The UK’s CMA has expressed concern that Microsoft‘s Activision merger could “significantly weaken” PlayStation (Updated with lawyer breakdown)

[The Mad Titan]

Sony essentially came in the game double down on cd's making the status quo for all media and made gaming a bit more of a adult hobby.

Being on cd's saved a lot of time and money for everyone involved ( ahem much like gamepass)

Xbox now is innovating with the cloud, technically since the whole always online fiasco they have been really pushing the envelope.

If you go back even 4 years this very forum was heavily against or couldn't see gaming going mostly digital.

"What about my cousin in the navy with no internet"


So innovation isn't the problem and much like @winb83 mentioned with shifting focus and goals. I don't think MS is looking to compete pound for pound with a bunch of super cinematic narrative triple a movie block buster games from Sony. A few here and there but mostly they are looking for people to want to play with there friends in MP games online via gamepass.

Where as Nintendo is more the younger and local friends and family Xbox is going the more young adults and adults friends and family.

 

[The Mad Titan]

Imagine if Sony did bite the bullet and did day and date psnow and offered more indie and double A titles on PSNOW.

That would be amazing and good for all gamers

 

[5n0man]

The 360 finished in last place of it's generation. You're trying to portray that as Microsoft fukking up but the truth is The PS3 caught up to and surpassed the 360 because of the strength of the PlayStation brand globally. The PS3 never caught up to the 360 in the US. It didn't matter because Microsoft had to outsell Sony in places like the US at an unsustainable pace to compensate for places they couldn't move jack shyt in and Sony controlled. The PS3 passing the 360 was inevitable and not a Microsoft fukk up. It would have happened a lot sooner had Sony not fukked up.

Breh, Microsoft was outselling the ps3 in both the states and EU, the two biggest markets in the gaming industry. And even at the end of the generation the ps3 was only slightly ahead, and that's with Sony combining the sales of the ps2 with the ps3, the ps2 still being a huge seller in poorer countries around the world. You literally don't know what the fukk you're talking about.

You preach about quality and innovation. Nintendo makes quality software. Nintendo innovates. Why then could they not command enough traction to retake the crown from Sony? Why did they have to shift to a blue ocean strategy and chase after non-traditional gamers before they found success again? Why couldn't they through sheer effort and quality software beat Sony at their own game?

Nintendo DID take the crown from Sony. Their games sell much better than Sony, and both the wii and switch outsold the ps4 and ps3, but you won't acknowledge that because you're playing schematic games trying to pretend like Nintendo isn't in the same industry as sony.

Even having the most popular brand in home console gaming Sony couldn't leverage that into dethroning Nintendo in portables. The same company that did dethroned Nintendo in the home console market folded up in the handheld space after two attempts and decided to leave it to Nintendo alone entirely. I mean you say all you have to do is make quality software and innovate and people will flock to you over the market leader in time making you competitive.

Nintendo made better portables and software than Sony, that's why Sony couldn't dethrone Nintendo in the mobile market. Again, innovation won over Sony's perceived dominance of the gaming industry. Nintendo made quality software and came out on top, so this comment literally proves my point.

The 360 finished in last place of it's generation. You're trying to portray that as Microsoft fukking up but the truth is The PS3 caught up to and surpassed the 360 because of the strength of the PlayStation brand globally. The PS3 never caught up to the 360 in the US. It didn't matter because Microsoft had to outsell Sony in places like the US at an unsustainable pace to compensate for places they couldn't move jack shyt in and Sony controlled. The PS3 passing the 360 was inevitable and not a Microsoft fukk up. It would have happened a lot sooner had Sony not fukked up.

I'm not portraying shyt, everyone knows that the 360 started falling off when microsoft stopped catering to hard-core gamers, they barely had any exclusive games that weren't made specifically for the kinect for the last few years of that generation, and even then Sony BARELY outsold them. 360 sold more in the U.S. and they were neck and neck in EU. Games also sold better on the 360 up till the end of that generation.

You preach about quality and innovation. Nintendo makes quality software. Nintendo innovates. Why then could they not command enough traction to retake the crown from Sony? Why did they have to shift to a blue ocean strategy and chase after non-traditional gamers before they found success again? Why couldn't they through sheer effort and quality software beat Sony at their own game?

Nintendo did retake the crown from Sony, you just won't acknowledge it because you're retarded and think they're in completely different markets. Nintendo sells more consoles and software than Sony, the shyt isn't even arguable.

