Support NeoGAF

[Warnen]

You mean the two studios that Sony has fed since they were wee lil babies?

Naughty dog was around over a decade before they made a PS game

Insomica in the Atari era….


if it counts most Elder scrolls/fallout games ran like shit on Sony hardwre so they kinda been MS leaning for decades as well…

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Naughty dog was around over a decade before they made a PS game

Insomica in the Atari era….

And which company invested in them so they could grow to the size they are today?

Insomniac was on the edge of bankrupcy in the 90s before Sony's support (same with Naughty Dog). And no they weren't in the atari era

 

[Warnen]

And which company invested in them so they could grow to the size they are today?

Insomniac was on the edge of bankrupcy in the 90s before Sony's support (same with Naughty Dog). And no they weren't in the atari era

so they paying someone to make there games, thanks for agreeing with me.

Yeah messed up isomiac thing, thought it started in Atari age guy just wanted to make game since then. Should have googled

 

[PropellerEar]

There is a difference between lead of the division and vice president. Different budgets.
Basically budget goes to Windows -> Windows lead decides whether to give the bigger budget to Xbox or not.


If you have that you should be aware why being Xbox lead and gaming vice president are the different things

So you think there was no resources for Xbox to use 2014-2017?

 

[TGO]

Compete..,that's funny..

 

[DeepEnigma]

So how do you explain Ghost outselling Lat of us part 2? ANd I'll bet my account that RATCHET in June outperforms the last of us part 2.

Did Ghost outsell it?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

so they paying someone to make there games, thanks for agreeing with me.

Yeah messed up isomiac thing, thought it started in Atari age guy just wanted to make game since then. Should have googled

To clarify I have no issue with Microsofts strategy as I'm 100% support for Sony going the same route and aquiring capcom or square

It's just daft to compare Microsofts aquisition of Zenimax to Naughty Dog or Insomniac

 

[Neff]

Why is staying the course unwise?

To say that at somepoint going into 2022-2023 it's going to subside or decrease is not what the data we have suggests.

It's early days and data six months after launch doesn't tell us much about a console's trajectory. My point is basically that this generation is completely different in terms of competition this time round (ie there actually is some for PlayStation), so Sony can't afford to expect another repeat of PS4 to happen all by itself.

If Sonys plan is to stay the course against a growing ms and a value proposition like gamepass, they are definately going to lose some market share. (To say nothing of Nintendo even) The history of the gaming market proves over and over again that companies who fail to innovate and or underestimate the competition pay a high price.

Very much this.

 

[Warnen]

To clarify I have no issue with Microsofts strategy I'm 100% support for Sony going the same route and aquiring capcom or square

It's just daft to compare Microsofts aquisition of Zenimax to Naughty Dog or Insomniac

yeah it’s much bigger and comes with decades of industries biggest IPs. Really no comparing the scale just the concept.

 

[TGO]

The history of the gaming market proves over and over again that companies who fail to innovate and or underestimate the competition pay a high price.

Are you saying Sega wasn't innovative?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

yeah it’s much bigger and comes with decades of industries biggest IPs. Really no comparing the scale just the concept.

Conceptually the equvilent was Microsoft aquiring Bungie, Undead Labs or Playground games

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

So you think there was no resources for Xbox to use 2014-2017?

Yes.

You think now that they are able throw 7+ bln at acquisition they would allow Double Helix - one of the rarest studios that make fighting games - slip through the fingers? Or even before where EA acquired Bioware? Or when Amazon bought Twitch and MS thought it was too expensive (and now able to throw 12 bln at Discord?).
When Spencer became vice president we literally have almost the same year the purchases of multiple studios at once. Ninja Theory, Inxile etc. It was nothing but studio purchases.

You already can see the difference in the budgets before and after.

 

[THE DUCK]

Are you saying Sega wasn't innovative?

I dont know, was the 32x innovative?

 

[sublimit]

Wise decision.

 

[Tg89]

It's early days and data six months after launch doesn't tell us much about a console's trajectory. My point is basically that this generation is completely different in terms of competition this time round (ie there actually is some for PlayStation), so Sony can't afford to expect another repeat of PS4 to happen all by itself.



