IcaroRibeiro said:
Machiavellian said:
Its not a question of what bothers you, I am saying what bothers a business. For MS, as a business and in 3rd place, the investment to out money hat Sony is steep. The market leader gains an advantage because as long as they can make these deals at a much cheaper rate, it takes twice the capitol for MS to to even compete. So for MS, what is best for them, trying to match Sony and paying 100 million dollars for a year of exclusive which mind you was the going rate a while ago compared to taking that company out of the picture. What does it mean if its a publisher or a bunch of studios, its pretty much the same thing. If Sony purchase 5 studios would that equal to most publishers output. Either way, as far as I am concerned, I am only looking at the landscape. 3rd party lockout deals always favor the platform with the biggest install base than the smaller one because you can easily wait until that game releases but if you are the market leader it helps more to protect your market share as consumers would be less inclined to leave when they get things first. For each OEM, any of these companies purchase a studio its off the board for another platform and none of it has anything to do with how gamers feel. None of them care, they care about their business and you as the consumer only benefit as long as competition remains strong among them all. |
As a consumer the only thing that benefits me is those companies to keep independent. Hardware manufacturing is already a monopoly, soon software production will be as well. Both Sony and Nintendo were able to get enough quality in house games that convince people their platform is superior. MS has a much better third party support than Nintendo and have pretty much all big Sony titles except few JRPGs that don't even sell 5million copies on Playstation. Yet, MS hardware sales are sub-par, disproportionately low compared to both Sony and Nintendo considering the amount of third parties secured for them. Microsoft buying third parties will lead to not only less diversification and less competition but also mediocre gaming output. I can't fathom how one of the biggest worlds companies were unable to release a single eventful game in over a decade. It's truly mesmerizing if you think about it |
I mean, consumers on Xbox had to wait one year to play Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo, and they were really close to having to wait one more year to play Starfield, so I don´t think they were benefiting much with Bethesda being independent.
