Support NeoGAF

[Nothing1234]

Minor damage to the user??
You speak as if the users decide according to their patience. Users choose according to the imminent and certain catalog.

If you, as market leader, can pay and secure each year 4-5 temporary exclusives from large AAA franchises for periods of 1 or 2+ years (even hinting at the possibility of ending up being a total exclusive) ...... the effects on the user's decision when it comes to choose platform and it's effects in to market competitiveness can be perfectly the same as a complete exclusives.

Name the games please.

 

[Pelta88]

holy shit. what posts finally did them in?

I'm completely out the loop. But I said it earlier, somewhere between page 300-400...

Not everyone is going to make it.

 

[sainraja]

It is time for everyone to settle down haha. MS will be getting all the IPs under Activision as part of the acquisition. I know it will be good for those interested in Game Pass but I also hope that it will be good for the IPs they are now acquiring. I hope things actually become "level" vs skewing too much in MS's favor or Sony's. We've entered the "wait and see" stage, so let's see what happens going forward.

Anytime I see a man online denigrate a woman's looks, I think it says more about that individual personal life.

To be abundently clear, nobody on the forum gave a fuck about Khan looked until she was identified as someone who could potentially block microsoft's acquisition. How sad is that? Check the search history/recipts... Not a single mention of this woman until they saw her as a threat to a prefered plastic box. That shit is pathetic.

Yeah, there isn't really a need to do that. It's not necessary.

 

[splattered]

Wouldn't be so sure. Yes she's being brave but it's not like she's going after their smaller acquisitions. Picking the biggest acquisition in Microsoft's history is not a bad place to start if you want to try and do things differently to your predecessors.

She was always the final boss for this acquisition and I've said so from the start.

Sure but you can't do so with a "Because i said so!" strategy...

You aren't setting precedent for anything if you don't win the case, and you don't win the case if you aren't willing to bring facts and proof to the table to back up your case. She is an idiot. Final boss my ass.

They are 100% going to lose this case and it is going to yet again be a huge waste of taxpayers' money.

 

[mansoor1980]

I'm completely out the loop. But I said it earlier, somewhere between page 300-400...

Not everyone is going to make it.

what ? that was like a month ago

 

[Andodalf]

Name the games please.

Forspoken, FF16, Silent hill 2, FF7 Rebirth

 

[MasterCornholio]

Why do you think they call it permanen/timed

Permanent: lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.

Example: Spider-Man will not come to Xbox.

Temporary: lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.

Example: Rise of the Tombraider was a temporary console exclusive on the Xbox One. After 1 year the game was released on PlayStation.

---

In the end the difference for consumers is that if its temporary they will be able to enjoy that game later. Some will wait while others won't.

If it's permanent then consumers have two options. They can either buy the platform so they can play it or not play it at all.

Out of the two permanent exclusives tend to have a bigger impact on consumers changing or investing in a new platform.

Like the situation with Silent Hill 2 Remake. You can buy it at launch on the platforms that its available on or you can wait for it to release on other platforms.

 

[reksveks]

Yeah, I try never to talk about anyone's appearance it's rather unseemly. Most of my comments around Lina Khan are the same, like the idea's but think she has issues with resources and decides the wrong tactics.

 

[Topher]

Anytime I see a man online denigrate a woman's looks, I think it says more about that individual personal life.

To be abundently clear, nobody on the forum gave a fuck about Khan looked until she was identified as someone who could potentially block microsoft's acquisition. How sad is that? Check the search history/recipts... Not a single mention of this woman until they saw her as a threat to a prefered plastic box. That shit is pathetic.

That wasn't meant to be denigrating. I'm simply stating there is a resemblance that I notice every time I see her.

But I get your point, even though it has nothing to do with any "preferred plastic box", as that is probably an observation I should keep to myself.

 

[Nothing1234]

Forspoken, FF16, Silent hill 2, FF7 Rebirth

Is this the list everyone is going with?

 

[phil_t98]

So $100B-200B company is the same as a company worth 10-20x that amount and the risks are the same? Calling Sony a mega corporation in context of Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, etc is a stretch, and a stretch when adding in the context of UK economic activity.

I would be against this deal if it was Sony trying to buy Activision, and I wasn't a fan of them buying up Bungie.

So how about the other studios that Sony have bought in last 5 to 10 years? Insomniac or others? What’s your thoughts on that

 

[PaintTinJr]

...


