8 ms·

This is stupid. Look at the marketshare for Xbox vs. Playstation today and across the last couple decades. Obviously their goal is to compete with Playstation.

This is stupid. Look at the marketshare for Xbox vs. Playstation today and across the last couple decades. Obviously their goal is to compete with Playstation... If you think this merger will "eliminate" or lock-out Playstation for these major titles, you're seriously fooling yourself.

oneTbrain23 3y ago
The real issue isn't at Xbox eliminating PS. The issue is escalation of buyouts/mergers with the survival of the strongest, richest, and biggest market - essentially a monopoly of a market. This not only destroy the actual game selling diversity but also hogging of potential new game programmers and artists. Those wished to start in this industry will have to pay their homage tax/initiation with some internships or job there. If the this deal is allowed, Sony (with the backing of Japanese governments) will start to do massive mergers. And we even not talk about Chinese governments involving to back Japanese, and Chinese companies as long as not USA-based. There is not a need to favor Microsoft or Xbox with this merger. They can easily sign deals with Activision to get exclusive dlcs or games. They already done so with OpenAI ChatGPT without the need to swallow it. This merger MUST be stopped. Anyone against it is just being incredible naive and believe MS is guided by a saint or Mother Teresa.
Timon3 3y ago
> If you think this merger will "eliminate" Playstation, you're seriously fooling yourself. If you think this is impossible, you're seriously fooling yourself. Most people look at two things when buying a video game console: which games does it provide, and what consoles do my friends have? If most of the popular and recurring franchises are only available for one platform (and will stay as such in the future), why could PlayStation fundamentally not go under?
- atraac 3y ago
  > If most of the popular and recurring franchises are only available for one platform Funny how noone asked that over last decade when Sony paid mountains of gold to various developers for exclusivity.
  - fnimick 3y ago
    There's a difference between "X company pays a developer for one game, now" and "X company has purchased the developer outright so all future games will be available only on this platform."
    - chc 3y ago
      Wait until I tell you how the developers who made The Last of Us came to work at Sony.
      - goosedragons 3y ago
        There is also a difference between buying one singular developer and buying a top 10 (top 5?) publisher and all its developers.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    If I find a single article that talks about this, is it sufficient for you to accept that people did talk about it?
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      People certainly talked about it, but nobody decried the exclusivity of Persona 5 as an anticompetitive move by Atlus or Sony. It's just how they do business - Sony licenses and funds exclusive titles for their platform, and nobody really bats an eye. Microsoft has decided turnabout is fair play, and people are acting like it's a Console War-crime. Why? Nintendo has spurned AAA devs since the Wii era and they're doing just fine. I take no side in the console war, but Sony can't be a fair-weather friend to platform exclusivity.
      - pbalcer 3y ago
        Sony has created or acquihired many of its first party studios that develop original IP specifically for PlayStation. Or they just fund third-party studios to create new exclusive games. You could argue that, if not for Sony, many of those games wouldn't even exist. In recent times, from what I can recall, the only large studio that Sony acquired was Bungie. Which is tiny compared to Bethesda or Activision, and continues to support and release (Marathon) new games on Xbox and Windows. Now compare this to what Microsoft is doing. They mostly failed to create good first party games on their own (apart from a few gems), and are now resorting to buying up not just individual game studios but whole publishers in order to make their games exclusives to their own platforms. What Sony is doing is creating real value to players. What Microsoft is doing is primarily meant to create value for shareholders. As a gamer, I strongly prefer the former.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  In the specific case of Activision, I really don't think making Activision be Xbox exclusive would kill Playstation. Activision has a pretty bad reputation in recent years, and (besides Call of Duty) the games they've put out recently have generally failed to be very influential: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision#2010s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision#2010s However, purchase of Activision may still be part of a larger anti-competitive scheme Microsoft has cooked up. I believe they've been buying lots of other game studios and publishers as well.
