'Enemies of PlayStation' [OT]

[Hobbygaming]

I remember the big letdowns of Xbox E3's. I feel sorry for these guys Lol

screen capture software

 

[Gamernyc78]

Looked it up. I was wrong. The last COD game was Ghosts in 2013 on Wii U when Microsoft still had the marketing deal for it. Once Sony took over marketing, there hasn't been a COD game on a Nintendo platform. I don't know why that is. It's just that it's been a long time since the last COD on a Nintendo platform and more importantly, they haven't had one since 2013 and Switch has been dominant which proves that you don't need COD to be successful.



I never said that Microsoft is going to successfully improve how COD appeals to gamers that like it. I said that I believe it will be a platform which would allow all the other studios to be free from having to work on it every year which is what I want. I don't want 10 or whatever the amount of studios it is to ONLY work on COD every year. Fuck that. I want them to work on other shit.

COD SHOULD be 100% fully exclusive to Xbox/PC/Cloud because Microsoft will OWN it. Any studio or publisher that Sony acquires should be exactly the same. Why would any company BUY a studio or publisher and give it to their competition? How does that make any sense? Sony wants to play the role of the victim which is hilarious to me because they've been victimizing the other brands for decades and no one seemed to care. But a far bigger bully with a far bigger war chest has come along and said, well, fuck that, we're here to kick your ass. And everyone wants to cry. Poor little Sony. Boohoo.

I haven't played COD since MW 2019 and I only ever played the campaigns. I played most of them last gen and just like Battlefield, had my fill of them. Microsoft could end this shit the day after the acquisition gets finalized and I would say, awesome, give me new and better shit because I for one have zero interest in COD. After MW 2019, I had more than enough of it. So either way, I wouldn't be paying for COD.

Gaming is more successful now than ever before. All these companies are thriving and they do so because most of them aren't reliant and dependent on just one old business model. Now if you want to spend your hard earned money by giving it to a billion or trillion dollar company that doesn't even know you exist, that's up to you but that's definitely not me.

Companies want consumers to PAY MORE and GET LESS. I use their same mentality but in the opposite direction. I want to PAY LESS and GET MORE.

Even if Microsoft raises their $10 base price for Game Pass which they will obviously do eventually which is a given, it won't affect me because as I have stated before, I don't stay subscribed so while others may end up paying more, this won't apply to me. Lower quality games, Microsoft's published 8 games this generation and via Open Critic, have an overall average rating of 85.7 while Sony has published 10 games this generation and via Open Critic, have an overall average rating of 82.5 and granted, 3.2 points isn't that much of a difference but the entire narrative that Microsoft doesn't release quality games is bullshit. Microsoft released Flight Sim and Forza Horizon 5, both are a 92 on OC. Demon's Souls is the only 90+ rated game for Sony thus far but im sure Flight Sim and Forza don't count right?

And how in the world would I get LESS games? LMFAO!!! With what would be over 30 studios once ABK goes through, how would this even be possible? Even if every other game gets cancelled, they would still give me far more games than they ever did in any of the previous three generations and hell, even combined, the past would come up short compared to this generation. I already have over 10 games on my list via Microsoft which already equals what they've given me the last three generations combined and you believe that personally or in general, that they would somehow give Xbox gamers less games?

But we'll see how it all plays out throughout this generation and beyond.

Of course you don't need COD. Games like Horizon, uncharted, God of War sell 15 million plus so Sony would still be good without Call of Duty but they'd still be better off with it, same as Nintendo would be. There are tens of millions of die hard COD fanatics and it's a gaming staple. Alot of ppl were mad at Nintendo for having weak ass hardware that wouldn't keep up with the new COD.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

You guys seem to be living on console war twitter/youtube. Now I understand where you get your hot takes from

 

[Eternal_Wings]

You guys seem to be living on console war twitter/youtube. Now I understand where you get your hot takes from

Dude are you not that toxic Xbox console warrior from Twitter?
There was a fella like you with the the same cursed picture.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Dude are you not that toxic Xbox console warrior from Twitter?
There was a fella like you with the the same cursed picture.

No. I mainly use twitter for crypto alpha. Only gaming dude I follow is John Linneman.

