Poll of the Day > Do any of you believe that with the MS , activision acquisition going through

(+) Yeah! (+)

that xbox might overtake playstation in market share relatively soon like within the next 5 yrs?

I believe that it's going to cause all sorts of issues for developers and consumers alike.

papercup posted...

I believe that it's going to cause all sorts of issues for developers and consumers alike.

why though?

When has a monopoly turned out well for anyone other than the monopoly owner?

papercup posted...

When has a monopoly turned out well for anyone other than the monopoly owner?

yeah i kinda agree. so you also didn't want the merger to go through? idk but it did, when many thought it wouldn't

Is that how it was approved, by it just being the Activision part?

No, because hardcore gamers will just play all MS games on PC instead

no lol

but the people who think microsoft is getting a monopoly now are hilariously delusional

Nichtcrawler-X posted...

Is that how it was approved, by it just being the Activision part?

no, it was approved due to microsoft making concessions and offering contracts to make abk games more available than they currently are.

the ftc argued that it would harm the current market leader, sony, if microsoft were to do this, at which point the judge that the ftc chose laughed at them because that's literally a non-issue and the entire point behind competition.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

no, it was approved due to microsoft making concessions and offering contracts to make abk games more available than they currently are.

the ftc argued that it would harm the current market leader, sony, if microsoft were to do this, at which point the judge that the ftc chose laughed at them because that's literally a non-issue and the entire point behind competition.

yeah but iirc , sony never even got the 10 yr cod guarantee, it was pulled off the table. do you believe that sony will fire jim ryan? maybe phil spencer will get a big raise

i doubt jim'll get fired, sony appears to be fairly happy with him for some reason. he definitely is on thin ice now, probably.

and yes, while sony never signed that agreement, it'd be stupid to think microsoft is going to pull call of duty off of that platform. one, phil swore under oath that that wouldn't happen and ghostwire and deathloop still being exclusive to playstation for a year, and minecraft still as ubiquitous show that microsoft keeps to their commitments, and two, that'd be a hell of a lot of money they'd be throwing away. with the amount of money we now know sony made off of just having the lions share of mtx transactions, and marketing rights, they were able to fund their first party games like horizon, and last of us. like specifically, they used call of duty money to fund them, and due to them being bad at redacting sensitive documents, we also know just how much those games cost, too.

The console market isn't important anymore. Mobile is the main market at play with this deal.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

the ftc argued that it would harm the current market leader, sony, if microsoft were to do this, at which point the judge that the ftc chose laughed at them because that's literally a non-issue and the entire point behind competition.

Harming competitors isn't the point behind competition. Making yourself better is the point behind competition, and is what actually makes the market better. Harming competitors makes the market worse, then shifts the onus onto the harmed parties to compensate for the harm that was done.

you are wrong lol

demonstrably so

adjl posted...

Harming competitors isn't the point behind competition. Making yourself better is the point behind competition, and is what actually makes the market better. Harming competitors makes the market worse, then shifts the onus onto the harmed parties to compensate for the harm that was done.

so you personally didn't want it to go through?

based on how hard he is trying to argue that it is a bad thing that sony will lose some money, when that doesn't matter in the slightest, makes it really seem like he didn't want it to go through.

at one point he even made the claim that making something more available was actually making it less available lmfao

GranTurismo posted...

so you personally didn't want it to go through?

Having large chunks of any industry held by a single entity generally isn't a good thing. Healthy competition relies on having a bunch of independent entities trying to outdo each other. When those entities get merged into monolithic giants that just try to poach multiplatform studios from each other instead of coming up with their own ideas, the market suffers.

Of course, the AAA market has been a hot mess for years now and shows no signs of getting better, given that the only competition they're interested in is coming up with more efficient ways to milk money out of the mentally ill, but that still doesn't mean I'm in favour of making it worse.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

you are wrong lol

demonstrably so

What a convincing argument.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

based on how hard he is trying to argue that it is a bad thing that sony will lose some money, when that doesn't matter in the slightest

I don't really care about Sony losing money. What I do care about is the fact that removing CoD from Playstation will harm consumers that bought a Playstation with the expectation of being able to play CoD on it, while doing absolutely nothing to improve the market. You can harp on all you want about "more platforms" because they're talking about bringing it to a bunch of streaming services that are just PC with a different login, but PS customers losing access to the game hurts those customers. Whether MS has indicated any plans to take that step is largely irrelevant. The merger gives them the option of doing so, and I fully expect that whenever Sony announces a new console, CoD won't be on it because that's going to be MS's best bet for building a decent install base (without the loss of sweet, sweet microtransaction revenue from the current PS5 install base).

ConfusedTorchic posted...

at one point he even made the claim that making something more available was actually making it less available lmfao

What is it about this subject that's made you incapable of discussing it without resorting immediately to strawman statements?

adjl posted...

What is it about this subject that's made you incapable of discussing it without resorting immediately to strawman statements?

my guy what are you talking about

adjl posted...

By insisting that making Sony unable to rely on CoD was a good thing for the market. Whatever "other platforms" get CoD (noting that your "other platforms" diagram just includes Nintendo's and a bunch of minor PC services nobody cares about), removing it from Sony's would be a massive reduction in the number of people who want to play CoD and currently can (particularly where so many people have already made their console buying decisions based on that). However many "other platforms" get the game, when such a large platform with so many people loses it, that's making it less available.

this is straight up what you have tried to claim, because you're under the wack ass assumption that call of duty is going to be removed from playstation

it's not. like legally, it cannot now without opening themselves up to being sued since it was stated under oath.

if there is no call of duty on the eventual Playstation 6, then that is playstations fault, since Jim Ryan has already stated that he would not be letting them have dev kits.

it's so wild to see adj bootlicking sony lmao

https://twitter.com/XboxP3/status/1680578783718383616

wow hey look at that, even more proof that call of duty isn't going away any time soon

do you care to try and argue still that call of duty is being made less available or did it finally get through to you that it's not.

Then what have you been talking about with "Sony can't rely on CoD anymore?"

Playstation has been using the money they get from call of duty to fully fund their first party games

https://www.techspot.com/news/99240-massive-playstation-leak-reveals-call-duty-revenues-first.html

they won't be able to do that anymore.

So CoD isn't going to leave the Playstation, but Sony won't be able to use revenue from CoD to fund anything else anymore? How on earth do you think that makes sense?

For that matter, you're literally saying "Sony won't be able to afford to make their exclusives anymore" while also saying "this is good for competition." Those are mutually exclusive statements.

adjl posted...

So CoD isn't going to leave the Playstation, but Sony won't be able to use revenue from CoD to fund anything else anymore? How on earth do you think that makes sense?

For that matter, you're literally saying "Sony won't be able to afford to make their exclusives anymore" while also saying "this is good for competition." Those are mutually exclusive statements.

because sony wont be receiving as much of the profits they've enjoyed from having marketing rights and a generous mtx share agreement. in 2021 call of duty made playstation $1.6b. that's not "call of duty made activision", no. that is what sony made, solely from call of duty. we know that sony has a 40/60 split of profits with activision, whereas it's 20/80 for everyone else, everywhere else being steam and xbox. do you honestly believe that the new contract sony just signed with xbox has that split remain at 40/60, especially when microsoft is holding the entire deck of cards. do you honestly.

adjl posted...

you're literally saying "Sony won't be able to afford to make their exclusives anymore"

didn't say that try again bub. here's a reference for what i have been saying

ConfusedTorchic posted...

you mean sony needing to try and actually develop and utilize their ip's instead of just depending solely on call of duty to keep them afloat isn't going to actually make them compete now?

adjl posted...

while also saying "this is good for competition."

yes. see above for why.

sony is the top dog right now. they can absolutely come up with a competitor to call of duty if it were to ever leave their platform. remember socom? the thing that was bigger than call of duty when sony decided to can the series?

