@Bleachedsmiles I can’t help but feel his own contradictory rhetoric is what’s ultimately going to drive regulators to distrust Microsoft’s intentions.
@SplooshDmg that’s a very fair point, and I’m sure a market leader does have far more of a dominant position in those negotiations. Also I think those relationships are built over time which is probably why Sony tend to have their way with people like square. But with your critique of what Sony are doing in the timed exclusivity space, and the impact of their dominant position, you can’t pretend that Microsoft’s solution of physically owning these companies and controlling what happens to so many well established IP’s is even in the same ball park as timed exclusivity. It’s on a much larger permanent scale, and that’s going to have far more impact on the industry and players. Genuinely with the exception of final fantasy - what huge exclusives do Sony truly have a monopoly on? Not including self developed IP’s - things like God of war - as obviously they equate to Halo / gears.
I can’t help but feel Microsoft could have made more headway into exclusivity deals if they wanted to, they sure have the cash, and thats king. I just don’t think they saw the value in paying large premiums to temporarily secure content and being held over a barrel by third parties. Their model has always been to buy, marginalise and eradicate competition. Microsoft cares about cash - far more than Sony or Nintendo do.
@Kienda you contradict your own argument ‘it isn’t hard to see how the business practice of blocking third party exclusives from the competition is not a good thing’
This in itself creates competition, a third party, can enter into an agreement with any console maker, who bids, to secure timed content. Anybody can bid for it and secure it. It comes around again and again so that it can be secured next time around. Just like film or tv rights - they don’t last forever.
How is somebody permanently removing a vast amount of well loved existing IP’s and even the 3rd parties themselves from that cycle either a good thing for competition, the industry or the consumer?
It’s a fundamentally flawed perception with the scale of what’s involved.
@Fenbops I’m not convinced it’s the same at all. Destiny is not call of Duty and the exclusivity agreements / purchases Sony have made are extremely modest in comparison to Microsoft purchasing Bethesda and Activision.
The main issue for me is the vast amount of existing and already loved IP they are acquiring within those two transactions, of which they will now own and fully control - having not created any of them. Genuinely just think about how many actual well loved gaming franchises that covers.
Hoarding all of those, when they’ve historically been available on other consoles is always going to prickle regulators. And it should because it’s a risk to consumer choice - the scale of whats included in those transactions is absolutely vast.
I’m lucky to be set with a series X and a PS5 - I love both. But people need to remember that historically (away from gaming) Microsoft are no saints, and that in itself is going to bring additional regulatory scrutiny. They are - of course - in it for the money, just like everybody else.
I think it’s important to separate the difference between gatekeeping a select few - which has been a practice employed by everyone in the gaming industry for as long as I can remember - and the hoarding of powerhouse developers and publishers which is a totally different and slightly more worrying practice.
@rhyno_888 to be fair mate I’m not sure all of those games combined even touch the sides of a couple of years of COD sales and paid content.
It’s a different animal, like GTA and possibly FIFA - it’s what people play on a vast scale even if they aren’t huge gamers.
They will probably have to keep it multi platform and I’m not sure that’s a bad thing for gaming. Imagine GTA only being on a single system.
Putting it Day 1 on game pass will influence peoples console choice anyway and still damage Sony- and they still get a truck load of cash from PS players paying £70 a pop on a vast scale.
Comments 9
Re: UK CMA Issues Official Response To EU's Activision Blizzard Verdict
@Kaloudz the only regulator blocking? The FTC, probably the most important to the deal are blocking it?
Re: Rumour: Jim Ryan 'Flew To Brussels' To Voice Concerns Over Xbox's ActiBlizz Deal
I wonder if google raising concerns whilst simultaneously shuttering Stadia is coordinated?
Cornering off IP - from competitors in the streaming space etc.
Re: Phil Spencer Passionately Defends Xbox Game Pass Over Call Of Duty Concerns
@Bleachedsmiles I can’t help but feel his own contradictory rhetoric is what’s ultimately going to drive regulators to distrust Microsoft’s intentions.
