Sony, earlier this month, let loose with a verbal barrage against Microsoft in an interview with IndustryGamers. SCEA's SVP of Publisher Relations, Rob Dyer, was reacting to news about Microsoft's Content Submission and Release policy, noting that "publishers are getting the living crap kicked out of them by Microsoft," and Sony isn't "demanding a pound of flesh in order for them to get a game published on our network."
But are the two platform holders really that different when it comes to publishing policies? IndustryGamers has been tracking commentary from game companies on the matter, but very, very few are willing to go on the record about Sony or Microsoft. One former Vivendi employee went into some detail, however, on the condition of anonymity.
With the launch of Call of Duty Season 4, Activision quietly put adverts inside loadouts for Black Ops 6 and Warzone, sparking a backlash in the process.
Putting Ads in a pay-to-play Premium title? Well done Microsoft. Well done /s This is really scummy.
This game will never change because these sweatlords love buying up all the skins and bundles that become obsolete the following year. They're the ones perpetuating Activision's greed.
If Microsoft introduces adverts into its other games I hope it can do them without disrupting the immersion of the game world. So for example in the new Fable game it would look out of place if there was a billboard advertising Cadillacs.
A far better way to do it would be to have a wizard conjure a 'dream cloud' in front of your character and then in the cloud you can see the Cadillac car and see the text with price and availability and hear a booming sales voice promoting the car. That would work so well as it wouldn't be a billboard and completely, 100%, fit in with your character's adventuring in Albion. Doesn't that sound so much better?!
@venom, or how about our of 100 farts in Albion, 1 of them has a Cadillac pop out
Xbox's handheld ambitions continue unabated, but the focus is shifting towards improving Windows 11 for third-party handhelds — for now. The Xbox Series X 'Melrose' successor is safe, with development continuing at full pace.
If they run the same games as the main home console, then yeah, sure.
But if they need specially tailored games just for them? Probably not, unless there isn't a home console for comparison (see Switch).
I am kinda low-key happy this happened.
Dont want another Series S situation (games to be designed from 4 to 12TF scale and not 10 to 12TF).
Hope PS follows suit as well. Tablet SKU sharing with console for 10th gen, will just continue the cross gen -esque development/design phase/nature.
Want a proper 20+ only TF rasterized next-gen plz (+ frame-gen and the lot).
If anybody wants to continue the cross-gen, the Series S|X, PS5 will remain for that. And Switch 2, if you gotta go even lower in the TF range.
Yes and No. All of the PC handhelds combined have struggled to sell 7 million units, which would be a flop for any “console”. So the market is extremely niche because of price and target market (the informed hardcore gamer / casuals aren’t picking these up).
These handheld PCs are $500 or more, and offer at best Xbox Series S performance levels, so it’s best for MS specifically to just partner with ASUS, instead of investing millions if not billions.
Sony can make their own with custom AMD hardware due to their partnership, and stronger global brand for hardware. But even then it brings the question, of being a lower resolution PS5, and what does that mean for PS6 cross-gen (likely another generation where the first 3 - 4 years are just upgraded last-gen games).
Imagine a Wii U style console, where the tablet doesn't rely on the console it's self, you download the game on the console under the TV and play in 4k glory, then you can remote play, get some unique game features if using both console and handheld in tandem. Then you can download the games in 720-1080p to play on the go, continue your progress, and continue on the TV when you get back.
Sony could get away with this due to exclusives, and that would be a reason for sales. Look at the portal.
I can picture seeing new hardware having some sort of GPU dock, where the handheld runs 1080p, and the dock has additional hardware to bring in 4k/60 specs.
I do think handheld gaming is going to be a strong future, imagine Nintendo release a new upgraded GPU dock for the Switch 3, every 2 years. More frames, sharper graphics on the same game for an extra £150 for a dock with a built in GPU chip. Console cycles doesn't have to be renewed, just the hardware can be improved by them reselling docks to us again and again with small/yearly upgrades like mobile phones.
