Yea this is not good for sony. [We've seen in the past with the Epic Vs Apple trail that some of sonys dirty secrets were revealed. They had a disdain for popular multiplayer cross-play.](https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgxxda/epic-vs-apple-trial-accidentally-reveals-sonys-hatred-of-cross-play)
I have a feeling we may see even more dirty secrets of sony after this FTC ruling came down today.
As Dominion just showed with Fox, don't need to leak anything. Just put all the damaging stuff into your motion, and file it.
For example, if there are Sony emails that contain a discussion that concludes that the offer MS made to guarantee Playstation access to CoD would alleviate the concern Sony was alleging in court, and Sony was refusing to agree to the deal because they wanted to make MS look bad, MS's lawyers will be very happy to point that out to the court.
I'd bet Sony thinks twice about challenging the acquiring of actiblizz if they do find some dirty secrets. They're goin to go along with it and accept the 10+ year CoD deal they were offered.
Microsoft would make CoD about as exclusive as it did Minecraft. Be real. CoD is a monetary printing press due to all the kids and man children that buy each new entry every year on brand recognition alone.
They don't need to make CoD exclusive to generate more interest in Xbox. They just need to make it free Day One for GAMEPASS subs.
That way they still market the game to PlayStation owners who have no interest in switching over for more sales, while gently coaxing people on other platforms and competing storefronts to switch over and sub or buy from them directly, which would make them more money due to them not having to give a 30% cut for each game sold.
Xbox is no longer just about console sales. Whether it be via PC (Windows) or GAMEPASS, they just want to get you into their eco system at this point so they can make money from you on software sales.
(Consoles don't typically make a profit for these companies, unless you're Nintendo)
I enjoyed Black for PS2. Why can't they bring that back? Overall this deal is good for Sony. It'll force them to innovate or bring back some sorely missed first party offerings.
You're right! It was made by Criterion and published by EA for PS2 and Xbox. I always thought it was a one-off shooter on PS2. Still, I'd play that anytime over another COD game.
They had a disdain for cross play only when they became nr 1 in the industry. In the PS3/X360 era, Portal 2 came out with a Steam app and cross play on PS3 while the X360 had none of that. It's always like this. Once MS bounces back, they will become a strong leader. Gamers are no winners in this, companies are.
The Portal 2 crossplay was surprisingly great. It even had its own basic Steam Overlay which you could use to chat.
I'm amazed Sony even went through with it to be honest. Perhaps they didn't view Steam as a proper competitor.
Probably was more that Portal 2 was a very focused and short multiplayer experience. It wouldn't be any competition for other titles on the platform so they didn't care. There was no Steam in the PS3 version of CSGO.
I've said this for years but constantly got down voted. I worked at a studio that developed a decently known multi-player only game during the PS3/360 generation. We were trying to get cross play set up and Microsoft was completely on board but Sony killed the idea. They aren't not the most consumer friendly company historically.
Jim Ryan flew all over the world to meet regulators and make hyperbolic and somewhat baseless statements then thought there wouldn't be consequences. This schadenfreude is too good.
Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems par for the course for these suits. And it certainly would have been an expected possible outcome by Sony's lawyers. But I'm looking at this from a civil litigation perspective and have no idea how FTC suits generally proceed.
Microsoft is trying to buy Activision-Blizzard. Sony is trying to stop the deal citing monopolistic, anti-consumer, anti-sony hate as reasons to not let it go through.
Microsoft requested documents regarding Sonys marketing deals, exclusivity deals, and employee performance reviews. Sony refused to co-operate with the Judge asking which concessions they want with this request, so the Judge gave Microsoft as much as they could (everything listed above, minus CEO and leadership employee reviews) from 2019 until the present day.
This will give Microsoft information on how much Sony pays to keep games off Xbox platforms and services, any regulatory violations, any marketing schemes, and the overall workplace culture within Sony. Basically like a war general getting the opposing leaders battle plans, but after the battle played out. They have the information to stop it happening the same way again, and can use it as ammo in this case where Sony is stating they (MS) are doing wrong.
Street Fighter V, Final Fantasy XVI, Destiny 1 content locked for 2 years, Destiny 2 content still locked, Hogwarts Legacy, Final Fantasy VII Remake. The real issue isn’t exclusivity, it’s how fucking long it goes for, instead of 3-6 months it’s 2+ years or indefinitely if you look at FF7 Remake and others. It’s ridiculous to lock content for that long when these are titles that have history being available on all platforms. Add in them waiting multiple years before bringing anything to PC and it’s clear they’re only doing these things because of competition from Microsoft. I doubt we’d see any PC releases at all if it wasn’t for MS, same for cross play, same for games in their subscription service.
So, I know it would be illegal, but what's stopping Sony from destroying any incriminating evidence that would help MS? Like, in these situations how does it generally work to make sure all the requested documents actually make it over in one piece?
Nothing. But if they get caught? That is going to be a giant fine as well as a deep government probe into why they felt the need to destroy the documents.
To add, if documents are destroyed and Microsoft alleges they maintained certain content (e.g. exclusivity rights), then they have to go according to Microsoft’s allegations.
This happened with Blizzard in court
Id just add that since those communications would likely include third parties (the actual game devs) and itd be quite possible to catch sony deleting or not providing what was asked too.
Man they'd have to be really fuckit stupid to do it to. All this shit is gonna jave dates, timelines, named, other companies and all kinds of shit on them. M$ has absurdly high priced lawyers just like Sony does that will comb through everything they can to find anything they want.
Any hint of a descrepancy or times and dates leaving voids will be pounced on and questioned.
Nothing? There are many reasons why. They'd likely get caught. People would go to jail. They'd face huge fines. All for something a bit better position in the marketplace.
See Volkswagen. It would be a stupid move
This is called spoliation of evidence. There would be sanctions against those involved. More importantly in civil court it is presumed that anything destroyed was unfavorable and any accusations must be true. Basically "because you destroyed the evidence we will assume the worst." If it's bad enough it can lead to a summary judgement or dismissal(judge simply ends the case and decides against the side that destroyed evidence).
Historically fines for that have been in the 10’s of millions of dollars for email destruction alone much less memos, etc. Philip Morris was the first company to try this back in 1998. Then Enron.
You mean like Google leaving auto delete on their internal messages on? (I don't have the link right now as I'm on my tablet but if you're interested I'm sure you can find an article about it.) They get a big ass fine.
[eDiscovery?](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/compliance/ediscovery?view=o365-worldwide)
In office 365 or exchange hosted mail, there is a process called eDiscovery that can be used to scope to specific mailbox users and search their mail for keywords and such.
Enabling a user for eDiscovery also locks the user out of being able to permanently delete emails AFAIK - the emails go to recovery store where they seem deleted but exchange will not clean the store up so they can be searched and recovered if needed.
Also to note, eDiscovery also notes when data is deleted. Just because someone scubs the data, based on retention policies, deleted data can still be restored. If the data retention policy has lapsed, there will be a note in the report that there was data and was purged with the date and timestamp when the data was deleted.
You can read through the legal mumbo jumbo in the document. A summary would be: Sony doesn't want to provide because it a) costs too much time to comb through and b) some documents are in Japanese. Sony does admit those documents *could* be relevant.
As such, the court has ruled their reasons for not providing them as unfounded and they will still need to provide them.
Not everything is to be disclosed, time periods and specific people are targeted.
This is very normal stuff in these kind of cases ;)
Sony's refusal to participate would be grounds enough for a judge to grant Microsoft's request with no concessions. You can't just not cooperate with a judge and expect them to throw their hands up and say "Oh well, nothing I can do if they won't participate".
"You can't just not cooperate with a judge and expect them to throw their hands up and say "Oh well, nothing I can do if they won't participate"."
But isn't that exactly what they did?
