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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Microsoft gives market share against PlayStation

Shadow1980 said:
EpicRandy said:

I can agree to this but it is more of a political position than this specific deal ramification and blocking a deal just because it's a big one isn't supported by the current laws and rules. 

AS of now deals must be judged by their predictable results on the market they happen into and not because of arbitrary rules based solely of specifics actor size. If the competitiveness of a market is untouched or improved by a deal however big the actors involved are then it should be allowed. 

I get that it's legal. I get that the rules have to be consistent. But just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. The U.S. never should have abandoned the Progressive Era commitment to anti-trust legislation. We're well on our way to the Gilded Age 2.0.

An excellent segment, Biden has surprised me quite few times already, we'll see. 



Around the Network

Well, regulators (or it might just be the FTC?) have defined Xbox and PS as their own market. So it makes sense why they're only using Xbox+PS. Plus I'm pretty sure if they included Nintendo their market share numbers would dwindle to even lower percentages.



NobleTeam360 said:

Well, regulators (or it might just be the FTC?) have defined Xbox and PS as their own market. So it makes sense why they're only using Xbox+PS. Plus I'm pretty sure if they included Nintendo their market share numbers would dwindle to even lower percentages.

The is a reason regulators want to discount Nintendo. They scuttle their entire argument. The Switch is the 3rd best selling game system of all time and it's never had a Call of Duty title. Nintendo's success flies in the face of their narrative that CoD is required for success. Sony was the a far larger company when it entered the industry and leveraged that to great success. As of yet, MS hasn't been able to do the same after over two decades in the console space. They used Sony's playbook but haven't had the same results. I really hate having to defend MS because I don't like all this industry consolidation. However Sony's position and that of most regulators don't hold water. You can't ignore something because it doesn't fit your narrative. Sony is acting like the kid that cries and takes the ball home when the game isn't going their way.



Darc Requiem said:
NobleTeam360 said:

Well, regulators (or it might just be the FTC?) have defined Xbox and PS as their own market. So it makes sense why they're only using Xbox+PS. Plus I'm pretty sure if they included Nintendo their market share numbers would dwindle to even lower percentages.

The is a reason regulators want to discount Nintendo. They scuttle their entire argument. The Switch is the 3rd best selling game system of all time and it's never had a Call of Duty title. Nintendo's success flies in the face of their narrative that CoD is required for success. Sony was the a far larger company when it entered the industry and leveraged that to great success. As of yet, MS hasn't been able to do the same after over two decades in the console space. They used Sony's playbook but haven't had the same results. I really hate having to defend MS because I don't like all this industry consolidation. However Sony's position and that of most regulators don't hold water. You can't ignore something because it doesn't fit your narrative. Sony is acting like the kid that cries and takes the ball home when the game isn't going their way.

Yes, absolutely agree with everything you stated. 



I think it’s hard to blame Sony for doing everything they can to stop the aquisition as it would potentially deal a major blow to them. But by no means would they be unable to compete and that should be clear to regulators.



Around the Network

These are both giant companies that exist only to make money. They're not a person with feelings and emotions. They're a company whose job is to suck money out of your wallet and put it into the wallets of shareholders. That is literally the only thing they care about. That is why they exist. Acting like one is better than the other, on a moral or ethical level, is just total nonsense.

With that said, it is reasonable to support or oppose specific actions of a big company. In this case, Sony is trying to sic government on their competitor in order to protect their market position. I don't see how any reasonable human can support this. It is a giant company using government to help them suck more money out of your pocket.

Will Microsoft also use government to help them suck more money out of your pocket? Of course they will, when given the opportunity. They're a giant company that doesn't give a fuck about you. But, *in this specific case*, they are the ones with the morally and ethically sound position. They are trying to fight off government that is being wielded by a big business. This is objectively the right side to be on in this case.

People that are cheering on Sony here are making themselves look ridiculous. They are literally cheering on corporatism, one of the worst things that we deal with in modern society.



NobleTeam360 said:
Darc Requiem said:

The is a reason regulators want to discount Nintendo. They scuttle their entire argument. The Switch is the 3rd best selling game system of all time and it's never had a Call of Duty title. Nintendo's success flies in the face of their narrative that CoD is required for success. Sony was the a far larger company when it entered the industry and leveraged that to great success. As of yet, MS hasn't been able to do the same after over two decades in the console space. They used Sony's playbook but haven't had the same results. I really hate having to defend MS because I don't like all this industry consolidation. However Sony's position and that of most regulators don't hold water. You can't ignore something because it doesn't fit your narrative. Sony is acting like the kid that cries and takes the ball home when the game isn't going their way.

Yes, absolutely agree with everything you stated. 

it doesn't necessarily scuttle any argument it a bit like saying Sony never had Mario but they had the best selling games system of all time, so Mario isn't important to Nintendo, but even that isn't a real issue, the issue that should be considered is whether or not all those games (COD is really a proxy for all of them) being owned by MS as opposed to 3rd party will benefit the consumer.

We are in the age of subscription models and ecosystems like PS plus and game pass with the elevated importance of having access to product on your service in both growing your service and retention now sees an age where content ownership  is rated high enough to not only overcome the old adage of why pay for ownership of a product we get anyway but to do it on a scale never seen before in gaming, so the trend toward these services and how they have reshaped the games industry means that these deals are more likely to be put under the microscope.

Last edited by mjk45 - on 26 February 2023

Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

Qwark said:
Wman1996 said:

I wonder why North America isn't in there. That's the most even battleground. I'd imagine when including this gen and last, it's probably about 60/40.

Because the point they are making is we are getting brutally slaughtered and we can't do anything about that unless we can buy Actibliz

The counterpoint then becomes well you were already getting those games so unless you leverage your ownership to benefit you how does it stop the slaughter. 



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

The Fury said:
Darc Requiem said:

Anyone with basic knowledge of gaming knows that Sony's stance is nonsense and frankly hypocritical. Sony buying exclusives from the out set of their entry in the gaming console industry. They had no issues with exclusives, sales, and acquisitions in the past. They've been actively paying developers to keep content off their competition from Tomb Raider 2 on the Saturn (the games developed but shelved) to Final Fantasy VII Remake not being on Xbox consoles now. This situation has revealed that Sony has been paying developers not put games on Gamepass. Sony has been in leader in the console industry for most of the last 30 years. For them to go in front regulators and pretend that they some frail company that will be crushed by this acquisition is ludicrous. Especially when they are actively engaged in anti-competitive tactics themselves. 

Many here have an issues with Sony and them buying exclusives but both MS and Sony have done this in the past. It's part of the industry, whether we like it or not. All these deals. from console exclusivity, timed exclusivity, console exclusive content or even adding to your service day 1, exist to try and get people into your service/infrastructure. I think money is better spent on new studios or expanding them, their own employees and their own IPs (like no one would even think twice about Sony, Nintendo or MS just commissioned games from 3rd party developers of IPs they owned).

The difference here is scale. A few million here and there is nothing and mostly just a deal/contract between 2 companies compared to MS buying out entire rival publisher.

Yes it always been an odd argument as if MS is somehow forced into this because of Sony's marketing methods,and they can find spend 65 billion but couldn't spend money on there own cod marketing deals .



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

SKMBlake said:

I also believe that buying Bethesda was a good decision and enough to secure a good output of games.

Microsoft doesn't agree with you on that one.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar