Support NeoGAF

[ChorizoPicozo]

But Sony GAF said this doesn't matter because they all do it.

As I've said before there's a difference between what's acceptable for someone with 10% - 20% marketshare vs someone with 80+% marketshare. Sony already has a monopoly so it's anti-competitive for them to blatantly keep games off other platforms.

This should be common sense but here we are.

triple trillion dollar company, struggles to outbid competition.

 

[Guilty_AI]

We really are at the late stage of capitalism in everything, right?

Gonna take my seat in the front roll

We'll fall as hard as you did 2000 years ago

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

#4theplayer ....

....on PlayStation consoles.

 

[Roman Empire]

We'll fall as hard as you did 2000 years ago

But in record pace hehe

 

[adamsapple]

Let's see if those 2019-today marketing contracts get leaked to public via the FTC subpoena. Will make for some interesting reading.

 

[bluecowboys]

Bullshit. Sony has the leverage due to marketshare. MS gets exclusives with games Sony doesn't really care about. No major 3rd party is going to risk alienating the largest audience to be exclusive with MS unless they have no other choice.

Exactly. MS would have to pay a lot more money to the point it isn’t worth it.

Makes more financial sense for MS to buy out the publisher.

 

[Satansblade]

So Microsoft admits that Sony is doing a better thing that prevents Microsoft from doing a worse thing, ok.

It's only a "Better" thing if you're a dedicated fanboy and can't think objectively about Sony's anti-competitive practices.

 

[yazenov]

Guys I seem to recall a game called Atomic Heart being released on Gamepass on day one along with the PS5 and the PC version just a week ago.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything, and MS can make deals such as the one I just mentioned.

But lets keep the evil Sony narrative shall we?

 

[Punished Miku]

Bad guys Sony aren't content with dominating the industry, they must also destroy the competition.

But no tears will be shed for the trillion-dollar company being dominated by a smaller company.

1. If MS uses their money from other areas outside of gaming it is cheating, anti-competitive.
2. If they don't use their money to beat Sony at everything, no tears are shed.

It just flips endlessly back and forth to whatever is more convenient to win the latest dumb argument. The arguments will never end, because they never even stay in the same position. The only consistent thing is bickering.

 

[BeardGawd]

You are joking right?

So basically you are saying the rules are different depending on how good/bad you are at your job?

MS got into this console industry in 2001. That was 2 years ago. In that time, we have had the Nintendo Wii, Xbox 360 and the Nintendo Switch shows that sony is not this insurmountable juggernaut that cant be competed with.

Microsoft is in the position they are in today because of their incompetence. Nothing more, nothing less.

And if you fin yourself having to exaggerate or demonize something to make your point while misconstruing the facts... then you should know its time to chill.

Of course that's the case! MS can't do any and everything they want with Windows because they have a dominant position! Intel couldn't do any and everything they wanted because they had a dominant position! This is basically Business 101. So the fact that you can't grasp or admit such a simple concept means you are largely out of your depth on this subject.

Btw if this had no relevance the judge would not have approved it.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Microsoft alleges that there are specific anti-gamepass clauses for titles which are otherwise available for sale on Xbox. Microsoft's defense is bolstered if such agreements exist because it damages the credibility of Sony's objections to the deal.

Lol no it doesn't.

Only for those with half a brain.

Those clauses exist in exclusivity deals Sony is signing for third-party games. If Sony signs an exclusivity deal, then by its very fucking definition, the publisher shouldn't be putting that game on Xbox or Xbox Game Pass.

This is such a non-issue and only shows how poor some of you guy's reading comprehension is.

 

[Guilty_AI]

You are joking right?

So basically you are saying the rules are different depending on how good/bad you are at your job?

Actually yes.

Remember all those exclusive deals Epic kept making for highly anticipated games a few years ago? Valve/Steam wouldn't be allowed to do the same.

 

[Punished Miku]

You are joking right?

Dude, of course he was joking! Calm down, geez.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

1. If MS uses their money from other areas outside of gaming it is cheating, anti-competitive.
2. If they don't use their money to beat Sony at everything, no tears are shed.

It just flips endlessly back and forth to whatever is more convenient to win the latest dumb argument. The arguments will never end, because they never even stay in the same position. The only consistent thing is bickering.

if?.....Xbox existing today is thanks to MS deep pockets. they should've been gone after the 360 era

Actually yes.

Remember all those exclusive deals Epic kept making for highly anticipated games a few years ago? Valve/Steam wouldn't be allowed to do the same.

at what cost?

 

[yazenov]

1. If MS uses their money from other areas outside of gaming it is cheating, anti-competitive.
2. If they don't use their money to beat Sony at everything, no tears are shed.

It just flips endlessly back and forth to whatever is more convenient to win the latest dumb argument. The arguments will never end, because they never even stay in the same position. The only consistent thing is bickering.