Rising to the status of market leader in the home console space is almost an insurmountable advantage if the company that does it properly executes. Thinking you're going to step into the home console space and beat PlayStation at their own game through pure effort is delusional. The only way you're doing that is if Sony makes some huge mistake or pisses off the entire industry and they turn their back on Sony like was done with Nintendo after the SNES. It's either you change your business strategy (what Microsoft is doing with Game Pass now) or you change your target audience (what Nintendo did after the GameCube) or you exit the space entirely (what all the other console makers that failed did).

Microsoft nearly did it before, and Nintendo is currently doing it now, you're full of shyt.

You still can't even admit the short term success the Xbox 360 had was more due to mistakes Sony made than Microsoft doing things right because even at their best execution Sony still passed them.

Funny you say this, because you act like Sony was the reason Sega exited the console market when the same argument can be made for them fukking up and Sony's success.

I'll say it for a 3rd time, 360 outsold the ps3 for half the generation and only fell off when microsoft started fukking up, and even then the ps3 barely squeezed out a win.



I've posted plenty of information about what a monopoly is, how they're determined, and how microsoft is trying to create one, funny how you won't acknowledge that shyt because you know you're full of shyt so you abandoned that line of argument.

Every post of yours makes you look even more retarded than the last. Your entire argument is that Microsoft should be allowed to monopolize the industry because you think Sony is successful and microsoft is incompetent in the gaming industry.

 

[5n0man]

The bottom line is the only people who really look at Microsoft + Activision and think that makes Microsoft a defacto monopoly are people who don't actively follow gaming and PlayStation fanboys who don't want it to happen cause they feel it threatens their brand of choice's dominance.

When did I say microsoft's activision acquisition would make them a monopoly? I said they were attempting to create a monopoly. I've already spoken about how I don't think they'll just stop after the activision deal, they've already said they have more acquisitions planned in the future, and they've only spent half the money they set aside for acquisitions.

At what point do YOU think the shyt is a problem? Do they have to also buy EA and take 2 before you realize what the fukk is going on?

 

[The Mad Titan]

Breh, Microsoft was outselling the ps3 in both the states and EU, the two biggest markets in the gaming industry. And even at the end of the generation the ps3 was only slightly ahead, and that's with Sony combining the sales of the ps2 with the ps3, the ps2 still being a huge seller in poorer countries around the world. You literally don't know what the fukk you're talking about.

Nintendo DID take the crown from Sony. Their games sell much better than Sony, and both the wii and switch outsold the ps4 and ps3, but you won't acknowledge that because you're playing schematic games trying to pretend like Nintendo isn't in the same industry as sony.

Nintendo made better portables and software than Sony, that's why Sony couldn't dethrone Nintendo in the mobile market. Again, innovation won over Sony's perceived dominance of the gaming industry. Nintendo made quality software and came out on top, so this comment literally proves my point.

I'm not portraying shyt, everyone knows that the 360 started falling off when microsoft stopped catering to hard-core gamers, they barely had any exclusive games that weren't made specifically for the kinect for the last few years of that generation, and even then Sony BARELY outsold them. 360 sold more in the U.S. and they were neck and neck in EU. Games also sold better on the 360 up till the end of that generation.

Nintendo did retake the crown from Sony, you just won't acknowledge it because you're retarded and think they're in completely different markets. Nintendo sells more consoles and software than Sony, the shyt isn't even arguable.

Microsoft nearly did it before, and Nintendo is currently doing it now, you're full of shyt.

Funny you say this, because you act like Sony was the reason Sega exited the console market when the same argument can be made for them fukking up and Sony's success.

I'll say it for a 3rd time, 360 outsold the ps3 for half the generation and only fell off when microsoft started fukking up, and even then the ps3 barely squeezed out a win.



I've posted plenty of information about what a monopoly is, how they're determined, and how microsoft is trying to create one, funny how you won't acknowledge that shyt because you know you're full of shyt so you abandoned that line of argument.

Every post of yours makes you look even more retarded than the last. Your entire argument is that Microsoft should be allowed to monopolize the industry because you think Sony is successful and microsoft is incompetent in the gaming industry.

Question do you think Sony has a monopoly on the industry currently?

How are you determining who does and doesn't?

I don't understand your reasoning, even if MS bought up EA and take two, if Sony makes good games and is as innovative as you claim it shouldn't be a problem right? I mean Nintendo manages just fine with no gta's, red deads and no battle fields or call of duty.

You really aren't making sense if MS bought square or take two it would still be a huge undertaking to gain market share.

