By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Microsoft Claims Sony is Paying Developers for 'Blocking Rights' to Keep Games off of Game Pass

Microsoft Claims Sony is Paying Developers for 'Blocking Rights' to Keep Games off of Game Pass - News

by William D'Angelo , posted on 10 August 2022 / 5,478 Views

Microsoft in its response to Sony's claims with Brazil's regulatory body, the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE), about Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard has claimed Sony has paid for "blocking rights" to keep games off of Xbox Game Pass.

"Microsoft’s ability to continue expanding Game Pass has been obstructed by Sony's desire to inhibit such growth," said Microsoft in a filing to CADE that was translated from Portuguese translated by VideoGamesChronicle. "Sony pays for 'blocking rights' to prevent developers from adding content to Game Pass and other competing subscription services."

Microsoft also stated, "Considering that exclusivity strategies have been at the core of Sony’s strategy to strengthen its presence in the games industry, and that Sony is a leader in the distribution of digital games, Sony’s concern with possible exclusivity of Activision‘s content is incoherent, to say the least.

"It only reveals, once again, a fear about an innovative business model that offers high-quality content at low costs to gamers, threatening a leadership that has been forged from a device-centric and exclusivity-focused strategy over the years."

Microsoft Claims Sony is Paying Developers for 'Blocking Rights' Keep Games off of Game Pass

Microsoft in the same response sent to CADE feels Sony is being apprehensive about the increased competition once the Activision Blizzard deal closes, rather than a worry about Microsoft becoming anti-competitive.

Microsoft also considers the "New PlayStation Plus" is considered a rival to Xbox Game Pass in the industry and "the use of exclusive arrangements has been at the heart of Sony's strategy to strengthen its presence in the gaming industry."

Along with its first-party lineup, Sony has entered agreements with third-party publishers to ensure some games release as exclusives at launch on PlayStation consoles.

Microsoft sees Sony's claims as a "fear regarding an innovative business model that offers high quality content at low costs to players, threatening a leadership that was forged from a device-centric strategy and focused on exclusivity throughout of years."


A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can contact the author on Twitter @TrunksWD.


More Articles

200 Comments
gtotheunit91 (on 10 August 2022)

This was something that's been suspected of for a long time, but there was nothing ever concrete. You have to assume Microsoft can't be lying to a governing body about such a damning claim. Especially considering a $70 billion acquisition is at stake. I wonder if Microsoft will need to provide proof on such claims.

They did go a bit for the jugular about Sony paying for third party exclusives as a core part of Sony's business model. I think Microsoft even referred to FFVII Remake as a first party exclusive lol

  • +32
NobleTeam360 gtotheunit91 (on 10 August 2022)

Yeah, basically what I was going to say. We've all suspected Sony was doing this but this confirms it.

  • +2
Qwark NobleTeam360 (on 10 August 2022)

Why would they need proof they are not going to court. It's also not illegal and as DonFerrari said it's not like MS never went for this strategy.

  • +6
NobleTeam360 Qwark (on 10 August 2022)

What? My comment was in agreement with the point of most people suspecting Sony was paying to keep games off of Gamepass. Unless you meant to respond to gtotheunit? Then carry on.

  • +1
DonFerrari gtotheunit91 (on 10 August 2022)

If they can't produce proof (and well if they did, like produce the contract claiming that, it would likely be a breach of contract between that company and Sony).
MS seems to have even forgot they also pay for exclusive rights and now decided to go for purchasing publishers so they don't need to care about individual contracts.

  • -9
fauzman DonFerrari (on 11 August 2022)

Yes this exactly. Show the proof if this is the case. Both companies have exclusivity deals that keep games off each others consoles. But the idea that Sony pays off devs for no other benefit to them than to keep games off Gamepass - the idea seems ludicrous to me. Hiw is Sony even able to succeed in this with MS's deep pockets. Either shiw the proof or it didnt happen.

  • 0
DonFerrari fauzman (on 11 August 2022)

MS can pay 80B for two publisher but can`t outpay Sony on game being on GP or not =p

  • -4
gtotheunit91 DonFerrari (on 11 August 2022)

A block clause has to be part of contracts Sony signs with developers/publishers. Nothing Microsoft can do about that.

  • +5
DonFerrari gtotheunit91 (on 11 August 2022)

You know they offer similar contracts, so if they outbid Sony for the deals that wouldn't happen for those games, as it doesn't for the games they have deals. Poor MS can't sign contracts with devs.

  • -8
gtotheunit91 DonFerrari (on 11 August 2022)

This story is just pertaining to Sony paying developers to keep games off of Game Pass or other similar subscription services. Which if Microsoft is having to point that out to a governing body, then Microsoft is not doing the same business tactic to keep games off of PS+ or other subscription services.
Instead of paying to keep games off of Game Pass, Sony should just use that money to better PS+

  • +2
DonFerrari gtotheunit91 (on 11 August 2022)

You know that the only document ever showed (and there is no way to even check if valid) is that of RE and the terms was that it was timed and to show first on PS sub.

  • -7
Comment was deleted...
DonFerrari zero129 (on 12 August 2022)

I didn't say they are lying, I said they would need to present proof of their claim (and also said that MS employs similar tactics), neither is something that is untrue.

  • -4
Comment was deleted...
2zosteven DonFerrari (on 15 August 2022)

i know what you are saying here, completely agree!

  • +1
scrapking DonFerrari (on 11 August 2022)

My reading of the comments is that Microsoft didn't complain about Sony's behaviour, so much as they noted the inconsistencies in Sony's approach. Microsoft also wasn't making public comment, and we wouldn't even know they'd said it if not for Brazil making their government filing public.

And I think it's been a long while since Microsoft paid for exclusive third-party rights. They did pay for a timed exclusive on Tomb Raider on the Xbox One, but that was A) a long time ago, and B) was only a timed exclusive (Microsoft's allegation doesn't suggest Sony's blocking deals are timed). Have they done any exclusivity deals that were more recent than that?

There are a few indie games that have appeared exclusively on Xbox/PC/Game Pass, but it's not clear to me whether Microsoft paid for exclusivity in those cases, or those just happened to be the platforms the indie developer targeted (it's sounds pretty trivial to release a game on Xbox and PC these days, due to Microsoft largely harmonizing the development environments between the two).

  • +7
DonFerrari scrapking (on 11 August 2022)

I could bet it wasn't government making any filling public, but the lovely leakers that doesn't obey law and privacy.
There have been launch X1 games that were 3rd part exclusives (even that one claiming it would only be possible in Xbox but not on PS, I think it was Medium), and I'm sure if we go and search we will find more (Power Wash Simulator comes to mind).

  • -6
scrapking DonFerrari (on 12 August 2022)

Medium was only a timed exclusive, as it later came to PS.

Power Wash Simulator is an indie game, and they often don't intially come to every platform, because they often don't have the resources to develop half-a-dozen versions at once.

The biggest third-party exclusive I can think of at the X1 launch was Ryse: Son of Rome, that came to X1 and PC. Great game, BTW. But that was 9 years ago, so not much to do with Microsoft's current practices.

And I'm trying to remember which YouTube video I saw it on, but it was alleged that its policy in Brazil that these filings are made public. So in fairness, Microsoft may have known that their filing would come out, so they may have written it with both the Brazilian regulator and the global public in mind. If they knew that would happen, that is. And if they thought there'd be enough interest that people would translate it from Portuguese into other languages (if it was in Portuguese, which I believe some or all of the filings have been).

  • +1
DonFerrari scrapking (on 12 August 2022)

You said they didn't do it, and I was able to remember 2 in a few seconds. Most if not all 3rd party Sony have made deals were timed exclusives and listed as such in their announcements, including FF7R.
I can't say if the fillings is to be made public as I never tracked it, but leaks of information that should be "secret" is quite common in Brazil (not done or condone by the government, at least not publicly). And Sure MS isn't responsible if it was or not made publicly, what I said was just that depending on case (trials for example) they need to provide formal evidence instead of "hearsay" and reinforced with if they showed a document signed by both parties (a hard evidence) then someone else would have to broke a contract to leak that document to MS (and likely wouldn't even be allowed in court I guess, since it wouldn't be a criminal case where defendant have more leeway to defend itself).
Anyway my point was just that MS is criticizing a move they themselves make. Titanfall is another game that was exclusive to X1 together with Sunset Overdrive, and so far haven't gone to PS (which doesn't matter as I was talking only Series not X1).
The way Power Wash is show (and well is published by SE, which curiously have close ties with Sony) is that it is indeed exclusive, not that it is going first to Xbox, but sure since it isn't a big game it doesn't really matter.

  • -3
scrapking DonFerrari (on 12 August 2022)

I didn't say Microsoft doesn't do it, I said:

"And I think it's been a long while since Microsoft paid for exclusive third-party rights. They did pay for a timed exclusive on Tomb Raider on the Xbox One, but that was A) a long time ago, and B) was only a timed exclusive"

So I didn't say it hasn't happened, I said I'm not aware of it happening for a while now. Since I was speaking of exclusivity, rather than a timed exclusive, the Medium doesn't invalidate my comment since it later came to PS. X1 launch games don't invalidate my comment since I acknowledged that it used to happen.

You said: "Anyway my point was just that MS is criticizing a move they themselves make."

Make? Or made? If your examples are Titanfall or Sunset Overdrive, those are some pretty old games, and Titanfall had a multiplatform sequel.

  • +1
UteGuy gtotheunit91 (on 10 August 2022)

This is odd, Microsoft essentially popularized blocking games on other platforms with big money 3rd party exclusivity deals. Can't imagine what Sony has done in response is any different/worse, plus they aren't attempting to consolidate a chunk of the industry for gatekeeping reasons. With Bungie they ensured it would stay 3rd party publishing, which is honestly the way all these big publishers should stay even when acquired.

  • -4
Azzanation UteGuy (on 10 August 2022)

What games has Xbox gate keeped from PS? I can name afew from Sony but most Xbox timed exclusives eventually made it to PS.

  • 0
UteGuy Azzanation (on 10 August 2022)
  • -18
LudicrousSpeed UteGuy (on 11 August 2022)

No offense but uh, what?

I assume you’re too young to remember the PSone days. Sony broke into the industry by spending cash, whether it’s moneyhat deals or give by devs dirt cheap licensing costs to entice them to make PlayStation games instead of Nintendo games.

Sony started moneyhat deals and studio acquisitions long before Microsoft was even in the console business, lol.

  • +6
scrapking UteGuy (on 11 August 2022)

In fairness, Microsoft wasn't so much complaining about Sony's behaviour, as showing that it's inconsistent. Microsoft has provided no public comment about the issue, and we wouldn't even know about it if not for the government filing.

  • +5
SecondWar gtotheunit91 (on 11 August 2022)

"I wonder if Microsoft will need to provide proof on such claims."
They aren't going to make such a claim in official proceedings without having the evidence to back it up, otherwise they'd be left with a lot more than just egg on their face.

  • +4
2zosteven gtotheunit91 (on 12 August 2022)

for another 40 billion Microsoft could have bout sony

  • +4
Mr Puggsly (on 10 August 2022)

If Sony is spending money to make their services better, fine.

If Sony is spending money to make Game Pass worse, that's anti consumer.

  • +24
tslog (on 10 August 2022)

Sony was buying 3rd party exclusives when Xbox was in it's worst position, and still buys 3rd party exclusives /timed exclusives to this day.
Now Sony is complaining that Xbox buying some 3rd parties most of which will be exclusives, and says that is unfair.....absolutely hilarious deliberate hypocrisy.
Any regulators should laugh & then dismiss Sony's fraudulent complaints.

  • +14
rapsuperstar31 tslog (on 10 August 2022)

There is a bit of a difference with Sony trying to keep a few exclusives 3rd party series, and one of the biggest companies in the world at over a 2 trillion dollar market cap that has been accused of antitrust for decades trying to buy the biggest 3rd party in the world and the biggest 1st person shooter in the business. What Microsoft is paying for Activision is worth more than Nintendo's entire company's mktcap and about 64% of Sony's entire marketcap. When a company has that kind of money to throw around, they aren't even in the same conversation. Sony isn't even remotely a true threat to a company as big as Microsoft, even if they have the better first party games.

  • +5
UteGuy rapsuperstar31 (on 10 August 2022)

Exactly, Microsoft has enjoyed various monopolies for decades and now wants to create another one through consolidation. People are trying to make apples and oranges comparisons to timed exclusivity (which both companies do).

  • +2
Azzanation rapsuperstar31 (on 10 August 2022)

Their is no difference. Sony brought rights to many big named IPs to never come to Xbox. Buying a studio stops Sony from having that power.

  • 0
UteGuy Azzanation (on 10 August 2022)

What IPs did Sony buy outright? They generally make them internally I can't think of any they actually bought like MS did... And yes, there is a huge difference.

  • -6
Azzanation UteGuy (on 10 August 2022)

Street Fighter 5, FF7 Remake, FF16, Forspoken just to name afew are permanent exclusives. What permanent exclusives did MS take away from Sony?

  • 0
UteGuy Azzanation (on 10 August 2022)

I am not talking about exclusivity deals for games, I am talking about buying franchise. MS recently permanently took Elder Scrolls from the PS platform, that isn't just a game, it is a franchise... Not to mention all the other coming Bethesda and Zenimax titles. Those are not just long-term exclusivity...

  • -3
Azzanation UteGuy (on 11 August 2022)

Its the same deal. Keeping games off other platforms is no different to owning the brand. Bethesda is first party just like Naughty Dog is first party. To expect Elder Scrolls on PS is like expecting Uncharted on Xbox.

  • +1
Burning Typhoon Azzanation (on 12 August 2022)

Well, even still, Street Fighter V doesn't count. Capcom didn't have the money to make the game and wasn't going to do it when they did. Sony stepped in and paid for the development. Street Fighter 6 will be on Xbox consoles and SFV has run its course. The game is over with.

You can get really technical if you want to, but we're talking about games that legitimately would have come to another platform. No one epects a sony funded game like SFV to show up on an xbox, unless they're unware that Sony commissioned Capcom to make the game.

Sony does not own Street Fighter.

That's entirely different from FF7, which would have gone to other platforms.

  • -5
Azzanation Burning Typhoon (on 12 August 2022)

That's an excuse. We don't know how much money other companies help put into their time exclusives either. MS also help fund Rise of the Tomb Raider and yet it still managed to cross over to PS.

The point being missed is that buying or funding is the same outcome to someone on another platform. Sony don't own SF5 but SF5 is a permanent exclusive that's been paid to be kept off other platforms. They basically own SF5 without buying the IP.

I understand buying studios will have a more greater effect however the end game is all the same. Just because Sony cannot afford Bethesda or Activision does not make them an exception to the rule.

  • +1
Leynos Azzanation (on 10 August 2022)

Sony doesn't own those

  • 0
Azzanation Leynos (on 10 August 2022)

They brought the rights to ensure they never come to other platforms. Very similar, stopping others from playing a game by exclusive deals or owning is the same end game.

  • +1
Hynad Azzanation (on 11 August 2022)

It’s not the same thing. You know that all too well.

But being what you are…

  • -3
Azzanation Hynad (on 11 August 2022)

Oh.. and what am i exactly?
Thought so.

  • 0
Otter Azzanation (on 11 August 2022)

Titanfall, Ryse, Sunset Overdrive,

And many games which eventually made their way to Playstation like Bioshock, Mass Effect 1 (5 years later), Tomb raider. We can't act like MS is just responding to Sony when MS is the one who started buying 3rd party exclusives back in the 360 days

We also don't know if FF7 Remake, FF16, Forspoken are permanent remakes. Again Mass Effect 1 didn't come to playstation until 2012, 5 years after it released.

