Support NeoGAF

[pasterpl]

I mean look at it this way, Xbox didn't even do a new pack-in controlpad R&D for the series consoles. Is that the actions of a division that is flush with success, or billing out all its costs to any other project it can, in your opinion?

1. The Xbox series got new controller
2. MS spent considerable amount of money to pack the worlds most powerful console into very small form factor.
3. Then you have got separate SKU - Xbox series s
4. Proprietary storage extension (not ideal, but it is there)

Based on the above I would say that ms spent more on R&D for Xbox series than Sony did on ps5

This reads like MS is starting to sweat a bit. I don’t think they’re as confident in this going through without no problems as they were before.

They had to respond to Jim’s pilgrimage to controlling bodies and Sony spilling bullshit around. I would say Sony is the one sweating (you have got CEO meeeting with eu regulators, not lawyers etc, but CEO of Sony (SIE) himself. ).

 

[reksveks]

Based on the above I would say that ms spent more on R&D for Xbox series than Sony did on ps5

Trust me there is no right answer here
- either cost cutting R&D cause they are making loss
- too much R&D so making a loss

 

[StealthGoblin]

Lovely ‘we are anxious’ website but it doesn’t do anything to address the main concerns the regulators have which is COD and it’s potential exclusivity and how having increasing number of games on Gamepass on day one will stifle competition.

 

[skit_data]

They had to respond to Jim’s pilgrimage to controlling bodies and Sony spilling bullshit around. I would say Sony is the one sweating (you have got CEO meeeting with eu regulators, not lawyers etc, but CEO of Sony (SIE) himself. ).

Of course Sony is sweating big time, they want to keep CoD on their platform. But I think google joining the fray in the area of the cloud/mobile gaming market might be a way bigger issue for MS in the end.

 

[DenchDeckard]

1. The Xbox series got new controller
2. MS spent considerable amount of money to pack the worlds most powerful console into very small form factor.
3. Then you have got separate SKU - Xbox series s
4. Proprietary storage extension (not ideal, but it is there)

Based on the above I would say that ms spent more on R&D for Xbox series than Sony did on ps5


They had to respond to Jim’s pilgrimage to controlling bodies and Sony spilling bullshit around. I would say Sony is the one sweating (you have got CEO meeeting with eu regulators, not lawyers etc, but CEO of Sony (SIE) himself. ).

The series controller is the best they've ever made. A good controller is a good controller. I've not felt anything from the dualsense controllers that were awesome in the triggers, the only thing I've felt is them snap lol..

I like the haptic a lot though. The raindrops etc in returnal was awesome.

 

[reksveks]

But I think google joining the fray in the area of the cloud/mobile gaming market might be a way bigger issue for MS in the end.

Yeah, the two markets/issues that are probably be causing the most issues is cloud gaming and multi-game subscription services.

I do think that there is meaningful concessions here that MS + ABK could also make in this area if they want to.

I.e. Sticking Warzone on GeForce Now. MS definitely wouldn't like to do that but they could (and probably should). King and Warzone Mobile is the big thing in my opinion.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Imo if somebody pulls out the « MS gaming division is losing money » argument in 2022, after the profit data was published during the Epic vs Apple trial and after the gaming revenue more than doubled between 2017 and 2022, they cannot be taken seriously.

And yet you see the burning money argument all the freaking time in every argument.

They've repeated that lie so many times that they actually believe it.

 

[anthony2690]

Extremely well said. Moving COD to GP would cripple a number of businesses here in the UK.

Game.co.uk would not survive. They're barely afloat now. No annual big jump in in store footfall that COD generates? Yikes...

Game as a business is failing because whoever chooses pricing/chooses locations etc are idiots.

In Leicester we had two games right near each other in the city centre, literally a 2 min walk if that, and a game station (a sister store, a bit further down towards the train station, a 5 min walk max)

Why would you have three stores all in close vicinity competing with each other? It makes no sense.

It was like this in many other cities I visited too in the UK.

I think most have closed their gamestations down now though.

