Sony buys exclusivity all the time and they are the market leader. It's easier for them to buy it because, as the market leader, the developers won't lose out on the majority of potential players by going exclusive.
But this creates a positive feedback loop where Sony can get lots of exclusives which leads more players to move to PlayStation due to the exclusives which helps Sony get even more exclusives etc.
The FTC should really investigate those deals.
PlayStation and Xbox are a small part of two mega-corporations. They have tons of money and capital from the rest of their businesses. So the amount they can invest in their gaming divisions is a matter of choice, rather than circumstances.
Sony is a market leader, largely because of their exclusive games. If this feedback loop as you say were real, Microsoft would be struggling to afford Activision/Blizzard/King due to their 3rd placed console.
Nintendo is the only console maker that has its ability to invest limited by it's market position. That's why all of their consoles are dated on release. They don't have a monopoly on desktop operating systems or a global electronics empire to cover their costs.
It's not sonys fault microsoft can't put together deals or make good exclusive games. Microsoft has been buying devs and signing exclusive agreements for over 20 years.
M$ is a 2.5 trilion dollar company that can't manage game studios because it's not one of their core competencies. They prop up their failed xbox gaming division with enterprise sales and cloud computing. I honestly don't think M$ even cares about xbox as a console; it's just a vehicle for cloud gaming, subscriptions, and a way to ensure developers also develop for PC/Windows.
M$ is looking long term. They can afford to bleed money for another 5 to 10 years, as long as they buy brands/studios with influence; they'll try to condition the next generation of kids to accept subscriptions and live-service games. It's the worst of worlds; a regular gaming company would be forced to innovate, restructure, or sell itself--xbox can just fail and instead of improving internally, they have unlimited non-xbox money to spend.
I also think xbox, even failing, is just a marketing vehicle for M$. They want to influence kids and teens into associating M$ with cool things. They've failed to produce any games (yet) to compete with Sony this generation, so their last ditch effort is to just buy a studio with mindshare. You'll never hear a straight answer as to how much money xbox is losing, because they probably hide it behind some cloud/services or marketing account.
There is one way I'd be okay with M$ buying Activision Blizzard: they need to spin off the xbox brand into it's own company and let it stand on its own. Then, we'll see if the company is really viable as its own entity or if its just a money-losing strategic brand for M$.
It baffles the mind most comments I see from people all over is that they would love for M$ to take over ActiBlizzKing. Because of your arguments, and more, which are on point, I think this is a really bad idea.
You've nailed it.
But I do love how you start with the big problem: Microsoft has not bought studio and enhanced them as studios or companies. Look at what Rare has become.
I don't trust Microsoft owning companies, but I don't think them buying Activision would be a good thing for anyone but Microsoft. Ultimately Microsoft is only interested in Microsoft and the people supporting the merger to get Activision on Game Pass will turn around and whine when they increase the price after the merger is clear. Everyone on that side is self serving as fuck.
Back in the day, it was reported Microsoft had paid game stores like GameStop to put the Sega Dreamcast in the back of the store, so I wouldn’t be surprised
That makes no sense. Microsoft was a Sega partner during the Dreamcast era and didn't enter the console market until after Sega had quit.
It would make sense - Microsoft used the Xbox to push DirectX over OpenGL, and that is how stores were laid out at the time. It's just been enough years I can't verify whether it was a rumor or actually happened
That still makes no sense since the Dreamcast supported DirectX and not OpenGL.
Aw damn Microsoft, you can't compete and the government is blocking you from buying up all the competition? Playing a tiny violin right now.
Im sure Microsoft would love to get rid of exclusives. Especially since they’ve had so much trouble shipping theirs.
Sony is the market leader because they have a lot of development studios and actually produce and release games. Microsoft has struggled immensely with their own studios to actually get AAA games out the door. If Microsoft actually capitalized on the multiple years that the PS5 was so hard to get by released good quality AAA exclusives, Microsoft would be the market leader today. They thought they could coast on Halo, Gears, Forza and not release much else and that’s simply not enough when Sony has had so many great exclusives.
As much as I don't like exclusives it primarily drives competition between companies, be it via hardware or software, if Microsoft go about buying all these companies and then exclusivity is gone then what's to stop them from going back to a Don Mattrick generation?
Does it drive competition? I would say it does the opposite. It encourages buying multiple consoles so you can play the games you like (if they happen to be split between consoles). If you buy both consoles, that's no longer competition.
