American Senators Continue to Target Sony Over PS5, PS4 Timed Exclusives

How is securing exclusivity for brand new releases 'anti' competition lol? They are being as competitive as a company can be. Politicians are dumb.

And this is why MS are one of the most morally bankrupt of the world’s leading players.

News just in, the US is running dangerous low of brown envelopes.

Sony probably didn't make a deal with Square-Enix about Forspoken or FF16 or FF7R beyond 6 months exclusivity. The reason those games are never coming to Xbox is likely because Square-Enix simply doesn't care about Xbox. I mean other smaller games are also not coming to Xbox and Sony sure as hell didn't pay for those.

No surprise there that Microsoft has all these senators in their pocket. It’s kinda all they know how to do is buy people/companies.

If you are gonna try to stop the purchase of ABK by any company. Then you best had be extremely clean yourself and not pay for timed exclusives or pay to keep games of subscription services.

Else the company you are trying to stop buying ABK will come at you. Tit for Tat.

This is totally business sense, do you think the other company is just gonna lay down and give in and apologise to Sony for evening trying to buy ABK.

SONY as a business in all divisions should look at ways of improving themselves to create better profits and sales, how about stop charging more for less in TV market for a start. They might sell more TVs and gain more profit that way and some market share back from the competition.

Then again if Samsung or LG tried to buy Panasonic, Sony would moan about that and not looked inward at why they have declined in the TV market internally over the last ten years.

That is why I have an LG C2 65 for my PS5

Did this man seriously call attempting to stop the largest buyout in tech history "anti-competitive"?

Moral on all time low I see. Sad thing is that there is a profile of person that will eat this up, and support it. Next week news, PS5 is tracking you and reporting activity to Japan headquarters, voting on ban in US..

@get2sammyb It absolutely sucks everywhere.

Just remember this next time you vote: your tax money is being used to defend Microsoft instead of being used to solve real problems.

So Sony can't buy publishers? Can't buy timed exclusives? And can't oppose mega deals from rivals? But the competition can?

Sounds to me someone is paying the government to try and get sony out of the gaming scene.

@GigaGaia So why did they put Octopath on gamepass after ff7 remake came out and never release it on playstation if they simply don't care about Xbox?

Matter of fact is sony can't afford to buy publishers like Microsoft are doing, so the way sony compete is by getting timed exclusives. Taking that away would actually be harmful to competition in the gaming market.

Shouldnt Microsoft and Nintendo also be included as both also dabble in a LOT of timed exclusives, even more so than sony. The USA government is an absolute joke right now and are showing their true colours by looking after their own. Especially as Microsoft are lining their pockets.

Corruption at its finest.

Back in 2016, Microsoft was the 9th highest donor for Cramer, so it's not all too surprising that he's trying to get likely more money from them for lobbying against Sony and getting this acquisition to finalize.

These politicians are pathetic shills. They deserve no respect, only bringing up talking points when their masters tell them to. Simply another example of them not serving the people but their wallets.

@UltimateOtaku91 Unfortunately, Sony shot themselves in the foot by claiming the higher end of the console market, which didn't include Nintendo at all. So, because of that one statement, this whole ordeal doesn't include Nintendo in the conversation.

Way I see it is like this. Sony has put up a strong effort to block ABK and it appears that they've lost. Sony has made a heck of lot of claims about Microsoft in the process. Given that the regulators all seem to be coming over to MS's side in regard to the merger, I feel pretty confident that a lot of Sony's accusations were always total BS. If you're gonna get up on the stage and start slinging mud, don't be too upset when some starts flying back at ya. It's business, and at this point it doesn't seem like friendly competition is an option anymore. I'm a consumer, I don't really care one way or the other. I'm honestly glad this shady industry has finally been blown wide open and the government is actually looking at it for a change. If anti-trust mechanisms are actually being used and enforced, the only companies with anything to worry about are the ones that simply want to avoid regulation. I think we can all agree that regulating multi-billion dollar corporations isn't a bad thing.

Anyway let’s not worry.
Game pass sales are stagnant
World wide Xbox consoles sales are down month on month Jan to March 2023.
Let them buy ABK, Xbox doesn’t have a big following like PlayStation and Nintendo.
COD is not that special haven’t purchased in years and the way Xbox handles its studios and average games it releases on game pass they will probably mess up it.
Cheer up and forge ahead gamers with Sony and Nintendo.

American "democracy"

Money is the real problem in American politics. They want everyone to think there’s some big divide along racial, social, etc. when really it’s just about the money.

Here in the US politics are the most toxic thing that I could have ever imagined.

Right hates left, left hates right but this is another perfect example of the truth. Politics are about money and always will be.

Another US politician taking the MS shilling and talking about a subject publicly that they quite obviously have no actual knowledge of.

It's actually embarrassing.

@get2sammyb
I’m not worried let them have ABK
Sony and Nintendo will walk all over Xbox anyway.

Jesus i would have thought putting the effort into getting assault rifles etc of the streets would be a much bigger priority for these numptys but no..lets go after sony because they are a much bigger problem.

I watched an interview with a US congressman on Tim Pool's show a while ago and he said that when you get elected to Washington, the party basically sits you down with the lobbyists straight away. You're obliged as a party politician to be constantly raising money, and big donations don't come for nothing. It really is a swamp.

Let me guess, he's a republican?

And while time is spent on this, gun control (you know, the actual important issues) can take a leap off the nearest pier. Am i in the right ballpark here?

GREEDY, DESPERATE Xbox will stop at nothing until every other console has gone bankrupt! They've bribed every politician in America to ensure that PlayStation and Nintendo have no chance at even competing in the console market! SHADEBOX has shown that there is no limit to how low they can go!

@Dezzy70 I fully agree with you I was a series S owner for two years and I've never felt so underwhelmed by a console and its games, hence why I sold it a few months ago and now I just use gamepass on my phone with the backbone one. Only new games that I had fun with was forza horizon 5 and the gunk. Gamepass is great value yeah but the amount of indie games and focus on multiplayer games is crazy, I want to play AAA single player games and even then the ones they include aren't the best or have been on other consoles for a while, take scorn, high on life and atomic heart (which I'm playing now), they were all highly anticipated but all scored poorly and didn't live up to the hype, and with their purchase of ABK they seem to be focusing on multiplayer games on gamepass hence why they want COD, Overwatch and Diablo, even with Bethesda it feels like Redfall was made with gamepass in mind.

Then there's their management of the studios, they just aren't good enough, look at rare, look at 343i, look at how long it's taking to get Hellblade, look how bunjie couldn't wait to get away from them, look at the development hell that the new Fable is going through, look at how a billion dollar publisher Bethesda can't even do 30fps on redfall, how many more delays will starfield get?, minecraft is getting stale and it's spin offs aren't all that special either, if Microsoft never bought Bethesda what games would they have this year? No Hi-fi rush, No Redfall and no Starfield and No pentiment from last year. Without Bethesda they would of gone over two years with no AAA first party games, that is absolutely p**s poor from a trillion dollar company.

And now they have the gall to go after sony and try bring them down just because they are much better at managing it's studios, better at marketing, better at getting deals, better at everything even though they have spent pennies compared to what Microsoft have spent over the last 20 years, it all boils down to jealousy.

Just a clever way to cover the heat on MS’s acquisition by making up some poor argument to make Sony look like the bad guy. All while protecting his own interests from his “campaign contributor”.

Bias much Mr Kramer?

@UltimateOtaku91 didn’t MS go the whole xbone generation without any AAA games?!

@Dodoo They did have AAA games but they were literally all either Gears of War, Halo or Forza games.

Only in the US can a company (Sony) that is complaining about one of the biggest publishers in the industry (Activision) being owned by a rival company (Microsoft) can be twisted to them being anti-competitive. Timed exclusives = bad, full-time exclusives = good! That's basically what they're saying. It's as if they don't know what they are talking about and are more interested in getting on the good side of a massive corporation that might be able to fund their campaigns...

What a corrupt cretin. I guess his Microsoft bought bias isn't concerned about the timed exclusivity deals of Stalker 2, Ark 2, Warhammer 40k Darktide, Valheim, High on Life, The Last Case of Benedict Fox, Slime Rancher 2, etc etc. Or the anti competitive nature of buying games that were already in development for a rival platform and then cancelling their release.

