Jump to content

Talk Show Host

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Talk Show Host

  1. Yeah, I don't think saying otherwise would help their case during the acquisition phase.
  2. I agree to all of that. My main point is that Microsoft getting AB to GP is something Sony can't counter with their current strategy. They have no answer to GP's expansion and that is not because they cannot compete, its because the strategy they have chosen does not allow them to compete at this point.
  3. Microsoft doesn't have Sony's AAA or their exclusive deals either, so they are at a disadvantage as well. What I am saying is that Sony has a way to counter GP, its not about the money. They can "built" their own GP and put in their AAAs day one as Microsoft does, but they can't do that because of the way they have built their strategy. I think there is a difference between a subscription service as a bonus and as the main strategy of a platform. This only happened this gen and it really changed imo how Microsofts acts in the market.
  4. I agree to those things, of course it's business. That doesn't mean their arguments make sense, they are totally off. As for Microsoft reaching them this gen, they are not going to. What they are doing now will benefit them next gen. And, down the line, if GP grows with more and more games people pay full price on other systems, Sony will be in serious trouble. If they only needed their AAAs then there would be no problem. But they still need 3rd parties to be competitive. No, not really. GP has only become Microsoft's main strategy this gen, the same way Sony's AAAs became their main strategy last gen.
  5. GP is just getting started. Subscribers will shift when they realize a bunch of super games can be played on GP while they cost full price on PS5. It is the future Sony is scared of and for a good reason in my opinion.
  6. They will be really threatened when all the AB games are on GP while people have to pay full price to play them in PS5.
  7. There is no reason to do it, other than say "sure, you get all the 3rd party games of AB in GP while you pay 80 bucks to play them in our system, but we give our super charged AAA in the subscription, which are state of the art". That would be a worthy counter to GP. But they can't do that because of the strategy they have chosen, hence why they are losing their minds over the AB deal. They really have no answer to that.
  8. I am saying they can't do it even if they wanted to because of the strategy they have chosen (but they will probably be forced to do it at some point). So they have become increasingly worried about GP, especially with the inclusion of AB΄s games, because they can't counter that. If they did include their AAAs day one, then PS+ would easily become more of a rival to GP.
  9. It matters when it comes to their strategy, which is what we are talking about I think. And because of that strategy they have a problem putting these titles day one on their online services, which would be the best way to counter GP, instead of filling up the headlines with drivel over the last few months or so about CoD.
  10. Yeah, but it wasn’t their first parties that out them there, as opposed to PS4. Big difference.
  11. I agree, but that’s only because it’s so difficult to do it and it takes more than one generation to have a chance at it. Sony was only able to do it to that effect after three generations. Plus, Microsoft has a point because it’s Bungie who is now with Sony and they have great expertise regarding online fps. I am not saying it’s a very logical argument, but it’s not crazier than Sony claiming what they are claiming. It’s all a mess really. All in all it’s not that different than Microsoft saying “Sony had plenty of time to change their strategy and build a rival for GP, but they chose a different business plan.” The most insane thing is that Sony is claiming what is claiming and still practices exclusive deals which shape the market. Maybe Microsoft should have done that instead of going down the acquisition road.
  12. More odd than Sony claiming they won’t survive without CoD or that Microsoft will intentionally sabotage the PS5 release? Sony has been the clown in all of this and it’s sad to see Microsoft follow suit.
  13. I really do not agree with that. The fact that Sony was able to produce so many new AAA IPs in just one generation says a lot about the way they matured their production pipeline through the years. That was essentially Cerny’s dream, this unification of development (which has its negatives as well), and this is why it is almost impossible for Microsoft to replicate that. We are actually seeing in real time how difficult it is. I do not believe Spencer can correct that any time soon. This generation is a "new AAA IP investment" for Microsoft, in order to reap the rewards next gen. If they are half as lucky or half as good as Sony was last gen, they should be happy. Sony is a well oiled machine in their productions, that is not something you simply have. It takes years and years of effort, planning and, of course, talent.
  14. That is correct but the main problem is how many seem to be against it, plus one particular party which happens to be arguably the biggest player in said market. These drag and complicate things way more than other acquisitions.
  15. Yes, of course, I said so in a previous post. That is why Microsoft needed way more lobbying and paving the way before pulling the trigger. It all seems to have happened too fast for an acquisition like this.
  16. I get it, yeah. They just seem to have rushed everything into existence for this generation and are trying to plug strategy holes on the go. They did the same with the acquisition, it just feels like a rushed decision, which was enforced by their rushing to make GP their core strategy etc. It’s a domino. The acquisition will go through. It’s very rare for a vertical acquisition to be stopped by the authorities.
  17. I am actually the opposite. I am using GP for those games you mention and I am really enjoying everything it offers. I haven't even thought of buying a PS5, since it really has nothing special to offer until now for me. Also, regarding GP, I would much rather buy Starfield or the new Elder Scrolls and quit the service then, because that would mean I wouldn't play any other game for a considerable amount of time.
  18. True, up to a point. Sometimes it is easy to forget that it took Sony three generations to create the production pipeline we saw on PS4. In addition, xbox one started with a disastrous plan which didn't really include the setup which Spencer is trying to do. Microsoft had to change its entire business model mid gen and then try to come up with an different way to compete, hence the GP. I do agree that they have been slower than normal, but not that much. Sometimes we really do not understand how difficult it is to run these divisions and organize a whole bunch of new studios, a new service and a historic acquisition. I bet its pretty difficult and it's always much easier to judge results than come up with strategies.
  19. I think their entire plan was based on using AB titles and its exclusives to fill the gap until their own productions start coming (it’s understandable that it’s being taking a while since you need minimum 4-5 years for a proper AAA, especially new IPs). I also think that the new Elder Scrolls has been wiped clean and production has been restarted as well. But now that AB has been taking a year to go through, their hands are tight. It feels like Microsoft just wanted something “quick” to expand game pass and thought it would be a great idea to go after AB until their production pipeline would be ready to go. Tturns out that completing the biggest acquisition in the history of histories is a little more complicated than that.😜
  20. Unfortunately they didn't seem well prepared for the acquisition. They haven't really paved the way properly or lobbied enough, so this is taking forever. And they can't really make any announcements or even plan properly before AB is in the bag.
  21. My examples of how good Nintendo is doing were based on the path they have chosen. They are all in context because different things matter for different companies, as you point out. That is why I said above that all this is based on how successful the strategies will be. At the moment Nintendo is the only one doing extremely well without the big 3rd party hitters the other two need. These games do not matter for their platform, they are just a great bonus. If you add to this their incredible numbers and profits, brand awareness and normal development costs, it is easy to see why they are doing better and why Sony, for example, is scared to death by this acquisition. They have no out, like Nintendo has.
  22. Yeah, I agree. If you care about those games though, getting a Switch for them was not a good choice to begin with. The reason is, as a gamer seeking those games, you do not matter for Nintendo as much, otherwise they would do anything they could to get you those games. And sometimes they do, and other times they don't. Which means they are not bound by the CoDs and GTAs of the world, hence why their audience is quite different and therefore not a direct competitor. But not because they are doing worse, but because their doing much better.
  23. I think final date for CMA is 22nd of May. But there are other hoops as well after that. Why is the argument that some big games not coming to Switch a negative argument of sorts? Nintendo doesn’t need those big games to be successful or even being a market leader. Shouldn’t that be viewed as an absolute positive?
  24. We are comparing gaming divisions of course. It’s well established that Nintendo is not a trillion dollar company. 😛
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.