Canada had a chance to attempt to block the deal. They instead chose to do nothing and let their own window expire. Its a bit silly of them to try to intervene with another's country process, although it sounds like they were attempting to "correct" Microsoft's claim the deal was only blocked in one country. It's still true, though, because Canada didn't care to act.
@UltimateOtaku91 I’m certain even if this goes through, this won’t be MS last publisher acquisition.
And as a personal opinion, I don’t think another publisher acquisition would put them on a position of becoming dangerously big, so it’s (my opinion) that one more acquisition would only be blocked if we are talking about EA or Take 2.
At the same time, though, these numbers seem off. It seems unfathomable that costs would have multiplied so extensively in that space of time, and just in 2020 Jim was talking about games costs "sometimes over 100 million" like that was meant to be an eye-opening number, it doesn't seem likely the costs DOUBLED in 2 years from that. I can't help but think they're creatively bundling other expenses into this number, such as Guerilla's new office building, IT purchases not directly tied to the existence of one game, etc, etc.
Rents do usually count towards budget. Its not just about employee pay, their healthcare, the free sodas in the break room, in addition to any outsourced materials (art assets, motion capture equipment), hell, new computers, new desk chairs, electric and water bills, janitorial services, everything counts towards budget.
As for the game, even without having played it yet, I can tell there is a big difference between the two games, visually and in scope.
Could have they gotten away with a much more toned down approach? Yes. I have argued about this before, games keep getting too big, and resource keep being sunk in things that, although different, few players notice.
You will se a huge array of redesigned assets, very little amount of reuse. Side to side, it is impressive how good some of this stuff looks, I can almost understand the desire to be that ambitious, but for a game released within the same generation, they could had gotten away with reusing more assets from the previous game. Games tend to reinvent too many things that dont have that much of a lasting impression outside these side-by-side comparisons.
IMO, that level of invest should be reserved for new IP or generational jumps. I guess it could be argued Horizon Forbidden West was meant to be a generational jump, though.
Lets not forget BluePoint and Bungie said similar months before closing the deal with Sony. Doubt they will be selling anytime soon, but would not be shocked if it happens in the next few years either.
If Xbox was smart, they would simply buy a large stake at Sega Sammy Holdings instead of going for an acquisition, though.
Interesting note that was not added to this article (from PureXbox)
The COO also reportedly mentioned that Microsoft values SEGA more than other platform operators.
It sounds like Sega is actually not very happy right now with Sony or Nintendo.
@Neverwild buying the game still does not give you access to the 5 day head-start. Only the deluxe edition (or whatever it’s called) gives access to the 5 day “headstart.”
Most people are not giving MS any ***** over it because almost no one cares about 5 days. The few that do care have voiced their concerns.
@get2sammyb went to the official page to see if they had any info and it does say at the bottom of the page:
Kunitsu-Gami: Path of the Goddess
Players: 1
Release Date: TBD
Rating: RP
Btw my point is mostly about Jim’s claims that publishers universally feel services like that “devalue” their games. Given how many are added to GamePass, and how UBisoft and EA offer their own versions, I would say the feeling is not universal. It might had been a long time ago, that I could believe. Today? I believe for sure ABK and 2K feel that way.
@AdamNovice he said “universal” dislike. And it’s not just Exoprimal, there is also the new Capcom IP Path of the Goddess, and we also got Plague Tale Requiem day one. It’s as if those publishers that try the model end up liking it and coming back.
100% this one on Xbox. It’s an odd one. Definitively not for everyone. It’s punch-gun segments might be too frustrating for fans of walking sims, too much walking and puzzles for fans of action games, and an art style that might test many players stomachs.
But there is a narrow intersection of players that will love or at least enjoy the experience. I’m glad more players will get a chance to give it a try.
Hopefully it comes directly to PSN Extra, so more players can try it without the risk of being out of money.
@Fight_Teza_Fight Partially agree with most what you said, but thats beside the point.
My point was that you claim emails like Matt Booty's are only sent if everyone agrees with that mindset.
Jim sent an email clearly stating no worries about exclusivity, then went to talk about fears of exclusivity to regulators. Not about GamePass day one, but about something that is now obviously a lie. His email will make all concerns Sony brings up going forward meaningless.
Just because an email is sent that disagrees with the stance of most others in the company does not mean that the person is going to be fired. Jim won't be fired over that email, and Matt Booty would not be afraid of express contradicting opinions simply because he sent an email.
Also: the reason this email is an exhibit is because during discovery they got access to all of Microsoft's communications. If that email is the only email that voices that opinion, I think its safe to say no one else agreed with the stance. You can bet the FTC would bring every other email that did, if there was any more agreement with the sentiment.
@Fight_Teza_Fight you mean like the email where Jim Ryan said he knew for a fact that CoD would not become exclusive under the ABK acquisition even before the deal was announced, and also stated that even if it did, Sony would be more than OK thanks to all the things they had cooking? And how he then went and lied to every regulator in the world?
Maybe you are right about such emails being career suicide and Jim gets fired after his email is the thing that makes the ABK deal goes through!
unsurprisingly, how bill gates stole the original operating system from John kemeny in 1963 but not many know this, especially those that are team xbox .
Damn... Bill Gates stole an OS when he was only 8 years old? Wild!!!
Love how people are going all celebratory on Phil showing true colors or what not, when the email was from Matt Booty. And if you go to The Verge source, they have a screenshot of at least part of the email opening up with "a different view to the general view below..." showing that whatever tangent he was going for was not what was being discussed or considered.
