Current Events > Sony needs to win against Microsoft.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Makeveli_lives posted...

Activision merger will be the death of PlayStation

lol no it won't

Sony's handling of stuff like Bloodborne is egregious

Aztex posted...

No it isn't if it was Nintendo would also be throwing a tantrum

Nintendo already doesn't get the yearly Call of Duty. Their last CoD was in 2013 for a now-dead console. People don't buy Nintendo consoles for Activision games.

Nintendo is a 1st-party focused console dev while Sony and MS are 3rd-party focused. The FTC realizes that market distinction, hence their lawsuit against MS.

MarthGoomba posted...

It's not because you could still play most video games without dealing with either company

Pre-builts cost more than consoles, so they're casual-repellant.

Sony sucks, and I will not shed a single tear over its demise

Kloe_Rinz posted...

no, i dont care to elaborate to you,, when you're already this mad

If you think that's being mad, you must be very fragile lol.

Would explain the "censorship" hysteria though, so thanks. I think you've confirmed my suspicions.

FL81 posted...

Sony sucks, and I will not shed a single tear over its demise

This dude had a zune.

Having game purchases and subscriptions that aren't tied to specific hardware is such an improvement over the current console model why wouldn't people want that anyway? That would be a much better standard. Look at how much Steam Deck benefits from it. Consoles can't do that.

Aztex posted...

No it isn't if it was Nintendo would also be throwing a tantrum but they aren't not from the start like Sony has.

Can't believe I have to quote myself since everyone seems to ignore it and keep running in circles. On a side note the new Naruto game is also exclusive as of now thanks to Sony. How is this not a monopoly towards the franchise? The only way I can play it is by getting a PS4 or PS5....it's from a 3rd party developer as well.

I disagree.

I agree.

hmmm

Alright heres my take.

Exclusives are healthy to an extent. You have certain games on a system, that influences a buyer through healthy competition. That brand has something in the market other brands do not.

However outright aquisitions should be criticized more heavily. Buying a few companies outright or collaborating with them in exclusive contract deals are also fine, unless it gets to the point where theres only one company that is dealing with every third party out there.

Now there is a 70 billion dollar acquisition. No matter how you look at it, that is ridiculous and should be met with criticism. Whether Sony is throwing a bitch fit is not the point. The point is Microsoft has now outright bought a massive part of the market and has control over it, whether they allow others a share of the pie or not. The important part is they now have control to take it away from the competition whenever they deem fit (Which I believe they have done in the past).

If that is not huge monopolization, please explain to me what is.

Edit: and yes I believe companies like Disney should have been met with more resistance over their acquisitions.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

Alright heres my take.

Exclusives are healthy to an extent. You have certain games on a system, that influences a buyer through healthy competition. That brand has something in the market other brands do not.

However outright aquisitions should be criticized more heavily. Buying a few companies outright or collaborating with them in exclusive contract deals are also fine, unless it gets to the point where theres only one company that is dealing with every third party out there.

Now there is a 40 billion dollar acquisition. No matter how you look at it, that is ridiculous and should be met with criticism. Whether Sony is throwing a bitch fit is not the point. The point is Microsoft has now outright bought a massive part of the market and has control over it, whether they allow others a share of the pie or not. The important part is they now have control to take it away from the competition whenever they deem fit (Which I believe they have done in the past).

If that is not huge monopolization, please explain to me what is.

Edit: and yes I believe companies like Disney should have been met with more resistance over their acquisitions.

I'd argue that third place buying one publisher isn't grounds for claiming they have a monopoly. You can absolutely argue that Microsoft as an entity has the potential to be a monopoly, but even with Activision they're still currently in last place among their competition, they still have terrible market penetration in major regions like Asia, and they still don't have ANY of the biggest names in videogames. Sony losing CoD doesn't deprive them of the dozens of other exclusive franchises that have driven sales for decades now. It doesn't take Kratos, or Cloud, or Nathan Drake, or Joel/Ellie, or Jak/Daxter, or Spyro, or Crash, or Gran Tourismo, or any other major money makers away from them. It doesn't undo the 20+ aquisitions Sony has made over the last couple of decades. In what world does this acquisition actually give Microsoft a monopoly in this actual market? At WORST, it makes them competitive with Sony and Nintendo when it comes to franchises people care about.

Makeveli_lives posted...

https://youtu.be/bGumK1Brh8M

first time this argument actually made sense to me. Activision merger will be the death of PlayStation if it goes through in a decade.

I've never rooted for MS so hard before