But even still they are not even remotely competitive with their brand new prices either.

I can usually get the same game £10/15 cheaper brand new day one elsewhere online or in store (Game Collection, Tesco, shopto etc)

As a Consumer why would I ever step foot in game? Or use their online store? I'm not going to pay more for the same product.

 

[reksveks]

I was looking for a tangent for the following news

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...g-christmas-period?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

 

[ReBurn]

This is what I see I that graphic:

1. We can have 2 groups:

• Handheld-Mobile: 85 B
• Console-PC: 73 B

You could say that is no fair or whatever (the graphic is basically grouping handheld and mobile already).

Nvidia/AMD/Intel heavily market their GPU's toward gaming. In other words; if you want to game in PC...you need a GPU. Let's say PC-Console is the Desktop-Couch experience.

2. Both groups have very different videogame design philosophies:

Just to name one example:
Fallout shelter
Fallout 4.

3. install base on both market is weird (quickly googling)

Let's be generous and say that the market size of the Couch-Desktop experience is about 400 million devices.

Handheld-Mobile...let's slice a couple of billions and say that there are 4 Billions handheld-mobile devices.

To me (as a said) saying that:

"mobile gaming is by far and wide the biggest revenue generating gaming medium"

is not as straightforward as it seems.

why?
the fact that the revenue of console-PC with such lower install base can be compared with mobile-handled tells me:

4. Something is very weird with the mobile-handheld market. Is like:

100 console-pc players are more valuable in terms of money that 1000 mobile-handheld gamers.

Despite some similar (if not identical) experiences between markets like Genshing Impact or Call of Duty Mobile.

I think genuinely speaking there is a difference between how this content is meant to be played:

Fallout Shelter : 5-15 minutes sessions.
Fallout 4: 2-4 hours to put a number.
The point is minutes vs hours.

So, you could say that mobile gaming is way bigger and makes more money. Ok so:

1. Does this make it better?
2. Do you want mobile game design philosophy to be followed by Console-PC?


EDIT: Plot Twist: is not one ot the other market; is both.

You could have a unified product between markets or specific versions for each. At the end of the day is money.

We see a tons of shity copy-cats/low effort GaaS games on mobile...I think those kind of games are even more fucked when big companies actually bring those IP to mobile.

The reason you don't understand it is because you are only looking at the right side of the graphic and ignoring the rest. Gaming revenue on phones went from nothing to being the largest revenue segment in 25 years. Starting in 2009 it grew faster than any segment in gaming history to eventually eclipse every other source of gaming revenue combined, and mobile gaming is primarily controlled by Apple and Google and what they allow on their app stores.

Based on this information there's no reason to believe that gaming on phones and other devices connected to Apple and Google stores won't continue to grow and take market share from consoles and PC. Anyone who believes otherwise just doesn't want to accept reality. That's why we, as gamers, need more options in the mobile gaming space than just Apple and Google. That's why the Epic vs. Apple case and others like it are so important. But we have braindead morons supporting the notion that companies like Apple should be able to decide what you're allowed to play on the iphone or ipad you paid a thousand plus dollars for.

We need more choices and app stores in the mobile space, not fewer. We're never going back to the glory days of gaming handhelds and consoles being the primary way games are consumed. Phones are the leading gaming devices now. That's what new gamers want to use. This Activision purchase was never about Call of Duty on consoles. It is about Candy Crush and casuals because they spend more money than we do.

 

[PaintTinJr]

1. The Xbox series got new controller

As a pack-in? At my friend's house the black controller he was using looked positively last-gen and felt old and tried when he handed to me to try his XsX. I assumed the only new controller is the hundreds of pounds upsold Elites that cover their own R&D costs, but confess to being uninformed about xbox peripherals, so if that is "new", then I'd someone to highlight the R&D work between X1 and series specific controllers to know if it changed the substance of me saying they did spend on controller R&D.