 

[Kokoloko]

Weird, I thought MBG would have been the last person actually for it.

Didn’t he flip over to PS last gen? Is he a flip floppy flopper Like crapgamer?

 

[Vertigo]

Paul Tassi is not an enemy of PlayStation. He’s primarily a PlayStation gamer but recently started pc more. Calling him a contributor while being paid by Forbes is disingenuous. Forbes bought the rag he came from like a decade ago.

I know his opinions… calling him an enemy due to a few opinions pieces is nonsense.

This whole thing is nonsense tho. Witch-hunt level ridiculous.

 

[Darth Vader]

In my opinion, it's the opposite of anti-competitive because they're finally doing what they should have done 20 years ago. Use their money. Like any company should. What's the point in being a trillion dollar company if you can't use your money to your advantage?

You just described how market consolidation and consequentially the creation of monopolies occurs, while at the same time trying to argue for the opposite of that. Congratulations.

Companies want consumers to PAY MORE and GET LESS. I use their same mentality but in the opposite direction. I want to PAY LESS and GET MORE.

The scenario you describe (consumers paying more and getting less) is the consequence of a monopolistic market.

And how in the world would I get LESS games? LMFAO!!! With what would be over 30 studios once ABK goes through, how would this even be possible? Even if every other game gets cancelled, they would still give me far more games than they ever did in any of the previous three generations and hell, even combined, the past would come up short compared to this generation. I already have over 10 games on my list via Microsoft which already equals what they've given me the last three generations combined and you believe that personally or in general, that they would somehow give Xbox gamers less games?

@Dr Bass didn't state you'd get less games, he said you'd get lower quality games. Less to pick from doesn't necessarily mean fewer games, and I'm pretty confident he mentioned that as in "less places to pick from", meaning fewer non Microsoft / Sony / Nintendo owned developers to pick from.

BTW, you think this is better for you personally but I guarantee you it's not. Not in the long run. You will end up getting higher monthly sub prices, lower quality games, and less to pick from if MS succeeds. You are so blinded by what they are doing you can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Yurinka]

I think high in the top spots of ranking there should be Bloomberg since they lied about Sony and spreaded fud to make Sony look bad. Even got publicly debunked or called out by Sony or their employees multiple times.

Jim Ryan?

Jim Ryan is the most successful CEO any console maker ever had and is working to bring PS more great games they ever had before, including more exclusives growing and acquiring internal studios more than any previous CEO ever did. I consider a joke to put him as an enemy of PS.

 

[Yurinka]

You just described how market consolidation and consequentially the creation of monopolies occurs, while at the same time trying to argue for the opposite of that. Congratulations.

Market consolidation only means that top companies buy other big companies resulting on less top companies controlling a big market share. This doesn't imply monopoly and monopoly doesn't have anything to do with gaming, where the few top companies barely have around 10% of market share each.

Companies want consumers to PAY MORE and GET LESS.

the scenario you describe (consumers paying more and getting less) is the consequence of a monopolistic market.

The companies don't want consumers to pay more and get less: they want to have more revenue and profit. And this has nothing to do with monopolies, has to do with capitalism.

The current trend in games, the most successful game types that has more players and generate more revenue, so companies are moving there: GaaS and F2P. Games are becoming bigger and bigger and they now give a low of post launch content and update: they give way more than before. Plus they give it to you for less: F2P games are free and overage players there spend less than in a paid game.

Plus paid games are now cheaper than they have ever been, even the AAA $70 games. When adjusted with inflation the price of AAA games of all previous generations were way over $100.

Games now give you MORE for LESS.

 

[DonFerrari]

I’m trying to wrap my head around the logic that MS will raise the price of GamePass, while offering less games, and lowering the quality of said games. Doesn’t make any sense. People forget that all of the GamePass games are sold outside of the service.

 

[Darth Vader]

Market consolidation only means that top companies buy other big companies resulting on less top companies controlling a big market share. This doesn't imply monopoly and monopoly doesn't have anything to do with gaming, where the few top companies barely have around 10% of market share each.

Please don't try to lecture me on what monopolies are.

