Support NeoGAF

[alabtrosMyster]

Is literally someone saying "MS has too much money and shouldn't be able to buy studios." What is monopolistic about that? You might as well say, as a rule, that companies can not buy other smaller companies to increase their competitiveness.

That is the definition of monopolistic behaviour, buy so much presence in a given market by taking the air out of the competition. These tactics besome unfair when they reach high proportions and they can be actions like:
- giving your products away or selling them way lower than one could reasonably hope to make money at a given price until the competition is out (then raise the prices because you are the sole provider)
- bundling less important products with big ones to help them gain market dominance
- buying the big players in a market so you can move the established players out

Again, there is a question of scale in each case, buying Ninja Theory is not like Buying Activision or Bethesda in therms of what it does to the gaming market.

 

[John Wick]

Yep that's hardcore Xbox fans for you proper nerds

 

[damidu]

Probably one of the worst ceos of a major company ever.

MS was such a mess under his reign.

Zero innovation, zero invention

I dont remember anything that stuck from his time in MS.

Still made billions though. Being a CEO must be the easiest job...

incredible honestly. dude’s only accomplishment is landing to same dorm room with Gates.
and probably being the goofy buffoon of that room. and boom billionaire for life.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Reading this Why would you even own a Playstation console? The hate you have for the company is like biting your nose off to spite your face.

He uses it as a reminder of all the pain sony has brought to him, he plays their games so he does not forget the anguish. No time for real fun with his xbox, he has not been able to let go yet.

 

[KingT731]

Explain why governments don't allow companies to absorb as many smaller other companies as possible to kill off competition and to become more and more powerful?

There's many reasons, some obvious, others less so, but a lot should be common sense. One extreme is the company basically gains more power than the government itself.

Think of the game where everyone starts as small dots. The bigger dots move around and can eat any smaller dots and thus become bigger. Then they can eat any other smaller dots. Eventually, you are left with one huge dot that has absorbed everyone and e everything.

The end result?

Ahh or as people in my field would call it. "End Stage Capitalism"

 

[DEAD ORIGINAL]

So Sony making shrink ray

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

If a company uses its cash flow from much larger businesses in order to run competitors out of business in a smaller industry then that is a direct threat to a fair and competitive market

industries should have to stand on their own footing and not be able to canabalize others via their size advantage

Oh, you mean like timed exclusives or Street Fighter. Same shit, different shovel.

 

[NickFire]

Oh, you mean like timed exclusives? Same shit, different shovel.

Not even close to the same. They are so different that if MS had announced a certain game was going to be timed exclusive instead of permanently exclusive, the Activision Approval Thread would be divisible by ten in page length and patiently waiting for weekly updates

 

[Skifi28]

Oh, you mean like timed exclusives or Street Fighter. Same shit, different shovel.

wat

 

[ANDS]

If a company uses its cash flow from much larger businesses in order to run competitors out of business in a smaller industry then that is a direct threat to a fair and competitive market

industries should have to stand on their own footing and not be able to canabalize others via their size advantage

That's fine for an ethical argument; it's still not an argument as to why COD potentially not being on SONY platforms somehow makes MS into a "monopoly" (and I'm using it in the same way the gubment and MS/SONY lawyers would use it). It is not the governments job to make sure SONY can compete with the potential loss of a product that does not undergird its ability to do business. SONY losing COD isn't going to put SONY out of business, which is why their arguments against this deal don't tread on that line.

That is the definition of monopolistic behaviour, buy so much presence in a given market by taking the air out of the competition. These tactics besome unfair when they reach high proportions and they can be actions like:
- giving your products away or selling them way lower than one could reasonably hope to make money at a given price until the competition is out (then raise the prices because you are the sole provider)
- bundling less important products with big ones to help them gain market dominance
- buying the big players in a market so you can move the established players out

Again, there is a question of scale in each case, buying Ninja Theory is not like Buying Activision or Bethesda in therms of what it does to the gaming market.

On the internet, maybe. And again, it is not the governments job to keep SONY competitive against MS because SONY doesn't have an exclusive "killer online app." That is just absurd.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

wat

Sony didn't pay for Street Fighter, which was multiplat forever, to be withheld from competitors?

