Xbox could have had a franchise? Xbox/Microsoft didn't own the IP. Bioware retained the IP to all of their games.
Jade Empire was a 2005 release. Bioware was bought by EA in 2007.
Bioware's next game, Mass Effect, was LITERALLY their last Xbox published, and simply non-EA published game. EA obviously didn't want to farm them out as a developer. EA also obviously didn't want to release games exclusive to a platform since Mass Effect 2 went... everywhere.
So no, there was literally zero "Xbox franchise" potential there.
Sony wants a game with regularly purchased microtransactions so they can generate consistent revenue with little-to-no extra work. THAT'S what they want. Not a game that features premium expansions that cost larger sums to develop (even if Astrobot would be cheaper than most due to lower fidelity assets), they want a money-printing machine like Fortnite because the ROI on their games is down due to mounting dev costs. Revenues are up, but profits are down and that represents, among other things, an opportunity cost. The margins on software literally cost them 10% of the value of the company (not 10% of PlayStation, either, but Sony as a whole). Astrobot is ONE sale. Expansions of substance will, again, be INDIVIDUAL SALES with their own budgets and not-insubstantial development time.
What does Astrobot do to solve the problem? Nothing. So no, Sony doesn't have the live service game it wants (maybe it would if Helldivers 2 were better monetized and larger in reach and scale, but it isn't). As such there's still a major issue at Sony, and really with "AAA" development as a whole.
Anyone not seeing a market crash on the horizon is probably kidding themselves. Here's hoping there's some kind of major breakthrough to help curb dev costs (though the most likely avenue for that is AI, and everyone's undies are in a bunch about that, so who even knows if the player base would accept that as a solution).
@happyhjoyjoy: thanks for sharing, please apply to GS. You should do videogame journalism
XD... HA!
Yeah, that isn't likely to work because I prefer to put forward what I believe is right, in addition to what can be supported by evidence. That doesn't lend well to the click-bait that video game journalism runs on.
"These Corporations Are Mediocre and Doing What They Can Within Their Own Means" doesn't make for a clicky headline.
"PlayStation DESTROYS Xbox!" "Xbox ROBS PlayStation of Games!" "Sony Steals Another Exclusive!" ...that's where the money is.
But hey, if GameSpot or IGN want to pay me to have thrilling articles, like "These Companies Are All a Bit S*** and All a Bit of Okay, Here's Why..." then, sure, I'll cash a check.
@gotgames: How did Xbox afford nice things in their first few years of existence? Same way Sony did... by being financed by their parent corporation. That's generally what happens with new subsidiaries that aren't direct acquisitions. That ends after a time though, as these are subsidiaries not charities.
You don't think PlayStation was a small start up hiring fresh out of college game designers and hardware engineers, do you? It was a massive investment by their parent corporation, mainly done to stick it to Nintendo, who they partnered with on an optical drive, which Nintendo backed out of in favor of another cartridge console.
If early on Microsoft had gone bigger, and cut deeper into their box prices than Sony could afford with Xbox, or bought more and larger properties early on to cannibalize more of Sony's market share early on, as Sony did with Sega and Nintendo, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation right now, and we'd have a closer competition. Problem is, the Microsoft brass was never really all-in on gaming until now, and even now it's arguable considering what they COULD do with their couple trillion dollars.
Also, if they took billions and bought a bunch of smaller studios they'd run into the same problem, and wouldn't gain everything they'd want to. Keep in mind that KING is VERY important in this deal. Microsoft wants to break into mobile, which is the side of the business that's GROWING (which means it's the side of the business that STOCKHOLDERS are interested in). King is THE BIGGEST player in mobile, with Candy Crush, Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty: Mobile. That's why Microsoft is willing to toss decade-long contracts to anyone who will sign for the console portions of the industry and Phil Spencer will swear to supporting rivals with it under oath; because the revenue from Call of Duty is nice, but expanding into the mobile industry is MANDATORY.