Anyways, at least attribute the evil villainess to the correct person.
The funny thing is the full email talks about "outspending" Sony with 2-3 billion dollars. Fast forward a few years, and both Sony and Xbox have spent way more than that in acquisitions. Obviously, Xbox has spent way way more, but Bungie alone was 4 billion.
I'm just glad that Japanese law prevents all these company buy outs.
That is a myth. Acquiring Japanese companies is entirely possible and not blocked by any regional laws, outside similar regulatory procedures as we see in other countries.
The biggest roadblock is for hostile takeovers and not due to legal blocks, but due to cross-shareholding, a practice where banks hold stock in the companies they lend to, while borrowers end up also holding positions in the banks that lent money to them. This creates a complex relationship between the companies and the banks that stifle takeover activities. Even that barrier is slowly weakening. [link with more info]
Despite the recency of these financial changes, there are quite a few Japanese companies owned by foreign ones. Nissan is, for example, owned by Renault, a French company. And Sharp is owned by Foxconn, a Taiwanese company.
You can actually find companies like this one that specialize in aiding international companies to navigate regional laws and regulations, or hunt for investment opportunities.
TLDR: Japan has no laws to block foreign acquisitions.
@Amnesiac Exclusivity deals usually consist of a lot of money up front, a lot of marketing costs, and (in some cases) higher royalty payments (20/80 instead of 30/70 for example).
I think it's been stated publicly XBox paid 100 million Rise of the Tomb Raider only so they could have it as exclusive for a single year. That basically covered the entire development for the game.
At the same time we know Nintendo paid Capcom 6 million for Monster Hunter Ryse for a year.
So it heavily depends on how large your install base is and how much its expected to limit your sales.
@Amnesiac When your install base is much smaller than everyone else's, the cost of buying exclusivity is exponentially higher.
edit: ...because your offer needs to compensate for all sales lost as part of the acquisition. Xbox did manage to get some strong exclusivity deals early in the Xbox One generation, because they were in a strong position the previous generation, but that market quickly shrunk.
At this point: money spent securing third party exclusivity deals is simply money spent for little gain. Money spent buying a studio and its IP's, though, is an investment in an asset that retains its value, so its more logical as an investment to buy than to make an exclusivity deal, especially if the deal is temporary.
Right now Xbox still cuts some exclusivity deals, but most of them are for smaller projects that had financial trouble to even cross the finish line, so Xbox Game Studios offers financing to complete the project in exchange for exclusivity windows.
@edwinjoe450 Bungie wanted their "independence", but truly they just wanted to make something that was not Halo, because the first thing they did was get acquired by ABK.
Then they also bought their independence away from ABK and after long enough being independent they once more decided they wanted to be acquired (because being independent is hard). There are a lot of rumors that Bungie approached a ton of other larger names in the industry trying to get acquired by "a better host" than ABK.
@UltimateOtaku91 As I stated above, precisely due to the Japanese reception, I would not expect Xbox to try to make Sega games exclusives, at least not the bulk of their existing IPs, I could see them deciding some new IPs to become exclusives.
Acquiring Sega would likely be a lot more about blocking PS/Nintendo exclusivity deals for all Sega games and bringing them all to Game Pass day one.
Edit: like, I could potentially see Metaphor: ReFantazio going XBox exclusive had they acquired Sega back in 2020, for example, but not Persona.
The fact they keep working very closely as of late (starting with Yakuza 7 Xbox Series X but not on PS5 at launch) I would not be shocked if these negotiations are ongoing, basically: they are on the "dating" stage.
@CWill97 @thefourfoldroot1 In the case of Sega, I would honestly expect them to keep multi-platform simply due to the impact it would have on the Japanese perception of Microsoft, but absolutely everything in the Sega house (including Atlus) would end up being multi-plat and day one on Game Pass.
Sega Sammy's market cap (the entirety of the company, not just the gaming branch) is valued at about 5 billion. An acquisition would certainly cost a lot more than that, but it is likely not outside what MS could afford even after depleting most its cash on ABK. At the same time, I think MS smarter play in such a move (given IMO they would not take the games exclusive) is they simply acquire a large enough stake to influence all future development include XBox/Game Pass day one.
I still would not be shocked if the Sega deal ends up happening. Just because it has not come to pass does not mean its not still potentially under verbal negotiation.
The Bungie stuff, I recall a rumor a long time ago that Bungie and Xbox did negotiate, but Xbox was not willing to agree to the level of freedom Bungie was demanding (or the amount of money they wanted.) Given how Bungie under PS ended up retaining a lot of freedom, at least part of that rumor might be true, although it might also be one of those broken clock being right twice a day things.
I don't care about basketball but that is the coolest special edition PS5 controller I seen so far, and honestly, it does not have a single direct visual mention of basketball in it. I guess you would have to be familiar with LeBron James's basketball world branding to find the correlations.
Keep this in mind have you ever wondered why windows os is the only operating available besides Mac os? Because Microsoft soft owns monopoly on the market so theirs no other choices and any who attempts to make another os they buy it up to keep it from going to mass market. Here's a story you can Google way back in the day when dial up was still a thing. A guy made a os goes in Microsofts office keeps his os and then tells him that no one is interested in it. They keep it and it becomes windows xp masked with the name windows and Microsoft branded.