Would you say Sony is dominating the anime space? With crunchy roll and Funimation?

Would you be against Disney buying other anime companys to stay competitive with there streaming service? Or would that be a monopoly on Disneys end too?

 

[Ruck]

 

[The Mad Titan]

To put it simple in the gaming space Sony has a monopoly overall and worldwide.

There is really no denying that.


When you can tell the people producing product that if the release it on any other brand it's going to be a problem and they listen... You have a monopoly

 

[5n0man]

Question do you think Sony has a monopoly on the industry currently?

No I don't, I've already posted the information on what a monopoly is, sony being successful due to innovation and business acumen does not make them a monopoly. Leveraging money and resources gained in another industry to dominate competition in a separate industry makes a monopoly.

How are you determining who does and doesn't?

I'm determining it with the legal definition. If yall knew how to read yall would understand what I'm talking about.

I'm willing to bet none of yall actually read any of the links I've posted in this thread.

"monopolization includes three elements: (1) specific intent to monopolize, (2) predatory or anti-competitive conduct to monopolize that market, and (3) a high probability that the firm will succeed in achieving monopoly power. 2' In contrast, the elements of a Section 2 monopolistic leveraging claim include: "(1) monopoly power in one market, (2) the use of that power... to gain a competitive advantage in another distinct market, and (3) injury caused by the challenged conduct." 3 The controversial difference between monopolization, attempted monopolization, and monopolistic leveraging"


The CMA documents have already outlined exactly how microsoft could become a monopoly, go read that to understand the context.

 

[5n0man]

Would you say Sony is dominating the anime space? With crunchy roll and Funimation?

Sony does not use their influence in film and anime to influence the gaming market, crunchyroll is available on all platforms for the same price, they aren’t leveraging it to control the gaming industry. You can stream any Sony pictures movie available on your Xbox. Matter fact, you can get a crunchyroll 75 day trial with your gamepass subscription.

You can literally stream uncharted right now on your series X. Sony pictures is not exclusive to playstation.

 

[iceberg_is_on_fire]

To put it simple in the gaming space Sony has a monopoly overall and worldwide.

There is really no denying that.


When you can tell the people producing product that if the release it on any other brand it's going to be a problem and they listen... You have a monopoly

Monopoly is probably too strong of a term. I'd say they hold a dominant position though. Think about it, they have a contract with Epic to give them Fortnite DLC sales if enough were not made on a PS console for allowing cross-play.

Epic is paying cross-play compensation to Sony for Fortnite

In testimony by Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney, it was revealed that Epic Games has to pay additional revenue to the electronics giant for allowing cross-play.

mspoweruser.com

This is an actual email between Sony and Epic.

In regards to this CMA stuff, when I saw that, I know the deal was 100% a go. Only one company has complained about this deal. Of all of the watchdog groups, this was the most likely to push for additional scrutiny. They've earned that reputation. However, the foundation of the argument is what? We need to protect the market leader? That is the antithesis of their entire purpose. The CMA just needed to roll with something to get it to phase two. That will be easily picked apart if it hasn't been already. Brehs, this was in the briefing.

Could result in Microsoft harming consumers by impairing Sony’s ability to compete

With all that Microsoft has said already about Sony locking games out of the Xbox ecosystem, feature and technology parity, etc. It's in the bag, 100%.

 

[winb83]

Breh, Microsoft was outselling the ps3 in both the states and EU, the two biggest markets in the gaming industry. And even at the end of the generation the ps3 was only slightly ahead, and that's with Sony combining the sales of the ps2 with the ps3, the ps2 still being a huge seller in poorer countries around the world. You literally don't know what the fukk you're talking about.

Nintendo DID take the crown from Sony. Their games sell much better than Sony, and both the wii and switch outsold the ps4 and ps3, but you won't acknowledge that because you're playing schematic games trying to pretend like Nintendo isn't in the same industry as sony.

Nintendo made better portables and software than Sony, that's why Sony couldn't dethrone Nintendo in the mobile market. Again, innovation won over Sony's perceived dominance of the gaming industry. Nintendo made quality software and came out on top, so this comment literally proves my point.

I'm not portraying shyt, everyone knows that the 360 started falling off when microsoft stopped catering to hard-core gamers, they barely had any exclusive games that weren't made specifically for the kinect for the last few years of that generation, and even then Sony BARELY outsold them. 360 sold more in the U.S. and they were neck and neck in EU. Games also sold better on the 360 up till the end of that generation.

