
Microsoft's outrageously large bid to purchase Activision Blizzard has resulted in a protracted, painful period of negotiations. Without getting too into the weeds with all this, the short version is Sony is trying to prevent the deal from going through, and the Xbox firm is of course pushing for regulators to let it happen. The latest round of statements have been made public, and in Microsoft's take, it claims Sony's first-party output is better than its own.
The company's point is that Sony has more exclusive games, and so it doesn't necessarily need the likes of Call of Duty to succeed. However, Microsoft's statement says "many of [Sony's first-party games] are of better quality" than its own output. To put it another way, the firm has officially documented an admission that its own titles are inferior to Sony's.
It goes on to call Sony "the dominant console provider" and a "powerful games publisher", apparently "equivalent in size to Activision and nearly double the size of Microsoft's game publishing business".
It's just one of many rebuttals to Sony's own report on this whole song and dance (which, by the way, makes allusions to the inevitable PS6). Microsoft is at pains to point out Sony will be just fine without Call of Duty, positioning itself as an underdog while making claims like the above, all to try and get this acquisition locked down. It's quite exhausting, all this, isn't it?
What do you make of Microsoft's comments about Sony and its first-party games? Do you agree with the corporation that PlayStation games are better? Discuss in the comments section below.
[source assets.publishing.service.gov.uk]
Comments 55
This makes me remember the glory days of Halo and Gears of War. What happened to the people in charge of Microsoft's first party output?
Can't argue with them here. 😁 Only thing I ask of Sony is more genre variety.
So they say Activision alone is the size of the entire publishing arm of Sony, and yet claim that losing their output (or only getting it via Gamepass subscription, which is the same thing) is not a big deal? Did I miss something?
@EaglyTheKawaiiShika That's actually a 3rd party exclusive that happens to launch on Game Pass, not developed or published by MS
Microsoft also confirm sky is blue and water is wet.
🤔 Microsoft knew that a long time ago that sony PlayStation is the 👑 king of gaming.thats another reason why they was trying to buy all those publishers.but sony is still number 1.from a underdog in September 9 1995 to. The 🐐 g.o.a.t of gaming.😀.word up son
Main reason why I dropped Xbox, plus most of their games are now ongoing, with seasons and micro transactions, I'm not really into that.
dschons wrote:
Sony: "We hear you loud and clear that's why we are investing in so many live services"
Us: ...
I LOOOOOVE the farcical attempts by Microsoft to make themselves look like underdogs in any way, shape, or form.
I bought a series s purely as a gamepass and back compatible and emulation machine (ps2 specifically since sony dont care about that stuff). For those reasons its a good machine, doesnt replace my PS5 as a main console though, more of a side dish
Sony have been making the best games since 1995
Underdogs? MS has had an unlimited budget to build up their first-party development and publishing arms and failed to do for almost 20 years.
The problem with MS has always been that they just buy studios and/or IP but don't nurture their growth. It's the reason franchises like Halo and Gears of War are shadows of their former selves.
@arsmolinarc Microsoft became a multi trillion dollar company only recently
@Hindenburg Makes you wonder why the same thing won't happen to Activision, doesn't it? Five years after the sale goes through, will they manage to kill CoD and anything else worth buying?
Or is CoD's name such a juggernaut that they could release warm poo and still sell it? I don't know - I don't play it, but there's no denying it's a mover and shaker in the industry.
I'm convinced both companies are participating in a public competition to see who's able to sound more pathetic
@themightyant Pretty much yeah, lol
Does MS wake up the next day thinking everyone forgets their stance the day before?!?
@Hindenburg You want to make the same thing for decades people want to change it up after a few years. Sony might make a lot of the same things as well but atleast they get to work on new IP's.
Hopefully we'll start seeing results from Xbox studios by next years! Competition is good, because the recent titles from SONY feels like stagnation, they feel comfortable by releasing very similar games!
@Hindenburg And don't come with this nonsense they have had cash to burn for decades and now with the US army as their funding the sky will be the limit.
@Flaming_Kaiser There is a huge difference between what they were able to do 15 years ago and now. They can buy Sony and Nintendo(the government won't greenlight the purchase, but still)
@Hindenburg They will be the new graveyard of gamedevelopers like EA.
@Flaming_Kaiser What makes you say that?
