Microsoft is trying to acquire Activision Blizzard (UPDATE: CMA says NO!).

[Jg15]

To add to this point on Sony exclusivity deals, MS had a subpoena granted that meant Sony now have to provide details of these deals (past, present and future) in relation to the FTC hearing. 

 

Will be interesting to see if anything leaks from this. MS obviously have intel that Sony have some specific deals in place that "restrict the market" in some way that they can use as evidence.

[thesnwmn]

2 minutes ago, MidWalian said:

 

Still find it odd how Microsoft's lawyers mentioned Bloodborne:

 

"Some prominent examples of these agreements include Final Fantasy VII Remake (Square Enix), Bloodborne (From Software), the upcoming Final Fantasy XVI (Square Enix) and the recently announced Silent Hill 2 remastered [sic] (Bloober team)."

 

Not disagreeing about the likelihood of exclusive contracts which all of the companies have been doing to some extent. I don't care when big tiles are  timed exclusives, quite shit when it misses a platform altogether though.

 

 

What's the question about Bloodborne? Is the point that it's a Sony funded title not a third-party developed game kept exclusive?

 

For context, here's where the quote is lifted from...

 

 

I think MS are (understandably) playing a little fast and loose in order to be able to make the number of "exclusive" third-party titles sound a bit bigger than it really is. They never say what the precise deal is with each game and therefore able to say that Sony has entered into an arrangement with a From Software which keeps Bloodborne off of Xbox. As a result it's true but it mis-represents the nature of that. From Software didn't develop something that Sony snapped up. Sony paid them to develop it.

 

By this definition, MS are suggesting any third-party funded to build a game for a specific platform (or not a specific platform) are in a deal. And I guess that's one very loose take

[MW_Jimmy]

27 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

Yeah that's bullshit Jimmy, no one has limited their marketshare by being single platform unless they're getting paid for it since 2013.

 

I meant to include the word historical - mis-post ahoy! Sony have been doing this more frequently in recent generations but it isn't something they've done since the start.

[bear]

They paid to make Tomb Raider 2 onwards exclusive during the PS1 era. 

[Stanley]

1 hour ago, Gabe said:

 

Surely this would be nothing more than 'make VR versions of AB games (CoD)'?

 

Which, from Sony’s perspective would be an interesting proposition, because you'd think there would at least be some kind of bump from a PSVR CoD. 

Tenchu VR confirmed @Mr. Gerbik

[MidWalian]

11 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

 

What's the question about Bloodborne? Is the point that it's a Sony funded title not a third-party developed game kept exclusive?

 

For context, here's where the quote is lifted from...

 

 

I think MS are (understandably) playing a little fast and loose in order to be able to make the number of "exclusive" third-party titles sound a bit bigger than it really is. They never say what the precise deal is with each game and therefore able to say that Sony has entered into an arrangement with a From Software which keeps Bloodborne off of Xbox. As a result it's true but it mis-represents the nature of that. From Software didn't develop something that Sony snapped up. Sony paid them to develop it.

 

By this definition, MS are suggesting any third-party funded to build a game for a specific platform (or not a specific platform) are in a deal. And I guess that's one very loose take

 

I think we're in agreement. The same document from Microsoft's lawyers mentions SackBoy as a third party exclusive which is, I guess, factually true when it comes to concerning the developer but these IPs are owned by Sony and is quite different to other examples.

 

It's like playing "odd one out" in some of these examples lawyers have written up. Bloody lawyers.

[Stanley]

Is Starfield mentioned in any documents? Rumour has is that Sony were negotiating some kind of exclusivity on that right up until the Bethesda acquisition, and then obviously MS made it Xbox exclusive. It would be interesting to find out more about that, and just how far along in development the PlayStation version was. 

[MidWalian]

No idea if Sony handed over exclusivity contracts to Microsoft's lawyers at the request if the FTC but Microsoft and Activision are bickering away with the FTC. Microsoft keen to mention they've handed over 2.5million documents* but it's not all of the documents which have been requested.

