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.