Windows XP was an iteration of Windows NT, not a new OS "acquired" from "some guy". I seriously would love to see a source proving otherwise, though. I'm always interested in that nerdy OS stuff.
@Grumblevolcano @SplooshDmg I dont think that’s what Spencer is talking about. He is talking on behalf of Xbox, so he will only voice his concerns of Xbox being excluded, but we all know Sony does love to have things excluded from all console competitors.
Nintendo just does not care, and rarely if ever voice their concerns publicly. They do better than anyone even without CoD.
There is only 1 way to truly find out if FFVII Remake was blocked from Xbox specifically. Namely, keep an eye out on the launch window lineup for the next Nintendo console whenever that happens. If FFVII Remake comes to that but still not Xbox, then Phil Spencer told the truth. If however it doesn't come to the next Nintendo console, then Phil Spencer lied.
Really dont think that is a valid test. For all we know, Sony blocked SE from releasing the game on other consoles, including Nintendo consoles. That would not make Spencer's statement a lie.
Nothing was stopping Microsoft from outbidding Sony for timed exclusivity
MS would have to pay a lot more for exclusivity than Sony, because one of the things you are forced to do is compensate the publisher of the game for lost sales, and xbox having a much smaller install base than PlayStation means Sony needs to pay way less for exclusivity.
Could MS technically still afford it? Maybe? But that's money down the drain, its paying someone else for a temporary privilege. Buying the publisher (that as you said, was looking to sell) results in acquired assets that retain value, so its not considered "money spent", its considered money invested.
@dbunny @Old-Red I mentioned this in a post in another article, but Phil has openly stated he would be open to have Game Pass on Playstation. Repeating this bit here:
Now, before anyone argues the usual "Sony would be stupid to allow Game Pass on PlayStation", keep in mind that realistically, Game Pass on PlayStation would not include third party titles. It would not be any different from EA Play, it would only include XBox Game Studios games, ZeniMax games, and eventually Activision/Blizard games (assuming this is not blocked, and lets face it, it wont be blocked), and anything else they acquire or create in years to come.
So, I do think long play for Phil is to eventually get Sony to cave and allow them to have that EA Play-like treatment. However, realistically speaking, the longer they take to get there, the less likely it is they can go back and port the back-catalog.
If this is a continued goal, its unlikely they will port games a year later, because it lightens the leverage they have on Sony to persuade them on letting them have an EA-style model.
Another thing of consideration: possibly, just possibly, Phil has not given up on Game Pass on PlayStation. And should Game Pass become available on PlayStation, they would start developing all future titles for PlayStation.
Now, before anyone argues the usual "Sony would be stupid to allow Game Pass on PlayStation", keep in mind that realistically, Game Pass on PlayStation would not include third party titles. It would not be any different from EA Play, it would only include XBox Game Studios games, ZeniMax games, and eventually Activision/Blizard games (assuming this is not blocked, and lets face it, it wont be blocked), and anything else they acquire or create in years to come.
If, by the time Elder Scrolls 6 happens, Phil has managed to get Sony to let them have the EA Play treatment, then the game will indeed be available on PlayStation.
My guess here, in context with other stuff that Phil stated during these testimonies: Xbox will keep games exclusive so long they feel PlayStation is turning around and using money earner from games in locking games away from Xbox, or forcing them to lower their revenue (as was testified to have happened with CoD) to keep games on the platform, because continuing to support PlayStation feels as paying for their own executioner.
And yea, I also expect them to continue to buy studios and publishers until they feel that is no longer a threat.
Up to anyone to believe him or distrust him, but he seems to be sending a message that he would be willing to do a lot more multi-platform releases so long Sony stops trying to get third parties to ignore Xbox.
According to Jim Ryan, it does not make a difference. He would prefer these acquisitions happened, but they will be more than OK even if all these acquired games became exclusives.
@TheArtfulDodger you didn’t say “new game”, you said “new IP”, not just once. If you just learned what IP means, well, I guess that does makes your point new IP irrelevant indeed.
Spiderman was a new ip that was first started after Sony acquired insomniac.
You... understand Spider-Man has existed since 1962, and has had a rather large number of video games dating back to the Atari 2600 (maybe older)... right? you understand what "IP" means, right?
You could link a video with the words coming out Phil's mouth and some posters on Pure Xbox would still insist he never said it. Much like how they now deny he said they had no interest in putting up game pass prices.
For us running the business we have to look at the return of our business, the cost of the business, we held prices on our console, we held prices on games for us and our subscription. I don't think we will be able to do that forever. I do think at some point we'll have to raise some prices on certain things. But going into this holiday we thought it was very important that we maintain the prices that we have. Because we think, as you said, consumers right now are more uncertain than they have been in a long time and I want our medium of video games to be something they find attractive.
So, he did say they would not increase prices going into the Christmas season, but that they would eventually have to. We are now 9 months separated from that interview, and that Christmas season is 7 months behind us.
So, now that video showing the words coming out of Phil's mouth is shown, do you still think Phil said he had no interest in increasing Game Pass prices?
@TheArtfulDodger … you do know that Spider-Man, not Indiana Jones, are “new IP”, right? Unless you shifting this from the difference between Spider Man and Indiana Jones games, to talk about the scale of acquisitions. If so, off topic?
Man these refreshed articles really can throw one off… started reading comments and was wondering if there was a meme or something going about Forespoken being an awesome release… took me a bit to realize these were pre-release, pre-review posts.
