Submitted by Flawed_L0gic t3_11xt2sd in technology
Comments
enderandrew42 t1_jd4snwn wrote
Why would Microsoft buy a huge studio and then make those games exclusive to the platform?
Microsoft told the courts they wouldn't do that with Bethesda and lied.
GreenAdvance t1_jd4wj8w wrote
They didn't tell courts (or anyone) that they wouldn't make future Bethesda titles exclusive.
snoringpupper t1_jd50q2p wrote
Microsoft did tell the EU commission they had no incentive to make Zenimax games exclusive.
The EU did not make them "promise" or impose any kind of restrictions but it is indeed a thing Microsoft wrote in a document to them.
KhellianTrelnora t1_jd5osge wrote
And this is when the world realized that a clear motive is only needed for a murder.
GreenAdvance t1_jdacq9b wrote
"We won't do x" and "We don't have a profit motive for x" are not the same statements.
"We won't do x" is not something Microsoft wrote in a document to anyone. Their lawyers aren't that stupid.
[deleted] t1_jd588po wrote
[removed]
WALKAW t1_jd9tr9n wrote
Not sure how so much stupidity got upvoted in this thread but im going to say astroturfing. Yes Microsoft did say they have no financial incentive to make Zenimax games exclusive and now are.
GreenAdvance t1_jd9vook wrote
It's almost like those are two separate statements and not what the OP said.
The article I link literally quotes Microsoft's statement you are referencing. I didn't say otherwise.
WALKAW t1_jda9ux5 wrote
They say it here which is what people are referring to.
GreenAdvance t1_jdacj3h wrote
Yeah, and? Did you actually read any of that or the article I linked?
What it says and what OP said are not the same thing.
BeetleCosine t1_jd5qfrp wrote
Dude, you gotta get info from multiple sources. Don't be one of those people that the media makes hating the victims while cheering for the victimizer.
Youvebeeneloned t1_jd4rgfp wrote
Its going to be a no.
With lawsuits like this, even when the judges go out of their way to spell out what the plaintiffs needs to provide to find cause, its almost always proof there was no cause to begin with... or the cause is so obscure as to be open to interpretation.
The Judge is even pretty much hinting this, by saying why would they make x games exclusives, when it results in even less profit for them, not more... provide examples of this being the case.
NOW the argument could be made look at Halo, but even there it was exclusive to a MUCH smaller segment of gaming (Apple Mac) and Microsoft buying Bungie resulted in them getting a MUCH larger market at the cost of that smaller one.
imsorryisuck t1_jd57lrc wrote
well they'd drive consoles attractiveness down, waiting for people getting a pc and buying their games there. it's a elaborated effort to make pcs a monopoly in gaming world
phdoofus t1_jd51jl8 wrote
A group of people thought they could go to court with the argument that a merger would 'spoil gaming' and they thought they'd win? Were they representing themeselves or something?
It-s_Not_Important t1_jd7m6cp wrote
It sort of reeks of, “Timmy picked all the good players for his red rover team and is ruining recess!”
400921FB54442D18 t1_jd8qy9m wrote
The other irony here is, the entire gaming industry follows what that group of people does with their money. If they buy lots of FPSs, the gaming industry makes more FPSs. If they buy lots of RPGs, the gaming industry makes more RPGs. If they buy lots of games with microtransactions, the gaming industry puts microtransactions in more and more games. Gamers are the ones in control in this interaction. Which means that, if they don't want the merger to be successful, all they have to do is not buy games from those companies anymore.
Now, why would a group of people with all of the control decide that they need to exert their control through the courts instead of through the markets? I'll tell you why: it's because they can't help themselves. This is a group of people with the collective impulse control of a two-year-old. They can't stop themselves from giving money to Microsoft no matter how shitty the games might be post-merger, and they see the lawsuit as an easier option than actually learning impulse control skills like any other reasonable adult. This is not a sympathetic position; this is hundreds of thousands of people simply refusing to grow up.
TL;DR: This lawsuit represents gamers begging the world around them to do the job of being mature on their behalf, instead of sucking it up and growing the self-discipline necessary to make their own choices about how they spend their money.
Gold_Rush69 t1_jd6hslb wrote
Sony when Microsoft makes exclusive games: 🤬😭😱
Also Sony having tons of exclusives: ☺️
WALKAW t1_jd9u25s wrote
Is that what you think is happening? Sony isnt buying massive multiplatform publishers to take massively popular franchises away from other platforms like MS is.
Xbox has always had exclusives, no one "cried" about it. Now they are buying massive franchises because they suck at making their own with their current studios
Gold_Rush69 t1_jda2gxi wrote
And? Are you telling me Sony doesn’t have any massively popular franchises it has exclusive rights to?
Exclusives are PlayStation’s bread and butter. After all these years now you get a taste of your own medicine and decide it tastes bitter?
Too bad, swallow it anyway and cope.
WALKAW t1_jdaa873 wrote
They didnt buy their popular franchises and take them away from other platforms which is what MS is doing and the heart if the issue. So no their own "medicine" isnt buying massive multiplatform publishers.
Not sure how that is so difficult to see or are people just playing stupid to defend Microsofts honor.
And MS has always done exclusives since Xbox started. Not sure why people pretend they havent. They also do countless third party deals.
donsanedrin t1_jd6mugf wrote
I really don't understand how people can even think you are making a good argument.
A company creates his own things, that get universally praised and are successful.
A company fails to create good things, and goes on a massive buying spree to secure OTHER things, made by OTHER companies, for the purposes of trying to control a market.
And you think that's the same thing?
Its obvious you try to gloss over that by using the phrase "having tons of exclusives."
They made those games. Their people conceived the game idea. They created the studio to design, produce, animate, program the product.
And you think Sony "scammed" you and the gaming community by making their OWN EXCLUSIVES?
