DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Hey now, cut him some slack. He takes his job seriously.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Topher
Identifies as young
SportsFan581
Member
I think people understand that the timed exclusives are a part of the business.
The comments I made regarding Sony, just to clarify, were more geared towards a situation where they attempted to use that tactic to close out rivals (not something they've attempted on a wide scale at least that we know about).
Some aspects of business can't be looked at evenly depending on the companies involved. This is an area where Sony would have a shorter leash and be judged more harshly, speaking of the UK and EU markets specifically. Sony wants the UK/EU markets to not count Nintendo as part of the same market as Xbox and PS and these regulators seem open to viewing it that way. In this situation Sony has an 80/20 split of the market. Meaning the logical/practical/reasonable limits to what they can offer for exclusivity agreements is whatever number fits below the expected return off of their 30% cut on that 80% of software sales, and for MS that same number is based on the return of their 30% cut on the 20% of sales occurring on the Xbox platform. Thus, MS exclusives tend to be shorter in length and on smaller titles because that is a reasonable and sustainable practice for them.
IF, and that is a big if, Sony found it reasonably sustainable to offer these kind of deals on literally everything because they felt they would still see return on each individual game, they could almost completely foreclose their rivals. This behavior would get looked at. This is why Sony hasn't gone that way even though they could likely go there and still remain profitable on each title.
MS isn't purchasing any OS systems, FB isn't buying anything advertising related, etc. where other companies could do the same and not be questioned. The place in the market of the party involved has a lot to do with how things get looked at. In the Case of the CMA they are more likely to give MS the benefit of the doubt that it isn't sound business to give up the 80% of sales to make CoD exclusive, Sony in the same situation would not be given the same courtesy because the 20% of sales they would lose from Xbox represent a much easier number for them to make up.
Last edited:
It's not a Bloober title, it's a Konami title.
The game will be released on PC and, when the time comes, a possible port to Xbox will depend a lot on the success of the game and if Konami is worth considering the user base that XSeries offers at that time.
That is, there is no complete certainty and the user perceives it. Add to it the disinformation campaigns from the developers themselves, Sony and the media about the arrival or not and when to Xbox and you have the complete cocktail.
A Silent Hill fan is not looking at Xbox as the platform of choice right now, that's for sure X-D
Yes because a company has money means they should turn into unicef and throw money away on deals that can never make any money on to help the competition. With abk they make money on them yearly. With a 100-200 million dollar timed exclusive they just tossed away 75-175 million since the extra sales won't be a lot for them. They would need 5 million extra sales to break even at 100 million. If Sony had to pay what Microsoft does for a timed deal from a major studio or publisher they would stop.
MasterCornholio
Member
If they can't make money on Xbox it wouldn't make sense to release the game on it in the first place. I wouldn't exactly blame that on the timed exclusivity deal.
If they can make money on Xbox then the game will come to that platform. Kind of like how The Medium came to PlayStation after the deal ended.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I wonder why that is?
i think people are misunderstanding why MS can't do the exclusivity deals that sony is doing.
The gaming business itself is still a business.
So when there's 60 million PS5s and 30 million Xboxes, Sony has to replace sales targets for a 30 million userbase and Microsoft has to replace sales targets for a 60 million userbase. The math is twice as worse.
On top of that when you're behind, the exclusivity deal is less likely to work than in a dominant position because you don't have a guarantee you will get the users as a residual effect from the deal. So it's twice as expensive as the competitor and it's also less likely to work as intended. From a dominant standpoint, the goal is kind of the opposite, instead of trying to attract users, it's to retain them. You already have the users.
But anyways, back to the business aspect. Microsoft doing exclusivity deals hurts the performance of their business segment which makes it worse in the eyes of investors as well as within the media. Acquisitions aren't considered the same as day to day business. You won't see gaming in the red because of acquiring activision. This is also why MS turned to acquisitions because it achieves the same goals as exclusivity deals with none of the same downsides. The only thing is there is heightened risk but MS is mitigating it by maintaining multi-platform access. So they're widening their segment performance while also expanding new segments while still getting the benefit of exclusivity deals.
So where they were at in the industry, the acquisitions made a lot more sense than trying to do the same shit sony was doing because it would only hurt them. It's not because they're poor, it just didn't make financial sense to do it.
The gaming business itself is still a business.
So when there's 60 million PS5s and 30 million Xboxes, Sony has to replace sales targets for a 30 million userbase and Microsoft has to replace sales targets for a 60 million userbase. The math is twice as worse.
On top of that when you're behind, the exclusivity deal is less likely to work than in a dominant position because you don't have a guarantee you will get the users as a residual effect from the deal. So it's twice as expensive as the competitor and it's also less likely to work as intended. From a dominant standpoint, the goal is kind of the opposite, instead of trying to attract users, it's to retain them. You already have the users.