@Rob_230 South Dakota is a solid Republican state. I'm not sure if a single Democrat actually lives there. Let's also not forget that the FTC chair, Lina Khan, was appointed by Joe Biden, a Democrat. Next to no discussion was had about the merger, she was going to block from the get go because of her bizarre legal theories that keep failing in court. The FTC is currently dysfunctional enough that both Republicans just left. But I seem to remember a lot of cheering for the FTC when they made the movement to sue to block ABK. Of course MS is summoning their Republican allies. The Democratic party is putting up bogus challenges, and Sony is the major competitor making the complaints.

Get Redfail in order first before calling others anti competitive, a game that cost 7.5 billion to be exclusive along with Starfield. All were scheduled for PS5 too, can't get anymore anti competitive than that

@get2sammyb The US is owned by big corporations. Internet, food, Amazon, Tickets for concerts and the biggest one the gunlobby. How is it even possible to be objective when companies sponsor you.

@Dezzy70 "COD is not that special"

It's not, but unfortunately the normies eat up every new installment as though their lives depend on it.

Yeah lots not talk about the dozens of timed exclusives and other exclusives Microsoft have bought over their time in the industry Ninja Gaiden 1 & 2, DOA 4, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Tales Of Vesperia, GTA IV DLC, Oblivion DLC, Skyrim DLC, Dead Rising 3, Sunset Overdrive, Rise Of The Tomb Raider I could go on this pathetic hypocrisy know no bounds 😑

I'm sure PlayStation are panicking at this totally meaningless drivel from a no-name political shill. Mmmhm

It's a little short sided to think this is a Microsoft induced problem here. The entire political system here is completely corrupt. Every sitting politician in congress has been bought and paid for by a myriad of corporations. This is the case in nearly every so called democracy. Hence why some dumb nonsense like this is even brought up instead of the serious problems in dire need of attention.

The United States has been a corporation for over a century now. They are merely going after Sony for stalling a common facet of the corporate agenda. Monopolization is their bread and butter. Look at the world food supply as just one example.

It is ironic for Sony to have 2/3 market share, numerous first party studios that actually sell decent games, and third party exclusives simply trolling Xbox to stall a deal that was always going to go through. Remember that 2/3 market share also applies to the those that play Activision games. If Ms made call of duty exclusive, they would absolutely be tanking their own revenue potential merely for the hope that they poach platform adopters.

This is merely the corporatocracy reprimanding one of its own that got out of line merely for spectacle. These entities and their shareholders are largely all scum. Sony has proven that just as much as any other version of consolidated excrement.

Case in point: Sony didn't cry wolf during the Bethesda buyout. Arguably an acquisition that has the potential to make some decent and some very loved ips and studios completely exclusive. Yet not so much as a peep from Sony on that. Yet call of duty, oh ooooo not that shareholder revenue stream, oh no, that's unacceptable..... Lmfao priorities are clear and it's not the considerations of the loyal playstation Fandom.

Even as A Playstation only player for decades now, having never owned a Ms console, I'm not blindly allegiant to one of these predatory mongers so much to not acknowledge that Sony too is and has shown quite overtly more recently, that they are just as much of a greedy predatory pile themselves. It's OK to like a medium and still point out its problems.

Microsoft is a garbage corporation finally showing their true colors. Little rich boy throwing a tantrum because they can't buy relevancy in this industry. These are scare tactics to get their deal through that they can use due to how corrupt politics are, nothing more, nothing less.
The Xbox brand as a whole is stagnating fast, Game Pass will never breakthrough beyond its little bubble, they destroyed all of their worthy IP, they can buy whatever they want, it will not save them from irrelevancy. They have been a stain on gaming for over a decade now and its only getting dirtier.
I hope they keep poking the Japanese bear, we need Sony, Square Enix, etc united against these corrupt losers even more than they already are.

This comment section is pure comedy this morning

It truly is depressing to see our "representatives" focus on things that are quite literally not a problem at all. Exclusive deals are part of the business. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all do these deals in some capacity. Same with EA, 2K, and other third parties.

But then again. It's a politician. Actually focusing on something that matters isn't in their job description sadly. 😂

MS buying A/B - a Publisher that is relying pretty much only on CoD most years and their 'mobile' Candy Crush to keep them 'alive' in the gaming sector today is certainly not ANTI-COMPETITIVE.

In terms of Publishers, they ALL compete - MS, Sony, Nintendo, TenCent, Embracer Group, EA, Take Two, Warner Bros, Ubisoft, Capcom, Konami etc etc - the 'loss' of one isn't significantly impacting the Competition to Publish Games. In terms of Platforms, it doesn't reduce the Competition either as A/B doesn't have a 'platform'. In terms of Studios/IP's, it only makes MS more 'competitive' to compete with Sony/Nintendo and their Studio/IP's.

If MS took CoD away from Playstation - not that they want/intend to, that would only make Xbox more 'competitive' to compete with Sony's Spider-Man or Wolverine - 2 'bigger' IP's than CoD.

There is a MASSIVE difference to BUYING a Studio, owning the Talent, owning the IP, owning the Publishing rights and therefore JUSTIFIABLY keeping their OWN games exclusive than paying a 3rd Party Publisher to keep them from releasing their IP's on specific platforms, paying to keep it away from gamers.

If Sony bought SE, they would OWN FF, own the Studio and 'right' to make it 'exclusive' if they want to. They would OWN it outright - just like MS OWN Redfall, Starfield, Elder Scrolls, Doom etc NOW - just like Amazon own Tomb Raider NOW (not SE). Sony should use their Money to build up their OWN content, not go round paying 3rd Parties to block them from releasing their games on as many platforms to sell as many copies and reach as many people as possible.

Sony are 'dominating' - have the MOST console users, MOST 'exclusives' and have more IP's than MS to so for 'MS' to be 'more' competitive, to make gaming more Competitive, to push Sony to be more 'Consumer' friendly and 'better', They need IP's, Studio's etc - therefore, them buying A/B only makes a 'weak' Xbox that much 'stronger' to be 'more' Competitive with Sony - therefore its NOT anti-competitive!!!

Sony will be fine without ABK. Looking forward to it because Sony needs multiplayer games in response lol.

Everyone is such a crybaby here. If it it happens, it happens. Looking at redfall, it seems xbox can't get it together no matter how many studios they have.

@Thumper
True but Xbox will mess it up or make it below average and shove it out on game pass.
Sony should just go make a COD type game of their own and make it will be better.

I stopped reading after the article mentioned about Microsoft being a campaign contributor. It's obvious why these politicians continue to bring this up when they ignored it for so many years. It only matters to them now that Sony is opposing the Activision buyout and they are trying to help a campaign contributor. It's BS. At this point, whether I agree with the buyout or not, I'd prefer they just let it go through and got it over with. Xbox did the same thing back in the Xbox 360 era, but now that Sony is opposing Microsoft, it's all of a sudden not ok for Sony to do it. Not to mention the fact that Microsoft did this to themselves by sitting on their butts for over a decade doing nothing about their exclusives situation while PlayStation was actually building something.

@Dezzy70 You are not wrong in a sense, but there's no guarantee it would be successful. People nowadays care more about name recognition than they do quality, regardless of how vocal a minority of gamers are on various online things. Even though Call of Duty is nowhere near as good consistently like it used to be, that doesn't matter as it's Call of Duty and it's the cool thing to play. Sony could make a Game of the Year caliber FPS and it still could pail in comparison to Call of Duty sales wise.

As a consumer I see this as a win. Get rid of battle passes and microtransactions while you're at it. I also don't want to see big corpos swallow up other big corpos. Get rid of all of it please.

Here in the US once you enter politics a group of guys from Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Google, Microsoft and others come to your new office.

They pull out a check and say “vote this way and get paid, or don’t and we will make your life miserable.”

Considering the size of the check, 100% of our congress critters sign up and enslave theirselves to the lobbyists.

@Thumper So what if the 'casuals' and 'kids' all want to play CoD - Sony had the option to ensure CoD would remain on their Platform for the next decade beyond their 'current' arrangement, even have a 3rd Party independent source to 'verify' and ensure Parity before MS 'can' release their game at all to 'allay' their concerns about MS pulling CoD away OR releasing 'bad' version to 'harm' Playstation (even though that would backfire badly as Gamers don't blame 'Playstation', they blame the Dev/Publisher).