And the problem with breaking into mobile right now, is it's a duopoly that makes the console market seem like positively healthy competition (which it ain't). Microsoft THINKS they have a CHANCE of breaking that up with Candy Crush, Diablo Immortal and CoD:M. They know they'll have the support of Epic and Fortnite: Mobile, which also adds a lot of weight and would basically give them all the biggest players in the market to try and knock down Apple and Google's walls. Personally... I don't buy it, but since regulators are just going to sit there with their thumbs up their butts this is the only chance consumers have for a better mobile store, even if I personally think it's such a slim chance you could split atoms with it.
@lonewolf1044: I think you can have a valid argument for or again both of these companies. Once you're picking favorites though I think you're splitting hairs.
They're both paying for assets. They're both denying competitors content they would have otherwise gotten. That's a product of these walled gardens, or closed ecosystems. You see it in mobile too with Apple and Google.
You can DEFINITELY make an argument that this is bad for the consumer. And in some ways it is, because it limits choice and can help raise prices, due to those limited choices and customers being "locked in." You're essentially creating tiny little walled off markets where the owner is the sole distributor within it, and that can be problematic.
It can ALSO be good for consumers though. It promotes product differentiation, development, and investment. It can also sometimes help lower prices due to competition between ecosystems (of course the assumes the absence of an oligopoly, which I'd argue we have in the console industry).
It's a mixed bag, and I think you can like what both are doing, or dislike what both are doing. If you're defending one and attacking the other... I feel some nuance has been missed, because they're both playing the same games with each other, just to different scales in different areas, and we all both win and lose because of it.
My argument is... buy all the systems. They seem expensive, but they last a long time. A console life cycle is about 7 or 8 years. Even on the low scale (7yrs) that's 2,555 days. You put five cents a day in a jar and the end you can buy a console. A dime? You've got yourself two. Fifteen cents? You can have an Xbox, PlayStation, and Switch when they launch for about 1/20th the price of a cup of mediocre coffee a day (since the average price of a cup of coffee is apparently three bucks). Heck if you put a quarter in jar a day, you can have all the consoles and a really nice new PC every 7 years.
@happyhjoyjoy: an insurmountable, yet earned advantage
If Microsoft gains market share by buying Activision is that also earned?
As I've said, Sony came into the industry using hardware as a loss leader, cutting into the price of their hardware to extent that their competitors (Nintendo and Sega at the time) couldn't because not being backed by a diverse conglomerate they couldn't absorb that type of risk. When you finance your hardware to make is cheaper and more appealing to consumers... is that earning the market share that gives you, or paying for it?
They also bought a then-major publisher out of the gate (Psygnosis, though vastly smaller than some of the giants we see today, since the industry has expanded). They also, according to their own brass (David Reeves) relied on third party software (Reeve's own words, during their THIRD console generation: "We felt at the time that because we didn’t necessarily have good first-party software."). They paid for publishing ability, developers, IP and exclusive offerings from outside their company. Is that earning the resultant market share, or paying for it?
A big, big, BIG part of where PlayStation is now is thanks to Sony's wallet. Is that "earning" the market share? If it is, isn't Microsoft doing literally the same thing? It's of a larger scale than what Sony did to establish themselves, but the market is also significantly larger.
I'd say they've both paid for their market share. Neither came into the industry hiring fresh out of college game designers and hardware engineers to build a console empire. They both saw an opportunity and bought what they needed in hopes of getting a foothold. That's not really a moral or amoral thing. It could be argued that both is or isn't "earning" what they have, I mean... look at Stadia, you need to have the will and insight to invest properly. See opportunity where it lies. And you know... actually do it. That's capitalism. I wouldn't expect either to do any differently.
We're specifically talking about exclusivity contracts, NOT publishing contracts. It is, however, the case that the economics of BOTH of these are based on market share. Sony has TWICE the market share that Microsoft does. That means that, YES, Sony can do these days in number and at a level that Microsoft CANNOT and keep the division solvent. So if the litmus test is: "Can both parties do this?" Then yes, that IS Sony playing "unfair." No different than Microsoft making acquisitions that Sony cannot. Microsoft's viable tactic obviously works on a much larger scale, but at the same time it takes longer to pay off, and has different snags, whereas Sony's is smaller and cheaper, but can be done more frequently, more surgically, and pays off much sooner.
