The Debating Chamber

Forum for intelligent debate on possibly controversial topics related to gaming

Poll: Have your opinions on the Microsoft Activision Blizzard deal changed?

  • Posted on 27 November 22 at 17:45, Edited on 27 November 22 at 17:49 by TwilightShadow22
    Slayer1189 said:
    So then you look to see what the CEO of Sony has to say about improving their service to compete and... What's that? The CEO of Sony has been to busy crying to tell us any big plans he has for the future but what he can tell us is that his competitor's product is better than what they can offer? Well damn if the CEO of Sony doesn't believe in the product/service why should we? Maybe Xbox is the way to go?

    How many millions of $$$ do you think it costs Sony to pursue MS here? Jim Ryan has made it his mission to hurt our experience as gamers by simultaneously trying to reduce what MS can offer us, while also throwing away time and money that could have been spent giving us something worth sticking around for.
    I'm curious but do you actually genuinely believe this nonsense?

    Microsoft have just came out saying that they can't hope to match Sony's quality and their answer is to just buy everything and hope that'll fix the issue. They already own some of the most talented developers in the industry with over 35 studios but instead of doubling down and finally getting their act together, they're just writing blank cheques willy nilly and taking multiplatform games permanently away from other console manufacturers.

    Also that second point is a load of nonsense, Spencer does timed deals just as much as Ryan does but instead of just making deals with publishers to get games on Game Pass, he takes it a step further and buys publishers but Sony and the industry are supposed to just be cool with that?

    Sony can not beat a service with Call of Duty on it, it's as simple as that. Sony first party games can be absolute bangers non-stop but that will not come close to bringing in the subscriptions needed to combat a disgusting move like this.

    It's not a monopoly yet but it is the start of one and it should rightfully be nipped in the bud before it becomes a very real issue.
  • Slayer1189Slayer11892,172,293
    Posted on 27 November 22 at 18:06, Edited on 27 November 22 at 18:07 by Slayer1189
    TwilightShadow22 said:
    Sony can not beat a service with Call of Duty on it, it's as simple as that. Sony first party games can be absolute bangers non-stop but that will not come close to bringing in the subscriptions needed to combat a disgusting move like this.
    Well, looks like you are another +1 for the Sony can't beat Microsoft camp. Bring on the monopoly I guess laugh
  • AzureWrath1AzureWrath1134,053
    Posted on 27 November 22 at 18:12
    Slayer1189 said:
    First off, Just wanna say really well balanced posts from both Burkiemeister & Richnj. Wanted to show appreciation for both! toast

    strifekun said:
    Same. I don't understand how more people aren't worried about the staggering amount of monopolies popping up more frequently.
    1) Many people aren't seeing "monopolies" popping up more frequently
    2) Even if there were monopolies, more people aren't worried because all most people want is a good product/service. If a fantastic service is delivered people are happy smile

    Add onto that all of the disingenuous arguments being made like "MS are a monopoly" "MS have $1.84T Market Cap" "CoD had more players than God of War Ragnarok" "MS own X number of studios" etc.

    So then you look to see what the CEO of Sony has to say about improving their service to compete and... What's that? The CEO of Sony has been to busy crying to tell us any big plans he has for the future but what he can tell us is that his competitor's product is better than what they can offer? Well damn if the CEO of Sony doesn't believe in the product/service why should we? Maybe Xbox is the way to go?

    How many millions of $$$ do you think it costs Sony to pursue MS here? Jim Ryan has made it his mission to hurt our experience as gamers by simultaneously trying to reduce what MS can offer us, while also throwing away time and money that could have been spent giving us something worth sticking around for.
    They weren't well balanced posts at all, and most of what you've said is asinine, conspiracist nonsense.
  • Posted on 27 November 22 at 19:00
    Slayer1189 said:
    Well, looks like you are another +1 for the Sony can't beat Microsoft camp. Bring on the monopoly I guess laugh
    Miss the part below where I clearly stated that it may not be a monopoly yet but it's the start of one?
  • SolaceCreedSolaceCreed702,163
    Posted on 27 November 22 at 19:19
    Slayer1189 said:
    TwilightShadow22 said:
    Sony can not beat a service with Call of Duty on it, it's as simple as that. Sony first party games can be absolute bangers non-stop but that will not come close to bringing in the subscriptions needed to combat a disgusting move like this.
    Well, looks like you are another +1 for the Sony can't beat Microsoft camp. Bring on the monopoly I guess laugh
    It's not that Sony wouldn't be able to compete at all, but it could take a lot of money they use to make their 1st party games. I think that's more what Sony are trying (and not really succeeding) to communicate.
    It will severely limit what they are likely to do though, until they find a way to do it, but both sides are being immature here. "Sony said this..." "Microsoft will take our toys away" bollocks. Whilst I'm against the acquisition for the sake of 3rd party games staying that way (purely because this won't be the end of it, Sony will go out and buy some in response and it'll keep going until it's only "stroke the Stickinsect" that's 3rd party).
    "Maybe We Wouldn't Like The Answer Even If They Told Us."
  • Slayer1189Slayer11892,172,293
    Posted on 27 November 22 at 20:49
    SolaceCreed said:
    Slayer1189 said:
    Well, looks like you are another +1 for the Sony can't beat Microsoft camp. Bring on the monopoly I guess laugh
    It's not that Sony wouldn't be able to compete at all, but it could take a lot of money they use to make their 1st party games. I think that's more what Sony are trying (and not really succeeding) to communicate.
    It will severely limit what they are likely to do though, until they find a way to do it, but both sides are being immature here. "Sony said this..." "Microsoft will take our toys away" bollocks. Whilst I'm against the acquisition for the sake of 3rd party games staying that way (purely because this won't be the end of it, Sony will go out and buy some in response and it'll keep going until it's only "stroke the Stickinsect" that's 3rd party).
    Yeah I get what they are saying. Sony's angle is that Activision is so large (particularly CoD) that to lose access entirely or even to have it paid on PS while part of GamePass is a major blow to them. I do however find comparisons of MW2 & GoW: Ragnarok numbers as disingenuous. The biggest reason being that it's comparing a free game to a £70 one, as well as that many will have requested GoW from parents/loved ones over the holidays.