  • -4
gtotheunit91 Otter (on 11 August 2022)

Then do I have news for you about what Sony was doing in the 90s long before Xbox came on the scene lol. I'll tell you, it's what you just described but on a much larger scale.

Geez, why can't everyone in this post just admit Sony is in the wrong on this particular topic and move on?

  • +7
Comment was deleted...
Otter zero129 (on 11 August 2022)

Well I was responding to the competition between Xbox and Playstation. What did Sony moneyhat on the PlayStation 3?

And out if curiosoty what games were were money hatted by Sony in the 90s? I know multiplatform releases were not the norm in the 90s but because of hardware differences.

  • -1
gtotheunit91 Otter (on 11 August 2022)

Off the top of my head during the PS3 era you had the Ni No Kuni franchise, Metal Gear Solid 4, Beyond Two Souls, Heavy Rain, Valkyria Chronicles, and the entire Yakuza franchise. We're talking years if not a decade before these games finally left PlayStation exclusivity.

MS arguably got the bigger timed exclusives, but both MS and Sony were knee deep in third party exclusivity.

During the 90s, it would take waaaaaay too long to list those games out lol. The TLDR is pretty much nearly every single major PlayStation game you can name in the 90s, had a time gate on it before it got ported or Sony bought full exclusivity . Even Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy VII had a full year to two year exclusivity window before it was ported to Windows. Sony's business practices are nothing new and that's the template Xbox followed when they entered the market because they knew it worked.

  • +1
Otter gtotheunit91 (on 11 August 2022)

From this its seems that you think that all exclusives = money hat.

Ni No Kuni/Yakuza/Valkyria.... Is there any specific reason why you think that these JRPG were money hatted? And for Yakusza to be but FFXIII was not?

It simply was not the norm for Japanese games to be developed as multiplatform prior to PS4/X1, especially giventhe dominance of the PS2...and still to this day many skip Xbox because of such a small market. Sony for example is not responsible for Persona not being on Xbox prior to this point. FFXIII is great example because it was announced as a PS3 exclusive but Sony clearly had no deal, hence it being announced for 360 some years later and launching on both platforms.

Metal Gear Solid 4 could be a money hat but it also could be another example of a developer following what they presume to be the dominant platform, especially after PS2.

But otherwise I have no doubt Sony did during the PS1 cycle. Although I'm curious how many games launched on console and PC day one on any platform in the 90s. stagnant porting was very normal. But again my initial comment was regarding Sony reacting to Microsoft's purchasing exclusivity for projects that were obviously intended for multiplatform release (Titanfall/Tomb Raider). So @Azzanation's notion that sony is doing this but MS is not is bizzare, or that MS has never kept a game from Playstation.

  • -1
Comment was deleted...
DonFerrari Otter (on 13 August 2022)

The developer itself confirmed MGS4 was exclusive by choice and didn't receive a single cent for that game.

  • -3
Azzanation Otter (on 11 August 2022)

They moneyhatted the most popular fighting series and not just times, its permanent. There is a big difference between timed and permanent. Permanent is no different than basically straight up owning it.

  • +1
Comment was deleted...
Otter zero129 (on 12 August 2022)
  1. This is how VGC works all the time. @azzanation asked when has MS permanently kept games from Playstation and I gave factual answers, they literally started X1 era buying Titan Fall full exclusivity, plenty of downvotes in spite of it being factual.

  2. You're running around the thread throwing vitriol at "Sony fans" instead of just responding to points, which is very flame baity.

  3. "Sony was buying 3rd party exclusives when Xbox was in it's worst position" I'm still waiting for answer for this if anyone can provide. Again, a game being exclusive doesn't mean Sony money hatted it. So Japanese devs skipping Xbox during the 2000s is not necessarily a moneyhat.
  • +2
Azzanation Otter (on 13 August 2022)

Sony looks to have been caught red handed trying to keep games off GamePass why before the buyout spree. Now when you look at the past and ask yourself why would a developer not release a game on a similar hardware platform? Why would they reduce their own audience? Sony might be going deeper than just GamePass here.

  • 0
gtotheunit91 rapsuperstar31 (on 10 August 2022)

That’s not a good reason for Sony to try to impede competition. What you’re describing is anti-competition on Sony’s part. That because they’re a smaller company compared to Microsoft, that justifies Sony to moneyhat and get away with certain business practices whereas Microsoft gets intense scrutiny no matter what they do.

  • +4
Hynad gtotheunit91 (on 11 August 2022)

Certain business practices… Practices used by MS and Nintendo as well.

  • 0
gtotheunit91 Hynad (on 11 August 2022)

No doubt! I could have lists of scummy things all 3 companies do and have done. It’s just tiring seeing the narrative that Sony deserves free passes or less scrutiny for what they do because they’re a smaller company compared to Microsoft or because Microsoft has done “xxxxxx” in the past. . Sony is a market leader and will continue to be for a long time. They are going to compete and shouldn’t resort to doing anything to intentionally sabotage a competitor. Even if said competitor isn’t playing by Sony’s rules anymore.

  • +3
Hynad gtotheunit91 (on 11 August 2022)

You have to be kidding me. Sony doesn’t get free passes. They can’t do anything without 2 Watts fantards throwing shit at them.

  • 0
gtotheunit91 Hynad (on 11 August 2022)

Good! They should get scrutiny when it’s deservedly so and that equally goes the same with Microsoft and Nintendo.
This particular story, it’s only about Sony sabotaging, but some have resorted to “Sony is a smaller company” or “Microsoft did this and this and this” rather than seeing the problem of what Sony is doing in this instance.

  • +3
Hynad gtotheunit91 (on 11 August 2022)

It’s about claims made by MS.

  • -1
gtotheunit91 Hynad (on 11 August 2022)

And if MS is lying through their teeth, they shouldn't be allowed to proceed with the purchase of AB and I hope the governing body they told the lie to ensures that it doesn't happen. And Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to purchase another gaming company ever again.
Which is why I would be shocked if MS put their $70 billion acquisition at stake on a bogus claim. I'm hoping that the governing body residing over this is looking into every single claim both sides make before making a decision.

  • +1
Otter gtotheunit91 (on 12 August 2022)

Talking of double standards, how is a game not being on Gamepass in anywhere near the sabotage of MS buying whole publishers or games being exclusive, or the dozens of timed exclusives we've seen last year. This is one thing I don't get, as far as bad business practices go this is one of the most trivial we've come across as nothing is kept from another platform and is no different from marketing exclusive deals etc which stop games from being bundled with other consoles.

It seems very non-sensical of everyone to act shocked by this but give all other forms of exclusivity a pass. And I mean across all platforms.

  • +2
LudicrousSpeed Otter (on 12 August 2022)

Buying a publisher or studio who was up for sale is “sabotage”?

Lots of the studios MS bought would probably be dead already or have one foot in the grave if someone hadn’t bought them. Also doesn’t hurt their cause that many of the studios they bought, went on to release multi platform titles.

Not really comparable to Sony actively paying money to make GamePass worse, and then starting their own GamePass type service, and then whining about subscription services 😆

  • -2
Hynad LudicrousSpeed (on 12 August 2022)

Typical example of what a lack of objectivity is. ^^

  • -3
LudicrousSpeed Hynad (on 12 August 2022)

Hi pot, meet kettle

  • +1
Otter LudicrousSpeed (on 12 August 2022)

@LudicrousSpeed

"Actively paying to make gamepass worse?" Because a game is not available on the subscription platform? Sounds a lot like exclusivity, money hatting devs in order to not release on another subscription platforms.

How is that in any way worse then an actual 3rd party exclusive? If a game is not on gamepass it can still be played by all Xbox consumers, they just can't get it with their subscription. How is that worse sabotage then buying a whole publisher and timed exclusives which can't be accessed by playstation users at all?

And yeah, I'm sure Bethesda and Activision would be out of business if it wasn't for Microsoft buying them....

  • -2
LudicrousSpeed Otter (on 12 August 2022)

Yes, Xbox users can still play the game, just not on GamePass. So again, actively making the subscription worse.

I’m not saying its different or worse than for example, buying FF7remakePart1 exclusivity. It’s just funny given Sonys recent stance on sub services and competition.

  • 0
Otter LudicrousSpeed (on 12 August 2022)

Well what you said was that Sony keeping games off gamepass is sabotage but that keeping games off another platform is not, which is where the confusion comes from. Both involve throwing money at said publisher/developer to remain competitive

  • -3
LudicrousSpeed Otter (on 12 August 2022)

Because one involves actually buying an entire studio and funding the game?

Do you see Sony going to Capcom and paying them to not release SFV on Xbox as the same as if they went and bought Capcom entirely? They aren’t the same thing.

  • -1
Otter LudicrousSpeed (on 12 August 2022)

Funding a game that was already funded? Okay well Sony gave Capcom a big sum of money which helps fund the game. Capcoms specific words were:

"We’re not talking about how we’re handling post-launch content, but I can say the relationship with Sony does open doors for things we haven’t been able to do in the past," the representative said. " The relationship serves a gameplay and development purpose, and not just a marketing value."

There's really no leg to stand on to pretend that one is drastically different then the other. And keep on topic since you said sony keeping games from Gamepass is sabotaging. SFV exclusivity is not the same as keeping a game off gamepass which as I described is far more trivial and doesn't stop Xbox gamers from being able to access it. If that counts as sabotage, then everything MS does to keep games off playstation counts as well. No place for double standards.

From a consumer standpoint. I'd much rather someone keep something from a subscription standpoint then keep it from the platform altogether

  • 0
LudicrousSpeed Otter (on 12 August 2022)

And I’d rather companies not pay to keep content from others, period 😁

And no, buying a studio or publisher that was up for sale, isn’t doing that.

  • +2
DonFerrari Otter (on 13 August 2022)

It is simple, Xbox fans doesn't buy games anymore, so if Sony blocks the game from GP it is the same as not allowing Xbox customers of playing that game which is the same as MS throwing 80B in purchasing publishers, got it?

  • -2
pokoko tslog (on 11 August 2022)

Microsoft was making deals to purchase third party exclusives and timed exclusives for the original Xbox before the console even launched. Dead or Alive, Splinter Cell, Ninja Gaiden, and Jade Empire, among others. They tried to get Resident Evil but failed. They jumped into buying timed DLC exclusivity with GTA and Fallout.

This is an industry-wide convention that they've all participated in. Trying to make Microsoft look like some kind of innocent victim is silly.

  • +4
Comment was deleted...
pokoko zero129 (on 11 August 2022)

Which I did ... where? Go ahead, point it out. Because I clearly said it was industry-wide. Making shit up is even more silly.

  • -1
Comment was deleted...
pokoko zero129 (on 11 August 2022)

Do you not understand what a rant is? The post I replied to said, "Sony was buying 3rd party exclusives when Xbox was in it's worst position," in an effort to make Microsoft look like a victim. Did you not read that part? ALL I DID was list examples of Microsoft doing the SAME THING. Nothing but facts. That very clearly wasn't a "rant" against Microsoft by any stretch of the imagination. Did I condemn Microsoft in any way? No.

  • +1
Comment was deleted...
pokoko zero129 (on 12 August 2022)

How the fuck do you get a "rant" against Microsoft out of saying they do the same thing as everyone else? I mean, how the actual fuck? Did I condemn them for it? No. Did I criticize them? Nope. If YOU think the things Microsoft did are a negative then that is totally on you. Stop placing your arguments on other people. I mean, goddamn, detach your fucking ego from gaming companies and maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to understand that not everyone is going on a "rant" when they present an argument. If there is any "rant" in what I said then it is only against the original post. If you've got a problem with people ranting then why the fuck didn't you correct them?

  • 0
pokoko pokoko (on 12 August 2022)

Holy shit, I just saw all the actual fanboy rants you keep posting throughout this article, and YOU are trying to call someone else out for saying something factual? Goddamn, son. Keep fighting, you'll win the console war yet.

  • -1
Comment was deleted...
Azzanation pokoko (on 13 August 2022)

Buisness models were the same decades ago. Buisness models change and iv been saying this since the XB1 era that MS are no longer following that same model as Sony anymore.

The big concern is that Sony is using dirty tactics to stop a service from growing while at the same time claiming GP is not sustainable.

Buying publishers up for sale is not remotely the same thing.

  • 0
Otter Azzanation (on 14 August 2022)

You realise that every company that signs some exclusivity deal with Sony is up for sale? Its no different from Microsoft paying to keep Phantasy Star xbox exclusive in the west for a year or the next gen version of Yakuza exclusive to Series X for 6months. Are these also dirty tactics? Same with Warhammer and Ark 2 which are "console launch exclusives" meaning Microsoft paid for exclusivity for a period. None of these MS own but they're paying to keep them off of PlayStation.

  • -3
Azzanation Otter (on 14 August 2022)

I don't agree with timed exclusives, but that's the business Sony brought to the world when they entered the competition so the industry has followed. I understand deals will be done however atleast with MS, their deals don't remain permanent where as what we have seen from Sony. SF5, FF7, FF16 Spiderman etc. Massive IPs.

Paying Devs to avoid a service is dishonorable and Sony have no leg to stand one when they have been the ones that strive off keeping games off other platforms and they were doing this long before Acti was considered in being purchased.

  • 0
Otter Azzanation (on 14 August 2022)

Just a note that Sony licensed the Spiderman IP and paid for and produced the development of that game from scratch. They didn't jump in at the end or money hat it. Its their game entirely.

  • -2
Azzanation Otter (on 14 August 2022)

Fair enough with Spiderman. However don't forget Spiderman and Insomniac weren't owned by Sony at the time either. But i can understand MS and Nintendo would have done the same if they had the opportunity, well maybe not MS considering they have been more lenient than Nintendo.

  • 0
Otter tslog (on 11 August 2022)

"Sony was buying 3rd party exclusives when Xbox was in it's worst position"

When was this? You mean last gen when Microsoft entered the generation buying exclusivity for Titanfall & Tomb Raider? Prior to this I can't remember a single timed Sony bought a 3rd party exclusive, let alone one where the majority of the games audience was on a competitors platform (Tomb Raider). It seems Microsoft set the ball rolling.

  • -8
Comment was deleted...
Otter zero129 (on 11 August 2022)

N64 being 2 years behind schedule /not having a CD drive/ Sega Saturn being dead on
arrival/enticingly low license fee's.

The only game im explicitly aware swapped from n64 to playstatio was FFVII and it sounds like tech was the reason for it. But of course they've all bought exclusives, my point is that its bizzare to act like MS do not do this or like Sony has bullied MS in the past and kicked them when they're down. Ms was very competitive when the x1 launched and they were the driving force behind 3rd party exclusives at that point in time.

  • -9
Comment was deleted...
Hynad zero129 (on 11 August 2022)

Sony paid to get games on their platform, financially helping devs/publishers in the process, lowering the financial risk of making those titles. It’s natural to want the titles you paid for to profit your system rather than your competitors.

  • -6
Comment was deleted...
Hynad zero129 (on 11 August 2022)

Sony isn’t the only one to do that. That’s why all you guys’ hypocrisy is made obvious.

  • -6
Comment was deleted...
Hynad zero129 (on 11 August 2022)

You don’t know what hypocrisy is. And you’ve always been an utter waste of time when it comes to Sony related topics. You’ve been exposed countless times, but always tried to deny what you are. But these topics always makes it clear you have no objectivity and always side the same way. So, no, I’m not the hypocrite. My stances have always been clear, and I’m not one to bash any of the big 3 the way your kind does. Nice try, though.