But anyways, back to the business aspect. Microsoft doing exclusivity deals hurts the performance of their business segment which makes it worse in the eyes of investors as well as within the media. Acquisitions aren't considered the same as day to day business. You won't see gaming in the red because of acquiring activision. This is also why MS turned to acquisitions because it achieves the same goals as exclusivity deals with none of the same downsides. The only thing is there is heightened risk but MS is mitigating it by maintaining multi-platform access. So they're widening their segment performance while also expanding new segments while still getting the benefit of exclusivity deals.
So where they were at in the industry, the acquisitions made a lot more sense than trying to do the same shit sony was doing because it would only hurt them. It's not because they're poor, it just didn't make financial sense to do it.
Last edited:
People are less likely to buy old games at eith out huge discounts. Look no further than these huge selling sony titles hardly sell on steam which has a 150 million user base. Because people are not willing to pay a premium price for old games. So games are going to tank on xbox coming out years later.
feynoob
Banned
That same company doesn't have enough money for their marketing division.
Xbox division is poor, but not the main company.
MasterCornholio
Member
MasterCornholio
Member
Well there's the gamepass option which I've seen happen with some titles.
Regardless its better than the games not coming at all. Like how The Medium came later on PlayStation.
Steam has a huge install base but I doubt that's where the majority of fans of those franchises are. Like God of War for example.
PaintTinJr
Member
HoofHearted
Let's start afresh...tell me your opinion,
What are the CMA, EC and FTC all going to do (in your opinion) from where we are currently at in regulation?
ReBurn
Gold Member
They haven't been in a coma. Until the past two years the FTC has been doing what they were designed to do in accordance with the FTC act and within the separation of powers outlined in the US constitution. Their purpose is to determine whether the transactions under their purview violate the law, work with responsible government entities to enforce law, and advocate for changes to law to accommodate changes in the segments they oversee. They were never designed to be a fully autonomous agency because US government doesn't work that way.
The problem with the current FTC is that the chair believes that by receiving Congressional approval on her appointment that her ideological agenda is now a congressional mandate, making current law a hindrance to her agenda. Khan hasn't been successful largely because she's trying to increase her power by using the FTC's administrative law process as an enforcement tool and alternative to federal courts. Some people see that as an attempt to subvert due process, which the Supreme Court will be examining later this year. On top of that, during the first two years of her appointment Congress made no meaningful effort to enact changes to antitrust law to support her agenda, so it wasn't as much of a mandate as she believes.
The right way for the FTC to function is to get Congress to change law or get the judicial branch to agree with their interpretation of law, not to just do whatever they want without oversight.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
From a guy who takes after Beavis this statement is even more hilarious.
MasterCornholio
Member
Xbox isn't poor. Same thing happens with PlayStation being owned by Sony.
Topher
Identifies as young
I'll put it another way: Microsoft has chosen not to invest their massive amounts of money into making big deals for Xbox. Microsoft could absolutely do it and not even break a sweat. But they chose not to just as they chose to slash Xbox marketing budget.
ToadMan
Member
I’m not saying they do the right things - see this acquisition for example.
But in principle that’s what is happening.
MasterCornholio
Member
Nah I think your tag is hilarious. I usually only read one sentence from you and that's all that I need to know.
So try again please and make me laugh this time.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Good to see this does not seem to be the case any longer and they are now investing significantly in the Xbox ecosystem. The investment in developers and IP is even more important than marketing.
BrutalTruth_
Banned
I see hardcore COD fans switching if they add every single COD ever made to gamepass, the freedom to jump into any classic title and play online or the campaign's will be unmatched seeing as most COD titles are still full price.
That and new releases.
Topher
Identifies as young
So Xbox is not poor?
Talk about 'damaging'...one company inked an exclusivity deal with Capcom for SF5 and then bought the world's most prominent fighting game tournament (Evo), pretty much cementing their platform as THE fighting game platform. Then pays for what looks to be permanent exclusivity for AAA entries in the most popular JRPG franchise.
Why omit the AAA Final Fantasy games and focus on Deathloop and GHostwire? You can't have forgotten...you've been posting excitedly in the FFXVI threads.
Both sides are paying money to secure 'forever' exclusives. Best to be a multi-console owner so you don't lose out.
Not sure why you chose 'lack of innovation, risk taking etc' as your talking points, but Activision will still make the same games they were making pre and post acquisition. Heck, there's a bigger chance they'll be able to revisit some of their old IP under Microsoft. And certainly there's more tolerance for risk.
