@randy_lahey: Don't really care about this stuff as you do. I only come here from time to time to see what's going on. I can't be bother by this stuff as I'm playing so many games as it is.
You know, you could just go play games and not caring on this merger ya'know. Just saying😉
@lundy86_4: It’s like watching a trainwreck in slow motion. You really want to try and stop it from happening, but at the same time you’re frozen in place completely gobsmacked by the events unfolding directly in front of you.
He’s not going to like it when his impassioned defense of Sony ultimately amounts to nothing as far as this case is concerned, but if that’s how he wants to spend his entire afternoon, then more power to him. 😑
@randy_lahey: Don't really care about this stuff as you do. I only come here from time to time to see what's going on. I can't be bother by this stuff as I'm playing so many games as it is.
You know, you could just go play games and not caring on this merger ya'know. Just saying😉
Nah! The dude has to entertain us with his meltdowns. Don't take away our entertainment.😂
@randy_lahey said:
Projection at its finest. I’m the only cow providing any type rebuttals to you braindead lemmings and it’s a “meltdown” lol.
this site is a lemming echo chamber
So, you having another meltdown and think that everyone is a Xbox fanny.🤭 You Sony fannies are so dumb at times. It is almost like it is your default state.
Hello gamers! 🎮 We’d just like to mention (for no particular reason) that @bohemiainteract likes @XboxGamePass quite a lot. As both a developer and publisher, we see it as an excellent addition and, at the same time, a disruption to the classic and established game store…
— Bohemia Interactive (@bohemiainteract) June 28, 2023
Who? Uh, that decades old Arma2 mod. How much was development cost? Yea, very profitable i bet.
Utterly ridiculous.
And yet 2 of Sony's published games in MLB & Death Stranding were on Gamepass lol.
That Nutella guy is full of 💩 when he says he would love to end exclusives, but can't because of Sony.
What an idiotic thing to say, and stuff like that can only hurt their case because the judge would see right through his BS because he's the head of a trillion dollar company, and he only sees dollar signs.
Bro, MS was built of the notion of "the money is in the software". I guarantee they would rather see consoles be like Blu-Ray players, and every game was playable on all three.
@dabear: C'mon man, if they wanted to sell their software on all platforms then why did they make a console in the first place. They could have just been a third-party developer.
I'm a lem here, but man gotta call a spade a spade here. Nutella has the power to shut Xbox down and make third-party games with all they're studios, but he doesn't because like all businessmen, he wants to be number 1.
@dabear: C'mon man, if they wanted to sell their software on all platforms then why did they make a console in the first place. They could have just been a third-party developer.
I'm a lem here, but man gotta call a spade a spade here. Nutella has the power to shut Xbox down and make third-party games with all they're studios, but he doesn't because like all businessmen, he wants to be number 1.
He was sull full of it when he said that.
I think you might be overlooking different leadership. They made a console to part of the console arena. Then the Xbox One happened and there was a change in direction. Switching to full third party wouldn't make much sense since they have already invested in hardware and software. If anything, MS is going to leverage their position if their AKB acquisition succeeds to push for less exclusives. I see this deal forcing Sony to concede in some areas in which they have pushed for exclusives. What you are proposing is that they should abandon the investment in hardware and make Sony the sole highend console provider, which makes no sense whatsoever.
@Pedro: If the deal goes through, CoD will stay multiplat and any games already out will do the same. Anything new will be on Xbox/PC just like Bethesda.
Yes they will still be multiplat, but will skip PS, so reaching less gamers, and you think that will make Sony change its stance on exclusives lol, it will make Sony buy more thus having the exact opposite effect.
So if he wants to end exclusivity, he should put all first party games on PS5 & Switch. Oh but he won't do that because then no one will buy an Xbox, and he knows he needs games to be on his platform but not on his competitors.
@Pedro: If the deal goes through, CoD will stay multiplat and any games already out will do the same. Anything new will be on Xbox/PC just like Bethesda.
Yes they will still be multiplat, but will skip PS, so reaching less gamers, and you think that will make Sony change its stance on exclusives lol, it will make Sony buy more thus having the exact opposite effect.
