By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Where do you stand on Microsoft buying Activision/Blizzard?

 

For or against the acquisition?

For 57 43.85%
 
Against 46 35.38%
 
Neutral 27 20.77%
 
Total:130
ConservagameR said:
Machiavellian said:

MS was dominate on the PC because they succeeded in getting a solid OS for a long period of time. Windows 98 and second addition pretty much solidified MS position as the OS of choice.  During that time there were a lot of challenger but none came close. After that it was more consumer not wanting to change more than MS doing any real dirty tactics.  You can blame users not wanting to try something new or different more than MS, at least when it comes to the OS on PC.

Nothing you have stated actually changes Zero statement.  People were giving choice back in the day and and they continue to have choice today but they continue to chose Windows.  So MS did not act like they owned the PC space, they continued to keep a product that provided all the tools needed to run a PC including legacy devices which many business and users needed for their daily life.

Just being an alternative is not enough for most users, you clearly have to be above the reigning champ in order to claim marketshare.  Its the same thing in the console space.  MS cannot just offer an alternative against Sony and Nintendo since they are the leaders in that space.  MS must offer something above what the competition is doing in the market. 

While this is the understanding of most at this point, and could be the rare circumstance it's actually true, it reminds me way too much of all the other stories like this that turned out to be false narratives.

Like prior to AMD Ryzen, everyone was buying Intel for over a decade and it was said that was simply because Intel chips were so superior. That was the story, until AMD sued Intel more recently for billions and won because AMD found out that Intel was doing illegal deals behind the scenes all this time. That's not to say it's the only reason Intel had so much market share, since their tech was legit better, but they went way out of their way to hobble their competition so they wouldn't have to worry about competing much at all. Which of course led to $2000 8 core Intel chips and 4 core mainstream chip stagnation with pitiful performance gains for years and years.

Maybe this was the case with Windows, maybe not, but a similar type of story even existed with XB, until recently when the XB documentary explained what really went on. Since 2000 it was said to just be MS wanting to get into console gaming, when it was really because MS wanted to stop Sony and PS from growing and potentially getting into MS dominated markets eventually. So MS created XB as a roadblock. Now MS wants to take the entire market with Game Pass and seems to have made it clear they'll just subsidize their way to a monopoly since Sony or Nin can't compete with that. The difference here is that none of this was illegal.

While MS may have started off legit with Windows, maybe, they sure haven't operated like that for a very long time since in any space. Which can't help but make you wonder about their Windows monopoly. Illegal deals or just sleazy tactics, MS has been extremely controlling and monopolizing for a very long time now.

We can maybe to our hearts content but if no one has sued MS to this day on Windows, I highly doubt MS really had to do any sleazy tactics to keep Windows dominate on PC.  All these companies once they become dominate in a market has a history of controlling and monopolizing.  From Sony to Nintendo, each has a history so lets not try to make it appear this is something special to MS.  Instead its just business.  Once a any company gains a lead in any industry, they will make moves to continue to lead.  What I would like for you to backup is exactly how has MS been extremely controlling and monopolizing compared to the other companies.  I will be the first to say MS has never been a saint company but neither has any of their competition as well.



Around the Network
SvennoJ said:
zero129 said:

I guess they where mistaking as they where running with the original rumor. Sorry for the last bit im just so tired of seeing some (Not all mind you) Sony fans doing this all the time and twisting history to suit their agenda (Im also not saying its only Sony fans that does this as some fans from every company does). No offense meant to you, you where just posting what you read. But imo Nintendo didnt shoot themselves in the foot as Sony wanting to make their own console that could also play snes games and get full fees from devs and leaving Nintendo with none was not something any company would agree to. But something we can agree on Zelda on CDI was a piece of shit .

Anyway Sony entered the console market since they couldnt make the deal with Nintendo

MS entered the console market since they couldnt get other company's to make a console for them while they worked the console side, and was worried Sony was going to take away from PC sales. both had their reasons not that it matters anyways.

No problem, I had to look stuff up as my memory isn't all that reliable anymore. Anyway I always wondered how Zelda ended up on CD-i, thanks for clearing that up. I didn't make the connection between the CD-i and a CD-Rom peripheral for the snes.