2. MS spent considerable amount of money to pack the worlds most powerful console into very small form factor.

In the old next-gen thread I think user (forget name exactly, think it was GeordieMp) said the design was dual purpose, with Xcloud server use for running two hypervisor-ed instances of X1 games (iirc) was the reason for the poor GPU layout on the XsX. So, the R&D costs and possibly even the subsidy were charged against Xcloud - internally.

3. Then you have got separate SKU - Xbox series s

The cheaper SKU is the one they've made available to all throughout and has lower component costs now they've absorbed the initial setup cost, so isn't taking a big bath like the less available expensive was through the launch year.

4. Proprietary storage extension (not ideal, but it is there)

The drive is the cheap cacheless type as Linus explained so very little R&D given its modest transfer rates compared to cooling, and will have a big markup, they get a kickback from the drive manufacturer for exclusivity and the markup is ridiculously high for what the drives actually are.

Based on the above I would say that ms spent more on R&D for Xbox series than Sony did on ps5

...

MSFT - rather than Xbox project? yes, in absolute terms, but in relative terms if they'd had to deliver the same advanced R&D as PlayStation via their R&D providers, then no. PS5's R&D is way ahead of the trivial off the peg R&D in the Series consoles - taking Sweeney's tweet into the equation- and would have cost far, far more for MSFT to deliver the PS5's solution, if their providers even could, with technology like the liquid metal, IO complex, etc, etc.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Is this 100% accurate?, if so it is very telling.

Well if you look at it you can clearly see console gaming has stayed pretty stagnant since 2006 while PC and mobile is growing, which is pretty obvious when you look at the evidence of what is happening across these companies.

That's if the graph is accurate. If it is it is very telling.

Also, you say Microsoft has failed and that's why they are trying something new, which I agree with to an extent and from looking at the graph you can see that they are honest in their statement of reaching more game players....but I would say and I'm sure you can agree from seeing this graph that Sony as the market leader has failed and they have not grown console gaming or reached more of an audience in 20 years...which is further backed up by them moving to PC gaming and primarily focusing on TV and movies using games to support their other entertainment interests and signing off big titles that only support this. Including remasters of titles that are not even a generation old.

Sony should be exploring ways to grow the console user base but it looks like they have just moved to PC. I'm sure they will push for more mobile stuff soon too.

Going by Sony's past successes in other markets like making WALKMANs a ubiquitous portable music device for children to grandparents, and the market growth PlayStation and PlayStation 2 were delivering, you might consider that it has been Xbox's presence as the unnatural survivor - being propped up eternally by MSFT - that has stopped the market leaders from growing the market over the last 2 decades - because they are already fighting a financial goliath that doesn't bow out after losing repeatedly - and both PlayStation and Nintendo only have enough to survive that market clash each gen, leaving nothing spare to focus on market growth like they did before Xbox arrived.

In fact, it was MSFT's observation that PlayStation's growth would ultimately impact Windows that MSFT entered the console market, so in many ways they've achieved a goal - that's anti consumer - by hampering console market growth as they originally intended.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Going by Sony's past successes in other markets like making WALKMANs a ubiquitous portable music device for children to grandparents, and the market growth PlayStation and PlayStation 2 were delivering, you might consider that it has been Xbox's presence as the unnatural survivor - being propped up eternally by MSFT - that has stopped the market leaders from grow the market - because they are already fighting a financial goliath that doesn't bow out after losing repeatedly - and both PlayStation and Nintendo only have enough to survive that market clash each gen, leaving nothing spare to focus on market growth like they did before Xbox arrived.

What? That looks like a whole load of words to say nothing. Are you blaming sonys competition as the reason they havent been able to grow the market they are the leader of? Are you talking about them stealing market share or growing? They haven't grown the overall player base at all, they've basically taken marketshare from Microsoft and not grown the overall sector one bit, that's what this data proves.