  - flutas 3y ago
    You're looking at part of the acquisition, not the full one. MS isn't acquiring Activision alone, they are acquiring Activision-Blizzard. Which includes Activision Publishing, Blizzard Entertainment, King (Candy Crush), Major League Gaming, Activision Blizzard Studios, Infinity Ward and Treyarch among others.
    - weego 3y ago
      No one on that list devs or publishes the games that sell PlayStations. Sony are at least a decade ahead of MS in terms of having built a pipeline of developers that have the IP and quality standards that are console sellers even at the $500 price point. I toyed with the idea of buying a series s because forza horizon is fun but it wasn't enough to justify even a $250 console.
      - sosodev 3y ago
        Yeah, they don't sell PlayStations but they're going to start selling Xboxes. I'd love to play Starfield on my PS5 but that's just not an option.
        chc 3y ago
        So what you're saying is it would increase competition by selling more of the currently-less-popular platform rather than reduce it by eliminating the dominant platform? That sounds like an argument in favor of the deal.
- tnel77 3y ago
  Because everyone and their brother seems to prefer PlayStation. You said it yourself, what consoles do my friends have? I have both the XSX and the PS5, but most of my friends and relatives only have a PS5. They have an extensive catalog of digital games from the PlayStation store and it would take a lot more than this deal to get them to completely abandon Sony.
jakelazaroff 3y ago
Are you sure? Post-acquisition, Bethesda is making at least some of their upcoming games Xbox-exclusive. Unclear why Microsoft wouldn't do the same with Activision.
- lapetitejort 3y ago
  Skeptics and Microsoft will point to ten year agreements to keep Call of Duty on as many platforms as possible. Ten years is really not that much time. Ten years ago the PS4 and Xbox One launched. Ten years from now the PS7 might be coming out. Imagine the news that Call of Duty will not be coming to the newest Playstation. That's one series. All other new and existing IP could be locked down.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- smileybarry 3y ago
  Call of Duty is a huge franchise that makes bucket loads of money on yearly games, season passes, DLC, other monetization, merchandising, esports, and more. It's so much bigger than the ZeniMax catalog. Microsoft have no reason to gate 50% of the playerbase for "hardware exclusivity" given that lucrative revenue channel.
  - jakelazaroff 3y ago
    The reason is to get (eventually, almost) 100% of the player base.
Izikiel43 3y ago
> If you think this merger will "eliminate" or lock-out Playstation for these major titles, you're seriously fooling yourself. Sure, no way the thing they did with Bethesda will happen again right?
RajT88 3y ago
Indeed. I had thought that the 360 outsold the PS3. I was wrong. Xbox has never outsold the same-gen Playstation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_consoles#Best-selling_game_consoles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_cons... I don't know the reason - but PSN has a reputation (seemingly earned) of having a better community. More numerous and less toxic gamers than Xbox Live.
- anthonypasq 3y ago
  Playstation is simply much more popular outside of the US. The 360 dominated the PS3 in the US.
taeric 3y ago
If you think Microsoft wouldn't look to shoulder a good product out of one market and into their's.... I'm curious if we are talking about the same Microsoft. They were clearly only wanting to compete with WordPerfect, Lotus, etc.... :D (Heck, even in games, wasn't Halo originally a Mac title?)
lofaszvanitt 3y ago
Just look at what happened to Chrom(e|ium), when rebranded as Edge in Windows 10. Same applies here. MS is using its brute force as always, since they have almost zero innovation regarding games on Xbox. Except Kinect, that was cool tho.
dangus 3y ago
My layperson's understanding of anti-trust law is that the intent of the merger is of interest. Suppose there is a communication where a company leader says the motivation for an acquisition is to eliminate a competitor. In that case, the acquisition may be illegal under the right circumstances.