    I'll also fully hold my hands up to being a bit playful/childish with the "Microsoft will take our toys away" schtick. It's not really necessary, but I did find the analogy funny when it came to mind laugh

    I am also fully aware the the "job" of a CEO is to maximise shareholder profits and that sometimes in reality this is best achieved putting your competitors out of business or lobbying governments to regulate in your favour... So I understand that Jim Ryan is tactically playing out his role in the way he has deemed best... It's just that it rubs me the wrong way personally. To me, a CEO should always be trying to improve the product/service and should also truly believe they have a USP over the competition smile

    At the heart of the matter here is I simply don't agree that Sony can't stand toe to toe with Microsoft. Sony dominated 3 of the previous 4 console generations. They have immense standing in the industry, with a fantastic library available to them, great business connections, plenty of IP's.

    In my perfect situation, the Microsoft acquisition goes through AND Sony is then forced to up their game to compete, resulting in a win win for us consumers toast

    And hey, the glorious "Stroke the" series is already a Sony exclusive. Forever may it stay that way wink
  • SolaceCreedSolaceCreed702,163
    Posted on 27 November 22 at 21:15
    Slayer1189 said:
    SolaceCreed said:
    Slayer1189 said:
    Well, looks like you are another +1 for the Sony can't beat Microsoft camp. Bring on the monopoly I guess laugh
    It's not that Sony wouldn't be able to compete at all, but it could take a lot of money they use to make their 1st party games. I think that's more what Sony are trying (and not really succeeding) to communicate.
    It will severely limit what they are likely to do though, until they find a way to do it, but both sides are being immature here. "Sony said this..." "Microsoft will take our toys away" bollocks. Whilst I'm against the acquisition for the sake of 3rd party games staying that way (purely because this won't be the end of it, Sony will go out and buy some in response and it'll keep going until it's only "stroke the Stickinsect" that's 3rd party).
    Yeah I get what they are saying. Sony's angle is that Activision is so large (particularly CoD) that to lose access entirely or even to have it paid on PS while part of GamePass is a major blow to them. I do however find comparisons of MW2 & GoW: Ragnarok numbers as disingenuous. The biggest reason being that it's comparing a free game to a £70 one, as well as that many will have requested GoW from parents/loved ones over the holidays.

    I'll also fully hold my hands up to being a bit playful/childish with the "Microsoft will take our toys away" schtick. It's not really necessary, but I did find the analogy funny when it came to mind laugh

    I am also fully aware the the "job" of a CEO is to maximise shareholder profits and that sometimes in reality this is best achieved putting your competitors out of business or lobbying governments to regulate in your favour... So I understand that Jim Ryan is tactically playing out his role in the way he has deemed best... It's just that it rubs me the wrong way personally. To me, a CEO should always be trying to improve the product/service and should also truly believe they have a USP over the competition smile

    At the heart of the matter here is I simply don't agree that Sony can't stand toe to toe with Microsoft. Sony dominated 3 of the previous 4 console generations. They have immense standing in the industry, with a fantastic library available to them, great business connections, plenty of IP's.

    In my perfect situation, the Microsoft acquisition goes through AND Sony is then forced to up their game to compete, resulting in a win win for us consumers toast

    And hey, the glorious "Stroke the" series is already a Sony exclusive. Forever may it stay that way wink
    Unfortunately the days of CEOs/owners like Steve Jobs don't exist anymore. The type of ones who care about their consumers and products.

    Hey, if it does make Sony go mental and produce even bigger games to annoy Microsoft making the acquisition almost silly in a few years. Fair play, but I only see this as making Sony go out and buy another Publishers to "keep up".

    I'm starting to find it funny that one of their main competitors will be Apple and Google soon, they want the mobile market as well.

    Lol, they will always find a way now I think to get around the system. They'll be a plague for a while.
    "Maybe We Wouldn't Like The Answer Even If They Told Us."
Want to join in the discussion? Please log in or Register For Free to comment.
Hide ads
Hide ads