lam not a fan of the industry consolidation that is currently going on thanks to the arms race started by Microsoft buying a few studios, leading to an ever escalating war between them and PlayStation to try and get as many valuable developers and IP under collect their umbrellas if possible. Simply put, I think this kind of consolidation, no matter which way it comes, can only be bad for the long-term health of the industry as a whole (look how creatively bankrupt Hollywood became once everything consolidated around the Big Six studios, and then usually around Disney, for an analog). As a result, I’ve been following the regulatory oversight that Microsoft’s attempted acquisition of Activision Blizzard has received with great interest. While I think this will inevitably continue, I’m interested in seeing and analyzing the arguments being made against it.
Interestingly, most of the video game market seems unconcerned about Microsoft’s takeover bid. Valve, Epic, Apple, Ubisoft, Namco, WB Games, Riot, Google, none of them are very concerned about Microsoft trying to complete the sale of one of the largest third-party video game publishers in the industry. The one company that has raised the most objections is Sony – which makes sense, of course. Sony has the most to lose if their closest direct competitor were to take away unfettered access to the largest third-party brand. And so, Sony says – Duty is essentially a “kingmaker”, single-handedly driving millions to buy every game it releases and move to the platform where it enjoys the strongest association and community. The success of a platform is apparently tied to Duty are available thereon.
But Sony’s arguments against Microsoft’s attempted sale do not seem well founded or well thought out. Not only do they seem completely out of touch with the reality of the market, but they also seem to make the success of Sony and PlayStation almost entirely dependent on Duty and the PlayStation association that has the IP. Sony’s argument seems to be that if Duty would be made available on Game Pass day one – not even Xbox exclusive, mind you (Microsoft has already committed Duty on all platforms, even after the Activision sale closes), is only made available on Game Pass – then PlayStation’s potential in the market would be significantly affected.
That is, in a word, nonsense. Not only is it disrespectful to PlayStation’s own first party studios that annually produce world-class games, but also to the thousands of other third-party games available on the platform (often exclusive), all of which contribute to its success, it also ignores the smart platform strategy, marketing and brand strength that PlayStation enjoys worldwide. Duty Being made available suddenly on the first day of Game Pass would of course have an impact on PlayStation, but Game Pass and its library haven’t had any impact on the success of PlayStation so far. While Game Pass has done well and led the Xbox resurgence, it hasn’t come at the expense of PS4 and now PS5, both of which continue record-breaking runs. The idea that Duty being available on PlayStation equal to availability elsewhere is the only thing standing between PlayStation leading the market and completely losing the plot is laughable.
We even already have several examples of platforms without Duty is doing incredibly well in the market. Steam and Switch are both platforms that don’t have that Duty available in any capacity. Both are also the two most successful platforms on the market right now, with a user base of over 100 million each. For Steam, you could even argue that setting up an account is free, and that there is no friction or barrier to access, and therefore it can be done without Duty. Okay, but what about Switch? no Dutyand yet it breaks all records.
The Switch’s success is clearly tied to its unique hardware, as well as Nintendo’s incredible first party exclusives, the third party exclusives on the system, and then the plethora of major and indie third party titles on the system. But that’s exactly the point – the Switch manages to sell very well, even if it doesn’t even have one Duty reissue or spin-off. It manages to compensate for Duty‘s absence due to a strong appeal in terms of the core value of the hardware, and an extraordinary range of games.
Sony’s own first party studios are incredibly talented, and Sony’s first party enjoys an unparalleled reputation in the industry, surpassed only by Nintendo itself. Sony is therefore fully able to sell its hardware through its own great titles, exclusive to PlayStation. In fact, even Duty would be made available on Game Pass day and date (remember it would still be on PS even in the worst possible scenario), PlayStation still have much more third-party support than Nintendo. All that third-party support (including, yes, Duty) plus Sony’s own fantastic first party games – and Sony thinks it can’t sell its system in this scenario? Anyone who thinks about it for more than half a second knows how weak this premise is. It stands out on its own if you even look at it.
And let’s assume Sony has determined that the continued availability of a major multiplayer shooter on PlayStation, without it getting the network effect of being available on Xbox, is paramount to their success – okay, then why? Duty, specifically? Titles like Fortnite, Destiny, Battlefieldand a little franchise called GTAare all still equally available on PlayStation, and all the major multiplayer games with their largest community on PlayStation. Duty suddenly a taller community on Xbox is enough to deny all that?
And let’s actually go back to Destinybecause that leads to my next point. If Sony thinks Duty is essential, why not make their own? They have a great portfolio of first-party studios, including several new ones that they have set up explicitly to focus on multiplayer games, and they just bought Bungie, the people who are the reason there is a modern multiplayer shooter genre or market to begin with. Why not just make your own? Why should it? Duty?
You could argue that Sony tried that, in the PS3 era with kill zone. In that case, I’d say, sure, Sony has tried that. Back when the quality and consistency of their first party output was much more mixed (to put it nicely) than the leading games they now deliver. And they tried with KILL ZONE. A franchise that is so thoroughly mediocre and mediocre that it’s actually a miracle they lasted as long as they did. Of the six kill zone Games Sony has released only two Breakthrough 80 on Metactritic, and only a goes above the low 80 mark (which is obvious) Kill zone 2, the only game in the series that can make a legitimate claim to be good and not just propped up on its exclusivity status). Clear kill zone didn’t help Sony gain traction because kill zone sucked. And the one time it wasn’t bad, Sony failed to follow through.
To attempt nowwith much better managed talent and studios, with multiple new studios and developers specifically purchased or set up to help with multiplayer games (including, I should reiterate, the literal grandfather of the modern multiplayer shooter to begin with in Bungie), and games that hopefully are really good would be a very different scenario than what was played with kill zone back in the days.
So, to tie this back to the original statement – unlike industry consolidation as I am, I don’t think Sony’s arguments against Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision hold true. Please note that in this scenario, Microsoft is committed to Duty on PlayStation even after they close the sale – Sony doesn’t claim PlayStation would fail without it Duty (itself an absurd claim, as discussed), the argument is that PlayStation would have material consequences if Duty would be made available on Game Pass day and date. That’s how vulnerable they think their success is, and as mentioned, it’s mind-bogglingly disrespectful to their own great work, as well as the great work done by all the third parties that have contributed to making PlayStation the brand it is. We have several examples of systems without Duty is doing well (including a system currently on track to become the best-selling game system of all time), and PlayStation wouldn’t even become one of the platforms without Duty to start in this situation. The whole argument is stupid.
Even if we buy the central premise (we shouldn’t, but let’s do it), Sony’s argument is still dumb because they have enough first party content to differentiate their system, and an extremely talented portfolio of studios. who are fully capable of stunning multiplayer titles that can create the captive network effect Sony seems so desperate for PlayStation anyway. Even if you were to say that Sony tried and failed once before, when Sony tried before, their first batches were much worse than they are now (especially now that Sony also owns Bungie), and they tried with kill zonewhich presumably would be considerably better than their new attempt.
So no, Sony’s whole argument is flawed and based on a bunch of assumptions so weak that I’m surprised they stuck together long enough to get put to paper in the beginning. Even if Xbox made Duty exclusive, PlayStation would be more than fine. In this scenario, where all that happens is Xbox puts it on Game Pass and PlayStation still keeps getting the games?
Yes, there is nothing to worry about.
Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, GamingBolt as an organization.
0 Comments