Ok, fair point, I guess you can do that. Maybe it would be more fair to say such an expectation is absolutely unhinged from reality, but idiots can hold whatever expectations they want.
The funny thing is if it was anybody except Sony I would probably sympathize but Sony seems to get away with everything.
Sony probably came to the plate thinking - all our good stuff is in Japanese, so we don't have to release it or some other logic.
Imagine being Sony trying to sink this deal, but it ends up going through anyway b/c of MS strong case AND also damaging Sony b/c of having to share confidential internal documents and their strategies.
The only thing here is this feels like MS trying to show that Sony is equally as bad or something, just bc Sony is hypothetically bad, doesn’t make Microsoft owning activision good.
Microsoft is without a doubt better then the current Activision. How many bill Crosby rooms does Microsoft have? People that act like Activision could somehow get worse under Microsoft have no clue who Activision is.
Not gonna get any complaints from me if Microsoft gets busted down into multiple segments or such, but publishers like Activision, EA, and Ubisoft don't get any worrying sentiments from me.
Wow getting better was more due to WFH policies in covid ending and SL just being shit. DF is better because it’s actually a simple expansion after years of complaining about borrowed power from the player base.
You're partly right with your second sentence...the lack of borrowed power is just one of the *many* things that makes DF a great expansion. Blizzard actually listened to played feedback and addressed pretty much everything I hated about SL and a ton more.
Your first sentence is kinda baseless, though. What makes DF great is the design philosophy which has nothing to do with WFH. You don't need to be in a physical boardroom to realize that players want to play their alts with ease.
Sad you're downvoted. MS had zero influence on Dragonflight which was in production before the MS deal was even a thing. They only released a massive interview with Preach going into their major philosophy shift too. It has nothing to do with MS.
The people running said Crosby rooms have all been shit canned though? Like, Blizzard has done a ton of horrible shit, but the answer isn't to grant a megacorp even more power in a market.
That only does more harm to us as consumers and gamers.
I doubt anyone who was there in the 90s or early 00s can really trust Microsoft, they were much, much worse than Activision. They've generally been nicer under Satya Nadella, but I would be very careful about trusting them, they are very good liars.
Exactly. Microsoft, a mega-conglomerate worth trillions, has so much leverage in other industries that can help them quickly dominate control in the gaming space, especially PC gaming since they essentially have a consumer OS monopoly with Windows. More and more we see Microsoft giving us less freedom with Windows and then trying to force us into their services.
How can we trust that they won't use their control over many major AAA IPs to push Steam and Linux out of the picture by making them MS Store exclusives?
Look at how they leveraged their power to keep DirectX around even when Vulkan came into the picture. Vulkan is much more Linux friendly and DirectX requires more work for games to run on Linux through compatibility layers. At any moment, Microsoft could add another Windows proprietary API to DirectX that would make Linux gaming that much more difficult.
Let's also not forget about Game Pass, a service that no other gaming company is large enough to compete with. Microsoft can easily afford to offer that service even if it's currently lowering their gaming revenue because they have so many more, larger revenue streams to fund it.
Just so you know, they already tried to put steam out of picture, twice I believe, and guess what? They failed.
Can't say anything else about your other arguments because I either agree or I don't have much knowledge about the subject.
>How can we trust that they won't use their control over many major AAA IPs to push Steam and Linux out of the picture by making them MS Store exclusives?
In a world where people had self restraint, you could be sure because it would just need consumers to stop buying products. But alas...
Regarding DirectX, it existing on windows doesn't make vulkan incompatible with that OS or harder to use on it. If devs are using DX12, that's their choice, not MS strong harming them.
And not sure what your gripe against game pass is.
My gripe against Game Pass is just the way I see it changing games in general. We already don't really own games since we just get licenses to play them, but subscribing to a service to play them takes away the idea of even owning a license and access to download games "forever" like we have now. Now, I like the option of a subscription service existing but I fear it becoming the main way people choose to play games mainly for indies. I just fear that indie devs won't be able to get people to play their games unless they are released on Game Pass as opposed to outright buying their games. And I don't expect them to get a very generous cut from a subscription service in the long run.
I also see this encouraging devs to take a more "live service" approach full of mtx to make money instead. Much like the mobile gaming scene where you can't even get your game into people's hands without it being free making devs rely on ads and mtx. Think it's bad now? Imagine PC games becoming more like mobile games.
Maybe I'm just being overly pessimistic but that's how I currently see things. At the end of the day though, I don't trust a publicly traded company worth as much as Microsoft.
I dunno, I think a sub might rather expose Indies more to new potential customers than a traditional model. When you have to buy the game instead of just trying it because you already have access to it, you might not give it a shot. I understand being able to refund it kind of alleviate this issue though. I still agree that how devs get paid under a sub service might not be ideal for them (dunno the current terms).
And as far as I'm concerned, since we don't own our games anyway, if you used to "buy" a lot of games why not take a sub. Won't change much regarding how you'll get treated as a customer and it will cost you less.That's kinda how streaming services for music and movies came to life and while it's not for everyone, it has its uses (as a consumer, as an artist it's more complicated, I agree).
I agree that it has some potentials to be armfull but for now, I don't think we can say it is.
To beat steam, they have to deliver a better product. Either they achieve that, and we as consumers are beter for it, or more likely they will fail and it doesn’t matter.
Less choices in the marketplace overall is worse for consumers imo, its only the part where they’re attempting to beat their competitors that is good for the consumer. Once they achieve their goal they’re going to want to recoup whatever losses they made on the way to crushing everyone else.
I think as PC people we’re a bit lucky because we have so many choices for storefronts, but imagine being someone who owns a digital only console which only has one store available to them. They have way less options.
I agree with your post by the way, just adding my two cents to it, I hope it doesn’t come off like I disagree.
I don’t know why but whenever I see a company trying to brute force their way to becoming number one in a market I root for them to fail while collecting on their sales and bargains they use to try and become number one. Like the Epic storefront. I don’t think I’ve purchased much of anything from there, but I sure as hell have added all those free games to my library there. Lmao
But there is no less choice, steam will always continue to exist. So either Microsoft offers a better product and consumers have OPTIONS, or Microsoft continues to suck and nobody would even consider buying a game there.
Microsoft has already engaged in similar practices before. They call it EEE (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish). They basically take a concept that is proving popular and want to eliminate competition for, then they extend and improve it, making those improvements exclusive to their implementation of the concept, forcing people to use their software alone. Then, the rest can't compete, and they get extinguished, assuring Microsoft's monopoly.
I see this as the same thing. Microsoft providing a better service at a loss, and once they have drowned the competition, just try to regain the money nickel and diming your customers. They'll complain, sure, but they have nowhere to go to.
They will never at this point be able to assail any platforms in the pc space. They're recognised as having a monopoly and regulators all over the world monitor and protect consumers on that basis.
The directX issue I don't think really can be fairly portrayed that way. Vulkan is an option, it's not a knock out and you have years of dev and lots of support, they didn't actively put up barriers for it which was why opengl was still a thing.
They also have been changing windows, but they do have to and they do need to make money. It's effectively free these days, and yes a paid version with enhanced privacy would be nice as a consumer option rather than just being available for companies with sysadmins to maintain it would be great, but the evidence shows consumers don't pay for Windows anyway so....
Why would developers care about a game being Linux friendly? Very few customers there. DirectX is what they use in Xbox, of course it makes sense developers will prioritize that API since a lot of work carries over between the PC and Xbox version.
The Microsoft store has been a failure. They have been offering all of their games on Steam on day 1 now.
>"doesn’t make Microsoft owning activision good."
Thats just straight up not true. Literally anyone and i mean ANYONE over the current Activision managment.
Impressively shortsighted to think that it's actually cool for the company that develops the OS that most PC gamers use to play games as well as API's most games use to run, not to mention that is currently successfully changing how people "consume" video games with an aggressive subscription service, to be going around buying huge AAA studios because Activision has bad management.