This isn't the first time Microsoft has said this. Remember the leaked Microsoft internal analysis of The Last of Us Part II. I recall them saying it is best in class in almost every area and better than work produced by other teams on console and PC.
@Hindenburg
I’m remember those glory 360 days as well.
That is why now I get annoyed with Microsoft and what they have done to my glory old Xbox days.
This whole deal is so tiresome at this point. Microsoft constantly saying how unreliable their services like cloud streaming are, they have no games and Activision isn't worth 70 billion. Meanwhile Sony is acting like their life depends on Call of Duty and without it they have nothing despite their own line up of exclusives and timed deals with third parties like Square Enix. Both companies look so silly, even if I'm not surprised why Sony is so desperate to keep COD because of how much money it makes. But it's been nearly a year now seeing them say all the stuff and being confused by what the COD deals are. We go from Sony got this many years for COD to COD isn't going anywhere at all. I can't wait for this deal to be completed so both companies can stop whining and we go back to getting quality games.
As a fan of both consoles… I don’t mind MS getting Activision. This whole time they’ve been needing something more than Gears n Halo. Now that they are making those moves they get crapped on. Personally I never cared for either IP. Them owning Bethesda and games like Starfield Fallout and ES6 might actually get me to purchase their console.
Sonys knocked it out of the park with their exclusives timed or not. Time for MS to get a few more wins in the game column
@MasterEMFG they’re getting crapped on because they’re buying long-established third party instead of investing their boat-load of money into original , creative , new IPs .
it’s really common ***** sense
Does this harm Microsoft's relationships with its own developers? 🤔
My only point on this whole saga though. If it's about fair competition in business (which it is) then
Fair = at any point any company can back a developer to create a great game for them exclusively (Xbox chose not to bother while Sony did)
Not fair = one company can buy all the successful developers and therefore snap up all of their customers as they strive to be dominant and all powerful (a next gen remake of the windows strategy EVERYTHING MUST BE WINDOWS becomes EVERYTHING MUST BE XBOX)
@nomither6 bingo
I mean they ought too. GOWR is better than anything I’ve seen from any console or PC team. Throw in all the others and Sony is well ahead of Microsoft and while making different types of games than say Nintendo, i would say those 2 are neck and neck when it comes to quality and output.
This is lile salary arbitration in MLB. The Yankees go in front of a arbitrator and make a case for why Aaron Judge doesn't deserve X amount of dollars.
@dschons "Only thing I ask of Sony is more genre variety."
Careful what you wish for...
@Art_Vandelay Not in that case.
This doesn’t even include all the games Sonys been working on and hasn’t shown off yet.
@Ravix so fair = the way Sony throws money. Unfair = the Microsoft throws money. Yeah, not biased at all
Microsoft can admit it, it's about time the Xbox fanboys can as well.
@dschons Oh, the diversification is coming. I'm just not sure gamers will like what they hear.
To be fair though, I'm betting on PSVR2 to provide me with those desired fresh experiences. VR is where true experimentation has been happening in gaming to the point where it reminds me of the good old PS1 days. So, there you have it.
And to be fairer, I've been a single player gamer in a near exclusive capacity for about 40 years now, but GT7 has softened my stance on the potential of live service games.
@Art_Vandelay Can't wait for PSVR2.
I was unaware no one knew this.
@Casco that's you misunderstanding, but it's okay. I'm not talking about what is fair to me or you, or anyone for that matter. It's what is considered fair by regulators of businesses.
At any point any company can back a developer to create a game. Xbox were free to do this, and still are, but they often do not bother. Sony did, a lot, took risks and some paid off and some did not. But no company that provides a platform should be allowed to exclusively take control of a firmly established behemoth that people on both systems flock to yearly, which is why it could potentially be ruled unfair, yes. It really has f*** all to do with who the companies are or me. I do not care, I will buy an Xbox when they make games that I want to play (I'll probably go the PC route though... Microsoft Windows hmm, nope doesn't ring a bell 🤔) I'm genuinely hoping Xbox provides some competition on the original AAA front soon. But that's a personal thought. The fair vs unfair is not personal, again it's to do with how businesses are regulated.
