| RolStoppable said: It's a good thing because at this point it's obvious that Microsoft has a hard time competing in the gaming space. If Sony is allowed to run away with it all by virtue of Microsoft's ineptitude and AAA third parties' refusal to put their games on Nintendo consoles, then it should be fully expected that Sony will try to pull off garbage. I've heard Sony has ten GaaS titles coming in the next three years and this type of game has a bad reputation for good reasons. So the acquisition is good for PS gamers because Sony will have to make more games that people care about. Unless of course PS gamers have changed their minds about GaaS in the meantime. It's good for Xbox gamers because of Game Pass. It's good for PC gamers too. It's good for Nintendo gamers, at least for the few who care about CoD. Microsoft has been Nintendo's most friendly third party publisher when you exclude Japanese companies. It's really only bad for Sony, the corporation, for the initially mentioned reason. There are a lot of people who worry about the leverage Microsoft can get with this acquisition, but with the proposed ten year offers by Microsoft in place, we are talking about the PS7 era here before anything of note can happen. This is very far in the future in console time. The entire conversation is also incredibly two-faced. People rally against Microsoft as if CoD is going to get pulled from PS (it can't be pulled from Nintendo anyway) - which it won't because of a mandatory ten year contract - but on the other hand they gladly take all the exclusivity deals that Sony makes to block games from coming to other consoles. "Evil corporation bad, gamers must stand together against acquisitions." |
i think you're possibly diminishing my argument more into one something someone who only is thinking in terms of a "gamer" mindset or whom still cares about console wars would seek to argue. this is not that. i don't care if Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, or the like get any positives out of this acquisition. also, sure, the consumer may benefit from the 10 year contracts MS has been writing but, despite what you're saying, 10 years is not really that long of a time and corporations love to find ways to be greedier at all costs.
maybe i should have proposed this as a more philosophical question. i don't think this acquisition is a good thing because i don't think any massive acquisition is a good thing. we've seen what happened in the movie and TV industries due to these acquisitions. even worse, we've seen what has happened to the beauty industry with L'Oreal owning almost everything and something like four enormous oligopolies owning some insane percentage of food and beverage companies.
i feel that people in this thread are being incredibly short-sighted here. none of these non-gaming industries started with four big companies owning everything, it all happened over time due to a slippery slope of allowing things like what we're seeing with MS and ABK now.
maybe some people just don't care about corporate greed or the lack of choice or maybe i'm just too anti-capitalist for this forum now but, i do care and it is certainly a red flag in my mind.
EDIT: the above also kind of goes to anyone else making the same arguments. i see what everyone who's making your same points is saying but, that's not really what i'm trying to get at. maybe i should've made that more clear in my OP that it's more about the philosophical/socialistic/future/whatever idk aspects.
Last edited by NintendoPie - on 11 July 2023
Essay Pro