Sony claims Microsoft’s ‘true strategy’ is to ‘make PlayStation like Nintendo

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

peter42O

Guest
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.

Perhaps I worded it wrong. Sony is trying to stagnate the industry by prohibiting a competitor from actually competing because they don't want to follow in their foot steps. People say that Microsoft does nothing which is fucking bullshit. Microsoft going with something different and having a different strategy that is Game Pass is the definition of competition. Sony dominated with PS4 so what do you do if you're Microsoft? Stay the same because some can't accept change? Nope. You innovate, you do something that no one has ever done before and that's make your entire business model around Xbox be based on a subscription service and why did Microsoft go this route? Because again, Sony dominated with PS4 and Microsoft knew they needed to do something else. You make your platform stand out by doing something that your competitor ISN'T doing. Sony doesn't want this because they know that if Microsoft were to have just stayed as is, Sony would continue to dominate them but because Microsoft pivoted to a subscription based model, this is no longer the case for Sony and quite honestly and quite simply, they fear it. PlayStation fans can believe whatever they want but when you have 90% of gaming media and just people in general going against Sony because their claims have no validity to them whatsoever to where it's a fucking joke, that tells you everything you need to know.

So that's what I mean by stagnating the industry. Sony simply wants NOTHING to change. That's anti-competitive. That's also fucking boring. People worry about the gaming industry because of Microsoft when in reality, Microsoft is the company that's actually trying a new business model instead of just going with the flow. This is what competition is truly about. When you're on the losing side, you pivot, you change and you do something new that no one else especially your direct competitor is doing. That's how you compete by offering consumers and gamers an intriguing and different alternative.

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.

Sony is the party blamed because they know the effect and end result of doing what they do will impact their main competitor which is exactly the same thing that people complain about with Microsoft acquiring publishers but the difference is that Microsoft is acquiring companies that wanted to sell and would have been sold eventually to someone and to someone that's potentially far worse than Microsoft. Point being is that both are doing what they do to hurt their competition and to gain consumers into their eco-system which is exactly what it's all about.

The games you mention are not the same. Lost Soul Aside was a China Hero Project since the beginning which was funded by Sony for years so no argument there. SF V was partially funded but by moneyhatting the game. You can know the difference by seeing who published the game. When Sony/Microsoft fully fund a game, they always end up being the publisher and distributor. Microsoft funded and published Dead Rising 3. Not Capcom. Street Fighter 5 was published by Capcom, not Sony. Whenever the hardware manufacture funds a game, they always publish it mainly because it normally includes IP ownership. But for argument sake, I will agree with you.

With Stellar Blade, no, Sony didn't fund this game. This game was literally announced in April 2019 for PS4/XBO/PC. Link is below. Game was re-revealed at Sony's PlayStation Showcase in September 2021 and was still said to be a multi-platform game. A year later, obviously a deal was made in the last 12 months between showcases for it become a full exclusive. This is literally a moneyhatted game. So for this game, I disagree.

On a side note - Capcom went to Microsoft first for a SF 5 deal and Terry Myerson declined. He also declined the Marvel exclusivity deal around the same time. I disagree with Myerson in regards to SF 5 as he should have gotten a deal done with Capcom for this game to be exclusive to XBO/PC. I however agree that passing on the Marvel deal was the right decision at the time because they had no studio that was going to make Spider Man or any Marvel licensed game at the level of Insomniac. Plus, the whopping 5 internal studios Microsoft had were all working on games so no one would have been available anyway. I also got two excellent Spider Man games from Insomniac so I for one was happy Myerson passed on this deal simply because it would have been a clusterfuck. Fast forward to 2022/2023, should Microsoft get an exclusive Marvel/Star Wars/licensed IP? Absofuckinglutely.


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.

