• kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not necessarily.

    The FTC did important work here even if it wasn’t successful in the suit.

    Microsoft got Zenimax and was then rather excessive in how they handled it, and that is a large part of what prompted this degree of pushback by regulatory bodies.

    If Xbox wants to leave the door open for future acquisitions they are very much aware they need to tread carefully moving forward.

    Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the Zenimax titles end up as timed exclusives down the road rather than permanent exclusives as announced.

    Similarly, Sony has set any of their own future acquisitions up for potential scrutiny if they continue down the path of total exclusively, and what’s likely going to end up happening is each side plays their bargaining chips to end up with mutual releases after timed windows.

    This is arguably better than Activision Blizzard ending up in the hands of Tencent and going even further in the direction of Diablo Immortal, and may even help curb future exclusivity across the industry.

    (In general, first party studio ownership leads to better games and less microtransaction BS.)

    Less exclusivity in the future may largely rest on the FTC and other regulatory bodies having aggressively pushed back on this here and now.

    In trade regulation you don’t need to necessarily win the fight to still have a net positive influence.

    • LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      Microsoft got Zenimax and was then rather excessive in how they handled it, and that is a large part of what prompted this degree of pushback by regulatory bodies.

      If Xbox wants to leave the door open for future acquisitions they are very much aware they need to tread carefully moving forward.

      This reads like a rather optimistic take to me.

      What Microsoft learned here is that they can buy a publisher (Bethesda), make that publisher’s games exclusive, and still get the biggest gaming acquisition in history approved by regulators.

      Microsoft will likely pause acquisitions for a bit, but everyone else that wants to get into/stay in gaming is going to look into them even more than before. I’d be surprised if Sony doesn’t end up buying someone decently large (but not as large as Activision: Sony cannot afford anything like that). Everyone seems to think Sony would go for Square Enix but I think they would make a different choice.

      • kromem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, Sony will very likely eye an acquisition (possibly even the one extensively rumoured over the years that isn’t Square Enix), but that’d be to shore up their bargaining position over exclusivity.

        The exclusivity fight, particularly if mutually assured destruction, isn’t a winning bet long term.

        There’s an ebb and flow to this industry, and we’ve already seen under Jim Ryan the shift to PC ports after exclusivity windows.

        Honestly, the biggest thing holding back Sony ports to Xbox is probably Microsoft’s insistence on platform support for the Series S.

        Not great to engineer streamlined system that you push to the max with first party titles to then instead get held back planning to support your competitor’s worst product.

        • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Honestly, the biggest thing holding back Sony ports to Xbox is probably Microsoft’s insistence on platform support for the Series S.

          I don’t agree with that assessment given Sony only published games on the Xbox One when forced to by the license holder. They also seem to do just fine porting their games to PC where there is a host of different hardware configurations. Go look at the minimum PC specs for Ratchet and Clank; that sure seems like it could run on a Series S to me.

      • lustyargonian@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        As long as PS sells better than Xbox, they don’t really need to acquire companies as it also makes economic sense for third party studios to simple agree on an exclusivity deal with the console leader.

        We can already see how most multiplatform games actually perform better on PS5 despite Xbox Series X being a notch better. In fact, some games even lack features on Xbox (Callisto Protocol to date has shitty Ray Tracing on Xbox with poorer performance, Resident Evil 4 Remake having better controls on PS5 compared to Xbox) even without any deals that we know of, while games like Hogwarts Legacy have exclusive content just for PS5, and FF XVI outright being exclusive to PS5. Sony didn’t have to acquire these devs to make that happen, the devs get to remain independent and sell their game exclusively on the largest current gen console.

        And if and when Xbox sales actually start to match that of PS, they can still make PS+ a better service by having day one releases before going for acquisitions.

        It doesn’t feel like it, but with ABK, Microsoft finally has parity with Sony when it comes to number of IPs, with Sony still being the market leader with most reach and “true” exclusives that require you to buy the console.

    • Chozo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the Zenimax titles end up as timed exclusives down the road rather than permanent exclusives as announced.

      Yeah, I really hope this is how things play out with that acquisition. I’d really love to be able to play Elder Scrolls 6 (some day), but don’t want to be forced into a separate ~$500 purchase in order to play it.

      Similarly, Sony has set any of their own future acquisitions up for potential scrutiny if they continue down the path of total exclusively, and what’s likely going to end up happening is each side plays their bargaining chips to end up with mutual releases after timed windows.

      Yeah, this is a concern I’ve had with Sony acquiring Bungie. Although, Bungie’s new game, Marathon, is already slated to be cross platform, so the fact that they’re not immediately going into exclusivity-mode is a good look, so far. Hopefully we see a similar pattern with their other new IP, Matter, whenever they share more about that.

      • kromem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        If I was Sony I’d now immediately partner with Nvidia to offer their cloud gaming service on PS4 and PS5.

        I know they are trying to roll their own but I think that’s a mistake, and offering their users the ability to access Microsoft games on the equivalent of a 4080 for $19.99/mo for the duration of playing the one exclusive a year they’d actually care about would be the biggest F-U to Xbox.

        Yes, in theory it could cannibalize software sales through channels they don’t get a cut, but generally I’d prefer playing locally on a PS5 than dealing with compression artifacts on cloud offerings, even if the cloud offering is good enough to not buy a $500 separate box.

        • substill@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why would Sony let Nvidia’s cloud service onto the PS storefront? If Sony wanted players to have access to an equivalent cloud model that Sony didn’t control, they’d just let Game Pass onto PlayStation.

          • kromem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            let Game Pass onto PlayStation

            Yeah, right.

            Delivering a subpar workaround for your users is different from giving a subscription service that you don’t get a cut of which is better than your current offerings.

            Sony is exposed to far less risk to their revenue letting Nvidia in than Microsoft.

            Nvidia would be max single digit cannibalized sales but would probably put a significant dent into the potential market of PS5 owners that might otherwise have bought Xbox hardware for exclusives.

            Game Pass would likely be well into double digit cannibalized sales for both games and subscription services.

    • Vordus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah. When IBM started getting wary of antitrust in the 80s, that paved the way for Microsoft, and when Microsoft started getting wary of antitrust in the 90s, that paved the way for Google. The FTC may be toothless, but the more it sucks up a corporation’s time and resources and just makes things difficult, the more it serves it’s purpose regardless.