There's no valid proof that Microsoft screws up ABK. None at all. It's all what you guys here want to see happen. Sony is stagnating the industry because they truly don't want to compete or change/pivot. They want everything to stay the same as if it's 2015. World doesn't work that way.
The bolded doesn't make any sense. C'mon bro, you're better than this
. If Sony weren't competing, they'd of languished in sales and prestige by now. If there are no options on the market a customer finds appealing, they'll just...not buy or support any of the available options! We've seen that happen before even in the gaming industry, it could always happen again.
But the point is, the market feels Sony is providing better competition and hence why they have the most market-share, platform sales and revenue. Nintendo may be 2nd in those metrics (usually), but they have a methodology for doing things where they can save tons of costs and usually generate the most gaming profit.
Microsoft has an inferior version of Sony's model and none of the advantages they'd need to emulate Nintendo's, so they have tried pivoting their marketing and model over the past few years.
Microsoft isn't shrinking or harming the industry. Gaming is MASSIVE with new development studios coming out of the wood work every week and buying out third party publishers isn't being forced. It's the publishers who were looking to sell. Sony pays for timed exclusivity repeatedly knowing that it will hurt their competition yet they do it anyway. Microsoft acquiring publishers that wanted to sell is literally no different and if those publishers were to go bankrupt like Bethesda was going to or shut down internal studios which they were going to do if not acquired by someone, how does that make anything better?
For Sony to buy timed exclusivity, it's the actual game publishers have to agree with the terms. Yet Sony's always the only party blamed, oddly enough. There's also some conflation between when Sony moneyhats a game vs. actually funds it (at least partially), which is not the same thing. Right now people are trying to say Stellar Blade & Lost Souls Aside are moneyhats, but Sony's directly contributing to the funding and development of those games.
Some people
STILL keep saying SFV was a moneyhat, but it was Capcom who went out looking for a platform to help co-fund the game and Sony were the ones who stepped in to help them. Microsoft had other priorities, such as Dead Rising 3.
If Bethesda was still independent but ended up shutting down Arkane, Tango and Machine Games in that order, how exactly is that BETTER? It's not. It's worse. Sony dominated with PlayStation with money NOT earned from gaming. What's your point? Why does Microsoft have to be the company that does everything the so called "right way" when there is no right way and second, Sony has done their own fucked up shit over 27+ years and no one seems to care but when Microsoft does literally ANYTHING, oh no, they must be stopped. It's a fucking joke.
It would help to quantify what things specifically you feel Sony have done that's messed up, vs. what Microsoft is trying to do which are not messed up but they are getting unfairly called out on it anyway.
Because the only things I can really think of on Sony's end historically are exclusivity deals for Tomb Raider 2, RE3, some of their handling of PS3 YLOD and...that's it. People forget that with stuff like TR2, the Saturn was already dying by the time any negotiation deals would have kicked off, and yes Sony took advantage of that, but the reason Saturn was not selling well was because of
Sega,
not Sony.
RE3 was a situation where Kamiya tried being cheeky outside the terms of a contract Capcom & Sony had already signed beforehand, so that was just Sony reinforcing the contract. Nothing more to it than that. But it's possible working relations between him and Sony deteriorated during PS1 gen which is why he jumped at the chance to do Code: Veronica on Dreamcast and then convinced Capcom to agree with Nintendo in making RE exclusive to the Gamecube (which they wound up quickly regretting).
I see a lot of people try saying "Sony stole Square!" or "Sony killed Sega!!" or stuff like this, and it's just ignorance talking. Squaresoft came to dislike Nintendo A
LOT by the end of Super Famicom, with Nintendo's stingy cart licensing costs and the growing limitations of cartridges. Nintendo even short-changed Squaresoft on cart numbers for some of their later releases so that Nintendo themselves could produce enough units for games like Donkey Kong Country. Considering N64 ended up going with carts anyway, 64DD was years away and the N64 architecture was proving to be too difficult to work with (similar to the Saturn), Squaresoft left for greener pastures and went to Sony.