My main issue is with the double standard a lot of people have due to favoritism towards Sony and PlayStation due to these people not wanting anything to change, for the industry to evolve or for Microsoft to ever truly compete with Xbox. When an Xbox fan like Ryan McCaffrey complains about the Bethesda acquisition but yet praises Sony paying to keep FFXVI off Xbox for a year minimum even though I don't believe that it will ever release on Xbox, that's the double standard. You can be in favor of one but against the other just because one move is bigger than the other because if you combine the moves that Sony has made, they do in fact dwarf the Bethesda and soon to be ABK acquisitions.

I don't care if Sony moneyhats games or whatever because it doesn't affect me. I don't care if Microsoft acquires publishers because again, it doesn't affect me. In my eyes, everyone either needs to shut the fuck up and let them both do what they want to do and accept it OR speak up on both and prevent acquisitions and moneyhats of all kinds and accept that. But let's be honest, no one on either side is going to do that.

You say near the end in regards to Microsoft growing their revenue - "it's not the way many pictured or would have wanted Microsoft to compete". This is the problem. There is no right or wrong way. Sony and Microsoft are going to do what is best for their business strategy and direction. For Sony, it's moneyhatting timed/full exclusivity mainly because they don't have the cash to acquire publishers and their business model is the same as it was in 1995. It hasn't changed all that much if at all. For Microsoft, it's all about Game Pass which is a subscription based service. In order to make your subscription service successful, you need exclusive games and content. The absolute best way to accomplish this is NOT by moneyhatting games. It's by acquiring IP ownership.

Disney acquired Marvel years ago. Disney then started Disney+. Disney then pulled all of their Marvel exclusive shows off Netflix. Do you believe that Netflix just because they had these shows first or for a few years or whatever that they're entitled to any of them? They're not because it's not theirs. It's Disney's.

I understand the last paragraph but at the same time, if it was YOU and Bethesda and eventually ABK fell into your lap, would you truly pass on them? I mean come on man. No one would pass on them. Everyone here would literally do the same shit because it's fucking business and you do what is best for your business, period.

Game wise, I'll be the first to say that their output this year has been pretty much non-existent but I can't say they haven't released quality games despite them not being for me because they have. Whatever they did last generation means nothing to me and I don't know why anyone would care unless they're trying to time travel backwards. lol. Personally, all I care about is the present day and the future. And in this regard, it's yes, a wait and see but im not going to bash them because this generation is 25% complete. There's still 6 more years to go minimum. So personally, I will judge them when the generation ends. As of now, for me, they've only given me one first party title but it was 2021 goty which already surpassed everything they've done since 2008 so how could I possibly complain? It wouldn't make any sense if I did. 2022 has sucked completely and while their gap is much longer than I expected between Halo Infinite and their next game that I play, it's also why I will always own both consoles. Because when there's a gap on one, the other usually fills out that gap for me so im always playing something so again, I can't really complain. Besides, if Redfall releases in early 2023 and I end up loving the game which is a good possibility as it's my type of game, am I really going to care about the dead year known as 2022? Nope.

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.

There's a massive scale of difference but Microsoft is also not the same company as they were in 2001. They're completely different. Their business strategy and pricing model is different. Their CEO is obviously fully on board with Xbox and I know people will say they've been around for 19 years going into this generation but unlike Sony, they've never had any consistency at the higher levels because for Microsoft, Xbox was never seen as something vital to the company where as with PlayStation, it's literally everything for Sony.

You say resort to buying publishers to boost gaming revenue and make staying in the game as a platform holder worthwhile. Even without acquiring publishers, since E3 2018, Microsoft started to prove that Xbox was worthwhile even if some still for whatever biased reason, they don't want to see it and after Bethesda and especially ABK, im sure they see it now. And buying publishers that fall into your lap is simply business. There's nothing wrong about it at all and even more importantly, there's literally nothing illegal about any of it. It would only be an issue if they were already #1 and they're very far from being #1.

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.

Agree with the first paragraph.

