“That’s right Sony, any new releases of a game called Call of Duty will be on your console”
Microsoft releases Summoned for War
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
172 points (97.3% liked)
Technology
59311 readers
4999 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's literally all it is. FTC couldn't get the job done, Sony is signing the deal they know is worthless because ultimately they have no other option.
This is for show. It's kind of gross, honestly.
Honestly have no empathy for Sony. They have tons of console exclusives. Kinda the only reason to entertain owning a PlayStation is because of them. There is no monopoly formed. That would indicate zero competition in the space.
I don’t see why people thought the US was going to stop this from happening. We’re very pro business, and won’t get in the way of a merger like this unless it creates a monopoly. And there’s so many companies that make games now that this simply wouldn’t happen. Microsoft buying CoD, WoW and Candy Crush makes them bigger, but not an unstoppable juggernaut.
FTC
what does that mean?
Federal Trade Commission.
Not too surprised tbh.
But what will happen to the console market in 10 years? Does it shift to a subscription model and you choose games via your TV and everything is streamed?
But I’m glad CoD will still be around - at least some constant I can rely on haha
Likely the same thing that has happened to every other industry.
- Someone comes out with a disruptive low cost subscription model, consumers like it because it's so low cost and anything that isn't on it they can still buy.
- People buy less, content producers have to move to the same subscription model to survive.
- The low cost of the subscription model can't pay for all the content that is normally made by that industry, creatives can't find backing to create content anymore, creative struggle to get paid between there being less money and corporate greed snatching what is left
- Quality drops, output drops, no one is happy.
Sounds like Game Pass to me
It does and that's the real issue.
MS has the power, reach and financial means to completely steamroll the market by underpricing games pass to kill any competition. Then once they've done that they can set prices, control labour and production to reduce costs too and monopolise the market to their shareholders cold dead money grubbing hearts content.
To put the scale of the issue in perspective.
Microsoft has a market cap of 2.5 Trillion dollars. Or 2500 billion.
Sony, Nintendo, Tencent, Valve, EA, Take Two and Ubisoft combined don't even reach 700 billion. We take Tencent out of the equation and it's only 300 billion.
So we're talking 4x that of all their combined global competition. If we only look at "western" companies its basically 8.5x.
But getting rid of Bobby Kotick will make gaming better /s
Indeed. At first, I cheered for them because I wanted a better Blizzard and saw it as an opportunity to get rid of Kotick exactly as you say. But the more it drags on and the more I read/hear about context... the more I wish it fell through.
And yet the notion of taking a step back and dusting off the old system is actively rebelled against by consumers because they'd rather have convenient shit than quality if it means having to pay for it.
Then we just play all of our roms via emulation.
The low cost of the subscription model can't pay for all the content that is normally made by that industry
This is where economies of scale comes in though, especially in tech where you're offering an ephemeral product. Even at say US$10 if you get a million subscribers (not too hard to do, netflix had many times that number at their peak) that's US$10 million dollars. Which you would think should be more than enough to punch out a bunch of relatively low budget productions, pay your neccessaries and still leave you a good chunk of change I feel.
You can feel that way but you'd be wrong. Game development costs are enormous these days, 40million has become the norm, quality games that make sales and gain subscribers cost north of 100 million by themselves, not factoring in marketing costs.
"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II generates over $1 billion in 10 days"
Sounds like a bit more than the 10 Million you proposed, and thats only 1 game. It wouldnt be possible to keep up with quality when returns would diminish a ton
So telling that Sony waited until the weekend after the Ninth Circuit denied the temporary injunction appeal. This is the same deal Microsoft proposed months ago as a means to offset anticompetitive concerns. Sony waited to give the FTC ammo for the case, but otherwise was ready and willing to ink the contract.
I’m not a fan of massive consolidation of media companies (though I think that goes without saying for most fediverse users). But using Call of Duty as a rallying cry was a false alarm from the get go. Microsoft recognized from the outset that would have been a dealbreaker. Microsoft offered great terms to Nintendo and Sony to guarantee continued access on all current platforms.
For me personally as a consumer, Zenimax and Activision are about the only viable options I can see to give Microsoft decent single player games. Microsoft has been so far behind Sony and Nintendo for so long. Microsoft has tried to build a stable by adding smaller developers, but they just can’t match Sony and Nintendo AAA products.
There was nothing fair about the offer, because they should never have been in a position to make it in the first place. It's a failure of legal system that this is allowed to happen at all.
Meh. From my antitrust course in law school (which was admittedly a long time ago), nothing about this screams antitrust. I don’t see that this deal gives Microsoft monopoly power over any defined market, and Microsoft definitely hasn’t flexed any existing monopoly power over the gaming space.
Certainly Microsoft has a history of anticompetitive action and flouting monopoly power whenever it has the chance in a sector. But I don’t see this deal as giving Microsoft a vertical or horizontal monopoly. It’s just typical consolidation within the industry. It’s not for consumers, but it isn’t the result of illegal price fixing type arrangements between competitors or using an existing dominant market share to overpower the market. That isn’t illegal. That’s just a shitty industry with shitty practices.
The best argument against allowing the deal to close, under US law, is likely targeted towards the cloud and subscription models. Microsoft really does seem to have a huge edge there. But I’m not sure anyone in the industry (except Epic Games) wants to challenge the subscription practices on another player’s hardware.
I'm sitting here wondering why the fuck anyone plays CoD to begin with.
It’s a relatively consistent and fun arcade shooter. We don’t need to bring the gatekeeping that you see on other platforms. Let people like what they like.
It's basically the vanilla option for people that don't play sports games. If you have any interest in shooters, it's got a great ROI
From most peoples perspective (not mine though), nobody can make an FPS shooter as good as a call of duty game. There are “people who play games” and there’s “gamers”.
People who play games are satisfied with the yearly release of a somewhat consistent quality FPS game, but gamers are aware of the (potential) better alternatives.
Call of Duty is still decent, if you don’t look too closely at it. Warzone and DMZ are enjoyable in small quantities. 6v6 is fine if you play 2-3 matches then turn it off.
view more: next ›