These comments are getting ridiculous.

Who is going to sell Sony 46% of Epic? Tim Sweeney? or maybe Tencent are strapped for cash and want to sell their share off cheap?
 
Yeah and Sony can charge them $4 billion a year to play destiny.
Or call of duty /destiny will not be released in the other platforms.

 

GreatnessRD

Member
They should actually give for free. Since they are so for the gamers.
Dude pro consumers doesn't exist. You will never find a non profit organisation being pro consumer ever.
Do you think the car companies are going green because they love the environment 😆
I said that in jest. Sony is a business. Their main focus is to finesse your pockets. Just was pointing out that they aren't for gamers to the poster I quoted and needed to relax, lol.
 

kirby007

Member
pro consumer doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean there are good deals and better deals

you guys are on such a one track mind jfc
 
Last edited:
this is just the start. more publishers will be aquired. you dont know where you favourite games will be anymore. there will be no more cod on playstation but xbox will inevitably lose some ip too because sony will probably do the same thing they are. there have already been heavy rumours about square enix.
 
Last edited:

Zok310

Member
this is just the start. more publishers will be aquired. you dont know where you favourite games will be anymore. there will be no more cod on playstation but xbox will inevitably lose some ip too because sony will probably do the same thing they are. there have already been heavy rumours about square enix.
Feel like we time traveled 25 years back to the 90’s where you had to own an n64, a Saturn a PC and a PSX if you want to play all the major ips.
All the together as one shit phil is spewing and yet the complete opposite is about to happen.
Wonder who gets GTA exclusive, it was always only available on PS so time will tell. I bet it would suck for XB if Sony somehow locked up GTA and RDR for life.
 
Last edited:

CatLady

Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
They are taking a IP that is played the most by far on PlayStation away from those users.
None of your examples have a game on PlayStation with such a user-base.
This is surely NOT 4 THOSE GAMERS.

It's not Xbox's responsibility to provide its first party games for PlayStation and their gamers. Their primary responsibility is to the gamers in their own ecosystem and to their shareholders.

It is Sony's job to provide for their players and considering how many games and/or content and perks they block on properties they don't even own from other platforms that seems to be one of the main ways they provide content exclusively to their players. Consequently, they shouldn't be upset if other platforms block content from Sony.
 

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
It's not Xbox's responsibility to provide its first party games for PlayStation and their gamers. Their primary responsibility is to the gamers in their own ecosystem and to their shareholders.

It is Sony's job to provide for their players and considering how many games and/or content and perks they block on properties they don't even own from other platforms that seems to be one of the main ways they provide content exclusively to their players. Consequently, they shouldn't be upset if other platforms block content from Sony.
MS took the game from it's biggest audience.
#XBNOT4THEGAMERS
 

DenchDeckard

Gold Member
this is just the start. more publishers will be aquired. you dont know where you favourite games will be anymore. there will be no more cod on playstation but xbox will inevitably lose some ip too because sony will probably do the same thing they are. there have already been heavy rumours about square enix.
Xbox users have more or less lost square Enix thanks to Sony money hats anyway, so it maybe inevitable. Its going to suck but these purchases may get more strict watchful eyes If this doesn't go through. I think it should also change how marketing deals are done and year long/6 month exclusivity deals shouldn't be allowed.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
They should just be honest; ‘the loss of revenue would be bad for business’. Bad for the consumer? Xbox and PlayStation are two sides of the same coin.
 

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
They should just be honest; ‘the loss of revenue would be bad for business’. Bad for the consumer? Xbox and PlayStation are two sides of the same coin.
Yes bad for COD's biggest consumer.

Ultimately I could care less anyway and Sony should of been better prepared.
If I were them I would never have any dealings with MS again.
 
Xbox users have more or less lost square Enix thanks to Sony money hats anyway, so it maybe inevitable. Its going to suck but these purchases may get more strict watchful eyes If this doesn't go through. I think it should also change how marketing deals are done and year long/6 month exclusivity deals shouldn't be allowed.

I don't think temporary blocks will ever get banned. And that's due to them being temporary and not permanent.
 

Warablo

Member
To be fair Acitivision games are of high importance to Sony's business. Microsoft taking that away will significantly affect their PS revenue when Call of Duty (most likely mainline entries not Warzone) is eventually pulled from their store.

In the long haul it will sway heavily in Microsoft's favour as they increasingly cutting off big IP's from their competition. The fact that this is passing regulators is absolute farce as we can all see what this is..

Its Jim and Sony/PS kicking up a fuss now before MS gobbles up more, and they should.. MS shouldn't go around buying up a lot of major studio's/IP, weakening its competitors by practices like this and huge acquisitions should be scrutinized at lot more. And not just by regulators, but by normal people. If consumers found that that Modern Warfare games were only exclusive to Xbox, millions would straight up stop buying/playing PlayStations and get Xbox's.
If these companies are for sell, no reason Microsoft shouldn't be able to throw some cash at them. Its not like Microsoft is out here with hostile takeovers forcing these guys to get out of the business.
 

DenchDeckard

Gold Member
I don't think temporary blocks will ever get banned. And that's due to them being temporary and not permanent.

So where is FF VII? or Street fighter 5?

Microsoft might not take cod away, they could just release it a year or two later. That would be fair then, right?

At the end of the day, no company is forced to sell. Activision was out there trying to sell and its Microsoft that won the bid. Its like someone bidding on an old one of those rent fir a day racing track car that anyone could drive but the owners decided to sell it and someone winning the bid then the other guy going...thats not fair I won't be able to drive it if that guy owns it....

Well no one made the owner put it up for auction.

I really don't get this.

It's Sony not having enough money or not willing to pay that much for Activision and then throwing their toys out of the pram because someone is buying them.

Fucking weird.
 
Last edited:
So where is FF VII? or Street fighter 5?

Microsoft might not take cod away, they could just release it a year or two later. That would be fair then, right?

At the end of the day, no company is forced to sell. Activision was out there trying to sell and its Microsoft that won the bid. Its like someone bidding on an old one of those rent fir a day racing track car that anyone could drive but the owners decided to sell it and someone winning the bid then the other guy going...thats not fair I won't be able to drive it if that guy owns it....

Well no one made the owner put it up for auction.

I really don't get this.

It's Sony not having enough money or not willing to pay that much for Activision and then throwing their toys out of the pram because someone is buying them.

Fucking weird.

What are you talking about?

Regulators are not going to review every timed exclusive and decide if it should be banned or nor. A developer wanting to work on a couple of versions first isn't going to be forced to do a simultaneous release. I don't think they are worried about content being exclusive for 6 months. Regulators are looking at this in relation to how it will effect competition. Pretty sure they are looking at games becoming permanent exclusives more than anything especially if they are franchises that have been around on other platforms for years. That's what they are studying with these deals.
 

Pelta88

Member
Damnnnnn




It seems like CMA is suggesting XBOX doesn't actually know how to compete with their "rivals."
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom