@coolboymew context?
@Evv1L Microsoft bought Activision. I'm unsure what came first after this, Sony freaking out about it immediately or Microsoft announcing they have a partnership with Nintendo to bring CoD games to their platform, but Sony are absolutely malding to such a level that they started a lawsuit to block the buy and now Sony has to reveal their own exclusivity deals since 2019 and it's really not gonna go well for them
@coolboymew @Evv1L it went like
>M$ wants to buy acti-blizzard (almost exclusively for King and mobile shit but they want the whole package)
>Sony starts anti-competition lawsuit
>their biggest argument being call of duty exclusivity
>despite Sony having exclusivity deals (early access, exclusive maps/modes, etc) on every call of duty for the past decade, this now makes it anti-competitive
>Microsoft responds "we'll promise to not make cod exclusive to xbox"
>Sony still seethes
>Microsoft offers X years of cod on ps
>Sony still seethes
>Microsoft commits to putting cod on nintendo platforms
>Sony still seethes
>apparently bringing the game to more platforms is still anti-competitive to Sony lawyers
>FTC and other nations' federal money lawyers have to stop and look at this bullshit
>(almost?) all of them agree it's not anti-competitive
>Sony still seethes
In Microsoft's original response to the lawsuit, they requested Sony to reveal all their exclusivity deals over the past 10 years. The judge agreed they honor it, but only for like 3 years. Knowing how rarely Xbox does exclusivity, and how aggressively Sony does, they're never gonna win.
Keep in mind this deal isn't even about cod, candy crush makes more money than any other property in the deal combined.
Also keep in mind cod has done nothing to monopolize the casual military fps, battlefield killed itself and halo is irrelevant. There's nothing stopping Sony from trying to compete, they instead spend millions trying to block crossplay and force people to stay on their platform.
>M$ wants to buy acti-blizzard (almost exclusively for King and mobile shit but they want the whole package)
>Sony starts anti-competition lawsuit
>their biggest argument being call of duty exclusivity
>despite Sony having exclusivity deals (early access, exclusive maps/modes, etc) on every call of duty for the past decade, this now makes it anti-competitive
>Microsoft responds "we'll promise to not make cod exclusive to xbox"
>Sony still seethes
>Microsoft offers X years of cod on ps
>Sony still seethes
>Microsoft commits to putting cod on nintendo platforms
>Sony still seethes
>apparently bringing the game to more platforms is still anti-competitive to Sony lawyers
>FTC and other nations' federal money lawyers have to stop and look at this bullshit
>(almost?) all of them agree it's not anti-competitive
>Sony still seethes
In Microsoft's original response to the lawsuit, they requested Sony to reveal all their exclusivity deals over the past 10 years. The judge agreed they honor it, but only for like 3 years. Knowing how rarely Xbox does exclusivity, and how aggressively Sony does, they're never gonna win.
Keep in mind this deal isn't even about cod, candy crush makes more money than any other property in the deal combined.
Also keep in mind cod has done nothing to monopolize the casual military fps, battlefield killed itself and halo is irrelevant. There's nothing stopping Sony from trying to compete, they instead spend millions trying to block crossplay and force people to stay on their platform.
@coolboymew @Evv1L i know sony's strategy here is to stall as long as possible, but i wonder if they're willing to release that info to delay it further
@why @Evv1L I simply think Sony didn't think it thought and just simply threw anything at the wall in an attempt to make it stick
Sony is actually in a very bad situation right now. Supply issue fucked them hard. They lost Japan. Their AAA games were never profitable so they have to branch out to PC. There's nearly no exclusive and they're about to potentially lose their biggest games to their competitor, which, IIRC, Sony did CoD, battlefield, etc. deals to have unique content to PS to advantage them
Sony is actually in a very bad situation right now. Supply issue fucked them hard. They lost Japan. Their AAA games were never profitable so they have to branch out to PC. There's nearly no exclusive and they're about to potentially lose their biggest games to their competitor, which, IIRC, Sony did CoD, battlefield, etc. deals to have unique content to PS to advantage them
Also squandering the vita/handheld market giving Nintendo a literal monopoly over it (since I'm sure nobody at Sony expected Nintendo would ever make a console quality handheld since they never had before). Literally Nintendo's only competitor in that field is the Steam Deck, and that's more like the Sega Nomad is where it's a portable version of an existing platform and it costs much more.