Very much this.

I mean you make it seem like Sony didn't do anything to get that success. Yeah, MS dropped the ball, but Sony held up their end of the bargain by having a strong and diverse lineup of games with consistent output through most of the generation.

Yeah, Microsoft seems to be doing a better job this time. Gamepass is cool, they've got the messaging clearer, etc. At the end of the day, they still haven't shown us anything in terms of the most important thing, games. You can have all the cool services and value propositions in the world, but you get nowhere in this industry without a strong lineup of games.

At the moment, Sony gets the benefit of the doubt because they've had the games and all signs point to them still having the games.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Yes.

You think now that they are able throw 7+ bln at acquisition they would allow Double Helix - one of the rarest studios that make fighting games - slip through the fingers? Or even before where EA acquired Bioware? Or when Amazon bought Twitch and MS thought it was too expensive (and now able to throw 12 bln at Discord?).
When Spencer became vice president we literally have almost the same year the purchases of multiple studios at once. Ninja Theory, Inxile etc. It was nothing but studio purchases.

You already can see the difference in the budgets before and after.

It doesn't take $7 billion to make some bloody games lol

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

To clarify I have no issue with Microsofts strategy as I'm 100% support for Sony going the same route and aquiring capcom or square

It's just daft to compare Microsofts aquisition of Zenimax to Naughty Dog or Insomniac

Not necessarily; Microsoft has had a long-standing relationship with not only Bethesda but also iD Software. It was the OG Xbox that got a DOOM 3 port back in the day, after all, and Microsoft's investment into Bethesda during that era is what allowed Morrowind to be made (and for Zenimax to be formed).

And that was without actually acquiring them to make those investments. Honestly, it's more or less semantics at the end of the day; both companies have made acquisitions and both have also encouraged "organic growth" with internal studios. It is a bit of a chuckle though on that note considering there isn't a Sony studio outside of maybe Polyphony and 989 Studios (that I can recall) who is 100% built from the ground-up in-house, whereas IIRC Turn 10 and even 343i were built up in-house, The Initiative also join that list on Microsoft's side.

But like was said ultimately this shouldn't matter, as both companies have done this and will continue to. The people trying to move the goalposts in ways like "yes but this company never acquired a publishing arm!" are acting weird. If said company had the financial capacity to purchase that publisher, they would have. That's how capitalism works. In terms of being for or against acquisitions, I don't root for or against it, I just like to view it in terms of market realities. The truth is, almost any company Sony were to consider acquiring, a company like Microsoft would also likely be looking at, and the latter can easily outbid the former to win the acquisition.

Even the usual talking point of "but it's hard for American companies to buy Japanese ones" doesn't really work: for starters, that's only mainly true for companies in industries Japan consider of critical importance (military, defense, medical, civil engineering, finance, law firm etc.), which most gaming companies don't fall under the definition of. Secondly, Microsoft have already shown they can acquire such a company now that they own Tango Gameworks. Thirdly, if Sony were to make such a gaming purchase they would likely do it under the PlayStation division which now operates out of California. So they would face similar extra regs to clear the way a company like Microsoft would.

But really it's the money side of the argument why gunning after those type of publishers would end up cost-prohibitive for Sony; keeping in mind they'd probably be looking at upwards 2x their valuation as payment to acquire them, and I wouldn't want to see Sony go into a ton of loan-borrowing the way Disney did, to make these acquisitions, considering Disney ain't exactly sitting in the best of condition these days.

 

[Erdrick]

Not a fan of Sony's censorship-happy policies these days, but otherwise, I'm satisfied with their output still. PS systems have been my console of choice for decades, and they cater to my interests (JRPGs, long single player games, cinematic experiences) so them continuing down this path is fine by me.

Now if only I could find a PS5 for sale that isn't ridiculously overpriced from MSRP...

 

[Neff]

MS dropped the ball

Nintendo as well. But both MS and Nintendo particularly have a much stronger product and strategy now compared to the absolute dearth of competition they were offering 7 years ago when PS4 launched.

 

[PropellerEar]

Yes.