Therefore, those gamers would still be able to play CoD, Sony still sell it and still make 'money' from CoD at NO cost to themselves - MS will be funding the development, porting, optimising, manufacture/distribution costs, post release support etc so Sony can get their '30%' just for owning a Platform. Its not 'just' the base game sales, but all the 'extras' - Season Passes, CoD points etc etc too.

If 'CoD' is available on Playstation and Xbox, both 'known' to be the 'Same' game with same content and EVERYONE getting the content at the Same time, it stops being part of the decision making over Platform choice. It will still come down to the 'Exclusives', where their Friends/Family play, their Controller preference and even their back catalogue/trophies etc they 'could' lose by switching platform matter more than MS owning CoD and/or it being on Game Pass Day 1.

Over a 'year' its still cheaper to buy CoD than pay £12 a month for Game Pass Ultimate (to play ONLINE). So it will still come down to 'exclusives'. If they 'prefer' Playstation because of games like God of War, Spider-Man 2, Wolverine, Horizon, Last of us, Uncharted, Ghost of Tsushima, Returnal, R&C etc etc over games like Forza, Halo, Gears, Redfall, Starfield, Hellblade, Avowed, Fable etc etc

Sony own Destiny, Sony own Killzone, Resistance, SoCoM, MAG, Haze etc, Sony own the talent behind Halo and those IP's so 'could' make their own or commission their own. There are LOTS of alternatives (steam early access has numerous) too they could 'buy' and many in development they could buy up and develop fully to 'compete'. They don't 'need' their own as they could still keep CoD on their platform for at least another decade as well as offer Battlefield, Apex, DefiantX, Fortnite, PUBG etc etc

Point is, IF Sony were that concerned about CoD, they could have secured it for their Platform too with total parity to ensure no advantages to MS and remove any possibility of MS using CoD to 'compete' with Sony - the game is 'equal' on both - no-one gets anything the other doesn't to 'force' consumers to play on a specific platform (like today) and allows Consumers the 'freedom' to choose where they want to play without fear of missing out....

Politicians should do us all a favor and jump off of a building.

@Loamy

Get the money, dolla dolla bills yall

@JSnow2 THIS!!!! Couldn't have put it better

Sony wants to remain dominant and this is pushback against their intervention. Inevitable!

Every major corporation engages in anticompetitive business practices. The hypocrisy is ridiculous. It's no different than political parties gerrymandering states for elections. The idea that making FF16 a console exclusive is analogous to say, buying Bethesda or Activision Blizzard is just silly.

What is really unfair in this situation is that they are calling out Sony for buying timed exclusivity in some games while all indicate that microsoft/xbox is buying politicians in their own country. What is worse for society?

@Northern_munkey no, Republicans would actually get more assault rifles on the streets to "protect" people from each other. You know, something that the rest of the world was never smart enough to figure out /s

@somnambulance not just politicians, but also supreme court judges, if Clarence Thomas' record is anything to go by.

@BAMozzy "If MS took CoD away from Playstation - not that they want/intend to, that would only make Xbox more 'competitive' to compete with Sony's Spider-Man or Wolverine - 2 'bigger' IP's than CoD."

Do you have any idea how much CoD makes compared to Spider-Man? (We don't even know how well Wolverine will perform). It doesn't matter if Spider-Man is a bigger IP. Spider-Man video games didn't do well until Insomniac took over and still the sales of one game can't compete with a yearly release full of microtransactions.

@naruball silly me 🙄

I'm not sure I understand this. Lol. Xbox has a massive war chest of money andNintendo stays with a nice war chest as well. They are 2 private entities coming to an agreement on a deal. Why aren't they all over SE, Capcom and the other dev/pubs that are signing the dotted line as well. Also, has anyone ever heard of a solid business relationship? Sony apparently know how to treat devs/pubs financially and otherwise to get the deals done.

Any time a US politician starts talking about tech-related issues, it’s basically guaranteed to be cringeworthy. Even apart from the lobbyist issue, they just tend to be… very ignorant on these subjects.

What Sony/Playstation is the most guilty of: The best (and most) exclusive games in history. They literally have a monopoly on outstanding quality. Sure, not that much yet this generation but hopefully and very likely soon again.

Our gub’mint can get bent. Go focus on something actually worth the time and effort like China, the food supply in the world, our frail power grid, homelessness and any other myriad of worthwhile issues.

@Northern_munkey You do realize that ‘assault rifles’ count for a mere FRACTION of the actual murders of people in the US? Handguns are used to commit more crimes and murders than any other type of weapon in the US, FAR AND AWAY. it’s not even close. ‘Assault rifles’ are just a political distraction to get the average low information citizen to pay attention to the wrong thing so the scumbag politicians can push other agendas and further divide the citizenry. Do the research - see for yourself.

@DETfaninATL ok doris put your hand bag down jesus..

@naruball That's not the point and you know it. The Point is that when it comes to people CHOOSING which console to buy, which console to spend their 'time' and MONEY on year after year after year, Spider-Man and Wolverine are 'BIGGER' IP's and whilst they may not generate the 'same' revenue per year as CoD does due to the way Activision run that IP by forcing ALL their Studio's to push it out 'annually' because it sells 'more' than any other IP they have every 'year' so better to make that than make something 'new', interesting etc..

But regardless, if Sony gamers aren't buying CoD anymore because 'CoD' goes exclusive, they'll still spend money on Playstation Games, still going to buy Spider-Man 2, Wolverine, Final Fantasy and whatever other '3rd' party games come to Playstation.

Most of those 'millions' of gamers wouldn't suddenly leave Playstation or buying games - that CoD money could buy Battlefield or be spent in Fortnite - especially seeing some of the 'creations' that could offer now too, maybe Apex or even Sony's 'own' IP's like Destiny or even their 'Last of Us' Factions MP expected soon. After the success of the HBO show too, that's another 'big' IP that would compete against 'CoD'.

The point is that Sony has its OWN Exclusives that will sell consoles and those gamers will buy Games every year, Sub to a service to play Online and/or get access to some/a lot of games and spend money in their ecosystem.

When it comes to choosing to buy PS6 or NextBox for example, if CoD was 'exclusive', it, along with ALL the other 'Xbox' Exclusives would still be competing against Sony's Exclusives and Sony's IP's are very STRONG - Award Winning in gaming and Playstation brand is STRONG, also only Console offering VR so another Selling point that Microsoft is trying to 'Compete' with.

Sony had a Contract on the table to keep CoD on their Platform for another Decade (that's basically this and 'next' gen Hardware time as it won't kick in until after Sony's current deal expires) AND a Guarantee on Parity that would be independently checked, assessed and verified before MS can release it ANYWHERE so both their concerns about MS making it Exclusive or releasing a 'Bad' version are redundant.

But 'Competition' isn't about how much money it makes Sony or MS or A/B, its about the choice for Consumers and if MS pulled CoD away and made it 'exclusive', however much money it makes is 'irrelevant', its about bringing people into Xbox to play games like CoD, Gears, Forza, Halo, Fable, Avowed, Redfall, Starfield, Hellblade etc etc - just like Sony are using games like Spider-Man (appealing to ALL Marvel fans - its not even their 'own' IP but still bigger appeal than CoD globally and probably earns more across all its products and merchandising) as well as Wolverine - another 'Marvel' IP, coupled with games like Last of Us, Returnal, R&C, Demon Souls, Final Fantasy, God of War, Horizon, Gran Turismo, Ghost of Tsushima, Uncharted etc etc etc to get you into their Playstation Ecosystem, keep you playing 'there' and spending 'money' to keep playing there, keep buying 'new' games (even if CoD stops being a Choice). Its competing 'ecosystems', competing IP's to get you in - that's what Exclusives are for and if CoD left Playstation, those gamers will still spend money, still buy new games to play...

@GigaGaia yeah, timed exclusivity sucks but that's pretty much the only type of third-party exclusivity PS do. Unless they funded the development, but those are second-party games anyway.

MS on the other hand 😅😬

I still remember Titanfall

@GodofCapcom I guess Sony foresaw this happening because there's what like 12 live service games in development?