And yeah Nintendo would have been eaten by Sony and be a third party developer now. They would still make great games but the Wii might have never been, which would have slowed down PS Move and Kinect, which would have slowed down PSVR. Interesting alternative history possibilities.(Eye Toy did come before but I doubt Move and Kinect would have had their success without the Wii paving the way for mass market motion controls)

What Nintendo did do 'wrong' is staying in their red ocean at the time while Sony lured older gamers into console gaming by clever marketing strategies and more 'mature' games. Successfully breaking the stigma that consoles are just for kids. Then Nintendo one upped that with the Wii (only to lose the new blue ocean to mobile games doh)

What's next, I don't know. Personally I hope PSVR2 catches on and that Starfield and BotW2 turn out great as well as Stalker 2. I see that last one is now slated for December. I already bought it last year, hope that ..... war is done soon. So to get back on topic, I have no eggs in the Acti-Blizz take over bucket. But I do hope that if the deal goes through, MS fires all the bad apples at Acti-Bliz. Time to clean house!

Actually I do have an egg in there, would like some co-op Diablo 4 action, yet atm anything Blizzard is not welcome :/

I question if Nintendo has done anything wrong.  With big guns like Sony and MS in the market, Nintendo continue to print money with their hardware and software.  If anything strategy wise, I would say that Nintendo has been 2 steps ahead of both Sony and MS.



KratosLives said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

No offense intended but like.. what in the actual fuck are you talking about? Goopy is that you? 

Here’s what you said: please please someone give me a reason this deal is good if you hate Xbox has no exclusives 

And I replied: this deal gives them loads of potential exclusives 

And to that you reply: but GamePass is for poor casuals and REAL gamers will see there are less exclusives and MS won’t spend money on exclusives if the deal goes through!!!

Yes, MS won’t need to spend money to moneyhat third party games as much if the deal goes through… because ABK will provide them with many. 

Feel free to call my bluff but what games has MS signed up recently that compete with CoD, Diablo, Elder Scrolls, or Starfield? “but those games were coming anyway!!” Yes, and now they’re coming to GamePass, and now I don’t have to deal with Sony signing exclusive content from the games. 

AND

Youll still have games like Bleeding Edge, Pentiment, and Grounded, which only happened because of Bill Gates money. 

Complete win/win for Xbox gamers.

Are you narrow minded or can't comprehend my most? 

As a multi console owner , that deal means I get less AAA  big budget games by the time the console cycle is over, from xbox,  than what I would have if they don't get the purchase. 

The post is easy to understand, your point just doesn’t make any sense. 

You won’t get less “big budget AAA games” (shifting goal posts by the way) from MS than you otherwise would have, because the acquisition gives them a slew of titles that they can make exclusive. It also gives these studios funding to make better games, like developers of Wasteland 3 and Psychonauts 2 both said, and it also gives them the freedom and resources to make passion projects that otherwise wouldn’t have been made. Again, that’s according to the people who made the games I listed in the last post. 

Just because they’re investing 70B into this acquisition doesn’t mean they’d invest that in other games without said acquisition. And again, yes, we all know games like Starfield or Elder Scrolls were coming to Xbox anyway. But now they’ll come to GamePass. And now Xbox owners don’t have to worry about timed exclusive BS or publishers removing content from the Xbox versions to sell to Sony. I mean looks at Starfield. It went from a game that would have been PS exclusive for a year, to a day one GamePass/Xbox game with no Ps exclusive content. 

Still waiting to see how this isn’t an advantage for Xbox users.



ClassicGamingWizzz said:

They are firing 10k while spending 70 billion to acquiree the IPs and a company that have like 9500 employers. Want to see next interviews phill and nadella give, lets hope the people interviewing them have the cojones to ask hard questions and not doing what they keep doing that is allow them to lie and give BS responses. Also just read what fired devs are saying about the management of those studios, if they can barely run what they have imagine how it will be when they have ANOTHER publisher. No regulation org in their right minds shiuld allow microsoft to aquire more publishers and big companies.

The acquisition is an investment, not just some random spending. Layoffs have nothing to do with this. This would have happened if this deal was happening or not. If you have been paying attention, it's layoffs are happening all over tech. A corporation isn't going to suddenly stop investing during times like this. 