So if he wants to end exclusivity, he should put all first party games on PS5 & Switch. Oh but he won't do that because then no one will buy an Xbox, and he knows he needs games to be on his platform but not on his competitors.
It's just PR bs from him.
Were you absent during the Xbox One days? MS took the low exclusive route for many of their games and now they have no exclusives on Xbox for the past six years and none in the future. The platform was routinely criticized for the lack of exclusives and you believe that the best solution for Xbox would be allow for all Xbox games to be on PS5 and Sony continuing to have exclusives? That makes no sense whatsoever. MS can't push for non exclusivity if the other side isn't playing ball. What he is stating isn't PR bullshit, it is literally the reality of the situation. As stated before, if the AKB clears, MS would be in a better situation to negotiate a move to having less exclusives. Your suggestion would literally destroy all competition because one system would have all the games and the other would have significantly less, screwing over the millions that invested in the hardware which would inevitably lead to just one platform holder next cycle. Both MS and Sony knows that exclusives are not sustainable because of the cost, thus the leveraging of PC support with MS releasing day one. On the console side, there is currently no power dynamic that would make Sony concede to making their games available on Xbox. And as stated before, it would be damaging to Xbox to push for all their games to be on PS without some sort of mutual sharing of games on both platforms.
@Pedro: I don‘t understand your stance at all. And it doesn’t reflect the reality of the industry in any way. The whole fight escalated with PS and timed exclusives. Phil then buys Bethesda, and Xbox goes on to “spend PlayStation out of the industry.” Hell, from the hearing today,
“During Xbox CFO Tim Stuart's time on the witness stand, the FTC called attention to a chat conversation from November 2021 between Stuart and Xbox's Matt Booty. The two were messaging about a recent monthly business review meeting between Xbox and ZeniMax, where Spencer apparently made the call to makeallZeniMax games exclusive going forward, not just new IP. Stuart was asking Booty about what happened during the meeting.
"All games going forward?" Stuart asked. "Not just new IP, but ALL games going forward? Wow."
Booty confirmed this during the chat conversation, writing, "Phil [Spencer] told them all titles going foward, Xbox exclusive."
Xbox ending PS’s ability to negotiate/compete is their best way back into the fight. And thats quite literally what they’re doing. PS, from the leaks are suggesting that Xbox is overvaluing the purchased studios outside of COD.
You‘re saying @last_laps suggestion would destroy competition. How is there competition if 2 “competing“ platforms have all the same content? Their boxes are already made by the same chip manufacturer. The “competition” would literally come down to brand power. And we all know who would win that fight… PS has the inferior product and worse ”value” now and are still up over 2-1. Xbox’s needs exclusives. Phil’s actions prove that. All these email leaks prove that.
@Pedro: What he's saying is BS. I own a Series X and not a PS5. So I'm fully aware what putting all MS games on PS5 means.
If he truly hated exclusives then when they bought Bethesda they would have put games like Redfall (PS5 version cancelled) and Starfield on PS5 too, but he didn't because he's trying to drive people to the Xbox ecosystem which is why they bought Bethesda.
While Starfield is not exclusive, it's not on PS5 it's main competitor, so it is seen as an exclusive in people's eyes. Not mine but in others yes, even on this forum.
@Pedro: If the deal goes through, CoD will stay multiplat and any games already out will do the same. Anything new will be on Xbox/PC just like Bethesda.
Yes they will still be multiplat, but will skip PS, so reaching less gamers, and you think that will make Sony change its stance on exclusives lol, it will make Sony buy more thus having the exact opposite effect.
So if he wants to end exclusivity, he should put all first party games on PS5 & Switch. Oh but he won't do that because then no one will buy an Xbox, and he knows he needs games to be on his platform but not on his competitors.
It's just PR bs from him.
That's only partially true.
As you said, Xbox is an ecosystem, it's built to rely less on exclusivity.
PS is a hardware. Their business has always worked in an old fashioned way. It needs exclusivity to pull in people and lock them in to the hardware, so they can rely on royalties from third party products that they allow on their hardware. Lets call that their PS ecosystem. Nintendo works the same way.
What "Nadella" is saying is, if both ecosystems were unlocked, or "open", they could share. In the same way that both apple and MS BOTH support the PC and MAC or the way that both Apple and google both support android and ios. And they still compete for market share and they still make money. Regardless of whether one is bigger than the other, much like PC and MAC.