They "have them", because they went through the effort to "make them." Maybe Microsoft and the Xbox division should try doing that, if they want to compete?
riff-computer t1_jd6twp3 wrote
Sony acquired 21 video game studios from 1993 - 2022, including Insomniac, Guerrilla, Naughty Dog, and even an entire publisher, Psygnosis. Let’s not pretend everything PlayStation did was built from the ground up by Sony. This doesn’t even consider timed exclusivity deals with third party studios. Feel free to browse the list here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Sony
I’m not saying Microsoft should not be critiqued but you can’t say Sony’s behaviour was any different as they established their footing in the industry.
Edit - spelling
donsanedrin t1_jd9ip3j wrote
By the way, I did look at those 21 video game studios.
Just to be clear, let's state the reason WHY you felt like telling us about these studios. You are trying to make the claim that Sony "took something away", correct? That something existing in the gaming space, and by performing a business acquisition, Sony "took something" away from the gaming space.
I believe we can both agree that you are trying to say that, in order to say that what Microsoft is doing is "no worse than things Sony has already done." Correct?
Let's start by shrinking that list down by pointing out studios that they "acquired", that don't actually make games, or have no existing games to be taken away.
-
Bluepoint Games doesn't make video games, never has. They are a porting studio. They are a contractor that provides a service. The number of games that have been "taken" from you because of this acquisition? 0
-
Nixxess also doesn't make video games. They are also a port studio. Number of games that have been "taken" from you because of this acquisition? 0
-
Haven Studios.......has yet to make a video game. This is a completely brand new studio, created by Jade Raymond. It was funded by Sony. So, has Sony "taken" anything from anyone? Nope. This is a company they help found.
-
Plumbee, as far as I can tell, has never created any video game in the traditional video game space. The only company profile I found for this company says that it created "social casino games across all platforms" and the website www.plumbee.com (or .co.uk) isn't even working. This listing may be obsolete.
-
Valkyrie Entertainment. Appears to only be a support studio that "assists developers and publishers in creating content and assets." They have existed since 2002, and this is the list of games in which they have worked on, that I was able to find. As you can see, these are all games in which the core development and creation comes from other studios. It appears that this studio creates graphics and art assets, either for a video game or for marketing used by the publisher. Number of games taken away from this acquisition? 0
-
Savage Game Studios. Has not made anything yet. Their founded members were people that "had a hand" in Clash of Clans and Angry Birds. According to this article, they were founded in 2020, but were acquired in 2022 by Sony's Playstation Studios Mobile Division to "which will focus on creating games based on new or existing Playstation IP." So either they pitched a new IP, or they are being assigned to work on an existing IP, whatever it is its going to be fully owned by Sony from the time the game releases.
So, we're already down to 15.
Now, lets talk about studio "acquisitions" in which they were funded by Sony from the very beginning in order to produce a video game that was pitched to, and bought by Sony........from the very beginning.
In other words, none of these games were ever designed or funded to be multiplatform IPs, the IPs were purchased/owned by Sony from the very beginning, so that they would be published by Sony:
-
Incognito Entertainment. This studio was the studio set up by David Jaffe after he was no longer part of Sony's internal studio that created the Twisted Metal series (989 Studios). Their first deal to publish their very first game was with Sony. And that's because David Jaffe was going to continue making more Twisted Metal. So, in other words, the studio was formed to continue working on an existing IP that Sony already owned. After Twisted Metal Black was released, Sony bought out the studio, and had them work on other Twisted Metal Games, and make Warhawk before the studio was dissolved, since they all left to go form Eat, Sleep, Play. Number of games taken away? 0
-
Sigil Games Online. This is a studio that was created after Sony Online and their subsidaries created EverQuest. They actually were in a deal to publish their only game, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, with Microsoft, until that publishing deal fell through. Without a publisher, they went back to Sony to publish the game. And it was never designed for Playstation, it was a PC-only release. So Sony actually helped save this game in 2007 so that it can release on PC. The game came and went without much fanfare, the studio hasn't accomplished anything since.
-
Media Molecule. Members from Lionhead studios went to Sony to pitch the concept for LittleBigPlanet in 2005. Sony gave them seed money to form the studio in 2006. They made a deal to fund the development of LittleBigPlanet, to be published by Sony. The IP of LittleBigPlanet would be owned by Sony from the very beginning. Once the game released, Sony bought the studio.
-
Firesprite. These are ex-Psygnosis/Sony Liverpool employees. They spent their first few years working on spinoffs of existing Sony IPs. Run Sackboy! Run! is a game based on LittleBigPlanet's mascot. They developed VR games for Playstation VR. They did create and publish their own VR game, called The Persistance, for multiple platforms. And they continued supporting the game for the new platforms in 2021. They were fully purchased by Sony to work on Horizon Call of the Mountain in VR.
-
Lasengle. They appear to be a Japanese mobile game developer that was spun-off from a Japanese media company. Their first game appears to have been a very big hit game in Japan, called Fate/Grand Order. The game was published by Sony Music Corp. for Android and iOS, and then came to arcades in Japan. So they don't even make traditional games, and the type of games they do make were being published by Sony subsidiaries this entire time.
We're down to 10 studios, now?
From this point forward, these remaining studios ACTUALLY HAD GAMES that were conceived, created, and published without any noticeable involvement from Sony.
And I'm going to try and list these actual games, so that maybe you can give me an honest assessment of what you think has been "taken" from you and what you believe has been taking away from the general gaming space.
RedditBlows5876 t1_jd9kbb3 wrote
>Bluepoint Games doesn't make video games, never has. They are a porting studio. They are a contractor that provides a service. The number of games that have been "taken" from you because of this acquisition? 0
Can't even get past the first bullet point without you being completely wrong on all fronts. They made Blast Factor. They also were responsible for porting Metal Gear Solid HD Collection to the Xbox 360. I'm sure it'll be fine though, you seem like the type who will humbly admit you were wrong and move on.
donsanedrin t1_jd9ll7t wrote
> Blast Factor
Which means they belong in the second group.
There you go, there's my humility, right there.
In other words, lemme repeat the final sentence of that bullet point.
Number of games that were "taken" from you? 0
That's a Sony published game from the get-go. In other words, Sony has already been doing business with Bluepoint since their very inception.
