| Machiavellian said: Which is the point MS is making, yes they have done it in the past but they do not do it anymore. Sony being the dominate market share company doing deals that lock out games to competitors hits along antitrust laws. The problem for Sony is that once you become the dominate player in a market, the things you use to do are seen with a different light. If there are agreements and contracts to lock out games from MS or any competitor, then they would be using their market advantage to strike these deals and be hit with antitrust laws. For MS, being on the bottom and having Sony regulated or even the industry regulated on those types of contracts is more in their favor then Sony. The thing is buying a publisher or buying out a lot of devs studios, it really doesn't matter. If this deal is stopped then MS may be setting up a case to stop anyone from purchasing any companies in this space. As to your point of adding your games to your service day one, I totally disagree with this point. The point of adding all your games to your service day one is because MS is a service company. Meaning that they are not trying to be bound to the console space and the limitations of selling hardware. MS wants to sell subscriptions and their aim is to put games on all platforms. MS probably never going to catch up to Sony and Nintendo on the hardware front so why fight them where they are strongest. Instead MS is trying to fight their competition where they are strongest. On the business aspect, it takes a long time to build new studios, getting the right people and getting a game to market. While it sounds wonderful in gamers head, to a business, the risk are way higher than just getting already established and successful studios. |
On the first point, no, they don't pay 3rd party developers and publishers for to have their games on their platform right now, they could and did but don't. Instead they buy studios like Obsidian, Ninja Theory and Publishers like Bethesda and do it that way. Less frowned upon business practice I guess. Obsidian and Ninja theory made titles that appeared on Sony and Nintendo consoles where the sequels are now going to be on Xbox infrastructure only.
And I'm not saying MS can't put their own games on day 1 of a service they own, that's well within their power and understandable too but 3rd party games aren't their games, the developer/publisher of that game are being compensated for the potential loss of hard sales to appear day 1. MS is paying to make GP look more appealing because of those Day 1 games when those games aren't their games.
I do agree with you that their service strategy is the correct path for them, mind you.
On the last thing, well that's another whole issue isn't it. Let smaller people do all the hard work and risk by actually building up a worthwhile company just for the people with money to come and buy you up. No effort done on their side because it's easier just to buy than to make, huh? Doesn't mean they shouldn't try, because at the end of the day, no one can complain about you if it's all yours anyway.
Hmm, pie.