Did you just imply that Sony can make a better stronger handheld than Microsoft? You do realize we are talking about Microsoft, the tech giant, right? If Microsoft can't make one that's cost effective, Sony definitely can't...
Brand and market share means nothing when you are a trillion dollar company
@GamerRN
It has nothing to do with what company can do it, or what company can spend.
For anyone taking a basic business class there is a term called ROI, and Xbox home consoles are selling at an all time low, meaning their ROI on a handheld is a risk that doesn’t make sense, even if they can afford it. Businesses are there to make money and it doesn’t make sene for MS to invest in a handheld that’s a companion device when their current home consoles they’ve spent 20 years working on are at an all time-low, when they can invest with little risk with what ASUS already has to offer.
This is why Sony can build a better device, because they have less risk involved, meaning they can invest more in their own product, and they already have an exclusive partnership with AMD on creating features and hardware. So in this specific case, YES Sony can built a better handheld, due to custom hardware, customer tools, low level APIs, compared to an off the shelf product running Windows or a Window Xbox kernel =.
I play steam deck primarily... Don't play consoles or mobile. The deck covers it all.
Funny to see the alt already damage controlling and having a meltdown with multiple accounts in the comments already.
Sad for MS if true, a dedicated handheld would go down a lot better than a rog ally 2 with an Xbox sticker on it I think.
It couldn't have succeeded for a number of reasons. Now they've retreated to the Windows front and trying to keep that relevant for gaming. How long before Windows Central realizes there won't be a real console successor to Series X either?
@outside obviously not since they sidelined it and they wanna see how the Asus does. Are you saying they're gonna cancel the next console?
@lightning - I'm admittedly trying to box you in here - Do you think the next Xbox console will have Steam on it?
@Lightning
Here we go with having to spell everything out.
If I told you yesterday that Xbox was going to sideline the handheld console what would your response have been? Probably something along the lines of "I doubt that since Phil has been talking about it for some time now"
My point is just because they are "full speed" ahead now does not mean that will not change in future. As we have seen with the handheld. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now?
Box me in? No you said the same thing you've always been saying for years now. Those are the rumors to have Steam integration.
What about it
If you told me they were gonna cancel it tomorrow it would nothing more than fanboy talking points. I only wait for credible sources not what someone else says.
Also this is the handheld not a full blown new console. The Asus is yet to release and they're waiting to see how that thing does. Critical thinking is my strong suit you should try it some time if you can. But Ok cool well you hang your hat on that I guess. Main New console is gonna get cancelled even though the handheld is a different marketing device than the main the console itself.
I think there is a 75% chance there will not be another Xbox. There is zero reason to buy one now. No way it can possibly sell more than 10m units after Xbox went third party.
That's what they do. Goalposts shift like the wind.
I'm really confused on why they are making a "first party" device and also have a Rog Ally with their sticker on it. Make this make sense. How is their own device going to be any different?
Your console doesn't sell and they expect a handheld to?
The Rog Ally one is gen agnostic ... as you deciphered, it was to be the updated Rog Ally but just with Xbox branding. PC handheld with some Xbox features.
The handheld Xbox is/was supposed to be sharing the same gen/ecosystem with the next-gen (10th gen) Xbox. Think Series S but handheld ... it'll run the Xbox OS or whatever the next Xbox will run.
...
As for anybody wondering/confused why MS is doing another Xbox console ... coz mainly its the 10th gen of home consoles next, which started wayy back in 1972 for the 1st gen. And MS wanna be part in it, in the 10th anniversary gen of consoles. If they gotta bow out, they can't do that at 9th i.e just before 10th. They wanna stick around till the 10th or the X-th gen and check what the fuss happens.
Curious as to what excuses the spam was saying. Because prior to this news, the Xbox handheld was used as proof that Xbox is still committed to the hardware space. This handheld being scraped is not a good sign...
@Spam
You can replace scrapped with pushed back if you like. It's not a good sign either way.
asq3= obscured: “ What’s your source on the handheld being scrapped? “
Read the article from Microsoft own website and one of your favorite quotations site when it’s something bad about Sony.