Sky cannot buy all premier League rights, for example. As it's unfair, and it is legally that way to allow fair competition. Sky still dominates, but it can't hold a monopoly over rivals. Or another example, in the US they have to share out NFL rights between channels, because if the one with most money could just buy the entire package, then the other sports channels would not be able to broadcast any sport that people want to watch. They'd have to show the XFL or the Canadian football league, which do not compare. Much like nothing really compares to COD.
And again, in a fair market, which is what we had previously, Microsoft could have easily backed 10 potentially great developers and projects, but these are risky, so they did not. COD is no risk as it makes money incredibly easily and it represents a fairly strong monopoly on FPS coop trash.
If you can't see the difference between Sony backing developers and creators from the get go, even ones with no real AAA history, and Microsoft trying to buy up the biggest established franchises going (COD, ELDER SCROLLS etc) then that's fine too.
Antitrust laws ensure one company doesn't control the market, deplete consumer choice, and inflate prices
It's as simple as that. And yes, I'd be happy if Sony didn't monopolise the digital game market on their own systems too as that hurts the consumer. So I feel this is a fairly balanced discussion, despite me personally liking SIE backed content more than the Xbox stuff, so far 👀
@Hindenburg
Gears of War wasn't even 1st party until they (Microsoft) bought it in 2014. It was a 3rd party game as Epic created it and owned the IP.
@EaglyTheKawaiiShika High on Life should eventually release on other consoles. I'd be shocked if it stayed an exclusive.
This has nothing to do with Microsoft wanting to bring more and better games to the market. It is purely about hitting competitors in the pocket by making CoD an exclusive.
Microsoft: We can't make games as critically good as Playstation!!🤯
Also Microsoft: But we can sink billions into buying 3rd party publishers & all the 3rd party IP's that were multiplatform & keep them off the competition going forward instead of creating our own,that's just waaay too much work!!😂🙄
@Hindenburg
That would be Peter Moore and Shane Kim in the early-mid 360 years. They both left a long time ago, unfortunately.
@Ravix 👏👏👏 well said.
Taking it a step further there is an interesting article on Windows Central today basically stating a worst case scenario of what Microsoft could do if the ABK deal didn't go through and MS were to play the game on Sony's terms with a $70 billion war chest. i.e. buying smaller studios and paying for AAA exclusives.
In the short terms it's actually a far worse future for PlayStation gamers than if the deal did go through where COD is guaranteed for at least a decade and some other Activision games would likely be multi-platform anyway.
The BK part of ABK hardly affects PlayStation anyway. King is mobile and Blizzard have only released 2 games on PlayStation in a decade Overwatch 1 & 2. The later wouldn't go anywhere. Upcoming Diablo IV would likely be multi-platform anyway.
Compare that to what they could lose...
@Casco you are not right.
This type of acquisitions brakes the limits of fair play. While Microsoft can afford to buy all the game industry and destroy the rest of the business is not fair at all. I do understand they want good games, well if they want they can invest in their studios or to buy a small studios and invest in them. Where is the fair play of 70 billion purchases?
You don’t tell…
Ahhh so this wasn't allowed to be a new episode of "Phil Spencer Says......."
It's just "Xbox" now that said this.
Orchard and darth terrified to comment on N4G as the biggest Xbox fanboys should be. Gangsta_Red embarrassing himself with his defending lol.
Xbox playing the victim card, claiming they need Activision to be competitive against the Japanese giant.
Absolutely sus!
Really funny how both companies are exaggerating, but this is just facts to me. I love Forza and early Gears games, that's about it. MS first party to me, are experiences that vanish like a fart in the wind. Nothing like BotW or TloU that comes out of their camp, which is why they are trying to buy the biggest pub in the world lol.
Microsoft: "Sony makes better games than us"
Also Microsoft: "Money makes right. Let's buy another studio"
I think they should focus on their own studios first before they start thinking about adding Activision. If they can't manage their own studios well enough, how are they going to manage Activision or how will Activision help them get any better?
Most of Activision games are good, fun or average. Call of Duty may be the most popular shooter but MS have made successful shooters of their own and they are looking to add another to their library? You'd think they would work on their own studios first and make games for fans that you know.. don't care for shooters but want great single player games. None of Activision's studios will make MS any better. If they want to be better they should stop being lazy and focus on their own studios first. Sony and Nintendo work hard for their success. MS is throwing money at others success and then milk them.
Bold strategy Cotton.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...