At the end of the day content is king and Sony has those in droves (1st party titles). Sony won fare and square without a huge "war chest" such as MS.

Sony has been investing in their own studios since their entry into the console market, and their game catalog shows that.

Sony dominates MS without those "shady" deals. So this matter of crying to the regulators reeks of desperation. And its not like MS's hands are clean with their own "shady" deals as history has shown.

 

[Moses85]

Smart move Jimbo

 

[Umbasaborne]

Im outraged! Cancel them! Cancel them right now!! Someone find me a tweet of Jim Ryan
Being homophobic!!

 

[SoloKingRobert]

Sony dominates MS without those "shady" deals. So this matter of crying to the regulators reeks of desperation. And its not like MS's hands are clean with their own "shady" deals as history has shown.

Isn't Sony doing that now, trying to prevent Microsoft's Activision Blizzard Acquisition?

 

[Topher]

Of course that's the case! MS can't do any and everything they want with Windows because they have a dominant position! Intel couldn't do any and everything they wanted because they had a dominant position! This is basically Business 101. So the fact that you can't grasp or admit such a simple concept means you are largely out of your depth on this subject.

Sony isn't even remotely in the same dominant position though Sony isn't even close to a monopoly in gaming.

 

[Guilty_AI]

at what cost?

Plenty of V-bucks

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Isn't Sony doing that now, trying to prevent Microsoft's Activision Blizzard Acquisition?

as they should.

 

[Punished Miku]

At the end of the day content is king and Sony has those in droves (1st party titles). Sony won fare and square without a huge "war chest" such as MS.

I wasn't really wanting to relitigate the last 20 years, and was just trying to point out that people will flip their criticism to whatever is convenient without many consistent principles.

Since you brought it up though, Sony did have a huge war chest compared to Nintendo and Sega. They were able to take on extreme amounts of debt during the PS3 era in particular, and even had to sell their headquarters building at one point I think. Nintendo realized after the Gamecube they can't keep up with Sony's level of spending during the HD era, and transitioned to the Wii instead. Nintendo only makes games. Sony primarily made all kinds of electronics, and are also a multi-media company.

 

[Duellist]

 

[yazenov]

Isn't Sony doing that now, trying to prevent Microsoft's Activision Blizzard Acquisition?

So what do you expect them to do? Welcome the deal with open arms? Thats business malpractice.

You just don't give the competition an easy way out.

 

[Poltz]

So, as we know the market leader is using their lead to further cement their dominance, which I completely understand...as any business would do it. We can't just think that SOny isn't putting terms into contracts with publishers, becuase we have legit seen it.

If someone said that Resi 8 had a contract to stop it from coming to gamepass and also HAS to be discussed with Sony before it can go on any other streaming service, it would be ridiculed and laughed off the board, but we actually know that is a fact now.

You have never been involved with a commercial contract and it shows. The right of first refusal is not a new thing and it is not illegal.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Sony isn't even remotely in the same dominant position though Sony isn't even close to a monopoly in gaming.

Not saying they are, but they do have almost half of the world's console market share according to different analysis.

MS could make an argument that Sony's position is too dominant in the market for those deals to be freely allowed, or most likely use that as leverage to proceed with their own AB deal.

 

[BeardGawd]

Sony isn't even remotely in the same dominant position though Sony isn't even close to a monopoly in gaming.

Sony did this to themselves by excluding Nintendo as a competitor.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

So, as we know the market leader is using their lead to further cement their dominance, which I completely understand...as any business would do it. We can't just think that SOny isn't putting terms into contracts with publishers, becuase we have legit seen it.

If someone said that Resi 8 had a contract to stop it from coming to gamepass and also HAS to be discussed with Sony before it can go on any other streaming service, it would be ridiculed and laughed off the board, but we actually know that is a fact now.

I really dont get what you are saying.

Help me out here...

let's take Resi 8, now lets look at what a deal would look like.

Sony. We give you marketing and technical support, and a royalty bonus on very sale. So instead of 30%, we take only 15% in royalties. You can release the game on any platform you want, we are not doing this for timed exclusivity. The only condition is that the same cannot be on game pass for at least 18 - 24 months (proof of this cause RE7 was on gamepass). Cause doing so weakens the value of the game on our platform as we believe it may reduce sales of the game on our platform. In 18-24 nths, you can put it anywhere you want, including PS+.

MS. We give you all that sony offered, on the condition that your game must be on gamepass. No gamepass,no deal.

No look at those two examples, which of those two do you think any publisher that has such an offer from both platform holders will take? Which of these two deals, do you think benefits the publisher that has the game more?

Some context....

Actually let me leave there nd see how you take this.

