By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
rapsuperstar31 on 25 February 2023
Edit Thread
Machiavellian said:
DonFerrari said:

There are a lot of games that didn't come to Xbox by MS choice, by dev choice and sure some because Sony paid for exclusivity on consoles (which are very minimal quantity if they actually exist since we never saw an agreement signed over it, Yakuza never showed before on Xbox but when MS gone there to negotiate they magically all were available on GP including Like a Dragon next gen version being timed exclusive on Xbox despise MS not helping to develop it, but Street Fighter 5 yes we do have confirmation that Sony paid to be forever console exclusive).

For games that aren't made by MS that are forever exclusive to their consoles I won't remember any, most likely because I don't even play on Xbox, although just this gen there have been plenty announced as exclusive just like Medium, powerwash simulator, etc, but if you ask me this in 2 years I will most likely have forgot they exist as they weren't noteworthy titles. And there is no dispute that in general the titles Sony paid for exclusivity have done a lot better than the ones Xbox paid.

Machiavellian said:

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.

You know that the burden of the proof is on the one claiming it not on the one saying they didn't do it.

You say only Sony and the company knows what was negotiated, but them go and say MS claimed something else. It seems like you haven't been looking the news. Sony haven't gone to social media to talk about this deal, the only time they talked anything was when MS said about the contract with Sony, all the other time they let MS say whatever they wanted.

MS is still to show any proof of their claim of Sony making any deal that specifically says anywhere but Xbox. I guess you will follow lulu mersey line and perhaps say that those titles shown on SoP yesterday Sony have paid to not appear on Xbox right?

And your generalization that if CoD being locked out (which would be ALL CoD for the rest of the time) is just as harmful as any other (even single title and/or timed for a small title) then you are reaching.

My point is pretty simple.  Sony absolutely use their market share advantage to strike deals to lock out games from competitors' platforms.  It really doesn't matter if some do it on their own.  

I am saying that MS made a claim, and we have not heard anything from Sony to disprove it.  Its not like Sony isn't quick to let everyone know MS is lying nor would Sony just let it slide, this is business.  When MS made that statement, I expected Sony to deny it but we only get silence. MS did not make the statement once.

I am saying locking out of any game is harmful, so if you are going to put COD on a pedestal, then any AAA game should be put their as well.  If we are going to play this game where its stated that any company who purchases another can make all their games exclusive, then that goes for everyone company that runs their own platform.

Last but not least, your viewpoint seems to be soly centered on your choice of console as you stated you only play on PS.  I on the other hand have always played on all the platforms.  Even today, I have a switch, PS5, Series X, PC and Phone.  I do not have a favorite, I just have games I love to play but when I look at the situation on a business level, I see no angles among any of these companies.  There are no saints here and Sony is just as controlling as MS, especially when either gets a market advantage.

Are you saying the 3rd biggest company in the world can't figure out how to compete with Sony?  Microsoft has enough cash on hand to buy Sony tomorrow if they wanted to, and if the ftc allowed it...which the ftc wouldn't at this point.  Sony does take advantage of some things almost to a ridiculous level at times.  Nintendo was actually far worse during the NES days as far as controlling third parties before the Genesis came around.  We know Microsoft initially tried to buy Nintendo outright before they released the original Xbox.  Rather than put in the work and develop a great ecosystem, they tried to bypass all that and buy Nintendo.  It didn't work and they came out with their own product, which they did really well with on the Xbox for a first system, and the 360 did great as well.  Microsoft did follow a lot of Sony's moneyhatting ways on the 360 with some of its biggest games like the first Bioshock, the first Mass Effect, Morrowwind, Tales of Vesperia, etc. (Playstation got Mass Effect 2 and 3 before they got Mass Effect 1)  Microsoft has done some great things for the industry, and gamepass has to be their biggest positive contribution to gaming.  After messing up with the Xbox One, Microsoft was considering getting out of video games all together.  The gamepass idea seamed to get them to stick it out.  When Nintendo looked like they were the next Sega on the Gamecube did they gobble up a bunch of third parties?  No they came out with a great original product and got people back into their ecosystem.  When it looked like the Wii U might be Nintendo's last console with the 3DS also selling poorly, did they give up?  No they knocked it out of the park with the Switch and brought in 100+ million more customers from the Wii U.  Microsoft had a bad generation on the Xbox One, and contemplates leaving the industry, than all of a sudden decides it's going to buy 100's of billions of dollars in 3rd parties all of a sudden between Bethesda, Obsidian, Activision etc.  I really don't think they need to buy Activision, Bethesda was more than enough to bolster their 1st party lineup, and gamepass was Xbox's Switch game changing moment to get gamers back with them with a great product.  They just need to continue down the path with gamepass and they can eventually pass Sony.  It may not happen for another generation or two, but the ability to compete and eventually lead the pack is there for them.

Last edited by rapsuperstar31 - on 25 February 2023