Namco had a strong rivalry with Sega in the arcades as the two kept pushing 3D games, but Namco were starting to fall behind Sega in 3D arcade tech hardware advancements, and were probably hesitant playing second-fiddle to Sega's own 3D arcade ports on the Saturn. So partnering with Sony on building arcade hardware based on PS1 tech (System 11) was a win-win for both parties: Namco got better-performance 3D hardware (that they further iterated on with designs like the System 12), and a home console where their games could stand out on. Sony got a trusted 3P developer & publisher, and essentially guaranteed content for PlayStation.
And, yeah, Sony invested a lot of money into PlayStation early on, that wasn't PlayStation's, because PlayStation literally didn't exist before the PS1. But it was mainly PS1 money that went into R&D for the PS2, and again for PS2 to PS3. More importantly, PlayStation's market-share growth in units & revenue came from them putting the product out there and it selling on its own merits. They didn't get a huge revenue boost when they bought Psygnosis, for example, or when they acquired developers like Naughty Dog. The money PlayStation spent on exclusivity deals with 3P publishers came more or less from the PS division directly. The developers they purchased from 1995 all the way up to 2022 have been with PlayStation money.
At the end of the day, all growth PlayStation saw in terms of revenue and market share came because they put out a console people wanted to buy, and secured content their customers wanted, creating a feedback loop. And the exclusive content they secured, either was because they funded the development fully, partially, or money-hatted with profits generated from PlayStation revenue (and maybe some influx of cash from profits from other parts of the company).
Microsoft is trying to grow their revenue by absorbing other publishers and adding their revenue to the Xbox division's. They already did this with Zenimax and are hoping to do it again with ABK. There's nothing inherently wrong with that as a strategy, but it's not the way many pictured or would have wanted Microsoft to "compete", especially considering they are four generations into this industry but making moves that you'd expect a brand new player to do, which speaks to the relative failure they've had beforehand.
The idea I have is that MS's lack of big 1P games over the past several years is due to mediocre leadership and management. Throwing money at publishers to buy them (especially when they're troubled publishers like Zenimax or especially ABK) doesn't address the root cause of why many feel they as a platform holder have languished compared to Sony & Nintendo. It just means more food on a plate they have not been able to eat very well in the first place.
Until proven, the difference is that im willing to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt just like I did with Sony back in 1995.
Okay but Sony in 1995 was completely new to gaming as a platform holder, so of course people had to wait and see if they could prove themselves. Microsoft has already been in this industry as a platform holder for three going on four generations, but are apparently so far behind the curve in having their stuff sorted out they have to resort to buying publishers to boost gaming revenue and make staying in the game as a platform holder worthwhile.
There is a
massive scale of difference between the two once you look into the context.
You just want to believe that Microsoft is the devil or something and the worse part is that you literally still have access to their games just like I still have access to Final Fantasy VII Remake/Rebirth, FFXVI, Forspoken and many others. YOU have the option to buy and own an Xbox - not because you love Microsoft but because you want to play the games. Crying about Microsoft buying publishers that were literally up for SALE is nothing more than believing that you're entitled to all of these independent publishers games when in reality, you're simply not. These companies and I mean NONE OF THEM including your beloved Sony are here for you. There are here for themselves and to make as much money off OUR asses as possible. Period.
I'm gonna assume this is you specifically responding to the person you're quoting, in which case I can't speak for them. I'll just say that personally I don't think Microsoft are inherently more "evil" than any other tech company on the face of the planet. They all ultimately care about one thing: $$$. If the money wasn't there, they would not be in this industry.