Wow… so we are now entering the narrative of “CMA should block this deal because if they don’t, it’ll make the UK look bad?”

This thread continues to deliver…

What narrative? I gave my opinion of what I think will happen in an earlier post - still supporting the idea that CMA will block without MSFT committing to the structural remedies for the cloud SLC and was asked to justify in the post I responded to.

We'll see in a month's time if the CMA are looking out for those with the heart of the 99% - like the girl in the gif that might be in need of CPR . Or is the narrative it is a done deal? close the thread? call it day?

 

[ulantan]

Is this the list everyone is going with?

It's the Current narrative

 

[Nothing1234]

It's the Current narrative

It's a laughable narrative if so. But hey.

 

[Darsxx82]

Name the games please.

I am sure that you know them perfectly... and rest assured that many more will join them that have not yet been announced...

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

It’s interesting to think that if you add up the market cap of Xbox division plus all the studios they’ve acquired, and Microsoft may not be “market leader” in terms of consoles, but they are in terms of studio size and market cap

Xbox division alone is now larger than the entirety of Sony on a valuation basis

 

[PaintTinJr]

So how about the other studios that Sony have bought in last 5 to 10 years? Insomniac or others? What’s your thoughts on that

If they aren't taking games away, and keeping people in those teams together, intact - in a tough business to remain independent- I've no issue with Microsoft's or Sony or Nintendo's studio acquisitions that result in new game exclusives.

 

[GHG]

It's full of people trying to cope with wild conspiracy theories at this point.

That's all it's ever been.

Sure but you can't do so with a "Because i said so!" strategy...

You aren't setting precedent for anything if you don't win the case, and you don't win the case if you aren't willing to bring facts and proof to the table to back up your case. She is an idiot. Final boss my ass.

They are 100% going to lose this case and it is going to yet again going to be a huge waste of taxpayers' money.

Harsh words here. We haven't seen anything of their case yet, and no, she is not an "idiot". On what basis is she an idiot?

Her being willing to put her neck on the line to challenge cases like this along with wanting to make the FTC finally do the job it was set up to do makes her an idiot?

 

[HoofHearted]

VS

fight

Pretty sure you could have found bigger images...

As it stands - I think I see Phil's reflection in both of their eyes..

 

[FoxMcChief]

Bruh… I mean I don’t think Congress is approving this anyway but this is still insane lol.

Is it April Fools Day already!?

 

[MasterCornholio]

Minor damage to the user??
You speak as if the users decide according to their patience. Users choose according to the imminent and certain catalog.

If you, as market leader, can pay and secure each year 4-5 temporary exclusives from large AAA franchises for periods of 1 or 2+ years (even hinting at the possibility of ending up being a total exclusive) ...... the effects on the user's decision when it comes to choose platform and it's effects in to market competitiveness can be perfectly the same as a complete exclusives.

Not really because it's temporary. I bought games after the released on another platform.

You can wait or buy another platform. That's your option with timed exclusives. With permanent exclusives you don't have the option of playing the game on your platform ever.

Timed exclusives are definitely not equivalent to permanent exclusives. It's why your getting Silent Hill 2 on Xbox and not Spider-Man 2.

I'm not saying either benefits consumers but one is clearly worse than the other. No exclusivity at all is the best though.

 

[HoofHearted]

What narrative? I gave my opinion of what I think will happen in an earlier post - still supporting the idea that CMA will block without MSFT committing to the structural remedies for the cloud SLC and was asked to justify in the post I responded to.

We'll see in a month's time if the CMA are looking out for those with the heart of the 99% - like the girl in the gif that might be in need of CPR . Or is the narrative it is a done deal? close the thread? call it day?

........

If it is all done in the UK - as you claim - then surely they'd call the approval early, no?

My instinct on this deal is that our currency will likely drop if the deal is approved, because it makes us look weak as a nation to corporations, and we will then expect to get steamrolled by other mega corporation deals - with further drops in Sterling. From a UK self interest point of view there's more value to be had by blocking this deal IMO, and with no one on either political side operating from a position of strength coming out in support of blocking the deal and strong regulation is an opportunity neither side should be letting slip; especially as Microsoft's and ATVI's US type antics to bully the regulator in the press will make regulation look even weaker, and encourage such behaviour by others in future, too

Did you not read what you originally typed?