  • -6
Comment was deleted...
Hynad zero129 (on 11 August 2022)

My pals? What a stupid stance to take. An intellectual shortcut. But it’s not surprising you do this. You put everyone in the fanbase as acting the same way, but have nothing to show I bash anything. And my colors? What colors? I haven’t bashed or dissed on any of the big 3. So that stance of yours is in turn laughable. And indeed, as petty as you’ve always been. Pitiful, in fact.

  • -5
Azzanation Hynad (on 14 August 2022)

You literally just came into this thread and said to me "but being what you are" and than coward out to finish your sentence. You literally attack people than claim you are innocent. Dont be that guy.

  • +3
Hynad Azzanation (on 23 August 2022)

You’re not one of the big 3, you poor little dolt.

  • -1
Comment was deleted...
Azzanation Otter (on 13 August 2022)

Sony actually got the rights to call the spin off of RE2 and call it RE3 when the Dreamcast had the actual RE3 game and had to call it Code Veronica instead, making it sound like the actual 3rd game was on PS. Sonys tactics have always been aggressive.

  • 0
Otter Azzanation (on 14 August 2022)

Thats all marketing noise, its really trivial

  • -4
Hynad Azzanation (on 14 August 2022)

Unsubstantiated BS.

  • -3
Azzanation Hynad (on 14 August 2022)

What do you disagree with? You know its a fact the RE3 was the spin off and Code Veronica was technically the true sequel to 2.

  • +1
Hynad Azzanation (on 14 August 2022)

There was multiple RE titles in production at the time. One was going to be made for the Sega Saturn and got canceled.

That’s not what I alluded to and you know it.

  • -3
Azzanation Hynad (on 14 August 2022)

Than what were you alluding to?

  • 0
Hynad Azzanation (on 14 August 2022)

Your BS.

  • -4
Azzanation Hynad (on 14 August 2022)

Ditto

  • +1
Hynad Azzanation (on 14 August 2022)

I have to ask what BS you think I brought here.

On the other hand, the way you pin the fault about RE3/CV on Sony speaks for itself.

  • -2
Azzanation Hynad (on 15 August 2022)

Do your research and maybe stop coming in here targeting people with no rebuttals. You basically called me a fanboy for no reason, than you call my posts BS. /facepalm

RE3/CV doesnt take a rocket scientist to work it out. If Sony are going behind the scenes to wall off GP, they would have definitely influenced the number 3 back in those days. Capcon even stated they gave 3 to Sony for some Console Wars thing.. hmm i wonder.

  • +2
Hynad Azzanation (on 15 August 2022)

You pin the fault on Sony without anything to back your shit up, as per your usual.
RE3 and CV were developed for different reasons. RE3 was supposed to go to the PS2 but Sony announced the release of the console and Capcom felt it was too far away for them to wait. Code Veronica went to the Dreamcast because Capcom was supposed to release a port of RE2 on the Saturn but the console proved itself to be too limited and difficult for them to achieve the wanted result, so they gave Sega fans CV as an apology to them. It was never planned to be numbered.

  • -2
Azzanation Hynad (on 15 August 2022)

This is exactly your problem, ZERO research. Let me back my shit up for you since you fail to do so yourself.

Code Veronica "This was originally intended to be a spin-off with the Dreamcast game as the true sequel. According to IGN, Sony bartered for limited exclusivity on the "Resident Evil 3" title, and thus the side-story was branded as Resident Evil 3 and the true sequel was labeled a spin-off and titled Code: Veronica."

You better back your shit up on your reply or don't bother.

  • +2
Hynad Azzanation (on 15 August 2022)

In 1997, CAPCOM contracted the Sega subsidiary Nextech Co., Ltd to handle the Saturn port of BIO1 under the direction of planner Hiroki Katoh. In the same year, BIO3 was in development for the PlayStation, before the release of BIO2. It was directed by Masaaki Yamada with chief planner Hideki Kamiya.

The team attempted to port BIO2 to the Saturn. However, they couldn't achieve it without sacrificing some of the game's quality, so it was scrapped. As an apology to Sega fans for the loss, Yoshiki Okamoto proposed a brand new title exclusive to the upcoming Dreamcast which would enable the team to create something of significant quality.

However, Yamada's team was occupied with BIO3 and another team led by Kazuhiro Aoyama was handling BIO1.9, a side-story title also for the PlayStation. Development also began on BIO0, a prequel for the Nintendo 64 initially under Kamiya's direction. On top of this, several members of BIO2's development staff left the company under sour circumstances after its release. With most key development staff preoccupied with other titles, the Dreamcast title was not only outsourced to Nextech, but also the ghost development company TOSE.

Hiroki Katoh was selected to direct the Dreamcast title (named "CODE:Veronica" from its inception) due to his previous experience working with Nextech while directing the BIO1 Saturn port. Outside of the FLAGSHIP writing staff, the only development staff from CAPCOM were director Katoh and stage planner Kaori Nishio. The rest was handled by Nextech and TOSE. Even lead artist Satoshi Nakai was a freelancer brought in by Nextech.

In mid-1998, BIO3 was moved to the PlayStation 2 at Okamoto's order in order to give CAPCOM's staff time to familiarize with the new console to ensure quality. Hideki Kamiya was promoted as director based on BIO2's resounding success, being replaced on BIO0 by Koji Oda. In order to make up for the loss of a main title on the PS1, Okamoto also ordered that BIO1.9 be scaled up as part of the main storyline. New staff were hired to accommodate this change.

Around June 1999, BIO1.9 was renamed BIO3. In turn, Kamiya's BIO3 was renamed BIO4 (and evolved into Devil May Cry). This year also greatly affected CV's development as the game was rampantly censored in every regard, from story (removal of Nazi backstory) to gameplay. A number of TOSE's Korean staff were hired by CAPCOM to develop BIOHAZARD GUN SURVIVOR.



Some common misconceptions are that CV was originally titled BIO3 and that Sony had anything to do with any of this. They had absolutely zero say in the series. All decisions were made by Yoshiki Okamoto or other members of the BIO team. The game's name was always "CODE:Veronica" as Okamoto personally wanted only numbered titles on the PlayStation brand. People took an interview with Mikami the wrong way where he says he views CV as the "true BIO3." He was speaking purely from a story perspective.

FUN FACT: Jill Valentine was CV's original protagonist. Claire Redfield was added after BIO2's release because of a cliffhanger line added to the scenario by Kamiya during voice recording sessions. Noboru Sugimura felt like he needed to resolve Claire's story.

  • -2
Azzanation Hynad (on 16 August 2022)

https://www.denofgeek.com/games/resident-evil-code-veronica-name-resident-evil-3-timeline-development-explained/
In this very article they bring up some fascinating points.

After reading claims Capcom wanted to keep the numbered series on PS only.

"""Indeed, one of the longest-running rumors regarding Code Veronica‘s name suggests that PlayStation actually worked out a deal with Capcom to ensure that Resident Evil 3 was released on their console and not the Dreamcast. However, Mikami and Flagship president Yoshiki Okamoto later stated that they actually just wanted to keep numbered Resident Evil games exclusive to PlayStation consoles and give subtitles to RE games released for other platforms."""

^ Do you believe that? The author also goes on to say this below..

"""That explanation makes sense…until you realize it doesn’t. After all, not only did Capcom eventually release Resident Evil 4 for the GameCube, but they originally planned to release Resident Evil Zero for the N64. Granted, you could argue that the Resident Evil 4 deal was worked out later and that they may not have seen Zero as a proper “numbered” Resident Evil game, but that explanation still seems to dismiss the fact that Code Veronica simply feels more like Resident Evil 3 than Resident Evil 3: Nemesis did. Why would Capcom let the Code Veronica team work on such a substantial new entry into the franchise’s timeline and lore if they ultimately saw it as the “other” RE game from a market perspective?"""