Literally what Sony are complaining about.

Didn't see Sony offer MS ten years on Xbox for that one.

 

[Skifi28]

Sony didn't pay for Street Fighter, which was multiplat forever, to be withheld from competitors?

Literally what Sony are complaining about.

I would like to add to your point that the new pixel remasters of old FF games also appear to timed exclusives to Playstation. These two examples are easily equivalent to Microsoft buying both Bethesda and Activision so I have no idea why regulators want to interfere. I mean it's freaking Final Fantasy!! As a pixel remaster!!!!

 

[DeepEnigma]

I would like to add to your point that the new pixel remasters of old FF games also appear to timed exclusives to Playstation. These two examples are easily equivalent to Microsoft buying both Bethesda and Activision so I have no idea why regulators want to interfere. I mean it's freaking Final Fantasy!! As a pixel remaster!!!!

MS should not have paid for the one year Square/Enix game called Tomb Raider. They forced Sony to react in kind. Am I doing this right?

 

[kikii]

Sony didn't pay for Street Fighter, which was multiplat forever, to be withheld from competitors?

https://www.theouterhaven.net/2020/11/could-street-fighter-6-be-a-platform-exclusive-title/

Sony and Capcom agreed to meet, and they both shared the same vision for the game. Thus Sony agreed to help fund the development of Street Fighter 5, ensuring that the game would stay on Sony branded consoles and the PC.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

https://www.theouterhaven.net/2020/11/could-street-fighter-6-be-a-platform-exclusive-title/

And by comparison, MS keeps more on the table for competitors with the same moneyhatting practices thus invalidating Sony's argument through hypocrisy.

*you have misunderstood the context of my Sony question above, it is rhetorical; yes Sony paid to get Street Fighter off Xbox. Now Sony complain about MS playing a better version keeping some games cross plat.

 

[kikii]

yes Sony paid to get Street Fighter off Xbox.

no they didnt, if u read that article, it clearly says that capcom did not have monies so sony helped anyways i dont wana be part of this stuff but i love to read these shits

 

[vivftp]

And by comparison, MS keeps more on the table for competitors with the same moneyhatting practices thus invalidating Sony's argument through hypocrisy.

*you have misunderstood the context of my Sony question above, it is rhetorical; yes Sony paid to get Street Fighter off Xbox. Now Sony complain about MS playing a better version keeping some games cross plat.

Sony paid for Street Fighter 5 to be made. If they hadn't stepped in the game wouldn't have existed.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Sony paid for Street Fighter 5 to be made. If they hadn't stepped in the game wouldn't have existed.

Deffo......here we go again lmao.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

On the internet, maybe. And again, it is not the governments job to keep SONY competitive against MS because SONY doesn't have an exclusive "killer online app." That is just absurd.

The government may not agree with you, I just listed some of the reasons anti-trust laws exist at all and what they are used for.

This is not like Sony was unable to compete, they release consoles, they make games make games for them, they make deals with publishers to get exclusive content, they collect royalties, etc. and people prefer their approach than MS's.

Now, MS can't manage their studios to get great output of content that they could use to differentiate their platform, it costs more for them to make games exclusive because they are the smaller player, etc. So instead of fixing that by building some new studios and better managing their existing studios. They want to buy their way into "winning", not because they train more and expect to run faster, but by preventing the other runners to even enter the race.

 

[Captain Toad]

Phil at every E3: "We have the best line up of all time for Xbox"

And Phil when trying to get a 70 billion acquisition buyout through:

"Our games suck in comparison to Sony. We just can't compete."

 

[marquimvfs]

Phill Spencer wants to grow Playstation by making Xbox smaller...

 

[Captain Toad]

I would like to add to your point that the new pixel remasters of old FF games also appear to timed exclusives to Playstation. These two examples are easily equivalent to Microsoft buying both Bethesda and Activision so I have no idea why regulators want to interfere. I mean it's freaking Final Fantasy!! As a pixel remaster!!!!