The way Sony have been complaining makes them seem hopeless and like they don't believe in the games in development. ABK, COD, its all a lost cause so move on and make the next best innovative multiplayer games for PS5 & PC

Well they don't actually have to comply this isn't a congressional order it's just one gut asking for it

I think Microsoft should focus its efforts on going multiplatform. It’s been 20 years of coming in third at this point and they can spend another 80 billion on acquisitions and still come in third.

@BAMozzy the average ps5 owner cares more about CoD and Fifa than anything else. If you think it's anywhere near with Spider-man and the like, you've been spending too much time online. Simple as that. No need for an essay.

@CaptD Don’t worry Uncle Sam, we still have Gamepass 😉

@get2sammyb Almost all big corporations and groups in the USA have several elected officials in their pockets, business as usual for my country.

So lets get This Straight
Buying a Huge Publisher With One of The Biggest IPS in Gaming Is Okay No Problem
But Making a Timed Deal For a Game Ur Putting Money Intro That's Bad
Hypocrisy Lives In The USA Government

I think Sony set them selves up for this to some degree. As @Dezzy70 says, If you are going to attack someone on competition grounds you need to make sure you can stand similar scrutiny. When your the market leader eyes are going to turn your way. Jumping up and down asking for your position to be protected is going to bring you into the spot light.

@TooBarFoo if Sony were to try to block some timed exclusives, MS, senators and the rest of us would have every right to call Sony out for hypocrisy. But that's not the case. Sony didn't even complain when MS got Bethesda, which was still bigger than any acquisition or timed exclusive Sony had paid for.

Well, politicians into video gaming industry... seems to be a big business, the problem is the lack of history from Sony, since PlayStation 1 circa 1994 there always have been PS exclusives... the Wipeout 2027 from PS has got the better soundtrack and else. And since those years, people have been free to choose if you buy it or not. I see the contrary, I do NOT want a world where you can only play COD, Fortnite, GTA, Elden Ring, etc. using a Gamepass because the "discerning gamers" want it and it is "the public will"... no, I Do want to have access and to buy any bloody game I want, being good or not, I'm the only person who can decide that. I want to decide what game I'm going to buy, despite the whining and the miserable fans who claim that a "game sucks" just because they hate it and they just bring bad publicity and to misguide another people as it is happening with recent games such as Forspoken and Callisto Protocol... The last of Us was a PS exclusive for years and there was no such big deal, same happened with Demon's souls. And the industry has been growing up and expanding, now, even US senators are interested because it means big business... and besides, Cramer can ban PS in North Dakota, affecting only the 2 PS owners who live there...

hey , y’all chill out about america , your favorite games come from here. 🇺🇸😎

@Keyblade-Dan Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon are not in the same conversation. Microsoft financed the start-up of Mistwalker to create these games from scratch. Nothing wrong with that at all; so don’t twist that.

So I assume they will be asking MS for the same documentation on their deals and acquisitions that they have made then just to make everything nice and fair...

@nomither6 Scotland, Poland, France, Japan, Canada, Holland, Finland and The Kingdom of Bohemia, actually 😁😁😁

@Rob_230 You've got some things to learn if you're thinking this a sports team type divide. Both Republicans and Democrats are slimy, there was just the story about a bipartisan group saying this exact same thing about Sony being "anti-competitive" because nobody in Japan cares about Xbox.

Monday I'm going to call my Congressman and ask how to file an ethics complaint against this senator.

@naruball @get2sammyb They may seem different but this has all been about access to content. From a regulatory view point, a market leader paying to keep content away from competitors is every bit as important as A&M activity. How much each action costs makes no difference when viewing competitive regulation. You could spend nothing to force content makers to act a curtain way as market leader and find yourself in a ton of bother. Those "A few timed exclusives" that Sony has paid to keep off Xbox over this and last generation amount to many more games than Xbox has made exclusive from large buyouts to date.

I'm on no side here. I play PC, PS1-5, Switch and current Gen Xbox. I do have a lot of experience consulting for Tech companies, including a number of parties involved in gaming industry, and have dealt with regulatory bodies on a number of occasions. I get most folks here want to fight for one side or the other but that does not change the why and how that regulatory bodies work. We all know the importance of having media on release, It's why movie theatres exist and why many will pay £/$70 for a game they could get for £/$30 just a few months later. Sony as used is position as market leader to cost affectively get 3rd parties to withhold services from its smaller competitor (Sound strange calling MS small but this is viewed not from a Horizontal business perspective, but a vertical market view.) Sony's actions successfully achieved it's objectives of limiting competitor growth and solidifying its leading position. Did this cross the line from fair competition too market manipulation? I don't know. What I do know is Sony would have known, or should have known, trying so hard to stop this would bring their own actions under examination and it has.

There was a point when Sony were in a great position to negotiate a great 10 year deal due to their lobbying but that time has long past, Sony turned it down and started getting absurd in it's statements as MS strategy of "expanding access" through other deals started to make ground with regulators. As Sony's submissions looked more and more like desperate attempts to protect it's own status as market leader and less and less about competition questions were bound to be asked about the wider state of competition in the gaming space. Sony way overplayed their hand, not a little but a full mile and now they will have to deal with the blow back. Sony will ride out these "investigations" without concern I'd guess but I don't know if or how they may affect future deals. The fact is Sony went from a winning position to the only looser in the industry from this whole oversight process. You could say Sony went full Spursy.

@theMEGAniggle

They're not hopeless. They're just throwing anything that may stick. Make MS look like the bad guy. Vice versa too.

It's funny how people here and on purexbox can't figure out that. Majority of them, from both sites.

@BAMozzy "Sony have the OPPORTUNITY to guarantee Selling CoD on Playstation for the next decade" correction, Sony HAD, They turned down that deal. It may be offered again, It may not. I would not if I was on the MS side of the table. MS have done enough, through all the other 10 year deals, to satisfy the regulators.

Timed exclusives are anti consumer so if they’re stopped then good.

@get2sammyb A big percentage of the purexbox posters consistently tries to argue these two things are in any way comparable and yet you as a editor don't say anything to them to point out how wrong they are. Shouldn't you as a editor use your Voice to point out thing you feel are wrong on purexbox?

I keep hearing this feud between Sony and Microsoft about their AAA games and console wars.

Meanwhile, for me I just only care what upcoming kids games I can pick for my PS4 / PS5, don't even care with the drama of AAA games feud.

@Anti-Matter What upcoming games are you getting?

What's especially stupid about this argument is to say timed exclusives with otherwise independent publishers would be anti-consumer, but buying up entire developers for use on only one console is not.
The irony is that I believe Microsoft has bought timed exclusivity in support from some politicians. Not only in America.

@HeeHo Timed exclusives are pure Capitialism.
A means to entice you towards one product over another, in this case a PS5 over an Xbox.....whatever the heck number they put after it now.
At best, you might try to stretch it to anti-consumer if the title were bought permanently exclusive.
Even then, you'd lose the case if it were brought to a court.
Only children would think exclusives were anti-consumer, due to the entire scope of their thinking being they want it, so it should go everywhere.

@TooBarFoo Sony as used is position as market leader to cost affectively get 3rd parties to withhold services from its smaller competitor....

======

No, it hasn't. They made a business deal over a product still in production to center on it's platform.
Both sides agree towards the deal, no one is strongarmed or blackmailed.
Just because the technology is capable of playing elesewhere doesn't mean it has to and the publishers are under no obligation to make an exclusivity deal.
They do so because it it is mutually beneficial.
Microsoft is not owed third party games.
You say you are neutral, but read like a Microsoft employee.

@Orpheus79V All party loyalists are blinded to different degrees.
Totally agree, both sides are dirty. Independent thinking on all situations and topics is always for the best.

@XenonKnight
Well, pretty a lot.
These games are on PS4 / PS5.

Ankora + Deiland
My Life: Pet Vet
My Life: Riding Stables 3
Farm Together
Hotel Life
Kukoos
Noob The Factionless
Paperman Adventure Delivered
Park Beyond
Tin Hearts
Story of Seasons A Wonderful Life
Valthirian Arc 2
Arkanoid Eternal Battles
Are You Smarter Than 5th Graders
Gigantosaurus Dino Kart
Garfield Lasagna Party
Horse Club Adventures 2
Yum Yum Cookstar
Megaman Battle Network Legacy
Instant Sports All Stars
etc.