Oh BTW good luck with your next SPAM account.
The FTC has officially dropped its case against Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard.
"The sweet smell of tax dollars burning"
They never stood a chance. It was a lost cause from the start. And yet, still, they´d decided to go ahead and double down on their bs to bleed the taxpayer even more.
@slate: “ The sweet smell of tax dollars burning “
The smell of political donations endorsements under the table.
There I fixed it it for you
We all knew Microsoft plan of “10 years of all systems publishing “ and some of its supporters happy that after all the games would be “exclusive to Xbox “ now that things have changed and Microsoft got humbled by the lost of money from CoD going down from OVER A BILLI🤑N to
MILLI😩NS the sales failing of games that would released on PlayStation and be forced by INVESTORS asking for their M🤑NEY to grow faster than the next 10 years it is obvious that it would be a waste of money to continue this litigation.
Edit:@obscured: “ They never stood a chance. It was a lost cause from the start “
Same as your grievance stages.
Have you passed the bargaining stage yet ? Or are you still on the anger stage 🤣
I think they're convinced now that MS won't (and can't) withhold releases from conpeting platforms. MS on the street corner now like, "Who wants a taste?!"
That's how it always starts, "I'll just work this street corner for a short while until I get caught up on my bills..."
Oh yeah, they're totally gonna make Xbox exclusives again, with the hardware they're totally committed to selling and making available lol
As far as I'm aware, the only 'deal' that was discussed was for Call of Duty. Xbox had no obligation to make any of their other games multiplatform. They did that of their own accord.
**btw, I'm talking about street food vendors, just in case there's any confusion!
https://external-content.du...
I've seen videos and talk a online speculating MS long game. Some think that MS multiplat move is use to appease the FTC so they can buy more and is somehow a move that could get Sony to open up their platform. In other words them going third party and letting their games go everywhere. MS possible scheme and ulterior motives, speculated by Jeff Grubb is that putting Xbox store on PS via regulation Which would hurt PS buissness very badly because that 30% cut would be even less or not a cut at all. MS buys more because they're "playing nice" by opening up its platform to Epic store and steam which would force Apple and Sony to open up their ecosystem to other stores like MS.
If that's the case that'll mean as I said before, PS fans buying Cod on PS via MS store would give 100% maybe even 90% of the money being pocketed by MS while Sony's store front wanes when it comes to third party because guess what? MS is buying more third party and preying off the extreme ignorance of the FTC. Manipulation of the FTC and MS overtaking the PS store and customers
My thing is this. I know it's a opinion and speculation but why does Sony have to open up its store or force them to go multiplat? If they still believe in selling their freakin console then let them do it. If they want to provide the best games and the best content for its fans then let them do it!? Why because the competition is trash at selling games and consoles for 14 years now Sony has to change? MS using the ignorance of the FTC to overtake gaming as we know it?
Again it's just talk and opinion but man this seems very, very possible imo.
Well, at the time, I actually did think the FTC and CMA did a poor job in court. But also the judge.
Having said that - it is what it is.
If 75bn mergers in any industry ain't a threshold to deny them, then I don't know what is.
As far as your thoughts about other 3rd parties getting taken over in the future go:
I think publisher buyouts are off the list now. I think it would be reeeeally difficult for MS to win another trial try taking over any other publisher.
But smaller studios ... maybe.
However, right now I can't see studios out there advocating for a buyout from Microsoft.
That isn't to say an announcement of such couldn't drop on Monday already. Because we today know that Microsoft had approached a plethora of other studios in 2018 to 2021, such as IOI, CD Project, etc.
We'll see. And we can't do anything about it. It's up to trade commissions and then probably courts to decide.
"I think publisher buyouts are off the list now. I think it would be reeeeally difficult for MS to win another trial try taking over any other publisher."
That's the thing MS is ticking all the boxes by not have anything be exclusive so the CMA/FTC see that they're doing "fair practice" in games and content distribution. Which technically greenlits more aquisions or it makes it easier for acquisitions because MS is a mega publisher now.
