Expect expansion of Bethesda under MS. Obsidian has already grown by leaps and bounds. You may get your dream soon enough
Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
Inuhanyou
Veteran
Uhh, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Sony by default own the IP of Bloodborne? Like demons souls?
Dont think that's an example of a game MS want to use as "Sony's monopolistic business practices"
If you also only have a small handful of games including ones that haven't even come out yet and won't be out for a while to try and make an argument based on time exclusivity deals that can lapse, it's probably not very sturdy argument to make.
Also considering how many third party exclusives and launch exclusive games MS has proudly promoted at shows and events the past few years, it's very weird to act like it is not something every company does.
it's different from buying an entire publisher and locking it down cause you've got the money. That's something only MS has done once already prior to the acti deal, and something only they can do with the inherent money they have. It's a solid argument Sony could use.
Dont think that's an example of a game MS want to use as "Sony's monopolistic business practices"
If you also only have a small handful of games including ones that haven't even come out yet and won't be out for a while to try and make an argument based on time exclusivity deals that can lapse, it's probably not very sturdy argument to make.
Also considering how many third party exclusives and launch exclusive games MS has proudly promoted at shows and events the past few years, it's very weird to act like it is not something every company does.
it's different from buying an entire publisher and locking it down cause you've got the money. That's something only MS has done once already prior to the acti deal, and something only they can do with the inherent money they have. It's a solid argument Sony could use.
Last edited:
Yes Sony has the trade mark
BLOODBORNE Trademark of SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC - Registration Number 4791550 - Serial Number 86262151 :: Justia Trademarks
Computer game software; Downloadable computer game software via a global computer network and wireless devices; Video game software
trademarks.justia.com
But does it matter ? Its a game made by a third party developer paid for by sony to never come out on the xbox.
Inuhanyou
Veteran
I would think it matters? I'm really confused about how weak Microsofts argument is here.Yes Sony has the trade mark
BLOODBORNE Trademark of SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC - Registration Number 4791550 - Serial Number 86262151 :: Justia Trademarks
Computer game software; Downloadable computer game software via a global computer network and wireless devices; Video game software
But does it matter ? Its a game made by a third party developer paid for by sony to never come out on the xbox.
Cause MS are kind of torpedoing their own claims about how Sony is using unique anti competitive business practices that justifies the MS acti publisher buyout.
If their examples are so broad in scope to even include IP co created by Sony, they are essentially telling on themselves and their own similar deals they have done plenty of times, especially if they are reaching all the way back to 2014 for something. Deals which they(MS), like any other publisher, are still not barred from doing and have not ever been barred from doing either.
When it's the status quo of the industry as a whole no one is going to buy you suddenly and arbitrarily crying foul about what is the standard when called out for trying to eat entire publishers.
Something that is most certainly is not the standard and never before seen at such a scope to begin with.
It's like Sony could just put out a list like this
And say "man, MS are so anti competitive, they did all these backroom deals to keep things exclusive to their platform and many of these games never came to playstation, how will we ever compete against them"
Im just really confused about how MS thinks such a weird argument would work when thinking for two seconds would disprove such a claim. Their lawyers are extremely overpayed to not have anything substantial for a lawsuit as big and important to them as this. They should be fired and replaced immediately
I would think it matters? I'm really confused about how weak Microsofts argument is here.
Cause MS are kind of torpedoing their own claims about how Sony is using unique anti competitive business practices that justifies the MS acti publisher buyout.
If their examples are so broad in scope to even include IP co created by Sony, they are essentially telling on themselves and their own similar deals they have done plenty of times, especially if they are reaching all the way back to 2014 for something. Deals which they(MS), like any other publisher, are still not barred from doing and have not ever been barred from doing either.
When it's the status quo of the industry as a whole no one is going to buy you suddenly and arbitrarily crying foul about what is the standard when called out for trying to eat entire publishers.
Something that is most certainly is not the standard and never before seen at such a scope to begin with.
It's like Sony could just put out a list like this
And say "man, MS are so anti competitive, they did all these backroom deals to keep things exclusive to their platform and many of these games never came to playstation, how will we ever compete against them"
Im just really confused about how MS thinks such a weird argument would work when thinking for two seconds would disprove such a claim. Their lawyers are extremely overpayed to not have anything substantial for a lawsuit as big and important to them as this. They should be fired and replaced immediately
The point is that Sony the clear market leader of High end gaming consoles is already engaged in the activity of removing access to third party titles to Microsoft and so microsot needs to compete with sony in the same arena.
I think you aren't looking at it properly
MS is saying here is the way Sony operates as the market leader .
1) They pay for timed exclusives and since they have double the market share its cheaper for them to buy excusivity
2) They pay to make 3rd party games exclusive period. so while other games in the series might be avalible suddenly they aren't because its money hatted.