I only play kids games and mostly the unpopular games since they are more interesting to me than the big AAA Western games.

Microsoft getting their money's worth with all their pet senators.

@Ichiban the problem is we get trolls from purexbox.

Congress embarrassing themselves again.

@Th3solution 90% of all us senators are scumbags.

@get2sammyb Losing call of duty alone will mean Sony will struggle to find it's big hitters

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/84131/sony-to-lose-260-million-year-if-call-of-duty-goes-xbox-exclusive/index.html

That income for one year would fund one or two big AAA games or fund a studio acquisition. And now people want to stop Sony's timed exclusive deals as well.

Microsoft knew what they were doing with this acquisition, yes they want to bring more content to gamepass, but I don't care what anyone says the main focus of this ABK deal was to hurt the competition. They are using their trillion dollar bank account to bully the gaming market and it won't end until playstation is no more.

@Dezzy70 You make so much sense that hardcore ponies are going to get angry. Just fund new exclusive games, don´t stop others from playing, that's just mean and almost evil.

@Oscarjpc And MS could use their vast money to fund exclusives and invest in and grow their own existing studios rather than just buying publishers and making their own deals for third party exclusives, which you conveniently seem to forget that they also do. Why should it just have to be Sony that should be restricted to having to invest in their own exclusives and not be able to look elsewhere?

@Kevw2006 And we can see the piss poor job they doing with there own studios. So they buy abk so they can take games away from playstation. FF16 and FF7 remakes are never coming out for Xbox!

@Oscarjpc Yeah MS should only be the ones to do timed releases like Valheim, Vampire Survivors, Scorn, Stalker, Arc 2 and so on. Hypocrisy is big with MS and its fanboys.

@WallyWest wasn't scorn a not great game?

@XenonKnight That's what I don't get, people keel saying that MS NEEDS ABK to compete. They already have more than enough to compete and if they aren't then that isn't Sony's fault, they need to look at how they're managing their own portfolio.

@WallyWest don't forget The Gunk too. As it stands that is a full third party exclusive.

@XenonKnight Depends on who you ask, i loved it but its not for everyone.

@Kevw2006 Management at Xbox is trash and over there heads with what they have without adding more. I see abk failing more with Phil Spencer running them.

@WallyWest Dreamcastguy gave it a 4 of 10.

@Kevw2006 Not even Xbots care about Gunk.

@XenonKnight and SkillUp gave it his highest recommendation. Its very much a marmite game in that you either hate it or love it.

@XenonKnight I only mention it as an example because Forspoken gets used against Sony and it wasn't very well received either.

Looks like those clowns in Congress did it again... what a bunch of clowns.

@Kevw2006 And no one cares for that trash, xbox can have it.

Bah, just Microsoft trying to distract people. It's probably gonna go nowhere. Once the deal is approved, MS will likely drop the matter for now. Notice that all the government morons complaining were given...incentives by MS?

@get2sammyb Spider-Man and Wolverine are much bigger IP's that go beyond gaming and much more 'iconic' than CoD. Kids will grow up with Spider-Man, see Spider-Man movies etc and then go on to be a 'Playstation' fan because Spider-Man and Wolverine are 'massive IP's' they will know.

If MS pulled CoD from Playstation, the vast majority of CoD gamers on PS would NOT suddenly leave Playstation. They would still want to play Sony's Award Winning exclusives and whatever other 'unique' experiences (VR for example) that are ONLY on Playstation.

The point is that these are 'just' IP's and its about the 'pull' of these to bring Gamers into YOUR ecosystem specifically to sell them 'more' products to keep making money for the Company. It doesn't matter if they spend $100 on CoD a year or spend that $100 on Hogwarts or Minecraft Legends or Suicide Squad in Sony's ecosystem as Sony will still get the same money.

The point I am making is that in terms of 'IP's' and their pulling power for a Console, Spider-Man beats CoD and would likely pull more people into Playstation than CoD would pull people to Xbox. That is the POINT. If PS6 didn't have CoD, it would still 'Sell', still be many gamers MAIN choice, probably still sell 'more than MS because of the Strength of its own IP's like Spider-Man and Wolverine.

Besides, Sony had a Contract on the table to KEEP CoD, Keep being able to sell the game so 'CoD' gamers on PS aren't 'forced/pressured' to leave and even an independent analyst to ensure Parity between Xbox and Playstation to alleviate 'concerns' about Sabotage. Therefore remove ANY possibility of CoD being 'pulled' and Sony can still get their Cut at NO cost to themselves.

In reality, this just shows that Sony aren't concerned about CoD or MS using it to 'compete' with Sony's Exclusives to pull people away, aren't going to 'sabotage' their own product or Studio as 'Poor' versions would reflect badly on them, not Sony.

When it comes to 'consumers', they 'decide' which console to buy based on the 'unique selling points' of each - for Sony, that's their Exclusives, their Ecosystem etc and that includes VR.

If CoD went 'exclusive' to Xbox, it 'alone' isn't going to persuade gamers to buy Xbox, but combined with Forza, Gears, Halo, Redfall, Starfield, Fable, Avowed, Hellblade etc etc, they are 'competing' with Sony and Spider-Man, Wolverine, Last of Us, Uncharted, God of War, Horizon, Gran Turismo etc etc as well as VR experiences.

Spider-Man probably makes more money a year across ALL media than CoD does - all the Comics, Spider-Man merch etc etc because its got much wider appeal than CoD, more 'fans' of Spider-Man than of CoD globally.

CoD may 'sell' well on Playstation - but if it went, those gamers would likely spend their money elsewhere in the Playstation ecosystem - buy other games/content. If they were that 'concerned' about the revenue they are 'making' from 3rd Party Software they NEVER own and could easily 'disappear', then they should Sign a deal with 'new' owners of the IP to ensure they can 'keep' selling, keep getting 'income' from something they don't OWN!!

Gee Microsoft pays a lot of money to American politicians. That whole activation deal stinks on all sides. Pure bribery. Americans always only tell a half-truth. They forget to mention that Microsoft does exactly the same. Especially in the xbox 360 era.

@WallyWest
Yes If Microsoft does it and it comes on gamepass all is well but if Sony does it is not good Because they already have so many ips. What a bunch of little kids. hahaha

@GodofCapcom I did not say they were hopeless. I'm saying their actions are making them look a certain way. I know what they are doing, and why, but the effects of that are making them look weak

Nintendo, Microsoft, Epic Games... wait, do I need multiple puppet glance pics here, or will one suffice?

@BAMozzy You are correct that Spider-Man and Wolverine may be bigger IP's that go beyond gaming but that's also where you're argument falls over. They are much bigger IP's outwith gaming than they are in gaming and in a gaming sense CoD is a much larger IP than either of those. The very fact that Sony uses money from CoD to fund development of games like Spider-Man and Wolverine says it all really and it's not even close. Add in the fact that if Spider-Man is a bigger IP then MS would have jumped at the chance when they had the offer.

@BAMozzy You say this yet CoD beats Spidey in sales and makes way more money. In terms of gaming IP's CoD is far ahead of Spidey and is only challanged or beaten by the likes of GTA, Minecraft and Fortnite.

@LightningLeader You can disagree but since the 360 era MS have gone way harder on timed releases then Sony has. The Series consoles have already seen more timed games this Gen then PS5 has and we even have more coming like Stalker and Arc 2.

@WallyWest @Kevw2006 The fact that they are 'bigger' and more 'recognised' outside of gaming is the important metric here. Its that recognition that will bring people into the ecosystem they are on.

Its about the 'pull' of those IP's to get people to buy into your platform specifically. CoD may appeal to a 'large' subset of 'Gamers', but in terms of encouraging 'new' people to jump in to your Ecosystem, pull people in to get them playing and spending money, Spider-Man is a more recognisable and 'bigger' IP than CoD.

Sony can 'remove' CoD from the equation by simply signing a deal to 'keep' CoD on Playstation for the long term. People won't be counting CoD as a 'specific' reason not to buy Playstation because the Game is available on PS too - therefore it will not be included as a 'Unique Selling Point' in favour of Xbox. You don't get people abandoning Sony because games like MLB21, 22 and 23, Plague Tale, Minecraft, Back 4 Blood etc are all on Game Pass day and date because they are still 'available' on PS5 too - so its the USP's that matter.