 

[Foilz]

Ive read on Twitter and here that putting cod on gamepass would be an incentive for people to switch consoles. Who in there right mind is gonna go get a $500 console for a new skin or because the game is on a $15 per mo. paid service instead of just paying the $70 for the console you currently have? That argument it tarded

 

[PaintTinJr]

........




Did you not read what you originally typed?

I did, and last time I consider it, instinct was an opinion. No?

 

[sainraja]

Ive read on Twitter and here that putting cod on gamepass would be an incentive for people to switch consoles. Who in there right mind is gonna go get a $500 console for a new skin or because the game is on a $15 per mo. paid service instead of just paying the $70 for the console you currently have? That argument it tarded

I think it is hard to predict... we don't know how it will influence people's purchases in the future. If they are heavily invested in COD already, and they only play COD, their yearly cost is $70 vs the yearly cost of $120 if they were swayed by Game Pass. The idea is, will people be willing to pay more including the cost of the console to play COD elsewhere + other bonus games they will now have access to? (In the scenario where MS does not make it exclusive).

Personally, I think it is too early to say. People might not switch this generation but they could be convinced the next gen...who knows.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I would add that Microsoft do have a better track record then Sony of putting games on other systems.. Minecraft we can use as an example and the newer Minecraft games

Destiny. Does Sony not own Bungie?

They are both 1 for 1 in that regards.

 

[sainraja]

Destiny. Does Sony not own Bungie?

They are both 1 for 1 in that regards.

If you include MLB, Sony is 1 game ahead lol. Until, of course, the acquisition closes. Then it will be the same again (count wise), as COD is the only title, based on what has been stated, that might stay on PS.

EDIT
(Yes, I know, they won't remove games already released, but future entries of those titles is still in question)

 

[feynoob]

Example: Spider-Man will not come to Xbox.



Example: Rise of the Tombraider was a temporary console exclusive on the Xbox One. After 1 year the game was released on PlayStation.

---

In the end the difference for consumers is that if its temporary they will be able to enjoy that game later. Some will wait while others won't.

If it's permanent then consumers have two options. They can either buy the platform so they can play it or not play it at all.

Out of the two permanent exclusives tend to have a bigger impact on consumers changing or investing in a new platform.

Like the situation with Silent Hill 2 Remake. You can buy it at launch on the platforms that its available on or you can wait for it to release on other platforms.

I guess, you didn't understand my point.
My point wasn't about consumers point of view. Like how you are describing it. But from platforms view.

If this deal passes, MS will have the same power as Sony in term of acquiring timed exclusive contents due to Call of duty.

With MS money, they can get more timed exclusive content on their platform.

Right now, it's just Sony, so people have no issue with that.

 

[HoofHearted]

I did, and last time I consider it, instinct was an opinion. No?

So everyone in the UK agrees with your "opinion" then?

 

[Nothing1234]

I am sure that you know them perfectly... and rest assured that many more will join them that have not yet been announced...

People are really bringing up Silent Hill 2 and are being serious?

 

[PaintTinJr]

So everyone in the UK agrees with your "opinion" then?

You even quoted my "IMO". If you don't recognise the acronym then that's a fair out. But it was intended to be IMHO

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Ive read on Twitter and here that putting cod on gamepass would be an incentive for people to switch consoles. Who in there right mind is gonna go get a $500 console for a new skin or because the game is on a $15 per mo. paid service instead of just paying the $70 for the console you currently have? That argument it tarded

If all you play is CoD and Fifa or 1 other title, you're not switching.

If you're a gaming enthusiast who doesn't have a PC gaming rig, you might consider getting an Xbox as a secondary/tertiary console. If the value you get from Gamepass outweighs the cost you pay every year, it's a no-brainer.

 

[Pelta88]

Yeah, there isn't really a need to do that. It's not necessary.

I'm sure it happens often enough but it's the 'Bella Ramsey to play Ellie' thread/s that made me realize how entrenched some juvenile takes are here. Page after page of "She doesn't look the way I want her to look" or "She's ugly" despite the fact that every time we saw her on screen her skill in acting was flawless. I got a text saying Bella got the nod for Ellie...

Come to my favorite gaming forum and the conversation is "BUT Does Bella Ramsey meet my standard of beauty?"

from a bunch of guys who refuse to submit their pics for the same type of scrutiny.