oneTbrain23 3y ago

The real issue isn't at Xbox eliminating PS. The issue is escalation of buyouts/mergers with the survival of the strongest, richest, and biggest market - essentially a monopoly of a market. This not only destroy the actual game selling diversity but also hogging of potential new game programmers and artists. Those wished to start in this industry will have to pay their homage tax/initiation with some internships or job there. If the this deal is allowed, Sony (with the backing of Japanese governments) will start to do massive mergers. And we even not talk about Chinese governments involving to back Japanese, and Chinese companies as long as not USA-based. There is not a need to favor Microsoft or Xbox with this merger. They can easily sign deals with Activision to get exclusive dlcs or games. They already done so with OpenAI ChatGPT without the need to swallow it. This merger MUST be stopped. Anyone against it is just being incredible naive and believe MS is guided by a saint or Mother Teresa.

Timon3 3y ago

> If you think this merger will "eliminate" Playstation, you're seriously fooling yourself. If you think this is impossible, you're seriously fooling yourself. Most people look at two things when buying a video game console: which games does it provide, and what consoles do my friends have? If most of the popular and recurring franchises are only available for one platform (and will stay as such in the future), why could PlayStation fundamentally not go under?

atraac 3y ago
> If most of the popular and recurring franchises are only available for one platform Funny how noone asked that over last decade when Sony paid mountains of gold to various developers for exclusivity.
- fnimick 3y ago
  There's a difference between "X company pays a developer for one game, now" and "X company has purchased the developer outright so all future games will be available only on this platform."
  - chc 3y ago
    Wait until I tell you how the developers who made The Last of Us came to work at Sony.
    - goosedragons 3y ago
      There is also a difference between buying one singular developer and buying a top 10 (top 5?) publisher and all its developers.
- Timon3 3y ago
  If I find a single article that talks about this, is it sufficient for you to accept that people did talk about it?
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    People certainly talked about it, but nobody decried the exclusivity of Persona 5 as an anticompetitive move by Atlus or Sony. It's just how they do business - Sony licenses and funds exclusive titles for their platform, and nobody really bats an eye. Microsoft has decided turnabout is fair play, and people are acting like it's a Console War-crime. Why? Nintendo has spurned AAA devs since the Wii era and they're doing just fine. I take no side in the console war, but Sony can't be a fair-weather friend to platform exclusivity.
    - pbalcer 3y ago
      Sony has created or acquihired many of its first party studios that develop original IP specifically for PlayStation. Or they just fund third-party studios to create new exclusive games. You could argue that, if not for Sony, many of those games wouldn't even exist. In recent times, from what I can recall, the only large studio that Sony acquired was Bungie. Which is tiny compared to Bethesda or Activision, and continues to support and release (Marathon) new games on Xbox and Windows. Now compare this to what Microsoft is doing. They mostly failed to create good first party games on their own (apart from a few gems), and are now resorting to buying up not just individual game studios but whole publishers in order to make their games exclusives to their own platforms. What Sony is doing is creating real value to players. What Microsoft is doing is primarily meant to create value for shareholders. As a gamer, I strongly prefer the former.
mcpackieh 3y ago
In the specific case of Activision, I really don't think making Activision be Xbox exclusive would kill Playstation. Activision has a pretty bad reputation in recent years, and (besides Call of Duty) the games they've put out recently have generally failed to be very influential: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision#2010s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision#2010s However, purchase of Activision may still be part of a larger anti-competitive scheme Microsoft has cooked up. I believe they've been buying lots of other game studios and publishers as well.
- flutas 3y ago
  You're looking at part of the acquisition, not the full one. MS isn't acquiring Activision alone, they are acquiring Activision-Blizzard. Which includes Activision Publishing, Blizzard Entertainment, King (Candy Crush), Major League Gaming, Activision Blizzard Studios, Infinity Ward and Treyarch among others.
  - weego 3y ago
    No one on that list devs or publishes the games that sell PlayStations. Sony are at least a decade ahead of MS in terms of having built a pipeline of developers that have the IP and quality standards that are console sellers even at the $500 price point. I toyed with the idea of buying a series s because forza horizon is fun but it wasn't enough to justify even a $250 console.
    - sosodev 3y ago
      Yeah, they don't sell PlayStations but they're going to start selling Xboxes. I'd love to play Starfield on my PS5 but that's just not an option.
      - chc 3y ago
        So what you're saying is it would increase competition by selling more of the currently-less-popular platform rather than reduce it by eliminating the dominant platform? That sounds like an argument in favor of the deal.
tnel77 3y ago
Because everyone and their brother seems to prefer PlayStation. You said it yourself, what consoles do my friends have? I have both the XSX and the PS5, but most of my friends and relatives only have a PS5. They have an extensive catalog of digital games from the PlayStation store and it would take a lot more than this deal to get them to completely abandon Sony.

jakelazaroff 3y ago

Are you sure? Post-acquisition, Bethesda is making at least some of their upcoming games Xbox-exclusive. Unclear why Microsoft wouldn't do the same with Activision.

lapetitejort 3y ago
Skeptics and Microsoft will point to ten year agreements to keep Call of Duty on as many platforms as possible. Ten years is really not that much time. Ten years ago the PS4 and Xbox One launched. Ten years from now the PS7 might be coming out. Imagine the news that Call of Duty will not be coming to the newest Playstation. That's one series. All other new and existing IP could be locked down.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
smileybarry 3y ago
Call of Duty is a huge franchise that makes bucket loads of money on yearly games, season passes, DLC, other monetization, merchandising, esports, and more. It's so much bigger than the ZeniMax catalog. Microsoft have no reason to gate 50% of the playerbase for "hardware exclusivity" given that lucrative revenue channel.
- jakelazaroff 3y ago
  The reason is to get (eventually, almost) 100% of the player base.

Izikiel43 3y ago

> If you think this merger will "eliminate" or lock-out Playstation for these major titles, you're seriously fooling yourself. Sure, no way the thing they did with Bethesda will happen again right?

RajT88 3y ago

Indeed. I had thought that the 360 outsold the PS3. I was wrong. Xbox has never outsold the same-gen Playstation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_consoles#Best-selling_game_consoles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_cons... I don't know the reason - but PSN has a reputation (seemingly earned) of having a better community. More numerous and less toxic gamers than Xbox Live.

anthonypasq 3y ago
Playstation is simply much more popular outside of the US. The 360 dominated the PS3 in the US.

taeric 3y ago

If you think Microsoft wouldn't look to shoulder a good product out of one market and into their's.... I'm curious if we are talking about the same Microsoft. They were clearly only wanting to compete with WordPerfect, Lotus, etc.... :D (Heck, even in games, wasn't Halo originally a Mac title?)

lofaszvanitt 3y ago

Just look at what happened to Chrom(e|ium), when rebranded as Edge in Windows 10. Same applies here. MS is using its brute force as always, since they have almost zero innovation regarding games on Xbox. Except Kinect, that was cool tho.

dangus 3y ago

My layperson's understanding of anti-trust law is that the intent of the merger is of interest. Suppose there is a communication where a company leader says the motivation for an acquisition is to eliminate a competitor. In that case, the acquisition may be illegal under the right circumstances.