But if you want to include those publishing contracts, they are abusive as well. Of course developers went to Sony, they went to ALL publishers and they nearly ALL want to own the developer's IP. That's literally why Insomniac took Sunset Overdrive to Microsoft. That's why Playdead took Limbo to Microsoft. Because Microsoft is one of the few publishers who doesn't always insist on owning the IP (though they do, likely more often than not).
Developers mainly accrue value in their company through owned IP, since their other asset of value is talent, and talent can leave. Doing this gives the main article of value to the publisher, and helps depress the value of the developer, leaving them open to being acquired for low prices. It's an industry-wide predatory practice.
It's also worth noting that Sony waltzed onto the console scene by buying Psygnosis, what was at the time one of the largest UK publishers. They cemented their place in the industry by selling their console at a large loss, something that smaller, diversified companies like Nintendo and Sega couldn't afford to do. The also existed, up until mid-way through the PS3 generation, on the shoulders of paid third party contracts. Something that then-Sony Europe Boss David Reeves openly admitted in a 2007 interview with Spong:
SPOnG: "There’s also a generally different approach with the PS3 – the move away from paying for exclusives in favour of first-party titles. Do you feel that approach is working with the PS3?"
David Reeves: "Well, Phil did the original deal for Tomb Raider back in 1995/96. I did the GTA deal in the Sunset Marquis Hotel. We did Pro Evo, but not Metal Gear Solid, because that was done in Japan – and others. We felt at the time that because we didn’t necessarily have good first-party software.
"We relied on Namco an awful lot, with the Tekkens, Toshindens and so on. We don’t rely on Namco so much any more, although those games were really good for us. We made the decision three to three-and-a-half years ago to do our own IPs.
"We could have gone the route of renewing, maybe with GTA and other things, and we have chosen to do it, for example, with Konami. With some of them, you do need to, for certain reasons, in Japan. But the conscious decision is, for Phil and his group, to develop IPs like Uncharted, God Of War a little bit earlier, Killzone and so on. I also feel that things like FIFA and PES are good now, but just like things like Bebo and Facebook come out, they’re going to be leapfrogged in the end.
"Let’s try something different – we make more money from our IPs (intellectual properties). EA goes for licences, but our conscious decision is to go for our own IPs, and we’ve given Phil (Harrison), maybe not enough money, but money to develop for PS3. And he will deliver, but he won’t deliver them all before Christmas. Killzone 2 won’t be ready for Christmas, but it will come, probably, in the middle of next year. It will be an absolute blockbuster, and it won’t be on any of the other platforms."
So yeah, trying to act like there is some "good guy" here is laughable. Sony is a multi-billion conglomerate with a significantly larger share of the market. And market power doesn't require possessing a full, literal monopoly (though debating the dangers of a monopoly within an oligopoly is... arguably kind of pointless, since a lot of same s*** is already rolling downhill onto the consumer).
These are both corporations competing how they can. Both are using their customer base as pawns, pulling content away from those dare to not be in THEIR own ecosystem. Neither is right or wrong. They're both jerks. So you can stop trying to excuse Sony, who by observable reality and as stated above by on their own brass... walked onto the scene nearly 30 years ago and decided to compete with entrenched leadership by... ALSO throwing around their wallet.
Stop being a fanboy. These folks are BOTH bad. So is Nintendo, though less so these days (seriously, go ahead and look up some of their old shenanigans... they were literally using MOB TACTICS against Sega).
Oh, and as far as Microsoft and anti-trust in other markets goes... you KNOW you're defending SONY, right? Even just going by a fines database that ONLY covers the USofA:
@gotgames: The thing is, Sony makes deals for LARGE games from LARGE publishers BECAUSE THEY ARE ABLE. Microsoft isn't with their market share, at least not and remain in the black. Microsoft can't compete with Sony gaining rights to games like Silent Hill, Knights of the Old Republic, Final Fantasy, Starfield (nearly... likely had they not bought Bethesda), etc. by buying, say, Team Cherry the creators of Hollow Knight.