They than go on saying..

"""That’s the strangest thing about this whole story. Even if you believe there was a time when Capcom genuinely intended to only release numbered Resident Evil games for PlayStation consoles, their eventual decision to release the revolutionary Resident Evil 4 for the GameCube recontextualizes their decision to deny Code Veronica the Resident Evil 3 name it honestly deserved."""

So what i am claiming is not MY BS, its been a media hidden secret for years, we don't have actual factual proof of this however if we read between the lines, you can see massive flaws in Sony and Capcom's claims and they both wont go out and admit it either to gain bad PR.

Ask yourself, why does Capcom, a 3rd party multi platform developer care about console wars? Sony would have lost the marketing hype if Dreamcast had the number 3 in the next RE game selling as a true sequel. Sony are seen walling off games off GP to hinder Xbox, why would they be any different back in the PS1 era. where they were extremely aggressive back in those days just as much as today.

This whole story is not normal and reeks of shady business.

  • +2
Hynad Azzanation (on 16 August 2022)

It’s not a secret. It’s an assumption brought forth by people like you. Of course you’ll go with whatever puts Sony is a bad light. That’s what you’ve always done. That’s what you’ll always do. Somehow, Sony hurt you one day and you cannot let go of it and can’t see anything rationally or objectively. It’s always a negative spin. That denofgeek link of yours is filled with assumptions and a lack of or incomplete research.

But did you even watch the video I shared? If you did, and still cling to that console war shit of yours, then there’s really nothing anyone can say to put you off that misguided path of yours.

  • -2
Azzanation Hynad (on 16 August 2022)

No, i am just not blind and accept anything that corps try to pull over my eyes. Even IGN came out and said it. Its clear there is a lot more to it than Capcom and Sonys explanation. Console Wars, Marketing, brand relationships (Sony in their ear) which would have manipulated Capcom in swapping names. But here you are defending it.

Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle black scenario. Say what you want about me, you tried calling my posts BS and i proved otherwise and provided you with evidence to show it was not BS. You can agree to disagree with this topic. The questions go further than me on this subject.

  • +2
Hynad Azzanation (on 16 August 2022)

The only thing you proved is that you dismiss facts from developers in favour of your beliefs and made-up facts so you can keep pushing your moronic narrative.

  • -2
Hynad Azzanation (on 15 August 2022)

From the developers themselves, starting at the 12:20 mark:

https://youtu.be/ID3tBEDfeeo

  • -2
Azzanation Hynad (on 16 August 2022)

I watched it and not seeing your point. The article i linked you mentions everything from this video. I know the history of RE and its games.

  • +2
Hynad Azzanation (on 16 August 2022)

You obviously don’t.

  • -2
JackHandy (on 10 August 2022)

Console Wars: the reports of my untimely death have been greatly exaggerated.

  • +5
LudicrousSpeed (on 11 August 2022)

What a weirdly written article. It has quotes from what MS said and then later repeats the same thing lol.

Anyway, Sony being petty, per usual. But is this news? I thought we knew this from the RE Village stuff. Sony’s Village deal includes a clause barring Capcom from putting the game on GamePass.

As a GamePass subscriber, its worrying to see Sony spending money not on improving their own services but actively sabotaging others.

  • +4
Qwark (on 10 August 2022)

Well the strategy worked out great for Sony they have done so for decades and especially the PS4 was really successful because of it. Besides it's not as if Microsoft je er tried to make third party exclusives work.

Hell they are doing it now by simply buying the publishers of said games. The best way to improve your position is not too just develop your own games, but too also make other Devs make games for you, which don't release in the other party's platform.

Making sure your competitive platform offers less choice while you offer more is better than you just being able to offer more. PlayStation and Microsoft in the end are massive corporations inclined on making money and dominating the market.

  • +3
Comment was deleted...
Azzanation twintail (on 10 August 2022)

Money talks, Imagine if MS did that? Stopped RE8 coming to PSN? This entire article would be on fire in anger.

  • 0
Comment was deleted...
Azzanation twintail (on 10 August 2022)

Im not saying it will or has. Just speculating on if it happened. Yes i meant PS+. The uproar if MS tried to stop games going to PS+ would he insane but because its Sony, alot of people seem to defend it.

  • 0
gtotheunit91 twintail (on 10 August 2022)

I think he was pointing that if Microsoft is having to point out that Sony is paying to keep games off of Game Pass, then that means Microsoft is not pursuing that same business tactic to keep games off PS+. I can’t imagine the blowback Microsoft would get if that report ever happens.

  • +2
AkimboCurly (on 12 August 2022)

Very interesting article and comments section.

The only thing I have to add is that, if true, this puts publishers in an excellent bargaining position. But I do suspect that it would be very rare that it is worth Sony's money to pay off a company to not launch on GP. A game so big that they're willing to make a deal that looks appealing next to MS's game pass offer.

  • +1
method114 (on 11 August 2022)

Don't really see the difference between this and timed exclusivity. Anyways I've suspected this was happening. Doom 2016 isn't on GP for PC and I assume something like this contract is why.

  • +1
Chazore (on 10 August 2022)

This is just turning into one big old "he said, she said" scuffle, and it's hilarious to watch unfold.

  • +1
Cueil (on 17 August 2022)

remember no one in government cares if this hurts Sony they only care if this hurts the customer.

  • 0
AdvanceWebSolutions (on 15 August 2022)

Hard to feel sorry for XBOX when they are purchasing major studios as their exclusive strategy. If Sony is actually doing anything illegal ok but if not boo-hoo they are pulling the same shit just a different pile.

  • 0
smroadkill15 (on 13 August 2022)

All this does is confirm what was already rumored. This was known last year when some stuff came about RE7 having a clause about coming to Game Pass. I don't particularly blame Sony for doing this. It's part of the competition. Regardless, MS pretty much shut Sony down with their claim of buying Activision/Blizzard being anticompetitive. MS will keep CoD multiplatform, akin to what they have done with Minecraft.

  • 0
Azzanation (on 10 August 2022)

Its Sony afterall. I would not be suprised. Maybe they shouldnt have brought the marketing rights to CoD last gen.

  • 0
gtotheunit91 Azzanation (on 10 August 2022)

I still remember my friend buying the PS4 Pro bundle with Modern Warfare 2019 on the packaging and with that “PlayStation Exclusive” sticker on it about a game mode that Sony paid to have exclusive. His little brother thought that Call of Duty was only on PlayStation because of it.

  • +8
Azzanation gtotheunit91 (on 10 August 2022)

Exactly, its okay for Sony to lock up and wall up games from other people but the moment they have a serious threat of someone else doing it, its the typical "Boy who cried wolf" scenario. Its a shame majority cannot see it.

  • +2
Otter Azzanation (on 11 August 2022)

There's obviously different weight to a marketing exclusive versus a popular publisher becoming exclusive. I'm not sure why you can't see that?

Each is different weight is subject to criticism but something like Nintendo paying for exclusivity of Monster Hunter Rise is not the same as them buying all of Capcom and their IPs.

  • -4
Azzanation Otter (on 12 August 2022)

If someone cannot play a game on another platform because Company X stopped it in any way, shape or form, than its the exact same thing, the outcome is the same.

You can also be an owner of a company and still release games on other platforms too. Like we still see heavy support on Minecraft across all platforms while under Xbox, i highly doubt if Sony brought the Minecraft IP that that would do the same thing.

Sony kept SF5 exclusive to PS4 while Xbox allowed Tomb Raider to release later. That was all before any of these major buyouts were made.

  • 0
Otter Azzanation (on 12 August 2022)

"Sony kept SF5 exclusive to PS4 while Xbox allowed Tomb Raider to release later. That was all before any of these major buyouts were made."