RedditBlows5876 t1_jd9lybk wrote
>Number of games that were "taken" from you? 0
Did you miss the part about the Metal Gear port? Could absolutely be robbing the industry of other remasters like that for Xbox.
donsanedrin t1_jd9majw wrote
Did you miss the part that I clearly called them a port-house from the very beginning?
> Could absolutely be robbing the industry of other remasters like that for Xbox.
Wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwhat? Have you actually played Metal Gear Solid 2 Sons of Liberty on the Xbox?
You're joking right?............you're basically saying that you're not taking this discussion seriously. Right?
RedditBlows5876 t1_jd9pf1e wrote
Ah, like I said, you're clearly very humble about being wrong on both fronts.
donsanedrin t1_jd9pqxs wrote
Except I wasn't wrong, I had already created a category that already explains that. So I admitted that it should've been in that category.
It was accounted for.
You're trying to too hard to throw it out, because...........you don't actually want to argue the whole details of your claim.......because you know your claim is vastly wrong and dishonest, and exaggerated.
And you know that the more I get you to delve into your claim, INTO THE DETAILS, the more wrong you look.
Hence, you're trying to find a way out, quickly, right now.
RedditBlows5876 t1_jd9txbo wrote
>So I admitted that it should've been in that category.
That's called being wrong.
donsanedrin t1_jd9uluq wrote
And then showing the humility that I already created the proper space where I should've listed it.
It seems like you think this nitpick fully discredits me, when all you've done is told me that Bluepoint belongs a little lower in my post.
And, doesn't change anything I've said because..........I will repeat again. Number of games that were taken from you? 0
Port-jobs can be done by other studios..........OR by the publisher themselves.
So if you worry about future Metal Gear games, Bluepoint never controlled any of that..........Konami did. Stop trying to give credit to Bluepoint for something Konami has full control over, and for something Konami can solve on their own if they wanted to.
Edit: ...and then he blocks me because he doesn't want to see me point out where he is being misleading and disingenuous.
So, I will point that out here, to his final post below: > Except, I already created a spot in my place where that SAME EXACT listing would be place.
> And I already told you that it shouldn't be in the first part, but rather moved downward in my post.
> Notice how you don't want to describe it in detail........you want to cling to the general phrasing of "got it wrong."
> And notice how I actually provide details that you intentionally leave out?
> Yeah.......I notice.
> So, you made a weak attempt to try and discredit my entire post by clinging onto a nitpick, that I went and admitted HOW it should be correctly placed in my post.
> Thanks for admitting that you were never being genuine to begin with.
RedditBlows5876 t1_jd9vvbk wrote
You mean like a normal person "oh yep, got that one wrong". No, that's not what you did. Kind of like I predicted. Anyway, have a nice day.
WALKAW t1_jd9uog5 wrote
How many massive multiplatform franchises has Sony bought and taken away from other platforms?
The answer is 0
While MS continue to buy up massive publishers to take massive multiplatform franchises away from Playstation
People should easily be able to see the difference. If not then there is something wrong with you
donsanedrin t1_jd6xxed wrote
They didn't buy any of these games that we call "exclusives".
They bought studios for their talent, and created new IPs from them.
They did not TAKE CONTROL over an existing popular IP.
Yes, they did build things from the ground up.
Yes, it absolutely is different behavior.
Why are you pretending that you don't know the obvious difference?
riff-computer t1_jd6yvtl wrote
I do know the difference. For example, Rare , Obsidian and Tango have produced high quality, new IP for Microsoft since being acquired. This includes Hi-Fi rush, Sea of Thieves, Grounded and Pentiment. That’s talent acquired, as you describe, not franchises.
Not a single franchise that already existed on Playstation has yet to be removed from Sony’s platform. I can still download all existing Bethesda games on my PS4 if I like. Can you name me a title which was confirmed and announced for PS5 or PS4, from an acquired studio, which has since been cancelled on Sony’s platform?
donsanedrin t1_jd95p9n wrote
> Not a single franchise that already existed on Playstation has yet to be removed from Sony’s platform
The Outer Worlds sequel definitely appears to be.
The first game was on Playstation.
This new patch that they are selling to upgrade to the new consoles, and by all accounts is the OPPOSITE of "high quality", are them still selling to Playstation consumers.
The Outer World 2 is only scheduled for Xbox and PC.
Try explaining that.
> Can you name me a title which was confirmed and announced for PS5 or PS4, from an acquired studio, which has since been cancelled on Sony’s platform?
Starfield was premiered at Bethesda's own independent E3 conference in 2018. All of their games at that conference were games that were expected on all major platforms at the time, Xbox, Playstation, and PC.
Therefore Starfield, from the very beginning, had a clear expectation that they were going to be available for all platforms that Bethesda/Zenimax had already been making games for.
You already know this. I really hope you don't start adopting Xbox marketing-speak to try and get around that one.
riff-computer t1_jd9e804 wrote
They now own both IP’s and are free to do with them as they wish. The Outer Worlds 1 still exists on PlayStation. The sequel did not enter production until later. Quite simple.
And I’m sorry but Starfield being expected to launch on PlayStation was not confirmation of anything. You can’t claim it was lost when marketing material never said it was coming to PS5. The business world does not run on expected to’s. This is the simple objective truth of it. I’m not saying it’s right, but that’s how it is. I expected Silent Hill 2, FF, and Octopath Traveller 2 on Xbox. Doesn’t mean anything.
While your cherry picking examples, explain why it’s any different that Final Fantasy, a franchise that has long existed on Xbox, is now not getting any new mainline entries thanks to Sony continuing to pay SE to keep it off the platform? Or does this behaviour not count when it comes from a market leader?
donsanedrin t1_jd9l5dq wrote
> They now own both IP’s and are free to do with them as they wish
So you just immediately went and moved your goalposts.
Did you think I wasn't going to notice that you just did that?
You literally asked me "show me where they are changing the parameters"
I went and showed you.
And then you just casually responded ".........as it is their right to do so"
You just proved my point, as to why they shouldn't be allowed to buy out Activision.
> And I’m sorry but Starfield being expected to launch on PlayStation was not confirmation of anything. You can’t claim it was lost when marketing material never said it was coming to PS5.