The devs talking about mismanagement was about one studio, not studios. It's not some widespread issue you are trying to make it out to be. With that said, we don't need someone on twitter to tell us 343 has been mismanaged, but it's good to get confirmation. Also, MS laying off devs at 343 isn't necessarily a bad thing. I've heard many say, MS needs to get involved more. Some time you have to do not very nice things to fix 

Last edited by smroadkill15 - 5 days ago

ConservagameR said:
zero129 said:

Just like they did with Sony by not accepting their bad deal, Sony was literally trying to trick Nintendo and then set out to try destroy them when Nintendo left them red faced after finding out what Sony's plan was. Now Nintendo is number 1 in the console market so that didnt work out well for Sony.

Btw you remind me of another user we used to have here. Funny you only joined a year ago too. The mods really should check you out make sure your not him.

Coming up with a better deal would've been best, but that's maybe expecting a lot from Nin and Sony based on how things were back then. Lot's of people say N64 would've faired much better against PS1 if it had discs instead of carts, yet not at the expense of giving Sony too much control. PS1 wouldn't have even been a thing if N64 ended up disc based if their partnership had been worked out.

Just because Ken wanted to get into console gaming, didn't mean he wanted to end Nin, though if you wanted to extrapolate, I guess it's possible Sony could've eventually tried to. Yet all this time, even after feeling betrayed, where Ken wanted to go after Nin and make them pay, PS still hadn't come close to ending Nin and nowadays looks to be leaving them alone.

At least Ken just wanted to get into gaming for gamings sake initially, where as MS wanted to put a stop to PS growth, and now wants everything.

A mod mentioned that earlier on and already made it clear they looked into it already. Didn't exactly make me feel welcomed the way it was handled. I've known about the site since PS4, so 2014 I guess, and checked it out here and there, just never decided to sign up until more recently. Was just bored one day and decided what the heck. Not sure why I remind people of someone else or why that would be a problem. A few people here remind me a bit of a few friends I have, though that doesn't strike me as odd. Not everyone is purely unique.

The couldnt be a better deal for Nin. Sony wanted to use Nintendo to put the "Playstation" onto the market like a trojan horse to break into the video game market.

The CD drive Sony was making wasnt even a CD add on for the Snes but its own thing called "The Playstation" that could also play Super Nintendo games. Nintendo wasnt already happy with how Sony was with the Sound chip for the snes so when they seen what Sony was planning with the Playstation they backed out but the was still talks ongoing even after the fact they just couldnt agree on the contract. When this didnt work out for Sony they went to Sega to try work out a deal with them. The deal didnt even make it past the board of Directors at Sega. (Does this not sound like someone else your so against?)

With no one to partner with Sony went ahead and decided they would make their own console. They where clearly out for Nintendo and now Sega. They went after Sega's market first. Since they where rich compared to the other 2 companys they used their influence on music and TV to bring movie stars and music stars from their record labels to boost about the PS1, they where able to make the license fees much cheaper then the other 2 console makers could, after Sega gave their price of the Saturn Sony came out and undercut them by $100 since they could afford to. Their They spend millions on TV adverts targeting the user base that Sega had (Teens). Pretty much back then they where the MS you are talking about today, They could get deals, use their movie stars and musicians, pay much more for adverts they used their wealth to break into the console market something Nintendo and Sega couldnt as they where small fish compared to Sony who had billions. They wanted to take over from Sega and Nintendo and used their wealth to get there. Now Sony are facing a bigger fish than them selfs and your here complaining about MS is just funny when a person knows Sony's history.



Around the Network
Machiavellian said:

I question if Nintendo has done anything wrong.  With big guns like Sony and MS in the market, Nintendo continue to print money with their hardware and software.  If anything strategy wise, I would say that Nintendo has been 2 steps ahead of both Sony and MS.

They are now, I'm refering to the rise of playstation and the runaway success of ps2 vs Gamecube. Sony understood that their audience gets older with new generations coming in as well. Nintendo seemed to keep focusing on consoles as a toy, while the ps2 was a media player as well. (Which is what scared MS into jumping in)

But Nintendo corrected and jumped passed Sony's following the growth curve of games, marketing the Wii to young and old, play with your grandparents, brilliant strategy. But not a demographic that understood the WiiU. And now Nintendo has taking over the mobile gaming market with the Switch, consolidating their two fan bases in one device.

Nintendo has wisely benefited from the MS Sony rivalry. While the 2 big guns were competing on graphics, sales and putting things out (too) quickly, Nintendo simply kept the HW price down, software price stable (no use waiting for sales, just buy it now and it will hold its value) and game quality high.



chakkra said:
KratosLives said:

Yeah if your on a tight budget and can't afford games, it's good to have gamepass, but having all those multiplats come as exclusive, for the serious gamer out there who has no problem buying games, it means less overall exclusives compared to if there is no aquisition.