This is where you're wrong. Games like Disgaea, Atelier, previously Persona and now Final Fantasy pixel remasters were not on Xbox, but not because of Sony. They weren't on Xbox because these publishers didn't believe it made financial sense to bring them to Xbox.

There are tons of games, especially Japanese games that are on Nintendo, PlayStation and PC, but not on Xbox and it has nothing to do with Sony or Nintendo.

 

[Captain Toad]

Phill Spencer wants to grow Playstation by making Xbox smaller...

Speaking of, why is Phil Spencer constantly talking about Sony lately?

Phil, you don't consider or Nintendo them as competitors in gaming, remember?

Google, Amazon are your competitors. And they've both failed. Congratulations. You won.

 

[Skifi28]

This is where you're wrong. Games like Disgaea, Atelier, previously Persona and now Final Fantasy pixel remasters were not on Xbox, but not because of Sony. They weren't on Xbox because these publishers didn't believe it made financial sense to bring them to Xbox.

There are tons of games, especially Japanese games that are on Nintendo, PlayStation and PC, but not on Xbox and it has nothing to do with Sony or Nintendo.

I knew I should have added that /s, I guess I wasn't obvious enough.

 

[Ansphn]

Sony didn't pay for Street Fighter, which was multiplat forever, to be withheld from competitors?

Literally what Sony are complaining about.

Didn't see Sony offer MS ten years on Xbox for that one.

Street Fighter was partially funded by Sony. At that time, Capcom needed help to make certain games. Just like Stellar Blade is partially funded by Sony.

 

[Corndog]

You're the person who asked for the explanation. Gavon West can read it too. He just won't understand it.

No, I said you should explain your position to the guy rather than be condescending.
I’m not interested in your point of view, or any other in this console war thread.
And by saying he won’t understand you continue to be condescending.

 

[CLW]

 

[ANDS]

The government may not agree with you, I just listed some of the reasons anti-trust laws exist at all and what they are used for.

None of your quoted "reasons" have been demonstrated by any arguments in this thread, particularly how losing any AB IP's would material affect SONY or SONY consumers other than requiring SONY to compete with its own product or "force" consumers to purchase said products on MS properties exclusively (which is the governments argument).

The BEST argument against this deal, that no one has mentioned as far as I know, is that MS have already played one trade commission for fools with it's promises to commit to ensuring the products of its newly acquired properties are on as many platforms as possible. But no one is saying that. It's just "It's unfair that MS can use its resources to buy competitiveness. . ."

. . .and not for nothing, but MS already offered SONY COD for a significant amount of time to not upend the market, and we know how that went.

 

[Cheezewizz]

Sony and Microsoft were BOTH paying for timed exclusives. That is where one game from a particular company eventually goes to all platforms.

Of course, Sony has also been paying for full exclusives. This is where the game never comes to the competing platform. Sony has also been paying to keep games off of Gamepass.

Buying a publisher ensures that ALL games from said company are permanently exclusive. There is no correlation between the two

Buying a Publisher ensures nothing. If buying a publisher ensured ALL games were permanently exclusive, Dethloop and Ghostwire Tokyo wouldn't have been available on Playstation.

There absolutely is a correlation between the two. Both strategies are to varying degrees anticompetitive. Timed exclusives are meant to lure gamers to particular platform by being the only place to play a game for a certain amount of time. Additionally, a permanent exclusive is often sought because the platform holder believes that the game may potentially be a critical success, and by having it be permanently attached to only your platform. Could lead to an even larger sales increase of your console. Of course if the platform holder believes that it might be worth the investment to purchase a certain dev studio so that it can control the output and not have to bid against rival platforms for exclusivity, it may go that route as well. Purchasing an entire publisher is simply a further extension of that.

As far as anticompetitive goes, the only real outlier here is a platform paying not to entice people to your own platform, but rather to discourage people from joining your rival's. Such as paying not to add a game on your sub service, but to deny it on your competitor's sub service. Not only would they be actively preventing a game from being on a competitor's sub service. They don't even bother to put it on their own service. They just don't want the competition putting it on theirs.

