This news was first spotted in Resetera , According to sony opinions during Brazil’s regulatory review process ,and I moved this topic here with some important quotes , If you want to read the entire article, please go to the original topic
They say that there are few barriers to entry in game development and publishing for PC. That only one developer can create an “indie” game and distribute it online, but creating a high-end AAA game (like Activision’s Call of Duty) requires a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of employees.
there are few developers/publishers capable of producing AAA games, such as EA (FIFA), Take-Two/Rockstar (Grand Theft Auto) and Epic Games (Fortnite)
Sony believes that none of developers could create a franchise to rival Activision’s Call of Duty, which stands out as a gaming category on its own
they believe that Call of Duty is so popular that it influences users’ choice of console
And here they are talking about the impact of the game pass on the market
Sony agree that subscription services compete with games purchased for a one-time fee. But they think that the lowest upfront costs of subscription services could be anti competitive in relation to publishers who recoup the significant investments in games by selling them for an upfront fee
They say that over the past five years, Game Pass has grown to capture approximately 60-70% of the global subscription services market (that marketspace is even greater in Brazil, where Game Pass represents approximately 70-80% of the PC subscription services market).
Sony believe that it would take several years for a competitor – even with substantial investments – to create a rival effective for Game Pass
They do know what the talking about CoD did help Sony sell there PlayStation. But They have time to counteract act the loss of advertising right with they still have 2 or 3 more years. By that time might not matter to much.
Sony seems legitimately frightened about this deal, and for good reason. Maybe they should focus less on paying to keep games off of Xbox, for timed exclusive games with obscure or unknown timetables, for content and DLC to not appear on other consoles, and to keep third-party games off of Game Pass.
Now they’re about to be locked into a contract to advertise and market their main competitor’s biggest IP, which even if it stays multiplat for the next decade (doubt it will be multiplat next gen), it will be $70 on their console versus free* with Game Pass along with other goodies and perks.
Hard to feel sorry for them. Same thing with Bethesda; Deathloop, Ghostwire: Tokyo and almost Starfield. Paying to keep these third party games from a company associated with Xbox off of Xbox, and in the end that backfired tremendously.
I really just don’t like Sony as a company relative to their PlayStation business. I have a PS5 that collects dust, and crap like this out of them is why I will be waiting much longer to play God of War Ragnarok when it is on fire sale instead of $70. They pull all of the garbage that they do with gatekeeping third party content from other platforms, including COD content ironically, and then have the nerve to spew all of that nonsense.
I think it is kinda ironic Sony position on acti deal, although it is comprehensive that they are scared with where things are going. We would not be here if, at least in part, wasn’t for the super agressive Sony third party deal strategy, where they, virtually, alienated entire genres of games from Xbox (i.e. fighting and jprg) and started to touch critical areas of Xbox environment, such as Bethesda games. Xbox, otherwise, didn’t sit and cried for regulators, they came up with strategies to overcome those tough times. They changed leadership and got acknowledged by the whole company, they created game pass, invested in cloud and well, started buying studios. They build an environment where they can succeed outside the “who sold more console” bubble. Again, it is understandable Sony position on the deal, however their statements looks like more a whinning of a spoiled kid, used to to be given everything when they ask, than based on actual facts.