Picture this. There is no acquisition,  and with microsoft already getting questioned over the lack of exclusives, and needing to step it up,  will have to invest and push out exclusives to keep up with sony and the complaints. So ontop of microsoft putting out exclusives, you then have all these multiplat games coming from activision /blizzard, on top, for a bigger count.

If the aquision goes through, more of the multiplat titles will now take the place of some of the " would have arrived" exclusives from xbox. So that's less overall potential exclusives in the end. 

Microsoft will have to market the exclusives from the aquisition,  as their own games.  And with that 68 billion spent, what incentive would they have to go out and spend more money on exclusives.

Okay.. let me see if I understand this; so you are saying that it would be better for Xbox owners if Microsoft started today creating 10+ studios from scratch, and then start seeing the fruits of said studios in the next 5 years at minimum.. instead of, you know, playing Diablo and COD day one this year..


Huh.. Going by that logic, I guess it would have been better for PS owners if Sony had started a new studio from scratch 4 years ago instead of purchasing Imsoniac.

Cod, diablo 99% of other games were going to be released on xbox day one regardless of the aquisition. So yes i'd love it if microsoft took first party/ third party exclusives  seriously, and from 3 to 4 years took on the Initiative to try get on sony's level and bring on the exclusives for the series s/x, so I can play them , along with the many other thirds party offering , that were coming.



zero129 said:
ConservagameR said:

Coming up with a better deal would've been best, but that's maybe expecting a lot from Nin and Sony based on how things were back then. Lot's of people say N64 would've faired much better against PS1 if it had discs instead of carts, yet not at the expense of giving Sony too much control. PS1 wouldn't have even been a thing if N64 ended up disc based if their partnership had been worked out.

Just because Ken wanted to get into console gaming, didn't mean he wanted to end Nin, though if you wanted to extrapolate, I guess it's possible Sony could've eventually tried to. Yet all this time, even after feeling betrayed, where Ken wanted to go after Nin and make them pay, PS still hadn't come close to ending Nin and nowadays looks to be leaving them alone.

At least Ken just wanted to get into gaming for gamings sake initially, where as MS wanted to put a stop to PS growth, and now wants everything.

A mod mentioned that earlier on and already made it clear they looked into it already. Didn't exactly make me feel welcomed the way it was handled. I've known about the site since PS4, so 2014 I guess, and checked it out here and there, just never decided to sign up until more recently. Was just bored one day and decided what the heck. Not sure why I remind people of someone else or why that would be a problem. A few people here remind me a bit of a few friends I have, though that doesn't strike me as odd. Not everyone is purely unique.

The couldnt be a better deal for Nin. Sony wanted to use Nintendo to put the "Playstation" onto the market like a trojan horse to break into the video game market.

The CD drive Sony was making wasnt even a CD add on for the Snes but its own thing called "The Playstation" that could also play Super Nintendo games. Nintendo wasnt already happy with how Sony was with the Sound chip for the snes so when they seen what Sony was planning with the Playstation they backed out but the was still talks ongoing even after the fact they just couldnt agree on the contract. When this didnt work out for Sony they went to Sega to try work out a deal with them. The deal didnt even make it past the board of Directors at Sega. (Does this not sound like someone else your so against?)

With no one to partner with Sony went ahead and decided they would make their own console. They where clearly out for Nintendo and now Sega. They went after Sega's market first. Since they where rich compared to the other 2 companys they used their influence on music and TV to bring movie stars and music stars from their record labels to boost about the PS1, they where able to make the license fees much cheaper then the other 2 console makers could, after Sega gave their price of the Saturn Sony came out and undercut them by $100 since they could afford to. Their They spend millions on TV adverts targeting the user base that Sega had (Teens). Pretty much back then they where the MS you are talking about today, They could get deals, use their movie stars and musicians, pay much more for adverts they used their wealth to break into the console market something Nintendo and Sega couldnt as they where small fish compared to Sony who had billions. They wanted to take over from Sega and Nintendo and used their wealth to get there. Now Sony are facing a bigger fish than them selfs and your here complaining about MS is just funny when a person knows Sony's history.

If Sony was after Nin, then why go after Sega first after partnering with Nin? Why not partner with Sega instead of Nin for hardware, then take Sega out, and save Nin for later? Sony didn't even take either out. MS basically took out Sega.