 

[Chukhopops]

Going by Sony's past successes in other markets like making WALKMANs a ubiquitous portable music device for children to grandparents, and the market growth PlayStation and PlayStation 2 were delivering, you might consider that it has been Xbox's presence as the unnatural survivor - being propped up eternally by MSFT - that has stopped the market leaders from growing the market over the last 2 decades - because they are already fighting a financial goliath that doesn't bow out after losing repeatedly - and both PlayStation and Nintendo only have enough to survive that market clash each gen, leaving nothing spare to focus on market growth like they did before Xbox arrived.

In fact, it was MSFT's observation that PlayStation's growth would ultimately impact Windows that MSFT entered the console market, so in many ways they've achieved a goal - that's anti consumer - by hampering console market growth as they originally intended.

Holy moly I’ve never seen such twisted logic even on GAF.

My favorite part is when you say that PlayStation’s growth (a console) would impact Windows (a computer operating system) and that’s why MS decided to enter the console market.

Straight up fairy tale territory.

 

[reksveks]

Microsoft depressing the console market growth by being 'shit' at it is a funny take. There are much larger factors at play.

Also consumers don't give a fuck about the size of a market, they care about what they are getting and able to do.

 

[PaintTinJr]

What? That looks like a whole load of words to say nothing. Are you blaming sonys competition as the reason they havent been able to grow the market they are the leader of? Are you talking about them stealing market share or growing? They haven't grown the overall player base at all, they've basically taken marketshare from Microsoft and not grown the overall sector one bit, that's what this data proves.

You are fighting a company with 20x your power that's founder Bill Gates at the time is on record about the growth of PlayStation impacting Windows as their reason to enter the market with everything they had - I saw the clip in a gaming documentary on netflix in the last few years.

From a repeated war of attrition the market leaders no longer have the luxury of looking further than defending their market share. Xbox in game is a little like the American Grey Squirrell in the UK IMO.

 

[Gavon West]

Of course Sony is sweating big time, they want to keep CoD on their platform. But I think google joining the fray in the area of the cloud/mobile gaming market might be a way bigger issue for MS in the end.

Nah. It's a bunch of peacocking if we're being honest. Microsoft isn't a threat if Tencent isn't. Blaming Microsoft for Google going out is about as lame as you can get from a major entity like Google. By the end of it, Sony will have to truly compete without CoD. It is what it is.

 

[ReBurn]

Going by Sony's past successes in other markets like making WALKMANs a ubiquitous portable music device for children to grandparents, and the market growth PlayStation and PlayStation 2 were delivering, you might consider that it has been Xbox's presence as the unnatural survivor - being propped up eternally by MSFT - that has stopped the market leaders from grow the market - because they are already fighting a financial goliath that doesn't bow out after losing repeatedly - and both PlayStation and Nintendo only have enough to survive that market clash each gen, leaving nothing spare to focus on market growth like they did before Xbox arrived.

Sony's past successes in other markets are in the past and have no relevance when it comes to the present or the future. In 2022 nobody cares that Sony made the Walkman. Sony hasn't made a Walkman since 2010 and they killed their media player business by trying to force their proprietary standards on customers who wanted the flexibility of MP3 and other more open formats. Sony has traditionally been a rigid company that refuses to adapt to change and has killed their leading position in many verticals because of it. Even verticals they created like portable personal music devices.

"Microsoft should just quit and leave video games because they lose every generation" is, frankly, a stupid take. Xbox is not an "unnatural survivor," whatever that means. Xbox is an established and recognizable brand. If Xbox was a bad business for Microsoft they would not have just celebrated 20+ years of Xbox. They would not be investing billions into content and services to grow it.

Whether a company is successful is no longer based only on how many plastic boxes they sell. There are more and better ways to consume games these days than consoles, which wasn't always the case. People on online forums and middle school playgrounds are still holding onto the notion that the company who sells the most consoles wins, but that's not how it works any more. "We believe in generations" and "we believe in premium releases" is Sony saying that they don't believe in change. The reality is that console generations are going to die because 6+ years between technology refreshes is too long when PC gaming tech and mobile device tech improves and refreshes much more quickly.