No slight intended to any particular poster. I'm just certain we can do better as a community.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I guess, you didn't understand my point.
My point wasn't about consumers point of view. Like how you are describing it. But from platforms view.

If this deal passes, MS will have the same power as Sony in term of acquiring timed exclusive contents due to Call of duty.

With MS money, they can get more timed exclusive content on their platform.

Right now, it's just Sony, so people have no issue with that.

That's not correct. Both Sony and Microsoft can currently get timed exclusives. Both of them have don't this in the past and continue to do this. Microsoft getting CoD isn't going to change their situation with 3rd parties. Its not like Capcom will be more willing to strike deals with them if they have CoD.

Currently Microsoft has the same ability as Sony to get timed exclusives or marketing deals. As long as Sony doesn't buy 3rd parties they can continue to negotiate with those developers and publishers.

 

[Nothing1234]

I guess, you didn't understand my point.
My point wasn't about consumers point of view. Like how you are describing it. But from platforms view.

If this deal passes, MS will have the same power as Sony in term of acquiring timed exclusive contents due to Call of duty.

With MS money, they can get more timed exclusive content on their platform.

Right now, it's just Sony, so people have no issue with that.

You need to explain this point of view as it wrong.

 

[splattered]

That's all it's ever been.



Harsh words here. We haven't seen anything of their case yet, and no, she is not an "idiot". On what basis is she an idiot?

Her being willing to put her neck on the line to challenge cases like this along with wanting to make the FTC finally do the job it was set up to do makes her an idiot?

There is a difference between "doing the job" and "getting the job done"

If she was smart she would know that.

You don't just half ass burn resources and reputation on high profile cases hoping that SOMETHING ANYTHING eventually goes your way.

If a case ACTUALLY poses threat/harm to consumers then it is HER JOB to build a valid case with FACTS and perform due diligence with exhaustive investigation and analysis just like the CMA did. If the FTC actually HAD a valid case and brought fire to the table then that would be terrific. It would mean they were actually doing their jobs properly.

So yeah, "idiot" was harsh... no offense meant really just colorful language, but i have zero faith that they are going to accomplish anything here other than delay the inevitable.

 

[HoofHearted]

You even quoted my "IMO". If you don't recognise the acronym then that's a fair out. But it was intended to be IMHO

I fully understand the acronym -

If you can't comprehend how your earlier comments attempted to be inclusive of all of UK and that the CMA should block this because of some misguided conspiracy / failure to do so would dramatically impact the UK markets as a whole - I can't help you...

 

[IntentionalPun]

That's not correct. Both Sony and Microsoft can currently get timed exclusives. Both of them have don't this in the past and continue to do this. Microsoft getting CoD isn't going to change their situation with 3rd parties. Its not like Capcom will be more willing to strike deals with them if they have CoD.

Currently Microsoft has the same ability as Sony to get timed exclusives or marketing deals. As long as Sony doesn't buy 3rd parties they can continue to negotiate with those developers and publishers.

Sony definitely has more leverage right now.

When you have less than half the devices in the wild like MS does, you have to pay more for that sort of thing, and since game series depend on long term health you might just get outright denied if the gobs of cash aren't massive. Companies WANT to get the edge on competitors on the Sony platform, it's the biggest show on earth for the AAA powerhouse console space.

MS being more competitive in the space would give them more leverage, particularly if MS eventually makes COD exclusive. While most polled on the subject said they wouldn't "switch consoles" many COD players did say they'd buy an Xbox.

MS has tons of cash of course, more than Sony.. but they want to buy permenant assets with that money. Probably because companies would be charging them big bucks for any big AAA game to be actually exclusive to the console. Not that they don't do it though, a lot of Xbox fans like to pretend they never pay for exclusivity... but there's definitely a pattern of Sony getting the bigger games.. and it's not a huge mystery why. Those big games actually want to make deals with Sony. Just like brands want to make deal with the NFL more than they want to make deals with Major League Soccer.

 

[Nothing1234]

Microsoft currently do get timed exclusive content and so do Nintendo. It's not just Sony.

 

[feynoob]

That's not correct. Both Sony and Microsoft can currently get timed exclusives. Both of them have don't this in the past and continue to do this. Microsoft getting CoD isn't going to change their situation with 3rd parties. Its not like Capcom will be more willing to strike deals with them if they have CoD.

Currently Microsoft has the same ability as Sony to get timed exclusives or marketing deals. As long as Sony doesn't buy 3rd parties they can continue to negotiate with those developers and publishers.