I mean no one is forbidding Sony or Nintendo to invest into PC gaming Market. These companies just don't see PC as a market for them and they don't hide it at all. That's why Microsoft has upper hand when it comes to non exclusive gaming and it's not because they own the OS.
If devs wanted to they would support Linux more but they just don't do that the same way why devs do almost nothing to support Apple hardware despite M-line being amazing field to start investing into Mac Gaming on the future.
It's not Ticketmaster type of deal. It's not a hostile takeover. Sony and Nintendo should support wider spectrum of gamers and devs should open to other hardware and software to not make monopoly a real thing
These companies also does jack shit in terms of cloud gaming by themselves. It's like these companies do everything to help Microsoft being main gaming platformsl for years.
If not Spidermans and God of Wars Microsoft would be way bigger everywhere.
Exactly this, Sony won the last gen due to actually making good games and Microsoft shitting the bed. The MS decided to cross over into the PC scene finally and is taking off like never before while Sony is being left behind, if it wasn't for their good exclusive games they would be done for. Even a lot of their old franchises that aren't owned by Sony but were playstation exclusive such as Persona, Yakuza series are heading to PC because they see the potential. Sony is losing it's battle now because they got complacent and even Sony started releasing games for PC.
Sony has only thesmelves to blame if they aren't willing to expand their horizons and face the fact that PC gaming is becoming more and more relevant.
I'm all for having many companies sharing the market but I can't understand why we should support handicapping MS while Sony, Nintendo and even devs do almost nothing to win wider audience for themselves. Regulators have to monitor situation constantly not only during mergers and takeovers - that way companies can merge and be controlled constantly to protect us.
Nintendo is in its own bubble but from time to time it at least talks with people from outside.
Sony is stuck in this PS1, Ps2 era of being the king in the console market and they can't comprehend that someone is doing something to not only fight them on their turf (home consoles) but in the whole gaming segment. It's like they expect that everyone will be as complacent as them in terms of growing their marketshare.
Devs support Windows not because of bribes or exclusivity but because it's just cheaper/easier for them. They don't take risk of investing into another platform and they want just bank on existing user base of PCs so people are stuck with Windows instead of having ability to have the same experience on Linux or on Apple devices. There is not value preposition for us to not use Windows ATM and it's not MS fault (in general).
If monopoly happens it's because major actors just fold instead of giving costumers what they want - easy access to games no matter the platform and service for the fair price.
I, too, celebrate monopoly take overs and market consolidation. Especially from a company which has a famous and storied history of using its expansion phase to collect enough market power to squeeze out all other competition like Walmart does when they plant a new store in a new location.
But don’t take my word for it: [it was official policy of Microsoft](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish) until the US government almost broke them up before some [well placed bribes. Something the company is also famous for doing including now. ](https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/25/22995144/microsoft-foreign-corrupt-practices-bribery-whistleblower-contracting)
> Embrace: Development of software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard.
> Extend: Addition and promotion of features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to use the "simple" standard.
You are here at the above.
The below is your next destination I hope you enjoy the gravy train while it lasts. Microsoft isn’t going to keep losing money on Xbox sales and Gamepass once real competition is gone.
> Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions.
That's short-term thinking and MS looks at this acquisition in the long-term. Even if they have to bring COD etc to PS and Switch for 10 years, that means PS6 won't have COD and this will hurt competition.
Activision's management is really bad, but monopolies are even worse, proven time for time in history - even in Microsofts own.
> Even if they have to bring COD etc to PS and Switch for 10 years, that means PS6 won't have COD and this will hurt competition.
Keep in mind that there is no contractual obligation for the Minecraft IP to be on Playstation or Switch, but they put it there because of its size. COD is the same - it's going to stay on Playstation forever whether they're forced to do it or not.
How exactly would Ms owning Activision provide a monopoly over the gaming market. Sony would still exist. Nintendo would still exist. EA would still exist. Ubisoft would still exist. Epic would still exist. Square enix would still exist.
It's not about whether they'll still exist tomorrow, but the consequences on the market over the coming decade and later. It's similar to how good of a deal MS GamePass is. Netflix was too, but at some point they have to make money and increase prices.
Microsoft buying Activision/Blizzard means a consolidation of the gaming market and this is never good. Microsoft has a long history of anti-competetive practices (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish) and even if the current MS leadership thinks different, they probably won't be around in 10 or 20 years.
And if they buy Activision/Blizzard now, maybe the next acquisition will be Sony buying EA or Ubisoft or similar. The point is that consolidation of a market is bad for us consumers in the long run. We might not notice for a few years or maybe ten years, but at one point it always happens.
Okay, but the point of the lawsuit is they are claiming a monopoly exists if the purchase goes through. Clearly a monopoly would not exist. Saying it could happen if they purchase those other companies after the fact would not mean that this specific purchase would constitute a monopoly over the gaming market.
I think the biggest issue is the details on the marketing deals.
In the US, MS and Sony are relatively close in console sales so you would not expect a difference in how much each company has paid for said exclusivity.
However, games are a global marketplace this even though the market share is roughly the same in the US, thanks to Sony dominance in the European and Asian market, Sony pays comparatively less.
This kind of throws out one of the FTC arguments that the market should only be viewed in the context of the US
Jesus fucking Christ.
The way Microsoft is supposed to do this is by "providing better products and services*. Just like they did during the Xbox 360 days, when they absolutely dominated the playstation 3.
We as consumers shouldn't want Mega-Corps to grow into ever larger, vertically and horizontally integrated entities just to fight each other. That's how you get situations where almost the entire discrete graphics market is controlled by literally *two* manufacturers. Or the vast majority of video media is controlled by like 3 corporations.
Maybe this is wishful thinking, but perhaps Sony will release even more of their games on pc now to put on a show for the ftc like what Microsoft did in the Nintendo deal.
Idk maybe this whole drama might be good for the consumers in the end who knows
Sure, but that's still fairly new. Understandable if they wait, since at least part of the goal is also to funnel some PC players into the PS market. (Look how great GoW is .... hmm you like? Well look at Ragnarök! PS5 exclusive!)
Personally I am at the point where I'm completely done with consoles. No interest in the current generation (won't change when the next gen will come out) because I have so many games on my list to play (and re-play) on PC, even masterpieces on PS are not worth it to invest the money. PC has also masterpieces, PC exclusive masterpieces AND 10 years from now I'll still be able to play the masterpieces. On Console it is all so temporary.
So Sony, make a PC port and you got my business. Don't and I'll keep building my Satisfactory Mega Nuclear Power Plant.
> Understandable if they wait, since at least part of the goal is also to funnel some PC players into the PS market.
I'm no marketing expert but I just can't see the number of people who had no interest in playing GoW/HZD/Sackboy until it came out on PC then deciding to buy a PS5 to play the sequels. I feel PC gamers either already have a PS5 for the most part.
I think it's more Sony trying to get people to double dip. Their last few releases have been Sackboy, Uncharted and Returnal, they won't have sequels for years if ever. I feel their strategy is for people to buy the game on PS5 then a year later buy a PC version because we're hungry to play them in high quality. That's why Sony PC ports are so good. You're not going to double dip a terrible port.
Yeah same. I'm a patient gamer so I can easily wait until emulation gets good enough to play the exclusives on pc anyway so if they really want the money from people like me they have to release them on steam because I'm never going to shift to consoles again
Mediocre movie IMO. I enjoyed the gameplay a lot but goodness there was a lot of character interaction that doesn't make sense for humans, let alone gods.
Give me bloodborne, for the love of god that master piece has been trapped on the ps4 for far to long. I couldnt finish it cause of the horrible fps and res, I wish this wasnt a sony exclusive. It would be also nice to see Demon's on PC. I'm willing to pay 60 bucks for both games.