 

[Gediminas]

Lol oh I know. The secret hidden chip, the cloud multiplying power, etc that dude use to come up with some crazy nonsense and many morons believed him lol bcus u know he is talking on behalf of a billion dollar company tht can do anything so he must be right even though he doesn't work for Microsoft "officially".

separate GPU in the power brick was his best moment

 

[Dabaus]

What about that one dude who always vagueposted on Twitter, pretending to be some insider? Kept implying the PS5 has serious design flaws and the Series X and S had some super secret hidden tech in it?

Blue something?

He used to have quite the following for a while when the current gen was approaching and at least a bit after it started.

BLue ngbo or something? I think hes still doing the same thing to this day. Him and that colbert fake insider character.

 

[peter42O]

Of course you don't need COD. Games like Horizon, uncharted, God of War sell 15 million plus so Sony would still be good without Call of Duty but they'd still be better off with it, same as Nintendo would be. There are tens of millions of die hard COD fanatics and it's a gaming staple. Alot of ppl were mad at Nintendo for having weak ass hardware that wouldn't keep up with the new COD.

Obviously, Sony would be better off with COD than without it but at the same time, it's not up to them and Jim Ryan acting as if he's doing this for his fan base is freaking hilarious. He's doing it for Sony's bottom line, nothing more, nothing less. Either way, Sony will be fine as they dominated before COD even existed and can do so again without it. Best part is when Jim cries about Microsoft not caring about the PlayStation fan base When the fuck has Sony ever given two shits about the Xbox fan base? Three years for COD is three years more than I would offer because I would offer him nothing and him crying is just so damn hilarious to me.

You just described how market consolidation and consequentially the creation of monopolies occurs, while at the same time trying to argue for the opposite of that. Congratulations.

Thanks you. lol

Acquiring a few publishers when there's so many available is not consolidating the market to where a monopoly would occur. First and foremost, a monopoly is when one company acquires their competition which in this regard would be Sony and Nintendo. Microsoft isn't acquiring either so it would never be a monopoly regardless of how anyone wants to spin it.

Second, the biggest issue is simple - it's because it's not Sony doing the acquiring. When Sony pays for game after game, everyone applauds it every time but when Microsoft fights back, these same people want to cry as if it's not fair which is such bullshit because no one is preventing Sony from doing the same thing. Sony has existed for approximately 30 years longer than Microsoft yet they're still somehow not a trillion dollar company. How? Why? Maybe if they were, they could actually acquire some main event top tier shit instead of just picking up the scraps that are left over. It's not Microsoft's fault or problem that Sony isn't on their level.

Would you and other PlayStation fans prefer Microsoft to be the same as last generation? Not doing anything or competing whatsoever? Maybe that's what PlayStation fans prefer. For Microsoft to just "hang around" to be the laughing stock and joke while Sony dominates. Well, like everything in life, shit changes and Microsoft simply isn't fucking around anymore and the PlayStation fans can't seem to accept or handle it but they have no choice or say in the matter. Fans on both sides can either cry about it all or actually enjoy it all.

As someone who's never been loyal to any single company and can switch from one to the other with each generation and have done so for the last three including the current generation, I simply enjoy whatever I get out of it all because crying about any of it isn't going to do or change anything. I don't cry when Sony pays for game after game just for the sake of keeping it off Xbox. Instead, I bought a PlayStation 5 so I could play Final Fantasy VII Rebirth and Final Fantasy XVI among others. So I basically just sit back and enjoy it all.

Acquiring ABK would actually lead to more games from them under Microsoft as opposed to what they are now which is nothing more than a COD factory. Why anyone would even want to see ABK stay as is with one freaking game and that's it while all the other studios rot to shit compared to Microsoft getting them, turning COD into a platform and eliminate the yearly release bullshit and allowing the other studios to actually do other games is beyond me.

The scenario you describe (consumers paying more and getting less) is the consequence of a monopolistic market.

Then I guess Sony is currently a monopoly considering the fact that they want you pay more but get less in return.

@Dr Bass didn't state you'd get less games, he said you'd get lower quality games. Less to pick from doesn't necessarily mean fewer games, and I'm pretty confident he mentioned that as in "less places to pick from", meaning fewer non Microsoft / Sony / Nintendo owned developers to pick from.