@themightyant and Disney sat with Bethesda to amend their licensing agreement without any resistance, at the end any deal is unique if you did enough for differences to fit a desired perspective.
The actual point is: licensee is fine with Sony having the rights to make PS exclusive Spider-Man and Wolverine games, as they were equally fine with Nintendo making a Switch exclusive Ultimate Alliance game and now they are fine with Bethesda doing an Xbox exclusive Indiana Jones game.
From gamers perspective, it’s simply: why is it fine for Sony to finance, market and publish licensed games exclusively for their platform, but it’s outrageous that Microsoft is doing the same? Because there was a possibility that had they not acquired Bethesda the game would be multiplat form? That would be true for any other Bethesda game.
Marvel offered their catalogue to Microsoft FIRST, they turned then down, this was before Sony bought Insomniac so Microsoft could have hired them, or someone else to make Spider-man, or even made it in house. Regardless it would have been funded by a platform holders, so it was always going to be an exclusive, whoever made it, either first or second party
We don't actually know that for sure. We only know that Disney shopped the IP around after Activision (or Disney) decided to not renew that ABK/Disney partnership, and we know Xbox was offered the IP and they turned it down. I am very doubtful they only pursued platform holders. In fact, I am willing to bet they first approached the likes of EA, 2K and Ubisoft, as any of those licensing the Spider-Man IP would had been way more profitable. The trend for licensed games started to die down at the end of the PS3/360 gen, and most games that launched on PS4/XBO were already in development before the gen ended.
Either way, not sure it makes any difference. Disney announced a few years ago they were opening their IPs for game licensing (around the time they ended their Star Wars/EA exclusivity partnership) and anyone could come and ask to make a game so long they were willing agree to the terms. Bethesda, before being acquired, obviously would add PS as a target on their contract. Disney didn't seem to care about the amend, and if they cared, they simply adjusted their up front fees.
But lets pretend we do care about that difference: how about Wolverine? Because I am certain Disney was not the one to come to Sony on that one.
@Jaxx420 NP, for what its worth, I think so long the license holder agrees, these type of exclusivity are perfectly acceptable. After all, the licensee is covering development, publishing and marketing costs.
its a little bit different than Spiderman. Sony bought the licensing rights to the franchise for film and gaming rather than just to make a singular game exclusive.
Sony only bought the rights for films and Disney would love to somehow kill that contract. Only reason that happened is because Disney didn't own Marvel yet.
The game development side is a licensing agreement after Activision stopped licensing Spider-Man for games.
Disney offered the license around to various publishers, Xbox included, but it was Sony that picked it up. Despite this, Sony does not have exclusive rights to use the character in video games. The character has shown up in at least two other video games since that deal was signed: Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 [Switch exclusive, published by Nintendo] and Marvel Midnight Suns [multi-platform, published by 2K].
Disney is not in the business of signing permanent or exclusive agreements, much less perpetual ones.
@BeerIsAwesome The Ouya didn't live long, it died way before the wiki actually states. The thing didn't really have even a year of viable life span. Everyone forgot about the thing the minute PS4 and XBO launched. It basically was an iPhone 4 without a screen, after all. As for Stadia, it's not a console.
I bought an Atari VCS last Christmas, was on a good sale from Atari's own website. It's gorgeous but I only have it as a display piece, never hooked it up to anything. I, of course, own the one with the fake wood paneling, no longer available I'm afraid.
Comments 1,678
Re: Canada Joins UK, US in Questioning Microsoft's Activision Blizzard Buyout
Canada had a chance to attempt to block the deal. They instead chose to do nothing and let their own window expire. Its a bit silly of them to try to intervene with another's country process, although it sounds like they were attempting to "correct" Microsoft's claim the deal was only blocked in one country. It's still true, though, because Canada didn't care to act.
@UltimateOtaku91 I’m certain even if this goes through, this won’t be MS last publisher acquisition.
And as a personal opinion, I don’t think another publisher acquisition would put them on a position of becoming dangerously big, so it’s (my opinion) that one more acquisition would only be blocked if we are talking about EA or Take 2.
Re: The Last of Us 2 Cost $220 Million to Make, Horizon Forbidden West Cost $212 Million
@NEStalgia
Rents do usually count towards budget. Its not just about employee pay, their healthcare, the free sodas in the break room, in addition to any outsourced materials (art assets, motion capture equipment), hell, new computers, new desk chairs, electric and water bills, janitorial services, everything counts towards budget.
As for the game, even without having played it yet, I can tell there is a big difference between the two games, visually and in scope.
Could have they gotten away with a much more toned down approach? Yes. I have argued about this before, games keep getting too big, and resource keep being sunk in things that, although different, few players notice.
I like to look a this video comparison of Doom vs Doom Eternal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNz-j6ZwmYM
You will se a huge array of redesigned assets, very little amount of reuse. Side to side, it is impressive how good some of this stuff looks, I can almost understand the desire to be that ambitious, but for a game released within the same generation, they could had gotten away with reusing more assets from the previous game. Games tend to reinvent too many things that dont have that much of a lasting impression outside these side-by-side comparisons.
IMO, that level of invest should be reserved for new IP or generational jumps. I guess it could be argued Horizon Forbidden West was meant to be a generational jump, though.
Re: SEGA Uninterested in Being Acquired by Sony, Microsoft
"not now".
