> If most of the popular and recurring franchises are only available for one platform
Funny how noone asked that over last decade when Sony paid mountains of gold to various developers for exclusivity.
Funny how noone asked that over last decade when Sony paid mountains of gold to various developers for exclusivity.
I can only see it benefiting the market since certain games might not have gotten made otherwise - e.g. Demon Souls; which spawn quite a number of spin offs, together they practically form their own genre.
Sony funds developers = PlayStation gets “extra” games that otherwise wouldn’t exist. No one else is affected.
Microsoft buys Activision = long running Activision franchises (eventually) become MS exclusive. Xbox gain nothing but everyone else lose out on franchises they used to enjoy.
One brings into existence games that probably wouldn’t have been made otherwise - and the investor takes the risk of the game bombing.
The other is primarily to deny the competition access to long running popular franchises - and is practically risk free since those franchises are almost guaranteed to print money.
Microsoft has decided turnabout is fair play, and people are acting like it's a Console War-crime. Why? Nintendo has spurned AAA devs since the Wii era and they're doing just fine. I take no side in the console war, but Sony can't be a fair-weather friend to platform exclusivity.
Now compare this to what Microsoft is doing. They mostly failed to create good first party games on their own (apart from a few gems), and are now resorting to buying up not just individual game studios but whole publishers in order to make their games exclusives to their own platforms.
What Sony is doing is creating real value to players. What Microsoft is doing is primarily meant to create value for shareholders. As a gamer, I strongly prefer the former.
Gamepass is literally the best deal for someone playing video games, full stop. The price may get jacked up in the future but right now it is stupid good.
Also you’re really not being honest about the historical aspect of Sony and first party games. You said as much but I don’t see why you’re giving Sony a pass for snapping up a stable of developers for first party games over time but knocking Microsoft for being late to the party and close the gap. It’s the same thing for the same result.
Whichever you prefer is fine. Most of Sony’s first party stuff is very different to the Microsoft stuff.
Sony has engaged in anticompetitive practices a lot in recent history. They tried really hard to prevent cross platform play, going so far as to both lie about it and also throw a “think of the children” in there. They also are the platform that wants money to support cross platform play.
1: https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/5/23494886/microsoft-sony-1...
2: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/02/microsoft-signs-10-ye...
Well, I guess that would make Microsoft quite the monopoly then, right? Oh darn, everyone seems to have forgotten about Nintendo who sells more consoles than Sony and Microsoft. Oops, everyone also forgot about Steam with hundreds of millions of users who is also releasing consoles. Last, but certainly not least, Amazon just entered the streaming game space and, based the CMA’s recent definition (https://www.vgchartz.com/article/457194/eu-official-cma-over...), that’s 200m new streaming game subscribers.
At the end of the day this acquisition will suck for Sony gamers just like it sucked when Sony acquired developers and made their games Sony exclusives. This won’t make Microsoft a monopoly in any quantifiable metric, so I see no way the acquisition gets stopped by any logical judge.
If you disagree and think this can make Microsoft a monopoly then show me the numbers because I see 0 paths forward for Microsoft to do that without acquiring or eliminating Sony, Nintendo, Steam and Amazon. I know Microsoft has deep pockets but they are not that deep.
Without Microsoft making drastic moves like this, the XBox won’t survive much longer. Nintendo has effectively become a different market segment, and I just don’t see any other company ever bringing a serious competitor to market any time soon if Microsoft is forced to exit.
You could replace my comment with any of the more popular PS exclusives like TLOU, Nathan Drake or Tsushima and I think it would still hold up.
IMO there’s a huge difference between negotiating exclusivity for a handful of popular games you publish, and spending 2/3 of your competitor’s entire market cap to acquire the giant studios making a significant amount of the most successful game franchises on the market.