Sounds like Sony simply wanted into the console gaming market and decided to use another player to get their foot in the door, which is exactly what MS attempted to do in the first place with consoles. Difference being it seems like Sony just wanted to cash in to a growing games market, where as MS mainly wanted to stop PS from growing. Nin breaking off from Sony looked to have made a direct enemy for Ken, so he focused on going after Nin because of it instead of just taking a piece of the gaming pie.

I'm not saying Nin should've just caved to Sony in the first place with their partnership, but they should've tried much harder to make a better deal with Sony, or should've backed out in a much more civilized manner. It would've either stopped the eventual PS competition, or would've made Nin less of a target.

Nin was at least correct in that Sony was definitely going to eventually be competition if they broke off and did their own thing, where as MS simply assumed PS could possibly become competition for the PC and their OS. It's not so clear whether or not PS would've started creeping in on the PC market or expanding into it. If anything, PS has only gotten into PC gaming recently because MS got into consoles and has slowly been attempting to merge console and PC games. It kinda looks like MS is actually pushing Sony into doing what MS feared might happen all along, which is kind of ironic.



Machiavellian said:
ConservagameR said:

While this is the understanding of most at this point, and could be the rare circumstance it's actually true, it reminds me way too much of all the other stories like this that turned out to be false narratives.

Like prior to AMD Ryzen, everyone was buying Intel for over a decade and it was said that was simply because Intel chips were so superior. That was the story, until AMD sued Intel more recently for billions and won because AMD found out that Intel was doing illegal deals behind the scenes all this time. That's not to say it's the only reason Intel had so much market share, since their tech was legit better, but they went way out of their way to hobble their competition so they wouldn't have to worry about competing much at all. Which of course led to $2000 8 core Intel chips and 4 core mainstream chip stagnation with pitiful performance gains for years and years.

Maybe this was the case with Windows, maybe not, but a similar type of story even existed with XB, until recently when the XB documentary explained what really went on. Since 2000 it was said to just be MS wanting to get into console gaming, when it was really because MS wanted to stop Sony and PS from growing and potentially getting into MS dominated markets eventually. So MS created XB as a roadblock. Now MS wants to take the entire market with Game Pass and seems to have made it clear they'll just subsidize their way to a monopoly since Sony or Nin can't compete with that. The difference here is that none of this was illegal.

While MS may have started off legit with Windows, maybe, they sure haven't operated like that for a very long time since in any space. Which can't help but make you wonder about their Windows monopoly. Illegal deals or just sleazy tactics, MS has been extremely controlling and monopolizing for a very long time now.

We can maybe to our hearts content but if no one has sued MS to this day on Windows, I highly doubt MS really had to do any sleazy tactics to keep Windows dominate on PC.  All these companies once they become dominate in a market has a history of controlling and monopolizing.  From Sony to Nintendo, each has a history so lets not try to make it appear this is something special to MS.  Instead its just business.  Once a any company gains a lead in any industry, they will make moves to continue to lead.  What I would like for you to backup is exactly how has MS been extremely controlling and monopolizing compared to the other companies.  I will be the first to say MS has never been a saint company but neither has any of their competition as well.

The Microsoft Monopoly Ruling Aftermath: Why Microsoft Didn't Split | Time

A Judge Ordered Microsoft to Split. Here's Why It's Still a Single Company

It was Friday, Nov. 5, 1999 when then-Microsoft CEO Bill Gates got the bad news. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson had declared that his company was a monopoly. And not just any monopoly, but the very worst kind: one that uses its power to squash would-be rivals before they’re even out of the gate. At the time, Microsoft packaged its Internet Explorer web browser with its Windows operating systems, which gave Microsoft an incredible advantage over rivals like Netscape in an era when dial-up Internet meant that downloading and installing alternative web browsers was a slog at best.

“It’s actually hard to imagine how, for Microsoft, it could have come out any worse,” TIME wrote in a Nov. 15, 1999 cover story on Jackson’s decision. But Jackson wasn’t done yet — the declaration that Microsoft was a monopolist was only the first half of his decision. Jackson’s conclusions and remedy wouldn’t come until April and June of the next year, respectively, after Gates had already stepped down as CEO and transitioned into the newly created role of “chief software architect.”