You think now that they are able throw 7+ bln at acquisition they would allow Double Helix - one of the rarest studios that make fighting games - slip through the fingers? Or even before where EA acquired Bioware? Or when Amazon bought Twitch and MS thought it was too expensive (and now able to throw 12 bln at Discord?).
When Spencer became vice president we literally have almost the same year the purchases of multiple studios at once. Ninja Theory, Inxile etc. It was nothing but studio purchases.

You already can see the difference in the budgets before and after.

So basically you say ability to throw money is Phil's greatness?
Did he decide on Beam/Mixer in 2016(when he had non to spare?)
Waste all that XBox money trying to compete with Twitch?

 

[Topher]

It's a article that's lol worthy.
Sony doesn't have to do anything besides what they already do to compete.
It's MS who has work to do.

Ah.....I get you. Yeah, it is a bit strange that the article title makes it sound like Sony is the one playing catch up. I didn't really notice that before.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

So basically you say ability to throw money is Phil's greatness?

Yes because building first party requires purchasing studios? I mean Sony literally entered gaming with publisher purchase and a lot of other studios were also bought later. Xbox did not get tons of money from mother ship.

Sony right now is throwing money on time exclusives and some people call it "greatness" or "advantage".

Did he decide on Beam/Mixer in 2016(when he had non to spare?)

Beam was really cheap no? They thought they could build the community but with juggernaut like Twitch they could not do that. Not to mention there were not many streaming services either. Youtube was bought by Google, Twitch by Amazon - MS did not have any streaming service so they wanted to build one but failed to that.

Waste all that XBox money trying to compete with Twitch?

Yeah, they spent some money trying to build the community there but could do that so sold it to Facebook. Well, at least they integrated the tech into Teams. And Mixer was not that expensive purchase either.

There is a quantitative difference between time when Phil Spencer was not vice president and was. Now they are able to make Nokia level purchases, while before they could not even spend 1 bln for Twitch. Well, at least Ballmer saved Xbox when RROD happened but that's it.

They don't even hide how underfunded Xbox was.

 

[Banjo64]

And which company invested in them so they could grow to the size they are today?

Insomniac was on the edge of bankrupcy in the 90s before Sony's support (same with Naughty Dog). And no they weren't in the atari era

I’m sorry mate but that’s a mutually beneficial situation, if it’s true.

Sony invested in those studios to deliver those games. Fantastic, and well played to Sony for doing so. But, those studios and the games they made elevated the PlayStation brand to another level, and gave Sony the platform they needed to succeed.

It’s not like those studios were indebted to Sony.

I agree with your statement that there’s no issue with MS buying Zeni and that Sony can and will follow the same path of acquisitions. I wont discriminate though, they are all business transactions at the end of the day. If Sony bought Moon tomorrow it would just be tough titties for Xbox owners.

 

[RCU005]

In EU Sony raised PS games prices twice effectively.

The point is that it's not just Sony, it's everyone. It's every game. It wasn't Sony that established the price or told developers that they had to increase the price.

The complain would be valid if only Sony first party games would've increased, but it's not. It's every single game that increased.

 

[Kerotan]

As a PlayStation gamer I've never been happier. I hope they stay the same.

 

[TGO]

I dont know, was the 32x innovative?

In a way yes, poorly executed but innovative
Guess we'd call it a mid gen refresh now.
The Virtual Boy was innovative, yet poorly executed too

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

The complain would be valid if only Sony first party games would've increased, but it's not. It's every single game that increased.

I feel like PS4 games have been more expensive in Europe for a long time - more expensive than multiplatform and Xbox - but cannot check now.

 

[PropellerEar]

Yes because building first party requires purchasing studios? I mean Sony literally entered gaming with publisher purchase and a lot of other studios were also bought later. Xbox did not get tons of money from mother ship.

Sony right now is throwing money on time exclusives and some people call it "greatness" or "advantage".


Beam was really cheap no? They thought they could build the community but with juggernaut like Twitch they could not do that. Not to mention there were not many streaming services either. Youtube was bought by Google, Twitch by Amazon - MS did not have any streaming service so they wanted to build one but failed to that.


Yeah, they spent some money trying to build the community there but could do that so sold it to Facebook. Well, at least they integrated the tech into Teams. And Mixer was not that expensive purchase either.

