• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Simple.
Xbox will become stronger and create more competition for Sony and we might end up with both selling 80 million consoles each rather than xbox selling 50 million and PlayStation 120 million. That's a good outcome for the industry.

Nintendo users will now get COD on their platform.

Nvidia just got a massive boost to their fledgling cloud service by having access to all Xbox, ABK and Bethesda games to their service. This along with the deals they signed with other streaming companies will create a ton more competition in the streaming industry.

MS now enters the mobile market and can bring alot more of their content to mobile phones. This will boost competition in that industry. There is also the fact that potentially MS is going to legally challenge the walled garden that is Android and IOS in court. More competition if they win.

It definitely creates more competition and there isn't a down side to it at all.
Exactly.

MS offered Nintendo a 10 year deal, Sony a 10 year deal, and talked about expanding to mobile device with cloud.

How does any of that help sell Xbox dominate sales? With COD being so popular, it seems like a holistic push for COD everywhere.
 
Last edited:
Remember people said what would Microsoft do if the deal didn't pass? Well what are sony gonna do? Because Microsoft are really coming at them here and regulators ain't getting in the way. They must feel hugely threatened right now and I'm interested to see how they respond. Even more aggressive moneyhatting? Japanese publishers? Maybe even a western one as a defensive move before Microsoft swallow them up. Man i don't like this publisher buying crap. The industry is about to change, big time.
Some.of this is at Sony's own direction. MS bought ABK mainly for King and also content for GP. Sony have opted not to go that same direction with their buisness model.
The question is if Sony has misread the industry and are following the mistakes that Blockbuster made. Time will tell.
You can't blame MS for pushing their vision of the future while Sony had hedged their bets in the opposite direction. If they get it wrong they are in big trouble.
The other issue is that Sony will never be able to beat MS in a buyout war and as they are currently the dominate player in the market, any attempt to buy a big publisher will absolutely get blocked as a monopoly. Imagine the submission MS will make to the regulators to try and stop any potential acquisition.
 

feynoob

Member
"Sony has chosen not to compete with MS on a subscription service while MS has gone all in."

Give me a F break..... ya geez I wonder why Sony hasnt chosen to pursue that path. Maybe because they realize without fudging the numbers to look favorable it really isnt that profitable to do and they cant take massive losses like MS can with money made OUTSIDE of Xbox. Even right now Phil himself has stated they lose over $100-$200 on every console they are selling as well.
Not just the money, but userbase too. MS has bigger userbase with their service, while Sony had 3m with psnow+48m PS+. Even with the new subs model, they still can't reach gamepass reach, because most people are subscribed to PS+.
From investment perspective, there is not enough money to invest it like how MS is doing.

MS has EA play on their service, will get COD/Activision/blizzard games on their service and can put Uplay on gamepass.
How the hell can Sony compete with that.
 

Alex Scott

Member
I'm sorry but Sony selling the division, well that's nonsense. Guerrilla games now 2 teams, SSM rumored to be now 2 teams, Insomniac now 3 teams, ND now 2 or 3 teams. Heavy hitters. I'm pretty sure Sony will continue to consolidate but they already have a very strong expanding first party.
That is all great.

MS has left a pretty big hole in PS profilio. PS doesn't have many WRPG and FPS games. They have usually relied on 3P for them and now they need to proudce them in house. They need to legacy studios/IPS to compete with that.

It is great that PS 1st party studios have 2 or 3 three teams, but it stil takes them 4 years to release a single game expect for Insomniac Games. Even their AA 1st party studios take that long.
 
Why would it be blocked? Take 2 is a fraction of the size of Activision, and Microsoft now just got a lot bigger by acquiring them.

This is total nonsense lol
No way it goes through. One of the regulators jobs is to stop monopolies. You can't have the most dominant player in the premium console market getting even more dominate by buying a big publisher.
While it was great to boast in the console wars just how dominate Playstation is, that dominace will prevent them from buying a big publisher.
 
No that was the literal truth... you think it was just a coincidence ABK shopped around to be bought when the massive shit storm of PR due to their horrible management practices all the way up to the top with bobby came out? Besides that.... look at the "B" side of ABK to see how well that was handled. They turned what I would argue could be larger than COD at its peak (12 million wow subscribers) in world of warcraft into a total shell of itself currently.
Shocking that a TWENTY year old game has less subscribers than it did in its hetday! Truly shocking!