Therefore IP's like Spider-Man, Wolverine - even Uncharted and the Last of Us (thanks to movies/TV shows) are vital to pull people into Playstation who will then go on to buy more games and contributing to Sony's profits. CoD may not bring as much revenue as it does, but that is NOT guaranteed anyway, its not Sony's IP and if A/B screw-up (Another Ghosts, Advanced Warfare or Vanguard or another buggy, broken mess) and that affects Sony's profit - but it doesn't really because those that don't buy, buy something else instead to play.

Sony shouldn't be relying on 3rd Parties to determine whether or not they can still make games. Those 3rd Parties only have their games to sell to make money and keep making games themselves - Sony takes money away from 3rd Parties as a Platform holder and/or retailer - as well as makes money from sales of their OWN games, Sales of Sub services, accessories, merchandising etc etc. Elden Ring probably made them as much as CoD did or GTA5 or Hogwarts etc

Spider-Man probably earns more EVERY year as an IP, not just 'gaming' but across all media, than CoD. Its a bigger, more recognised IP so all those 'kids' growing up today that will become gamers 'tomorrow' will know that Sony has Spider-Man, Wolverine etc and that will pull them over to Playstation.

As stated, CoD is just 1 IP that isn't as 'recognisable' globally as Marvel owned Spider-Man and so will pull people into buying Playstations to play ALL their games. Sony had the opportunity to ensure 'CoD' isn't competing as an Exclusive IP for Xbox to get people into their ecosystem and Sony can still 'earn' their Cut for at least the next decade. MS may have turned Spider-Man down, but at the time they had no option, no studio's to make the game etc. Its like turning down the opportunity to own a Ferrari but can't drive, insure or maintain it - it wasn't feasible.

You don't buy a Console just because 1 game is exclusive, you buy it because of the 'collective' power of those Exclusives. Its Sony's 'many' more IP's/Exclusives/USP's that leads to Sony having the 'largest' user base and therefore selling more '3rd' party games to supplement their Profits and CoD would still be a 3rd Party game on Playstation. The fact that Sony PS5 continues to SELL most hardware means that Sony also get 'most' 3rd Party sales (even if MS has marketing deals) and even if 'CoD' was 'exclusive', they'd still have the most 'users' still sell the 'most' 3rd Party games that 'help' fund their OWN games, help pay to keep other 3rd Party games away from gamers etc

@BAMozzy It's really not as important a metric as you are trying to claim it is though. Name a single Spider-Man or even Marvel game prior to the insomniac games that you would seriously consider a system seller? Yes, there is a bit of increased popularity for Spider-Man at the moment due to Tom Holland's performances in the movies but there have been popular Spider-Man movies released previously with tie in games that haven't been remotely close to being considered a system seller. Plus the insomniac games aren't even tied to the MCU version and don't use Tom Holland's likeness, which is something that has gone against other popular superhero games that have released lately.
I'm not saying they rely on money from CoD to develop games because as you say they have money coming in from various other sources, however money from CoD will go towards budgets being bigger and, theoretically, games being better because of that. I'd be very surprised if both MS and Nintendo didn't operate in a similar manner too.

@Kevw2006 When it comes to deciding WHICH platform you want to 'buy' - Spider-Man is a much bigger and more recognisable IP than CoD.

All those people who are trying to decide whether to buy a Series X or PS5 are going to see 'recognisable' IP's like Spider-Man and that will be a 'bigger' influence than CoD. The point is that Spider-Man is a 'bigger' and more globally recognised IP so that has more pull to get people to buy a Playstation. CoD may 'sell' more - but I doubt the majority of 10-15m that buy it on PS would 'leave' Playstation if it went Exclusive (a few maybe) and they'd just 'buy' something else. If A/B push out a 'bad' CoD, decide to go F2P and/or not release 'annually', Sony wouldn't get 'their' CoD Profit, but wouldn't be hurt by it either as those gamers would still spend their money on OTHER games. It doesn't even need to be another 'single' game that sells 10-15m to 'replace' CoD, it could be 10-15 different games each selling 1m more copies to generate the 'same' income for Sony.

If you have 50m users who spend money buying games in your ecosystem, they may not 'buy' CoD anymore, but they are still 'spending' money on OTHER games, other services and content. They won't suddenly stop buying anything - instead of buying CoD every year, they may buy Battlefield or GTA or Final Fantasy or FarCry or Destiny or Fifa or MBL or Suicide Squad or Street Fighter or Spider-Man 2 so Sony still 'receive' money.

Sony could have signed a 10yr deal guaranteeing they could still 'sell' CoD so it doesn't suddenly 'disappear' and they don't get their 'cut' anymore. Thereby still earning a LOT of money from the Playstation based CoD gamers at NO cost to themselves - all of which they can 'invest' in their OWN content/studios etc or invest in keeping 3rd Party publishers from releasing games on Xbox. If their 'worry' is CoD being 'exclusive' and therefore pulling people away from Playstation, not selling the game anymore so not getting their cut, they can sign a deal with MS guaranteeing Parity so Xbox doesn't have 'Only on Xbox' content to pull those gamers away - they don't care as they know its in MS's interest to sell CoD on PS so will still keep making 'millions' off of an Xbox owned IP.

@BAMozzy I think at this point we will just need to agree to disagree as ultimately we will just need to wait and see what happens. At the moment everything is really just speculation and opinions, we don't know the finer details of the 10 year contract on offer. Bear in mind that MS could theoretically hold Sony to ransom with a very unfavourable deal just to ensure they get CoD for 10 years.
Also, did you seriously suggest that people may buy Suicide Squad? 😂

@RonnieL I hadn’t seen this list comparison before. Interesting.
Since I don’t play on the Xbox side I haven’t heard of most of their timed exclusives (I am curious about this High on Life game), but it looks like there’s plenty. On par with the number for PS.
Hypocrisy is the main required attribute for business leaders and especially for senators. Hypocrisy, coupled with ignorance, deception, and dishonesty.
(With all apologies to @XenonKnight — I’m sure, Mr. or Mrs. Senator, that you’re the exception. 😜)

@RonnieL You are one of those 'rare' exceptions then as most won't drop $500 on Hardware just because it has a 'Single' game they want to play and couldn't care less about the rest.

In any case, its still the same principal, weighing up the games you can ONLY play on Playstation and comparing to the games you can ONLY play on Xbox and the one that has the 'most' games you want to play (even if that is 'just' 1 game at the time) is still the Console you'll buy. Its still a Unique Selling Point that persuaded you to jump into that ecosystem.

The USP's are what sells hardware and Sony has far more USP's to entice people to buy a Playstation. Bloodborne and Demon Souls worked on you, was 'enough' for you to be 'sucked in' to buying a Playstation, going on to spend more money in Playstations ecosystem helping Sony to massive profits they can 'invest' back into making games.

The point of USP's is 'getting' you to buy their Hardware so you are 'in' their 'ecosystem so they can make money from 'you' and the games you buy. If you don't buy CoD, but buy Hogwarts instead, that's still money to Sony.

For MOST people, its the majority of USP's that will determine which platform they buy. Just knowing that Sony has a 'bigger' library of games, due to the fact that Sony has a LOT more games that are 'only' on Playstation, is another factor. So even if you don't care about 'Spider-man' or CoD games specifically, knowing that Sony will have 'more' Exclusive games maybe enough to get people in to the ecosystem buying games, spending money so Sony keeps growing their profits...

@Kevw2006 Whatever the details were, its irrelevant because Sony would still have the game on their platform, still be able to sell it and therefore still get money from it.

MS also promised to allow a 3rd Party independent analysis prior to release to ensure 'Parity' between PS5/Xbox - even though a 'bad' game hurts MS far more as Sony would be exempt from any negative PR and if the game isn't selling, its hurting MS more as its their reputation, their investment, their IP/Studio that's 'hurt' - not Sony or Playstation.

I jokingly said Suicide Squad as an example of a 3rd Party game that 'could' be purchased on Playstation by '1m' more gamers that have 'money' to spend if they can't buy CoD. They may 'lose' 15m sales of CoD for example, but those 15m people may buy something else on Playstation instead so the 'nett' loss to Sony is Zero.

