@happyhjoyjoy: thanks for sharing. I humbly disagree regarding placing them in the same basket. I believe the situation is very different now. But, to answer the question right away: yes, i think it was fully earned. The same goes for MS and the X360, they won that console war battle through and through. It was beautifully competitive
Back in the day, Sony was a newcomer in an uphill battle. Who would think that third-party could successfully compete against opponent first party? Sony did. Suggesting that third-party could win territory vs something like Mario or Zelda was a very crazy thing to say back then and it is so today as well. The examples you mentioned never harmed the competitive field, they only expanded it further. Hence the change of market leaderships experienced until this day.
MS is also in an uphill battle, but not as a newcomer. Back in the X1 and X360 days, MS did the same things you mentioned Sony doing. Sometimes it didnt work out well, other times it worked out splendidly. In the end, both practiced competitive actions in order to increase their brand recognition. MS even bought Rare, and Sony also made some purchases. However, neither ever bought a big boy. Activision Blizzard is a big boy, and attempting to buy such a company is the equivalent imo of pressing the nuclear launch button.
To be fully frank, i would be saying the same thing if it was Nintendo or Sony trying to get this deal through, because the competitive field would still be bound for trouble.
You however have shared a similar opinion, so we are not that far off from each other. You have thoroughly explained how they both have acted similarly through purchases and use of capital in general. All i am trying to point out though, is the fact that this situation is imo not the same, thats all.
If they do get this deal through though, i just hope they can make a good Halo game again, even if it is a reboot, that would be great for everyone ;)
@rizenstrom: good point, but i guess theres no limit at all. MS should just make good games, thats it. 3rd party is important, but why MS cant make an Uncharted-level experience beats me.
All in all, i think it is very embarrassing for MS to use this as an excuse. They cant make good games because the competition has good deals with 3rd parties? Halo is not third party, Gears of War neither, Redfall and so on. I think saying "i cant compete with their deals so i pull out my wallet and buy the big studio" whilst making bad AAA games is simply just saying "hey, we dont know how this works" :)
@Barighm: you both make great points, and yours regarding the devs is for me very essential. People are mainly focusing on MS and/or Sony, forgetting theres a third party involved (see what i did there ;D). We can argue til the end of time about perspectives regarding the two big companies' resolve, but in the end there’s a third involved company, always.
I will say though, what happyhjoyjoy explains is also very sound, at least imo. To that i will however point out that at the end of the day MS has much more capital and liquidity than Sony, yet they are just countering partnerships with M&A, and still loosing. I know thats not everything, as he explains, theres more to it than meets the eye. But, it still does not explain how MS cant get a single exclusive right. Not a single exclusive, not even Halo. Like, Sony has the market share and is more appealing at first for many devs/publishers out there, but is this a godlike status that renders the opponent competitor completely useless all the time? Like, every single time? Heck, they bought Zenimax trying to compete with Sony, and still made Redfall whilst having experienced that very same company produce decent games like Ghostwire Tokyp or Deathloop for the competition…i dont see how any P/L or income statement is related to such a phenomenon. I also agree with Barighm with the whole MS-PC circle, they should’ve always been in a better position to convince devs to go green, most definitely if the game is for both PC and Xbox. Even if they abandon Xbox and shift it fully into PC overall, i dont see those PC games being great either, at least according to their recent history of flops and disappointing AAA games. This proves that their excuse, or at least one* of their excuses to buy Zenimax is imo extremely irrelevant, for the final gamers i mean. They can justify it all they want, but all i care about is the games, and they are definitely not delivering on that regard at all.
At this rate, it would seem that letting the company be (unlike MS with Redfall, thats a horrible example because the developer wanted the game cancelled and it was MS's call to continue) and just gaining exclusivity and giving some form of support a la FFXVI would guarantee a better final game than just taking over the company and releasing the game yourself, if you are MS of course. If this is the case, it would partially explain how Sony's strategy has been working out good so far: a triangular scenario of money, risk, and market share.
And by the way, to all others out there: market share is earned, not given.
Most importantly though, i thank you both for the amazing discussion at hand here. Your arguments are a joy to read because of how detailed yet respectful they are. It is because of this 2% that i come back to GS regularly :)
@Barighm: exactly. Even NMS received and immense influx of cash with the launch, in spite of refunds. This gave them a tiny bit of footing to push through and start the incredible overhaul pathway they have been treading ever since.
Also, i dont mean to sound rude at all, for real, but i am saddened that videogame news websites cater to egregious game developers/publishers and try to reshape facts. In reality, what CDPR did back then was undoubtedly misleading and a bit evil, and i can never respect them again since then. It’s like an ex-girlfriend/boyfriend that cheated on the first day of the relationship, but then puts on better clothes and tries to ooze you in again, and the websites tend to be their partners-in-crime, or at least thats how it feels
G-Corleone's comments