It was clearly a multiplatform announcement, since they were a multiplatform developer/publisher having a press conference for all of their games, which were multiplatform.
You attempting this legalspeak isn't going to dismiss basic common sense. When Todd Howard is saying this is his next major IP, its meant to be alongside Elder Scrolls and Fallout.
Games and Franchises that are multiplatform, and HAVE BEEN multiplatform for a while now. The expectation is more than obvious.
riff-computer t1_jd9og0k wrote
Look, I’ve clearly struck a chord here. I’m not out here saying Microsoft is making the correct decisions, but the core of my position is that Sony did, and continues to acquire studios to boost their portfolio. They are not some bastion of building their entire business from the ground up, that’s my point.
I have owned every platform since the N64 and PS1 (and plan to continue to do so) I have watched this go down over the last 2 decades. I’m not trying to diminish whatever these studios have done post acquisition, but in another 2 decades it’s incredibly likely Microsoft will have fostered similar success. So what if you lose a couple games on your favourite plastic box? Buy both of its really an issue for you. The real issue here is exclusives are bad for everyone in general, and both have continued to push the divide further.
donsanedrin t1_jd9qk64 wrote
> Look, I’ve clearly struck a chord here.
No, that internet tactic doesn't work with me, either.
> I’m not out here saying Microsoft is making the correct decisions, but the core of my position is that Sony did, and continues to acquire studios to boost their portfolio
No, you are saying that it is okay for Microsoft to do a anti-consumer move because you CLAIM that Sony does such anti-consumer moves all the time.
You are trying to say that Sony has established this practice already.
You are wrong, dishonest, and greatly exaggerating this.
> I’m not trying to diminish whatever these studios have done post acquisition, but in another 2 decades it’s incredibly likely Microsoft will have fostered similar success.
Really? Take a look at the state of the Halo brand.
You are now claiming that Microsoft is buying Call of Duty, Diablo, Warcraft..............to IMPROVE upon them and take them to new heights in terms of success?
That's laughable.
Microsoft is trying to CORNER A MARKET. Anybody with half a brain can see this from a mile away.
They started by buying a $7.5 billion dollar publisher, which is more than twice as large as any gaming acquisition Sony has ever made. And then the very next year they announced they are spending ten times that amount to buy an even bigger publisher.
These are the very first and second moves that a corporation makes when they are trying to corner a market.
WALKAW t1_jd9utlq wrote
None of those can be described as "high quality IPs". They are mostly small indie sized games.
No future Zenimax game.will be on Playstation and when they acquire Activision it will be the same.
Again not hard to see the issue
donsanedrin t1_jd9ygjk wrote
> Can you name me a title which was confirmed and announced for PS5 or PS4, from an acquired studio, which has since been cancelled on Sony’s platform?
IGN France just posted a timely article, today, that gives us another example:
> During our Redfall preview session , we had the opportunity to chat with the game's creative director, Harvey Smith (who also worked on Deus Ex and Dishonored 1 and 2). This was an opportunity to ask him the question about the impact of the acquisition of Bethesda by Microsoft in 2021, right during the development of Redfall.
> Harvey Smith told us that one of the notable consequences was the immediate cancellation of the PlayStation 5 version of the game.
> "We were acquired by Microsoft and it was a change with capital C. They came in and they said 'No PlayStation 5, we're focusing on Xbox, PC and the Game Pass'."
What Microsoft executives are saying internally does not coincide with what they say to the outside world.
Good on this developer, and for IGN France, for getting a hard quote that makes it very clear about what is happening.
riff-computer t1_jdalrrh wrote
You left this part out. He’s not championing against the merger or in support of Sony. That game was not announced at the time, as a consumer you have not lost anything promised.
“It’s not very serious, it’s even a good decision I think,” Smith said of dropping the PS5 version. “[It helps to] support Game Pass and have one less platform to worry about, one less complexity.”
He added: “Game Pass has a ton of players, it could become our biggest game thanks to 30 million, where I can’t remember the exact number, of subscribers.”
You keep cherry picking to support your emotional viewpoint. I’ll say it one last time, all exclusives are inherently bad for consumers, and Sony has indeed prevented games from being launched on rival platforms. There is tons of evidence out there (Final Fantasy would like to have a word, it doesn’t matter if they don’t own the IP, they are paying to keep it off the Xbox).
They don’t do this for you, they do it to protect their position in the market. Now Microsoft follows their established lead and everyone freaks out? It was only last generation that Insomniac released a game on the Xbox (Sunset Overdrive), and now that studio will never work with anyone but Sony again.
Yes, some IP has been lost in the process to Microsoft, but if Sony is as amazing as you say they will be able to produce their own in house rivals to these franchises.
donsanedrin t1_jdautrh wrote
> That game was not announced at the time
This is some ridiculous internet fanboy logic.
Just like your other post in which you said "Well, they didn't PROMISE, did they"
What comes after that? "Well, they weren't crossing their fingers behind their back when they said it, did they?"
How many arbitrary rules do you want to put in place in order to defend Xbox here?
This was a game in development for Playstation, they literally were told stop for non-gaming, non-technical reasons. They were told to stop, and it clearly had an anti-consumer impact.
> You keep cherry picking to support your emotional viewpoint
After your ridiculous logic, you have no place to lecture anybody about "emotional viewpoints."
> Sony has indeed prevented games from being launched on rival platforms
No, they haven't
Please show me a permanent buyout, and them shutting down existing game development.
You do understand that marketing deals or timed exclusivity is a TWO PARTY partnership. Sony didn't FORCE anything, they didn't bully their way into anything.
> (Final Fantasy would like to have a word, it doesn’t matter if they don’t own the IP, they are paying to keep it off the Xbox).
No where near the level of what Microsoft is already doing with Zenimax, and what they will eventually do with Activision games.
Once again, Sony didn't bully Square-Enix. Squre-Enix made that business choice.
> Now Microsoft follows their established lead and everyone freaks out?
Once again, your entire basis for this line is based on making a clear and dishonest claim.
Your fanboy is absolutely showing here.
