Can a Arcadiumbreh explain to me like a Joey of why the Microsoft/Activision deal is controversial?

[winb83]

I thought this was going to be revolutionary, but so far I seen the FTC getting into the ordeal, Sony trying to intervene, and content creators not too keen of the idea. My question as a gaming marsupial who is lost in the fences of human news, why are we pissed about this merger?

Because a big tech company is leveraging their financial advantage in the home console space in a way no other company can match. Activision wasn't a bidding war there was really only one buyer and that means Microsoft gets to own the entire publisher and do as they see fit with their IPs.

This upsets the status quo. Lots of people like the market just the way it is now.

 

[SymbolicOne09]

Naw, sony doesn’t have any stake in any fighting games and no exclusivity, the only thing they got is EVO which isn’t really unique at this point

Sf5 was exclusive... dnf duel, granblue, the last version of blazblue kof 14 were not on xbox... im sure im forgetting more

 

[Gizmo_Duck]

Sf5 was exclusive... dnf duel, granblue, the last version of blazblue kof 14 were not on xbox

And now they are not, I’d even question the stronghold on the JRPG market, they really only have a couple final fantasy games. Nintendo on average probably gets more JRPG’s these days

 

[5n0man]

Because company mergers have destroyed the economy and tech mergers in general have had mostly negative results.

 

[datnigDASTARDLY]

Because a big tech company is leveraging their financial advantage in the home console space in a way no other company can match. Activision wasn't a bidding war there was really only one buyer and that means Microsoft gets to own the entire publisher and do as they see fit with their IPs.

This upsets the status quo. Lots of people like the market just the way it is now.

Owning ActiBlizz basically fastracks any conceivable plan MS had in disrupting the games business...which they've been doing since the beginning.

You couldn't have thought of a much cleaner scenario if your Satya and nem. It's actually pretty damn ridiculous

 

[Legal]

Microsoft owning Call of Duty will put a stranglehold on the FPS market so those who aren't fans of Microsoft are greatly opposing it.

(Even tho sony has a stranglehold on other genres like the fighting game and JRPG market)

I'd like to see XBox get more JRPGs, but honestly, having those two markets supposedly cornered isn't really the flex it would've been back in the 90s. The big names still sell, but outside of that, the rest of those genres really aren't moving major units right now.

 

[winb83]

Microsoft owning Call of Duty will put a stranglehold on the FPS market so those who aren't fans of Microsoft are greatly opposing it.

(Even tho sony has a stranglehold on other genres like the fighting game and JRPG market)

Sony's business model is to more or less focus on a specific subset of games typically cinematic story based games and let third party developers do the heavy lifting elsewhere.

You say they have a stranglehold on other gernes but that's due to third party partners. They don't have to make a JRPG because Square will make Final Fantasy and do a contract with them and Atlus will make Persona and have it be a PS exclusive for years.

Sony doesn't have the capital to go out and outright buy these publishers that put out those games. They do have a combination of capital and justifiable market share to accomplish a similar effect by going to company X with a market share of 70ish percent and effectively buying out their competitors rights to access of those games.

Microsoft has the capital to just but the companies that make these games. They don't have the market share to pull exclusive deals like that in any way that makes sense. For them to buy out Sony's market share they'd have to spend excessive amounts to convince a company to ignore 70% of the market and only cater to 30%. It just makes more sense to buy that company outright.

It's basically two companies going about accomplishing mostly the same thing using means the other can't. One uses capital and market share to freeze the other out and the other uses capital to outright buy companies.

 

[winb83]

Owning ActiBlizz basically fastracks any conceivable plan MS had in disrupting the games business...which they've been doing since the beginning.

You couldn't have thought of a much cleaner scenario if your Satya and nem. It's actually pretty damn ridiculous

If they put Call of Duty on Game Pass it changes the perception of what Game Pass is. If Diablo, Overwatch and the like all come to that service it presents a value proposition to consumers that right now Game Pass doesn't have.

Why spend $70 every year on Call of Duty when for $120 a year you can have perpetual access to it? You come up with a game or so you buy in a year and the economics of buying Call of Duty annually doesn't make sense.

If I'm a PlayStation gamer and every year I buy MLB the Show and Call of Duty just getting Game Pass saves me $20 a year and whatever other games I get on top of that are gravy.

That's why I don't think there's a fear of losing Call of Duty on PlayStation. It will exist as a gateway to Game Pass.

 

[Gizmo_Duck]

If they put Call of Duty on Game Pass it changes the perception of what Game Pass is. If Diablo, Overwatch and the like all come to that service it presents a value proposition to consumers that right now Game Pass doesn't have.

Why spend $70 every year on Call of Duty when for $120 a year you can have perpetual access to it? You come up with a game or so you buy in a year and the economics of buying Call of Duty annually doesn't make sense.

If I'm a PlayStation gamer and every year I buy MLB the Show and Call of Duty just getting Game Pass saves me $20 a year and whatever other games I get on top of that are gravy.

That's why I don't think there's a fear of losing Call of Duty on PlayStation. It will exist as a gateway to Game Pass.

Thats assuming that gamepass will continue to stay at its current price (or even just double) while trading 100’s of millions if not billions worth of game sales a year to the service.

Most peopel that play those games don’t play anything else

 

[SymbolicOne09]

Thats assuming that gamepass will continue to stay at its current price (or even just double) while trading 100’s of millions if not billions worth of game sales a year to the service.

Most peopel that play those games don’t play anything else

If they double the amount of subscriptions because of cod it will be interesting. Big if but regardless its going to put pressure on psn plus which is good for me

 

[datnigDASTARDLY]

Thats assuming that gamepass will continue to stay at its current price (or even just double) while trading 100’s of millions if not billions worth of game sales a year to the service.

Most peopel that play those games don’t play anything else

Why wouldn't it .
That's going by an old model which MS is trying to change in their favor. These "10 year deals!! omg " don't come for free, you're going to pay to have CoD, WoW, Halo or whatever the fukk MS feels like having on each and every platform possible, including the one's that can't run the game worth a damn via cloud.

The only folk that would have a problem with that are oldschool gamers, console war chirrun, and forum dwellers that have nothing else better to do than complain about it . Gamepass would absolutely be the netflix of gaming at that point, good or bad. I'm going with good after spending $70 on the last CoD. And there'll be another one after that...and another one...and another one...

 

[Diondon]

You can play GamePass on a toaster, breh
MOAR oPtiONS!!!!

 

[Dallas' 4 Eva]

As a consumer there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't want this deal to pass. Microsoft taking gaming seriously will only benefit gaming as a whole, because even if you are a Sony fan this will force them to step their game up. You are going to win from this deal either way as a gamer regardless if you are a fan of Playstation or Xbox.

I could care less how much revenue they bring in or sales they have, I AM A GAMER. Being able to pay a subscription fee to play Call of Duty, WoW, and Diablo on top of Starfield, Elder Scrolls, Redfall, Forza, Halo Multiplayer(the single player is ass, but the core gameplay is still pretty good), Grounded, and Sea of Thieves is a steal... instead of paying $70 for each and every one of them on top of whatever MTX's will also come with them... because I'm sure games like Starfield, Redfall, and Forza will be monetized with Microtransactions and in Starfield and Redfall's cases DLC Expansions before too long.

The fact y'all are in here arguing about this the way y'all are is fukking ridiculous and makes me think a lot of y'all need to log off and get laid. Unless you own some serious stock in one of these companies(I actually have stock in both of them, not a huge amount but enough), you should not give a shyt one way or the other as long as you can get access to great games.

 

[gurf]

As a consumer there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't want this deal to pass. Microsoft taking gaming seriously will only benefit gaming as a whole, because even if you are a Sony fan this will force them to step their game up. You are going to win from this deal either way as a gamer regardless if you are a fan of Playstation or Xbox.

I could care less how much revenue they bring in or sales they have, I AM A GAMER. Being able to pay a subscription fee to play Call of Duty, WoW, and Diablo on top of Starfield, Elder Scrolls, Redfall, Forza, Halo Multiplayer(the single player is ass, but the core gameplay is still pretty good), Grounded, and Sea of Thieves is a steal... instead of paying $70 for each and every one of them on top of whatever MTX's will also come with them... because I'm sure games like Starfield, Redfall, and Forza will be monetized with Microtransactions and in Starfield and Redfall's cases DLC Expansions before too long.

The fact y'all are in here arguing about this the way y'all are is fukking ridiculous and makes me think a lot of y'all need to log off and get laid. Unless you own some serious stock in one of these companies(I actually have stock in both of them, not a huge amount but enough), you should not give a shyt one way or the other as long as you can get access to great games.

I as a gamer want choices. That subscription fee will go up. How high, who knows. If there's a point were I no longer want to pay for it, my access to those games is gone.

Large Scale Consolidation rarely benefits the consumer.

 

[Dallas' 4 Eva]

I as a gamer want choices. That subscription fee will go up. How high, who knows. If there's a point were I no longer want to pay for it, my access to those games is gone.

Large Scale Consolidation rarely benefits the consumer.

Bruh the price of EVERYTHING has gone up. Hell Arizona tea which was $.99 forever is $1.49 now. It's an inevitable part of life bruh.

Sony upped the price of games from $60 to $70... you know why? They control 70% of the market and knows you're gonna have to pay for them or guess what... NO GAMES. If anything this should make Sony now have to put out absolute banger after banger to justify that $70 price tag, instead of a remake of a game that has TWO fukkING REMASTERS, or some mid ass shyt like Horizon.