Lets say Sony 'lose' 5m sales now because MS own CoD and/or because those '5m' actually prefer to play CoD elsewhere and now have the freedom to choose where they WANT to play, not feel forced/pressured to play on Playstation or miss out on something. They may buy other games instead on Playstation so still spending money, still 'contributing' to Sony's profit and/or replace those who 'leave' to go to Xbox with 'new' gamers coming in to play Spider-Man, Wolverine etc Its the USP's that bring gamers in to Spend Money on 3rd Party Software too...

If you have 50m users with an 'average' spend across ALL games contributing to their profits, those 50m users won't suddenly stop spending money just because CoD stops coming to Playstation - the 'average' spend won't drop much (if at all) - it will just be across other games so the nett loss is negligible.

I know this isn’t going to be a popular opinion on here as it seems you have to pick a side, but both Sony and Microsoft are to blame for this. Ever since the announcement of the ABK, both companies have been acting like children. Running around behind each other’s backs and snitching on the other. Telling tales of the other while some are true, some are exaggerated. Neither company is making themselves look good. They are trying to play a victim, my own kids do the same to the other. Neither one of them is a victim. It’s time to put on their grownup pants and start acting like it. Now US senators are getting involved. Whether Microsoft paid them or not to look into behind the scene deals, I can’t say I’m surprised. They are both guilty. They were both caught with their pants down. I’m hoping this acquisition is over soon, but they both have already tarnished their reputations. Both companies are probably going to be further investigated even after the merger and they have nobody else to blame but themselves.

@LightningLeader Tunic, Scorn, Valheim, Vampire Survivors, Arc 2, Stalker, Sable, The Gunk, Powerwash, The Medium and more were and are timed deals. Of course though i forget MS are innocent and don't do timed deals.

@BAMozzy This is what you don't understand a huge majority of people just buy a console for CoD, Fortnite, Fifa/Madden and not much else beyond except maybe GTA. Sales support me here and CoD dominates Spidey in sales.

@WallyWest @RonnieL How many of those games were supported by MS and brought to Xbox as part of their ID@Xbox programme designed to help developers realise their games and/or bring them to more gamers by helping them Self Publish and/or port to Consoles. The whole point is to support these 'independent' developers to make games they wouldn't have had without MS's support and a platform to self publish and extend their reach beyond 'just' PC.

MS never took Redfall away from Playstation, they cancelled it before it was a 'Product'. Star Wars 1313, Prey 2, Scalebound and ANY game 'cancelled' before its released cannot be 'pulled' away. To Pull something, it has to be 'available' to those consumers.

Final Fantasy 16 hasn't been 'pulled' from Xbox - even if they had 'started' development with a plan to release on Xbox. As far as we know, Sony has 'paid' to 'delay' or even 'Cancel' any Xbox port but can't be 'pulled' away because its never been available.

If Sony decide to Cancel their 'Handheld' device that's heavily rumoured, that won't be 'pulled' away from you as a Consumer because you never had access to it in the first place. The ONLY Bethesda games that can be pulled are those that already 'exist' on PS - they could pull Minecraft, ESO, F76, Deathloop, Ghostwire etc - not bother updating or 'releasing' new content, stop supporting PS entirely - that would be 'pulling' games from Playstation.

People don't spend $500 to play CoD ONLY and if CoD remains on PS (if its 'THAT' big a deal, Sony would ensure continued access by signing a deal), they are not going to spend another $500 to switch to Xbox now. They buy PS because it has the 'best' exclusives and can still play CoD, Fifa and all the other 'junk food' games.

Gamers will still 'buy' Playstation because Sony has a LOT of the Best games released 'EVERY' year, often the Game of the Year 'winner', often the Publisher with the most Award nominations etc - its that 'strength' that will keep people buying Playstation. I know I'll buy a PS6 because I want to play Sony's Exclusives - whether CoD, Crash, Overwatch, WoW, Spyro, Doom, Wolfenstein, Elder Scrolls, Fallout etc etc are 'playable' on Playstation or not. I still want to play Spider-Man 2, Wolverine, GoW, GT, Horizon, GoT, R&C, tLoU, Uncharted etc etc.

If Sony were 'so' concerned about losing CoD, therefore losing the opportunity to sell to those 10-15m that buy it every year and therefore losing that 'revenue', they had the option to sign a deal guaranteeing they could still 'sell' CoD so it doesn't pull people away from PS and they still get their cut.

Microsoft money still doing all the talking. Politicians returning favors.

Whenever congress is involved just follow the money plus let’s not forget where Sony is located even though the US loves to talk down China and behind the scenes do business with them such hypocrites lol

When is S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 coming again?

@theMEGAniggle

I don't see them as weak.

@thefourfoldroot1 Corporations have no morals. They are money making machines that differ in their mode of operation.

I would call Microsoft's mode "ruthless". Microsoft is not very suited to operating outside of monopoly bounds, and as such they try to establish one at all cost.

@GodofCapcom how do you see them?

I don't think it is fair that movie theaters have timed exclusives over streaming services. See, anyone can make a stupid argument. If I remember correctly, Xbox started the timed exclusive war with Tomb Raider. It was fine until they lost market share. They lost market share because they tried to make the Xbox a TV peripheral that also played games. They have only themselves to blame for their market woes.

@Ambassador_Kong We have not forgotten what they tried to do with the Xbox one in 2013.

I hate politics. Especially political focus on frivolous stuff.

Unfortunately, Sony will not be able to fight this, if they intend on buying more studios or publishers they can't face Microsoft's deep pockets that have the governments on their side.

I hope the acquisition falls through, if for no other reason than the fact that the only way Microsoft can have quality exclusives is by whipping their johnson out on the table and buying up developers, and I think that's absolutely pathetic. If you can't stand the heat, get the hell out the kitchen, but M$ just says "we'll buy a bigger kitchen."

Couple of things you need to consider, @UltimateOtaku91. The install base on the PlayStation is something in the order of 150 million. The install base on the Xbox is something in the order of 50 million., So, when Sony rock up at an independent Developer and say, 'Hey, we want that AAA game as an exclusive', Sony have to pay only a fraction of what it would cost Xbox to do the same simply because they can say we can offer your game to around 3 times as many gamers as the Xbox can. Just look at the AA+ and AAA games that Sony has locked down this generation, and then look at those that the Xbox has had. I won't waste your time, Xbox has not had a single one (other than perhaps Valheim, but then Sony does not routinely allow Early Access games on their platform, so it's questionable as to whether Sony would even have approached the Developer anyway). The only games that Xbox gets as exclusives tend to be small Indie type games, and even the most impassioned Sony fanboy cannot deny that something like Final Fantasy 16 is comparable to something like The Medium (which is probably the best that Microsoft has had this Generation). I think if you look back as the third-party exclusives that both Sony and Microsoft have had this generation, you will be surprised at the quality difference between those released on the PlayStation compared to those on the Xbox. The difference is quite stark.

And then on to your other statement; now I know you like to knock the Xbox and Microsoft at every given opportunity, but I prefer to try to keep things balanced. I will knock the Xbox where it needs to be done, but I will also defend them when the need arises. The same is true of the PlayStation and Sony.

You say that the US Government is corrupt, a statement which has many levels to it, but you infer that Microsoft is paying the US Government to take issue with the practices of Sony. I wonder if you have evidence of this that you would like to share?

Again, I know you like to knock Microsoft, but if you are going to level an accusation such as this against them, it is only right that it is actually backed up with evidence.

Follow the money:

“ Unsurprisingly, one of Cramer’s campaign contributors is Microsoft – as has been consistent with several other US politicians since this story started.”

None of the games is AAA, @RonnieL. Not one of them. Not one of them matches the likes or scale of Final Fantasy 7 or 16. None of the previous S.T.A.L.K.E.R games has been AAA. Whilst they have been enjoyed by many, at best they would be regarded as AA. High On Life, once released, was regarded as very hit and miss, and again bears no comparison to a FF game, or even Forspoken, or the likes. And as I said in my post, the best game on the list that has been released as a timed-exclusive on the Xbox was the Medium, but again, at best it would be considered a AA game (I personally enjoyed it).