The second paragraph - it's not that im against Sony moneyhatting games, it's that people act like this is 100% acceptable but then cry when Microsoft acquires a publisher. It's the same thing but one is on a larger scale but also a more important scale - ownership which coincidentally is something so many PlayStation fans love talking up especially when it comes to Game Pass. So many people bring up that they want to own their games (despite the fact that digital or physical, they own nothing) but yet can't see the hypocrisy when complaining about Microsoft buying publishers in order for them to then own that publisher's IP's. It's hilarious. Both sides is anti-consumer because you're preventing games from going on the other platform. However, if the company you're making an offer to accepts it, then it is what it is. The only people who truly have any issue with Microsoft acquiring publishers are those who don't own or want to own an Xbox console and would prefer to bitch instead. Same applies to those who have an issue with Sony moneyhatting games because they don't own or want to own a PlayStation. The second however is that Sony pays for games that they don't own (which again, a lot of PlayStation fans tend to mention in regards to Game Pass) and have literally no right to the IP whatsoever where as if you acquire a company, you own them. I think a lot of people in general can't wrap their head around the fact that when a company acquires another company, that company's history simply no longer matters because it ends once the acquisition gets completed.

Sony is not Nintendo from back then, I agree. But you say, why should Microsoft gain the benefit of the funds that Sony puts into games via marketing deals or exclusivity which I agree with but at the same time, why should Sony benefit from still getting games that the other platform holder now owns? Sony does prevent games from going on Game Pass day one for those that they have a marketing deal with. Now, I see this from both sides. Business wise, I can't argue it and would do the same. As a consumer/gamer, that's a shitty move because Sony is doing it to "stagnate" the growth of Game Pass for the sole reason of it never taking off and thus, Sony never having to adapt or evolve.

Agree with the last part. Both have different business strategies which is what makes the gaming industry great and is what will lead to making it bigger and better. All three hardware manufacturers have their different business strategies that work for them while at the same time offering something different for consumers/gamers.
 
P

peter42O

Guest
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.

COD will be in Game Pass day one guaranteed. Microsoft isn't going to prohibit a single game from going into their service when all of the other games do. That would be a bad look/move/decision/PR nightmare for Microsoft. This is their strategy. All first party games day one in Game Pass. Doesn't matter what the game is. And in this case, where Game Pass IS Microsoft's direction, it would make less sense to NOT put it into the service day one. And of course, there will be those who simply want to buy the game and will do so regardless. Once Microsoft announced this in early 2018, for better or for worse, there's no turning back.

As for Warzone, it's free to play so Game Pass doesn't apply here which you already mentioned.

As for WOW, I think they tie that subscription to Ultimate meaning you'll get access to it on PC via Game Pass Ultimate since it includes PC Game Pass. So you can either get more out of your Ultimate subscription or you can go the traditional route. Best of all, once it eventually gets ported to Xbox consoles, it's already there. Age of Empires is 12-18 months after the PC release because they want to make sure that it has a good user interface and plays good on consoles. It's not about sales for Microsoft. It's about Game Pass growth. Having WOW would increase subscriber count to Game Pass. And if they were to add the old Warcraft games too, oh man. It's definitely going to increase subscriptions.

The difference with Rare though is majority of the originals are long gone and elsewhere which is why they don't want to work on old rare IP's. I can see for example Toys For Bob bring back Banjo which makes sense since they've done Crash/Spyro. You also have Beenox and Vicarious Visions now known as Blizzard Albany with history in these kinds of games. I have no doubt that we'll see a Banjo announcement before this generation ends from one of these studios because the history of them all developing platformers is there.

Also, unlike Rare, these studios are stuck with COD so im pretty sure majority of the people there want to do other stuff and I think a decent amount of bringing back old IP's is one of them.

I don't see Police Quest or Space Quest coming back due to the type of games they are and I definitely don't see Leisure Suit Larry coming back with it's Adults Only rating. lol.Guitar Hero can definitely be brought back and yeah, a crossover with Crash/Spyro/Banjo/Conker would be pretty good.

