Current Events > Unredactions show US judge called out Sony paying Square to skip Xbox for FF

(+) Yeah! (+)

Is it though? MS buying Bethesda and AB isnt increasing the number of available games, its reducing the number of games present on other systems. This is hardly a good thing for gamers.

Just like Sony exclusives are also timed.

I am crazy confused right now. Why was I randomly mentioned to a topic started on the 19th from a dude who I don't recall ever interacting with for a topic subject I swear I don't even remember having any investment in? lmao

I thought it was a mention for this topic on the PS5 boards where the TC was all like "whats your favorite game ever" and I posted in it saying phantasy star online ep 1 and 2, so someone mentioned me back to go all like "hell yea bro that game is awesome", but this topic? Why? lmao

Because you have claimed that Sony never did this.

The judge is biased and thankfully the FTC is appealing though the FTC can move ahead and block the sale without the courts. And should.

Being able to play Starfield both on my Xbox and Steam Deck with cloud save support on a subscription is pretty good for me.

My argument in that topic is that sony did not pay for star ocean 2 R in particular, because again, that would be utterly dumb. Its a updated port of a niche in the west jrpg game that is releasing on the switch and PC also. What common sense reason would there be for sony to moneyhat this small-time game just to keep it off the xbox but not the switch and PC day 1? This would be akin to moneyhatting something like a Ys game, or trails of cold steel etc. These games rarely pop up on xbox because from square-enix's perspective its probably just not worth the investment. THAT is what I was posting about.

Yeah, good for you, not for people who only play on other systems.

It makes it so that the Playstation isn't the only "obvious choice". If each system has around the equal amount of exclusive titles, then that makes the console market more competitive.

From my limited understanding, but many of the newer games that has been Sony 3rd party exclusives are Xbox excluded "forever". The timed exclusive excuse for Sony is that it will come to PC later. If PC is included, then I don't think Xbox has, or will have, any exclusives at all.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Bloodborne, FF7R or FF16 will come to Xbox for example.

People who exclusively play on one system tend to miss out on exclusives yes. That's what gamers have dictated a system should need.

If Xbox has games PlayStation owners want to play they're overall making the right moves.

Oh yeah, Im sure this is going to be good for people that only own a PS5. /rollseyes

While this is true it's part of the reason why moneyhats are effective . Do it for the right games and the impact snowballs across genres and publishers.

Sony owns the Bloodborne IP. It didnt pay for exclusivity, it approached From Software to have them help develop it.

That would be all fine and dandy if gamers were getting more games out of this. They arent, in fact a sizable portion of them are getting less, because two big third-party developers that made multi-platform titles now belong to MS.

Youre comparing apples to oranges.

Sony owns the Bloodborne IP. It didnt pay for exclusivity, it approached From Software to have them help develop it.

As for FFVIIR and FFXVI theres nothing stopping SE from releasing it on XBox. In fact, the director of FFXVI said they approached several companies to make a deal with FFXVI (which I think its safe to assume included MS) and they just went with the better deal.

• Sony also has a portfolio of high-quality exclusive third-party content including Final Fantasy 16, Bloodborne, Sackboy: A Big Adventure, Street Fighter V, Sifu and the Silent Hill 2 remake.

The judge is biased and thankfully the FTC is appealing though the FTC can move ahead and block the sale without the courts. And should.

Fair. Sometimes, probably even often, rulings are in favor of the best lawyers. And those are often the ones getting paid more by not working for the government.

So let's focus on the arguments and not the ruling. Sony was slowly gaining "monopoly" power because of how they did things. Slowly they have become the console of choice for most consumers because they were better at getting exclusivity deals and buying up what started as small studios. Over time these deals have made it hard to compete, so they basically pushed Microsoft into a corner, where they almost left the console market (which would have been bad for consumers).

Many small anti-consumer acquisitions over time vs. Big anti-consumer acquisition. Is that a fair comparison if we assume that buying publishers is anti-consumer?

This is a statement Microsoft made to the CMA:
In addition to having outright exclusive content, Sony has also entered into arrangements with third-party publishers which require the exclusion of Xbox from the set of platforms these publishers can distribute their games on. Some prominent examples of these agreements include Final Fantasy VII Remake (Square Enix), Bloodborne (From Software), the upcoming Final Fantasy XVI (Square Enix) and the recently announced Silent Hill 2 remastered (Bloober team).

And a bullet point:
* Sony also has a portfolio of high-quality exclusive third-party content including Final Fantasy 16, Bloodborne, Sackboy: A Big Adventure, Street Fighter V, Sifu and the Silent Hill 2 remake.

Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/637cec9dd3bf7f5a0b33f881/MICROSOFT_S_RESPONSE.pdf

So that is an official statement from Microsoft based on their investigations. As far as I know, SE and Sony has not denied. In fact, Sony has done their best to not be forthcoming with their exclusivity deals.

Not to mention that Sonys plans to make Starfield a Playstation exclusive is apparently why Microsoft bought Bethesda.

When we acquired ZeniMax one of the impetus for that is that Sony had done a deal for Deathloop and Ghostwire... to pay Bethesda to not ship those games on Xbox, said Spencer. So the discussion about Starfield when we heard that Starfield was potentially also going to end up skipping Xbox, we cant be in a position as a third-place console where we fall further behind on our content ownership so weve had to secure content to remain viable in the business. -Phil Spencer in court.

I actually don't like exclusives btw. I would love to just have one console to play everything on and I disliked Microsoft when they made these kind of deals in the previous generations. It seems, to me, that Sony has been way worse in later years, where Sonys exclusivity deals, mainly in Japan, has been just as bad as what Microsoft is doing now. Maybe it's because it's very few games from ABK I actually care about, though...

You're way too focused on Sony, probably because you're some Xbox fanboy.

Fewer independent major publishers is a bad thing, it'll mean fewer multiplatform games in the future. Sure Microsoft said some bullshit about keeping doing multiplatform but they said the same bullshit when buying Bethesda and we can already see what's happening there.

Note, I'm primarily a PC gamer, I'm not going to be locked out from games Microsoft makes so don't go thinking I'm against this because I'm going to be missing out.

What Microsoft investigated seems odd when they call franchises like LittleBIGPlanet and Astral Chain third-party. Maybe they are referring to the developers. But they also refer Bayonetta 3 as third-party to Nintendo. Like did Sony and Nintendo gave those away or not have the copyright credits attributed to them as well as publishing those games?

What Microsoft investigated seems odd when they call franchises like LittleBIGPlanet and Astral Chain third-party. Maybe they are referring to the developers. But they also refer Bayonetta 3 as third-party to Nintendo. Like did Sony and Nintendo gave those away or not have the copyright credits attributed to them as well as publishing those games?

Some of those timed exclusives were straight up scams too.

Destiny was really bad about this. They would release exclusive missions and weapons a year later for Xbox, but by that point, their lower power level made them irrelevant to play or impossible to use.

This strategy may have helped make Sony #1 but it's given them a lot of bad will too.

I seem to remember that Bayonetta was about to be given up on before Nintendo revived it. I don't know how Nintendo does exclusivity deals and why both Sony and Microsoft doesn't seem to care about it.

The thing with bayonetta 2 (and by extension bayo 3) is that supposedly platinum approached sony, microsoft, and multiple 3rd party companies in general looking for someone to help publish the game since sega backed out. All these companies said no. Nintendo actually accepted in the end, so if nintendo didn't do this then bayo 2 most likely wouldn't even exist.

https://mynintendonews.com/2014/10/01/kamiya-says-multiple-publishers-turned-down-bayonetta-2/

What game did Microsoft pay a third party developer to not release on PlayStation?

Nothing is being yanked from PS5. I wouldn't consider a PS6 though lol

Now this is some mental gymnastics.

This is a statement Microsoft made to the CMA:
In addition to having outright exclusive content, Sony has also entered into arrangements with third-party publishers which require the exclusion of Xbox from the set of platforms these publishers can distribute their games on. Some prominent examples of these agreements include Final Fantasy VII Remake (Square Enix), Bloodborne (From Software), the upcoming Final Fantasy XVI (Square Enix) and the recently announced Silent Hill 2 remastered (Bloober team).

And a bullet point:

Sony also has a portfolio of high-quality exclusive third-party content including Final Fantasy 16, Bloodborne, Sackboy: A Big Adventure, Street Fighter V, Sifu and the Silent Hill 2 remake.

Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/637cec9dd3bf7f5a0b33f881/MICROSOFT_S_RESPONSE.pdf

So that is an official statement from Microsoft based on their investigations. As far as I know, SE and Sony has not denied. In fact, Sony has done their best to not be forthcoming with their exclusivity deals.

Not to mention that Sonys plans to make Starfield a Playstation exclusive is apparently why Microsoft bought Bethesda.

Since the end of the PS3 days and until now Sony has been doing a lot worse

How does any of that change what I posted? That's literally what exclusivity deals are, things that MS also does. Hell, that Bloodborne is mentioned by MS at all is outright stupid.