3) Sony will pay a third party company to create content for an ip sony creates thus locking titles away from MS for ever. In Blood Borne case Sony has also started buying up Fromsoftware who makes a wildly popular 3rd party title which is elden ring.
You are not disproving what you think you are disproving. MS is normalizing the deal and the fact that exclusives drive the market and the fact that the market leader continues to spend on removing third party exclusives from other platforms to maintain the status quo. MS is fine with people saying but but MS does this too. Because it just normalizes them purchasing Activision and making some games exclusive because sony buys exclusives in a myriad of ways.
Why would you or anyone else think it be okay for the Market leader to buy up content and remove it from its competition that is far smaller in this space? That creates the opposite of a healthy market.
edit- Just adding this on here so you can get a better view of what Ms is trying to argue here
MS's point is that Exclusive titles drive the market. You can argue that other years would look better for MS and worse for the other companys and I agree. But this is the most recent completed year and so its what they went for as it looks best for them. Further to Ms's point is that Sony continues to pay out for developers to make exclusive content regardless of if its buying the developer , buying up timed exclusivity or full exclusivity or co funding titles.
Last edited:
Inuhanyou
Veteran
Perhaps I really am missing the point of the argument...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one in the conversation has said "exclusive games are bad" as literally everyone does exclusives, right?
But that the scope and scale of a major publisher acquisition in the manner MS are attempting would inherently close the market down from other players without MS direct consent and approval process.
And call of duty being a historically third party franchise for 99 percent of its life cycle and having sales that equal a huge percentage of the gaming market sales annually inherently would most clearly show the disparity in what we are talking about right?
Which is why I thought cod was being brought up in the court documents. If Sony is outright just saying "exclusivity is bad, how dare they", of course that's stupid and makes zero sense as an argument on top of being hypocritical as heck.
But in this specific situation my assumption was that's not what's being presented, regarding how MS are attempting to snap up many publishers and lock down dominance of what is normally a huge part of the third party market.
Sony for example out right attempting to buy square enix for example would also I think be a completely different scenario than making a deal for a handful of exclusive games, timed or otherwise.
Again if I misunderstood the argument being made by Sony that MS is responding to then that's on me. But that is the argument I would be making if i was Sony, if they were smart. Not about exclusivity as a concept which is a fact of the industry, but the scale and enormity of said attempted exclusivity being inherently anti competitive in practice.
*Edit*
Although I will say it's pretty funny how everyone ignores Nintendo in the console market depending on their convenience despite actually being the market leader. What an equally enviable and frustrating position to be in. Maybe switch 2 will change things up for them
Last edited:
This is in contrast to how Microsoft has operated in the past, though. Take Sunset Overdrive, for example. The game was published by Microsoft, funded by Microsoft, and is an Xbox exclusive. The IP, however, is owned by Insomniac (the developer), and therefor now owned by Sony since they the acquired Insomniac. Another example Ryse Son Of Rome. Published by Microsoft, funded by Microsoft, and an Xbox exclusive, but the IP is owned by Crytech, the developer. I don't think Sony has published an exclusive that they haven't owned the IP since the PS1 when they did it with Spyro and Crash, and I believe they felt burned when their contracts expired and Vivendi took those IPs multiplatform. There may have been a small indie game that fits those criteria, but nothing on the scale of Ryse of Sunset.
Inuhanyou
Veteran
Nioh games are published and partially funded(fully funded?) by Sony but Tecmo Koei owns the IP itself. I should know. 6k hours baybee
Same was true for deracine, iron man vr, and shadow of the beast iirc
Last edited:
Nioh is published by Koei Tecmo in Japan, but Sony worldwide. So you are right on Sony not owning it I think, but Sony isn't the exclusive publisher in all regions. I actually totally forgot about the Marvel games, as they clearly don't own Spider-Man or Iron Man. Deracine I'm fairly certain is owned by Sony, as they have the trademark. Shadow of the Beast, though, was a Psygnosis IP since the old Amiga release in 1989. Sony owns all of the Psygnosis IP; they purchased them in 1993.Nioh games are published and partially funded(fully funded?) by Sony but Tecmo Koei owns the IP itself. I should know. 6k hours baybee
Same was true for deracine, iron man vr, and shadow of the beast iirc
It is part of why Microsoft decides to buy up publishers and developers when they can. 2nd party deals have burned Microsoft. The last one that worked, I think, was Gears. Epic was the perfect partner at the perfect time, but as for the rest, Microsoft has not been doing that great with them. It also takes a long time to startup studios from scratch to make "AAAA" content. Even longer than past generations. With Bethesda and Activision, at least Microsoft has a chance to right the first-party ship. There is little downside for them, exclusive or not. Well, outside of regulatory bodies, that is.
Crash Bandicoot and Spyro the Dragon were published by Sony but not owned by Sony and there should be more.
FF7 was published by Sony in all regions minus Japan. Same for all Namco games.
There is a possibility that Rachet and Clank werent owned by Sony either originally but I m not Sure.