> It was only last generation that Insomniac released a game on the Xbox (Sunset Overdrive), and now that studio will never work with anyone but Sony again.
Sunset Overdrive bombed, Insomniac choose to work with Sony on a Sony-controlled IP. And they made their most successful game, and then they choose to continue doing business with Sony, and their owners chose to get bought out.
Once again..........Insomniac is NOT a publisher, and NOT even a major publisher.
Once again.........Insomniac HAD NO MAJOR GAMING IP at the time they were acquired. The IP was already in Sony's hands.
You were never getting a Spider-man game on Xbox. Zero Percent chance of that ever happening.
Do you honestly believe what you are typing? You're trying to compare these things as the same?
> Yes, some IP has been lost in the process to Microsoft
Zenimax, a publisher that averages between $500-$550 million in revenue annually--which puts them on the level of Capcom or Konami--was bought out entirely.
And Activision--which generates about $7.2 billion in revenue annually--and is probably the single biggest third-party publisher that conducts most of its business in the west, and is only behind Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo.
You're over here trying to downplay it as "well.........some IP"
[deleted] t1_jd7zvpe wrote
[removed]
bdsee t1_jd6uhua wrote
Your entire argument is just an emotional one...who gives a shit if someone made something or someone buys the company that makes it...it has no bearing on anything.
donsanedrin t1_jd6y3gd wrote
No, its not an "emotional" argument.
You are trying to dismiss Sony Computer Entertainments contributions to gaming.
It absolutely has a bearing. They earned those exclusives, by having a hand in developing them. Those are their home-grown products.
You're trying to gloss over this, because you are trying to make a false-equivalency but you know it falls apart if we actually look at the details.
By your logic, Nintendo doesn't to have the right to do whatever they want to do with their Mario and Zelda IPs.
bdsee t1_jd71ggk wrote
>You are trying to dismiss Sony Computer Entertainments contributions to gaming.
Nowhere did I do that, but this is more emotuonal argument from you...it has nothing to do with the market or business.
>They earned those exclusives, by having a hand in developing them.
Emotional argument. Microsoft earned their exclusives by being successful enough to buy those development houses.... it's just as dumb as your argument. This isn't some guy sitting in his garage inventing something only for a big bad corporation to come along and steal it...this is two massive corporations competing in a space both buying up dev houses when they feel it is a good business decision. I'm against mergers generally, but gaming is massive and easier than ever to get into...there isn't a risk from this kerger of monopolising the industry.
>because you are trying to make a false-equivalency but you know it falls apart if we actually look at the details.
What details? That one company developed their properties and another is trying to buy properties? Nobody is denying it, but it's simply irrelevant to anything but how you personally feel.
>By your logic, Nintendo doesn't to have the right to do whatever they want to do with their Mario and Zelda IPs
You are just making up more nonsense. Nowhere did I mention that Sony or Nintendo shouldn't be able to do what they want with their properties. All I was pointing out is that whether they create it or buy the company that created it is functionally the same. One doesn't deserve special consideration by the law over the other.
donsanedrin t1_jd94vb9 wrote
> Nowhere did I do that, but this is more emotuonal argument from you...
This isn't working. You need to stop this ad hominem type of attack, because its not going to work with me.
> Emotional argument. Microsoft earned their exclusives by being successful enough to buy those development houses....
No they haven't. We've been told that Microsoft's Xbox division has EARNED LESS MONEY during its lifetime than Sony's Playstation business.
Sony biggest acquisition has only half of the cost of Microsoft buying Zenimax at $7 billion dollars.
And then Microsoft, a year later, has the ability to spend something at 10x the dollar amount. $70 billion.
Xbox has never generated any such earnings or "success" to be able to buy out such large entities. They are leveraging Microsoft's success from OTHER BUSINESSES.
So......no. Xbox absolutely has not done anything to "earn" this.
This is clearly an attempt to buy out and corner a market.
> I'm against mergers generally, but gaming is massive and easier than ever to get into...there isn't a risk from this kerger of monopolising the industry.
Yes, there absolutely is. You are plainly ignorant if you think that is not the case.
> What details? That one company developed their properties and another is trying to buy properties? Nobody is denying it, but it's simply irrelevant to anything but how you personally feel.
No, it is relevant. Because you are trying to say that its okay for Microsoft to do this, because Sony has ALREADY COMMITTED such bad practices.
.........when Sony hasn't.
And you're trying to make a false-equivalency.
> You are just making up more nonsense. Nowhere did I mention that Sony or Nintendo shouldn't be able to do what they want with their properties.
Except you are trying to portray Sony that they did something "anti-consumer" for properties that they cultivated and invested in.
> they create it or buy the company that created it is functionally the same. One doesn't deserve special consideration by the law over the other.
No they aren't the same.
And yes the law should and DOES distinguish something that is created, and something that is bought.
The FCC, the CMA, doesn't not step in when Sony created a massively large IP that did not exist prior to them creating it.
They do step in when somebody is trying to buy an already existing large IP.
You ever seen a regulator come in an when Nintendo sold too many copies of a particular video game? You ever seen a regulator come in when Take-Two sold 40 million copies of Grand Theft Auto?
bdsee t1_jdab9yl wrote
>No they haven't. We've been told that Microsoft's Xbox division has EARNED LESS MONEY during its lifetime than Sony's Playstation business.
I didn't say Xbox game division, I said Microsoft. Your belief that their game division can't be supported by the profits from the rest of the company is irrelevant...and emotional.
>Sony biggest acquisition has only half of the cost of Microsoft buying Zenimax at $7 billion dollars.
Sony made most of their acquisitions decades ago...also, so what, they buy smaller developers...what does that have to do with anything?
>And then Microsoft, a year later, has the ability to spend something at 10x the dollar amount. $70 billion.
Yeah, it's almost like Microsoft has a shitload of money because of how successful they are in other areas of their business.
>So......no. Xbox absolutely has not done anything to "earn" this.
I said Microsoft, not Xbox...why do you believe that as a matter of law these should be separate and why are you just pretending O saod Xbox and not Microsoft?