Right, so pull yourself from the console wars mind set and acknowledge that there is obviously different weighting to different kinds of purchases and exclusivity. Marketing exclusives are less severe then a timed exclusive, a timed exclusive is less severe then a full exclusive. Buying a whole publishers who majority audience is on a competing platform is a separate beast. The logic is also written into the law itself which is why major acquisitions need to be approved.

But to you they're all one in the same, so I'll agree to leave the topic here. And personally I think its trashy whenever major IPs are made exclusive including SFV, but still there's levels to it.

  • 0
Azzanation Otter (on 12 August 2022)

The difference is when buying a studio, the purpose isnt about locking exclusives but to grow the company and increase output. Its a natural cause to why games stop appearing on other platforms.

The issue with paying for a full rights exclusives is its done deliberately to stop others accessing it.

  • +2
Otter Azzanation (on 12 August 2022)

Everything you said can apply to 3rd party exclusives. Final Fantasy VIIR/FF16 is building playstation as the place to go in order to have play AAA RPGs. You don't need to own something in order to increase your brand perception or increase output. When MS had no exclusives to market the series X after Halo's delay they used Assassins Creed and Cyberpunk marketing deals. Sony actively shut their Japanese studios because they felt it more worthwhile to invest in established Japanese partners instead. You can grow through 3rd party partners too.

There's nothing "Natural" about Bethesda skipping Playstation for Starfield when the majority of their console audience is on that platform. The natural inclination of Bethesda would be to put there game on as manu viable platforms as possible as they've always done in the past. These are concerted efforts now that MS own then to bring people into the xbox/gamepass ecosystem otherwise Starfirld would come to Playstation alongside being on Gamepass if it was just about increasing output. Its no different from an exclusive like FF16 being designed to bring people to Playstation. Only difference is one is more disruptive to the fanbase since FF audience is 80% on Playstation anyway. Additionally one is further reaching as its a whole publisher with many IPs whos audience lays majority on playstation.

The only kind of exclusives content that sits in its own field is home grown talent or studios who lacked/needed investment to complete games of their ambition.

  • -3
Azzanation Otter (on 12 August 2022)

Games like FF7 have been deliberately paid for to avoid other platforms. Sony brought ND and Insomniac, does not mean those games are expected to release on other platforms.

It doesnt matter who has the bigger audience of a game because audiences change. When 1 platform gets shafted from a game it doesn't help build an audience. You can argue Sony is stopping games from growing due to money hatting.

Same with what they are doing now with GP. Sony want to remain at the top by hindering their competitors. Now they are panicking because they cannot use these tactics when a studio is brought out.

  • +2
Otter Azzanation (on 13 August 2022)

You are describing all 3. Again MS bought Bethesda fully with the intention bolstering their exclusive portfolio hence Starfield not coming to PS5. From Phil himself

"If you’re an Xbox customer, the thing I want you to know is that this is about delivering great exclusive games for you that ship on platforms where Game Pass exists"

The exchange of money to better your offering for a single exclusive title is no less legit, then buying a whole publisher in order to do the same. One is just cheaper and less disruptive. Any other logic is mental gymnastics on your side.

We agree all 3 want to be bolstering their line up and be more competitive. But when Sony does it you perceive it as trying to hinder the competition. When MS does it they're just naturally growing their exclusive line up by throwing billions around? Lol okay.

All 3 have bought exclusives. That has been an established norm and a level they all compete at. All im pointing out is that scope matters, which is why MS trying to purchase the worlds biggest multiplatform publishers comes under more scrutiny and draws more concern then Nintendo or Sony money hattinh one or 2 titles in a generation like Monster Hunter Rise/FFVII R.

  • -3
Azzanation Otter (on 13 August 2022)

You are failing to understand the difference. When you own something, it means you are funding it, its now yours. No one is complaining about Sonys buy outs. Thats fair game. What isnt right is paying to hinder a company from preforming. Paying to keep games off a service is disrespectful and dirty. Its like Sony is deflating Xboxes tires before the race.

MS have trillions and we dont hear them paying to keep games off of PS+.

How does FF have an audience on Xbox when Sony continue to moneyhat the IP?

I am glad they are being called out on it.

  • +2
Otter Azzanation (on 13 August 2022)

This conversation is nonsensical....

"What isnt right is paying to hinder a company from preforming"

I literally gave you a quote from Phil where he explains their intention of purchase of Bethesda was to have "exclusive" content to gamepass/xbox echosystem. That means not on other platforms. If that is not hindering other platforms , then neither is Sony paying to have games not feature on competing subscriptions services like Gamepass. If the later is hindering other platforms, then so is Microsoft buying publishers and keeping IPs off other platforms. The intentions and outcomes are the same.

"When you own something, it means you are funding it, its now yours."

The exact same applies to buying any kind of exclusivity rights. You pay, contributing towards a games development/marketing cost in exchange for "rights", legally binding rights. You've paid for it. Like the same way Microsoft has been paying for timed exclusives.

The only distinction is in your mind.

  • -1
Azzanation Otter (on 13 August 2022)

Buying a studio means everything including the IPs and funding and responsibility is now under the new ownership.

Paying for exclusive deals is nothing more than cheap tactics where they dont own the IP yet wall it off from the world.

Again no one is complaining about Sonys buyouts, whats theirs is theirs but paying to hinder a service is dishonourable.

  • 0
Otter Azzanation (on 14 August 2022)

Of course no one cares about sony buying a bunch of developers that have almost exclusively worked on Sony IP because it makes no difference to any other fanbase.

Bungie is the only major multiplatform developer Sony has purchased and they immediately declared that their only IP (destiny) will remain multiplatform.

You've spent the whole thread complaining about SF4 being ps4 exclusive yet you don't think people would care if Sony bought out Capcom and all their IP altogether? I find that hard to believe... but to underline my value systems, I would care. Its lazy and even messier than just buying one title here or there. I'd much rather all 3 invest in new experiences or games that otherwise would struggle with funding. Not spending billions for us to receive the same games that were already coming but on less platforms. I'm not hypocritical, its trashy across the board.

But this is an emotional sentiment from a consumer perspective, just like you thinking its a "cheap" tactic to buy exclusivity to an individual title versus buying out the whole IP/publisher. Ultimately your sentiment is just emotional not logical, both are handing over money to another business in an agreed transaction which outlines specific rights. I just find it weird that you think the one with greater disruption to consumers and fan bases is the more stand up thing to do and are crying foul play because something is not on gamepass despite, MS literally buying partial exclusivity for games for the last decade. Its completely hypocritical.

I think buying out established IPs that are more popular on competing platforms is an extremely lazy, cheap way of expanding your first party portfolio. But guess what? Both both kinds of transaction are legal and "fair" game.

  • -2
Otter Azzanation (on 11 August 2022)

Did't MS having marketing rights to CoD at some point during the 360 era?

  • -4
Otter Otter (on 13 August 2022)

Oh and yes , I was correct @Azzanation.

"Microsoft's timed exclusivity for Call of Duty DLC on Xbox 360 was one of the defining features of the last generation of consoles, and secured Microsoft's console as "the Call of Duty player" for many shooter fans for the release of Black Ops, Modern Warfare 3 and Black Ops 2."

https://www.eurogamer.net/after-five-years-of-xbox-exclusivity-call-of-duty-switches-to-playstation

  • -4
Azzanation Otter (on 13 August 2022)

And makes you think about one thing. Where CoD goes, the platform becomes the most successful, 360 dominated the PS3 at the time and when CoD went to PS, the PS4 dominated the XB1. This clearly shows Sony are worried because they will have zero control on the rights moving forward.

Also MS and Sony shared a similar buisness model in gen 7. That has changed midway through last gen.

  • 0
Otter Azzanation (on 14 August 2022)

Well no actually, it makes me think about about your hypocrisy. You should keep the energy for Microsoft that you keep for Sony. When Sony buys marketing rights for COD= bad. When Microsoft does it suddenly you have intellectual take aways about competition

  • +1
Azzanation Otter (on 14 August 2022)

I am not defending MS here. I am pointing out those calling MS evil for buying studios meanwhile Sonys been one of the most aggressive of late.

