Kyuu said:
You know Ghostwire and Deathloop were made by smaller (less important) developers within the Bethesda group (not the TES/Fallout devs lol) and sold a fraction of Valheim and ARK2. And they don't chart anywhere even during sale (Ghostwire is currently at $34 AUD on the Playstation Store). Valheim and ARK 2 should be many times bigger and sell 20/30 million+ easy. They're more than 10 times bigger in some metrics, and less in other metrics. You seem offended for no reason whatsoever. I shouldn't have lumped in Ghostwire with Deathloop though, because the latter is notably bigger (but still many times smaller than the aforementioned).
It's not Sony's fault that Microsoft is incompetent. It's not Sony's fault that Microsoft decided to make Xbox redundant by shipping all of their games day and date on PC thereby losing console marketshare. It's not Sony's fault that they overestimated the Series S and can't produce enough Series X units. Microsoft's decisions and mismanagement are their fault and theirs alone. Going broader inherently hurts Xbox's sales potential, and yet Sony has to pay for it, it's laughable. Let me clarify again than I'm not saying YOU or Machiavellian are personally blaming Sony for it, but it's a rather common sentiment from acquisition cheerleaders. "Exclusivity deals just don't act the same when your already the market leader by a huge margin" Not sure I understand you here. Are you saying it's worse when a marketleader does deals even though they will impact far fewer players?
Microsoft's acquisitions may eventually lead to dozens of big titles skipping a major platform and a massive playerbase needlessly (Starfield is the beginning). Some of you keep assuming that Sony won't be able to respond, but you are wrong. They will respond to the best of their ability, and they will take more games from Xbox fans starting with Bungie's at some point (Their first "fucked up" acquisition. Sony will not doubt pull Bungie games out of Xbox once Microsoft pulls CoD out of Playstation. Yay!). A lot of fanboys are cheering for potentially hundreds of billions wasted just to have games locked on their preferred platform, most of which would have been there regardless, just not as exclusives. This unprecedented development would be Microsoft's fault. Sure, it's within their right as a company but why should I give a fuck? All I see is mountains of cash burnt only for games to sell less. It's a loss-loss. I actively criticized Sony for their more obvious moneyhatting. But Micrososft is doing it several times worse (counting major acquisitions), and it isn't really a response to Sony's paid exclusives, but rather as a response to Playstation's well earned dominance. They are literally being rewarded for incompetence and I'm supposed to keep a straight face about it or risk offending people. |
You know Ghostwire and Deathloop were made by smaller (less important) developers within the Bethesda group (not the TES/Fallout devs lol) and sold a fraction of Valheim and ARK2.
You know Sony didn't make a deals with Tango Gameworks nor Arkane Lyon they made deals with Bethesda. And Ark 2 is not released yet so no sells and despite the fact Ark is available on all platforms the vast majority of sales are still PC and there's absolutely no guarantee Valheim with be that of a success on Console. There's a reason both dev target GamePass on day one. The first ark did the very same deals releasing on both steam and Xbox before releasing on all other in 2017, do we even know if PlayStation policy's even allow public pre-release/alpha on their consoles. By the way, I was not offended at all, I just used your very own lexicon on purpose in my argument the show the irony between what you state as your motive and your own claim.
Machiavellian didn't blame Sony and I never said he did. "Sony's fault" is a general argument that exists among Microsoft's fans who keep justifying the acquisitions using the Sony's moneyhatting excuse.
That's the weird part you argue people that are not arguing you right now and you don't quote them either, it looks like you use console warring views/opinions from some MS fans to justify your own opposite console warring views/opinions. You want to focus on the gamers' reaction, but there's no way to do this without devolving into partisan warfare, looking at this as a business decision and by it's business implication is the only way to looks at things while making abstraction of one's own opinion/bias/preference.
Playstation's dominance from the PS4 onwards owes very little to paid exclusives, which virtually have no impact on Xbox.
Xbox monumental Xbox one screw up sure is a major factor in the PS4 dominance. However, saying paid exclusive is only of marginal effects run very much against their widespread use. If Sony determined they had only marginal impact they would simply not be using these, but they do. It's not wrong/bad to do so either, I wish MS were still using these like they did during the first half of the 360 gen but they don't and that's not wrong either.