MasterCornholio
Member
feynoob
Banned
Government aren't your friends. They are there for their friends.
If government gave a shit about our opinions, most countries would have had a lot of good programs and less wars.
Their market position means they'd have to pay well over the odds to secure AAA third party games as timed exclusivity for Xbox. That's not an efficient use of money. Not to mention their main rival has the ability to step in with lower bids to shut that down, thanks to their console dominance.
The acquisitions they're making are at market value and follow the rule of thumb for purchase price. Easier to get shareholders to sign off on something like that.
feynoob
Banned
MS investing on Xbox?
That is a nice joke there my friend.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
They only have themselves to blame. Now they want to play takeaway and make the competition smaller snowballing the consolidation of the industry with Win OS/Office money.
Last edited:
We kinda knew of it like a week ago
It's normal process and it will be interesting to see how the companies surveyed respond. I am still waiting to see what Nvidia say to the regulators in their official channels. I also wonder what Luna will say however interestingly I think Luna still offers Windows servers for Devs and allow BYOG so MS may have a bit more options.
I think we are still waiting to see if consoles is an market that they are concerned with. Obviously we had conflicting reports.
Topher
Identifies as young
"Not an efficient use of money" is a much better argument than saying they are too "poor".
feynoob
Banned
Competition?
They only care about mtx money and the balloon that is gaming.
They are watching Fortnite and ea make insane money from mtx, which why they tried halo live action.
MS vs Sony isn't a competition considering how much they are dropping for Activision.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
They all game should stay 3rd party then, right? Right? More money for them, right? Right?
Nothing wrong with leveraging the wider company's resources.
Are we going to complain about Sony Pictures, Playstation and Sony Music working in concert? As stated here, for example? Or if Sony does what some of us have been clamoring for and make a PS + bundle with Crunchyroll?
Everyone is playing takeaway. Except perhaps Nintendo.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
Destiny. Does Sony not own Bungie?
They are both 1 for 1 in that regards.
doom 3? what's the other Bethesda games released by Microsoft on PS?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Last edited:
James Sawyer Ford
Member
Street fighter 6 is coming day one to Xbox
Final Fantasy is timed exclusive unless things changed.
I also want to point out something that not many people bring up in these exclusive deals. Sony is fantastic at Marketing along with, if things ive read are to be believed, actually helping on the development of these games and to help speed get the game out in time and make it the highest quality it can be in the timeframe it needs to be delivered. Theres more than just X company paid Y to have the game exclusive for Z time, if Sony is also putting its marketing might and development prowess behind the product.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
well they were all released under Microsoft and there is 3 Minecraft games released on PS not 1 but hey that docent fit you agenda now does itI am only using their projected words against them.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
RyanEvans21
Member
Now they cant do? You forgot xbox 360 era when they bought a lot of dlc contents! including GTA,Final Fantasy & COD.
Kvally
Member
The same people that prefer Xbox or PlayStation have the same arguments in every thread, no matter the subject and they never agree. This is why I love visiting this forum during my work hours 
I do like A LOT of Sony Pictures that is for sure. And I love their receivers and TVs as well as their PlayStations. They normally make pretty darn good products all around.
feynoob
Banned
Being 3rd party makes more sense for them.
However with Sony in the play, their ego won't allow to do that.
I believe I said SF5?
Approx 3 years since FF7R released. What are the odds it's still going to show up on Xbox?
phil_t98
#SonyToo
tell me where I am wrong then our just keep posting memes when you know you are in the wrong like you constantly do lol
They also had equal market share so the deals made financial sense. If you think Microsoft sells enough extra copies of a game to remotely make back 100 million dollars plus i have a bridge to sell you. They only get 30% of each extra copy or 20 bucks or so. You need 5 million extra copies to break even. Because of inflation and worse market share now I'm sure that 100 million is probably closer to 150-200 million. Do the math on that.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
No you!
Last edited:
What??Of course we can blame. It is the existence of that timed exclusivity deal that can lead to the game never coming out on a platform. If there were no temporary exclusivity, Silent Hill 2 would come out day one on Xbox and its users would enjoy it... whether or not it ended up being a sales success. Now it will depend on the terms of the exclusivity that Sony has dictated and the level of success that it achieves.
Do you think that Sony is not aware of this fact when signing those agreements from its position of market leader?
The funny thing is that with this statement you are giving me the reason when I say that this type of temporary exclusivities with such long periods and carried out by the market leader can have effects, both in the market and among the user when choosing a platform, that an total exclusive...
The Medium is an indi AA with an exclusivity of less than 6 months in the first year of launch of the consoles. The example you looked for is funny
Rest assured that if all time exclusives were of that type or duration..... You wouldn't see people having so much discussion about those.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked