The end.
True. Timed exclusive for the lions share of Bethesda's output for a generation, which is what I meant to be saying but definitely didn't. Regardless, everyone can see the cause and effect nature of Sony trying to deny Xbox day and date Bethesda games, and Microsoft's response in purchasing Zenimax. This whole generation has been an arms race, more so than usual.Thats not accurate though. Sony was likely negotiating a timed exclusive deal with Bethesda for Starfield, just like they did with Deathloop and Ghostwire: Tokyo, both of those games appeared on Xbox a year later. That is not for a generation like you are trying to portray.
I hope they got a good deal. They worked hard for it.
If anyone was still a fence sitter, hedging their bets, this should let you know that this is over.
They should never be forgiven for buying Psygnosis and dooming the CD32.
If anyone was still a fence sitter, hedging their bets, this should let you know that this is over.
Oh no, here we go again another TEH EV1L S0NY!!! story.
They worked hard for it? Who is "they" in this context, and doing what work?I hope they got a good deal. They worked hard for it.
Yet he number of AAA games from parties other than Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony, has far exceeded their output.
Thats too much for me to spend time replying to, but there is a lot of contradiction between some of your posts, especially when you talk on one hand about scaling very well and on the other pointing the need to merge to be able to sustain the business To point you what I mean with scaling, the first Civic produced is a crappy car compared to a modern Civic. A modern Civic is better in every way. It is a night and day difference. It is a futuristic super car by 80s standards. But production has scaled enough to produce it an affordable price while being 100 times better and be profitable as a business. Cost of games on the other hand, do not enjoy the this, cost of game production increased astronomically and require even more sales per product just to break even.I’m going to disagree with that given the blowback from gamer responses to AAA titles not looking “next Gen enough” and RT failing to meet expectations, and people wanting to see games take full advantage of NVMe speeds. If RT and NVMe combined can’t theoretically make a Ferrari, I really don’t know what else could.
the industry is scaling quite well actually, game studios contract and subcontract more than ever. Developer budgets are larger than ever and we build worlds larger and more detailed than ever before.
Business men understand the industry a lot better than you or I. I’m not sure what you mean by this. There is an upper limit on units sold given the total addressable market. If the market was 5x larger than it is today, there would be 5x more profits. 5x more development studios. Etc. everything would grow on the content production side to coincide with a larger TAM quite simply, if there is money to be made the gaps will be filled until it’s saturated. We saw this with mobile platforms where once these apps became a new market it became a gold rush to produce new apps.
Gaming has been growing, but largely in the mobile sector. AAA gaming is still confined to the same platforms which is why you aren’t seeing more AAA being green lighted.
Acquisitions are going to occur as the market grows. And in turn more developers studios will grow to meet the market growth. And in turn more independent publishers will grow to fund those studios. And then these publishers will be acquired to produce more mega publishers whihc over time will likely be consumed by platform holders.
As far as I can see, this is all par for the course. If cloud gaming does take off without needing hardware, there could be a massive growth in AAA gaming. I still don’t understand or see your argument.
If Sony were using exclusivity to block content, that's a negative, and I think most here agree on that actually. Although presumably it was just a timed exclusive deal? I don't think Sony is in a financial position to drop a few hundred million on an exclusive.
Which publisher did they buy? AFAIK they only bought one studio, Psygnosis. And MS bought Rare, and no-one complained. No-one complains about a company entering the market securing some starter-deals.
Psygnosis Limited (known as SCE Studio Liverpool or simply Studio Liverpool from 1999)[1] was a British video game developer and publisher headquartered at Wavertree Technology Park in Liverpool. Founded in 1984[1][2] by Ian Hetherington, Jonathan Ellis, and David Lawson, the company initially became known for well-received games on the Atari ST and Amiga.
You're just making stuff up now. Sony operates it internal divisions as separate corporations. Gaming couldn't get hardware cheap as the hardware group would not want to reduce its own profitability. Howard Stringer wanted to change that to vertical integration and corporate synergy. AFAIK that never happened and Sony gaming has to negotiate with Sony electronics to buy components same as any other supplier. If there is any advantage, it's only preferential availability and not in terms of cost.
Once when I was talking with Ken Kutaragi [the creator of the PlayStation], he said “Hideki-chan”—he refers to me using the “chan” diminutive—“Hideki-chan, there’s no way you can beat me. Where are you buying your processors? From Hitachi. From Yamaha. What about your CD-ROM drives? You’re buying everything. By buying from Hitachi, Hitachi is profiting. You can’t make anything yourselves. We can make everything ourselves, including custom parts. We have our own factories.” Near Nakashinden, they had a huge factory where they made audio equipment that they were using for the PlayStation. Their cost structure was completely different.
“‘That’s the way it is, Hideki-chan,’ Kutaragi told me. ‘So quit the hardware business. Why not just do software? We’ll give you favorable treatment.’ He wanted us to go third party. We had been going for so long in the hardware business, for better or worse, and to go third party now? We had been half-heartedly successful in America once, and this made it impossible to quit the hardware business.
Sony used their profits from other divisions to enter into the market and bought a publisher to do so and never stopped buying up developers and studios. I am not sure how buying 2 publishers vs 1 publisher is buying up publishers en masse. Sony has bought 14 studios in the last 4 years. I'd say that is buying up studios en masseAnd even then, Sony was a hardware company at that point! As a CE manufacturer, they obviously could lean on their strengths. What has that got to do with buying in publishers or studios en masse? What Sony hypocrisy is on show towards MS? I don't see anyone complaining about MS leveraging DirectX, or having an unfair advantage for network developments.
And let's not forget Sony entered the market in partnership with Nintendo and were then betrayed. PlayStation only released as a means to exact revenge! Also that a partnership with SEGA for the next-gen platform was declined by both parties.
The issue I have is that if Sony does something and MS does the same exact thing there are different reactions on this forum. For example , Sony goes out on a buying spree and no one is disagreeable but when Ms does it , its fire and brim stone.It has nothing to do with 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. Sony has done plenty of wrong too and come under criticism as a result. Each good and bad point any corporation has done can be discussed on its merits and comparative place in the market. Or are you saying because Sony required Memory Stick on PSP (MemStick was heavily criticised), MS should be allowed to do whatever it wants without people discussing and comparing the negatives of MS's actions??
Twisting and taking history out of context as always.And yet that is what sony consistently does. And no one says anything about it. No outrage about death loop being exclusive or FF16 or foresaken or what have you. No out rage when Sony pays to lock up exclusive content so even if you pay the same price for the game you are getting an unfinished product on the other platforms like the new harry potter.
Psysgnosis was a publisher.
Psygnosis - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I'm making stuff up ?
Hideki Sato Discussing the Sega Saturn - Mega Drive Shock
Recently, an interview was conducted with Hideki Sato on his life and his time at Sega as part of an oral history research project documenting the game industry in Japan. The interview transcription is over 150 pages long. If you don’t know, Sato was in charge of Sega’s consumer R&D department...mdshock.com
You can go see the quotes a few pages back about Sony using their music division to secure Final Fantasy and paying for third party exclusives to deal a blow to sega and nintendo they would never recover from. I posted that days ago
Sony used their profits from other divisions to enter into the market and bought a publisher to do so and never stopped buying up developers and studios. I am not sure how buying 2 publishers vs 1 publisher is buying up publishers en masse. Sony has bought 14 studios in the last 4 years. I'd say that is buying up studios en masse
Again its moving deck chairs on the titanic trying to wave away what sony has always done.
If its okay for Sony to use their influence in other markets to make headway in the video game industry then it would be the same for Microsoft. If you are okay with sony doing it and are upset when MS does it then you are a hypocrite.
Lol betrayed. Sony wanted to take over the hardware side of Nintendo and gradually turn Nintendo into a 3rd party like they wanted and succeed in doing with Sega. Unlike hatichi and nec that were willing to sell cd drives and other components Sony wanted to develop and make the whole unit.
The issue I have is that if Sony does something and MS does the same exact thing there are different reactions on this forum. For example , Sony goes out on a buying spree and no one is disagreeable but when Ms does it , its fire and brim stone.
I suspect that it will be the same contract they've been walking around with for months.Wonder if its the same contract as the other companies got or if it has marketing rights. Now at the end of all things Sony would be in a weaker position to negotiate because if the deal closes and they have no contract that is it for cod on playstation
I'm not sure , apparently Bobby had offered Jim the marketing rights as well to get the deal done. It was rejected then so I am not sure if Sony ended up with the same contract Nintendo did. I would imagine with the FTC loosing the block and the CMA coming back to the table Sony was at a much weaker negotiating position than priorI suspect that it will be the same contract they've been walking around with for months.
Personally I think MS should say that was then, this is now and offer revised one.
Maybe something minor like, not allowed to mention COD on PS until after 60 days after release.
I never heard anything about Sony retaining marketing rights. That just sounds crazy to me, even to just get them to sign.I'm not sure , apparently Bobby had offered Jim the marketing rights as well to get the deal done. It was rejected then so I am not sure if Sony ended up with the same contract Nintendo did. I would imagine with the FTC loosing the block and the CMA coming back to the table Sony was at a much weaker negotiating position than prior
I'm fine with any coverage that treats MS and Sony both as the profit-driven corporations they actually are and not taking kid gloves to either.
Sony pressed their advantage as the 2:1 market leader to buy exclusivity on content, as was revealed in the merger-trials, to keep a hammer lock on things like Final Fantasy, COD, and new Bethesda content, to the benefit of their PS brand and shareholders.
MS responded by buying Bethesda and ABK to end Sony's dominance, to the future benefit of the Xbox brand and MS shareholders.
It's all fair game.
Hopefully these moves will get the brands to parity where gamers benefit from strong competition. I hope we never return to the arrogance of PS3 and Xbox One.
That's a straw man argument. It's not that he's saying Sony is evil it's that he's rightly pointing out that they are no more virtuous than MS.