It's a different type of competition and market.
But if one ecosystem remains closed, and the other is open, than it's no longer really competition in any useful way. Then MS will just lose with their software and services focus and will be forced to simply be a publisher like EA.
It would only work if BOTH Sony and MS opened up.
So he's not talking shit at all, he just wished for a different type of market. Just like MS, Apple and Google all supporting each others ecosystems.
@Pedro: If the deal goes through, CoD will stay multiplat and any games already out will do the same. Anything new will be on Xbox/PC just like Bethesda.
Yes they will still be multiplat, but will skip PS, so reaching less gamers, and you think that will make Sony change its stance on exclusives lol, it will make Sony buy more thus having the exact opposite effect.
So if he wants to end exclusivity, he should put all first party games on PS5 & Switch. Oh but he won't do that because then no one will buy an Xbox, and he knows he needs games to be on his platform but not on his competitors.
It's just PR bs from him.
That's only partially true.
As you said, Xbox is an ecosystem, it's built to rely less on exclusivity.
PS is a hardware. Their business has always worked in an old fashioned way. It needs exclusivity to pull in people and lock them in to the hardware, so they can rely on royalties from third party products that they allow on their hardware. Lets call that their PS ecosystem. Nintendo works the same way.
What "Nadella" is saying is, if both ecosystems were unlocked, or "open", they could share. In the same way that both apple and MS BOTH support the PC and MAC or the way that both Apple and google both support android and ios. And they still compete for market share and they still make money. Regardless of whether one is bigger than the other, much like PC and MAC.
It's a different type of competition and market.
But if one ecosystem remains closed, and the other is open, than it's no longer really competition in any useful way. Then MS will just lose with their software and services focus and will be forced to simply be a publisher like EA.
It would only work if BOTH Sony and MS opened up.
So he's not talking shit at all, he just wished for a different type of market. Just like MS, Apple and Google all supporting each others ecosystems.
Him saying he can't get rid of exclusives because its Sony's fault, that BS, a cop out. If you have a PLATFORM, then you NEED content on your platform that your competitor doesn't to get people into your ecosystem. So exclusives will always be a part of that whether its MS/Sony/Nintendo.
As for the eco system built to rely less on exclusives, that's not true at all, because if that were true then MS would have not scrapped Redfall for PS5, Starfield & Indiana Jones would be on PS5. And while MS doesn't have exclusives because its games are on PC, that wasn't because MS wanted to rely less on exclusives, it's because they fucked up the Xbox One BIG time and instead of Phil trying to gain trust back in the Xbox brand he gave up, and just dumped all their games on PC and Xbox at the same time to get more money.
@last_lap: He’s saying (I think) PS is to blame for there being exclusives, but then illustrates how Xbox’s fewer exclusive strategy with Xbox One (whatever that means) didn’t work. Everyone needs to “play ball” and share their entire libraries… Somebody doesn’t understand business and capitalism… And of course that whole stance is blown up by Xbox’s leaked emails. They have this harmonious video game company stance during press blurbs, but this cutthroat stance behind closed doors.
@Pedro: If the deal goes through, CoD will stay multiplat and any games already out will do the same. Anything new will be on Xbox/PC just like Bethesda.
Yes they will still be multiplat, but will skip PS, so reaching less gamers, and you think that will make Sony change its stance on exclusives lol, it will make Sony buy more thus having the exact opposite effect.
So if he wants to end exclusivity, he should put all first party games on PS5 & Switch. Oh but he won't do that because then no one will buy an Xbox, and he knows he needs games to be on his platform but not on his competitors.
It's just PR bs from him.
That's only partially true.
As you said, Xbox is an ecosystem, it's built to rely less on exclusivity.
PS is a hardware. Their business has always worked in an old fashioned way. It needs exclusivity to pull in people and lock them in to the hardware, so they can rely on royalties from third party products that they allow on their hardware. Lets call that their PS ecosystem. Nintendo works the same way.
What "Nadella" is saying is, if both ecosystems were unlocked, or "open", they could share. In the same way that both apple and MS BOTH support the PC and MAC or the way that both Apple and google both support android and ios. And they still compete for market share and they still make money. Regardless of whether one is bigger than the other, much like PC and MAC.
