4 ms·

I think so. Nobody I know has an Xbox, even though we all had Xbox 360s back in the day. But they all have PS5s because Sony has great exclusive games. I don't

by wilg 3y ago

I think so. Nobody I know has an Xbox, even though we all had Xbox 360s back in the day. But they all have PS5s because Sony has great exclusive games. I don't see why Microsoft shouldn't be able to buy Activision, exclusives would be very helpful for them becoming competitive. But I don't play many (any?) Activision games so it wouldn't really move the needle much for me. It is interesting the US is trying to block the last place player in the market from growing, which is also the only US company in the market.

kibwen 3y ago
> I don't see why Microsoft shouldn't be able to buy Activision, exclusives would be very helpful for them becoming competitive. Because acquisitions make markets less competitive, not more. There are a zillion US companies making games, and if the platform gatekeepers become an issue, then the US can force them to open up their platforms and quit their rent-seeking.
- wilg 3y ago
  > Because acquisitions make markets less competitive, not more. This is just simply not true as a blanket rule. Also, I don't understand what you're saying. Activision is not in the console market, only Microsoft is. Buying Activision makes the console market more competitive because it makes Microsoft's console more compelling in that market, a market where they are floundering. You could also look at the game market, which as you say has a zillion US companies making games, and Activision under Microsoft would have to continue to compete in that market. How does this reduce competition, and in what market?
  - kibwen 3y ago
    > This is just simply not true as a blanket rule. It is, which is why the FTC needs to approve mergers. > Buying Activision makes the console market more competitive Why should the FTC care about the console market specifically rather than the gaming market in general? > How does this reduce competition, and in what market? The very notion of "console exclusives" reduces competition because it removes incentives to compete on hardware cost or quality and instead compete only on whatever IPs a company happens to own.
    - wilg 3y ago
      > It is, which is why the FTC needs to approve mergers. It isn't, which is why the FTC often approves mergers. > Why should the FTC care about the console market specifically rather than the gaming market in general? They should consider both. > The very notion of "console exclusives" reduces competition because it removes incentives to compete on hardware cost or quality and instead compete only on whatever IPs a company happens to own. Why is competing on hardware cost or quality more valid than competing on exclusive content? And if that's the rule, why is the company with better exclusive content, Sony, allowed to acquire more studios, like Bungie?
    - THENATHE 3y ago
      How is Sony holding their "first party games" (which were all made form company acquisitions, just years ago) from Xboxes not literally the same thing as M$ purchasing Activision and blocking them from PlayStations? Both are 1) buying a game making company, 2) making a game, 3) withholding it from the competition.
      - fredoralive 3y ago
        Sony's purchases were generally smaller individual studios that didn't have big libraries of existing established IPs? There doesn't seem to be many examples of them buying studios to take existing cross platform megahits exclusive. Edit: They apparently bought Bungie recently? Wikipedia kinda doesn't include it in their list of PlayStation studios in a normal fashion so I missed it. I suppose that is buying a big IP in Destiny (in reaction to the MS-AB takeover?), although that's basically a 1 game studio (next to no-one is really going to care about Myth or Marathon), so it's still a fair bit smaller than the sort of stuff proposed with MS and A-B.
      - worrycue 3y ago
        Most of the studios Sony bought were “2nd party” - i.e. they predominantly made games only for PlayStation. The effect on competing consoles was minimal - their game never made it to non-Sony consoles anyway; this was a different era where porting games was very painful since the hardware can vary radically between consoles.
greenthrow 3y ago
Sony built its library of exclusives. Microsoft is trying to just gobble up the biggest studios not already owned by a console manufactuerer. That's blatantly anti-competitive.
- THENATHE 3y ago
  They built it off of companies they bought when they were 4/10 big, and they bought like 30. Microsoft is buying like 5 10/10 big companies and everyone starts freaking out.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    Ahh yes, the THQ Nordic/Embracer Group approach. Works everytime if you slowly buy companies that made that one smash hit 10 years ago and was forgotten about. Genius business move.
- jug6ernaut 3y ago
  Let's not act like both companies haven't bought up every independent studio they can get their hands on. Hell Sony just bought Bungie in a multi billion dollar deal. IMO the only of the big 3 that can truly be said to "built is library" is Nintendo.
  - worrycue 3y ago
    Insomniac I can understand. The company has a lot of history with Sony. Bungie is puzzling. Frankly, I’m not even sure what’s there to buy. All they got is Destiny that’s a pretty so-so game popularity-wise. Who else has Sony bought?
    - wilg 3y ago
      Naughty Dog, Media Molecule, Guerrilla Games, Sucker Punch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Studios https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Studios
scarface_74 3y ago
> Nobody I know has an Xbox, even though we all had Xbox 360s back in the day. Yes, because no one you know has an XBox, it obviously means that Microsoft isn’t selling any…
- Philip-J-Fry 3y ago
  Objectively they are selling significantly less than the PS5. And subjective estimates put it at 1 Xbox for every 2 PS5s at best, but it's most likely a bit worse.