Lets not forget BluePoint and Bungie said similar months before closing the deal with Sony. Doubt they will be selling anytime soon, but would not be shocked if it happens in the next few years either.
If Xbox was smart, they would simply buy a large stake at Sega Sammy Holdings instead of going for an acquisition, though.
Interesting note that was not added to this article (from PureXbox)
It sounds like Sega is actually not very happy right now with Sony or Nintendo.
Re: Publishers Don't Like 'Value Destructive' Subs Like Xbox Game Pass, Says Sony Boss
@Neverwild buying the game still does not give you access to the 5 day head-start. Only the deluxe edition (or whatever it’s called) gives access to the 5 day “headstart.”
Most people are not giving MS any ***** over it because almost no one cares about 5 days. The few that do care have voiced their concerns.
Re: Publishers Don't Like 'Value Destructive' Subs Like Xbox Game Pass, Says Sony Boss
@get2sammyb went to the official page to see if they had any info and it does say at the bottom of the page:
Btw my point is mostly about Jim’s claims that publishers universally feel services like that “devalue” their games. Given how many are added to GamePass, and how UBisoft and EA offer their own versions, I would say the feeling is not universal. It might had been a long time ago, that I could believe. Today? I believe for sure ABK and 2K feel that way.
Re: Publishers Don't Like 'Value Destructive' Subs Like Xbox Game Pass, Says Sony Boss
@get2sammyb Have we heard that Path of the Goddess is a multiplayer game?
Also, not GamePass but additional counterpoint:
EA has EA Play Premium on PC that equally “devaluates” all their games and UBisoft has UBisoft+ on PC and Xbox that also does the same.
It’s not GamePass, but it’s the same model: day one games for a subscription fee.
Re: Publishers Don't Like 'Value Destructive' Subs Like Xbox Game Pass, Says Sony Boss
@AdamNovice Redefining markets terms to fit narratives is the name of the game this week, at the end of the day.
Re: Publishers Don't Like 'Value Destructive' Subs Like Xbox Game Pass, Says Sony Boss
@AdamNovice he said “universal” dislike. And it’s not just Exoprimal, there is also the new Capcom IP Path of the Goddess, and we also got Plague Tale Requiem day one. It’s as if those publishers that try the model end up liking it and coming back.
Re: Publishers Don't Like 'Value Destructive' Subs Like Xbox Game Pass, Says Sony Boss
Then why do many of them, I clouding Capcom and Sega/Atlus, keep adding games to the service???
Does not sound that “universal” of a perception to me.
Re: PS5 Port of Body Horror Scorn Potentially Teased in Series of Cryptic Tweets
100% this one on Xbox. It’s an odd one. Definitively not for everyone. It’s punch-gun segments might be too frustrating for fans of walking sims, too much walking and puzzles for fans of action games, and an art style that might test many players stomachs.
But there is a narrow intersection of players that will love or at least enjoy the experience. I’m glad more players will get a chance to give it a try.
Hopefully it comes directly to PSN Extra, so more players can try it without the risk of being out of money.
Re: Microsoft's Potential Game Plan in 2020: 'Spend Sony Out of Business'
@Fight_Teza_Fight Partially agree with most what you said, but thats beside the point.
My point was that you claim emails like Matt Booty's are only sent if everyone agrees with that mindset.
Jim sent an email clearly stating no worries about exclusivity, then went to talk about fears of exclusivity to regulators. Not about GamePass day one, but about something that is now obviously a lie. His email will make all concerns Sony brings up going forward meaningless.
Just because an email is sent that disagrees with the stance of most others in the company does not mean that the person is going to be fired. Jim won't be fired over that email, and Matt Booty would not be afraid of express contradicting opinions simply because he sent an email.
Also: the reason this email is an exhibit is because during discovery they got access to all of Microsoft's communications. If that email is the only email that voices that opinion, I think its safe to say no one else agreed with the stance. You can bet the FTC would bring every other email that did, if there was any more agreement with the sentiment.
Re: Microsoft's Potential Game Plan in 2020: 'Spend Sony Out of Business'
@Fight_Teza_Fight you mean like the email where Jim Ryan said he knew for a fact that CoD would not become exclusive under the ABK acquisition even before the deal was announced, and also stated that even if it did, Sony would be more than OK thanks to all the things they had cooking? And how he then went and lied to every regulator in the world?
Maybe you are right about such emails being career suicide and Jim gets fired after his email is the thing that makes the ABK deal goes through!
Re: Microsoft's Potential Game Plan in 2020: 'Spend Sony Out of Business'
@Wheatly
You can get the full story here. There was no stealing, and it occurred in 1981, not 1963. Gates was 8 years old in 1963.
Re: Microsoft's Potential Game Plan in 2020: 'Spend Sony Out of Business'
@TheArt Matt Booty thought it would only take 3 billion to outspend Sony!!!!
Re: Microsoft's Potential Game Plan in 2020: 'Spend Sony Out of Business'
@johnny30
Damn... Bill Gates stole an OS when he was only 8 years old? Wild!!!
Re: Microsoft's Potential Game Plan in 2020: 'Spend Sony Out of Business'
Love how people are going all celebratory on Phil showing true colors or what not, when the email was from Matt Booty. And if you go to The Verge source, they have a screenshot of at least part of the email opening up with "a different view to the general view below..." showing that whatever tangent he was going for was not what was being discussed or considered.
Anyways, at least attribute the evil villainess to the correct person.
