DonFerrari said:
Not always. A lot of exclusives on Playstation didn't need any moneyhat, they were simple fruit of relationship and past success like Yakuza and Persona. It needed MS expending money to receive the content but there was 0 barriers from Sony on they getting the content after MS gone there and paid to have what Sony was getting for free.
Yes I do, put themselves in the worst possible light while putting Sony as a big bully. |
You actually do not know this to be true. No one knows besides Sony and the company they negotiate with whether or not any deal was done based on money. Instead, lets just go by MS statement that they specifically stated that Sony make deals to lock out games to their platform and services. If this was not true, Sony would have every opportunity to dispute it. I always find it funny when people make a case as if Sony is some benevolent company instead of a vicious player just like Nintendo and MS.
Sony is a bully just like MS is a bully. Sony definitely use their market dominance to obtain deals their competitors cannot. The question is if they are making those deals and they truly have dominance over MS, then they risk getting tagged on antitrust laws.
The reason we are hear is that the EU stated a lock out of COD would be hurtful to Sony. So if lock out deals are hurtful then the whole concept of lock out deals are not put into jeopardy. If you are the market leader and you do lock out deals, you are effectively using your market position to harm competition. As I stated, this line MS is going benefits them more than it does Sony.