@PhenomX6 @Evv1L @why the Vita situation is sad as fuck as I remember them announcing the price and being immensely pissed at the 3DS. But then the bad news kept coming and coming about it. The memory card stuff, profiles, etc. What a freaking disaster
And that's just the surface stuff. LRG couldn't even ship the games with updates because they'd have to be recertified
And that's just the surface stuff. LRG couldn't even ship the games with updates because they'd have to be recertified
So the thing I remember vividly about that era was that Sony tried their favorite trick with the PS1 again and failed. With the PS1, everyone knows the story about how Sony beat Sega when the guy went on stage, said 299, and walked off.
https://youtu.be/ExaAYIKsDBI
For context, this was possible because Sega was making so many fuckups from the 3d policy to not releasing the games released in Japan (that made the console an "otaku console", including ports from Japanese home computers and arcade games) to instantly launching the Saturn when stores did not expect it, to critically selling the system for $399. It was a price that was inflexible as the Saturn hardware was pricier and well as the Saturn in the west lacked many of the games that made it big in Japan you can guess the rest.
Sony tried this with the Vita again, except Nintendo wasn't Sega. Nintendo made sure to make consoles as cheap as possible for numerous reasons, and one advantage is price flexibility. So when the 3ds was announced for $250, the Vita was announced for $250. It was a killer deal, until Nintendo dropped the 3ds price to $200 right afterwards and then followed it up with the branded games they're known for. They also treated the 3ds as a first class system to the point it got Smash Bros for the first time as well and far higher budget games than the handhelds usually got.
This trick also was less effective on the Xbox One than the PS4, because Microsoft shuffled up management, ditched the bundled Kinect, and then slashed the price from $500 to $350. I'm sure Sony also didn't expect Microsoft's new management to give a shit with game pass and partial BC which lets you use discs instead of rebuying your games. The PS5's only audience is normies who invested in the PS4 for a reason.
https://youtu.be/ExaAYIKsDBI
For context, this was possible because Sega was making so many fuckups from the 3d policy to not releasing the games released in Japan (that made the console an "otaku console", including ports from Japanese home computers and arcade games) to instantly launching the Saturn when stores did not expect it, to critically selling the system for $399. It was a price that was inflexible as the Saturn hardware was pricier and well as the Saturn in the west lacked many of the games that made it big in Japan you can guess the rest.
Sony tried this with the Vita again, except Nintendo wasn't Sega. Nintendo made sure to make consoles as cheap as possible for numerous reasons, and one advantage is price flexibility. So when the 3ds was announced for $250, the Vita was announced for $250. It was a killer deal, until Nintendo dropped the 3ds price to $200 right afterwards and then followed it up with the branded games they're known for. They also treated the 3ds as a first class system to the point it got Smash Bros for the first time as well and far higher budget games than the handhelds usually got.
This trick also was less effective on the Xbox One than the PS4, because Microsoft shuffled up management, ditched the bundled Kinect, and then slashed the price from $500 to $350. I'm sure Sony also didn't expect Microsoft's new management to give a shit with game pass and partial BC which lets you use discs instead of rebuying your games. The PS5's only audience is normies who invested in the PS4 for a reason.
Follow
@PhenomX6 @Evv1L @coolboymew @why
>Nintendo made sure to make consoles as cheap as possible for numerous reasons, and one advantage is price flexibility.
Except Bandai tried that with the WonderSwan, but ended up failing.
@PhenomX6 @Evv1L @coolboymew @why Mattel was supposed to release it in the US, but decided not to presumably because of the then-recent failure of the NGPC.
Honestly, Pokemon just ensured Nintendo's monopoly on the handheld market, and I don't think Digimon would've cut it.
Also he was the same guy who made the game boy so yeah