I don't disagree that buying the entire block is bad, but not having access to the block and making your own that doesn't necessarily compete isn't great either. One's a monopoly, but the other is just two monopolies. Microsoft has had pretty crappy exclusives recently, but I'm sure if they started pumping out games as good as Sony you would find people would start having two consoles rather than switch over, at least those that could afford it.
That's twice in the same thread you're stating that customers are generally going to buy an Xbox Series X and a PS5. How much does a console even cost nowadays, $500? 550? I doubt a lot of people would willing to spend (or could even afford) $1000, when most of the library overlaps. When confronted with buying a new console, customers will look at the differences between the various options, and pretty much the only differences between an XBSX and a PS5 are the exclusives.
You're not wrong, but anyone with the budget to buy both will (and even some without the budget, unfortunately) when there's enough exclusives. You state that 'most of the library overlaps', but that's my point. When enough of the library doesn't, when enough games are exclusive, suddenly you have two gaming consoles that don't compete.
For instance, take the Nintendo Switch. While attempts have been made to port over games to the console, its hardware is a limiting factor and the Switch has many exclusives. There's no shortage of people who own a Switch and a PS5.
I'm sure Sony and Nintendo would love to get rid of exclusives too but can't because of other companies. That's what's called competition.
Exclusives are the opposite of competition, though. It's why streaming platforms are so crappy, because if you want to watch what you like it's probably split between 2+ platforms and you have to pay for multiple. If you want to play the games you like, ultimately that's probably asking you either own multiple consoles or just be very patient and have a PC.
Also, not sure about Nintendo, the literal god of exclusives.
Exclusives are the opposite of competition, though.
Maybe from your point of view, but exclusives move consoles. If someone's deciding between a PS5 and an Xbox Series X it's likely the exclusives that will make them choose one or the other. Part of the reason Xbox is far behind is because they just don't have many good exclusives.
Yes, anticompetitive behavior is profitable for trillion dollar companies and bad for consumers. You sound like a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" when you commiserate with corporations screwing people for profit.
I'm literally just stating information, don't shoot the messenger...
TIL Bill Gates hasn't been the CEO of Microsoft since 2000
Sony buys exclusivity all the time and they are the market leader. It's easier for them to buy it because, as the market leader, the developers won't lose out on the majority of potential players by going exclusive.
But this creates a positive feedback loop where Sony can get lots of exclusives which leads more players to move to PlayStation due to the exclusives which helps Sony get even more exclusives etc.
The FTC should really investigate those deals.
PlayStation and Xbox are a small part of two mega-corporations. They have tons of money and capital from the rest of their businesses. So the amount they can invest in their gaming divisions is a matter of choice, rather than circumstances.
Sony is a market leader, largely because of their exclusive games. If this feedback loop as you say were real, Microsoft would be struggling to afford Activision/Blizzard/King due to their 3rd placed console.
Nintendo is the only console maker that has its ability to invest limited by it's market position. That's why all of their consoles are dated on release. They don't have a monopoly on desktop operating systems or a global electronics empire to cover their costs.
It's not sonys fault microsoft can't put together deals or make good exclusive games. Microsoft has been buying devs and signing exclusive agreements for over 20 years.
M$ is a 2.5 trilion dollar company that can't manage game studios because it's not one of their core competencies. They prop up their failed xbox gaming division with enterprise sales and cloud computing. I honestly don't think M$ even cares about xbox as a console; it's just a vehicle for cloud gaming, subscriptions, and a way to ensure developers also develop for PC/Windows.
M$ is looking long term. They can afford to bleed money for another 5 to 10 years, as long as they buy brands/studios with influence; they'll try to condition the next generation of kids to accept subscriptions and live-service games. It's the worst of worlds; a regular gaming company would be forced to innovate, restructure, or sell itself--xbox can just fail and instead of improving internally, they have unlimited non-xbox money to spend.
I also think xbox, even failing, is just a marketing vehicle for M$. They want to influence kids and teens into associating M$ with cool things. They've failed to produce any games (yet) to compete with Sony this generation, so their last ditch effort is to just buy a studio with mindshare. You'll never hear a straight answer as to how much money xbox is losing, because they probably hide it behind some cloud/services or marketing account.