“Assuming he says yea [to the question of whether Microsoft’s monopoly was used to violate antitrust laws]–a near certainty considering Friday’s findings–he can impose a remedy as far-reaching as the total dismemberment of the Gates empire,” TIME wrote in 1999. “The gamut of possible outcomes runs from a mild go-forth-and-sin-no-more to the truly Draconian stuff: forcing Microsoft to share its Windows source code with its competitors or carving up the company into the so-called Baby Bills.” (“Baby Bills” was a clever riff on the “Baby Bells” born of the 1982 breakup of the Bell telephone system.)

In 2000, Judge Jackson took the harsher path, decreeing that Microsoft should be split into two halves, one dedicated to Windows and the other to everything else Microsoft.

So why aren’t there two Microsofts today?

Jackson’s word was far from final. The case found its way to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected Jackson’s remedy and accused him of unethical conduct after it was http://news.com.com/Former%20judge%20defends%20his%20bid%20to%20break%20up%20Microsoft/2100-1014_3-5755593.html">revealed he had private conversations with reporters about the trial while it was still ongoing. Microsoft would settle the case with the Department of Justice in November of 2001 by agreeing to make it easier for Microsoft’s competitors to get their software more closely integrated with the Windows operating system — a tough pill for Microsoft to swallow, but hardly on the same level as a forced breakup.

These days, it’s harder to see Microsoft as the big monopolist bully Judge Jackson once described. Microsoft Windows operating systems still dominate the PC OS market, but PC OSes are less important than they’ve ever been before, diminishing Microsoft’s ability to use Windows’ market share to make life harder for its rivals. Thanks to the rise of high-speed Internet, web-based solutions and cloud computing in general, it doesn’t really matter what OS you use — Facebook and Gmail don’t care if you’re accessing them from Windows, OS X or Linux. On top of that, we do more of our daily computing on mobile devices like smartphones and tablets, a sphere that’s owned not by Microsoft but by rivals Apple and Google. (Interestingly, that latter company has increasingly run afoul of antitrust regulators, particularly in Europe, where a four-year investigation of Google’s potential abuse of its dominance in search to favor its own secondary products over those of its competitors was just reopened. As the power has shifted from Microsoft to its rivals, so have the watchful eyes of regulators.)

Sure, there have been fresh calls to split up Microsoft — except they’re not coming from regulators, but from Microsoft stockholders and analysts, surely inspired by the trend of corporate spinoffs that’s already hit massive players in tech like eBay, HP and now, potentially, security and storage firm Symantec. Microsoft, the spinoff advocates say, would be better off jettisoning its consumer-facing products, like the Xbox and its Bing search engine, so it can focus on enterprise solutions for corporate customers.

Will we ever see the birth of the Baby Bills? Maybe, but not for a long while: Microsoft’s newest CEO, Satya Nadella, hasn’t even had the reins for a full year yet, but he’s already well underway in changing course to a mostly software-oriented, platform-agnostic company. Microsoft’s stockholders seem to be willing to give Nadella some time to enact his vision, which could preserve the single Microsoft that’s been around since Gates and Paul Allen founded it in 1975 — a single company, even if that’s not so threatening anymore.

How many times have you ever heard there's no point in suing because they're too rich and powerful and you'll never win? Way too often. That doesn't mean people don't sue from time to time, and even against giants they do win here and there, but even here with MS, after losing, they conveniently are able to appeal and get the result they want. I'm sure nobody thinks any funny business went on behind the scenes, especially since the original judge themselves was doing something they shouldn't have been. Corruption is the name of the game for most at the top in whatever sector they operate.



ConservagameR said:
zero129 said:

The couldnt be a better deal for Nin. Sony wanted to use Nintendo to put the "Playstation" onto the market like a trojan horse to break into the video game market.

The CD drive Sony was making wasnt even a CD add on for the Snes but its own thing called "The Playstation" that could also play Super Nintendo games. Nintendo wasnt already happy with how Sony was with the Sound chip for the snes so when they seen what Sony was planning with the Playstation they backed out but the was still talks ongoing even after the fact they just couldnt agree on the contract. When this didnt work out for Sony they went to Sega to try work out a deal with them. The deal didnt even make it past the board of Directors at Sega. (Does this not sound like someone else your so against?)

