PlayStation CEO Jim Ryan: Starfield Xbox Exclusivity is Not 'Anti-Competitive' - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 02 July 2023 / 4,943 Views
Sony Interactive Entertainment President and CEO Jim Ryan during his pre-recorded deposition video as part of the FTC in the US vs. Microsoft hearing admitted he does not believe Microsoft releasing Starfield as an Xbox console exclusive as anti-competitive."
"I don't like it, but I have fundamentally no quarrel with it," said Ryan when asked about Starfield Xbox exclusivity.
Ryan when asked how he felt about Starfield skipping the PlayStation 5 he stated, "I don't like it, but I don't view it as anti-competitive."
Starfield launches on the Xbox Series X|S, PC, and Xbox Game Pass on September 6.
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
Jim Ryan by himself in less than an hour debunked every single argument the FTC and CMA has made.....I'm at a loss for words. No wonder he didn't want to be deposed on the stand lol. It somehow would've ended up worse than it did.
You know Xbox paid him off right,...right?
I heard MS are currently holding his family hostage.
Heard it? I saw it in 4K.
16k satellite evidence right here.
When was starfield being exclusive , the major issue?
Redfall and Starfield exclusivity was a big part of FTCs “evidence”
Once Ms bought Bethesda lol
I guess the cleaning crew must be fuming right now...
The mess Microsoft lawyers left in the room after partying the whole weekend must have been a lot of work to clean...
Looks like it is going to be even worse tonight.
I suggest we create a GoFundMe page so we can help them a bit; they are probably underpaid for that kind of job and they did not sign up for that shit!
What makes it all the more funnier is that it was a pre-recorded video lol
yah the FTC knew... They probably brought a bottle of champagne with it and handed it over to the Microsoft team along with the tape :D
He has to say that because thats Sonys entire buisness model. Paying to keep games off competitor platforms.
Exactly. "I don't like it,..." even though we do it all day every day with as many key properties as we can afford.
Interesting I guess new IP does not count towards anti-competitive, fair enough. Taking away existing product and franchise is. So series such as Call of Duty and Elder Scrolls being an exclusive will be anti-competitive. I think this deal will go through if Microsoft agrees to never put established IPs on Gamepass and/or make it exclusive.
Ye but why has the acquisition not gone through yet? It's because the argument against it makes sense enough for the decision to not be made. I'm saying the chances for this to go through will be significantly higher "IF" Microsoft agrees to no exclusivity and Gamepass for "established IPs". I'm sure one of the reason for the acquisition is to put established franchises on Gamepass, but the argument against that is anti-competitive.
Either Microsoft have to give up on established IPs exclusivity and going to Gamepass, or give up on this acquisition for this to end from judge's perspective. That's what the FTC and others are looking for.
However it's clear Sony doesn't want anything other than the acquisition to not happen as some of their actions don't make sense. They're pushing to block it, which isn't a smart move imo cuz that means the result could only be success or not. The best option is to support what the FTC is going for, which is limiting control over the existing franchises and letting Microsoft acquire Activision Blizzard.
If I was Sony I would argue the acquisition is fine if Microsoft provides equal opportunity for every established IPs in the future. But looks like it's either complete acquisition or no acquisition, very brain dead plan from Sony
Because politics and sony throwing a tantrum is essentially your answer. 38 countries have approved it, 2 have not and both of their arguments have proven to be questionable at best.
The FTC as is currently being shown through the court process, have no solid argument against the deal and the cma have shown no understanding of how cloud works in terms of the gaming market or overall technical current day capabilities.
It's cuz in business we talk about the forecast of things. Although I agree the FTC and CMA are sometimes questionable, their intentions makes sense. Cloud gaming isn't huge now, but Activision Blizzard is a massive piece of pie. It holds the "potential" of completely messing the market combined with a powerhouse like Microsoft, which already has an established gaming business. Microsoft is already a massive leader in operating systems that basically comes with every PC. If Microsoft only had console for business, then the acquisition wouldn't be this difficult. It's cuz they have a huge control in PC business as well, where cloud gaming (PC Gamepass) is growing annually.
So far the focus is on Sony, but if this deal passes without restriction, you can assume they will expand to mobile and PC. Acquiring KING is one of their plans to expand to mobile. Phil Spencer and evidence shown in this has proved to us that they are also looking into the mobile market. Pc game pass will be bigger than ever. Steam will go through the same fate and Apple is next. There's already discussions about allowing different ways to download apps on mobile devices other than the app store and google play store.
You arent spending $70b to not benefit from your purchase. Of course it will benefit MS more for using MS's Cloud. Thats the point of buisness mergers. Its not a charity where they have to bend the knee to the market leader.
Exactly and that's what the argument is about. That "benefit" is massive to the point it can turn into antitrust issues. Do you even know what we are debating about anymore. Why is Microsoft struggling to purchase Activision Blizzard? Because the FTC sees it as something with a potential of breaking antitrust laws.
Purchasing ABK creates more competition. The only reason its being blocked is due to Sony, the market leader having a whinge to both the FTC and CMA.
Even with ABK under MS, it places them equal to PS not surpassing them.
My understanding is that Microsoft agreed to let anyone stream Call of Duty who had purchased it. Meaning, if you purchase it on Steam you can stream it via GeForce Now. If you purchase it on Switch, Nintendo could stream it to you. The same is true for Sony. This is the commitment that Microsoft made to the EU, in exchange for approval of the deal by EU regulators.
final fantasy remake, final fantasy 16, star ocean . If it wasnt for bethesda buying zenimax, starfield woul dhave been exclusive to . already mentioned here street fighter 5., forspoken, death stranding and alot of established third party japanese games. Just think all the first party developers they have now all have been paid out for generations to keep the games away from competition. thats how sega lost the war with them
I said "established" IPs. Established means "having been in existence for a long time and therefore recognized and generally accepted" a quick google search bruh. That's why Jim Ryan said Starfield isn't anti-competitive but IPs like CoD is. Read the title and my other comment here about what I already said for your FFs and SFs.