ConfusedTorchic posted...

because sony wont be receiving as much of the profits they've enjoyed from having marketing rights and a generous mtx share agreement. in 2021 call of duty made playstation $1.6b. that's not "call of duty made activision", no. that is what sony made, solely from call of duty. we know that sony has a 40/60 split of profits with activision, whereas it's 20/80 for everyone else, everywhere else being steam and xbox. do you honestly believe that the new contract sony just signed with xbox has that split remain at 40/60, especially when microsoft is holding the entire deck of cards. do you honestly.

Now why has it taken you nearly a week to provide this information? Does that really seem like an effective communication strategy to you?

As for whether or not it remains a 40/60 split, that's going to depend on how valuable the existing install base is. The current breakdown of CoD sales by platform is 41% on PS5, 29% on PS4, 19% on Xbone, and 11% on Series X. If we just look at the PS5/Series X (which are the foreseeable future of console gaming), the PS5 accounts for nearly four times more total revenue from CoD than the Series X does, or 75% of the total revenue for ABK if we take the different splits into account. Switching Sony to a 20/80 split would be a 25% increase in total revenue. Threatening to give up 75% of your revenue if the other party doesn't increase your revenue by 25% isn't exactly the most substantial threat, so I imagine whatever new figure they've signed is somewhere between the two.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

didn't say that try again bub.

"CoD single-handedly funded these major exclusives" means "without CoD, Sony wouldn't have been able to afford to make these major exclusives." I'm not sure why you're struggling with this.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

yes. see above for why.

Not being able to rely on CoD for a reliable revenue stream that will fund their other exclusive production means they need to focus on making those exclusives profitable on their own. It does not mean that they need to make them good. In the AAA space, those two goals are very frequently at odds with each other, especially in today's world of shiny graphics and the inflated development budgets that come with them.

From the consumer perspective, first- (and second-, when they don't involve snapping up existing multiplat studios that are doing just fine on their own) party exclusives are a good thing because they offer the platform holder benefits beyond their direct profitability. That means they can focus on just being really good games, potentially even being released at a loss, since the downstream revenue of selling more systems and generating more revenue from the sale and monetization of third-party games can make up for having a larger budget or not leaning into post-purchase monetization strategies.

Losing other revenue streams that have been funding first-party exclusives doesn't mean Sony "actually has to compete now." It means they have to worry more about whether or not their first-party exclusives will be profitable, which is likely to mean cutting corners and monetizing them further. That's not a good thing for consumers. Sony was already competing in a way that benefits consumers. They have been for quite some time, and while their position on top has resulted in them getting complacent in a few regards (such as not wanting to get involved in cross-play opportunities), they've generally been doing a pretty good job of it and their success reflects that. Microsoft just got tired of trying and failing to play that game, which is why they're now buying up a bunch of multiplat studios to make potential system-sellers exclusively for them.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

sony is the top dog right now. they can absolutely come up with a competitor to call of duty if it were to ever leave their platform.

Ah yes, because if the early 2010's taught us anything, it's that the best possible thing for the gaming industry is for everyone and their mother to try making another CoD-killer.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

remember socom? the thing that was bigger than call of duty when sony decided to can the series?

SOCOM 4 released in 2011 and sold 900k units. Modern Warfare 3 released in 2011 and sold 30 million units. I think nostalgia might be clouding your perception a bit there.

Even if you were right about the figures, though, the fact remains that CoD is now a recognizable name and SOCOM is not. There's pretty much zero chance that SOCOM would be able to genuinely compete with CoD if it were resurrected, no matter how good the game is.

It doesn't matter. AAA has been dead forever & anyone can make generic military shooter number x. Honestly, I find Steam's iron grip on PC gaming far more problematic. So much of the modding hosting, multiplayer functionality and peoples libraries are there. It seems all well and good now, but if they ever went darkside it would be very hard to detach from them.

adjl posted...

Now why has it taken you nearly a week to provide this information?

...less than 24h is nearly a week? where are you even getting a week from.

adjl posted...

"CoD single-handedly funded these major exclusives" means "without CoD, Sony wouldn't have been able to afford to make these major exclusives." I'm not sure why you're struggling with this.

probably because it doesn't mean that, and you're putting words i've never implied into my mouth.

adjl posted...