It's a different type of competition and market.
But if one ecosystem remains closed, and the other is open, than it's no longer really competition in any useful way. Then MS will just lose with their software and services focus and will be forced to simply be a publisher like EA.
It would only work if BOTH Sony and MS opened up.
So he's not talking shit at all, he just wished for a different type of market. Just like MS, Apple and Google all supporting each others ecosystems.
Him saying he can't get rid of exclusives because its Sony's fault, that BS, a cop out. If you have a PLATFORM, then you NEED content on your platform that your competitor doesn't to get people into your ecosystem. So exclusives will always be a part of that whether its MS/Sony/Nintendo.
As for the eco system built to rely less on exclusives, that's not true at all, because if that were true then MS would have not scrapped Redfall for PS5, Starfield & Indiana Jones would be on PS5. And while MS doesn't have exclusives because its games are on PC, that wasn't because MS wanted to rely less on exclusives, it's because they fucked up the Xbox One BIG time and instead of Phil trying to gain trust back in the Xbox brand he gave up, and just dumped all their games on PC and Xbox at the same time to get more money.
You're being argumentative for the sake of it now. Just ignored what I said. That doesn't make you right.
So explain how Apple, Google and MS can share with each other on each others PLATFORMS and ecosystems and STILL compete at the same time and they ALL have their own software and services.
What you're saying is that MS should just become a publisher like Sega and give up on services all together. And that's really what Sony wants.
If they share content, then the business just changes to competing on other things with other services.
@HalcyonScarlet: Apple & Google and their services are different to video games and Nintendo & Sony.
And no i'm not saying they SHOULD go third-party. i'm saying if he truly believed what he is saying then he's had years to go third-party or put all of Xbox's games on PS, but he won't because what he said is for PR purposes.
I own a Series X (there is 3 Series X's in my house) so i'm heavily invested in Xbox and want MS to stay in the console game, i'm just calling out Nutella's BS is all.
@ghostofgolden: umm I don't get your point about exclusives. Disney plus has exclusives like marvel and star wars. Netflix has their own exclusives. Same with HBO, prime, etc etc. Literally every company does it. Disney made all that content exclusive to its platform and removed from Netflix after they completed the purchases. Is that also cut throat or a normal part of business?
It was about 30 minutes of the Judge pulling apart the FTCs case and reminding them that they are supposed to protect the consumer, not Sony.
Judge: "How does that harm consumers?"
FTC: "Now the consumer, if the deal goes through, can only find some of the content on Gamepass"
Judge: "You mean like Sony, with Activision? Right? I mean we have testimony to that. They take money from other platforms and delay"
Ouch.
The FTC compares CoD to Elder Scrolls when asked to present a MULTIPLAYER GAME this happened with. MS said, erm no. Elder Scrolls has two versions and the multiplayer title is on PLAYSTATION. :-S
Note that the judge is already unimpressed with their Sony arguments and that both Nadella and Spencer said they'd honer the 10 year deal.
The Judge asked, if Sony signed the 10 year deal, would we be here right now at this injuction trial?
The FTC gave no satisfactory answer. It's not looking good.
Judge: What do you say though, to Mr [Jim] Ryan who says the Starfield exclusivity WASN'T ANTI-COMPETITIVE.
FTC: We don't know the basis as to why he was less upset about that than CoD.
Judge: BECAUSE HE DOES THE SAME THING. :-O XD
Beth (for MS): "But to say that you [FTC] wants to stop a 69B deal, but they can't figure out what the harm is, really answers the question." (not in those words exactly).
The FTC refuses to prove anti competitive behaviour and goes on a tangent defending Sony. The Judge reminds them their job is to PROTECT CONSUMERS, not Sony.
Judge: Was GoW on PS+.
Beth: Not day and date.
Judge: "So wouldn't this just incentivise Sony to improve their services benefiting the consumer?" (Not in those words). XD
-
I mean the Judge is just so unimpressed with the FTC and Sony really.