Final fantasy and star ocean have beeen there for a long time. Star ocean from ps1 and final fantasy even earlier. Streett fighter from sega genesis days so it counts. It's obvious that cod would never be exclusive since most of its earnings is from playstation. Even Jim Ryan has said he wasn't worried but lied to ftc and cma.
There are alot more which extends also to dragon quest games
So you admit FF16 and SF5 were anti competitive?
Ye I think SF5 is anti-competitive if Sony was pulling the strings to limit games on Xbox. I'm not well informed about SF5, but there is also possibility that Capcom decided to cut the cost by not releasing it on Xbox since sales were poor. Developing games for different platform is not easy than we think, there's multiple reasons to avoid Xbox, just like how many publishers avoided the Wii U. As for Final Fantasy, the history is quite complicated because it goes back to when Sony helped out Square before the merge with Enix when the "Final Fantasy" movie flopped. In fact Final Fantasy used to be a major series for Nintendo consoles, but went to Playstation due to technical matter, not really anti-competitive. It was exclusive to PS and had a strong bond before Xbox was even a thing.
For other games like Forspoken for example, those are fine because those are new IPs. Microsoft does it as well with games like Lost Odyssey and attempting Scalebound for example.
I think the biggest difference in this case is that Microsoft is trying to take away massive franchises that was already established on Playstation (through acquisition), whereas Final Fantasy and Street Fighter were never staples for Xbox. Not just Call of Duty, which is one of Playstation's best selling titles, it even includes IPs like Crash Bandicoot which was seen as one of Playstation mascots. Minecraft and Bethesda was fine because those are relatively small, but to Sony and some antitrust organization, Activision Blizzard is a little too much and could be fatal to the whole market if put on Gamepass or becomes exclusive. Hopefully that explains it.
Those reasons are no different to how others operate.
Bethesda has always had a strong relationship with MS before Sony.
CoD was massive on 360 before its switch to PS.
So technically if you think its okay for Square and Capcon to favour 1 platform than the exact same can be said for ABK and Bethesda.
Also keep in mind the PC relationships between MS and these companies before PS was even a throught on paper.
There is no such thing as relationship with the franchise lol… Seriously people believing that are so naive… Those are businesses we are talking about. Everything is driven by money, simple as that.
If Microsoft offers more money, Final Fantasy is exclusive to Xbox, is Sony offers more money Final Fantasy is exclusive to the Play Station and if Nintendo offers more money Final Fantasy will be exclusive to the Swicth. Simple as that…
And the thing is that it costs double if not triple for the Xbox business unit to buy an exclusive compared to Sony (because of market share and Sony abusing its dominant position)… That’s how the world works, not with ‘Franchise relationship’…
That's not what I was talking about was I? We are talking about what's anti-competitive and not. I said it's "anti-competitive" to take away franchises that already has a strong relationship with other platforms. Then Azzanation made a comment about companies favoring. You are completely misunderstanding what the topic is about.
If Sony was to acquire Rockstar and make GTA exclusive that's anti-competitive cuz GTA is an established IP for Microsoft as well. It's not anti-competitive if Microsoft made a deal with Rockstar to make a exclusive game like they tried with Scalebound. Does that make sense? Why, because the size of the IP matters whether its anti-competitive or not.
Im confused because if thats what you are saying than Sony was Anti Competitive with Nintendo, taking well known IPs that were made famous on Nintendo platforms and crossed them over to PS.
The difference is, that was Square's decision, not Sony. That's why I mentioned the stuff I did for SF5 in the first reply. It's not anti-competitive if the publisher decides to change platform because of technical issues or tactical choice on their end. It's not anti-competitive if Capcom decided to make it PS exclusive and Sony wasn't involved in the decision.
It would be anti-competitive if Sony bribed Square to make mainline FF on there platform instead of Nintendo's, which Microsoft is basically planning on doing with these acquisitions.
Fun Fact: Square CEO at the time of the switch admitted that Sony offered them a deal Nintendo could not much, which resulted in Nintendo telling Square not to come back if accepted.
Companies dont change from market leader without influence. Sony influenced majority of 3rd party to switch, hurting both Nintendo and Sega in the process.
If that's true I did not know that. Very possible and I think that is anti-competitive although it's hard to say because the times are different. Would like to know the details, do you have the source?
Was in one of the documentaries, ill have to look it up again. It explains Nintendo and Squares fall out at the time. It shouldnt matter what time, the gaming industry has never been fair. Nintendo did it, Sony done it and its MS turn for it.
I disagree, the time does matter because the size of the market is different and the scale is different. so it makes sense to be strict and cautious now cuz gaming is a huge market. $70B acquisition we are talking about. If Microsoft were to acquire Activision Blizzard 10 years ago, then they easily could've. Do you know how the market works? Do you know what the antitrust law is?
Quite the opposite. The bigger the market the more options and variety. Taking mega hits away from Nintendo in the early 90s were death blows. Werent many games like FF were customers have choices.
Yeah I think it groups into that category. But we didn't get to the full details as far as I know. Microsoft also had Call of Duty exclusivity deals before Sony where they got DLCs first. However these are all small compared to full exclusives, so there's really nothing to discuss as all parties do these things.