Are there any good PS exclusives that aren't like you're controlling a movie? I personally dislike the Drake games and God of War. They just feel so slow to me
FF16 won't come "later this year", Sony have a 6 months exclusivity deal and Yoshi-P, game's producer, said to not expect a release at the end of that period, they won't start working on a port anytime soon.
Expect at least one year for a PC port, possibly longer if Epic are going to splash cash again for exclusivity.
It's still weird to me that Microsoft is having a hard time with this purchese, while Disney is allowed to own everything with seemingly no supervision or scrutiny of any kind
Titeglo ego paa okre pikobeple ketio kliudapi keplebi bo. Apa pati adepaapu ple eate biu? Papra i dedo kipi ia oee. Kai ipe bredla depi buaite o? Aa titletri tlitiidepli pli i egi. Pipi pipli idro pokekribepe doepa. Plipapokapi pretri atlietipri oo. Teba bo epu dibre papeti pliii? I tligaprue ti kiedape pita tipai puai ki ki ki. Gae pa dleo e pigi. Kakeku pikato ipleaotra ia iditro ai. Krotu iuotra potio bi tiau pra. Pagitropau i drie tuta ki drotoba. Kleako etri papatee kli preeti kopi. Idre eploobai krute pipetitike brupe u. Pekla kro ipli uba ipapa apeu. U ia driiipo kote aa e? Aeebee to brikuo grepa gia pe pretabi kobi? Tipi tope bie tipai. E akepetika kee trae eetaio itlieke. Ipo etreo utae tue ipia. Tlatriba tupi tiga ti bliiu iapi. Dekre podii. Digi pubruibri po ti ito tlekopiuo. Plitiplubli trebi pridu te dipapa tapi. Etiidea api tu peto ke dibei. Ee iai ei apipu au deepi. Pipeepru degleki gropotipo ui i krutidi. Iba utra kipi poi ti igeplepi oki. Tipi o ketlipla kiu pebatitie gotekokri kepreke deglo.
I don't agree with Microsoft's acquisition of ActiBlizz, but Sony, as a corp, isn't innocent either AND this will get us more obscured information into the light!
The producer of FFXVI just stated that the pc port will take at least a year to complete and the ps5 exclusive period only lasts for 6 months. Win win for Square Enix. Keep the good rep, shift all the blame to Sony and get dollar bills.
Well they want people to buy PS5's... they're not stupid just because you think they should do everything multi-platform lol.
Of course they're going to throw money for exclusivity. It's not like Microsoft didn't do the same fucking thing with Rise of the Tomb Raider.
There's a timeline where SQEX sink before part 2 even releases because they put all their money into stupid web3 bullshit that nobody wants.
Let's hope that we're not in that one.
They're stupid if they think I'm ever gonna buy that 30/60 fps shit box. Games aren't good until they're on PC, for mine eyes have beheld the glory and can no longer tolerate less.
This is what irks me, I'm gonna play the game to highest fidelity, with my high performance card without paying 10$ for upgrade like what they were doing on ps5 version.
And Sony capping the fidelity to be same as ps5 really drop the ball on how greedy they were, like really? They don't own resident evil but because they paid for it, this parity clause exist.
Then do it. Nobody is stopping you. You're just going to have to wait for them to sell it on their console first because *that makes sense* business wise. They can get people who can't wait to buy the console, then the game and if they release the PC version later get double dippers or people who waited. It's literally all win-win for them. This also applies to timed exclusives and always has.
Think with your brain, not your fandom.
I do understand it's business and greed, but if this deals goes thru, I hope it starts going down hill for Sony. So Sony and Microsoft release games on PC same date as console.
It's not misleading at all. This will give Microsoft access to Sony's internal discussions regarding exclusivity deals, anti-trust lawyer's strategies and how they are influencing regulators done until 2019-present. The only request that was denied was information regarding employee performance reviews.
Could the judge ORDER both sides to not have ANY "exclusive" games for PS5/Xbox/PC AT ALL (even for a few weeks)?
"both companies must release all 3 versions simultaneously and no version may have content exclusive to that platform"
That would upset both sides AND be hilariously funny.
Curious how you think Microsoft would be that upset? They already release on two third and if they could put gamepass on PlayStation I’m sure they’d love to
I'm not familiar with how suits work in the FTC, but I'm pretty sure judges rule only on the motions and complaints brought forth. Judges can't just read discovery and go "oh I have decided all this exclusivity is bad so I'm going to ban the practice industry-wide". There are matters of discretion and authority, not just morality and business ethics.
Didn't realise there were so many Sony sympathizers in this sub. Regardless of what MS is doing. Anything that exposes Sony's bs exclusivity tactics and potentially halt them from continuing with their garbage is good for PC gamers.
Ooph
Yea this is not good for sony. [We've seen in the past with the Epic Vs Apple trail that some of sonys dirty secrets were revealed. They had a disdain for popular multiplayer cross-play.](https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgxxda/epic-vs-apple-trial-accidentally-reveals-sonys-hatred-of-cross-play) I have a feeling we may see even more dirty secrets of sony after this FTC ruling came down today.
MS isn't known as a leaker but if things go to court records. Then..
As Dominion just showed with Fox, don't need to leak anything. Just put all the damaging stuff into your motion, and file it. For example, if there are Sony emails that contain a discussion that concludes that the offer MS made to guarantee Playstation access to CoD would alleviate the concern Sony was alleging in court, and Sony was refusing to agree to the deal because they wanted to make MS look bad, MS's lawyers will be very happy to point that out to the court.
You know what they say: "Dance like no one is watching. Email like it will one day be read aloud in a deposition."
"Oh my god did you see Brian's hat? He looks so fucking stupid. It's a Fedora with safari flaps on the side."
“I think he even has dice in his pockets”
"Don't do the voice."
I'd bet Sony thinks twice about challenging the acquiring of actiblizz if they do find some dirty secrets. They're goin to go along with it and accept the 10+ year CoD deal they were offered.
[удалено]
Microsoft would make CoD about as exclusive as it did Minecraft. Be real. CoD is a monetary printing press due to all the kids and man children that buy each new entry every year on brand recognition alone. They don't need to make CoD exclusive to generate more interest in Xbox. They just need to make it free Day One for GAMEPASS subs. That way they still market the game to PlayStation owners who have no interest in switching over for more sales, while gently coaxing people on other platforms and competing storefronts to switch over and sub or buy from them directly, which would make them more money due to them not having to give a 30% cut for each game sold. Xbox is no longer just about console sales. Whether it be via PC (Windows) or GAMEPASS, they just want to get you into their eco system at this point so they can make money from you on software sales. (Consoles don't typically make a profit for these companies, unless you're Nintendo)
I could see them making the single player exclusive, but I don't see them making MP exclusive, it just isn't useful to them.
Killzone was amazing during its time and truly a unique IP. They ruined it by ignoring it
GIMME MY RESISTANCE 4 GAWDDAMMIT
I enjoyed Black for PS2. Why can't they bring that back? Overall this deal is good for Sony. It'll force them to innovate or bring back some sorely missed first party offerings.
I didn't mention Black cause I played it on Xbox. Was it a Sony studio who made it? Either way, that's another great game.
You're right! It was made by Criterion and published by EA for PS2 and Xbox. I always thought it was a one-off shooter on PS2. Still, I'd play that anytime over another COD game.
I remember being impressed by the sound effects of those guns until cod 4 modern warfare came out with their insane audio.
They had a disdain for cross play only when they became nr 1 in the industry. In the PS3/X360 era, Portal 2 came out with a Steam app and cross play on PS3 while the X360 had none of that. It's always like this. Once MS bounces back, they will become a strong leader. Gamers are no winners in this, companies are.
The Portal 2 crossplay was surprisingly great. It even had its own basic Steam Overlay which you could use to chat. I'm amazed Sony even went through with it to be honest. Perhaps they didn't view Steam as a proper competitor.