Nintendo did retake the crown from Sony, you just won't acknowledge it because you're retarded and think they're in completely different markets. Nintendo sells more consoles and software than Sony, the shyt isn't even arguable.

Microsoft nearly did it before, and Nintendo is currently doing it now, you're full of shyt.

Funny you say this, because you act like Sony was the reason Sega exited the console market when the same argument can be made for them fukking up and Sony's success.

I'll say it for a 3rd time, 360 outsold the ps3 for half the generation and only fell off when microsoft started fukking up, and even then the ps3 barely squeezed out a win.



I've posted plenty of information about what a monopoly is, how they're determined, and how microsoft is trying to create one, funny how you won't acknowledge that shyt because you know you're full of shyt so you abandoned that line of argument.

Every post of yours makes you look even more retarded than the last. Your entire argument is that Microsoft should be allowed to monopolize the industry because you think Sony is successful and microsoft is incompetent in the gaming industry.

The stuff you are saying caused SEGA and Microsoft the generations they lost is stuff inherent to trying to compete with a heavy market leader. That can't really be done straight up. If you don't give people a reason to leave the most popular brand they simply won't.

When SEGA competed with Nintendo came out first, had edgy marketing, had great games, and still lost by 20 million units to them they became obsessed with trying to achieve technological superiority to get an edge. So they continually tried and failed to work that angle until it ended their console business. SEGA never achieved majority market share in any generation.

When Nintendo tried to compete with the 64 and GameCube they also came to the conclusion they can't compete straight up with Sony in an arms race. They abandoned trying to make hardware on the same level or even close to their competitors and decided to be innovative and appeal to a wider audience of people who don't traditionally buy game consoles. Even still despite the fact they found success the Wii was the first system of that generation abandoned for a successor. Even now look at the sorts of games Nintendo makes and the sorts of games Sony makes and who they appeal to and they're chasing two different sets of consumers. Sony was making motion controls, smash clones and kart racers for a bit there but even that stopped. It's almost as if they have a non-aggression pact of avoiding the gernes that the other is successful in. They each abandoned the sector of the market they're most successful in to the other.

When Microsoft came out first and built a sizable lead playing the traditional console game on the Xbox 360 only to see Sony cut into them hard they also conceded the same point SEGA did but Microsoft went a different way. They tried to take aspects of what Nintendo did with the Wii and appeal to non-traditional gamers while still having a hardcore gamer console. They tried to make the Xbox One after that the central entertainment hub. That failed. Ultimately they landed on Game Pass.

The argument that you can put out a traditional console simply make great first party software and compete heavy with the market leader is a fallacy. From the mid 1980s to now that has never happened. Without a major screw up or a gimmick it won't ever happen. People are creatures of habit and they ain't leaving without a major reason.

 

[winb83]

To put it simple in the gaming space Sony has a monopoly overall and worldwide.

There is really no denying that.


When you can tell the people producing product that if the release it on any other brand it's going to be a problem and they listen... You have a monopoly

Bingo in the 18-30 something male demographic of what we consider the hardcore gaming audience Sony is a monopoly right now. I don't know why there's an obsession with pretending otherwise. It's reached a level where Sony doesn't even have to compete with anybody anymore. They can raise prices on games and hardware even as others in the console space don't. Even as Sony makes the most money in the space. Would be competitors come with new features and different ideas and Sony ignores them because it doesn't matter what those competitors do Sony can just do what they want and the market mostly accepts it.

Nintendo and Sony aren't really competitors anymore. Somebody that has interest in a Nintendo console will buy it regardless of owning a Sony console or not. Hell do a poll here and you'll probably see a done of known Sony fanboys and people who simply prefer PlayStation owning a Switch. Most people that own a PlayStation not really looking to buy an Xbox unless they're a major gaming enthusiast.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Sony walks in meeting with devs and says “We got a 3 to 1 lead over the other guy, we will give you $X to skip that console.



Microsoft walks in, dev tells them “we gone need $3X to fukk with you, the other guy has 3 times the customers”



Sony stans: This is fair, Sony is so innovative



Microsoft: “fukk it we will just buy your whole shyt and put the game where we want it at”

Sony stans: This is unfair, big bad Microsoft fukking up the industry…Monopoly….Monopoly….

 

[The Mad Titan]

 

[DaSk8D00D]

Reading that contract the technical parity thing isn’t as dramatic as that tweet is making it seem, but yeah paying for exclusive content while also preventing the same for any other platform is


“If this is about competition, let them compete then”