However I do find it ironic that some people (maybe not necessarily you) bring up that there's nothing inherently wrong with MS buying publishers who want to be purchased, and where all laws are being adhered to and no civil or human rights are being violated...and I agree with that notion. But some of these same people act that Sony buying 3P exclusivity when devs & pubs are willingly providing the opportunity to them (or entertaining the offer from Sony) and are the ones who have to agree to the terms, is somehow anti-consumer because they pretend Sony are forcibly strong-arming companies into tyrannical exclusivity deals.
Sony is not 1980s' Nintendo. They aren't forcing draconian exclusivity agreements shutting out other platforms altogether. 9/10 the games Sony tries ensuring don't go to GamePass are games Sony already has some form of exclusivity with or co-marketing rights to, and why should MS gain the benefit of the funds Sony puts, while putting in none of the funding themselves?
People will try and say they should, since Microsoft funds certain games to have temp exclusivity on GamePass and then release on other platforms 3-4 months later, but if Microsoft wants to treat GamePass like its own platform that is their choice. Sony clearly see PS+ as a direct extension of the PlayStation hardware platform, so anything similar to PS+ that is not theirs will be viewed similarly to any console similar to PlayStation that is not theirs, and that is their choice. Neither choice is inherently right or wrong, they just fit whatever model the respective company requires.
There's a lot of potential good with the ABK deal.
1. Kotick will be fucking gone. This in of itself is a great thing.
2. All the employees will be a billion times better off under Microsoft which is one of the best places to work as opposed to being under Kotick.
3. COD can hopefully become a platform like Minecraft. One base game and they just add to it for years instead of having several studios wasting away on the freaking same game every year.
4. Because of the above, new IP's can be created while already existing IP's can come back. Both of which is better than every Activision studio working on COD every year.
5. We'll get more variety and more genres under Microsoft than what Activision currently is which is nothing more than COD factory.
6. For Blizzard, Ybarra and Spencer can clear out the remaining shit and hopefully get Blizzard back to what they once were.
7. They can bring back StarCraft and hopefully for me personally, resurrect StarCraft Ghost.
8. They can do what hasn't been done in what would probably be 30+ years and that's bring WarCraft to consoles on Xbox.
9. Sony is still getting Diablo IV and already has Overwatch 2. Neither of which are being pulled off PlayStation and by the time they get to the next game, it's 10+ and 5+ years away respectively and under ABK as is now, there's no guarantee that you ever get them to begin with. With Microsoft, I do believe that an Overwatch 3 and a Diablo V is a guarantee.
10. Blizzard has a new IP in the works and who knows, could be a new franchise.
11. Microsoft will bring as many older games to Xbox and Game Pass specifically that have been dead for years if not decades.
12. Future wise, Sony would still have COD for the next decade and if it's making a lot of money in 2034 like it is now, we both know Microsoft will just keep it on PlayStation because of the money they make off of it. Taking a massive game like COD off PlayStation is much more risky and costly than say, a small future Spyro/Crash game that as of now, none of us are getting anyway.
13. All future games will be available on Game Pass day one and yes, you'll still have that option to buy them on disc or via digital download if you so choose.
14. The games will be on Xbox Series, Xbox One (if cross-gen), PC via Steam, the Windows Store (which I would shut down by the way) and Epic Game Store. You can also remote play them on your phones or tablets. You can also stream them if you so choose. And with the Windows Store, you only have to buy the game once to also have access to the Xbox console version.
15. King which is the number one reason why Microsoft wants ABK and will probably agree to almost any concession is strictly for the shit ton of money they make and to allow Microsoft to break into mobile gaming which they've been trying to do for a while and yes, mobile gaming is far more important than console gaming. Sorry but it just is because on consoles, your reach is 150m at max if you're lucky where as with mobile gaming, you can reach pretty much everyone in the freaking world.
I can tell you right now some of those things are NOT happening, particularly:
-All games Day 1 in GamePass: Microsoft would have to be brain-dead to put new COD in GamePass Day 1. It actually sells A
LOT of copies on its own, why ruin that by dumping it into the service? I also doubt Warzone will go to GamePass, since some folks at MS are already openly questioning if WoW will be going into the service and if that game doesn't, there's zero hope Warzone does (nor does it need to; it's F2P).