 

[The Cartographer]

I always knew Spencer was a fraud.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

That's fine for an ethical argument; it's still not an argument as to why COD potentially not being on SONY platforms somehow makes MS into a "monopoly" (and I'm using it in the same way the gubment and MS/SONY lawyers would use it). It is not the governments job to make sure SONY can compete with the potential loss of a product that does not undergird its ability to do business. SONY losing COD isn't going to put SONY out of business, which is why their arguments against this deal don't tread on that line.

Yes, actually, it is the government’s job to regulate industry and ensure that anticompetitive monopolistic practices don’t occur

You don’t need to be completely out of business for there to be a monopoly

 

[alabtrosMyster]

None of your quoted "reasons" have been demonstrated by any arguments in this thread, particularly how losing any AB IP's would material affect SONY or SONY consumers other than requiring SONY to compete with its own product or "force" consumers to purchase said products on MS properties exclusively (which is the governments argument).

The BEST argument against this deal, that no one has mentioned as far as I know, is that MS have already played one trade commission for fools with it's promises to commit to ensuring the products of its newly acquired properties are on as many platforms as possible. But no one is saying that. It's just "It's unfair that MS can use its resources to buy competitiveness. . ."

. . .and not for nothing, but MS already offered SONY COD for a significant amount of time to not upend the market, and we know how that went.

Go read.

Britannica Money

Standard Oil, U.S. company and corporate trust that from 1870 to 1911 was the industrial empire of John D. Rockefeller and associates, controlling almost all oil production, processing, marketing, and transportation in the United States. It originated in Cleveland, Ohio.

www.britannica.com

United States v. Microsoft Corp. - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[NonPhixion]

Buying a Publisher ensures nothing. If buying a publisher ensured ALL games were permanently exclusive, Dethloop and Ghostwire Tokyo wouldn't have been available on Playstation.

A contract that was in place, for both those games prior to MS buying Bethesda, is what ensured those games remained available on PlayStation.

You didn’t know that? daf

 

[graywolf323]

I knew I should have added that /s, I guess I wasn't obvious enough.

I mean I figured you were joking since the games originally released on PC/Mobile and are now coming to PlayStation & Switch so it's anything but a PlayStation exclusive

 

[ANDS]

Yes, actually, it is the government’s job to regulate industry

I never said it wasn't.

You don’t need to be completely out of business for there to be a monopoly

Cool. Now explain how COD not being on SONY console creates such a monopoly. Explain how a product that is not integral to SONY's technological or commercial development puts SONY at such a disadvantage that it requires government interference. This is about SONY potentially losing a segment of the gaming population that ONLY plays COD (or makes console purchasing decisions based on where the best place to play COD is). Full stop.

Go read.

Britannica Money

Standard Oil, U.S. company and corporate trust that from 1870 to 1911 was the industrial empire of John D. Rockefeller and associates, controlling almost all oil production, processing, marketing, and transportation in the United States. It originated in Cleveland, Ohio.

www.britannica.com

United States v. Microsoft Corp. - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Did you read any of that? Or are you just Googling "monopoly MS" and hoping whatever link you share makes sense. If you did, please explain what are the "railroads" and "Internet Explorer" in this current scenario between SONY, MS and AB.

 

[FullMetalx117]

Kind of funny a 2 trillion dollar company is crying that a 100 billion dollar company is preventing them to grow...I mean why not use all that cash to build new studios and make new IP from the ground up? They can offer comp packages to talent that blows everyone else out the water. In this scenario - talent benefits by making more money, Microsoft benefits by getting new organically made IP. Common man benefits by seeing new creative art introduced in the world.

But why won't they do this? It's riskier/harder and will require management talent that maybe MSFT no longer trust, and there will be less cash available to shareholders. Fair point, MSFT is probably represented in majority of the 401Ks held by people. But I'd argue the benefits from organic growth is way more beneficial to the common person than simply buying out Activision.

So I have to ask....who here holds at least 100,000+ shares of MSFT who would benefit from seeing this transaction go through? Because if you're a common person like me but are weirdly supporting this transaction, you're playing yourself, and would benefit way more from from the organic growth option.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Cool. Now explain how COD not being on SONY console creates such a monopoly. Explain how a product that is not integral to SONY's technological or commercial development puts SONY at such a disadvantage that it requires government interference. This is about SONY potentially losing a segment of the gaming population that ONLY plays COD (or makes console purchasing decisions based on where the best place to play COD is). Full stop.