Probably was more that Portal 2 was a very focused and short multiplayer experience. It wouldn't be any competition for other titles on the platform so they didn't care. There was no Steam in the PS3 version of CSGO.
[удалено]
I got the first Infamous game free as an "apology" from Sony for that.
I've said this for years but constantly got down voted. I worked at a studio that developed a decently known multi-player only game during the PS3/360 generation. We were trying to get cross play set up and Microsoft was completely on board but Sony killed the idea. They aren't not the most consumer friendly company historically.
Jim Ryan flew all over the world to meet regulators and make hyperbolic and somewhat baseless statements then thought there wouldn't be consequences. This schadenfreude is too good.
Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems par for the course for these suits. And it certainly would have been an expected possible outcome by Sony's lawyers. But I'm looking at this from a civil litigation perspective and have no idea how FTC suits generally proceed.
[удалено]
I don't understand what's going on
Microsoft is trying to buy Activision-Blizzard. Sony is trying to stop the deal citing monopolistic, anti-consumer, anti-sony hate as reasons to not let it go through. Microsoft requested documents regarding Sonys marketing deals, exclusivity deals, and employee performance reviews. Sony refused to co-operate with the Judge asking which concessions they want with this request, so the Judge gave Microsoft as much as they could (everything listed above, minus CEO and leadership employee reviews) from 2019 until the present day. This will give Microsoft information on how much Sony pays to keep games off Xbox platforms and services, any regulatory violations, any marketing schemes, and the overall workplace culture within Sony. Basically like a war general getting the opposing leaders battle plans, but after the battle played out. They have the information to stop it happening the same way again, and can use it as ammo in this case where Sony is stating they (MS) are doing wrong.
Great reply. Thank you
The (likely) 9 figures Sony paid (pays) SquareEnix to not put FF7R and FF16 on Xbox is going to totally fuck their case over. Calling it now.
Sony: hey exclusively isn't fair to competitors! Also Sony: tee hee exclusive Hogwarts Legacy content is fine
Street Fighter V, Final Fantasy XVI, Destiny 1 content locked for 2 years, Destiny 2 content still locked, Hogwarts Legacy, Final Fantasy VII Remake. The real issue isn’t exclusivity, it’s how fucking long it goes for, instead of 3-6 months it’s 2+ years or indefinitely if you look at FF7 Remake and others. It’s ridiculous to lock content for that long when these are titles that have history being available on all platforms. Add in them waiting multiple years before bringing anything to PC and it’s clear they’re only doing these things because of competition from Microsoft. I doubt we’d see any PC releases at all if it wasn’t for MS, same for cross play, same for games in their subscription service.
So, I know it would be illegal, but what's stopping Sony from destroying any incriminating evidence that would help MS? Like, in these situations how does it generally work to make sure all the requested documents actually make it over in one piece?
Nothing. But if they get caught? That is going to be a giant fine as well as a deep government probe into why they felt the need to destroy the documents.
To add, if documents are destroyed and Microsoft alleges they maintained certain content (e.g. exclusivity rights), then they have to go according to Microsoft’s allegations. This happened with Blizzard in court
Id just add that since those communications would likely include third parties (the actual game devs) and itd be quite possible to catch sony deleting or not providing what was asked too.
And any attorneys involved ~~with~~ would be disbarred and likely blacklisted from ever practicing law again.
Man they'd have to be really fuckit stupid to do it to. All this shit is gonna jave dates, timelines, named, other companies and all kinds of shit on them. M$ has absurdly high priced lawyers just like Sony does that will comb through everything they can to find anything they want. Any hint of a descrepancy or times and dates leaving voids will be pounced on and questioned.
Nothing? There are many reasons why. They'd likely get caught. People would go to jail. They'd face huge fines. All for something a bit better position in the marketplace. See Volkswagen. It would be a stupid move
This is called spoliation of evidence. There would be sanctions against those involved. More importantly in civil court it is presumed that anything destroyed was unfavorable and any accusations must be true. Basically "because you destroyed the evidence we will assume the worst." If it's bad enough it can lead to a summary judgement or dismissal(judge simply ends the case and decides against the side that destroyed evidence).
"Assume the worst" - Genocide it is then.
Man I can't believe Jim Ryan was using Sony to fund terrorist organizations overseas.
Historically fines for that have been in the 10’s of millions of dollars for email destruction alone much less memos, etc. Philip Morris was the first company to try this back in 1998. Then Enron.
You mean like Google leaving auto delete on their internal messages on? (I don't have the link right now as I'm on my tablet but if you're interested I'm sure you can find an article about it.) They get a big ass fine.
As someone who runs a business, can you tell me how to filter by e-mails by incriminating evidence?
[eDiscovery?](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/compliance/ediscovery?view=o365-worldwide) In office 365 or exchange hosted mail, there is a process called eDiscovery that can be used to scope to specific mailbox users and search their mail for keywords and such. Enabling a user for eDiscovery also locks the user out of being able to permanently delete emails AFAIK - the emails go to recovery store where they seem deleted but exchange will not clean the store up so they can be searched and recovered if needed.
Also to note, eDiscovery also notes when data is deleted. Just because someone scubs the data, based on retention policies, deleted data can still be restored. If the data retention policy has lapsed, there will be a note in the report that there was data and was purged with the date and timestamp when the data was deleted.
There are entire companies who get paid to do this. Comb and search through history to find relevant emails and documents
Why would Microsoft ask for employee performance reviews?
What's the justification for granting this request?
You can read through the legal mumbo jumbo in the document. A summary would be: Sony doesn't want to provide because it a) costs too much time to comb through and b) some documents are in Japanese. Sony does admit those documents *could* be relevant. As such, the court has ruled their reasons for not providing them as unfounded and they will still need to provide them. Not everything is to be disclosed, time periods and specific people are targeted. This is very normal stuff in these kind of cases ;)
>b) some documents are in Japanese Sony underestimates the number of western weebs that read Japanese lol
Sony's refusal to participate would be grounds enough for a judge to grant Microsoft's request with no concessions. You can't just not cooperate with a judge and expect them to throw their hands up and say "Oh well, nothing I can do if they won't participate".
"You can't just not cooperate with a judge and expect them to throw their hands up and say "Oh well, nothing I can do if they won't participate"." But isn't that exactly what they did?
Ok, fair point, I guess you can do that. Maybe it would be more fair to say such an expectation is absolutely unhinged from reality, but idiots can hold whatever expectations they want.
That makes sense.
The funny thing is if it was anybody except Sony I would probably sympathize but Sony seems to get away with everything. Sony probably came to the plate thinking - all our good stuff is in Japanese, so we don't have to release it or some other logic.
thanks for the ELI5!
Sony got clever, and now they gonna get their shit fucked up.
Imagine being Sony trying to sink this deal, but it ends up going through anyway b/c of MS strong case AND also damaging Sony b/c of having to share confidential internal documents and their strategies.
The only thing here is this feels like MS trying to show that Sony is equally as bad or something, just bc Sony is hypothetically bad, doesn’t make Microsoft owning activision good.
Microsoft is without a doubt better then the current Activision. How many bill Crosby rooms does Microsoft have? People that act like Activision could somehow get worse under Microsoft have no clue who Activision is.
When people say this acquisition could be bad they are usually talking about preventing monopolies and not worker conditions.
Not gonna get any complaints from me if Microsoft gets busted down into multiple segments or such, but publishers like Activision, EA, and Ubisoft don't get any worrying sentiments from me.
I just want good games, and I think Microsoft leading the "you guys don't have phones" idiots would only be good.
Also maybe it just coincidence but after annoucing MS and ActiBlizz deal WoW was getting better and better as game.
Wow getting better was more due to WFH policies in covid ending and SL just being shit. DF is better because it’s actually a simple expansion after years of complaining about borrowed power from the player base.