 

* 2.5 million documents. Fucking hell.

[MidWalian]

4 minutes ago, Stanley said:

Is Starfield mentioned in any documents? Rumour has is that Sony were negotiating some kind of exclusivity on that right up until the Bethesda acquisition, and then obviously MS made it Xbox exclusive. It would be interesting to find out more about that, and just how far along in development the PlayStation version was. 

 

I think that all went back to this one tweet? In before Oblivion gets mentioned!

 

[Broker]

1 hour ago, RubberJohnny said:

Yeah that's bullshit Jimmy, no one has limited their marketshare by being single platform unless they're getting paid for it since 2013.

This would be an excellent rebuttal if he wasn’t responding to Talk Show Hosts insane ramblings about how because Sony had more games on PS2 everyone is being big meanies to Microsoft now. 

[RubberJohnny]

16 minutes ago, Broker said:

This would be an excellent rebuttal if he wasn’t responding to Talk Show Hosts insane ramblings about how because Sony had more games on PS2 everyone is being big meanies to Microsoft now. 

 

A rebuttal to a post that's wrong can still be wrong itself.

[Broker]

2 hours ago, RubberJohnny said:

 

A rebuttal to a post that's wrong can still be wrong itself.

It’s not wrong though, throughout the PS1 and PS2 eras a significant portion of the games that were exclusive to those consoles were games that the developers chose to develop for only one system, because Sony’s market share was ridiculous. As such, it’s a factual response to the ridiculous statement that Sony gained their current market position by paying for exclusives. 

[rgraves]

Wasn’t Ridge Racer a paid for exclusive? I mean, that was the game that started the whole thing….

[SeanR]

1 minute ago, rgraves said:

Wasn’t Ridge Racer a paid for exclusive? I mean, that was the game that started the whole thing….

Uh, Jerry Momoda has you covered, fam

 

http://jerrymomoda.com/namco-the-role-of-coin-op-in-the-playstation/

[Mr. Gerbik]

5 hours ago, Stanley said:

Tenchu VR confirmed @Mr. Gerbik

After Tenchu Waggle that would be another cruel twist from a universe that obviously hates me 

[Stanley]

1 hour ago, rgraves said:

Wasn’t Ridge Racer a paid for exclusive? I mean, that was the game that started the whole thing….

Namco were the closest thing Sony had to first party back then given their co-development of the system 11 hardware based around PlayStation internals that powered the likes of Tekken and Soul Edge.

 

I mean apart from anything else Namco & Sega were rivals so I doubt they had any motivation to port Ridge Racer to Sega Saturn which of course played host to all of Sega’s own arcade games such as Virtua Fighter and Daytona. 
 

I’m not sure the idea of ‘paid for’ exclusives really had the same meaning that it does today. 

[MidWalian]

The biggest contributor of this senator's campaign finances is a large corporation starting with the letter "M".

Quote

During a Senate finance committee hearing on “The President’s 2023 Trade Policy Agenda”, Cantwell said—among a bunch of other international trade talk—“I’m told that Sony controls a monopoly of 98% of the high-end game market, yet Japan’s government has allowed Sony to engage in blatant anti-competitive conduct through exclusive deals and payments to game publishers, establishing games that are among the most popular in Japan.”

 

[Stanley]

It’s hard to disagree with Final Fantasy, Sony have had a very cosy relationship with Square which dates back to FFVII. 
 

The problem with that statement is that the ‘high end games market’ barely exists in Japan anymore which is now dominated by Nintendo, and outside of Japan in the West, where the high end games market really plays out, the biggest publishers are the likes of EA, Ubisoft, and Activision. 
 

So that 98% figure really doesn’t mean much and is highly misleading. 

[thesnwmn]

3 minutes ago, Stanley said:

So that 98% figure really doesn’t mean much and is highly misleading. 