Re: Microsoft's Potential Game Plan in 2020: 'Spend Sony Out of Business'
The funny thing is the full email talks about "outspending" Sony with 2-3 billion dollars. Fast forward a few years, and both Sony and Xbox have spent way more than that in acquisitions. Obviously, Xbox has spent way way more, but Bungie alone was 4 billion.
Re: SEGA and Bungie Were On Microsoft's Shopping List in 2020, Xbox Emails Show
@Ashina
That is a myth. Acquiring Japanese companies is entirely possible and not blocked by any regional laws, outside similar regulatory procedures as we see in other countries.
The biggest roadblock is for hostile takeovers and not due to legal blocks, but due to cross-shareholding, a practice where banks hold stock in the companies they lend to, while borrowers end up also holding positions in the banks that lent money to them. This creates a complex relationship between the companies and the banks that stifle takeover activities. Even that barrier is slowly weakening.
[link with more info]
Despite the recency of these financial changes, there are quite a few Japanese companies owned by foreign ones. Nissan is, for example, owned by Renault, a French company. And Sharp is owned by Foxconn, a Taiwanese company.
You can actually find companies like this one that specialize in aiding international companies to navigate regional laws and regulations, or hunt for investment opportunities.
TLDR: Japan has no laws to block foreign acquisitions.
Re: SEGA and Bungie Were On Microsoft's Shopping List in 2020, Xbox Emails Show
@Amnesiac Exclusivity deals usually consist of a lot of money up front, a lot of marketing costs, and (in some cases) higher royalty payments (20/80 instead of 30/70 for example).
I think it's been stated publicly XBox paid 100 million Rise of the Tomb Raider only so they could have it as exclusive for a single year. That basically covered the entire development for the game.
At the same time we know Nintendo paid Capcom 6 million for Monster Hunter Ryse for a year.
So it heavily depends on how large your install base is and how much its expected to limit your sales.
Re: SEGA and Bungie Were On Microsoft's Shopping List in 2020, Xbox Emails Show
@GymratAmarillo There is a gigantic difference between spending money legally, and spending money illegally on practically every country in the world.
Bribes are not the same as partnerships and acquisitions.
There is no way they could manage to navigate every country's legal system to hide such a large scale fraud.
Re: SEGA and Bungie Were On Microsoft's Shopping List in 2020, Xbox Emails Show
@GymratAmarillo
You cant bribe the whole world. If they could, the US and the UK would be some of the first in line to take a paycheck.
Re: SEGA and Bungie Were On Microsoft's Shopping List in 2020, Xbox Emails Show
@Enigk Only if Sega is willing to sell. And honestly, I would bet even if the ABK does happen, that is still a possibility.
Re: SEGA and Bungie Were On Microsoft's Shopping List in 2020, Xbox Emails Show
@Amnesiac When your install base is much smaller than everyone else's, the cost of buying exclusivity is exponentially higher.
edit: ...because your offer needs to compensate for all sales lost as part of the acquisition. Xbox did manage to get some strong exclusivity deals early in the Xbox One generation, because they were in a strong position the previous generation, but that market quickly shrunk.
At this point: money spent securing third party exclusivity deals is simply money spent for little gain. Money spent buying a studio and its IP's, though, is an investment in an asset that retains its value, so its more logical as an investment to buy than to make an exclusivity deal, especially if the deal is temporary.
Right now Xbox still cuts some exclusivity deals, but most of them are for smaller projects that had financial trouble to even cross the finish line, so Xbox Game Studios offers financing to complete the project in exchange for exclusivity windows.
Re: SEGA and Bungie Were On Microsoft's Shopping List in 2020, Xbox Emails Show
@GymratAmarillo
Only two regulatory agencies are fighting it (and I doubt the FTC will win.) Practically the entire world has said "yea sure go for it".
Re: SEGA and Bungie Were On Microsoft's Shopping List in 2020, Xbox Emails Show
@edwinjoe450 Bungie wanted their "independence", but truly they just wanted to make something that was not Halo, because the first thing they did was get acquired by ABK.
Then they also bought their independence away from ABK and after long enough being independent they once more decided they wanted to be acquired (because being independent is hard). There are a lot of rumors that Bungie approached a ton of other larger names in the industry trying to get acquired by "a better host" than ABK.
Re: SEGA and Bungie Were On Microsoft's Shopping List in 2020, Xbox Emails Show
@UltimateOtaku91 As I stated above, precisely due to the Japanese reception, I would not expect Xbox to try to make Sega games exclusives, at least not the bulk of their existing IPs, I could see them deciding some new IPs to become exclusives.
Acquiring Sega would likely be a lot more about blocking PS/Nintendo exclusivity deals for all Sega games and bringing them all to Game Pass day one.
Edit: like, I could potentially see Metaphor: ReFantazio going XBox exclusive had they acquired Sega back in 2020, for example, but not Persona.
The fact they keep working very closely as of late (starting with Yakuza 7 Xbox Series X but not on PS5 at launch) I would not be shocked if these negotiations are ongoing, basically: they are on the "dating" stage.
Re: Kit Your PS5 Out in LeBron James Designed Decals from 27th July
@zupertramp took me a second take at the video to realize that emblem was a basketball! 😅
Re: SEGA and Bungie Were On Microsoft's Shopping List in 2020, Xbox Emails Show
@UltimateOtaku91 Like Minecraft died in Japan, you mean?