by wilg 3y ago

kibwen 3y ago

> I don't see why Microsoft shouldn't be able to buy Activision, exclusives would be very helpful for them becoming competitive. Because acquisitions make markets less competitive, not more. There are a zillion US companies making games, and if the platform gatekeepers become an issue, then the US can force them to open up their platforms and quit their rent-seeking.

wilg 3y ago
> Because acquisitions make markets less competitive, not more. This is just simply not true as a blanket rule. Also, I don't understand what you're saying. Activision is not in the console market, only Microsoft is. Buying Activision makes the console market more competitive because it makes Microsoft's console more compelling in that market, a market where they are floundering. You could also look at the game market, which as you say has a zillion US companies making games, and Activision under Microsoft would have to continue to compete in that market. How does this reduce competition, and in what market?
- kibwen 3y ago
  > This is just simply not true as a blanket rule. It is, which is why the FTC needs to approve mergers. > Buying Activision makes the console market more competitive Why should the FTC care about the console market specifically rather than the gaming market in general? > How does this reduce competition, and in what market? The very notion of "console exclusives" reduces competition because it removes incentives to compete on hardware cost or quality and instead compete only on whatever IPs a company happens to own.
  - wilg 3y ago
    > It is, which is why the FTC needs to approve mergers. It isn't, which is why the FTC often approves mergers. > Why should the FTC care about the console market specifically rather than the gaming market in general? They should consider both. > The very notion of "console exclusives" reduces competition because it removes incentives to compete on hardware cost or quality and instead compete only on whatever IPs a company happens to own. Why is competing on hardware cost or quality more valid than competing on exclusive content? And if that's the rule, why is the company with better exclusive content, Sony, allowed to acquire more studios, like Bungie?
  - THENATHE 3y ago
    How is Sony holding their "first party games" (which were all made form company acquisitions, just years ago) from Xboxes not literally the same thing as M$ purchasing Activision and blocking them from PlayStations? Both are 1) buying a game making company, 2) making a game, 3) withholding it from the competition.
    - fredoralive 3y ago
      Sony's purchases were generally smaller individual studios that didn't have big libraries of existing established IPs? There doesn't seem to be many examples of them buying studios to take existing cross platform megahits exclusive. Edit: They apparently bought Bungie recently? Wikipedia kinda doesn't include it in their list of PlayStation studios in a normal fashion so I missed it. I suppose that is buying a big IP in Destiny (in reaction to the MS-AB takeover?), although that's basically a 1 game studio (next to no-one is really going to care about Myth or Marathon), so it's still a fair bit smaller than the sort of stuff proposed with MS and A-B.
    - worrycue 3y ago
      Most of the studios Sony bought were “2nd party” - i.e. they predominantly made games only for PlayStation. The effect on competing consoles was minimal - their game never made it to non-Sony consoles anyway; this was a different era where porting games was very painful since the hardware can vary radically between consoles.

greenthrow 3y ago

Sony built its library of exclusives. Microsoft is trying to just gobble up the biggest studios not already owned by a console manufactuerer. That's blatantly anti-competitive.

THENATHE 3y ago
They built it off of companies they bought when they were 4/10 big, and they bought like 30. Microsoft is buying like 5 10/10 big companies and everyone starts freaking out.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  Ahh yes, the THQ Nordic/Embracer Group approach. Works everytime if you slowly buy companies that made that one smash hit 10 years ago and was forgotten about. Genius business move.
jug6ernaut 3y ago
Let's not act like both companies haven't bought up every independent studio they can get their hands on. Hell Sony just bought Bungie in a multi billion dollar deal. IMO the only of the big 3 that can truly be said to "built is library" is Nintendo.
- worrycue 3y ago
  Insomniac I can understand. The company has a lot of history with Sony. Bungie is puzzling. Frankly, I’m not even sure what’s there to buy. All they got is Destiny that’s a pretty so-so game popularity-wise. Who else has Sony bought?
  - wilg 3y ago
    Naughty Dog, Media Molecule, Guerrilla Games, Sucker Punch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Studios https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Studios

scarface_74 3y ago

> Nobody I know has an Xbox, even though we all had Xbox 360s back in the day. Yes, because no one you know has an XBox, it obviously means that Microsoft isn’t selling any…

Philip-J-Fry 3y ago
Objectively they are selling significantly less than the PS5. And subjective estimates put it at 1 Xbox for every 2 PS5s at best, but it's most likely a bit worse.