Diablo 3 literally sold out of physical copies opening week. Diablo 4 will sell even more, and WoW still makes tens of millions of dollars.

You literally have no idea what you’re talking about.

Shocking that after twenty years, a game is a shadow of itself with multiple million players. How awful.

The only bad product they ever put out was Reforged.
 

trintrop

Neo Member
Since both Apple and Amazon would really love to have more content for their own content services, they would both really love having Sony just for the movie, TV, and music catalogs that company holds. Sony is quietly a vast media conglomerate but no one really thinks about it because PlayStation is so much more significant.

But PlayStation is the lion's share of Sony's revenue and profits today. If PlayStation doesn't survive, Sony doesn't survive. That's the short financial summary of Sony.

They really should explore the idea of acquisition, Japanese government be damned. They have, as I say, a solid 50/50 chance of survival as an independent company. I don't like those odds and neither should Sony. They need to find one of the companies on that Top 10 list of market caps who's willing to acquire and also negotiate with the Japanese government and convince them that Sony's survival is at stake, because it is.

Tencent wouldn't be allowed, there's no Earth where Japan would allow China to acquire one of their marquee companies. The Americans, maybe, with some convincing.
PlayStation makes up about 30% of Sony's profits. If Sony was an American company they'd be valued at somewhere between $200 and $250 billion market cap. I do seriously think you people are 10 years out of date on Sony...
 
Oooh, forgot about that zinger too.

A car is a car.
They said that because that is what Sony said in their submission. MS was arguing that Nintendo doesn't have COD and is doing fine, so Sony tried to take that out of the equation by saying that Nintendo isn't in the same buisness and that there is a high performance console market which the switch isn't in.
It backfired on them.
 

Lasha

Member
Sure, I'm glad you actually replied and did so seriously. So here's what I have to say first about ARM, then about Nvidia.

ARM is not a healthy company. Softbank has been trying to divest, partly because ARM struggles to make a profit, but mainly because Softbank has lost a lot of money in recent years and needs to unload assets as they are bleeding. It was Softbank that shopped ARM around, and it turns out only Nvidia made an offer for that company. ARM is, as you say, essential to the world in much the same way Windows is. But the reality is that ARM was never financially very sound, because the very licensing model which allowed them to become the designs for a vast numbers of the world's microchips also prevented them from profiting from the designs of those very same chips. It's not an exaggeration that the world's successful companies who license ARM designs, including Apple, Qualcomm, Samsung, and yes Microsoft, are in many ways leveraging the fact that ARM is perpetually unable to profit from their designs and near bankruptcy all the time in order to make massive profits themselves. ARM is both essential the world's most valuable companies and also simultaneously treated as serfs who give them their essential designs for basically nothing.

Nvidia is, on the other hand, a very healthy company. In the top 10 of the world's most valuable companies by market cap, as it turns out. They have the financial wherewithal to actually own ARM and not be worried about bankruptcy. In terms of what companies could possibly own ARM and pass antitrust muster: There aren't any. That's why when Softbank shopped ARM around, nobody made an offer except Nvidia. Because they knew they would never be able to complete the acquisition. It was a long shot that Nvidia even made an offer, and accepted the scrutiny that resulted. In the end, Nvidia did not acquire, ARM is still perpetually near bankruptcy, and now apparently Softbank are going to through with an attempt at an IPO.

What would be worse for the chip industry? An ARM held by Nvidia, who have made every promise that they will not favor themselves, change the licensing terms, or do anything unfair? Well, that ship has sailed. So what we have now is an ARM which continues to struggle to survive even though their chip designs are in over 2 billion devices around the world, which is a a patently absurd state of affairs. Softbank really thinks they will IPO it, and get this, ARM is now trying to shore up their finances to look better for IPO by asking Qualcomm et. al to pay a licensing fee based on value per device sold instead of per chip sold. A chip probably sells for $10-40, a device sells for a minimum of $100 and most flagship phones sell for $1000+. So guess what, everyone's now looking at terms which are worse than they would have faced from an ARM being owned and subsidized by Nvidia by orders of magnitude. Quite ironic for the chip industry, wouldn't you agree? Qualcomm and everyone probably shouldn't have objected to the Nvidia acquisition, now ARM is demanding a fair share of profits so they can make a profit and look good for an IPO.