There is a quantitative difference between time when Phil Spencer was not vice president and was. Now they are able to make Nokia level purchases, while before they could not even spend 1 bln for Twitch. Well, at least Ballmer saved Xbox when RROD happened but that's it.

They don't even hide how underfunded Xbox was.

They never disclosed the price.
So 1st prio is streaming service on the cheap (trust me bro), 2nd studio purchases?
Spending 10s of millions on Ninja, instead of developing games?
History of reckless spending, disastrous decisions and lying to customers not a great performance to be honest.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

They never disclosed the price.
So 1st prio is streaming service on the cheap (trust me bro), 2nd studio purchases?
Spending 10s of millions on Ninja, instead of developing games?
History of reckless spending, disastrous decisions and lying to customers not a great performance to be honest.

All in all we know that Xbox was underfunded, nobody is hiding that and their spending on Xbox was relatively minor. MS did not even spend millions on time exclusivity while Sony wanted to spend around 100 mil. on Starfield. Just completely different level of expense on your gaming division.

I guess you have some personal issues with MS - the last sentence confirms that - but that's okay.

 

[Zannrebel]

Hurry up and wait, please enjoy the Medium in the meantime.

Nah, ill enjoy mlb the show on gamepass instead.

 

[bender]

Nah, ill enjoy mlb the show on gamepass instead.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Not necessarily; Microsoft has had a long-standing relationship with not only Bethesda but also iD Software. It was the OG Xbox that got a DOOM 3 port back in the day, after all, and Microsoft's investment into Bethesda during that era is what allowed Morrowind to be made (and for Zenimax to be formed).

And that was without actually acquiring them to make those investments. Honestly, it's more or less semantics at the end of the day; both companies have made acquisitions and both have also encouraged "organic growth" with internal studios. It is a bit of a chuckle though on that note considering there isn't a Sony studio outside of maybe Polyphony and 989 Studios (that I can recall) who is 100% built from the ground-up in-house, whereas IIRC Turn 10 and even 343i were built up in-house, The Initiative also join that list on Microsoft's side.

But like was said ultimately this shouldn't matter, as both companies have done this and will continue to. The people trying to move the goalposts in ways like "yes but this company never acquired a publishing arm!" are acting weird. If said company had the financial capacity to purchase that publisher, they would have. That's how capitalism works. In terms of being for or against acquisitions, I don't root for or against it, I just like to view it in terms of market realities. The truth is, almost any company Sony were to consider acquiring, a company like Microsoft would also likely be looking at, and the latter can easily outbid the former to win the acquisition.

Even the usual talking point of "but it's hard for American companies to buy Japanese ones" doesn't really work: for starters, that's only mainly true for companies in industries Japan consider of critical importance (military, defense, medical, civil engineering, finance, law firm etc.), which most gaming companies don't fall under the definition of. Secondly, Microsoft have already shown they can acquire such a company now that they own Tango Gameworks. Thirdly, if Sony were to make such a gaming purchase they would likely do it under the PlayStation division which now operates out of California. So they would face similar extra regs to clear the way a company like Microsoft would.

But really it's the money side of the argument why gunning after those type of publishers would end up cost-prohibitive for Sony; keeping in mind they'd probably be looking at upwards 2x their valuation as payment to acquire them, and I wouldn't want to see Sony go into a ton of loan-borrowing the way Disney did, to make these acquisitions, considering Disney ain't exactly sitting in the best of condition these days.

Puts things into perspective about Bethesda doing a blog post and press release on their own site before the Series X launched with a list of games they were going to have an upgrade patch for, but did no such thing for the Pro.

They've always worked more closely with MSFT.

 

[Zannrebel]

3 times? Sony has 13 or 14 studios. MS has how many? 23? Now count how many games those studios produced last gen that were GOTY or even nominees. Sony has shown the ability to consistently crank out games of high quality. Microsoft is definitely in a better position now than they were last gen, but their production is still lacking.

Sony has like 11 with japan studios gone. I said AAA developers not total studio count. Indeed Sony has about 5 studios that put out goty contenders, however MS has put out games that score higher than several of them but they are never nominated for goty. With the zenimax purchase thats likely to change and the AAA gap growing bigger.