The dynamic of timed exclusive between Sony and MS is different due to market share.

MS has no leverage right now. If they want to get the same times exclusive as Sony, they will need to pay premium price compared to Sony.

The only thing that puts them on equal footing is this deal. Call of duty makes Xbox an attractive console, because of the marketing. once this deal is done, and MS acquires Activision/blizzard, they will be able to pay the same price as Sony.

Until then, Sony would simply have more pull due to their market share.

 

[Kvally]

Ive read on Twitter and here that putting cod on gamepass would be an incentive for people to switch consoles. Who in there right mind is gonna go get a $500 console for a new skin or because the game is on a $15 per mo. paid service instead of just paying the $70 for the console you currently have? That argument it tarded

Well, Game Pass is $10.00 per month, and they wouldn't just get COD. Now they wouldn't need to buy any more games from MS. They would have access to 500 games including the 30+ studios of games that MS now has, day one as well. And they can get a Series S for $250, not $500. There are a lot of incentives.

Just like there are a lot of incentives to own a PS5 for the top notch first party catalog of games, as well as the 3rd party exclusives.

Both MS and Sony need to give a reason as to why a consumer would want to join their ecosystem.

 

[Schmick]

Dude....those images are huge. lol

mansoor1980

Yea.... make the images smaller so i can see both on the screen at the same time lol

 

[MasterCornholio]

Sony definitely has more leverage right now.

When you have less than half the devices in the wild like MS does, you have to pay more for that sort of thing, and since game series depend on long term health you might just get outright denied if the gobs of cash aren't massive. Companies WANT to get the edge on competitors on the Sony platform, it's the biggest show on earth for the AAA powerhouse console space.

MS being more competitive in the space would give them more leverage, particularly if MS eventually makes COD exclusive. While most polled on the subject said they wouldn't "switch consoles" many COD players did say they'd buy an Xbox.

I understand leverage but its not impossible for Microsoft to make those deals. As for making COD exclusive it depends on whether or not they want to give up that revenue from PlayStation. I saw mixed responses from regulators and Microsoft when it comes to that.

 

[feynoob]

You need to explain this point of view as it wrong.

Right now, people are not seeing how dangerous this timed exclusive is.

Because MS doesn't have the same pull as Sony. Imagine MS making games like RD3, witcher 4, next star war game timed exclusive. And with their money, they could pull 5 of those games as timed exclusive.

That is how dangerous is this game, once both companies are in equal playing field.

 

[Schmick]

I actually do see the point here. But I'm not saying that timed exclusives are equivalent to permanent exclusives which is what I believe your saying.

Eventually those games will come to other platforms. With permanent exclusives they won't.

Hopefully you know the difference.

But seriously do you really understand the difference between the two?

Kinda makes you wonder what the point of Time Exclusive is, if gamers are willing to wait if they have to.

 

[Kvally]

Kinda makes you wonder what the point of Time Exclusive is, if gamers are willing to wait if they have to,

I am not willing to wait. It's why I own both consoles.

 

[MasterCornholio]

The dynamic of timed exclusive between Sony and MS is different due to market share.

MS has no leverage right now. If they want to get the same times exclusive as Sony, they will need to pay premium price compared to Sony.

The only thing that puts them on equal footing is this deal. Call of duty makes Xbox an attractive console, because of the marketing. once this deal is done, and MS acquires Activision/blizzard, they will be able to pay the same price as Sony.

Until then, Sony would simply have more pull due to their market share.

I don't know if it will put them on equal footing though. That will depend on their ability to sell consoles. You might be overestimating the impact this deal will have on marketshare.

 

[Nothing1234]

Right now, people are not seeing how dangerous this timed exclusive is.

Because MS doesn't have the same pull as Sony. Imagine MS making games like RD3, witcher 4, next star war game timed exclusive. And with their money, they could pull 5 of those games as timed exclusive.

That is how dangerous is this game, once both companies are in equal playing field.

Lets play a game.

What sold more - Ark or Final Fantasy XV?

 

[MasterCornholio]

Kinda makes you wonder what the point of Time Exclusive is, if gamers are willing to wait if they have to,

Well I did say some will. That's the point of timed exclusives plus they usually are cheaper to obtain.

 

[mansoor1980]

mansoor1980

Yea.... make the images smaller so i can see both on the screen at the same time lol