-Warcraft to consoles: Strongly doubt it. Look how long it's taken for AOE to come to Xbox after the initial PC release. Gears Tactics and Halo Wars didn't do much on Xbox either sales-wise. Also no saying how many (or few) current WoW fans would even care to play more traditional Warcraft.
-Bringing back dead IPs: Kind of doubt this in most cases. Look at the Rare IPs they've yet to bring back, or took forever to bring back (Perfect Dark). There should've been a new Jet Force Gemini for OG Xbox or at least the 360; never happened. Heck, Rare don't even
WANT to touch their old IPs, which is part of the fun in playing to nostalgia (which helps with garnering attention and sales).
Realistically, they are probably never bringing back Police Quest, Space Quest, or Leisure Suit Larry. They MAY bring back Guitar Hero but that is absolutely one of the safest picks and would have likely happened anyway if ABK stayed independent. Same with Tony Hawk. If they were smart they'd do a Crash/Spyro/Banjo smash-up 3D platformer as that'd have a better chance at being inventive, getting attention and sales than just individual games for the three of them.
Sony has been stagnated. They just have been. PlayStation 3 they had a lot of great unique original and innovative games. Just as much or more so on PlayStation and PlayStation 2. But since Uncharted and more so, TLOU in 2013, they found a formula and they simply stay with it like Ubisoft did and continues to do. Here's a fun fact - Ubisoft is my favorite company, publisher and developer. They haven't given me a game of a year since 2014 with Assassin's Creed Rogue and that was because 2014 sucked. If I don't count that, it was Far Cry 3 in 2012. So 8-10 years, they've given me some excellent and great games but none worthy of being my game of the year.
Well, if more people bought Tearaway, Puppeteer, Loco Roco, Echochrome etc. then maybe Sony would've kept making more of them. It's a demand-based market; if there isn't enough apparent demand, and the costs for that content can be shifted to games with more mass appeal, why not do that?
I'd personally love a new Parappa/UmJammer or Tomba! for example, but I'm not gonna hold it against Sony if that doesn't happen. Games like GOWR, Spiderman 2 etc. cost
TONS of money and Sony doesn't have infinite cash. They'd also need to know there's enough of a market for smaller legacy IP in order to justify bringing them back in some fashion. Personally I could see a decently-sized market for Parappa/UmJammer, Tomba, Jet Moto etc. but probably as smaller AA games and I dunno if Sony would have 1P teams work on them.
They could do like Sega though and get independent devs to make them, maybe have a smaller label they own publish them. And, I think they'd probably be best if the mobile division probably published them, meaning those games would need to be on mobile devices as well, but if that's what it'd take to get them to come out then so be it.
But I don't agree with the idea Sony's stagnated because they don't make those smaller games anymore, by and large. Some of those genre of games are now being served well by indie devs, for example, so why compete with them directly instead of working with those devs and help bring those games to your platform? Sony decided to focus on a slice of the market that was underserved, and excel at it. Better to be a master of some, than a jack of all trades but master of none.
So no, I don't believe that Microsoft is harming anything. In fact, they're doing the opposite by making it better and more competitive than ever before. Your main argument and many others just like Sony is literally what they've been doing for decades and how they became dominant which is by having exclusive games and content. That's literally the only valid argument that anyone has and even then, it's a bullshit argument because of Sony's own practices. Go look at COD MW 2 right now!!! It's all exclusivity based and pay to win based on if you own the PlayStation version. EVERYTHING that Sony and their fans are crying about is EXACTLY how they became #1 to begin with. And they cry that people will jump ship to Xbox.....oh, you mean like jumping ship to PlayStation if they want to play Final Fantasy? That's the entire mother fucking point of exclusive games and content - to bring consumers into your eco-system.