(Potentially rightly so as well)
Re: Xbox Game Pass: All Games Coming Soon In September 2022
Hardspace shipbreaker is an absolutely cracking game!
Re: Phil Spencer: Xbox Went 'Well Beyond Typical Agreements' To Keep Call Of Duty On PlayStation
@SplooshDmg that’s a very fair point, and I’m sure a market leader does have far more of a dominant position in those negotiations. Also I think those relationships are built over time which is probably why Sony tend to have their way with people like square. But with your critique of what Sony are doing in the timed exclusivity space, and the impact of their dominant position, you can’t pretend that Microsoft’s solution of physically owning these companies and controlling what happens to so many well established IP’s is even in the same ball park as timed exclusivity. It’s on a much larger permanent scale, and that’s going to have far more impact on the industry and players. Genuinely with the exception of final fantasy - what huge exclusives do Sony truly have a monopoly on? Not including self developed IP’s - things like God of war - as obviously they equate to Halo / gears.
I can’t help but feel Microsoft could have made more headway into exclusivity deals if they wanted to, they sure have the cash, and thats king. I just don’t think they saw the value in paying large premiums to temporarily secure content and being held over a barrel by third parties. Their model has always been to buy, marginalise and eradicate competition. Microsoft cares about cash - far more than Sony or Nintendo do.
Re: Phil Spencer: Xbox Went 'Well Beyond Typical Agreements' To Keep Call Of Duty On PlayStation
@Kienda you contradict your own argument ‘it isn’t hard to see how the business practice of blocking third party exclusives from the competition is not a good thing’
This in itself creates competition, a third party, can enter into an agreement with any console maker, who bids, to secure timed content. Anybody can bid for it and secure it. It comes around again and again so that it can be secured next time around. Just like film or tv rights - they don’t last forever.
How is somebody permanently removing a vast amount of well loved existing IP’s and even the 3rd parties themselves from that cycle either a good thing for competition, the industry or the consumer?
It’s a fundamentally flawed perception with the scale of what’s involved.
Re: Phil Spencer: Xbox Went 'Well Beyond Typical Agreements' To Keep Call Of Duty On PlayStation
@Fenbops I’m not convinced it’s the same at all. Destiny is not call of Duty and the exclusivity agreements / purchases Sony have made are extremely modest in comparison to Microsoft purchasing Bethesda and Activision.
The main issue for me is the vast amount of existing and already loved IP they are acquiring within those two transactions, of which they will now own and fully control - having not created any of them. Genuinely just think about how many actual well loved gaming franchises that covers.
Hoarding all of those, when they’ve historically been available on other consoles is always going to prickle regulators. And it should because it’s a risk to consumer choice - the scale of whats included in those transactions is absolutely vast.
I’m lucky to be set with a series X and a PS5 - I love both. But people need to remember that historically (away from gaming) Microsoft are no saints, and that in itself is going to bring additional regulatory scrutiny. They are - of course - in it for the money, just like everybody else.
Re: Xbox Accuses Sony Of 'Paying' To Block Games From Game Pass
@UltimateOtaku91
I think it’s important to separate the difference between gatekeeping a select few - which has been a practice employed by everyone in the gaming industry for as long as I can remember - and the hoarding of powerhouse developers and publishers which is a totally different and slightly more worrying practice.
Re: PlayStation Seems Worried About Xbox Owning Call Of Duty
@rhyno_888 to be fair mate I’m not sure all of those games combined even touch the sides of a couple of years of COD sales and paid content.
It’s a different animal, like GTA and possibly FIFA - it’s what people play on a vast scale even if they aren’t huge gamers.
They will probably have to keep it multi platform and I’m not sure that’s a bad thing for gaming. Imagine GTA only being on a single system.
Putting it Day 1 on game pass will influence peoples console choice anyway and still damage Sony- and they still get a truck load of cash from PS players paying £70 a pop on a vast scale.