There's a lot that they can potentially do but im way more hopeful of old IP's being brought back under Microsoft than I am if ABK was still independent.


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.

I agree with what you're saying in regards to Sony not bringing back old IP's when they can put that money towards games with more mass appeal but with Microsoft, there's a difference - Game Pass. Microsoft doesn't need the game to sell. Microsoft is no longer dependent on game sales in order to justify developing them which is one of many reasons why im a hugely in favor of Game Pass. Games like Pentiment, As Dusk Falls, Grounded and even the failed Bleeding Edge wouldn't happen without Game Pass. Future smaller games and even games that are not going to have mass appeal like Redfall for example can still be developed and find success due to Game Pass.

So yeah, Sony can't do this because of the high risk/low reward that comes with it but doesn't this also lead into the stagnated argument? Think about it. Sony is 100% reliant on game sales. Maybe if they were to put the smaller games in PS Plus even at the $18 tier (even though I would probably do the $15 tier at most), they could make that money in a different way because for $70, majority wouldn't buy them but for $15 a month, they could sign up to PS Plus to play that game and if they like the subscription service, they'll stay subscribed. So let's say someone signs up to play a small AA twin stick shooter like DinoNation (yeah, im still hoping!!!) from Housemarque. Granted, it would probably be a $40 game at most. But that one person stays subscribed for at least two more months thus paying a total of $45 which means Sony got a sale for that game despite not actually getting the sale. This would also be a case where this one person perhaps never would have signed up to begin with which means you gain nothing from this one person but because DinoNation was there day one, they jumped in, liked the service and decided to stay subscribed.

So think about it from my point of view in regards to stagnation. A game like Pentiment which is NOT my type of game whatsoever and I will never ever play it but im happy that it exists because it shows me that Microsoft is willing to green-lit these extremely niche smaller titles that without Game Pass, they would probably look at, laugh and say fuck no. lol. So even though Pentiment isn't for me, this gives me hope that down the line a few smaller games that would have never been green-lit to begin with not only were green-lit but more importantly, they were for me which in turn, means that I get more games that I want to play.

As for Indies, im not a fan of the vast majority of them because they always look like NES/SNES and that's not for me. Been there, done that. I don't need AA/Indie games to have a $200M budget, but at least look like Alienation or The Ascent. Or an Outriders, Vampyr, Steel Rising, etc. Give me those niche AA titles but with current visuals or at least somewhat close to it.

Sony's first party exclusives are excellent but for example, I put GOWR on hold for various reasons but one of them is because I was getting bored with the combat/gameplay loop and the companion AI solving puzzles for me wasn't helping. After playing so many of the Sony formulaic games the last 5+ years, like Ubisoft years ago, im getting burned out with them and they're simply becoming overdone and oversaturated.

This is why im more excited for Microsoft and Xbox this generation than I am Sony. I have so many varied games that im looking forward to from Microsoft that's on my list where as I look at the few announced games that I have upcoming for Sony and those that I have already played and im sorry, it's just more of the same. And granted, that sameness is greatness, no argument there but I just long for a return of Resistance and Jak & Daxter especially since never played them. Even though Ratchet is obviously very similar to the Sony template, playing 2016 Remake back then made me a fan of the series because even though it shares similarities, it feels different from the only Sony first party games. Just wish they would remake some older IP's that I would love to play. I'm still hoping that Sony expands Housemarque into two studios. One for the AAA third person shooters like Returnal but without roguelike elements and one for AA isometric twin stick/2D platform side scrolling shooters. But im not expecting Sony to do this even though, again, I hope they do.

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.

I didn't say that COD is the only reason or even a reason why Sony became dominant. I'm simply pointing out the current marketing/exclusivity deal that Sony has with COD MW 2 yet want to complain that it wouldn't be fair for Microsoft to do the same despite the fact that Sony is doing right now what they don't want Microsoft to do in the future.