I think this is veering into disingenuous territory. COD is not the only reason Sony became the dominant player. Simply moneyhatting games is not the only reason they did, either, because they could have just incidentally money-hatted nothing but terrible games.
Sony got to where they are through a combination of locking down specific 3P content exclusively, co-funding other 3P content, helping co-develop key 3P content, assisting 3P devs with easy-to-use tools, resources, and marketing, strong advertising, smart marketing deals with other companies/events/products, excellent global distribution, smart fairness in prioritizing big as well as emerging markets, solid engineering choices with console designs, strong curation of 1P teams, smart IP iteration and retention, a good eye for market needs, and united corporate branches across the globe as well as good pricing dollar-for-value.
They did all of these things and did them more or less consistently for over 25 years. That's how they became dominant, built trust among gamers, developers, publishes and customers, and have grown their PlayStation brand generation over generation. It was never simply one thing or two, but many things in concert, balanced, and steady. Something Sony has done clearly better than any other platform holder. Better than Nintendo. Better than Sega. Better than NEC/Hudson. Better than SNK. Better than Atari.
And better than Microsoft.
But wait, ONLY Sony is allowed is to do this right? Oh, it's because it's on a smaller scale right? I would prefer to see Sony acquire Square Enix than do these bullshit timed exclusivity deals because at least then, I can say the same that I say for Microsoft - they own them and can do whatever the fuck they want with them, period. Or is it, Square Enix accepted those deals so it's not on Sony. Okay, well then it's not on Microsoft for making acquisitions. After all, like Square Enix and other companies, they accepted the deal. And if you say that Microsoft did this knowing it could harm their competition, how is that any different than what Sony has done for decades? When in fact, this is how the industry has always worked and been. It's not going to ever change unless Sony and Microsoft combine to make one super console where you get everything. Personally, I would love this and would be gaming heaven. But sadly, this will most likely never happen.
You're still not laying any blame on the 3P publishers for these timed exclusivity deals, just Sony. Sony may approach them with offers (btw nothing prevented Microsoft from doing this last generation, they just stopped caring), but ultimately it's the publisher who has to accept or deny the deal. Unless it's the publisher approaching Sony, but in that case then even more of the focus should be on them and not Sony, right?
Ultimately, these 3P exclusivity deals benefit 3P publishers in a lot of the same ways acquisitions do, the difference being that 3P devs/pubs have more flexibility in how they decide to pursue funding or help with technical/creative resources, marketing etc. on a game-by-game basis. Which is actually something those companies tend to value
A LOT, hence why they exist as 3P companies and not as 1P companies. Getting absorbed into a bigger corporate structure always requires sacrificing some degree of autonomy, and usually the decision for a company to be acquired is always done at the upper management level, which is something to keep in mind because for as much as some people keep saying acquisitions benefit 3P companies being acquired, well the actual talent/employees of those companies don't have much a voice in those decisions, and almost any benefits they could get from a company acquiring them, they could get while remaining independent, so it's really to the benefit of upper management, CEOs, and shareholders insofar as the chief benefits of these acquisitions.
You may have some exceptions though, like with ABK, where theoretically being acquired would mean a much better workplace culture. Unfortunately for them it's Microsoft acquiring them and evidently MS have their own history (some of which is ongoing) of toxic workplace culture & practices. So it's actually pretty questionable how exactly ABK are supposed to turn over a new leaf in that respect. And if they don't, the talent's just going to walk at the first available opportunity, and without the talent there these gaming acquisitions can quickly become paperweights.
...hmm, well, maybe not "introduced" is the right word here. Companies like Sega and Nintendo were already doing game subscription services before even the PS1 with Sega Channel and Satellaview, respectively. The latter could possibly even classify as an early form of cloud gaming (i.e IIRC Satellaview games were broadcasted to the user and they had to play them within a set time frame before the satellite channels were switched over to other programming).