Re: SEGA and Bungie Were On Microsoft's Shopping List in 2020, Xbox Emails Show
@CWill97 @thefourfoldroot1 In the case of Sega, I would honestly expect them to keep multi-platform simply due to the impact it would have on the Japanese perception of Microsoft, but absolutely everything in the Sega house (including Atlus) would end up being multi-plat and day one on Game Pass.
Sega Sammy's market cap (the entirety of the company, not just the gaming branch) is valued at about 5 billion. An acquisition would certainly cost a lot more than that, but it is likely not outside what MS could afford even after depleting most its cash on ABK. At the same time, I think MS smarter play in such a move (given IMO they would not take the games exclusive) is they simply acquire a large enough stake to influence all future development include XBox/Game Pass day one.
Re: SEGA and Bungie Were On Microsoft's Shopping List in 2020, Xbox Emails Show
I still would not be shocked if the Sega deal ends up happening. Just because it has not come to pass does not mean its not still potentially under verbal negotiation.
The Bungie stuff, I recall a rumor a long time ago that Bungie and Xbox did negotiate, but Xbox was not willing to agree to the level of freedom Bungie was demanding (or the amount of money they wanted.) Given how Bungie under PS ended up retaining a lot of freedom, at least part of that rumor might be true, although it might also be one of those broken clock being right twice a day things.
Re: Kit Your PS5 Out in LeBron James Designed Decals from 27th July
I don't care about basketball but that is the coolest special edition PS5 controller I seen so far, and honestly, it does not have a single direct visual mention of basketball in it. I guess you would have to be familiar with LeBron James's basketball world branding to find the correlations.
I almost feel tempted to get it...
Re: Xbox Insinuates It Bought Bethesda to Block Starfield PS5 Console Exclusivity
Lexluther23 wrote:
Windows XP was an iteration of Windows NT, not a new OS "acquired" from "some guy". I seriously would love to see a source proving otherwise, though. I'm always interested in that nerdy OS stuff.
Re: Xbox Insinuates It Bought Bethesda to Block Starfield PS5 Console Exclusivity
@Grumblevolcano @SplooshDmg I dont think that’s what Spencer is talking about. He is talking on behalf of Xbox, so he will only voice his concerns of Xbox being excluded, but we all know Sony does love to have things excluded from all console competitors.
Nintendo just does not care, and rarely if ever voice their concerns publicly. They do better than anyone even without CoD.
Re: Xbox Insinuates It Bought Bethesda to Block Starfield PS5 Console Exclusivity
@Grumblevolcano
Really dont think that is a valid test. For all we know, Sony blocked SE from releasing the game on other consoles, including Nintendo consoles. That would not make Spencer's statement a lie.
Re: Xbox Insinuates It Bought Bethesda to Block Starfield PS5 Console Exclusivity
@IndoorEnthusiast
MS would have to pay a lot more for exclusivity than Sony, because one of the things you are forced to do is compensate the publisher of the game for lost sales, and xbox having a much smaller install base than PlayStation means Sony needs to pay way less for exclusivity.
Could MS technically still afford it? Maybe? But that's money down the drain, its paying someone else for a temporary privilege. Buying the publisher (that as you said, was looking to sell) results in acquired assets that retain value, so its not considered "money spent", its considered money invested.
Re: Xbox Insinuates It Bought Bethesda to Block Starfield PS5 Console Exclusivity
@dbunny @Old-Red I mentioned this in a post in another article, but Phil has openly stated he would be open to have Game Pass on Playstation. Repeating this bit here:
Tharsman wrote:
So, I do think long play for Phil is to eventually get Sony to cave and allow them to have that EA Play-like treatment. However, realistically speaking, the longer they take to get there, the less likely it is they can go back and port the back-catalog.
If this is a continued goal, its unlikely they will port games a year later, because it lightens the leverage they have on Sony to persuade them on letting them have an EA-style model.
Re: Xbox Boss Wishy-Washy on Whether The Elder Scrolls 6 Will Come to PS6, PS5
Another thing of consideration: possibly, just possibly, Phil has not given up on Game Pass on PlayStation. And should Game Pass become available on PlayStation, they would start developing all future titles for PlayStation.
Now, before anyone argues the usual "Sony would be stupid to allow Game Pass on PlayStation", keep in mind that realistically, Game Pass on PlayStation would not include third party titles. It would not be any different from EA Play, it would only include XBox Game Studios games, ZeniMax games, and eventually Activision/Blizard games (assuming this is not blocked, and lets face it, it wont be blocked), and anything else they acquire or create in years to come.
If, by the time Elder Scrolls 6 happens, Phil has managed to get Sony to let them have the EA Play treatment, then the game will indeed be available on PlayStation.
Re: Xbox Boss Wishy-Washy on Whether The Elder Scrolls 6 Will Come to PS6, PS5
My guess here, in context with other stuff that Phil stated during these testimonies: Xbox will keep games exclusive so long they feel PlayStation is turning around and using money earner from games in locking games away from Xbox, or forcing them to lower their revenue (as was testified to have happened with CoD) to keep games on the platform, because continuing to support PlayStation feels as paying for their own executioner.
And yea, I also expect them to continue to buy studios and publishers until they feel that is no longer a threat.
Up to anyone to believe him or distrust him, but he seems to be sending a message that he would be willing to do a lot more multi-platform releases so long Sony stops trying to get third parties to ignore Xbox.