There is one way I'd be okay with M$ buying Activision Blizzard: they need to spin off the xbox brand into it's own company and let it stand on its own. Then, we'll see if the company is really viable as its own entity or if its just a money-losing strategic brand for M$.
It baffles the mind most comments I see from people all over is that they would love for M$ to take over ActiBlizzKing. Because of your arguments, and more, which are on point, I think this is a really bad idea.
You've nailed it.
But I do love how you start with the big problem: Microsoft has not bought studio and enhanced them as studios or companies. Look at what Rare has become.
I don't trust Microsoft owning companies, but I don't think them buying Activision would be a good thing for anyone but Microsoft. Ultimately Microsoft is only interested in Microsoft and the people supporting the merger to get Activision on Game Pass will turn around and whine when they increase the price after the merger is clear. Everyone on that side is self serving as fuck.
Back in the day, it was reported Microsoft had paid game stores like GameStop to put the Sega Dreamcast in the back of the store, so I wouldn’t be surprised
That makes no sense. Microsoft was a Sega partner during the Dreamcast era and didn't enter the console market until after Sega had quit.
It would make sense - Microsoft used the Xbox to push DirectX over OpenGL, and that is how stores were laid out at the time. It's just been enough years I can't verify whether it was a rumor or actually happened
That still makes no sense since the Dreamcast supported DirectX and not OpenGL.
Aw damn Microsoft, you can't compete and the government is blocking you from buying up all the competition? Playing a tiny violin right now.
Im sure Microsoft would love to get rid of exclusives. Especially since they’ve had so much trouble shipping theirs.
Sony is the market leader because they have a lot of development studios and actually produce and release games. Microsoft has struggled immensely with their own studios to actually get AAA games out the door. If Microsoft actually capitalized on the multiple years that the PS5 was so hard to get by released good quality AAA exclusives, Microsoft would be the market leader today. They thought they could coast on Halo, Gears, Forza and not release much else and that’s simply not enough when Sony has had so many great exclusives.
As much as I don't like exclusives it primarily drives competition between companies, be it via hardware or software, if Microsoft go about buying all these companies and then exclusivity is gone then what's to stop them from going back to a Don Mattrick generation?
Does it drive competition? I would say it does the opposite. It encourages buying multiple consoles so you can play the games you like (if they happen to be split between consoles). If you buy both consoles, that's no longer competition.
I don't disagree that buying the entire block is bad, but not having access to the block and making your own that doesn't necessarily compete isn't great either. One's a monopoly, but the other is just two monopolies. Microsoft has had pretty crappy exclusives recently, but I'm sure if they started pumping out games as good as Sony you would find people would start having two consoles rather than switch over, at least those that could afford it.
That's twice in the same thread you're stating that customers are generally going to buy an Xbox Series X and a PS5. How much does a console even cost nowadays, $500? 550? I doubt a lot of people would willing to spend (or could even afford) $1000, when most of the library overlaps. When confronted with buying a new console, customers will look at the differences between the various options, and pretty much the only differences between an XBSX and a PS5 are the exclusives.
You're not wrong, but anyone with the budget to buy both will (and even some without the budget, unfortunately) when there's enough exclusives. You state that 'most of the library overlaps', but that's my point. When enough of the library doesn't, when enough games are exclusive, suddenly you have two gaming consoles that don't compete.
For instance, take the Nintendo Switch. While attempts have been made to port over games to the console, its hardware is a limiting factor and the Switch has many exclusives. There's no shortage of people who own a Switch and a PS5.
I'm sure Sony and Nintendo would love to get rid of exclusives too but can't because of other companies. That's what's called competition.
Exclusives are the opposite of competition, though. It's why streaming platforms are so crappy, because if you want to watch what you like it's probably split between 2+ platforms and you have to pay for multiple. If you want to play the games you like, ultimately that's probably asking you either own multiple consoles or just be very patient and have a PC.
Also, not sure about Nintendo, the literal god of exclusives.
Maybe from your point of view, but exclusives move consoles. If someone's deciding between a PS5 and an Xbox Series X it's likely the exclusives that will make them choose one or the other. Part of the reason Xbox is far behind is because they just don't have many good exclusives.
Yes, anticompetitive behavior is profitable for trillion dollar companies and bad for consumers. You sound like a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" when you commiserate with corporations screwing people for profit.
I'm literally just stating information, don't shoot the messenger...
TIL Bill Gates hasn't been the CEO of Microsoft since 2000
He's been too busy predicting covid.