It seems to be a tough reality for some people that despite Sony being the leader in the console market they are in a very vulnerable position right now. Sony has acknowledged it but the fanboys don't seem to have picked up on it. Sony is bringing games to PC and investing in mobile and live service games because console gaming overall is stagnating. Console gaming revenue as a percentage of the overall gaming market is shrinking. Sony is quickly finding themselves the leader of the smallest piece of the pie and if they don't adapt PlayStation could become the next Walkman as people take their money elsewhere.

 

[Orbital2060]

I think our regulators will be looking at the sustainable revenue from companies like Activision and PlayStation against the revenue the market currently brings into the UK coffers (just from profitmaking industry companies) and then considers if MSFT's disruptive acquisition is going to help or hinder that status quo or help or hinder the growth potential with other players in the future.

Xbox failing to be self-funding and completely opaque in its revenue returns/losses for over two decades works against MSFT desire to acquire Activision IMO, and signals that the deal is just more profits for MSFT with complete collateral damage to the UK games market and depletion in money flowing back in taxes.

Given the way our economy in the UK is very large for a smallish population nation, and the games industry is a substantial part of the economy - and a driver for higher education for people wanting to work in the industry - I think the deal will always look to regulators at best like it serves MSFT and damages the market, and is against the UK economy short-term and long-term interests.

Extremely well said. Moving COD to GP would cripple a number of businesses here in the UK.

Game.co.uk would not survive. They're barely afloat now. No annual big jump in in store footfall that COD generates? Yikes...

The state of the videogame retail business in the UK is irrelevant in this context. There is nothing there that wasnt already a fact long before this deal was made. Ie it being almost non-existant, because of how the business model is outdated or other stores like Tesco grabbed their customers with lower prices. You cant seriously try and pin this on Microsoft.

 

[Pelta88]

The state of the videogame retail business in the UK is irrelevant in this context. There is nothing there that wasnt already a fact long before this deal was made. Ie it being almost non-existant, because of how the business model is outdated or other stores like Tesco grabbed their customers with lower prices. You cant seriously try and pin this on Microsoft.

Take the fanboy out of your thought process. Nobody is pinning shit on MS. We we're talking about the loss of footfall that COD brings in annually. It would be the same if Google or Sony made the purchase and put the game on a service first and foremost.

 

[jhjfss]

Take the fanboy out of your thought process. Nobody is pinning shit on MS. We we're talking about the loss of footfall that COD brings in annually. It would be the same if Google or Sony made the purchase and put the game on a service first and foremost.

Tough shit. They will find a way to deal with it or perish. Its not MS's problem to prop up failing businesses. If they end up like blockbuster, then so be it.

 

[jhjfss]

You are fighting a company with 20x your power that's founder Bill Gates at the time is on record about the growth of PlayStation impacting Windows as their reason to enter the market with everything they had - I saw the clip in a gaming documentary on netflix in the last few years.

From a repeated war of attrition the market leaders no longer have the luxury of looking further than defending their market share. Xbox in game is a little like the American Grey Squirrell in the UK IMO.

Sony completely crushed MS last gen, yet failed to outsell the ps2. Why is that? Why couldn't they grow their market share? Its because there are only a certain number of people willing to buy a console each generation and that hasn't changed since the 90's. This is what Phil Spencer and Shawn Layden have been saying for years. If you want to grow and expand, the only way to do it is to branch out to PC and mobile. Your argument that MS should leave the console industry so that Nintendo and Sony can grow is dumb.

 

[DenchDeckard]

You are fighting a company with 20x your power that's founder Bill Gates at the time is on record about the growth of PlayStation impacting Windows as their reason to enter the market with everything they had - I saw the clip in a gaming documentary on netflix in the last few years.

From a repeated war of attrition the market leaders no longer have the luxury of looking further than defending their market share. Xbox in game is a little like the American Grey Squirrell in the UK IMO.

What are you talking about?