It's not Sony's fault that Microsoft is incompetent. It's not Sony's fault that Microsoft decided to make Xbox redundant by shipping all of their games day and date on PC thereby losing console marketshare. It's not Sony's fault that they overestimated the Series S and can't produce enough Series X units. Microsoft's decisions and mismanagement are their fault and theirs alone. Going broader inherently hurts Xbox's sales potential, and yet Sony has to pay for it, it's laughable. Let me clarify again than I'm not saying YOU or Machiavellian are personally blaming Sony for it, but it's a rather common sentiment from acquisition cheerleaders.
Sony does not have to pay for MS mismanagement nor is Microsoft trying to do that, MS is simply upping their game fueled by renewed faith in Xbox due to GamePass and perceived necessity to act fast and strong. It is in no way an attack on Sony nor is it an attack on Sony's fan, those are just console warring points of views.
Not sure I understand you here. Are you saying it's worse when a marketleader does deals even though they will impact far fewer players?
Not at all, I'm saying cost of making these are reduced by their positions and impact they have are only magnified by such. However your sentencing let me believe you view action from one as more ethical because having a bigger fan base makes the negatives aspect felt by less populated group?
There are no ethics in business, but I would have liked to see some consistency from those whining about Sony's exclusivity deals.
Whiners gonna whine, hatters gonna hate there's no way around it, simply ignore them or actually argue with them but it serve no purpose to argue them on conversation that don't support their views.
Microsoft's acquisition are disproportionate and potentially destructive.
By what metrics?
And they're also clearly not stopping them from moneyhatting pretty big games as like Valheim and ARK 2, which as you pointed out are more recent.
Why should they?
Exclusivity deals in the old days were a lot more substantial because old systems, especially Sony's, had very high quantities of relevant and system selling 3rd party exclusives. That is no longer the case with modern platforms where most gamers have access to the majority of relevant 3rd party games that sell systems (Compare PS1/PS2's best sellers to PS4's. PS4 is dominated by multiplats and 1st party titles. 3rd party exclusives are very few and don't rank high, meaning: "Moneyhatting is hardly relevant").
If your arguments were accurate, then it make no sense such deals will still be used today at all.
Microsoft's acquisitions may eventually lead to dozens of big titles skipping a major platform and a massive playerbase needlessly (Starfield is the beginning).
Are any other acquisition different? To my knowledge only one acquisition by one of the big 3 was counter to this rule and it was Mojang acquisition by Microsoft.
Some of you keep assuming that Sony won't be able to respond, but you are wrong. They will respond to the best of their ability, and they will take more games from Xbox fans starting with Bungie's at some point (Their first "fucked up" acquisition. Sony will not doubt pull Bungie games out of Xbox once Microsoft pulls CoD out of Playstation. Yay!).
We agree, I fully expect Sony to respond and fully support any of there acquisition initiative. Thought I would find funny if they try a major one only to see their very own argument to counter this acquisition by MS used against them. Just like it is with this thread context. I will also find many argument from both side to be funny for sure. But that's the things, take a moment, take a step back, make some popcorn and enjoy the show.
A lot of fanboys are cheering for potentially hundreds of billions wasted just to have games locked on their preferred platform, most of which would have been there regardless, just not as exclusives. This unprecedented development would be Microsoft's fault. Sure, it's within their right as a company but why should I give a fuck? All I see is mountains of cash burnt only for games to sell less. It's a loss-loss.
There's nothing unprecedented in this, the video game industry see acquisition every year and their have been wave of large swats of acquisitions before. ABK themselves is just a collection of acquisition and so are every other major player in the industry.
I actively criticized Sony for their more obvious moneyhatting. But Micrososft is doing it several times worse (counting major acquisitions), and it isn't really a response to Sony's paid exclusives, but rather as a response to Playstation's well earned dominance. They are literally being rewarded for incompetence and I'm supposed to keep a straight face about it or risk offending people.
And that's only cause recent event run against what you view as the model the gaming industry should follow. What you view as worse is another neutral or best, what you view as well earned dominance might be viewed as other unethically achieved one, what you view as incompetence can be seen otherwise by others.