 

[wolffy71]

Guys I seem to recall a game called Atomic Heart being released on Gamepass on day one along with the PS5 and the PC version just a week ago.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything, and MS can make deals such as the one I just mentioned.

But lets keep the evil Sony narrative shall we?

Ok, who is forcing Activision to sell? Maybe Sony is trying to force someone to do something afterall

 

[Tomeru]

What you mean sony is stopping? Nothing stops publishers from refusing sonys offers you know. Can you blame them for wanting to align with sony? Everyone wants to be associated with the market leader.

Don't you know you can't resist the Sony?

Ok, who is forcing Activision to sell? Maybe Sony is trying to force someone to do something afterall

What? I mean really, what? I don't follow.

 

[yazenov]

1. If MS uses their money from other areas outside of gaming it is cheating, anti-competitive.
2. If they don't use their money to beat Sony at everything, no tears are shed.

It just flips endlessly back and forth to whatever is more convenient to win the latest dumb argument. The arguments will never end, because they never even stay in the same position. The only consistent thing is bickering.

Taking an initial hit on the hardware to sell software has always been the default business model of hardware manufacturers since its inception until Apple came along. Its nothing new and no, its not a thing unique to Sony. No where near equivalent to MS's war chest and unsustainable business model.

That's quite a reach comparing Sony to MS. Actuality its MS's shady practices is what got them to this situation now. Sony was investing in 1st party studios since they cannot compete with MS buying marketing rights and making exclusive marketing deals so they had to compete in their 1st party offerings.

MS though that buying exclusive marketing deals is what was needed to 1 up Sony instead of investing in 1st party. And now that their plan failed miserably, their only option was to hit the panic button with the unsustainable business model Gamepass, and using their war chest to buy Activision Blizzard.

MS can only blame themselves for failing to invest in their own studio early in the generation, but instead chose to blame Sony for getting the better deals.

 

[Venom Snake]

It's only a "Better" thing if you're a dedicated fanboy and can't think objectively about Sony's anti-competitive practices.

Oh the irony..

But seriously, one is anti-competitive, the other anti-competitive AND industry-harming. Guess one which is which and fudge off with that "fanboy" bs.

 

[SSfox]

I want a screenshot of Jimbo putting guns in devs mouths, if not then i'll call that super fake news.

What you mean sony is stopping? Nothing stops publishers from refusing sonys offers you know. Can you blame them for wanting to align with sony? Everyone wants to be associated with the market leader.

This.

 

[yazenov]

Ok, who is forcing Activision to sell? Maybe Sony is trying to force someone to do something afterall

False equivalence. You're comparing buying marketing rights for games to buying one of the biggest 3rd party publishers in the world and blocking access to 70% percent of the gaming population on the competition platform. Big difference, and im glad the FTC and the other regulators agree.

 

[DenchDeckard]

I really dont get what you are saying.

Help me out here...

let's take Resi 8, now lets look at what a deal would look like.

Sony. We give you marketing and technical support, and a royalty bonus on very sale. So instead of 30%, we take only 15% in royalties. You can release the game on any platform you want, we are not doing this for timed exclusivity. The only condition is that the same cannot be on game pass for at least 18 - 24 months (proof of this cause RE7 was on gamepass). Cause doing so weakens the value of the game on our platform as we believe it may reduce sales of the game on our platform. In 18-24 nths, you can put it anywhere you want, including PS+.

MS. We give you all that sony offered, on the condition that your game must be on gamepass. No gamepass,no deal.

No look at those two examples, which of those two do you think any publisher that has such an offer from both platform holders will take? Which of these two deals, do you think benefits the publisher that has the game more?

Some context....

Actually let me leave there nd see how you take this.

why have you just spent the time to create a completely hypothetical margin structure and basic terms contract for this deal to try and make it look better?

We have no idea what the actual terms of their contract are, thats why we have the Judge that has requested Sony to produce these terms.

"ccondition include In 18-24 nths, you can put it anywhere you want, including PS+ as long as you discuss it with Sony first and agree to put the game on playstation plus as well"

That would be closer

 

[zeroluck]

This just means Microsoft doesn't pay enough for game pass.

 

[Clear]

So what do you expect them to do? Welcome the deal with open arms? Thats business malpractice.

You just don't give the competition an easy way out.

Exactly this!

Trying to outmanoeuvre the opposition is what everyone does in a competitive business environment.

Its kinda weird to me that people into games and gaming don't want to look upon corporate doings as a high-stakes competition where every participant is laser focussed on winning.

Of course Sony is going to try and check MS' ambitions and vice-versa.

 

[Punished Miku]

MS can only blame themselves for failing to invest in their own studio early in the generation, but instead chose to balme Sony for getting the better deals.

I think they do blame themselves for not investing in their first party. They even made a 6 part documentary showcasing it, and brought Don Mattrick back for an interview.