 

[Torrent of Pork]

Going by Sony's past successes in other markets like making WALKMANs a ubiquitous portable music device for children to grandparents, and the market growth PlayStation and PlayStation 2 were delivering, you might consider that it has been Xbox's presence as the unnatural survivor - being propped up eternally by MSFT - that has stopped the market leaders from growing the market over the last 2 decades - because they are already fighting a financial goliath that doesn't bow out after losing repeatedly - and both PlayStation and Nintendo only have enough to survive that market clash each gen, leaving nothing spare to focus on market growth like they did before Xbox arrived.

In fact, it was MSFT's observation that PlayStation's growth would ultimately impact Windows that MSFT entered the console market, so in many ways they've achieved a goal - that's anti consumer - by hampering console market growth as they originally intended.

We have reached peak fanboy if you're making the argument that the only reason Sony isn't "growing the gaming market" is because of that pesky competition.

 

[Negotiator101]

Sony's past successes in other markets are in the past and have no relevance when it comes to the present or the future. In 2022 nobody cares that Sony made the Walkman. Sony hasn't made a Walkman since 2010 and they killed their media player business by trying to force their proprietary standards on customers who wanted the flexibility of MP3 and other more open formats. Sony has traditionally been a rigid company that refuses to adapt to change and has killed their leading position in many verticals because of it. Even verticals they created like portable personal music devices.

"Microsoft should just quit and leave video games because they lose every generation" is, frankly, a stupid take. Xbox is not an "unnatural survivor," whatever that means. Xbox is an established and recognizable brand. If Xbox was a bad business for Microsoft they would not have just celebrated 25 years of Xbox. They would not be investing billions into content and services to grow it.

Whether a company is successful is no longer based only on how many plastic boxes they sell. There are more and better ways to consume games these days than consoles, which wasn't always the case. People on online forums and middle school playgrounds are still holding onto the notion that the company who sells the most consoles wins, but that's not how it works any more. "We believe in generations" and "we believe in premium releases" is Sony saying that they don't believe in change. The reality is that console generations are going to die because 6+ years between technology refreshes is too long when PC gaming tech and mobile device tech improves and refreshes much more quickly.

It seems to be a tough reality for some people that despite Sony being the leader in the console market they are in a very vulnerable position right now. Sony has acknowledged it but the fanboys don't seem to have picked up on it. Sony is bringing games to PC and investing in mobile and live service games because console gaming overall is stagnating. Console gaming revenue as a percentage of the overall gaming market is shrinking. Sony is quickly finding themselves the leader of the smallest piece of the pie and if they don't adapt PlayStation could become the next Walkman as people take their money elsewhere.

 

[The_Mike]

As a pack-in? At my friend's house the black controller he was using looked positively last-gen and felt old and tried when he handed to me to try his XsX. I assumed the only new controller is the hundreds of pounds upsold Elites

Bro, couldn't you at least do a simple Google search to prevent embarassing yourself? Just a little bit?

You have since the beginning looked like someone who doesn't know what you're talking about.

Now you proved you don't know what you're talking about

 

[legacy24]

Our vision for gaming: More choice and more games for people everywhere

news.microsoft.com

including playstation

 

[reksveks]

 

[kikkis]

I haven't watched this situation in a month. Could someone knowledgeable predict if cods go to game pass this year?

 

[jhjfss]

I haven't watched this situation in a month. Could someone knowledgeable predict if cods go to game pass this year?

No. The earliest it could close is next year.

 

[DaGwaphics]

They had to respond to Jim’s pilgrimage to controlling bodies and Sony spilling bullshit around. I would say Sony is the one sweating (you have got CEO meeeting with eu regulators, not lawyers etc, but CEO of Sony (SIE) himself. ).

That's what I was thinking too, tbh. Obviously Sony is going to be in contact with the regulators, but you'd think it would be via attorneys/legal department and not the CEO. You'd think he'd have better things to do.

But, I'm not familiar with the EU's process, maybe this is completely normal over there.