>Yes, there absolutely is. You are plainly ignorant if you think that is not the case.
No there absolutely isn't. Microsoft will still be smaller than Sony and the marketshare per company and amount of new entrants in the industry is probably one of the most healthy industries.
>No, it is relevant. Because you are trying to say that its okay for Microsoft to do this, because Sony has ALREADY COMMITTED such bad practices.
For the last time I never said half the shit you have said that I said...jesus, do you even know how to read.
And even if I did, you are back to making an emotional argument...nothing you say has anything to do with law or market impact.
>And yes the law should and DOES distinguish something that is created, and something that is bought.
No it doesn't. Let's imagine for a second that Microsoft never entered the console market and it was just Sony and Nintendo...Microsoft could buy Sony and regulators wouldn't bat an eye because there would be no change to the market, it would still just be 2 players. It wouldn't matter that Microsoft had never created anything in that market...it is irrelevant.
Just like if the current situation existed but Sony had more cash and they had of tried to acquire Activision they would scrutinise that deal despite Sony having created their exclusive IPs in house....because it is irrelevant. They would scrutinise the deal because of the potential market impact...and it would be less likely to be approved because Sony is already the market leader.
[deleted] t1_jdakjpt wrote
[removed]
WALKAW t1_jd9u4cl wrote
Sorry you got brigaded by a bunch of MS shills. Unfortunately they dominate this site
JadeitePenguin1 t1_jd7g6kv wrote
.......I guess ignore all the exclusives like fucking Final fantasy games Sony's bought....
They didn't just make them THEY ALSO BOUGHT A LOT OF THEM!
WALKAW t1_jd9ueyn wrote
You dont see a difference between some exclusivity deals and buying massive multiplatform publishers to make popular multiplatform franchises exclusive forever?
Are you brain dead?
A FF game released on Xbox just a few months ago.
Is Sony buying Sega justified because Xbox has some third party exclusivity deals
JadeitePenguin1 t1_jdaxzgf wrote
A FF game not developed by square and most likely subject to different license agreements was released on xbox.....where is 7? Or 15?
"You dont see a difference between some exclusivity deals and buying massive multiplatform publishers to make popular multiplatform franchises exclusive forever?"
List me a time Microsoft took a popular IP and made it only on xbox after the 360....right you can't! Let's look at minecraft a very popular IP and Microsoft kept it on Playstation.....minecraft could easily sell a shit ton of consoles especially given Microsoft bought it but they didn't, so it wouldn't make any sense to do it other IPs that sell as well.
Not to mention that's not the point of this argument! That wasn't the original argument so don't try to change it!
donsanedrin t1_jd937sh wrote
Really? Sony bought the Final Fantasy IP to permenantly control?
When did this happen?
JadeitePenguin1 t1_jd9ebua wrote
??? What? They bought timed and console exclusively for the FF7 remake so PC players got it later and Xbox gets it never, and it looks to be a similar deal with FF16.
O and speaking of them permanently buying things how do you think a lot of their studios came to be? They bought them!
donsanedrin t1_jd9kj50 wrote
So..........to answer your question, they never permanently control FF7, because they didn't buy out the IP outright.
Which is what Microsoft is attempting to do with COD.
Correct?
This would also be a deal that Microsoft could make with Square-Enix, but chances are Square-Enix wouldn't make such a deal because Final Fantasy is an important IP in Japan where they expect to sell many copies of the game, and Xbox has almost no presence in Japan.
> O and speaking of them permanently buying things how do you think a lot of their studios came to be? They bought them!
Actually, they helped create almost half of them, to make games that they were publishing. In other words, the correct terminology would be that Sony helped create "second-party" studios that would later become "first-party" studios once they released a successful game, and Sony wanted to continue working with that studio.
Microsoft/Xbox is NOT doing that.
Activision is already successful and independent by itself.
Microsoft is trying to buy them, outright, to take control of already successful and powerful gaming IPs.
That's like one guy trying to assemble a baseball team, and scouting for good players, and developing them to become really good.
And then another guy goes and buys the New York Yankees.
And you're telling me "iT's ThE sAmE tHiNg!"
JadeitePenguin1 t1_jdaz0sk wrote
Ummm maybe try reading before typing nonsense please....
So..........to answer your question, they never permanently control FF7, because they didn't buy out the IP outright.
"Which is what Microsoft is attempting to do with COD.
Correct?
This would also be a deal that Microsoft could make with Square-Enix, but chances are Square-Enix wouldn't make such a deal because Final Fantasy is an important IP in Japan where they expect to sell many copies of the game, and Xbox has almost no presence in Japan."
This doesn't even make any fucking sense! I didn't ask a question! And I explained it in detail so I actually already proved what you said wrong...wtf are you talking about???
"Actually, they helped create almost half of them, to make games that they were publishing. In other words, the correct terminology would be that Sony helped create "second-party" studios that would later become "first-party" studios once they released a successful game, and Sony wanted to continue working with that studio."
.....it doesn't matter if they helped create them! What matters is the amount they bought! I mean they just bought Bungie! Stop trying to convince yourself that they're a good company.
Not to mention funny how you seen to ignore the whole Sony buys exclusives when that's the argument....it's almost like you know you're wrong!
donsanedrin t1_jdb04i6 wrote
> This doesn't even make any fucking sense! I didn't ask a question! And I explained it in detail so I actually already proved what you said wrong...wtf are you talking about???
No, you didn't prove anything wrong.
I was making it very clear.............did Sony do what Microsoft has clearly done with Zenimax/bethesda, and they are going to eventually do with ActivisionBlizzard?
And the answer to that is no.
Square-Enix still has control over what they do with their Final Fantasy games.
> .....it doesn't matter if they helped create them!
Yes it does........it means Sony didn't take anything away that already existed.
Because Sony had a hand in creating God of War, Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, Ghost of Tsushima, The Last of Us.
Were any of these games multiplatform IPs that were being sold on Xbox and Nintendo platforms, and then Sony purchased the developer with the eventual plan to only have them on Playstation platforms?
No.
Sony created these IPs.......they didn't "scam you" or "take" anything that you had to begin with.