He says that I would get less games to pick from if Microsoft succeeds. It's in the text that you quoted from him. I don't see how I would have less development studios and publishers to choose from. There's literally hundreds of publishers worldwide and thousands of game development studios worldwide so I really don't understand how Microsoft acquiring a few publishers is going to change that especially when this will provide an opportunity for an Embracer Group or a Focus Entertainment to elevate themselves to the AAA level that has been vacated by the acquisitions of Zenimax and ABK.

 

[Dabaus]

Weird, I thought MBG would have been the last person actually for it.

I tuned in specifically because i thought hed have a reasonable take. I guess hes upset sony hasnt had a proper showcase so its now reasonable that microsoft gobble up the industry? Weird logic

 

[Darth Vader]

Obviously, Sony would be better off with COD than without it but at the same time, it's not up to them and Jim Ryan acting as if he's doing this for his fan base is freaking hilarious. He's doing it for Sony's bottom line, nothing more, nothing less. Either way, Sony will be fine as they dominated before COD even existed and can do so again without it. Best part is when Jim cries about Microsoft not caring about the PlayStation fan base When the fuck has Sony ever given two shits about the Xbox fan base? Three years for COD is three years more than I would offer because I would offer him nothing and him crying is just so damn hilarious to me.

Why do people take what CEO's and executives say at face value? Jim Ryan, Phil Spencer, etc, don't give two shits about the fanbase. They care about revenue, profits and their own bottom line, in the form of performance prizes, stock valuation, etc.

Acquiring a few publishers when there's so many available is not consolidating the market to where a monopoly would occur. First and foremost, a monopoly is when one company acquires their competition which in this regard would be Sony and Nintendo. Microsoft isn't acquiring either so it would never be a monopoly regardless of how anyone wants to spin it.

"Trying to create a monopoly" and "creating a monopoly" are distinct concepts. And you can create a quasi monopoly while having some low level competition. If most of the "beloved / mainstream" franchises belong to a single platform holder, you're effectively monopolising a portion of the market. Would you argue that Microsoft has a monopoly of personal computer software, even though macOS and Linux distros exist? I wouldn't, because macOS is gated behind extortionate prices and Linux is just not for the common folk.

Second, the biggest issue is simple - it's because it's not Sony doing the acquiring. When Sony pays for game after game, everyone applauds it every time but when Microsoft fights back, these same people want to cry as if it's not fair which is such bullshit because no one is preventing Sony from doing the same thing. Sony has existed for approximately 30 years longer than Microsoft yet they're still somehow not a trillion dollar company. How? Why? Maybe if they were, they could actually acquire some main event top tier shit instead of just picking up the scraps that are left over. It's not Microsoft's fault or problem that Sony isn't on their level.

I want to be really blunt - This is a really shitty argument. First of all, not all people are for moneyhats, for example, so you're creating a false generalisation. I've been always against moneyhats because they just take away from gamers on other platforms for no reason other than trying to gate content to one platform holder. Secondly, you cannot be serious when you try to equate having a handful of exclusive games from third parties, or buying some small studios, with acquiring two of the biggest publishers in the gaming industry.

The stock market argument is just asinine, because I can also say that the only way Microsoft has to actually compete in the gaming space with a much smaller company revenue wise is to buy the biggest publishers and the most profitable IP. It's not Sony's fault that Microsoft cannot produce valuable and desirable IP.

As someone who's never been loyal to any single company and can switch from one to the other with each generation and have done so for the last three including the current generation, I simply enjoy whatever I get out of it all because crying about any of it isn't going to do or change anything. I don't cry when Sony pays for game after game just for the sake of keeping it off Xbox. Instead, I bought a PlayStation 5 so I could play Final Fantasy VII Rebirth and Final Fantasy XVI among others. So I basically just sit back and enjoy it all.

You keep mentioning crying, but as with others, you miss the big picture. I'll spell it out below:

Market
Consolidation
Is
Not
Good
For
Customers

Acquiring ABK would actually lead to more games from them under Microsoft as opposed to what they are now which is nothing more than a COD factory. Why anyone would even want to see ABK stay as is with one freaking game and that's it while all the other studios rot to shit compared to Microsoft getting them, turning COD into a platform and eliminate the yearly release bullshit and allowing the other studios to actually do other games is beyond me.