They're clearly investing now.

If you want to talk about blaming Sony for getting better deals, they didn't blame them publicly. The actual history is that they tried to get 3rd party exclusives as well. We famously know the price tag of the Rise of Tomb Raider deal for just 1 year was supposedly $100 million. That's an astronomical price, when Insomniac sold their entire studio for $229 million. And we know MS didn't really see much of a benefit to their business from that Tomb Raider deal either. The level of outrage was almost as bad as we see now with Activision. People were flipping out that they'd have to wait 1 year, and I don't think the game sold that well.

What people are pointing out is that Sony can get 3rd party deals over and over for much cheaper than this since they only have to cover the lost revenue from a much smaller competitor if it's exclusive. MS would have to cover the lost revenue from the huge market leader, and then the game they get would still not sell that great - because they're much smaller. Repeat this over and over for 20 years and with a small amount of money, a dominant player can bleed out all their competitors while they gain very little.

MS tried this and knows it's a losing strategy. They didn't blame Sony, they moved to a sub model and acquisition strategy, which is far more logical and cost efficient in the end. And like you said, they are a trillion dollar company so no excuse to not invest and spend some of that money. They finally are.

 

[SlimySnake]

triple trillion dollar company, struggles to outbid competition.

This. They have $85 billion to spend on Minecraft, zenimax, activision blizzard but are letting themselves get outbid by Sony that’s worth maybe $100 billion max? Gtfo with your sob story Phil.

 

[Loxus]

Can't Microsoft just outbid them?
Sony doesn't own those Studios, those Studios can do whatever they want.

I don't know how Microsoft compares exclusive deals to a frigging acquisition.

 

[mansoor1980]

arent some publishers refusing to put their big budget games on gamepass day 1?

 

[Topher]

Not saying they are, but they do have almost half of the world's console market share according to different analysis.

MS could make an argument that Sony's position is too dominant in the market for those deals to be allowed.

Perhaps, but I think they know they would lose.

Sony did this to themselves by excluding Nintendo as a competitor.

Not true. Sony barely even made mention of Nintendo. Microsoft tried to insert Nintendo into this discussion as proof that Sony can live without Call of Duty if Nintendo can. It was just a bullshit argument that both the FTC and CMA rejected. The FTC is the one that separated Nintendo based on the Switch's technical capabilities. So now MS is resorting to this fairy tale that the market is split 80-20.

 

[Topher]

arent some publishers refusing to put their big budget games on gamepass day 1?

Yes, Activision is one of them

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

why have you just spent the time to create a completely hypothetical margin structure and basic terms contract for this deal to try and make it look better?

We have no idea what the actual terms of their contract are, thats why we have the Judge that has requested Sony to produce these terms.

"ccondition include In 18-24 nths, you can put it anywhere you want, including PS+ as long as you discuss it with Sony first and agree to put the game on playstation plus as well"

That would be closer

I said the very same thing didn't I?

And sorry,I didn't know we were only allowed to use and say what we know for certain post the release of these documents.

Makes me wonder why you and others are saying all that you are saying. Figured if you could make hypothetical scenarios,I could too.

arent some publishers refusing to put their big budget games on gamepass day 1?

Nope...any game not on gamepass is because sony is paying them not to put it there.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Perhaps, but I think they know they would lose.

They may not be able to stop the deals, but they could leverage them to justify passing their own acquisition.

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

Sony using money/resources to reduce the value for non-Playstation consumers, without adding anything for their own consumers

 

[Topher]

They may not be able to stop the deals, but they could leverage them to justify passing their own acquisition.

Yeah, I'm sure that is going to be a part of Microsoft's overall argument.

 

[mansoor1980]

Nope...any game not on gamepass is because sony is paying them not to put it there.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

This. They have $85 billion to spend on Minecraft, zenimax, activision blizzard but are letting themselves get outbid by Sony that’s worth maybe $100 billion max? Gtfo with your sob story Phil.

This is something every GP advocate needs to see.

I already pointed out,that the amount of money MS has spent (or trying to spend) on acquisitions in the last years is more money than PlayStation and Nintendo has made in profits in the past 5 years.

This is literally like bringing a gun to a knife fight lol.

 

[Ar¢tos]

There's a difference between what's acceptable for someone with 10% - 20% marketshare vs someone with 80+% marketshare. Sony already has a monopoly so it's anti-competitive for them to blatantly keep games off other platforms.

Common sense.

And how exactly did Sony get those 80%?
What was MS doing during that time?

You are saying that MS should get benefits for being less competent than their competitors?
Is that how the world works now?

Do you want publishers to be forced to offer deals to MS at half price because they weren't able to acquire a decent marketshare naturally?

Or Sony to be forbidden from giving tech assistance / marketing / funding to devs so MS has a chance to make deals at better prices?