It’s not just CoD.

It’s all of Activision/Blizzard. CoD is the #1 seller on PlayStation. CoD is the #1 reason for PS plus subs. They are a huge reason why people buy a PS5 and buy other games outside of CoD.

Even if CoD isn’t removed from PS5, it sets up a situation where MS has a huge competitive advantage by having those games “cheaper” on GamePass, in the future sub services may be the only platforms we have, and MS could continue subsidizing their service to the point where it starves any competition, not just from Sony but other third parties.

 

[ikbalCO]

I wonder what phil promised to eu back when they bought zenimax which led ftc to straight up calling them you lied then.

Wish eu release the documents with out deduction...

 

[Warablo]

The thing is that everyone knows that if Sony goes out there and buys EA or Take Two (same as AB) and say a Capcom (same as a Zenimax), every pro AB acquisition person will be screaming from the rooftops and forget every argument they made about MS - AB.

Hell Sony could go out there and buy Nintendo.

Of course because you and others think none of that will happen you will argue right now that there would be no problem. The thing is people have been arguing that small time deals Sony does for third party exclusives is anti competitive while on the same breath arguing that MS buying whole sale Publishers and dozens of IP is not anti competitive.

No they wouldn't, because they know it's just part of business. Sony fans are the loudest bunch. Didn't even hear shit about Sony exclusivity until Sony themselves started throwing a hissy fit over Microsoft finally spending some money.

 

[jm89]

It’s not just CoD.

It’s all of Activision/Blizzard. CoD is the #1 seller on PlayStation. CoD is the #1 reason for PS plus subs. They are a huge reason why people buy a PS5 and buy other games outside of CoD.

Even if CoD isn’t removed from PS5, it sets up a situation where MS has a huge competitive advantage by having those games “cheaper” on GamePass, in the future sub services may be the only platforms we have, and MS could continue subsidizing their service to the point where it starves any competition, not just from Sony but other third parties.

What's even worse is MS have pretty much come out and said they will continue acquisitions so if regulators allow it, they will continue slowly chip away at the competition with smaller acquisitions and what argument will the regulators use to challenge those smaller acquisitions if they allowed the avb purchase. Drawing the line after the avb pruchase is a bit too late.

 

[Xaero Gravity]

Pointing out

Xbox fanboys are a bunch of gullible, ignorant, naive fanboy crybabies, who simply can't handle the fact that they're favorite videogame box can't keep up with the competition even with an oversized allowance from mommy and daddy to keep it afloat.
The competition (both) have been running rings around them since and it isnt changing.
They actually think spencer is competent for fucks sake.

Remember when you had a meltdown in my PMs and raged that GAF users and Xbox users were the equivalent of far right Trump supporters?

Pepperidge Farm remembers and so do I

 

[bender]

Remember when you had a meltdown in my PMs and raged that GAF users and Xbox users were the equivalent of far right Trump supporters?

Pepperidge Farm remembers and so do I

 

[Rick Dangerous]

I never said it wasn't.



Cool. Now explain how COD not being on SONY console creates such a monopoly. Explain how a product that is not integral to SONY's technological or commercial development puts SONY at such a disadvantage that it requires government interference. This is about SONY potentially losing a segment of the gaming population that ONLY plays COD (or makes console purchasing decisions based on where the best place to play COD is). Full stop.



Did you read any of that? Or are you just Googling "monopoly MS" and hoping whatever link you share makes sense. If you did, please explain what are the "railroads" and "Internet Explorer" in this current scenario between SONY, MS and AB.

No to be offensive, but what you ask for is really dumb : "Now explain how COD not being on SONY console creates such a monopoly". You don’t see the endgoal of all of this, do you ? Surely because you haven’t dealt with Microsoft businesswise..

 

[McCarth]

What’s unfortunate to me is MS as a corporation has decided it is both a superior short and long term investment to absorb AB and it’s IPs rather than invest, expand and build new, internal gaming experiences across its existing studios.