@Pedro: I don‘t understand your stance at all. And it doesn’t reflect the reality of the industry in any way. The whole fight escalated with PS and timed exclusives. Phil then buys Bethesda, and Xbox goes on to “spend PlayStation out of the industry.” Hell, from the hearing today,
“During Xbox CFO Tim Stuart's time on the witness stand, the FTC called attention to a chat conversation from November 2021 between Stuart and Xbox's Matt Booty. The two were messaging about a recent monthly business review meeting between Xbox and ZeniMax, where Spencer apparently made the call to makeallZeniMax games exclusive going forward, not just new IP. Stuart was asking Booty about what happened during the meeting.
"All games going forward?" Stuart asked. "Not just new IP, but ALL games going forward? Wow."
Booty confirmed this during the chat conversation, writing, "Phil [Spencer] told them all titles going foward, Xbox exclusive."
Xbox ending PS’s ability to negotiate/compete is their best way back into the fight. And thats quite literally what they’re doing. PS, from the leaks are suggesting that Xbox is overvaluing the purchased studios outside of COD.
You‘re saying @last_laps suggestion would destroy competition. How is there competition if 2 “competing“ platforms have all the same content? Their boxes are already made by the same chip manufacturer. The “competition” would literally come down to brand power. And we all know who would win that fight… PS has the inferior product and worse ”value” now and are still up over 2-1. Xbox’s needs exclusives. Phil’s actions prove that. All these email leaks prove that.
They will still be competing for gamers to purchase their games or subscribe to their game service. The only difference in the suggested scenario is that the games would be available on either platform. Games compete with games. Competition doesn't die because the games are accessible on both consoles. Each game is trying to earn the gamers' money. Whether the gamer plays on PC, Xbox, PS, cloud etc it doesn't matter but the games are still fighting for access to gamers' funds.
In @last_lap scenario. There would be only one console manufacturer left standing because you will have a situation in which all the games are available on one console while some games are available on the other. There would be no point to the Xbox in that situation. That is not the same dynamics as both consoles offering the same games because hardware can compete with other hardware despite performing the same task. This is how it is in every other industry.
@last_lap said:
@Pedro: What he's saying is BS. I own a Series X and not a PS5. So I'm fully aware what putting all MS games on PS5 means.
If he truly hated exclusives then when they bought Bethesda they would have put games like Redfall (PS5 version cancelled) and Starfield on PS5 too, but he didn't because he's trying to drive people to the Xbox ecosystem which is why they bought Bethesda.
While Starfield is not exclusive, it's not on PS5 it's main competitor, so it is seen as an exclusive in people's eyes. Not mine but in others yes, even on this forum.
It is not BS. I have already explained to you the problem of just shifting all of your games as a hardware manufacturer of consoles to another platform without the other manufacturer doing the same to your platform. Xbox factually only makes multi-platform games. There are no games exclusive to Xbox and there would be no games in the future that will be exclusive to Xbox. Xbox is the only console manufacturer that has no exclusives and makes only multi-platform games. So, saying that his statement is bullshit when they have already made moves to non-exclusive development is detached from reality. Other people's incorrect understanding of exclusives is irrelevant.
@Pedro: I don‘t understand your stance at all. And it doesn’t reflect the reality of the industry in any way. The whole fight escalated with PS and timed exclusives. Phil then buys Bethesda, and Xbox goes on to “spend PlayStation out of the industry.” Hell, from the hearing today,
“During Xbox CFO Tim Stuart's time on the witness stand, the FTC called attention to a chat conversation from November 2021 between Stuart and Xbox's Matt Booty. The two were messaging about a recent monthly business review meeting between Xbox and ZeniMax, where Spencer apparently made the call to makeallZeniMax games exclusive going forward, not just new IP. Stuart was asking Booty about what happened during the meeting.
"All games going forward?" Stuart asked. "Not just new IP, but ALL games going forward? Wow."
Booty confirmed this during the chat conversation, writing, "Phil [Spencer] told them all titles going foward, Xbox exclusive."
Xbox ending PS’s ability to negotiate/compete is their best way back into the fight. And thats quite literally what they’re doing. PS, from the leaks are suggesting that Xbox is overvaluing the purchased studios outside of COD.