I agree with the rest. The only issue I have with Sony in regards to ABK is that they're simply trying to prevent Microsoft from ever gaining market share by growing Game Pass and offering a different alternative than what they offer. The competitor being different is what competition is all about. If something isn't working, doing it over and over is the definition of insanity so instead, you change it up.

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.

I only put the blame on Sony because so many only want to blame Microsoft for their acquisitions as if they went to Bethesda with a gun and said, sell me your company. The only real blame for Sony and Microsoft is that they both know exactly what they're doing yet they do it anyway. My only issue is that you can't favor one and complain about the other just because it's your favorite. You either have to be against both or be cool with both.

Personally, im cool with both doing what they're doing as what they're doing works for them and their business model and pricing structure.

I will end this reply on this note - I will say what I have said numerous times here and other forums/Twitter. A real true gamer that isn't a fanboy/extremist to either side will always buy and own both an Xbox Series X/S and a PlayStation 5 for the simple fact that because of this, regardless of what either side does, you have access to all the games and in general, people should do what I do - which is take advantage of what both sides offer to the fullest extent. Because in all honesty, why wouldn't someone want to take advantage of what both companies offer?
 

Old Gamer

Veteran
Founder
5 Aug 2022
2,367
3,879
My only issue is that you can't favor one and complain about the other just because it's your favorite. You either have to be against both or be cool with both.
I assure you, people are not cool with a lot things Sony does either.
The solution in that case? They vote with their wallet. Games cost too much? Stop buying them at launch. PSVR2 too expensive? Pass. Subscription BS? Do without. Disagree with an exclusivity deal? Skip that game. Sony still aren't large enough to try and ignore the market. You take away the money, sooner or later they have to listen.

People have repeatedly tried to explain to you that everyone in here knows that both are shitty companies, it's the scale and repercussions of what they do that differs, and by a lot.

Saying the truth about how much more harmful to the industry and end consumers a platform holder buying out large third party publishers is compared to the ongoing practice of exclusivity deals (which by way, Microsoft also still does) does not mean we support either.

Playing favorites is going through leaps of logic and false equivalences to justify what is going on here. And it is you doing so.
 

Dr Bass

The doctor is in
Founder
20 Jun 2022
2,040
3,448
Hahaha. I wish I was. lol

They fail at making AAA games to YOU. Just because they have failed for you doesn't mean that applies to everyone. And while ABK is definitely out of Sony's reach, they could have competed to get Bethesda and they didn't. They spent $5B or so on Bungie. They couldn't double it to try to get Bethesda? Even if they couldn't get them, raising the price for Microsoft to make them pay more wouldn't have been a bad thing.

Again, huge difference between a company not knowing what they're doing and what they're doing NOT being for you personally.
What AAA games did Microsoft release this year?
 
D

Deleted member 223

Guest
Does not really matter the year. They been dogshit for a decade now with no end in sight and that's that. You have millions of young teens who got hooked on the Xbox drug during the 360 years who signed away their soul to MS/Xbox.....those that didn't flip by now.... boy...those will cope with anything and carry the banner for life. It's called fanatism for a reason, even if the word has lost the negative connotations it once had in earlier generations before millennials came around. Can't reason, can't force them to admit, nor change their behavior pattern to behave as to what you deem should be reasonable. The more you pound on them the harder they double down... it's an unconscious defiance reaction aka "fuck you I do what I want" or in this case "repping/capping Xbox". Xbox is part of their life and identity - anything that tarnishes that is seen as a personal afront. Best course of action is always to ignore, marginalize, and keep them isolated in their corner as fringe due to the obvious stupidity on display. Serious engagement is futile. Been there, done that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
P

peter42O

Guest
I assure you, people are not cool with a lot things Sony does either.
The solution in that case? They vote with their wallet. Games cost too much? Stop buying them at launch. PSVR2 too expensive? Pass. Subscription BS? Do without. Disagree with an exclusivity deal? Skip that game. Sony still aren't large enough to try and ignore the market. You take away the money, sooner or later they have to listen.