I dunno where the 3x number is coming from. But quality > quantity. MS doesn’t have much to show for it yet, whether they do in a year? Who knows.

It comes from the number of AAA studios each have. Games take time and they will have a lot to show for it.

 

[Shelookdlvl18]

I think Sony should stay their current course. Why change what obviously works for them? If it no longer works for them at some point, then they can decide what changes are necessary.

Reading through this thread, I see many of the same arguments from both camps being made in other threads as well.

On the Xbox side, there are people who seem to believe that any success for Xbox going forward, will automatically come at the Playstations expense. When they talk about things such as Gamepass, and how good and successful it's become. They seem to believe that every unit of success it has (whether they define "unit" as players, subscribers, or dollars) is a unit that Sony is losing. While both companies often fight for the same dollar or player, there's nothing that suggests that's the case. Many people own both consoles. Many in the Xbox camp see Xbox success as a Playstation failure, when that's not the case.

On the Playstation side, there's some who assume that Sony's first party output as far as quantity and quality is a given, while assuming that MS's first party output will be little to nothing. Both assumptions are baseless at best. Sony just finished a gen where they reestablished their dominance in the console market by releasing several new IPs that were different from their previous offerings, while also releasing sequels to some of their more successful franchises. This gen Sony appear to be releasing almost entirely sequels, while MS appear to be working on more new IPs. MS has acquired several studios over the last couple of years. Those studios (aside from the initiative) are a known quantity, that all have released games. They all have a known quantity of production. Despite all this, many in the pro Playstation camp assume that not only will Sony's success continue leaning heavily on sequels vs newer IP, but they also assume that despite MS having 23 studios... That none of them will release anything going forward.

 

[PropellerEar]

All in all we know that Xbox was underfunded, nobody is hiding that and their spending on Xbox was relatively minor. MS did not even spend millions on time exclusivity while Sony wanted to spend around 100 mil. on Starfield. Just completely different level of expense on your gaming division.

I guess you have some personal issues with MS - the last sentence confirms that - but that's okay.

100M > 7B
Man you make no sense.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Love Sony but I can't help but think if Gamepass starts reeling in some of the bigger 3rd party titles like the next Far Cry and Battlefield (They even made a play for the last COD) that Sony will need to change up something.

 

[Ezquimacore]

And that's the problem... Xbox is not even competing. Microsoft is building something for the future and taking their time because they have both, time and money.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

100M > 7B
Man you make no sense.

MS did not spend 7B before. A lot of stuff changed in 2017-2018.

Sony is doing what is in its capability with all those time exclusive games. Hundreds millions dollars. MS wasn't willing to spend that much on Xbox, despite being able to afford it.

Xbox is not even competing. Microsoft is building something for the future and taking their time because they have both, time and money.

And that's why I am interesting what ACG is talking about when he mentioned that things has changed behind the scenes. Thing that were not for sale, became for sale; companies working together and so on.

 

[Zannrebel]

Ouch, my comment must of hit a nerve. Np we all eat salt sometime.

 

[NickFire]

Love Sony but I can't help but think if Gamepass starts reeling in some of the bigger 3rd party titles like the next Far Cry and Battlefield (They even made a play for the last COD) that Sony will need to change up something.

Is there a standard for how long 3rd parties stay on there? As in, if a COD entry hits Gamepass when it launches, will it stay in it until the sequel comes out? Or is like a free trial period, where you have to buy it after a couple months?

 

[bender]

Ouch, my comment must of hit a nerve. Np we all eat salt sometime.

You missed the point so I posted something random. The fact that you take it as an insult is telling. I'm sure you'll outgrow your insecurity someday.

When you need a Sony developed title to show how attractive Microsoft's platform is during its' first year, that's kind of the point behind the hopes and dreams that Microsoft is selling their fan base. Their acquisitions will pay dividends but those titles are years away.

 

[PropellerEar]

MS did not spend 7B before. A lot of stuff changed in 2017-2018.

Sony is doing what is in its capability with all those time exclusive games. Hundreds millions dollars. MS wasn't willing to spend that much on Xbox, despite being able to afford it.


And that's why I am interesting what ACG is talking about when he mentioned that things has changed behind the scenes. Thing that were not for sale, became for sale; companies working together and so on.

Xbox bought timed exclusivity ~2014 for Tombraider and full exclusivity for Titanfall.
So they had money to spend.

There was things Xbox could have done and did do before 2017 or is it now 2018...2022 will be the year just wait.
So many dark years, some don't like to remember...

100M(trust me bro) > 7B

 

[yurinka]

I want to see aggressive internal growth and aquistions

They might be doing it behind the scenes but I want to see it. The $180 million YoY investment is a good start

But that's a problem for another day. Right now it's all sunshines and rainbows for me. Returnal is and Ratchet and Clank not long after

To increase >$180M their 1st party gamedev staff costs (mostly salaries) in a single year means to basically double their 1st party gamedev headcount. I think it confirms they will grow their internal teams a lot, and that pretty likely plan to buy or open some studio before April.

 

[Warablo]

I am sure eventually Sony will put together a Game Pass like thing. The problem will be if the whole market is up for sale, then Sony would have to bid against Microsoft, Google, Nintendo, Tencent and Amazon.

 

[Astral Dog]

Sony has the advantage that they have a very efficient 'pipeline' for producing award winning AAA content, coming from PS4 you can see how strong they are even now, PS5 has Demon Souls, Miles Morales, Resident Evil Village(not exclusive, but its not on GamePass yet and Sony has been marketing it) Returnal and Ratchet on June.
Xbox Series doesn't have a noticeable game yet except the medium, their acquisition of Bethesda should bring consumers but we won't see the fruits in some time.

That doesn't mean Xbox is not in a strong position either, with GamePass subscribers increasing every day Microsoft mostly needs some popular games to push the brand big time, at least announced..

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Xbox bought timed exclusivity ~2014 for Tombraider and full exclusivity for Titanfall.

And they got so much backlash for Tomb Raider so they never tried to get such big time exclusives later. Titanfall was mainly a multiplayer game so nobody cared.

There was things Xbox could have done and did do before 2017 or is it now 2018...2022 will be the year just wait.

Xbox did not had the budget it has right now. It is not even a secret nowadays.

I do feel that people trying to disprove that Xbox was underfunded trying to justify why Sony cannot make the same big moves as MS, trying to blame MS for not playing fair and so on. People has been waiting for years for MS to start acting like it is a big company. Glad that is finally happening.

 

[TheGodfather07]

Compete..,that's funny..

how can sony compete though? how can they compete when they sold more than double their competitor last generation and have the current fasting selling console ever with PS5, while also selling more software from first party and overall and having more criticially acclaimed exclusives year after year?

 

[PropellerEar]

And they got so much backlash for Tomb Raider so they never tried to get such big time exclusives later. Titanfall was mainly a multiplayer game so nobody cared.

Sunset Overdrive, Quantum Break (they had money to spend.(trust me bro)

Xbox did not had the budget it has right now. It is not even a secret nowadays.

PlayStation didn't have the budget that they have now. So I don't know what your point is.

 

[Warablo]

It doesn't take $7 billion to make some bloody games lol

Its a hell of a lot easier than creating multiple studios.

You'd need to find a place for all the employees to work, then you'd need to find enough employees with a variety of different backgrounds of training in generally the same location. Then you'd have pay the rent and salaries. Then the employees would have to get together just to brain storm a game. Haven't even begun on working on games yet.

 

[Hitchyhero]

Speaking as someone who has jumped between MS and Sony, MS just don’t have any games that made me want to invest in a Xbox. All the game passes in the world cannot change that.

I've pretty much had all consoles between the two.... Sans Xbone one.

The launch of the XB one put me right off and I had no desire to get the console as it literally had no games that were interesting to me.

I've picked up a series X first this gen as MS first party studios list is amazing. I think MS has a much different attitude this gen and they need games to sell gamepass.... So we are getting pretty good third party titles on gamepass and the first party ones are coming.

I could be wrong but I think this will be a great gen for MS in terms of output. Saleswise I think they'll do much much better than XBOne but nowhere near PS5. I hope people give them a chance though.