My point still stands, some of the games that Sony are locking down are big AAA games. Indeed, FF16 may well be a Game of the Year candidate. Microsoft are not doing anything like it, most probably because it just wouldn't be cost affective for them. They couldn't go to the likes of Square Enix and offer them enough money to have something like FF16 as a console exclusive, because the Xbox has so many fewer gamers (and so potential customers) than the PlayStation does. The money that they would have to offer SE to cover the shortfall in sales as a result of the game not being on the PlayStation, would be unjustifiable. Microsoft knows that having something like FF16 exclusive to the Xbox would not bring in enough new Xbox owners to make up for the money that they had to spend in order to get the game as an exclusive. It just wouldn't be worth the outlay to SE. And that issue/dilemma is why I believe that Microsoft are buying ABK. I'm not saying that I'm in favour of what they're doing, just trying to say that I think this is their only response to being 'locked-out' of getting the big AAA games as exclusives (timed or otherwise). I may well be wide of the mark, but just maybe Sony approached ABK and tried to get something like Diablo IV as a console exclusive, and Microsoft got wind of it, and their only response was to say screw it, I'll buy the company.

@thefourfoldroot1 a report was just released of how much lobbying and morally questionable decisions large companies do. Microsoft was literally within the top 10 LOL! Even above military weapon-making companies.

@Kevw2006 If you read my post properly I never mention any particular company. I believe in funding the projects you want to support and let any body play everything else. It is silly and mean to pay so others CAN'T play. I hope every company does the nintendo way. Good true exclusives, focus on quality and even good movie adaptations of their brand. Paid time exclusives should be illegal for everyone.

I am really happy this is happening. A more balanced market will increase competition and we will benefit as consumers. A stronger Microsoft will keep Sony on their toes, and will see better costumer delight.

I disagree with some of what you have said, @RonnieL: (my comment was too long to be on one post, so stretches to two).

1. Microsoft is not 'bullying' Sony. Not in the least. I genuinely believe that the ABK acquisition is a response to Sony locking down exclusivity and sponsorship. Sony have grown the PlayStation brand off the back of these practices (I'm not saying that that is a bad thing. It's business, the need to grow is an imperative). However, when one company has the lions-share of the market, they get to set the rules, and that is why Sony were the first to raise the prices of both their games and their consoles. Why? Not because they needed to, but because they could. People were going to buy their games and consoles regardless. Anyway, back on point, as I said, Microsoft cannot compete with timed exclusivity. The money they would have to pump into the Developer to make up for the shortfall in game sales that the Developer would see from not selling their game on the PlayStation would quite simply be unviable. It would quite simply make no business sense at all. And this is why the Xbox gets the smaller, pretty insignificant, timed exclusives, that Sony is simply not interested in (unless they turn out to be good, then there is some commotion about it). Whereas the PlayStation can get the AAA big exclusives, because the shortfall in games that would be sold on the Xbox, is easy for Sony to redress. You say that Microsoft can just pay more for the exclusives, but that honestly makes little business sense. Just imagine Microsoft rocking up to Square Enix and saying, 'We want FF16 as a Xbox Exclusive'. What would Square say, (if they were of a mind to agree)? They would say we would expect to sell something in the order of 14 million copies on the PlayStation (which is fewer than the FF7 Remake has sold), which basically equates to 1 in 10 people that own a PlayStation having bought the game. Xbox has fewer than 50 million gamers, so if we were to assume that 1 in 10 were to buy the game on the Xbox, we can expect to sell around 5 million copies. So, Square Enix would say, yes, you can have it as a console exclusive if you make up the shortfall in games being sold by virtue of not being on the PlayStation. At $70 a game, that will be $630,000,000, please. Can you honestly see Microsoft coughing up that kind of figure to lock down an exclusive, timed or otherwise? FF is a system seller, but no way is it going to shift sufficient copies to make good business sense.

2. Your point regarding 'exclusives are exclusives' is plain wrong. No one decided to buy a Xbox Series because they had The Medium as a timed-exclusive, but I bet plenty of people will have bought a PlayStation because they have Final Fantasy. Final Fantasy is a system seller, plain and simple. The Medium, or all the other third-party exclusives that the Xbox has/had will have amounted to nothing for Microsoft, except maybe a few headlines. As for the issue being anti-consumer, I absolutely think it is, particularly when a company with the largest install-base by far, locks down games that sell systems. I have no problem with exclusives developed within a systems ecosystem, but third-party exclusivity of big games is definitely anti-consumer.

@RonnieL (page two)

3. Jez Corden basically only said that the relationship between Xbox and Square Enix was not good, and then went on to effectively say that he had heard that it was the fault of Xbox. However, this is one report, provided without any evidence or context. For all we know this could just be down to a conversation between the heads of Xbox and SE in which Xbox expressed their annoyance at SE giving priority to Sony. We simply do not know the ins and outs of this, or even if it is actually factual. You also need to factor in that people such as Jez need to bring in the viewers/readers/listeners, so an eye-catching snippet can be enough to do this, and absolutely works for him. Even if it was wrong, it still has the desired affect for him. No need to retract or even expand on the statement. It still brought in those numbers. In time we may find out the truth of the matter. Maybe there is no problem whatsoever, maybe there is, but in the meantime, people will still use an unsubstantiated comment to bash Xbox because it suits their narrative. Heck, even if it is proven to be incorrect, people will still use it to suit their purpose, because, well, people...

As for the state of Xbox, I absolutely agree that it could have been managed better. I think that last generation they got it all wrong from the start in the belief that people wanted a TV entertainment system, when they in fact wanted a games console. It started to turn around towards the end of the generation, and I think by the end of this generation, and when the clamour over acquisitions has quietened down Xbox will be in a much better/good place. Personally, I think that Phil Spencer has been a breath of fresh air for the Industry. Again, I get that Team Blue don't like him, mostly because he's Team Green, and anything that Team Green does is bad/very bad/laughable/laughably bad, but I would bet my house on the fact that if he was batting for Team Blue, those same people would be rooting for him, because, you know, people...

4, At this point, with regards to the relationship between Square Enix and Sony, yes there is many years of history there. I totally understand that, and Sony have basically bought the company because they are locking down all their meaningful content. No need to go through the Regulators, no need to cause uproar because 'acquisition bad!'. Instead you just lockdown all their quality content, and be done with it.

@SillyBoyJudas

Yep. On average over the last 10 years they’ve spend around 9m per year on this kind of disgusting behaviour.

2021 was over 10m, last year just under 8m, but I’m sure this year will be a lot more.

@Oscarjpc
I think you have things backwards. Things are balanced now because MS haven’t used their trillions to buy the market. If they are allowed to, as with this 70billion acquisition, then the relative balance we have now completely gets destroyed.

@thefourfoldroot1 What balance? the PS5 outsells the XSX 3 to 1. That's why Sony are so arrogant as to sell you the same game without MP for the THIRD time (in less than 10 years) at $70 plus tax. That's why they're remaking a super modern game as Horizon Zero Dawn!!!. If they had true competition, Sony wouldn't dare.

@Oscarjpc
3-1 is nothing (not that MS they even care about hardware sales). That is relatively balanced.

Witness what happens when everyone gets Gamepass instead of Plus because that’s where all the most popular games are “free”. A 3-1 differential in the gaming subscription market will be a dream if MS continue to just buy up all the content producers.

@BAMozzy "And you are acting like a teenage fanboy - not a mature adult.

Sony have the OPPORTUNITY to guarantee Selling CoD on Playstation for the next decade, still get their 'cut' as Platform owners so people can STILL buy and PLAY CoD just like they always have. The ONLY difference is that Playstation can't market and have 'only on Playstation' content ANYMORE!

The ONLY difference is that 'Activision/Blizzard' would be OWNED by Microsoft - not Bobby Kotick anymore."

Gotta love ad hominem attacks. Also capitalizing words (i.e. yelling) like a proper adult would. By all means, keep it up.

@somnambulance man, that'd be an awesome game to play. Problem is, the creators would probably get sued and the judges would rule in their favour. The fact that judges have become so openly partisan is just mind blowing to me.

@somnambulance hahahaha. That would be epic!

@BAMozzy "that's because you lack the 'simple' understanding"

Still disrespectful I see.