 

😯

 

Imagine that! A politician saying something misleading. And then finding out they are paid to do so.

 

[Stanley]

Just now, thesnwmn said:

 

😯

 

Imagine that! A politician saying something misleading. And then finding out they are paid to do so.

 

 

Well yes, obviously, politicians and lawyers, eh. 

[JoeK]

I do find it fascinating watching some of the US senators and reps talking about all this sort of stuff and you clearly get the idea that none of them have any clue as to what it is they're actually saying.

 

It's like the waffle going on between them and the bloke in charge of Tik Tok - they seem to be using some of the right words, but it comes across as complete and utter ignorant bullshit.

 

I assume they have someone in their offices how draw up these questions, but fucking hell I don't think they're paying them enough.

[RubberJohnny]

8 hours ago, MidWalian said:

The biggest contributor of this senator's campaign finances is a large corporation starting with the letter "M".

 

That's not what the article says.

[rgraves]

11 hours ago, Stanley said:

Namco were the closest thing Sony had to first party back then given their co-development of the system 11 hardware based around PlayStation internals that powered the likes of Tekken and Soul Edge.

 

I mean apart from anything else Namco & Sega were rivals so I doubt they had any motivation to port Ridge Racer to Sega Saturn which of course played host to all of Sega’s own arcade games such as Virtua Fighter and Daytona. 
 

I’m not sure the idea of ‘paid for’ exclusives really had the same meaning that it does today. 

 

Sure - but Ridge Racer was an exclusive becuase the two companies did a deal - it was, at the time, absolutely nothing to do with the market share PS had because, well, it had no market share at that point.

 

I'm just trying to dispell this idea that publishers go exclusive purely based on market share - I'm mean I'm sure it's happend with small(er) studios that need to focus on one target platform etc, but on the whole if a game ends up in one place and one place only it's usually because a deal has been done somewhere and not just because they don't fancy addressing the other 20-40% of the market at some point.

[PaB]

20 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

 

That's not what the article says.

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/maria-cantwell/summary?cid=N00007836&cycle=CAREER

 

 

[Uzi]

Half a mill is kinda stingy for Microsoft. She should set up a game studio. Once ms buys her (for more than already) it's not like they'll have to make any games 

[RubberJohnny]

1 hour ago, PaB said:

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/maria-cantwell/summary?cid=N00007836&cycle=CAREER

 

OK? It's still not the claim the article made, which was about individuals giving donations.

[MW_Jimmy]

1 hour ago, rgraves said:

 

Sure - but Ridge Racer was an exclusive becuase the two companies did a deal - it was, at the time, absolutely nothing to do with the market share PS had because, well, it had no market share at that point.

 

Do you have a source for that? I'm not saying you are wrong but I have heard that nor understood that to be the case for the Namco PS1 exclusives. It always felt like a match between hardware and being a natural answer to Daytona and Virtua Fighter - good market opportunity/analysis.

[Kryptonian]

18 hours ago, Stanley said:

Is Starfield mentioned in any documents? Rumour has is that Sony were negotiating some kind of exclusivity on that right up until the Bethesda acquisition, and then obviously MS made it Xbox exclusive. It would be interesting to find out more about that, and just how far along in development the PlayStation version was. 

 

Where did hear the rumour? Maybe we can back track it from there

[layten]

Imagine that. A Senator for the state Microsoft is headquartered in. 

[footle]

1 hour ago, PaB said:

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/maria-cantwell/summary?cid=N00007836&cycle=CAREER

 

 

 

"The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates."

 

I don't know about you, but I'm shocked that one or more Microsoft employees/owners/directors contributed to their Senator's re-election campaigns.

In the 2018 cycle she got $110k from Microsoft employees, and $20k from Valve. 

 

(And the amounts are  dwarfed by contributions from real estate, lawyers, etc - as you might expect)