I reckon regulators prefer ARM trying to make itself profitable as an independent entity. Selling products without making a loss is foundational in a free market. Changing licensing terms is acceptable. ARM's customers will likely pay higher prices but that cost is the same across the board and access to the designs remains unchanged. Regulators will monitor for gouging since ARM is a near monopoly but the increased prices also create an incentive for competition. NVIDIA owning ARM would restrict competition and probably create an actual monopoly.

That aside. Why are you surprised that ARM was rejected by regulators but Activision is progressing when you understand the two? The two deals have practically nothing in common apart from dollar value. Activision is closer to Disney buying up Marvel than Nvidia ARM. Regulators already allow even more egregious consolidation in other media.
 
That is all great.

MS has left a pretty big hole in PS profilio. PS doesn't have many WRPG and FPS games. They have usually relied on 3P for them and now they need to proudce them in house. They need to legacy studios/IPS to compete with that.

It is great that PS 1st party studios have 2 or 3 three teams, but it stil takes them 4 years to release a single game expect for Insomniac Games. Even their AA 1st party studios take that long.
horizon is a WRPG in every sense, and Sony has devs, they can make games. It’s not that different from the last 28 years.

Sony will be fine.
 

Nubulax

Member
Simple.
Xbox will become stronger and create more competition for Sony and we might end up with both selling 80 million consoles each rather than xbox selling 50 million and PlayStation 120 million. That's a good outcome for the industry.

Nintendo users will now get COD on their platform.

Nvidia just got a massive boost to their fledgling cloud service by having access to all Xbox, ABK and Bethesda games to their service. This along with the deals they signed with other streaming companies will create a ton more competition in the streaming industry.

MS now enters the mobile market and can bring alot more of their content to mobile phones. This will boost competition in that industry. There is also the fact that potentially MS is going to legally challenge the walled garden that is Android and IOS in court. More competition if they win.

It definitely creates more competition and there isn't a down side to it at all.
I very much look forward to the MS vs Google/Apple court cases if they happen in the near future... if people thought this acquisition was entertaining that one will be WAY more of a show
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Only for MS.

Once this deal is approved, Google Amazon and other big boys will go shopping around buying big publishers like EA, take 2 and Ubisoft.

There was a time when I thought that as well, but I think you can 86 Google from the list at this point. Amazon hasn't shown much initiative either.

Biggest wildcard would be Apple IMO. Primarily just because they might start to look at a more console like device if the lucrative iOS gaming market is threatened by further regulation.
 

Three

Member
You genuinely believe EU and CMA would ask Nintendo for thoughts on Sony buying Square and Capcom and they’d respond with no objections? Or Microsoft wouldn’t object to try to force through behavioral concessions?
You think they didn't on ABK?
Get people to say it's because of Nintendo signing contracts for exclusivity of Monster Hunter Rise, Octopath 1, Triangle strategy etc so it's the only way for Sony to compete, pie chart of marketshare of game sales in Japan presented in a hotel conference room, list first party Nintendo games, 10yr deal with Amazon for Final Fantasy on luna and Fire Tablets once the deal goes through. Boom, done deal.

In all seriousness, do you think ABK going through is less market shifting than Capcom or SE? That's crazy.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Lol based on what? Your anger at MS?
It’s literally in beta now, getting rave reviews. One of the most beloved series in history. D3 sold over 30m since release, and fans thought it was just ok. They nailed this one.
Based on the fact that people will now believe it's coming to gamepass and not buy it. Put your warrior bullshit away.
 

Nubulax

Member
The alternative is Sony and PlayStation ceasing to exist within a decade. Is that what you want? I'm just thinking about what few survival strategies Sony has out loud. They will not survive against Microsoft now that Microsoft has the green light to buy the Western gaming industry.