Not being able to rely on CoD for a reliable revenue stream that will fund their other exclusive production means they need to focus on making those exclusives profitable on their own.

yes? that should mean more new things, and instead for them it means remasters of things released only a few years prior since last of us part 2 remaster was leaked by the composer. i never said sony would be smart about it, to be fair, but also

adjl posted...

Losing other revenue streams that have been funding first-party exclusives doesn't mean Sony "actually has to compete now." It means they have to worry more about whether or not their first-party exclusives will be profitable

correct, which is why

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3987264-sony-gaming-rd-spend-live-service-games-extended-reality

they're shifting focus to live service.
adjl posted...

SOCOM 4 released in 2011 and sold 900k units. Modern Warfare 3 released in 2011 and sold 30 million units. I think nostalgia might be clouding your perception a bit there.

nope. after socom 3 sony decided to implement gimmicks into socom. first it was with socom confrontation, which released extremely unfinished, and really was meant to push the idea of voice chat, since it came with a barely functioning bluetooth microphone.

then they released socom 4 to push ps move sales, which ended up not working and ps move itself is dead as well. then they shut down the development studio and thems the breaks.

sony killed socom to push gimmicks for it that no one ever asked for, and then when it didn't pan out as most of their gimmicks don't, they abandoned it entirely. the fanbase just wanted more of socom 3, instead sony made socom wii.

adjl posted...

the fact remains that CoD is now a recognizable name and SOCOM is not. There's pretty much zero chance that SOCOM would be able to genuinely compete with CoD if it were resurrected, no matter how good the game is.

yes i agree. i brought it up as an example of something they could, at the very least, try. i used socom because it was the only millitary-style shooter they did. killzone, haze, and resistance were more meant to try and compete with halo and gears of war.

With CoD staying on PS this has become the biggest nothing burger.

Activision-Blizzard on console is just CoD and remasters of 25 year old games (Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, Tony Hawk). Plus all the dead franchises like guitar hero.

Yes, Diablo 4 just came out, so maybe Diablo 5 will be on Xbox only but that'll be in 2035 so who cares.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

no lol

but the people who think microsoft is getting a monopoly now are hilariously delusional

"Buying large companies by a larger company means monopolies don't exist."

ConfusedTorchic posted...

...less than 24h is nearly a week? where are you even getting a week from.

You created the "Microsoft beat the FTC" topic roughly a week ago and have been saying these things since then, yet this is the first time you've clarified that you aren't talking about CoD leaving PS altogether, but rather about changing the revenue share they currently have.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

yes? that should mean more new things, and instead for them it means remasters of things released only a few years prior since last of us part 2 remaster was leaked by the composer.

Quite the opposite. "More new things" are not reliably profitable. Anything new is a gamble on whether or not people will like it enough to even want to play it, let alone enough people to make the project profitable overall. That makes new things high-risk. Remasters, however, are low-risk: They take relatively little effort (and therefore money) to produce and there's already a guaranteed audience for them. Remastering TLoU2 this quickly is... optimistic, to say the least, but it's nevertheless a symptom of not knowing if they can rely on CoD revenue moving forward and therefore not investing in higher-risk projects until those dominoes finish falling.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

correct, which is why

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3987264-sony-gaming-rd-spend-live-service-games-extended-reality

they're shifting focus to live service.

Oh boy! More live services! That's exactly what the market needs. I'm so glad Sony's been put into such a tight financial spot that they're taking that direction to stay profitable.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

the fanbase just wanted more of socom 3,

SOCOM 3 came out in 2005 and sold 1.5 million copies. CoD2 came out in 2005 and sold 5.9 million copies. A much more favourable comparison, certainly, but still not exactly "bigger than Call of Duty."

ConfusedTorchic posted...

yes i agree. i brought it up as an example of something they could, at the very least, try.

They could try, but it would fail. Given the cost of producing any game comparable to CoD's production values, being successful enough to turn a profit is ferociously unlikely.