• 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 Wants To Grow PlayStation By Making Xbox Smaller, Phil Spencer Says

John Wick

Member
Sony wanted Nintendo to make games for the joint console, not just 100% Nintendo platforms and Nintendo refused and went on to make the CD-i. My point is the partnership failed, they got as far as building the consoles and fell apart. Both Sony and Nintendo want to point fingers. All the players in the industry have created, bought, sold and closed various studios, indies and/or publishers. It's pretty poor form from Sony currently when you look at them fucking up a partnership with Nintendo, making their own console and killing Sega as a hardware platform, who removes competition exactly? One could even argue Sony tainted Nintendo to shy away from big industry partnerships thus hurting competition e.g. Ninty refuse Xbox now because of the bad taste from Sony back in the day.
What a load of horseshit. Nintendo betrayed Sony. Went behind Sony's back and did a deal with Philips. Thus PS was born. It wasn't Sony who fucked up the partnership but Nintendo.
Sega fucked themselves over.
If Nintendo were such a great partner how come everyone jumped ship to PS1?
 
What a load of horseshit. Nintendo betrayed Sony. Went behind Sony's back and did a deal with Philips. Thus PS was born. It wasn't Sony who fucked up the partnership but Nintendo.
Sega fucked themselves over.
If Nintendo were such a great partner how come everyone jumped ship to PS1?
Cartridges and licensing Nintendo forced on their games creators gave way to Sony's superior CD format and more mature games. Gamers grew up and Sony was there to capitalise. Good healthy industry self regulating for the most part.

In retrospect Nintendo were right to remain stoic to their own platform. Sony were right to make their own consoles and games. They do not need to be seen in a bad light. Partnership on hardware made sense software not so much.
 
Last edited:

Moses85

Member
Microsoft is fucking themselves and is blaming about bad bad Sony

Michael Jordan Lol GIF
 

Thirty7ven

Banned
I'd recommend you check my post history on this thread and the other ActiBliz deal thread. It's all in there already. How to prove a hypothetical? You test it, again and again. You know the scientific method. As I stated above in other posts, the onus is on the FTC to block not MS for the buyout.

Never said it was easy as pie. You cannot unbiasedly say Respawn are not flying out of the gate, almost mirroring COD's path to success all those years/decades ago. Would you say Respawn is 10% there, 90% there? You get the idea. It shows competition with a specific example directly born from COD devs who split off to create Respawn, but by all means ignore the other top 10 points I put above. Right now your posts are baseless opinion and I question them. My opinions have supporting facts and links or graphics to "prove" the claim.

I'm still going to continue to play games on a bunch of systems and mediums, I find it interesting how varied the opinions and perceptions are on gaming industry dealings. It's going to be interesting post the sale closing and the FTC case should they not withdraw after agreeable concessions.

The thing is that everyone knows that if Sony goes out there and buys EA or Take Two (same as AB) and say a Capcom (same as a Zenimax), every pro AB acquisition person will be screaming from the rooftops and forget every argument they made about MS - AB.

Hell Sony could go out there and buy Nintendo.

Of course because you and others think none of that will happen you will argue right now that there would be no problem. The thing is people have been arguing that small time deals Sony does for third party exclusives is anti competitive while on the same breath arguing that MS buying whole sale Publishers and dozens of IP is not anti competitive.
 
Last edited:

Ev1L AuRoN

Member
Microsoft is willing to buy some of the biggest studios, giving away their games day one on a subscription service, taking loss for a decade just to become the gaming king. Must be terrified to compete with such a company. And then Phil comes along a say shit like that. LMAO.
 
The thing is that everyone knows that if Sony goes out there and buys EA or Take Two (same as AB) and say a Capcom (same as a Zenimax), every pro AB acquisition person will be screaming from the rooftops and forget every argument they made about MS - AB.

Hell Sony could go out there and buy Nintendo.

Of course because you and others think none of that will happen you will argue right now that there would be no problem. The thing is people have been arguing that small time deals Sony does for third party exclusives is anti competitive while on the same breath arguing that MS buying whole sale Publishers and dozens of IP is not anti competitive.

I'm more than happy for corporates to run their plans how they see fit. I think it's more a case of Sony having to take it instead of give it for a seachange.
 
Why isn’t Windows the leading operating system/kernel on smartphones, tablets, smart tvs, ect? No Windows TV? what did they miss?
 
I want to believe you but you’re clearly a ride or die Xbox fan with an axe to grind going from your post history. I would bet big on you throwing a massive fit if the scenario I laid out happened.
Of course I'm Xbox mainly, brilliant platform these days for me, my family and 20 year friends now growing with my kids friends.

I/we also game on PC, Switch, phones etc. I'm not a devout nutter for any corpo. I have been playing and hobby coding games since text based games on monochromatic IBMs.

It would probably just be a difference of which games are in Gamepass vs which I purchase or don't play at all in your scenario. It would dir sure irk and inconvience me like Street Fighter did last gen but hey that happened and here we are about to have SF on Xbox again. These things ebb and flow.
 
Last edited:
Hell Sony could go out there and buy Nintendo.
It would be so cool to see a console gen from that partnership. Sony perfomance based mixed with Ninty innovation backed by a hardcore, creative and fun library of games all portable and dockable.

Or Ninty + Xbox while we are day dreaming for online fun and parties at home or on the go.
 

Interfectum

Member
Phil has the ear of the CEO, a hand in the MS money bin and a ton of developers and still whines about Sony. jfc.

Sony isn't stopping MS from doing shit. Make some games, Phil.
 
Last edited:

ANDS

King of Gaslighting
It is big.