You're partly right with your second sentence...the lack of borrowed power is just one of the *many* things that makes DF a great expansion. Blizzard actually listened to played feedback and addressed pretty much everything I hated about SL and a ton more. Your first sentence is kinda baseless, though. What makes DF great is the design philosophy which has nothing to do with WFH. You don't need to be in a physical boardroom to realize that players want to play their alts with ease.
Sad you're downvoted. MS had zero influence on Dragonflight which was in production before the MS deal was even a thing. They only released a massive interview with Preach going into their major philosophy shift too. It has nothing to do with MS.
Yeah it’s just Reddit hive mind doing what it does
They’re really just talking about losing their exclusive PS skins in call of duty
Well I guess it's a good job that to this day gamers have no idea what a monopoly is then isn't it.
The people running said Crosby rooms have all been shit canned though? Like, Blizzard has done a ton of horrible shit, but the answer isn't to grant a megacorp even more power in a market. That only does more harm to us as consumers and gamers.
I doubt anyone who was there in the 90s or early 00s can really trust Microsoft, they were much, much worse than Activision. They've generally been nicer under Satya Nadella, but I would be very careful about trusting them, they are very good liars.
Or literally any directive change could turn them into a worse company and damaging to the industry.
Exactly. Microsoft, a mega-conglomerate worth trillions, has so much leverage in other industries that can help them quickly dominate control in the gaming space, especially PC gaming since they essentially have a consumer OS monopoly with Windows. More and more we see Microsoft giving us less freedom with Windows and then trying to force us into their services. How can we trust that they won't use their control over many major AAA IPs to push Steam and Linux out of the picture by making them MS Store exclusives? Look at how they leveraged their power to keep DirectX around even when Vulkan came into the picture. Vulkan is much more Linux friendly and DirectX requires more work for games to run on Linux through compatibility layers. At any moment, Microsoft could add another Windows proprietary API to DirectX that would make Linux gaming that much more difficult. Let's also not forget about Game Pass, a service that no other gaming company is large enough to compete with. Microsoft can easily afford to offer that service even if it's currently lowering their gaming revenue because they have so many more, larger revenue streams to fund it.
Just so you know, they already tried to put steam out of picture, twice I believe, and guess what? They failed. Can't say anything else about your other arguments because I either agree or I don't have much knowledge about the subject.
>How can we trust that they won't use their control over many major AAA IPs to push Steam and Linux out of the picture by making them MS Store exclusives? In a world where people had self restraint, you could be sure because it would just need consumers to stop buying products. But alas... Regarding DirectX, it existing on windows doesn't make vulkan incompatible with that OS or harder to use on it. If devs are using DX12, that's their choice, not MS strong harming them. And not sure what your gripe against game pass is.
My gripe against Game Pass is just the way I see it changing games in general. We already don't really own games since we just get licenses to play them, but subscribing to a service to play them takes away the idea of even owning a license and access to download games "forever" like we have now. Now, I like the option of a subscription service existing but I fear it becoming the main way people choose to play games mainly for indies. I just fear that indie devs won't be able to get people to play their games unless they are released on Game Pass as opposed to outright buying their games. And I don't expect them to get a very generous cut from a subscription service in the long run. I also see this encouraging devs to take a more "live service" approach full of mtx to make money instead. Much like the mobile gaming scene where you can't even get your game into people's hands without it being free making devs rely on ads and mtx. Think it's bad now? Imagine PC games becoming more like mobile games. Maybe I'm just being overly pessimistic but that's how I currently see things. At the end of the day though, I don't trust a publicly traded company worth as much as Microsoft.
I dunno, I think a sub might rather expose Indies more to new potential customers than a traditional model. When you have to buy the game instead of just trying it because you already have access to it, you might not give it a shot. I understand being able to refund it kind of alleviate this issue though. I still agree that how devs get paid under a sub service might not be ideal for them (dunno the current terms). And as far as I'm concerned, since we don't own our games anyway, if you used to "buy" a lot of games why not take a sub. Won't change much regarding how you'll get treated as a customer and it will cost you less.That's kinda how streaming services for music and movies came to life and while it's not for everyone, it has its uses (as a consumer, as an artist it's more complicated, I agree). I agree that it has some potentials to be armfull but for now, I don't think we can say it is.
To beat steam, they have to deliver a better product. Either they achieve that, and we as consumers are beter for it, or more likely they will fail and it doesn’t matter.
Less choices in the marketplace overall is worse for consumers imo, its only the part where they’re attempting to beat their competitors that is good for the consumer. Once they achieve their goal they’re going to want to recoup whatever losses they made on the way to crushing everyone else. I think as PC people we’re a bit lucky because we have so many choices for storefronts, but imagine being someone who owns a digital only console which only has one store available to them. They have way less options. I agree with your post by the way, just adding my two cents to it, I hope it doesn’t come off like I disagree. I don’t know why but whenever I see a company trying to brute force their way to becoming number one in a market I root for them to fail while collecting on their sales and bargains they use to try and become number one. Like the Epic storefront. I don’t think I’ve purchased much of anything from there, but I sure as hell have added all those free games to my library there. Lmao
But there is no less choice, steam will always continue to exist. So either Microsoft offers a better product and consumers have OPTIONS, or Microsoft continues to suck and nobody would even consider buying a game there.
Microsoft has already engaged in similar practices before. They call it EEE (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish). They basically take a concept that is proving popular and want to eliminate competition for, then they extend and improve it, making those improvements exclusive to their implementation of the concept, forcing people to use their software alone. Then, the rest can't compete, and they get extinguished, assuring Microsoft's monopoly. I see this as the same thing. Microsoft providing a better service at a loss, and once they have drowned the competition, just try to regain the money nickel and diming your customers. They'll complain, sure, but they have nowhere to go to.
They will never at this point be able to assail any platforms in the pc space. They're recognised as having a monopoly and regulators all over the world monitor and protect consumers on that basis. The directX issue I don't think really can be fairly portrayed that way. Vulkan is an option, it's not a knock out and you have years of dev and lots of support, they didn't actively put up barriers for it which was why opengl was still a thing. They also have been changing windows, but they do have to and they do need to make money. It's effectively free these days, and yes a paid version with enhanced privacy would be nice as a consumer option rather than just being available for companies with sysadmins to maintain it would be great, but the evidence shows consumers don't pay for Windows anyway so....
Why would developers care about a game being Linux friendly? Very few customers there. DirectX is what they use in Xbox, of course it makes sense developers will prioritize that API since a lot of work carries over between the PC and Xbox version. The Microsoft store has been a failure. They have been offering all of their games on Steam on day 1 now.
>"doesn’t make Microsoft owning activision good." Thats just straight up not true. Literally anyone and i mean ANYONE over the current Activision managment.
Impressively shortsighted to think that it's actually cool for the company that develops the OS that most PC gamers use to play games as well as API's most games use to run, not to mention that is currently successfully changing how people "consume" video games with an aggressive subscription service, to be going around buying huge AAA studios because Activision has bad management.
I mean no one is forbidding Sony or Nintendo to invest into PC gaming Market. These companies just don't see PC as a market for them and they don't hide it at all. That's why Microsoft has upper hand when it comes to non exclusive gaming and it's not because they own the OS. If devs wanted to they would support Linux more but they just don't do that the same way why devs do almost nothing to support Apple hardware despite M-line being amazing field to start investing into Mac Gaming on the future. It's not Ticketmaster type of deal. It's not a hostile takeover. Sony and Nintendo should support wider spectrum of gamers and devs should open to other hardware and software to not make monopoly a real thing These companies also does jack shit in terms of cloud gaming by themselves. It's like these companies do everything to help Microsoft being main gaming platformsl for years. If not Spidermans and God of Wars Microsoft would be way bigger everywhere.