You‘re saying @last_laps suggestion would destroy competition. How is there competition if 2 “competing“ platforms have all the same content? Their boxes are already made by the same chip manufacturer. The “competition” would literally come down to brand power. And we all know who would win that fight… PS has the inferior product and worse ”value” now and are still up over 2-1. Xbox’s needs exclusives. Phil’s actions prove that. All these email leaks prove that.
They will still be competing for gamers to purchase their games or subscribe to their game service. The only difference in the suggested scenario is that the games would be available on either platform. Games compete with games. Competition doesn't die because the games are accessible on both consoles. Each game is trying to earn the gamers' money. Whether the gamer plays on PC, Xbox, PS, cloud etc it doesn't matter but the games are still fighting for access to gamers' funds.
In @last_lap scenario. There would be only one console manufacturer left standing because you will have a situation in which all the games are available on one console while some games are available on the other. There would be no point to the Xbox in that situation. That is not the same dynamics as both consoles offering the same games because hardware can compete with other hardware despite performing the same task. This is how it is in every other industry.
@last_lap said:
@Pedro: What he's saying is BS. I own a Series X and not a PS5. So I'm fully aware what putting all MS games on PS5 means.
If he truly hated exclusives then when they bought Bethesda they would have put games like Redfall (PS5 version cancelled) and Starfield on PS5 too, but he didn't because he's trying to drive people to the Xbox ecosystem which is why they bought Bethesda.
While Starfield is not exclusive, it's not on PS5 it's main competitor, so it is seen as an exclusive in people's eyes. Not mine but in others yes, even on this forum.
It is not BS. I have already explained to you the problem of just shifting all of your games as a hardware manufacturer of consoles to another platform without the other manufacturer doing the same to your platform. Xbox factually only makes multi-platform games. There are no games exclusive to Xbox and there would be no games in the future that will be exclusive to Xbox. Xbox is the only console manufacturer that has no exclusives and makes only multi-platform games. So, saying that his statement is bullshit when they have already made moves to non-exclusive development is detached from reality. Other people's incorrect understanding of exclusives is irrelevant.
To say MS has made moves to non exclusive development is disingenuous. MS only decided to dump its Xbox games on PC because they fucked up big time with the Xbox One, and instead of trying to compete with Sony to get people back on Xbox, he come up with getting extra money from PC gamers also as MS doesn't see PC as a competitor.
If MS were number 1 then there would not be games on PC, it's as simple as that.
@ghostofgolden: umm I don't get your point about exclusives. Disney plus has exclusives like marvel and star wars. Netflix has their own exclusives. Same with HBO, prime, etc etc. Literally every company does it. Disney made all that content exclusive to its platform and removed from Netflix after they completed the purchases. Is that also cut throat or a normal part of business?
I’m not sure we understand each other. Exclusives are a normal part of business, yes. That’s how each competitor drives consumers to their product/service over the others. @Pedro is proposing a market where all games are available everywhere. I don’t understand how that would work, or why any of these companies would want that. Then I provided examples, (Xbox leaked emails) that illustrate that Xbox themselves don’t want that. We have a couple of sound bites where an Xbox is saying they’re against exclusives, then multiple emails that prove otherwise.
I think things got misinterpreted with the Xbox and exclusives stuff. Xbox is deflecting, basically saying “We are only buying studios and publishers because PS made us do it. We didn’t even want to buy these studios.” It’s a defense tactic. One that should work too. How can the FTC let PS do something, but then turn around and not allow Xbox the same?
To say MS has made moves to non exclusive development is disingenuous. MS only decided to dump its Xbox games on PC because they fucked up big time with the Xbox One, and instead of trying to compete with Sony to get people back on Xbox, he come up with getting extra money from PC gamers also as MS doesn't see PC as a competitor.
If MS were number 1 then there would not be games on PC, it's as simple as that.
It is not disingenuous, it is stating exactly what they did. They made moves to nonexclusive development; which I have been arguing in favor of. You are obviously free to focus on the reasons for the move. PC should not be viewed as a competitor for Sony, Nintendo and Xbox because PC is not closed hardware yet some of them do.
The 360 days are dead (rightfully so), it is time to accept MS is not the MS of 17 years ago.
@HalcyonScarlet: Apple & Google and their services are different to video games and Nintendo & Sony.