As for FFVIIR and FFXVI theres nothing stopping SE from releasing it on XBox. In fact, the director of FFXVI said they approached several companies to make a deal with FFXVI (which I think its safe to assume included MS) and they just went with the better deal.

Lol sure.

Also lets not forget one of the greatest things MS has brought to console players: charging a fee to play online.

Again, there is nothing stopping SE from releasing FFVIIR and FFXVI on the XBox.

Again, there is nothing stopping SE from releasing FFVIIR and FFXVI on the XBox.

Fewer independent major publishers is a bad thing, it'll mean fewer multiplatform games in the future. Sure Microsoft said some bullshit about keeping doing multiplatform but they said the same bullshit when buying Bethesda and we can already see what's happening there.

Unless they have signed contracts that prohibit that? Which is the claim made by Microsoft.

Which just goes back to my point, this isnt good for gamers. Its good for MS and maybe part of the playerbase thats already in the XBox ecosystem.

Oh yeah, Im sure this is going to be good for people that only own a PS5. /rollseyes

Paying for exclusives sucks but has been a part of the industry since before Sony even entered the console space. Major publishers though being bought up by a console maker? That shit is new and only Microsoft is pulling that bs, of course I expect Sony to follow as well now which is going to be bullshit.

It's unreal to me how people can let idiotic fanboyism make them cheer on the consolidation of the video game industry.

Yay! The corporations that don't care if we live or die are going to be in a more and more anti-consumer position of power! Well as long as the maker of the console I derive self worth from is winning then I'm all for it!

Ridiculous.

The judge is biased and thankfully the FTC is appealing though the FTC can move ahead and block the sale without the courts. And should.

And what about Nintendo and Next Level Games merging is bad for consumers? Or Sony and Insomniac? Or do you actually think Sony should give up their studios too? Think exclusives should just suddenly not exist anymore even though one of the main draws PS had over Xbox had been their exclusives?
Ironically, you're making a good example of how this merger only seems to negatively affect PS fanboys who think playstation should be the center of the world given that Nintendo and PC seem like they're going to benefit from it.

I guess all the acquisitions like Bungie just doesn't exist anymore.

Unless Microsoft lied in court, the exact opposite is true. They literally were paid not to release them on Xbox.

I guess all the acquisitions like Bungie just doesn't exist anymore.

Major publishers though being bought up by a console maker? That shit is new

Microsoft didn't spin any truth.

Of course they didnt! Thats why no one is quoting what they said and making it seem like Sony paying developers to not release games on XBox (aka paying for exclusivity) is because theyre a big bully and MS is a poor little indie company battling a big bad corporation!

/rollseyes

I love how you guys always try to compare Nintendo and Sony buying studios that already only made games for them for years, with MS buying one of the biggest third-party developers with multiple multiplatform games.

You only have a point with Bungie, but even then its a single studio and not even remotely comparable to Bethesda, much less AB.

And no dude, buying multiplatform studios isnt ok when Sony or Nintendo does it.

Say you didn't read what I posted without saying you didn't read what I posted.

Or are you claiming that Bungie was a major publisher and if so please tell me what development studios they had under their banner? What IPs did their numerous development studios put out? I'd say to get back to me when Sony or Nintendo start buying up the likes of Squenix, Sega, Ubisoft or EA but unfortunately it won't surprise me in the slightest now if that sort of nonsense starts happening now that Microsoft has purchased two major publishers. Previously you would have console makers buy up the occasional development studio and while that's not ideal? It's a far cry from buying up publishers.

I really don't get why there exists people who defend anti-consumer shit like this. None of these console makers care about us in the slightest so why do they deserve your adoration and defence? Sony? They suck. Nintendo? They suck. Microsoft? Oh hell do they suck.

The company was established in May 1991 by Alex Seropian, who later brought in programmer Jason Jones after publishing Jones's game Minotaur: The Labyrinths of Crete. Originally based in Chicago, Illinois, the company concentrated on Macintosh games during its early years and created two successful video game franchises called Marathon and Myth. An offshoot studio, Bungie West, produced Oni, published in 2001 and owned by Take-Two Interactive, which held a 19.9% ownership stake at the time.

Sony Interactive Entertainment completed its acquisition of Bungie in July 2022, with Bungie remaining as a multi-platform studio and publisher.

Not surprised the guy who thought Sony only censored underage fanservice is ignorant and behind on his facts while trying to go to bat for them.

So a developer that has 2 studios is suddenly a major publisher, fucking nonsense and you know it.

And here we are again with the goalpost changing.