With no one to partner with Sony went ahead and decided they would make their own console. They where clearly out for Nintendo and now Sega. They went after Sega's market first. Since they where rich compared to the other 2 companys they used their influence on music and TV to bring movie stars and music stars from their record labels to boost about the PS1, they where able to make the license fees much cheaper then the other 2 console makers could, after Sega gave their price of the Saturn Sony came out and undercut them by $100 since they could afford to. Their They spend millions on TV adverts targeting the user base that Sega had (Teens). Pretty much back then they where the MS you are talking about today, They could get deals, use their movie stars and musicians, pay much more for adverts they used their wealth to break into the console market something Nintendo and Sega couldnt as they where small fish compared to Sony who had billions. They wanted to take over from Sega and Nintendo and used their wealth to get there. Now Sony are facing a bigger fish than them selfs and your here complaining about MS is just funny when a person knows Sony's history.

If Sony was after Nin, then why go after Sega first after partnering with Nin? Why not partner with Sega instead of Nin for hardware, then take Sega out, and save Nin for later? Sony didn't even take either out. MS basically took out Sega.

Sounds like Sony simply wanted into the console gaming market and decided to use another player to get their foot in the door, which is exactly what MS attempted to do in the first place with consoles. Difference being it seems like Sony just wanted to cash in to a growing games market, where as MS mainly wanted to stop PS from growing. Nin breaking off from Sony looked to have made a direct enemy for Ken, so he focused on going after Nin because of it instead of just taking a piece of the gaming pie.

I'm not saying Nin should've just caved to Sony in the first place with their partnership, but they should've tried much harder to make a better deal with Sony, or should've backed out in a much more civilized manner. It would've either stopped the eventual PS competition, or would've made Nin less of a target.

Nin was at least correct in that Sony was definitely going to eventually be competition if they broke off and did their own thing, where as MS simply assumed PS could possibly become competition for the PC and their OS. It's not so clear whether or not PS would've started creeping in on the PC market or expanding into it. If anything, PS has only gotten into PC gaming recently because MS got into consoles and has slowly been attempting to merge console and PC games. It kinda looks like MS is actually pushing Sony into doing what MS feared might happen all along, which is kind of ironic.

Sony did try partnering with Sega after the Nintendo deal didnt work out. But like i said it didnt even make it past the board of directors at Sega.

Sony itself didnt want to make a console or get into gaming as they seen it as a toy and for kids. It was Ken who went behind their backs at first to make the Sound chip for the super Nintendo and convinced Sony that gaming was an emerging market. Sony pretty much agreed as long as they could partner with one of the established companies being Nintendo first when that didnt work they went to Sega but when that didnt work for them and being Japanese company they probably felt embarrassed after it (Even more so with Nintendo's announcement and people expecting something from Sony) and then investing into it Ken got the go ahead to make the playstation without needing Nintendo or Sega. Sony was a billion dollar company compared to Nintendo and Sega, They had Movie Studios a record label, making electronics etc. They where able to use all that money to make Playstation a success by lower license fees, paying devs to develop for playstation, massive tv and radio and newspaper adverts. Back then the was no chance Sega or Nintendo could compete with them on the same scale, Sega tried and failed since Sony was targeting the same userbase sega had and they where releasing their nextgen console before Nintendo so thats why Sony undercut them by €100. Nintendo failed that gen too since playstation got so many of the devs and publishers that used to make games for Nintendo consoles to pretty much just work with Sony. Only reason Nintendo survived is they always made their consoles at a profit. and in the end Nintendo ended up finding a new stratagy with the Wii and now the Switch.

Some guys working at MS (Just like with Ken) seen the video game market as the future and thought Ms should get in on it. Ms didnt really want part of the console market. Them small few guys working at Ms really wanting to make a console went and convinced bill gates that the Playstation 2 could eat into the PC market as they where already on the way to taking over the living room (Something bill gates also wanted with media center PC's he wanted windows to be the center of the house, bill gates ended up giving them the go ahead to see if they could find a partner to work with on the hardware and they would make the OS. Remember Ms at first wanted other hardware makers to make the xbox. When this didnt work out the guys went and worked on their own hardware trowing together some pc parts and making it work like a console and the xbox was born.

Sure thats just the gist of it and the is more to the story. But just like Sony thought of gaming consoles as a toy and didnt want in on the market until ken convinced them is not much different then how Ms didnt want in on the market until some guys working there convinced them.

So just like MS having so much money today that Sony fans complain about being able to use was no different then when Sony entered the market back in the 90's. Sony was the multi billion dollar tech giant entering the console market just like Ms was when they entered compared to Sony.