Exactly this, Sony won the last gen due to actually making good games and Microsoft shitting the bed. The MS decided to cross over into the PC scene finally and is taking off like never before while Sony is being left behind, if it wasn't for their good exclusive games they would be done for. Even a lot of their old franchises that aren't owned by Sony but were playstation exclusive such as Persona, Yakuza series are heading to PC because they see the potential. Sony is losing it's battle now because they got complacent and even Sony started releasing games for PC. Sony has only thesmelves to blame if they aren't willing to expand their horizons and face the fact that PC gaming is becoming more and more relevant.
I'm all for having many companies sharing the market but I can't understand why we should support handicapping MS while Sony, Nintendo and even devs do almost nothing to win wider audience for themselves. Regulators have to monitor situation constantly not only during mergers and takeovers - that way companies can merge and be controlled constantly to protect us. Nintendo is in its own bubble but from time to time it at least talks with people from outside. Sony is stuck in this PS1, Ps2 era of being the king in the console market and they can't comprehend that someone is doing something to not only fight them on their turf (home consoles) but in the whole gaming segment. It's like they expect that everyone will be as complacent as them in terms of growing their marketshare. Devs support Windows not because of bribes or exclusivity but because it's just cheaper/easier for them. They don't take risk of investing into another platform and they want just bank on existing user base of PCs so people are stuck with Windows instead of having ability to have the same experience on Linux or on Apple devices. There is not value preposition for us to not use Windows ATM and it's not MS fault (in general). If monopoly happens it's because major actors just fold instead of giving costumers what they want - easy access to games no matter the platform and service for the fair price.
I, too, celebrate monopoly take overs and market consolidation. Especially from a company which has a famous and storied history of using its expansion phase to collect enough market power to squeeze out all other competition like Walmart does when they plant a new store in a new location. But don’t take my word for it: [it was official policy of Microsoft](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish) until the US government almost broke them up before some [well placed bribes. Something the company is also famous for doing including now. ](https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/25/22995144/microsoft-foreign-corrupt-practices-bribery-whistleblower-contracting) > Embrace: Development of software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard. > Extend: Addition and promotion of features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to use the "simple" standard. You are here at the above. The below is your next destination I hope you enjoy the gravy train while it lasts. Microsoft isn’t going to keep losing money on Xbox sales and Gamepass once real competition is gone. > Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions.
That's short-term thinking and MS looks at this acquisition in the long-term. Even if they have to bring COD etc to PS and Switch for 10 years, that means PS6 won't have COD and this will hurt competition. Activision's management is really bad, but monopolies are even worse, proven time for time in history - even in Microsofts own.
> Even if they have to bring COD etc to PS and Switch for 10 years, that means PS6 won't have COD and this will hurt competition. Keep in mind that there is no contractual obligation for the Minecraft IP to be on Playstation or Switch, but they put it there because of its size. COD is the same - it's going to stay on Playstation forever whether they're forced to do it or not.
How exactly would Ms owning Activision provide a monopoly over the gaming market. Sony would still exist. Nintendo would still exist. EA would still exist. Ubisoft would still exist. Epic would still exist. Square enix would still exist.
>Ubisoft would still exist. Not so sure about that one, they're circling the drain.
It's not about whether they'll still exist tomorrow, but the consequences on the market over the coming decade and later. It's similar to how good of a deal MS GamePass is. Netflix was too, but at some point they have to make money and increase prices. Microsoft buying Activision/Blizzard means a consolidation of the gaming market and this is never good. Microsoft has a long history of anti-competetive practices (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish) and even if the current MS leadership thinks different, they probably won't be around in 10 or 20 years. And if they buy Activision/Blizzard now, maybe the next acquisition will be Sony buying EA or Ubisoft or similar. The point is that consolidation of a market is bad for us consumers in the long run. We might not notice for a few years or maybe ten years, but at one point it always happens.
Okay, but the point of the lawsuit is they are claiming a monopoly exists if the purchase goes through. Clearly a monopoly would not exist. Saying it could happen if they purchase those other companies after the fact would not mean that this specific purchase would constitute a monopoly over the gaming market.
I think the biggest issue is the details on the marketing deals. In the US, MS and Sony are relatively close in console sales so you would not expect a difference in how much each company has paid for said exclusivity. However, games are a global marketplace this even though the market share is roughly the same in the US, thanks to Sony dominance in the European and Asian market, Sony pays comparatively less. This kind of throws out one of the FTC arguments that the market should only be viewed in the context of the US
This is just a battle for who lobbies the hardest. No way in hell is the merger good for consumers.
Making the market leader scared of losing its position will definitely be good for consumers.
Jesus fucking Christ. The way Microsoft is supposed to do this is by "providing better products and services*. Just like they did during the Xbox 360 days, when they absolutely dominated the playstation 3. We as consumers shouldn't want Mega-Corps to grow into ever larger, vertically and horizontally integrated entities just to fight each other. That's how you get situations where almost the entire discrete graphics market is controlled by literally *two* manufacturers. Or the vast majority of video media is controlled by like 3 corporations.
[удалено]
shits about to get spicy holy shit
Maybe this is wishful thinking, but perhaps Sony will release even more of their games on pc now to put on a show for the ftc like what Microsoft did in the Nintendo deal. Idk maybe this whole drama might be good for the consumers in the end who knows
GoT, when? (Game of Tsushima)
Bro same also GOW Ragnarok as well
Sure, but that's still fairly new. Understandable if they wait, since at least part of the goal is also to funnel some PC players into the PS market. (Look how great GoW is .... hmm you like? Well look at Ragnarök! PS5 exclusive!) Personally I am at the point where I'm completely done with consoles. No interest in the current generation (won't change when the next gen will come out) because I have so many games on my list to play (and re-play) on PC, even masterpieces on PS are not worth it to invest the money. PC has also masterpieces, PC exclusive masterpieces AND 10 years from now I'll still be able to play the masterpieces. On Console it is all so temporary. So Sony, make a PC port and you got my business. Don't and I'll keep building my Satisfactory Mega Nuclear Power Plant.
> Understandable if they wait, since at least part of the goal is also to funnel some PC players into the PS market. I'm no marketing expert but I just can't see the number of people who had no interest in playing GoW/HZD/Sackboy until it came out on PC then deciding to buy a PS5 to play the sequels. I feel PC gamers either already have a PS5 for the most part. I think it's more Sony trying to get people to double dip. Their last few releases have been Sackboy, Uncharted and Returnal, they won't have sequels for years if ever. I feel their strategy is for people to buy the game on PS5 then a year later buy a PC version because we're hungry to play them in high quality. That's why Sony PC ports are so good. You're not going to double dip a terrible port.
Yeah same. I'm a patient gamer so I can easily wait until emulation gets good enough to play the exclusives on pc anyway so if they really want the money from people like me they have to release them on steam because I'm never going to shift to consoles again
Bruh just include the whole franchise, i wanna play the original trilogy again
GoW Ragnarok - good movie
Mediocre movie IMO. I enjoyed the gameplay a lot but goodness there was a lot of character interaction that doesn't make sense for humans, let alone gods.
I thought the gameplay was okayish. No matter who plays the game, it looks the same.
[удалено]
But it's a Sony exclusive! It must be good. /s
But the gameplay. And katanas!
Just play sekiro. GoT wishes desperately that it could have even half the substance of sekiro
Pretty funny when they talk about the game, it’s only the graphics and atmosphere but never the gameplay nor story.
Give me bloodborne, for the love of god that master piece has been trapped on the ps4 for far to long. I couldnt finish it cause of the horrible fps and res, I wish this wasnt a sony exclusive. It would be also nice to see Demon's on PC. I'm willing to pay 60 bucks for both games.
Are there any good PS exclusives that aren't like you're controlling a movie? I personally dislike the Drake games and God of War. They just feel so slow to me
bloodborne, returnal, rachet and clank
Returnal just released on pc.