"However, right now I can't see studios out there advocating for a buyout from Microsoft."
Hopefully not but them going multiplat could entice Studios to join MS because nothing is not longer exclusive which means more money for them, studio and teams.
We can't do nothing about it but Sony can. They can block xbox games on their console (lose that 30% cut) but Sony won't do that because that's money that will be lost and Sony runs a buissness. That's the only way to hurt or slow down Xbox.
I'm probably over thinking it as I do these things but it's something we shouldn't just ignore and be weary of MS motives here. I'm keeping an eye on them.
The idea that Microsoft is manipulating the FTC and forcing Sony to open its platform is silly and has no evidence to back it up. Microsoft’s multiplatform approach is 100% due to past failures and its laughable position in the gaming industry. Their best attempt was a fluke and a lie, brought on by Sony’s missteps and a poorly made machine that broke down too often.
Sony would never allow themselves to be "forced" to do anything; they control their platform and storefront perfectly fine without the need or desire to add an unnecessary Microsoft storefront. Even if, by some flaw on Sony’s part, Microsoft were able to introduce its store on PlayStation, Sony would adapt rather than collapse. Digital storefront competition already exists (Steam, Epic Games Store, Xbox Store), and PlayStation’s business won’t suddenly "wane."
Also, regulators like the FTC don’t operate on ignorance—they actively assess market behavior to prevent monopolies. Microsoft isn’t secretly overtaking gaming with some ultimate scheme. The industry might be changing or shifting (for the worse, in my opinion), but Sony will continue evolving based on market trends, not because of alleged schemes.
Gaming isn’t about one company "playing nice" or another being "forced" to change—it’s about making money with games, something Microsoft has yet to achieve in 25+ years.
"The idea that Microsoft is manipulating the FTC and forcing Sony to open its platform is silly and has no evidence to back it up."
That's why I said it was all speculation that's what Jeff Grubb opinion. I made that clear several times. You know what's funny? When Jim was in court ppl got mad at the FTC for protecting Jim Ryan instead of the consumer. Maybe he was right to worry about his business. Now look Releasing Xbox games on PS keeps MS studio an a float. Now Xbox games are all over PS now. Maybe Jim was onto something.
MS is still competing with Sony just in a very different way. The FTC back down mainly means they can buy more and MS next steps can proceed. We'll have to see what happens in the future but I wouldn't be so sure on your stance.
@Lightning77
MS putting games everywhere is the most consumer friendly thing I've seen a game company do.
@InUrFox
What does "putting everywhere" actually mean?
This book has so many pages.
• Xbox was dying in revenue
• Regulators put a 10 year deal on CoD
• Microsoft had to give away the streaming
• Spencer himself only offered 3 yrs initially
And most importantly
• Again, Xbox was dying in revenue
Xbox have the benefit of their actual financial situation giving regulators and courts the impression they release games everywhere, what they actually do.
But for reasons they can't be proven guilty of anything in court.
I'm not judging, it's just what it is.
IF the Series generation would have developed differently and was much more successful, I don't hesitate any second to believe in what Spencer had originally planned to do:
• Make everything Xbox exclusive
• We today know that Spencer had also approached Sega, From Software, CD Project, Nintendo, and even Valve was on their list of buyouts.
MS are playing a card here everyone knows why they are doing it.
Putting Doom "everywhere", which even was it already before it got bought, ain't a MS thing.
It would had hurt them in many ways if they'd put it exclusively to Xbox.
But, no matter what - it is what it is.
Xbox bought themselves back into the game. And I think many people just don't have very fond feelings towards this behaviour, wether on corporate nor private levels.
Let's see how they'll run with it.
In 2030, but most importantly after regulations will have expired we will learn better.
Seemed like a lost cause anyway. Microsoft gambled and it paid off big time. That's what you call a big boss move. Sony played a huge part in the success of that acquisition.
Nobody really knows but developers who have published on both platforms.
At the very least, there's no obvious "you can't put it on the 360" stories coming from devs.
Vivendi?
LOL
this article is laughable
When will they become friends?