Microsoft uses Amazon sponsorship to promote Xbox One games over Playstation 4 games

The winner(s) of the next generation consoles won’t be decided today alone, but certainly getting out of the gate quickly provides an advantage. Some might say that all three “big guys” (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft) have gotten off to a relatively lazy start. Microsoft, however, seems poised to fix that by buying powerups: they’ve sponsored the entire “Video Games” section of Amazon to prominently display “Sponsored by Xbox One / Microsoft”.


This is a somewhat curious move, because Amazon would be showing these games regardless, eager to get in pre-orders and notifications before their retail competitors. Right?

Not necessarily. Microsoft could be spending big dollars to undermine Playstation 4’s visibility during E3. As the rumor goes, Microsoft is offering sponsorship deals where possible to prevent Playstation 4 games from appearing online and on stage, ensuring the Xbox One gets maximum visibility, thereby artificially inflating the console’s value as the better gaming console.

This Amazon sponsorship may or may not be part of this rumored strategy. We’ll have one eye on the TV, one eye on the web live streams, and one eye on Amazon’s website to see where this story leads us. But wait, Rob, isn’t that 3 eyes? Yes… maybe that’s why they call it E3.

Do you think this is a smart business move or a cheap winning tactic? Or are critics like ourselves reading too far into Microsoft’s happenings?

[Thanks John!]

Continue reading:

  • Oblivion

    Yeah Microsoft has those deep Windows pockets so they can just throw money around in a way that a normal company just can’t compete with.

    • Cerus98

      Sarcasm? Considering the flops they’ve put out over the years – Windows ME, Vista, 8, windows phones, Zune, kinect etc, etc. Not to mention the money they spent in their court battles.

      • Oblivion

        They didn’t get to be #10 by selling pancakes.

        • Cerus98

          So you go to wikipedia and find one tidbit of data to support your opinion of MS and that bit of data isn’t even relevant. It’s a profitability ranking. All that means is that their expenditures are low compared to their revenue. But they are nowhere near the top 10 for actual total revenue which is what really counts. All a company has to do to increase their profits is make a cheap, mass produced product whose support and development is outsourced to cheap labor countries. Call MS support sometime and I guarantee you it’ll be a company in India fielding the calls. Easy way for companies to make more money. Instead of paying the high US minimum wage they outsource it to some 1$ an hour company in a poor country.

          Not to mention the fact that software companies are very profitable since the piece of software you buy in the store for hundreds of dollars only costs then a few cents to mass produce. They recoup any expenditures for it’s creation VERY quickly. It’s not like each version of windows, office etc is a completely different piece of software either. A few tweaks here and there to what’s already been done and viola – another product with a $150 price tag.

          • Oblivion

            Are you trolling right now? It’s not a tidbit of information, it’s citing a source. $23 Billion dollars in profit means that they make really, really good money. I didn’t say they were a socially amazing company that has the best policies toward the treatment of their workers and global policies that put them above the rest.

            I didn’t say that their products surpass the quality and efforts of other companies and software companies. The Fortune 500 is the top 500 companies in the world; meaning that virtually all of those companies are going to be able to spend money in ways other companies can’t compete.

            I said they have deep pockets. You do know what profit is right?

            What is wrong with you?

          • Cerus98

            Profatibility alone isnt the true measure of a companies success. That’s why they’re arent in the top 10 for total revenue. Companies with far more expenses both exceed their end profits AND their yearly revenue.

          • greengecko007

            Profit = Revenue – Costs

            Profit IS the sole measure of a company’s success. Revenue doesn’t mean squat if your costs outweigh the income.

      • Cubester_64

        Vista wasn’t that bad.

    • Wayne Beck

      Won’t matter. That $500 price point paired with a ridiculous amount of privacy and drm concerns, this thing is dead in the water. No casual is going to pay that much. No gamer is gonna take that BS. They only had a 30 million user base to start and now it has halved. They better figure out a way to get people to buy six of these instead of just the four they had to buy last time.

      • Hussain Naseem

  • bizzy gie

    This just means Microsoft knows how bad they screwed up and that the PS4 is a better console.

  • We will buy all our own consoles if we have to!!

  • greengecko007

    What’s wrong with this? It’s not like Microsoft is buying out the games and making them exclusives, or even timed exclusives. They’re just sponsoring amazon. What next? Are we going to make Coca-Cola look like a bad guy for sponsoring the Olympics, while Pepsi takes a back seat?

    • Game Master

      It’s not that, Microsoft is doing this so Sony’s PS4 looks bad. I’m all for
      making a game exclusive, but when you pay developers not to show
      PlayStation 4 games at E3 or pay Amazon to promote Xbox One games over
      Playstation 4 games, that’s just playing down right dirty. I was ganna buy Xbox One on day one (see what I did there) but now I might not even buy the system at all. I do plan on getting a PS4 to go with my Wii U.

      • greengecko007

        As far as I know the rumor about Microsoft paying devs to not show their games at Sony’s E3 is baseless, and has no form of proof. Paying Amazon to show XboxOne games is the same thing as paying for an advertisement. It’s not dirty at all.

        • Wayne Beck

          Microsoft has a long history of paying Devs not to do things that would help the competition. It’s definately not a rumour as they do it every year, but I couldn’t say how much they did it this year.

  • Sora Morp

    I love how the only news I see on this website is Microsft failing or trying so hard

  • Daniel Gonzalez

    Cheap move.

  • HarryB

    This is a fantastic partnership