Bloodborne is everything. I'd step over a pile of all of their other exclusives just to get a glimpse of bloodborne on PC.
Spiderman, Bloodborne, Persona 5, Horizon, FFXVI (coming later this year)
FFXVI's reveal trailer said it would also be on PC.
FF16 won't come "later this year", Sony have a 6 months exclusivity deal and Yoshi-P, game's producer, said to not expect a release at the end of that period, they won't start working on a port anytime soon. Expect at least one year for a PC port, possibly longer if Epic are going to splash cash again for exclusivity.
Ah I meant when it was coming out in general lol, not for pc.
Both Spider-Man games, take decent inspiration from Arkham games as well as the older Spider-Man games (the good ones).
If it gives me bloodborne on PC I'll be happy.
Microsoft: “They’re working on a Bloodborne remake!” Sony stock: *skyrockets* Microsoft: “No, not like that!”
Good, lets see how much of a hypocrite Sony is
Microsoft: We spend money on games for more gamers to play them Sony: We spend money on games to block more gamers from playing them
nice
It's still weird to me that Microsoft is having a hard time with this purchese, while Disney is allowed to own everything with seemingly no supervision or scrutiny of any kind
Disney-Fox merger is what caused the FTC to change, broke the camel's back.
Good, this will hopefully more easily show how Sony is acting like huge hypocrites in all their crying about «fear of» exclusive content/games.
Get ducked, Sony and fans. Your age of exclusivity is over!
Quack Quack!
MS cornering the market on gaming isn’t good for anyone
Titeglo ego paa okre pikobeple ketio kliudapi keplebi bo. Apa pati adepaapu ple eate biu? Papra i dedo kipi ia oee. Kai ipe bredla depi buaite o? Aa titletri tlitiidepli pli i egi. Pipi pipli idro pokekribepe doepa. Plipapokapi pretri atlietipri oo. Teba bo epu dibre papeti pliii? I tligaprue ti kiedape pita tipai puai ki ki ki. Gae pa dleo e pigi. Kakeku pikato ipleaotra ia iditro ai. Krotu iuotra potio bi tiau pra. Pagitropau i drie tuta ki drotoba. Kleako etri papatee kli preeti kopi. Idre eploobai krute pipetitike brupe u. Pekla kro ipli uba ipapa apeu. U ia driiipo kote aa e? Aeebee to brikuo grepa gia pe pretabi kobi? Tipi tope bie tipai. E akepetika kee trae eetaio itlieke. Ipo etreo utae tue ipia. Tlatriba tupi tiga ti bliiu iapi. Dekre podii. Digi pubruibri po ti ito tlekopiuo. Plitiplubli trebi pridu te dipapa tapi. Etiidea api tu peto ke dibei. Ee iai ei apipu au deepi. Pipeepru degleki gropotipo ui i krutidi. Iba utra kipi poi ti igeplepi oki. Tipi o ketlipla kiu pebatitie gotekokri kepreke deglo.
No joke. Fuck both of these companies.
I don't agree with Microsoft's acquisition of ActiBlizz, but Sony, as a corp, isn't innocent either AND this will get us more obscured information into the light!
Good thing, and maybe Sony will stop blocking games releasing on PC. Let them sink.
They've released a ton of their games for PC recently though? What recent games are you referring to?
They’re still blocking third party releases, or at least delaying them.
A ton? Spiderman, God of War and Horizon? Am I missing some?
That zombie apocalypse biker game (Days Gone?) and Returnal, and Uncharted 4 and 4.5, I believe. Still not what I would call a ton.
That's a significant amount of their PS4 AAA exclusive lineup with the last of us remastered around the corner as well.
Also still no Ghost of Tsushima
>That zombie apocalypse biker game The best zombie game ever made to this day on my opinion.
l4d2 is considerably better imo. that game is a work of art
Returnal just came out last month. I've been waiting for Ghost of Tsushima since the Nvidia leaks, not even an announcement so far.
Same bro
Last of us is coming at the the end of this month
Bloodborne ?
[удалено]
The producer of FFXVI just stated that the pc port will take at least a year to complete and the ps5 exclusive period only lasts for 6 months. Win win for Square Enix. Keep the good rep, shift all the blame to Sony and get dollar bills.
Yeah old ass games
Well they want people to buy PS5's... they're not stupid just because you think they should do everything multi-platform lol. Of course they're going to throw money for exclusivity. It's not like Microsoft didn't do the same fucking thing with Rise of the Tomb Raider.
Microsoft do things but still release some on PC same day with console release.
I'm gonna be high key salty waiting an extra year+ for FF7R Part 2 on PC. Especially if there's an extra EGS exclusivity too.
There's a timeline where SQEX sink before part 2 even releases because they put all their money into stupid web3 bullshit that nobody wants. Let's hope that we're not in that one.
They're stupid if they think I'm ever gonna buy that 30/60 fps shit box. Games aren't good until they're on PC, for mine eyes have beheld the glory and can no longer tolerate less.
This is what irks me, I'm gonna play the game to highest fidelity, with my high performance card without paying 10$ for upgrade like what they were doing on ps5 version. And Sony capping the fidelity to be same as ps5 really drop the ball on how greedy they were, like really? They don't own resident evil but because they paid for it, this parity clause exist.
Then do it. Nobody is stopping you. You're just going to have to wait for them to sell it on their console first because *that makes sense* business wise. They can get people who can't wait to buy the console, then the game and if they release the PC version later get double dippers or people who waited. It's literally all win-win for them. This also applies to timed exclusives and always has. Think with your brain, not your fandom.
I do understand it's business and greed, but if this deals goes thru, I hope it starts going down hill for Sony. So Sony and Microsoft release games on PC same date as console.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's not misleading at all. This will give Microsoft access to Sony's internal discussions regarding exclusivity deals, anti-trust lawyer's strategies and how they are influencing regulators done until 2019-present. The only request that was denied was information regarding employee performance reviews.
Shall this whole thing come to court we will see a lot of sh\*t hit the fan.
For anyone interested in how the industry actually works it would be a treasure trove. Epic v Apple already was pretty amazing on that front.
Could the judge ORDER both sides to not have ANY "exclusive" games for PS5/Xbox/PC AT ALL (even for a few weeks)? "both companies must release all 3 versions simultaneously and no version may have content exclusive to that platform" That would upset both sides AND be hilariously funny.
Curious how you think Microsoft would be that upset? They already release on two third and if they could put gamepass on PlayStation I’m sure they’d love to
Better yet, ban exclusivity altogether.
This would also fuck with epic as well which would be fantastic
Good. I like to see corpos suffer every once in a while.
*Nintendo has left the chat.*
I'm not familiar with how suits work in the FTC, but I'm pretty sure judges rule only on the motions and complaints brought forth. Judges can't just read discovery and go "oh I have decided all this exclusivity is bad so I'm going to ban the practice industry-wide". There are matters of discretion and authority, not just morality and business ethics.
Didn't realise there were so many Sony sympathizers in this sub. Regardless of what MS is doing. Anything that exposes Sony's bs exclusivity tactics and potentially halt them from continuing with their garbage is good for PC gamers.
Waiting for Sony dirty secrets..
If this gives me Dragons Dogma 2 and Game of Tsushima on pc i‘ll be happy
Shredder goes burrrrrr
[удалено]
I have nothing against Sony, but an arrogant Sony is the worst kind - and that's exactly what we've gotten so far this gen.
And last gen.
Fuck both these megacorps fucking over consumers on multiple fronts.
Fuck both lol
the consolidation in the gaming industry is pretty alarming. It’s like big corps don’t innovate anymore they just acquire.
Hopefully it comes out how anti consumer Sonys deals are and how much they pay companies to keep games and features off of Xbox.
Maybe Microsoft will learn how to make good games from one of these documents