Re: Xbox Insinuates It Bought Bethesda to Block Starfield PS5 Console Exclusivity
According to Jim Ryan, it does not make a difference. He would prefer these acquisitions happened, but they will be more than OK even if all these acquired games became exclusives.
Re: Indiana Jones Game Deal Amended to Exclude PS5, PS4
@TheArtfulDodger you didn’t say “new game”, you said “new IP”, not just once. If you just learned what IP means, well, I guess that does makes your point new IP irrelevant indeed.
Re: Indiana Jones Game Deal Amended to Exclude PS5, PS4
@TheArtfulDodger
You... understand Spider-Man has existed since 1962, and has had a rather large number of video games dating back to the Atari 2600 (maybe older)... right? you understand what "IP" means, right?
Re: Indiana Jones Game Deal Amended to Exclude PS5, PS4
@Kevw2006
I'm not a fan of the price hike, but this is very interesting, because the video is out there:Here is a link to the question that lead to that statement, and this is what he said:
link to exact timestamp of that quote.
So, he did say they would not increase prices going into the Christmas season, but that they would eventually have to. We are now 9 months separated from that interview, and that Christmas season is 7 months behind us.
So, now that video showing the words coming out of Phil's mouth is shown, do you still think Phil said he had no interest in increasing Game Pass prices?
Re: Indiana Jones Game Deal Amended to Exclude PS5, PS4
@TheArtfulDodger
But using millions and market dominance to make third party games like Final Fantasy exclusives is dandy.
Re: Indiana Jones Game Deal Amended to Exclude PS5, PS4
@TheArtfulDodger … you do know that Spider-Man, not Indiana Jones, are “new IP”, right? Unless you shifting this from the difference between Spider Man and Indiana Jones games, to talk about the scale of acquisitions. If so, off topic?
Re: New PS5 Games Release Dates in 2023
Man these refreshed articles really can throw one off… started reading comments and was wondering if there was a meme or something going about Forespoken being an awesome release… took me a bit to realize these were pre-release, pre-review posts.
Re: Indiana Jones Game Deal Amended to Exclude PS5, PS4
@themightyant and Disney sat with Bethesda to amend their licensing agreement without any resistance, at the end any deal is unique if you did enough for differences to fit a desired perspective.
The actual point is: licensee is fine with Sony having the rights to make PS exclusive Spider-Man and Wolverine games, as they were equally fine with Nintendo making a Switch exclusive Ultimate Alliance game and now they are fine with Bethesda doing an Xbox exclusive Indiana Jones game.
From gamers perspective, it’s simply: why is it fine for Sony to finance, market and publish licensed games exclusively for their platform, but it’s outrageous that Microsoft is doing the same? Because there was a possibility that had they not acquired Bethesda the game would be multiplat form? That would be true for any other Bethesda game.
Re: Indiana Jones Game Deal Amended to Exclude PS5, PS4
@themightyant
We don't actually know that for sure. We only know that Disney shopped the IP around after Activision (or Disney) decided to not renew that ABK/Disney partnership, and we know Xbox was offered the IP and they turned it down. I am very doubtful they only pursued platform holders. In fact, I am willing to bet they first approached the likes of EA, 2K and Ubisoft, as any of those licensing the Spider-Man IP would had been way more profitable. The trend for licensed games started to die down at the end of the PS3/360 gen, and most games that launched on PS4/XBO were already in development before the gen ended.
Either way, not sure it makes any difference. Disney announced a few years ago they were opening their IPs for game licensing (around the time they ended their Star Wars/EA exclusivity partnership) and anyone could come and ask to make a game so long they were willing agree to the terms. Bethesda, before being acquired, obviously would add PS as a target on their contract. Disney didn't seem to care about the amend, and if they cared, they simply adjusted their up front fees.
But lets pretend we do care about that difference: how about Wolverine? Because I am certain Disney was not the one to come to Sony on that one.
Re: Indiana Jones Game Deal Amended to Exclude PS5, PS4
@Jaxx420 NP, for what its worth, I think so long the license holder agrees, these type of exclusivity are perfectly acceptable. After all, the licensee is covering development, publishing and marketing costs.
Re: Indiana Jones Game Deal Amended to Exclude PS5, PS4
@Jaxx420
Sony only bought the rights for films and Disney would love to somehow kill that contract. Only reason that happened is because Disney didn't own Marvel yet.
The game development side is a licensing agreement after Activision stopped licensing Spider-Man for games.
Disney offered the license around to various publishers, Xbox included, but it was Sony that picked it up. Despite this, Sony does not have exclusive rights to use the character in video games. The character has shown up in at least two other video games since that deal was signed: Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 [Switch exclusive, published by Nintendo] and Marvel Midnight Suns [multi-platform, published by 2K].
Disney is not in the business of signing permanent or exclusive agreements, much less perpetual ones.
Re: "We've Lost the Console Wars," Says Trillion Dollar Underdog Xbox
@BeerIsAwesome The Ouya didn't live long, it died way before the wiki actually states. The thing didn't really have even a year of viable life span. Everyone forgot about the thing the minute PS4 and XBO launched. It basically was an iPhone 4 without a screen, after all. As for Stadia, it's not a console.
I bought an Atari VCS last Christmas, was on a good sale from Atari's own website. It's gorgeous but I only have it as a display piece, never hooked it up to anything. I, of course, own the one with the fake wood paneling, no longer available I'm afraid.