It has the POTENTIAL to cause a monopoly.

It does HARM competition by not allowing other companies to compete on the same level.

Explain how. Offering a better product does not a monopoly make. If COD never arrived again on a platform not owned by MS, that would not be a monopoly, that would simply be MS offering a better product than their competitors.

This circles back to LONG TERM potential outcomes of this acqusition. Short-term, it may not have a big impact, but long-term as technology matures and people shift ecosystems it can be a very big deal, much more than many are letting on, and certainly it's why Microsoft tried to acquire them to begin with.

This is the DEFINITION of competition and not a good reason for the government to intervene. The idea that COD has to exist on as many platforms as possible for the health of the video game industry is just the most absurd argument I've ever heard.
 

sainraja

Member
Not sure it will with it being day 1 on gamepass
Depends on the state of Game Pass on PC. If they are able to partner up with Steam to make Game Pass available there, there is a possibility it could influence sales (it could both be positive or negative, well, should be positive for MS either way) but how that might end up happening is anyone's guess right now.

As for Starfield, I don't see the game doing bad at all. Critically and sales/sub wise. The game will review very well (I think it would have to screw up something big in order to not). It will have a lot of content and I think that will help it. Personally, I am not that into the type of games Bethesda makes since I don't think I have played any of their main games. I tried Elder Scrolls but it wasn't for me.
 
Last edited:
Read above, I edited.
As a giant Sega fan back in the days I can say that the only way you can twist reality into thinking that Sony killed Sega is that somehow you think that Sega was well positioned for the "next generation". If Sega had made a decent machine (I love the Saturn, but man... it did not need to be that bad at 3D, only one layer of transparency, etc.). So, if Sega had made a decent machine, launched it properly, priced it well, they would have destroyed Sony.

By that time Sega had overspent and over extended themselves in wasteful projects (32x, FMV games).

Sega did this to themselves.

Sony came in, built their stables of studios over time, built relationships with developers over time all over the world and took the place they deserved.

Buying the biggest third party publishers because you can't either maintain your existing IPs or develop new ones to replace those that don't stick anymore is not building the industry in any meaningful way. They just want to starve the competition any way they can, while they extract all money possible from their clients. Microsoft is the company that caused third competing programs to crash randomly.

Do I think the government should be involved? not so sure it makes sense.
Do I like what MS is doing to gaming? no.
 
Explain how. Offering a better product does not a monopoly make. If COD never arrived again on a platform not owned by MS, that would not be a monopoly, that would simply be MS offering a better product than their competitors.

It’s not that the product is better, it’s that MS can undercut the competition significantly due to subsidies from the cash flows of their other business. That is absolutely a monopolistic tactic
 
Probably one of the worst ceos of a major company ever.
Lookup the story of Apple and Comodore in the late 80s to mid-90s (Apple until Jobs came back)... Balmer is a genius compared to the people who ran these companies to the ground.

Come to think of it, when Sataya took over MS had serious problems with their overall competitiveness in OSes and everything else.
 

SaucyJack

Member
Phil has the ear of the CEO, a hand in the MS money bin and a ton of developers and still whines about Sony. jfc.

Sony isn't stopping MS from doing shit. Make some games, Phil.

Indeed, Xbox has 25 studios since the acquisition of Zenimax. They’ve acquired 16 studios in the last 4 years.

Delivery from those assets remains …… not good enough.
 

ANDS

King of Gaslighting
It’s not that the product is better, it’s that MS can undercut the competition significantly due to subsidies from the cash flows of their other business. That is absolutely a monopolistic tactic

What exactly is this sentence meant to answer? This statement:

"MS can undercut the competition significantly due to subsidies from the cash flows of their other business"

Is literally someone saying "MS has too much money and shouldn't be able to buy studios." What is monopolistic about that? You might as well say, as a rule, that companies can not buy other smaller companies to increase their competitiveness.

But that's neither here nor there. My question was specifically: how does COD (or any Activision property) being in the hands of MS retard development of other companies NOT named MS (which is the crux of this absurd SONY argument, that the FTC seems to agree with)?
 
Is literally someone saying "MS has too much money and shouldn't be able to buy studios." What is monopolistic about that? You might as well say, as a rule, that companies can not buy other smaller companies to increase their competitiveness.

If a company uses its cash flow from much larger businesses in order to run competitors out of business in a smaller industry then that is a direct threat to a fair and competitive market

industries should have to stand on their own footing and not be able to canabalize others via their size advantage
 
Pointing out

Xbox fanboys are a bunch of gullible, ignorant, naive fanboy crybabies, who simply can't handle the fact that they're favorite videogame box can't keep up with the competition even with an oversized allowance from mommy and daddy to keep it afloat.
The competition (both) have been running rings around them since and it isnt changing.
They actually think spencer is competent for fucks sake.
Animated GIF
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
What exactly is this sentence meant to answer? This statement:

"MS can undercut the competition significantly due to subsidies from the cash flows of their other business"

Is literally someone saying "MS has too much money and shouldn't be able to buy studios." What is monopolistic about that? You might as well say, as a rule, that companies can not buy other smaller companies to increase their competitiveness.

But that's neither here nor there. My question was specifically: how does COD (or any Activision property) being in the hands of MS retard development of other companies NOT named MS (which is the crux of this absurd SONY argument, that the FTC seems to agree with)?
It would be fun if it were not sad that we have people alternate from “pro competition = pro consumer” to this without realising the irony in this.

Ah no, it is totally fine if a company enters a market and uses money made from other monopolies / markets they dominate to content starve their competition and buy off all their suppliers… 🤷‍♂️
 
Top Bottom