6 ms·

> 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 g

• 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.
        • pbalcer 3y ago
          I'm not arguing that Sony are saints and Microsoft is the devil. I agree that Gamepass is awesome value and forced Sony to improve their PS+ offerings (competition is awesome!). However, there's a stark difference between Sony buying and investing in game studios after a long partnership (like in the case of Naughty Dog or Insomniac Games), which allows those studios to create bigger and more ambitious games, and Microsoft snapping up multiple large, well funded and profitable, game publishing companies. All I'm really trying to say is that the former deploys capital to fund new games in order to gain market share by competing on quality of the product (which is clearly working for Sony), whereas the latter is deploying capital to just snap up market share directly...
• 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.