And no i'm not saying they SHOULD go third-party. i'm saying if he truly believed what he is saying then he's had years to go third-party or put all of Xbox's games on PS, but he won't because what he said is for PR purposes.
I own a Series X (there is 3 Series X's in my house) so i'm heavily invested in Xbox and want MS to stay in the console game, i'm just calling out Nutella's BS is all.
It really isn't. That's just what we've been conditioned to believe in. "exclusives YAY". There's really no good reason for exclusives other then to bolster one companies royalties over another.
So if MS turns into EA, how do they push software and services? That fits Sony's "current" business model, but not MSs.
No you're calling out what he's saying by refusing to understand it on any other level. Even thought I've shown you a scenario that MS mostly does business in. You are imparting your interpretation of what he said, over his.
What you own is irrelevant to this. Why do you keep telling that to people?
@Pedro: It is what they did, but the reason behind it is not because MS doesn't like exclusives like this guy claims. Like I said if Xbox was number 1 there wouldn't be games on PC day 1.
I've had my say on this multiple times, so I'm moving on from this now.
@ghostofgolden: yeah, I get that, but I don't get why you're bashing MS for making normal business decision?? Or maybe I do get it, you just can't help your COW tendencies.
Theres absolutely nothing wrong with what they are doing in the current system. We have things like patents, IP laws and so on, which I personally don't agree with. Physical property is one thing, but ideas aren't property and never will be. Its a massive violation of the 1A, freedom of speech and very hypocritical. But its just the way it is.
I half agree with pedro. I don't think that things will change much because exclusives will still exist obviously, but MS will be in a better bargaining position. Sony will at least think twice before signing exclusive content with other companies, or risk all out war with MS. It definitely complicates their business decisions if this deal goes through. Overall though, competition is a very very good thing.
@Pedro: I don‘t understand your stance at all. And it doesn’t reflect the reality of the industry in any way. The whole fight escalated with PS and timed exclusives. Phil then buys Bethesda, and Xbox goes on to “spend PlayStation out of the industry.” Hell, from the hearing today,
“During Xbox CFO Tim Stuart's time on the witness stand, the FTC called attention to a chat conversation from November 2021 between Stuart and Xbox's Matt Booty. The two were messaging about a recent monthly business review meeting between Xbox and ZeniMax, where Spencer apparently made the call to makeallZeniMax games exclusive going forward, not just new IP. Stuart was asking Booty about what happened during the meeting.
"All games going forward?" Stuart asked. "Not just new IP, but ALL games going forward? Wow."
Booty confirmed this during the chat conversation, writing, "Phil [Spencer] told them all titles going foward, Xbox exclusive."
Xbox ending PS’s ability to negotiate/compete is their best way back into the fight. And thats quite literally what they’re doing. PS, from the leaks are suggesting that Xbox is overvaluing the purchased studios outside of COD.
You‘re saying @last_laps suggestion would destroy competition. How is there competition if 2 “competing“ platforms have all the same content? Their boxes are already made by the same chip manufacturer. The “competition” would literally come down to brand power. And we all know who would win that fight… PS has the inferior product and worse ”value” now and are still up over 2-1. Xbox’s needs exclusives. Phil’s actions prove that. All these email leaks prove that.
They will still be competing for gamers to purchase their games or subscribe to their game service. The only difference in the suggested scenario is that the games would be available on either platform. Games compete with games. Competition doesn't die because the games are accessible on both consoles. Each game is trying to earn the gamers' money. Whether the gamer plays on PC, Xbox, PS, cloud etc it doesn't matter but the games are still fighting for access to gamers' funds.
In @last_lap scenario. There would be only one console manufacturer left standing because you will have a situation in which all the games are available on one console while some games are available on the other. There would be no point to the Xbox in that situation. That is not the same dynamics as both consoles offering the same games because hardware can compete with other hardware despite performing the same task. This is how it is in every other industry.
@last_lap said:
@Pedro: What he's saying is BS. I own a Series X and not a PS5. So I'm fully aware what putting all MS games on PS5 means.
If he truly hated exclusives then when they bought Bethesda they would have put games like Redfall (PS5 version cancelled) and Starfield on PS5 too, but he didn't because he's trying to drive people to the Xbox ecosystem which is why they bought Bethesda.