You make Microsoft play by that rule and you're basically handing Sony their market share.
You're asking Microsoft to fight with their hands tied behind their backs... while Sony is swinging a crowbar. You're limiting Microsoft to fighting not just on Sony's terms, but in a way where Sony has an insurmountable advantage.
If you simply say, "I'm fine with exclusive deals and acquisitions Sony can afford," you're functionally saying, "I'm fine with Sony murdering the s*** out of Microsoft, and Microsoft not being able to fight back." Unless of course you want Microsoft to simply make dozens and dozens of smaller acquisitions until they may as well have made large ones, and that... doesn't seem like a real difference.
They're each competing the way they can. Microsoft CAN'T make the exclusivity deals that Sony can because they have to pay more out of less and won't be profitable, and Sony CAN'T make the acquisitions that Microsoft can because they don't have the capital.
Neither can "fight fair" with the other because their means are mismatched.
@Tiwill44: The pettiness is mainly on the consumer side. Sony and Microsoft are just doing business. It's cutthroat but that's going to be the case in any market that isn't seeing real growth. As public companies this is inevitable.
Look at console sales. The best selling console is still the PS2. Best selling PS2 games would typically sell around 15 million copies. Best selling PS4 games... sold around 15 million copies. That tells us that there aren't a lot of new consumers coming into the console market. The industry is making more money, but that's thanks to volume of software and lower overhead with shift to digital, coupled with added revenue streams (MTX, special editions for EVERYTHING, etc.). And that has a breaking point without expanding the base. There's only so much you can milk the same cow. According to the numbers most new customers are going mobile. So Sony is getting more aggressive with exclusivity deals, which only they can really afford to do, and Microsoft is getting more aggressive with acquisitions, which with their market share is really the only effective way they can respond.
The thing about public companies is that growth is EXPECTED. Stockholders need to see that. Which means you have to either eat into your competitor's market share, which is what the acquisitions and deals are about. Or you expand into other markets, like Sony moving their titles to PC, and Microsoft now looking to mobile. If Microsoft and Sony start seeing their forays into other markets (which is tougher and riskier financially) become more profitable we may see them calm it a bit on the content grab. It may get the point where it makes more sense to invest their money there than into grabbing a few games for a limited customer base on one plastic box.
As far as why the publishers are up for it... well, budgets are WAY up. It doesn't affect the console manufacturers as much, but publisher are definitely impacted. Smaller "AAA" games can run as much as $50M, and larger ones can go as high (or higher) as $200M. That is a LOT of money to gamble with. Even if your company is worth several billion that's going to be an uncomfortable loss if things go bad, and sometimes promising products just don't pan out (Callisto Protocol? Forspoken? Redfall?) or get stuck in development Hell and go WAY over budget. This is why we live in an age when ONE bad game can end with a studio being shuttered. (Which also, by the way, the reason we see so much consolidation across the industry... you don't want a small company that can't absorb much risk.)
It's tough for a publisher to say no to cash in hand. Someone offers them a check to reduce or eliminate their risk? They're probably going to say yes.
@gotgames: So... you didn't read anything I wrote. Or couldn't grasp it despite it being stated plainly.
I know that, because I specifically stated WHY they wouldn't make those deals. Including the one you just put forward, ignorantly, here. And why buying companies is a better alternative for Microsoft.
By your frame of thinking, Sony is absolutely asstastic at deals. They're incredibly terrible. Because BOTH Zenimax AND Activision were on the table and entertaining offers BEFORE Microsoft bought them.
So Sony sucks because they didn't buy Zenimax and Activision instead, right? Because THAT is precise type of self-serving wilful nonsense that you're engaging in.
Next time you should read what you're responding to, or just stay silent.
HappyHJoyJoy's comments