 

[DaGwaphics]

As a pack-in? At my friend's house the black controller he was using looked positively last-gen and felt old and tried when he handed to me to try his XsX. I assumed the only new controller is the hundreds of pounds upsold Elites that cover their own R&D costs, but confess to being uninformed about xbox peripherals, so if that is "new", then I'd someone to highlight the R&D work between X1 and series specific controllers to know if it changed the substance of me saying they did spend on controller R&D.

Obviously billions were spent researching the upgrades:

LOL. Yeah, they didn't change it all that much from outward appearances, reduced the size a bit, added the texture to the back, and included the share button, but it is still a new revision. It makes sense for them to build a controller that can support all of its features via a bluetooth connection, you start adding a bunch on top of the basics and now you need a cable on anything other than the console.

 

[The_Mike]

Obviously billions were spent researching the upgrades:

LOL. Yeah, they didn't change it all that much from outward appearances, reduced the size a bit, added the texture to the back, and included the share button, but it is still a new revision. It makes sense for them to build a controller that can support all of its features via a bluetooth connection, you start adding a bunch on top of the basics and now you need a cable on anything other than the console.

When the Xbox one controller were perfection to begin with then there's not much to improve

 

[Pelta88]

So people are going to be in here arguing the same points on repeat till March 2023?

lol

 

[DeepEnigma]

So people are going to be in here arguing the same points on repeat till March 2023?

lol

 

[pasterpl]

Nice to have such a clear timeline

 

[skit_data]

Microsoft Is Making A Poor Case For Its Activision Blizzard Acquisition

Yesterday, Microsoft put online a new website addressing its planned acquisition of Activision Blizzard as a way to try to convince regulators to approve the deal.

www.forbes.com

 

[reksveks]

http://[URL]https://www.forbes.com/...case-for-its-activision-blizzard-acquisition/

[/URL]

its a poor case of an article but ehh.

This is the first of many references that try to pitch Sony as being okay with this, when Sony has made it excruciatingly clear they are very much not okay with this, and Jim Ryan has referenced this deal specifically in his own quotes:

Not that quote doesn't.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I think it’s some point about how taking these games to the cloud will avoid app stores acting as middlemen. But no, I don’t think there has been a terrible amount of “friction” getting people to buy say, Call of Duty every year, given its eternally massive sales.

Paul really ignoring "app store policies and practices on mobile devices" in that quote.

Its all posturing that's right but he is clearly missing the point in MS's statements

 

[skit_data]

its a poor case of an article but ehh.

Yeah, Paul Tassi always have pretty bad takes. Hence the the homer meme, I kinda don’t wanna take responsibility for the articles content.

 

[Kagey K]

http://[URL]https://www.forbes.com/...case-for-its-activision-blizzard-acquisition/

[/URL]

All these words for a page/infographic that seems to be targeted to retail investors, not regulators or gamers.

Clickbait gonna clickbait I guess.

 

[twilo99]

This reads like MS is starting to sweat a bit. I don’t think they’re as confident in this going through without no problems as they were before.

Yep, they wouldn't be doing this if they were so confident.

Sony must've done enough to make things really difficult.

MS might have to split the company up or something silly like that in order to make it happen.

 

[twilo99]

because there's no reason it wouldn't given that there have been way bigger acquisitions in the entertainment industry before, and usually those were done by market leading companies too, which Microsoft isn't.

so we have the company with the smallest market share buying a decently big publisher, that's not gonna be blocked.
even with their combined revenue Microsoft and Activision would be just behind Nintendo alone.

if this was Nintendo buying Activision I think it would be on way shakier ground

But you are looking at it from a logical standpoint, there is a lot of politics at play here, and that is anything but logical.

 

[lefty1117]

Sony's future is as a hardware provider for Xbox, the writing is on the wall. They can't compete with Microsoft's strength in software services & ecosystem, and their purchasing power does indeed put them on another playing field closer to Apple, Amazon etc. Sony is second tier, closer to EA. Best bet for them is to divest their software business.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Holy moly I’ve never seen such twisted logic even on GAF.

My favorite part is when you say that PlayStation’s growth (a console) would impact Windows (a computer operating system) and that’s why MS decided to enter the console market.