Sure it would. Microsoft's track record of acquisitions leading to more games cannot be understated. I'm being ironic, by the way, if that wasn't clear. And Activision has way more IP than COD and releases way more games than just COD.

Then I guess Sony is currently a monopoly considering the fact that they want you pay more but get less in return.

Stop with the straw man, please. I'm trying to have a good faith argument and you keep misrepresenting what I said. A monopoly leads to lower quality at higher prices, that's a fact. The hardware gaming industry is not a monopoly, but an oligopoly, however we've been fortunate enough that one company has disrupted the market due to their previous strategy failing - Nintendo. On the other hand, you have one company trying to acquire big portions of said market to disrupt it in a different way - monopolise it.

He says that I would get less games to pick from if Microsoft succeeds. It's in the text that you quoted from him. I don't see how I would have less development studios and publishers to choose from. There's literally hundreds of publishers worldwide and thousands of game development studios worldwide so I really don't understand how Microsoft acquiring a few publishers is going to change that especially when this will provide an opportunity for an Embracer Group or a Focus Entertainment to elevate themselves to the AAA level that has been vacated by the acquisitions of Zenimax and ABK.

He didn't. But if you want, I can make the argument that market consolidation leads to fewer games overall. How? Simple, you will want to close redundant / non-profitable studios whose IP does not bring enough revenue. Alternatively, you may get the same games, but fewer AAA or AA quality games.

If you don't understand how acquiring the biggest and most profitable publishers in the industry, with the most well known IP, then there's no further discussion to be had, because you're either being obtuse or I'm not able to better explain myself.

 

[Hobbygaming]

BLue ngbo or something? I think hes still doing the same thing to this day. Him and that colbert fake insider character.

Blue nugroho and yup he's still spreading false info on Twitter claiming that the XSX has hidden chips and stacked memory. He might be MisterXMedia

They've been doing this since the Xbox One launch

 

[Yurinka]

Please don't try to lecture me on what monopolies are.

You mentioned 'You just described how market consolidation and consequentially the creation of monopolies occurs', which is totally wrong. Probably because you don't know what market consolidation or monopolies are, or that the first one doesn't imply the creation of the second.

 

[Yurinka]

You keep mentioning crying, but as with others, you miss the big picture. I'll spell it out below:

Market
Consolidation
Is
Not
Good
For
Customers

It is, because without it companies like Double Fine or Ninja Theory who could have been on a difficult financial situation would have shut down, and now instead will have more money and will be able to grow more than before so they will make more and better games than before.

Same can be applied to the studios bought by Sony. In addition to grow and have more manpower the studios not only will have more budget and teams, but also will get additional help from other Sony teams that they didn't have before which will result on more and better games, which is good for the customers.

Stop with the straw man, please. I'm trying to have a good faith argument and you keep misrepresenting what I said. A monopoly leads to lower quality at higher prices, that's a fact. The hardware gaming industry is not a monopoly, but an oligopoly, however we've been fortunate enough that one company has disrupted the market due to their previous strategy failing - Nintendo. On the other hand, you have one company trying to acquire big portions of said market to disrupt it in a different way - monopolise it.

There is nothing close to a monopoly in gaming and absolutely nothing lead us to think that there will ever be a monopoly, even in consoles. The companies acquired by Sony or MS represent a tiny portion of the market share and even after them the gaming market will be spread alot many companies.

In the particular case of MS, they aren't monopolizing anything because compared to their main competitiors they are/will be in the last position even after almost $100B in acquisitions.

He didn't. But if you want, I can make the argument that market consolidation leads to fewer games overall. How? Simple, you will want to close redundant / non-profitable studios whose IP does not bring enough revenue. Alternatively, you may get the same games, but fewer AAA or AA quality games.

The reality is the opposite, they are growing the acquired studios to help them make more games at the same and/or to make them faster.

If you don't understand how acquiring the biggest and most profitable publishers in the industry, with the most well known IP, then there's no further discussion to be had, because you're either being obtuse or I'm not able to better explain myself.

The acquired publishers and IPs aren't the biggest and more profitable ones, and even if a few of them are big they represent a small portion of the market so won't substantially change it.