People have repeatedly tried to explain to you that everyone in here knows that both are shitty companies, it's the scale and repercussions of what they do that differs, and by a lot.

Saying the truth about how much more harmful to the industry and end consumers a platform holder buying out large third party publishers is compared to the ongoing practice of exclusivity deals (which by way, Microsoft also still does) does not mean we support either.

Playing favorites is going through leaps of logic and false equivalences to justify what is going on here. And it is you doing so.

I agree with everything you said except for one aspect - harmful to the industry. This is something that simply remains to be seen. Acquiring publishers isn't harmful for the industry. If anything, it will open up opportunities for other publishers to step up because the gaps of Bethesda and ABK are there waiting to be filled. The only harm is for those who don't want to play Bethesda/ABK games on an Xbox or PC. And even then, that's not a big deal because if you truly care about their respective games and want to play them, you'll find a way to do so.

What AAA games did Microsoft release this year?

Technically, Deathloop port. Excluding that, I know they didn't release any AAA games in 2022. There's no disputing that but I never said a particular year. I said for this generation which they have. Flight Sim, Forza Horizon 5 and Halo Infinite.
 
  • haha
Reactions: PlacidusaX

ksdixon

Dixon Cider Ltd.
22 Jun 2022
1,877
1,209
Of course, I love that PlayStation has always been almost the one-stop-shop to access most games on a single platform.
It's actually one thing that I think they are at risk of undermining with them allowing exclusive 1st and 3rd party games to go to PC...

I think they should always aim to be the most complete gaming experience / store.
Yeah that's what I mean about offering a full buffet to customers instead clearing the food away early.

PS could smoke MS's offerings anywhere. BC, Mobile or handheld portable gaming. Instead we get scraps because they don't even have to try. But it's like they won't even try...

Like if MS released an XBoy tomorrow, Sony would be caught flat footed again and be slow to react. Seems like everyone else is doing deals and stuff to have portable gaming with buttons, and Sony's the only one with a streaming-ethernet-fan.
 

Papacheeks

Old Guard
Icon Extra
21 Jun 2022
1,287
1,619
Like I said in another thread, had the FTC done the right thing in 1999, there never would have been an XBox!

I actually think the Original Xbox was the brain child of passionate as fuck people. It had a scrappy sega feel to it. But Bill Gates, among others didn't care about gaming like companies like Sega/Sony/Nintendo.

If the higher ups had not tried to run things and let the Direct X team take full control, I truly believe XBox would be different.
 

KiryuRealty

Cambridge Dictionary High Priest of Grammar
28 Nov 2022
6,646
8,166
Where it’s at.
I actually think the Original Xbox was the brain child of passionate as fuck people. It had a scrappy sega feel to it. But Bill Gates, among others didn't care about gaming like companies like Sega/Sony/Nintendo.

If the higher ups had not tried to run things and let the Direct X team take full control, I truly believe XBox would be different.
And if Microsoft had been properly penalized by the FTC, they wouldn't have been allowed to buy their way into another industry.

Whether there were passionate people involved or not, the whole project was predicated on MS extending their monopoly from PCs to the living room, and had the company been broken up as it should have been, they wouldn't have been able to actually embark on that venture.
 

Airbus

Veteran
30 Jun 2022
2,439
2,153
Eddie-Griffin had three threads a day last week trumpeting every promo for Series S with no sign of mod action in sight. Makes one wonder, doesn’t it?
Yeah that guy and denckdeckard always all over the place anytime theres a series s discount or new gamepass game there

I find it weird if a gamer do that ( doing promotional or advertising stuff)

They seems like an xbox employee to me ( that is my suspicion)
 

Dabaus

Veteran
28 Jun 2022
3,050
4,660
Bro similar thread locked on gaf

Think ms have someone in the higher ups there as moderator
What thread was locked? Ive noticed resetera lets the xbox zealots (microsoft employees?) go absolutely wild while everyone else has to walk on eggshells.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.