This to me stands in contrast to their business strategy during the 360, and frankly is simply not as enticing to me as a consumer. I’ve begun to wonder if this type of leadership mentality has permeated their existing studios and contributed to some of the difficulties / delays they’ve had recently. Absorbing entities takes time, and they’ve put in the grind over the last 5 years but rather than build off that they seem mostly interested in further absorption.

It’s all such a shame, I really liked the path they were on.

 

[Thief1987]

Spencer seems desperate recently. Most likely that his job depending on this deal and he will get the boot if it will fail.

 

[ANDS]

No to be offensive, but what you ask for is really dumb : "Now explain how COD not being on SONY console creates such a monopoly". You don’t see the endgoal of all of this, do you ? Surely because you haven’t dealt with Microsoft businesswise..

Everyone sees what MS would like to happen. That still doesn't answer the current question. If the FTC wants to knock MS on what they might get up to, I'd imagine MS saying "Have at it!" as that should be pretty easy to argue once this goes before a court next year.

. . .of course I'm not a corporate lawyer like some of the folks in this thread apparently.

It’s not just CoD.

Obviously.

It’s all of Activision/Blizzard. CoD is the #1 seller on PlayStation. CoD is the #1 reason for PS plus subs. They are a huge reason why people buy a PS5 and buy other games outside of CoD.

Even if CoD isn’t removed from PS5, it sets up a situation where MS has a huge competitive advantage by having those games “cheaper” on GamePass, in the future sub services may be the only platforms we have, and MS could continue subsidizing their service to the point where it starves any competition, not just from Sony but other third parties.

So basically, its the governments job to protect a corporate entity from having to develop its own independent solution to a third party product to the detriment of another company building out its own competitiveness through acquisitions (one of the easiest and historical ways for a company to build out weaknesses in their own product line that is very rarely actually successfully challenged)?

This of course ignores the fact that we're all wildly overvaluing COD (and yes, this is about COD) and its place in the gaming space (and no, this isn't about how much money COD brings in).

 

[John Wick]

Oh, you mean like timed exclusives or Street Fighter. Same shit, different shovel.

It's nothing like the same. Street Fighter isn't owned by Sony. Blame Capcom as they own the IP and make the game. Nobody put a gun to Capcom and said make this exclusive.

 

[Captain Toad]

No, I said you should explain your position to the guy rather than be condescending.
I’m not interested in your point of view, or any other in this console war thread.
And by saying he won’t understand you continue to be condescending.

Cool story

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Sony paid for Street Fighter 5 to be made. If they hadn't stepped in the game wouldn't have existed.

They also choose to make it platform exclusive, hurting market competition by removal of Street Fighter on other consoles that previous game entries had. Which by comparison to Sony's COD claims and MS keeping a 10 year deal in place is far worse given the FTC case. Also Nintendo and Steam don't have issue signing agreements off. Further Minecraft being available to any platform for almost 2 decades now also shits on this whole FTC and Sony claim or any replies in this thread inferring as much.

 

[Gavon West]

The government may not agree with you, I just listed some of the reasons anti-trust laws exist at all and what they are used for.

This is not like Sony was unable to compete, they release consoles, they make games make games for them, they make deals with publishers to get exclusive content, they collect royalties, etc. and people prefer their approach than MS's.

Now, MS can't manage their studios to get great output of content that they could use to differentiate their platform, it costs more for them to make games exclusive because they are the smaller player, etc. So instead of fixing that by building some new studios and better managing their existing studios. They want to buy their way into "winning", not because they train more and expect to run faster, but by preventing the other runners to even enter the race.

Real question: if your company was in dire need of new IPs and dev talent - quickly, I might add - or a particular division was going to be shut down in your company, would you, A) begin building new studios from the ground up in hopes that you can become competitive in time? Or, B) see if any established, well knows developers with years of experience creating games and managing their own company we're seeking to be purchased? Keep in mind, these developers all ready have a well established pedigree, built in fanbase, IPs, culture and studios! PLUS... you would minimize cost and risk by taking the "B" route.

Again, real question. You don't necessarily have to answer. Every Gafer on this forum made the same choice you did.

Just saying...