While Starfield is not exclusive, it's not on PS5 it's main competitor, so it is seen as an exclusive in people's eyes. Not mine but in others yes, even on this forum.
It is not BS. I have already explained to you the problem of just shifting all of your games as a hardware manufacturer of consoles to another platform without the other manufacturer doing the same to your platform. Xbox factually only makes multi-platform games. There are no games exclusive to Xbox and there would be no games in the future that will be exclusive to Xbox. Xbox is the only console manufacturer that has no exclusives and makes only multi-platform games. So, saying that his statement is bullshit when they have already made moves to non-exclusive development is detached from reality. Other people's incorrect understanding of exclusives is irrelevant.
To say MS has made moves to non exclusive development is disingenuous. MS only decided to dump its Xbox games on PC because they fucked up big time with the Xbox One, and instead of trying to compete with Sony to get people back on Xbox, he come up with getting extra money from PC gamers also as MS doesn't see PC as a competitor.
If MS were number 1 then there would not be games on PC, it's as simple as that.
Why must Microsoft play Sony's game if they can find another way?
And why is the reasoning behind why MS changed their business model even relevant? They were forced to think outside the box and change, and? It's been benefiting consumers so far.
And you're being a bit disingenuous yourself. Releasing on the PC given the expense of development is only natural. Is Sony doing it too, because they can't compete with themselves?
"If MS were number 1 then there would not be games on PC, it's as simple as that."
@Pedro: It is what they did, but the reason behind it is not because MS doesn't like exclusives like this guy claims. Like I said if Xbox was number 1 there wouldn't be games on PC day 1.
I've had my say on this multiple times, so I'm moving on from this now.
Sony is number 1 and their games are going to PC. The economics have changed. You are still subscribing to the traditional model in console gaming. Nintendo is currently the only one that is 100% in that model. Sony and MS are not because their development cost are in the hundreds of millions and the market for consoles isn't growing to support such a venture thus the move to multiplatform.
FTC: "From these internal documents, it appears that Microsoft is a for profit business, and your intention with this acquisition is to make money. Is that true?"
MSFT: "...yes, that's correct"
FTC: "Well, that's illegal"
My tax dollars going towards this bullshit questioning?
A more cynical man might have concluded the whole purpose of this timely case was to have an American regulator very publicly exonerate an American acquisition - show the rest of us plebs how these things are to be done before it's all too late.
@last_lap: in terms of Nadella, i think you're making this more complicated than it is..
Sony/PlayStation is the market leader in the home console space.. They not only have lots of exclusive content from 1st party but they also secure plenty of 3rd party exclusive content by virtue of being the market leader.. those exclusive games drive gamers to buy PlayStation hardware and also keeps them there generation after generation..
He's simply saying that the market leader has already established the "winning strategy" in the console hardware business.. if you want to entice gamers to buy your hardware, you need exclusive software.. Nintendo also subscribes to this strategy but in the hybrid/handheld space..
Satya is simply calling out that fact.. and as the "3rd place" player in terms of console hardware sales, they can't be the only platform with zero exclusives..
it's really not more complicated than that..
As a software/services company, they'd rather operate within a Office 365 world were their software/services are available everywhere.. that concept works in the PC and mobile app space where they are a market leader.. that logic doesn't hold true for them in the home console space where Sony is the clear market leader and "exclusives" are the name of the game..
I don't think it was, but the FTCs case is so weak it wasn't far off that bad.
You weren't exaggerating when you said their case reads like fanboy drivel.
I think the FTC and the CMA have been quite embarrassing. I was expecting a far more professionally laid out, complex case would be put forward. But each time, their arguments have been systematically taken apart. And not even by MS, in this case. If you watch the Day 5 video I posted, the Judge herself took the FTCs case apart.
After the way this week has gone, it sounds like the FTC only has a slim chance now. They have failed to prove an anti competitive outcome.
When the CMA first blocked it, I thought the deal was over. But if I'm being generous to the naysayers right now, I'd say this merger has an 80% chance of going through, and that's being generous. Because with the lack of any convincing arguments, I don't see how it wont.
I've honestly seen better arguments against the merger on SWs than I have from the FTC and CMA. They've just displayed nothing but a complete lack of research.
Log in to comment