> What matters is the amount they bought! I mean they just bought Bungie! Stop trying to convince yourself that they're a good company.
They don't control Bungie's main IP, Destiny.
Did you know that?
The publishing rights to Destiny and FUTURE Destiny games remains with the executives of Bungie, and a member board made up of Bungie employees.
In other words, Sony cannot restrict the platforms that Bungie decides to release Destiny on.
They literally made a deal that still gives Destiny autonomy.
You couldn't have picked a worse example to compare with what Microsoft is/has been doing.
> Not to mention funny how you seen to ignore the whole Sony buys exclusives when that's the argument....it's almost like you know you're wrong!
What "exclusives" did they buy? And are they PERMANENTLY bought?
You can't answer, or don't want to answer this....do you?
JadeitePenguin1 t1_jdb2lh8 wrote
"What "exclusives" did they buy? And are they PERMANENTLY bought?"
Are you serious? Like guy please find how your denial and support for a massive company is worrying.
resident evil 7 vr and bloodborne at the top of my head and there's console exclusives like FF7 and probably 16, and the upcoming silent hill 2 to name a few. Before you say "they don't own the IP" that's not a argument...
donsanedrin t1_jdb526p wrote
> resident evil 7 vr
Show me where that is bought? Where's the deal for that?
> bloodborne at the top of my head
Bloodborne was co-developed with Sony.
> Sony Computer Entertainment approached FromSoftware concerning cooperative development on a title, and director Hidetaka Miyazaki asked about the possibility of developing a game for eighth-generation consoles. The concept of Bloodborne developed from there. There were no connections to FromSoftware's previous titles, even though Miyazaki conceded that it "carries the DNA of Demon's Souls and its very specific level design".[44] Development ran parallel to that of Dark Souls II.[45]
Hell, Demon Souls actually has Sony development members listed as co-producer for that game.
Bloodborne is entirely funded by Sony, since its conception.
> there's console exclusives like FF7
There is nothing permanent about that exclusive, it can absolutely come to Xbox later on. The thing is, Sony didn't buy out Square-Enix. Square-Enix made a business decision to join a temporary exclusivity agreement.
There could be a "complete edition" that features all parts of the game, combined, and that would be a completely separate product sku, and sold across all platforms in the future. (After all, that's what happened with Metal Gear Solid HD collection).
> Before you say "they don't own the IP" that's not a argument...
Yes it is the argument, because you are not placing any of your fanboyish anger at the proper people responsible for it.
Square-Enix, and Konami.
Nobody is "forcing" them. Nobody has bought them out to force them.
You are listing games that still have a major presence to the Japanese market. Whether you like it or not, Sony has deeper relationships with these companies in Japan, especially with these titles that have a long history of being successful in Japan. On Playstation.
They probably crunched the numbers and decided that being promoted by Sony worldwide will generate them more money, especially in Japan, than NOT being promoted by Sony and whatever additional sales they generate from selling on the Xbox platform.
The most damning thing about your complaints of Square-Enix is this: They released Final Fantasy 15 multiplatform, on both Playstation and Xbox, day and date. And they never did it again.
Stop getting mad at Sony because of this.
JadeitePenguin1 t1_jdc6uq9 wrote
Again find help! If you need to be in this level of denial where you're basically just saying no to facts you need help!
I listed the games you are just in denial!
"Bloodborne was co-developed with Sony."
There's nothing I can find to back that up! Nothing!
"Bloodborne is entirely funded by Sony, since its conception."
O wait you just don't understand how game development works.....fuck off! Funded ISN'T CREATED! The game would've been made anyways!
"Show me where that is bought? Where's the deal for that?"
Well for RE7 Idk the fact it's not on pc when it wouldn't be that hard to port especially when the game was very popular...is thinking that fucking hard???
"There is nothing permanent about that exclusive, it can absolutely come to Xbox later on. The thing is, Sony didn't buy out Square-Enix. Square-Enix made a business decision to join a temporary exclusivity agreement."
Funny how you magically missed the news that Sony didn't do a temporary agreement with that game and others....
O and you magically ignore silent hill remaster as well that's not suspicious at all...
https://twitter.com/KoreaXboxnews/status/1605951525192617984?t=oBwOtXij3JM9MfxNiCE7hw&s=19
There's your fucking proof! and no xbox legally can't lie about that.
The most damning thing about your complaints of Square-Enix is this: They released Final Fantasy 15 multiplatform, on both Playstation and Xbox, day and date. And they never did it again.
This is the most silly part especially given the link I sent that was everywhere when it came out and you I guess live under a rock time to time, that makes no fucking sense! There was a new FF game it was made by a different developer which is why it was allowed(and was shit) and Microsoft paid for a ton of Japanese games for gamepass and to come to Xbox like persona 5, I mean they even made a ton of Square games as well so it doesn't make sense they would just not pay for FF7 remake.
Idk why you want to keep defending a massive company when you're clearly just wrong.
donsanedrin t1_jdds3sb wrote
> Again find help! If you need to be in this level of denial where you're basically just saying no to facts you need help!
You've literally presented no facts.
And when I ask you to present them, you just start throwing empty platitudes.
> "Bloodborne was co-developed with Sony."
> There's nothing I can find to back that up! Nothing!
I literally showed you the part where Sony approached From Software for the project.
> "Bloodborne is entirely funded by Sony, since its conception."
> O wait you just don't understand how game development works.....fuck off! Funded ISN'T CREATED! The game would've been made anyways!
Oh man. You really don't anything, and now you are screaming at this point.
> "Show me where that is bought? Where's the deal for that?"
> Well for RE7 Idk the fact it's not on pc when it wouldn't be that hard to port especially when the game was very popular...is thinking that fucking hard???
You're "proof"..........is PC gamers port-begging for something that they didn't get?
Capcom allowed RE4 to be remade entirely in VR. But they didn't do it, Meta/Oculus had another studio, Armature Studio, do that job. ** You think Sony "permanently" bought out the rights to VR for RE7?** LOL that's your theory?
> Funny how you magically missed the news that Sony didn't do a temporary agreement with that game and others....
