| Kyuu said:
Anything goes in the business world I'm not interested in discussing this and don't disagree with the core of your argument. I explained/justified Microsoft's acquisitions from a business perspective in my response to Chakkra which you read and quoted. Microsoft overpaying for big Japanese exclusives would be poor business, what they're doing obviously makes a lot more sense. The gamers' reaction to it however is a separate topic. When I see too much blatant bullshit, hypocrisy, and false equivalences, sometimes I feel like pointing them out. MS's louder fans complained non stop about Sony's meager (And they're definitely meager or just shy of meager. The numbers don't lie but agree to disagree) exclusivity deals and just won't act the same way when Microsoft does it 10-100 times worse. Even excluding acquisitions, ARK 2 and Valheim are an order of magnitude bigger than the games you mentioned (Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo which both were untested new IP's from less relevant developers). From the PS360 generation onward, most platforms exclusivity deals were "fucked up" within reason. You can no longer say this with where this industry is heading. And no... it's not "Sony's fault". If someone's not happy about where things are going... blame Microsoft and Microsoft alone. The standard/fair/typical response to Sony from an "ethical standpoint" is to make similar deals. Otherwise I get it. Ethics have no place in business, and if MS gathers that major 3rd party acquisitions is the only way for Xbox to return to relevance (provided they stick with the PC day and date approach), then it makes sense for them to take this route. It also makes sense for Sony to try to combat or challenge it. |
When I see too much blatant bullshit, hypocrisy, and false equivalences, sometimes I feel like pointing them out.
you realize the rest of your paragraph is filled with these?
Claiming Ark 2 and Valheim order of magnitude bigger is bullshit and false equivalence they are both only 20$ non AAA game on steam (or follow up to a 20$ game for Ark 2) and are both targeting GamePass day 1. Ark 2 will also only be exclusive for the alpha release only and Valheim is only expanding on console. Both game from Bethesda were full AAA from a renowned publisher with no prior presence on other ecosystem.
Claiming Bethesda is a less relevant developers is also bullshit.
As far as I know Ark2 and Valheim are the only 2 recent MS deals exclusivity we know of or suspect of while Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo are only 2 out of many others for Sony which also make this comparison a false equivalency.
exclusivity deals and just won't act the same way when Microsoft does it 10-100 times worse
Exclusivity deals just don't act the same when your already the market leader by a huge margin, exclusivity deals are also way more impactful per $ spent than acquisition.
From the PS360 generation onward, most platforms exclusivity deals were "fucked up" within reason. You can no longer say this with where this industry is heading.
I don't even know why you mean by "fucked up" within reason but there's no difference in the way exclusivity deals are made now then back during the 7th gen or 6th gen or even the 5th gen. The only thing that changed is MS had drastically increased the use of such for the 1st half of the 7th gen then dial them back after Kinect release, dial them back again after Tomb Raider and now seems to not target any AAA while Sony as remained pretty constant since the 5th gen on their use of such.
And no... it's not "Sony's fault". If someone's not happy about where things are going... blame Microsoft and Microsoft alone.
You realize Machiavellian is not blaming Sony for anything right? by the same token of your argument if someone happy with where things are going should they thank MS and MS Alone? There's no blame or thanks necessary MS is playing by the very same rule Sony have been playing since they joined the market with the Ps1. Sony never stopped to look at the consequence on the competition and neither should MS.
The standard/fair/typical response to Sony from an "ethical standpoint" is to make similar deals.
I'm guessing by that you mean MS should not target big publisher because Sony never could do as much? I've seen this argument many time in one form or another and it's simply wrong, it conveniently place Sony in a spot where it decide what's ethnical or not. Sony isn't some kind of arbiter of ethics, MS actions are not and should not be limited by what Sony does, is willing to do or have the capacity to do.
Last edited by EpicRandy - on 05 April 2023