Microsoft bought and owned Gears of War and Halo. I think Project Gotham Racing might have moved under MS ownership too. edit: Scratch that its owned by Activision
edit 2: here are all games published by Sony https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony_Interactive_Entertainment_video_games
Last edited:
I will just say that it's clear that Microsoft purchased Gears and Halo outright. While stuff like Final Fantasy: Remake it was not clear and some of us have felt that Microsoft silence on that has been just stringing us along. They should have found some way to admit it 2 years ago.
Gears was owned by Epic with an Xbox exclusive deal and publishing by Microsoft until Microsoft purchased the IP from Epic in a separate deal. Halo was acquired when Microsoft purchased Bungie, but that was more than a year before Halo or the Xbox launched, so it was a first party game through and through at release. PGR is owned by.... Activision. Microsoft doesn't own it, yet. Activision purchased Bizarre Creations in 2007 and maybe released 1 PGR game with the Activision branding on it. I know the Zune PGR game came out a few years after the acquisition but I don't remember if it was still published by Microsoft or not, and it was the last in the series.
Inuhanyou
Veteran
To be fair, it's the same for Sony and why they want to own the IP in the first place for games they are involved with.
They don't have the money to outright buy pubs like that, but properties they can make sure are locked to their ecosystem as opposed to being free to just leave is part and parcel when they realized in the 7th gen that third party studios were not going to stick around as exclusives for them forever when MS started getting previously exclusive PlayStation things like tekken, FF and MGS as the market changed and of course PC as well.
I don't think publisher eating is a justified or valid response to that in any case since there are only a small handful of those to begin with at this point.
Personally I would have preferred if platform owners stayed with buying small talented studios and gave them all the tools to open up fully their creativity or if they had an idea of a game and handed over and funded it to third parties.
Look at what Guerilla was producing before they were acquired. Once they went with Sony they pulled Killzone 2 and now they are leading technologically Sony's studios and creating projects that no one would have been expecting during the PS2 era. Their games were glitchy and badly running.
That studio probably wouldnt have existed today if it wasnt for Sony making them part of the family.
Ninja Theory was also struggling and now have the tools to show the talent fully. These guys might have been bankrupt if they werent fortunate with some deals. Now with MS they will rock.
I think regarding Insomniac it was part of their culture to have independence with their IPs. I m not sure if Sony trully owned Rachet before they were purchased. But I think they didnt
Their most profitable business was releasing on PS2 which had a huge install base and having Sony promote the game and publishing it.
They were already acting almost like a first party studio even though they released on other platforms. Their other projects didnt go as well. Sunset Overdrive was awesome but I think it underperformed in the market and had no intention of reviving and neither was MS.
MS is also getting a lot of third party exclusives and I cant play High on Life on my PS5 although I want to. Szme for Scorn. Am I complaining? No
But buying Zenimax and ABK is bullshit in my list
Look at what Guerilla was producing before they were acquired. Once they went with Sony they pulled Killzone 2 and now they are leading technologically Sony's studios and creating projects that no one would have been expecting during the PS2 era. Their games were glitchy and badly running.
That studio probably wouldnt have existed today if it wasnt for Sony making them part of the family.
Ninja Theory was also struggling and now have the tools to show the talent fully. These guys might have been bankrupt if they werent fortunate with some deals. Now with MS they will rock.
I think regarding Insomniac it was part of their culture to have independence with their IPs. I m not sure if Sony trully owned Rachet before they were purchased. But I think they didnt
Their most profitable business was releasing on PS2 which had a huge install base and having Sony promote the game and publishing it.
They were already acting almost like a first party studio even though they released on other platforms. Their other projects didnt go as well. Sunset Overdrive was awesome but I think it underperformed in the market and had no intention of reviving and neither was MS.
MS is also getting a lot of third party exclusives and I cant play High on Life on my PS5 although I want to. Szme for Scorn. Am I complaining? No
But buying Zenimax and ABK is bullshit in my list
Sony owned it. Here's a snip from an article about how Sunset Overdrive was made an Xbox exclusive. Microsoft let them keep the IP.
iceberg187
Regular
Activision rep is talking spicy
All 4 PGR games were published by Microsoft and they held the IP. No other mainline PGR games were made after Bizarre Creations were purchased by Activision. The mobile version was developed and published by Glu Mobile in partnership with MS.
Link
Last edited:
Metal_Spirit
Regular
I Disagree... Since it´s an IP owned by Sony, I see it just as outsorced work.Yes Sony has the trade mark
BLOODBORNE Trademark of SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC - Registration Number 4791550 - Serial Number 86262151 :: Justia Trademarks
Computer game software; Downloadable computer game software via a global computer network and wireless devices; Video game software
But does it matter ? Its a game made by a third party developer paid for by sony to never come out on the xbox.
Owning the IP makes all the diference! If the IP was from From, then Sony would be paying for it not to come out on Xbox.
Similar threads