> O and you magically ignore silent hill remaster as well that's not suspicious at all...
> https://twitter.com/KoreaXboxnews/status/1605951525192617984?t=oBwOtXij3JM9MfxNiCE7hw&s=19
> There's your fucking proof! and no xbox legally can't lie about that.
"Xbox can't legally lie about that"
Oh my goodness, you are screaming at your computer screen at this point. Actually Xbox straight up revealed that they lied to consumers and media about their console userbase when people read the documents from the CMA report last month. Alot of numbers displaying growth in their "Active Users" and Console size were significantly smaller than what they have been saying publicly.
So, they lied to somebody. And they did it for marketing reasons, I suppose.
Once again..........I'm going to ask you a simple question. Did Sony buy out Konami to get Silent Hill?
> There was a new FF game it was made by a different developer which is why it was allowed(and was shit) and Microsoft paid for a ton of Japanese games for gamepass and to come to Xbox like persona 5, I mean they even made a ton of Square games as well so it doesn't make sense they would just not pay for FF7 remake.
Oh man, look at this.
For starters, I already explained to you how Square Enix can release Final Fantasy 7 Remake to Xbox. They can get around it by producing a completely different sku, that would no longer be under any such temporary exclusivity agreements.
Call it a "Complete Edition" and that's literally a different product name, and a product sku. And they can now sell it to Xbox.
That is what makes the agreement temporary. In other words, Sony is not doing what Microsoft is attempting to do with buying out a company entirely for permanent control over an entire IP.
Now you have excuses for Final Fantasy 15. Sorry those simply aren't going to work. You are now a babbling gaming fanboy at this point.
Microsoft paid for Persona 5 to come to gamepass??????? And that has WHAT to do with FF15, exactly?
Your theory is that FF15 was "allowed" on Xbox back in 2016 because Microsoft brought Persona 5 to GamePass in the year 2022?
Your incoherently babbling.
Take your own advice. Seek help. You can't prove a point to save your life.
JadeitePenguin1 t1_jde24cy wrote
'For starters, I already explained to you how Square Enix can release Final Fantasy 7 Remake to Xbox. They can get around it by producing a completely different sku, that would no longer be under any such temporary exclusivity agreements."
And that was proven wrong....
No Microsoft legally can't fucking lie about that! They said it in court! Meaning if they did lie it Sony would've said so already....
The fact I gave you proof and all you did was cry is proof you have no clue what you're talking about.
donsanedrin t1_jde5fb7 wrote
> And that was proven wrong....
No it wasn't. I actually referred you to the Metal Gear Solid HD Collection. None of the Metal Gear Solid games were ever individually made for XBox, besides MGS2.
Yet they all eventually ended up on Xbox when combined as a collection.
The same thing could happen with FF7 Remake Parts 1, 2, and I dunno if there's a Part 3. But afterwards, it can be combined and ASSIGNED A DIFFERENT TITLE, making it an entirely new sku
And this would bypass any temporary exclusivity agreement.
Not to mention that any such agreement is never permanent.
Quite frankly, I don't really care to assure you of your ridiculous fanboy complaints.
> No Microsoft legally can't fucking lie about that! They said it in court! Meaning if they did lie it Sony would've said so already....
They literally lied to the outside world about their active userbase numbers.
Once again, the exclusivity can be circumvented by Square-Enix, and almost certainly will be. As I already explained.
Why are you yelling?
> The fact I gave you proof and all you did was cry is proof you have no clue what you're talking about.
No, you didn't give me proof.
You gave me a completely unfounded claim, that you have seen that those things are NEVER PERMANENT.
Buying out Activision to own Call of Duty...............is PERMANENT.
There's really nothing you can say that changes that.
EDIT: Looks like I've outed another fanboy who went on a full fanboy meltdown. Poor guy was literally screaming at his computer at the end. And then proceeded to block me so that it looks like he could have the last word
He kept on screaming "STOP LYING!!!!"....and never once bother to explain, demonstrate, or provide anything that would be considered information or evidence, or even explanation/narrative to...y'know......actually prove I was lying.
He just kept on repeating it like as if he was using the phrase to express his own personal discontent. Like as if I was hurting him by the points I was making.
These Xbox fanboys are something. I'd rather wish that they were paid astroturfers because I could respect that more.
JadeitePenguin1 t1_jdfhudc wrote
"No it wasn't. I actually referred you to the Metal Gear Solid HD Collection. None of the Metal Gear Solid games were ever individually made for XBox, besides MGS2."
No stop lying!
Like seriously if you have to lie you're wrong! The ONLY counter argument to that link I send would be another showing it being wrong! ANYTHING ELSE DOESN'T MATTER!
Again please find help you clearly have issues if you need to defend a shit company this hard.
[deleted] t1_jdaddvw wrote
[removed]
zonf t1_jd70m08 wrote
It's not "gamers'" claim. It's just butthurt cries of its competitors.
[deleted] t1_jd4vw7g wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jd78mpc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jd7cc9j wrote
[deleted]
Shempish t1_jd4o5o6 wrote
Judge on solid ground if they find that future of gaming as a lifestyle was/is already bleak with or without the merger.
Independent_Pear_429 t1_jd4u63l wrote
Just return to piracy
Independent_Pear_429 t1_jd4tzpq wrote
They should reject it on the grounds that Activision and Microsoft are too big already
EdgeBrexr t1_jd7al24 wrote
just buy an xbox or a pc. people bought playstation for god of war and bloodbourne lol
niobiumnnul t1_jd4qy68 wrote
> In her order, Corley asked gamers for additional evidence to support claims that the merger would potentially foreclose access to games, harm specific gaming industry markets, and perhaps most importantly, harm gamers like them. Her order is peppered with specific questions that gamers now have a chance to answer like, “Why would Microsoft make Call of Duty exclusive to its platforms thus resulting in fewer games sold?” and “What is it about the console market or PC games market and Microsoft’s position in those markets that makes it plausible there is a reasonable probability Microsoft would take such steps?”
She gave them what they need to provide to potentially move forward with it. Hopefully, they can provide what is needed.