Straight up fairy tale territory.

But that’s exactly why MS entered the console market. Bill Gates flew into a rage at Sony and saw the PS2 as a threat. That's how the Xbox console was born. Not surprised you guys are not aware, that's why you keep making shit up about Sony. You don't even know your own console history.

The making of the Xbox: How Microsoft unleashed a video game revolution (part 1)

Are you looking to showcase your brand in front of the gaming industry’s top leaders? Learn more about GamesBeat Summit sponsorship opportunities here. Update: This two-part series is now available as an e-book for the Amazon Kindle for your reading comfort. Editor’s note: This story is the...

venturebeat.com

They've been trying to take down Sony since day 1.

One of the apocryphal stories was that Bill Gates approached Sony’s CEO, Noboyuki Idei (pictured right), before the PlayStation 2 game console was announced. Gates wanted Sony to use Microsoft’s programming tools, but Idei turned Gates down. Idei said that Gates flew into a rage, taking the affront surprisingly personally. Later, Idei said in an interview with Ken Auletta of the New Yorker, “With Microsoft, open architecture means Microsoft architecture.”

Xbox - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[DarkMage619]

Sony's future is as a hardware provider for Xbox, the writing is on the wall. They can't compete with Microsoft's strength in software services & ecosystem, and their purchasing power does indeed put them on another playing field closer to Apple, Amazon etc. Sony is second tier, closer to EA. Best bet for them is to divest their software business.

I'm not convinced that Sony makes better hardware than MS. I also think MS wants to have a hardware platform they can use to further leverage their graphic APIs. I think Sony should just continue to make major story driven single player games and MS should focus on bringing a wide variety of games to Game pass. They both should find success with their respective strategies.

 

[DeepEnigma]

But that’s exactly why MS entered the console market. Bill Gates flew into a rage at Sony and saw the PS2 as a threat. That's how the Xbox console was born. Not surprised you guys are not aware, that's why you keep making shit up about Sony. You don't even know your own console history.

The making of the Xbox: How Microsoft unleashed a video game revolution (part 1)

Are you looking to showcase your brand in front of the gaming industry’s top leaders? Learn more about GamesBeat Summit sponsorship opportunities here. Update: This two-part series is now available as an e-book for the Amazon Kindle for your reading comfort. Editor’s note: This story is the...

venturebeat.com

They've been trying to take down Sony since day 1.

Xbox - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

MS also wanted to be in the center of the living room (just as Sony) with their joint WebTV venture. MS provided the software side, and Sony made the hardware. As soon as Sony had the PlayStation 2 gearing up for launch, they phased out that venture.

 

[adamsapple]

FTC decision on Microsoft's Activision deal may come by late November (NASDAQ:ATVI)

A U.S. Federal Trade Commission decision on Microsoft's (MSFT) planned $69 billion acquisition of Activision (ATVI) may come as early as late November. The review is still at the staff...

seekingalpha.com

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Sony's future is as a hardware provider for Xbox, the writing is on the wall. They can't compete with Microsoft's strength in software services & ecosystem, and their purchasing power does indeed put them on another playing field closer to Apple, Amazon etc. Sony is second tier, closer to EA. Best bet for them is to divest their software business.

Sony is doomed

 

[Thirty7ven]

Sony's future is as a hardware provider for Xbox, the writing is on the wall. They can't compete with Microsoft's strength in software services & ecosystem, and their purchasing power does indeed put them on another playing field closer to Apple, Amazon etc. Sony is second tier, closer to EA. Best bet for them is to divest their software business.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Sony completely crushed MS last gen, yet failed to outsell the ps2. Why is that? ...

I'm going to guess and say the COVID impact on TSMC killed the usual long tail sales of for the PS4 -because every bit of capacity needed through that transition period was probably accounted for and making more Liverpool APUs with that limited capacity when cars were struggling to get chips wasn't economical low risk for PlayStation like it normally would have been for PS1, PS2, PS3 at that stage post-new-gen.