They are literally going behind peoples backs to stop games going to GP.. that is some of the lowest tactics anyone can do to stay top.

  • 0
Otter Azzanation (on 14 August 2022)

But this whole thread is people including you throwing their dummies in the air because sony has signed some deals (like RE8 marketing deal that was leaked) that say the game can't appear on Gamepass. People are treating it like some new underhanded tactic (you referring to it as dirty and less fair then buying the whole publisher).... like where have you all been the last decade where MS/Sony have been paying to stop games from launching on other platforms let alone subscription services?

Anyway this is a dead horse now, have a nice day

  • 0
Azzanation Otter (on 14 August 2022)

They can Pay for a timed exclusive but they shouldn't be targeting services to never benefit. I don't believe in any 3rd party games should ever be restricted permanently unless they are co-developed with a platform holder.

And yes, their is a difference between co-developed and moneyhatted.

  • 0
Comment was deleted...
Dante9 (on 11 August 2022)

Oh, poor little Microsoft is only trying to give out free games for everyone. Because that's how business works. Unbelievable.
Even if these claims about Sony are true, they have done nothing untoward. Moneyhatting has been a tactic for both companies for eons now. Boohoo, says the giant company while gobbling up whole publishing houses.
As for the hearings that are going on, I watched an analysis video by a lawyer who said that actually Sony has been very fair in their statements, they could have made the whole deal a lot more difficult for MS.

  • -1
Bob80 (on 13 August 2022)

Lol people make it sound like Sony is bullying these devs. If Sony spends a fortune on marketing a 3rd party game like RE Village, doesn't it makes sense they don't want to see it launch on game pass for $1? Besides it's not like sony can force Capcom to accept the deal. Apparantly Sony's deal just made more business sense than putting their game on game pass.

  • -2
Otter (on 11 August 2022)

Reading the comments I'm really confused, why is everyone acting brand new?

Monster Hunter Rise isn't on Playstation/Xbox because Nintendo money hatted it.
Starfield isn't coming to Playstation because MS money hatted the whole damn publisher lmao
FFXVI isn't coming to Xbox because Sony Money hatted it....

None of them are special, and none of them are victims. Stopping content from being on Gamepass has to be one of the more trivial dramas we've seen. We already knew this when it was leaked that Sonys marketing deal for Resident Evil 8 mean't it couldn't appear on gamepass. There's no scandal here.... But buying whole publishers responsible for some of the biggest games on your competitors platform will forever be a way more volatile move and should be treated as such.

  • -3
Comment was deleted...
Otter zero129 (on 11 August 2022)

Huh?

  • -4
Leynos (on 10 August 2022)

And MS is creating a monopoly by buying everyone. MS has ruined console gaming by starting the acquisition wars. Sony is the most annoying at money hatting. Both MS and Sony are being asshats and cannibalizing the market.

  • -4
Azzanation Leynos (on 11 August 2022)

You cant have a monopoly when they arent even the top dog in the industry. If it isnt MS or Sony cannibalising the market, someone else would be. Unfortunately with competition, there will also be up and downs.

  • +3
KratosLives (on 10 August 2022)

Sony should only start worrying when xbox start dropping exclusives, when ever that happens.

  • -4
chakkra KratosLives (on 10 August 2022)

Well, obviously they started worrying sooner then.

  • +5
Imaginedvl KratosLives (on 12 August 2022)

Did you live under a rock for the past year or two? Not liking those exclusives does not make them disappear from reality you know :)

  • +1
KratosLives Imaginedvl (on 13 August 2022)

Which meaningful ones? :p

  • -2
V-r0cK (on 10 August 2022)

MS still crying even after buying Activision lol.... Both parties need to just stfu and keep playing your chess moves. The customers will decide in the end.

  • -4
gtotheunit91 V-r0cK (on 10 August 2022)

100% but tbf, MS hasn't bought Activision yet. They still have to convince a lot of governments that they should be allowed to buy Activision while Sony is trying everything they can to stop the deal from happening.

And they're both playing real life console wars in the process lol

  • +6
V-r0cK gtotheunit91 (on 10 August 2022)

Very true. I know its not official but I just feel MS will do everything they can to make sure they obtain Activision, so in my head MS already bought them xD

  • -7
EspadaGrim V-r0cK (on 10 August 2022)

MS haven’t bought anything yet and Sony is literally the only gaming Company that is upset about this potential acquisition.

  • +3
mjk45 EspadaGrim (on 10 August 2022)

There are only three major console makers and the vast majority of Activision's console sales are on PlayStation and Xbox, they didn't get called the console twins for no reason.
The impacts on Nintendo are far less so they haven't been as strident as Sony but that doesn't mean they are fine with it and the statement that MS hasn't bought anything yet is exactly the point since you don't make submissions to anti competition commissions after the fact.

  • +1
Azzanation mjk45 (on 10 August 2022)

Nintendo will probably favour the decision because MS are more likely to bring the games to Switch than how it remains now.

  • +2
mjk45 Azzanation (on 10 August 2022)

I feel that like Sony and MS and any other corporation for that matter the only time Nintendo favour consolidation is when they are doing the consolidation . and Nintendo isn't going to favour consolidation when it could go in a number of different directions like either maintaining the status quo or losing or gaining content with all directions subject to change.

  • 0
Azzanation mjk45 (on 10 August 2022)

Its proven that Nintendo can survive without Activision/Blizzard so if another company buys them, it only increased there chance on change and probably benefit from it than be a negative. Look what happened with Minecraft. The original owner wanted nothing to do with Nintendo and the moment MS brought Mojang, Minecraft is now one of the top selling Switch games.

This only affects Sony, its why Sony buy exclusive rights with CoD.

  • +6
mjk45 Azzanation (on 10 August 2022)

I'm sure they all can live with the takeover, I was replying to talk about them favouring the take over and while it impacts Nintendo less it doesn't mean they favour it.

  • 0
Azzanation mjk45 (on 10 August 2022)

Doesn't mean they don't favor it either. If Nintendo can gain CoD and Overwatch on the Switch, than they will be laughing to the bank without spending any money. If MS don't release those games, than its a normal day for Nintendo.

  • +4
Dallinor EspadaGrim (on 11 August 2022)

Of course. Because if MS turn the IP exclusive, it reduces their competition.

  • +3
Otter EspadaGrim (on 11 August 2022)

In fairness Sony is the only direct competition. Activison doesn't put most of their games on Switch and for other 3rd parties it has no real implication for them.

  • -2
Comment was deleted...
TheLegendaryBigBoss (on 11 August 2022)

Why would Sony do that when Microsoft have way way more financial firepower and could offer developers more money for keeping games on gamepass.

  • -5
Comment was deleted...
Comment was deleted...
chakkra TheLegendaryBigBoss (on 11 August 2022)

The real question you should be asking is why would Sony's lawyers stay quiet if this was a lie.

  • +2
Brimac19 (on 11 August 2022)

Poor poor downtrodden MS !, The tears are really flowing!!!😭

  • -7
scrapking Brimac19 (on 12 August 2022)

I don't perceive Microsoft to be crying, or even whining. It reads to me like they're simply pointing out the inconsistencies in Sony's argument. Keep in mind that this isn't even a public statement, it's a statement to a government regulator that the government made public.

  • +5
mjk45 scrapking (on 13 August 2022)

I don't fell that MS are whining or Sony this is just each side looking out for their own best interests, at the end of the day one side will call it paying to have games on your service , the other side will call it paying to keep it off ours but in the end it's just semantics because they all engage in it .

  • +2
Comment was deleted...
Hynad zero129 (on 11 August 2022)

You’re still as petty as ever.

  • -6
Comment was deleted...
Comment was deleted...
Comment was deleted...