That doesn't matter to these people, because it doesn't suite their agenda.
Microsoft have been trying to pay their way through this whole ordeal, it doesn't matter what it does to the industry.
No matter what anyone says, buying entire publishing houses and allowing a platform holder to remove games from the very platform most IPs exist on and sell best on is certainly anti-competition and anti-consumer.
We already see what Microsoft has done ...
It really doesn't, the first game was awesome, Forbidden West takes everything the first game had and expands on that further with the experience the team gained.
Yep, the game isn't just a good looking title, it actually has great gameplay, story, audio and acting by the cast, recorded in painstaking detail.
Animations in this game are phenomenal, it makes for a highly immersive experience.
This game definitely doesn't get the recognition it deserves by many gamers.
Burning Shores looks like a big visual step up from Forbidden West on PS5, but those new mechanics look like they add to everything.
...
They're a studio made up of highly experienced veterans of the industry, so it makes sense to be excited for what they could make, plus Sony aren't just using their existing pool of devs to take away from their resources in making quality single player experiences.
Yep, COD was already very stagnent, Sony could easily just poach the talent from those studios and give them the freedom, along with technical support to take the genre forward.
Sony even has IPs that could have a massive revival and leave COD in the dust.
Many would love to see Socom and Killzone return.
It would be awesome to see Warhawk or Spacehawk get new titles for PS5 and of course Firewall could have non-VR entries to allow the games to be played b...
Yep, at some point in the not too distant future there will be a bunch of new IPs announced, along with great new additions to established franchises.
Yep, Sony arguably has way better relationships with them than Microsoft, plus Japanese regulators would also favor Sony as a Japanese based company.
Anyone arguing that Sony couldn't afford is stuck in the past, believing they're still going bankrupt and also ignores that Sony has way better relationships and sells far more copies of those games than Xbox does.
Buying one developer that makes one 3rd Party Multiplat and a few devs that have solid, exclusive relationships with Sony isn't the same as buying 2 3rd party publishers that have dozens of developers and make games that sell substantially better on PlayStation consoles to be under Microsoft's control.
All bang on the money!
How can any of this be legit?
Sony worked at it, they built relationships and if money was the only consideration then Microsoft could have outspent them every time, but Sony's relationships with 3rd party partners, beneficial deals that increase actual player engagement, along with sales is why those exclusive agreements exist.
Microsoft could have even created studios and poached the very talent they're trying to ...
I'm not sure how this could in any way be serious.
Microsoft were closer to having a monopoly with the purchase of ZeniMax, Sony definitely weren't with the deals they've had with companies separate from PlayStation or their own organically built up studios.
Microsoft should have just used these 10's of billions of dollars to make new studios and give them creative freedom to make a huge variety of quality games.
Very true, consoles launched in 2020 likely began development in late 2014 or early 2015, analysis of what's working for the current platform and the limits of current hardware will also always tell Sony/Microsoft and devs what's needed for the future too, along with what AMD/NVidia or any other hardware players can provide to meet their needs for future hardware.
The coming platforms are likely pretty much the same, feedback from what came before, features and tech...
It's standard, they start work on the next platform probably even before they've launched the "next-gen" thing, especially with feedback and analysis, along with hardware providers selling their future tech that needs to go into the systems Microsoft and Sony will sell.
It's been outright stated by Mark Cerny and the architecture team of XBox that they're assessing what to include and improve on all of the time, but actually starting to piece together what the hardware is begins planning from a year after the launch of a new console platform.
Then they iterate on what the design of everything will be until it's understood whether performance targets and features have been met and if they can out it into a financially sellable package.
Sony aren't being Anti-Competitive at all!
They're making games and not buying up huge Publishers to keep their games off of XBox right now, Microsoft are.
COD without question has the bigger install base on PlayStation, I'm pretty sure every Bethesda game in the last 2 generations has sold better on PlayStation, which would likely have been the case for Starfield and ES6.
If you don't think Microsoft's actions are Anti-Competitive then...
Microsoft are obviously lying there, sure right now it makes no sense, because the games sell like crazy on PlayStation, but having control of the IP you can gradually shift that to lure those customers over to your platform with say the exclusive launch of one COD release here and there.
Eventually they wouldn't need to sell it on PlayStation.
TBH I think Sony should just setup new studios gradually to make those kinds of games, they could obviously make a bet...
Very true!
A publisher will make hundreds of games a piece over say 10 years, one game every now and then being exclusive or part of a game's content now and then isn't the same thing at all.
One game being locked up isn't going to really have a big effect on the industry, but hundreds across one or two pubs over 10 years and potentially more into eternity will of course change the entire video games landscape.
Anyone arguing otherwis...
The difference is the volume of content, a few games vs potentially hundreds being exclusive on either side.
Both sides are fine making the odd game exclusive, they're not fine making everything from 2 of the biggest publishers in video game's history exclusive.
That's the difference.
@bleedsoe9mm: They nailed nothing!
Most likely, but it doesn't change the fact that would have come to PlayStation and eventually gotten fixed without the ZeniMax Acquisition.
Timed exclusive means it still would have eventually come to XBox, also the odd game being outright exclusive or under Sony's control isn't the same as Microsoft buying 2 of the biggest video games Publishers in the industry to take all of their multiplatform games away from their biggest install bases.
@giovinni: It's not even remotely the same thing.
The scale is much larger in the case of Microsoft buying and making games that were already established as multiplats and sold better on PlayStation are now XBox or Windows Exclusive.
Games that were most certainly going to release on PlayStation and undoubtedly sell better aren't, in the case of new IPs that were developed while ZeniMax had a relationship with PlayStation.
In the case of Sony buyin...