9 ms·

> If you think this merger will "eliminate" Playstation, you're seriously fooling yourself. If you think this is impossible, you're seriously fooling yourself.

by 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.
      - hellotomyrars 3y ago
        I’m going to have to strongly disagree with the idea that Microsoft isn’t creating real value to players. Gamepass is literally the best deal for someone playing video games, full stop. The price may get jacked up in the future but right now it is stupid good. Also you’re really not being honest about the historical aspect of Sony and first party games. You said as much but I don’t see why you’re giving Sony a pass for snapping up a stable of developers for first party games over time but knocking Microsoft for being late to the party and close the gap. It’s the same thing for the same result. Whichever you prefer is fine. Most of Sony’s first party stuff is very different to the Microsoft stuff. Sony has engaged in anticompetitive practices a lot in recent history. They tried really hard to prevent cross platform play, going so far as to both lie about it and also throw a “think of the children” in there. They also are the platform that wants money to support cross platform play.
- worrycue 3y ago
  Aren’t most of those cases Sony funding the development of a game? I.E. If it does well, great, Sony has a new IP. If it bombs, then it’s Sony’s money down the drain. I can only see it benefiting the market since certain games might not have gotten made otherwise - e.g. Demon Souls; which spawn quite a number of spin offs, together they practically form their own genre.
  - chc 3y ago
    If Microsoft buys Activision, wouldn't they then be funding Activision's development? The major difference here appears to be looking at a deal in foresight vs. hindsight.
    - worrycue 3y ago
      Let me put it this way: Sony funds developers = PlayStation gets “extra” games that otherwise wouldn’t exist. No one else is affected. Microsoft buys Activision = long running Activision franchises (eventually) become MS exclusive. Xbox gain nothing but everyone else lose out on franchises they used to enjoy.
  - ayemel 3y ago
    Different steps to achieve the same outcome (buying a game company). Why should I, as a consumer, give a shit on the “how”?
    - worrycue 3y ago
      Not quite the same outcome. One brings into existence games that probably wouldn’t have been made otherwise - and the investor takes the risk of the game bombing. The other is primarily to deny the competition access to long running popular franchises - and is practically risk free since those franchises are almost guaranteed to print money.
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.

by Timon3 3y ago

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.
    - hellotomyrars 3y ago
      I’m going to have to strongly disagree with the idea that Microsoft isn’t creating real value to players. Gamepass is literally the best deal for someone playing video games, full stop. The price may get jacked up in the future but right now it is stupid good. Also you’re really not being honest about the historical aspect of Sony and first party games. You said as much but I don’t see why you’re giving Sony a pass for snapping up a stable of developers for first party games over time but knocking Microsoft for being late to the party and close the gap. It’s the same thing for the same result. Whichever you prefer is fine. Most of Sony’s first party stuff is very different to the Microsoft stuff. Sony has engaged in anticompetitive practices a lot in recent history. They tried really hard to prevent cross platform play, going so far as to both lie about it and also throw a “think of the children” in there. They also are the platform that wants money to support cross platform play.
worrycue 3y ago
Aren’t most of those cases Sony funding the development of a game? I.E. If it does well, great, Sony has a new IP. If it bombs, then it’s Sony’s money down the drain. I can only see it benefiting the market since certain games might not have gotten made otherwise - e.g. Demon Souls; which spawn quite a number of spin offs, together they practically form their own genre.
- chc 3y ago
  If Microsoft buys Activision, wouldn't they then be funding Activision's development? The major difference here appears to be looking at a deal in foresight vs. hindsight.
  - worrycue 3y ago
    Let me put it this way: Sony funds developers = PlayStation gets “extra” games that otherwise wouldn’t exist. No one else is affected. Microsoft buys Activision = long running Activision franchises (eventually) become MS exclusive. Xbox gain nothing but everyone else lose out on franchises they used to enjoy.
- ayemel 3y ago
  Different steps to achieve the same outcome (buying a game company). Why should I, as a consumer, give a shit on the “how”?
  - worrycue 3y ago
    Not quite the same outcome. One brings into existence games that probably wouldn’t have been made otherwise - and the investor takes the risk of the game bombing. The other is primarily to deny the competition access to long running popular franchises - and is practically risk free since those franchises are almost guaranteed to print money.

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.