It might be hard to believe...but alot of responses or content out there (not as much here).... the vibe I get from the crowd who is more pro MS is 1000000 PERCENT they want Sony to die and be obliterated out of the console market... or "put in their place" at a distant 3rd.... there is nothing more some of these people want in their lives because their entire identity is wrapped up in XBOX as a brand and they have some sort of weird obsession with Playstation like Jim Ryan personally kicked them in the balls, took all their money and stole their GF/WIFE.
 
I'm trying to understand what does Sony gain by spending billion on developers/publishers that were already going to support them? They are the market leader so they will always get 3rd party support. Seems like a waste of money to me.
I agree.
They bought Bluepoint and Housemarque who were Sony only anyway, and then they had to use alot of that acquisition money on PC porting studios because their first party studios don't have any DX12 and PC coding experience, unlike MS studios who all code for both PC and Xbox.
They had to buy Bungie because they have no ability in live service games and needed their experience there to help their other studios out.
Bungie are hard to manage as both MS and Activision found out, and it looks like Sony is going to be hands off with them.
Their main IP needs to stay multiplat and so hopefully for Sony they have a new hot IP in the works that can be exclusive to PS.

I'm not saying them buying what they did was the wrong move, rather they were moves they had to make. Obviously both Bluepoint and Housemarque wanted to sell, and Sony had just seen Ninja Theory get bought out by MS, so they needed to grab them both. They also need to gain PC porting studios because they are coming from a long way back due to them not putting their games on PC for so long.

I really want to see them buy more studios that can deliver good exclusive content for the PS.
 

Nubulax

Member
Shocking that a TWENTY year old game has less subscribers than it did in its hetday! Truly shocking!

Diablo 3 literally sold out of physical copies opening week. Diablo 4 will sell even more, and WoW still makes tens of millions of dollars.

You literally have no idea what you’re talking about.

Shocking that after twenty years, a game is a shadow of itself with multiple million players. How awful.

The only bad product they ever put out was Reforged.
Ya I only played wow during the entire time it was at its peak and for the past couple years but I have no idea what im talking about. I was playing the game when they merged with Activision and it turned to absolute shit... Blizzard as a whole is a shell of its former self. Greedy Bobby and Acitivsion was just about the worse company they could have gone to
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
It might be hard to believe...but alot of responses or content out there (not as much here).... the vibe I get from the crowd who is more pro MS is 1000000 PERCENT they want Sony to die and be obliterated out of the console market... or "put in their place" at a distant 3rd.... there is nothing more some of these people want in their lives because their entire identity is wrapped up in XBOX as a brand and they have some sort of weird obsession with Playstation like Jim Ryan personally kicked them in the balls, took all their money and stole their GF/WIFE.
Disagree here.

I think a lot of the pro-MS/Activision people are simply gamers who fit into one or more of these bullets:

1. Dont give a shit at all (a lot of gamers dont even play COD or Diablo)
2. Xbox/PC gamer with GP who now might get tons of Activision games on sub plan so they can save money (a good deal)
3. Stick it to Sony

Not even the most diehard Xbox fan knows PS isnt going anywhere. So you can cut out the hyperbole.

MS has tried tons of deals, S/X, first party games on GP, EA Play, One X etc.... and it hasnt improved their market position one bit. And I doubt COD will either, especially since the game is still on PS for years (including a 10 year offer), will come to Nintendo and spread to gamers using mobile. If anything, COD is diversifying across platforms, as opposed to trying to consolidate everyone into buying an Xbox where MS cuts the cord and only has it there.

MS even had COD partnership deals during the 360 era and they still finished third.

As for sticking it to Sony, hey some gamers like to troll. To be fair, which platform gamer likes to brag about most sales and profits and GOTY awards? Sony gamers. So hey, if an Xbox gamer wants to chime back saying MS owns Activision and controls the games (which they will have 100% full control after and deals/remedies are done) then that's the comeback.
 

Lasha

Member
It might be hard to believe...but alot of responses or content out there (not as much here).... the vibe I get from the crowd who is more pro MS is 1000000 PERCENT they want Sony to die and be obliterated out of the console market... or "put in their place" at a distant 3rd.... there is nothing more some of these people want in their lives because their entire identity is wrapped up in XBOX as a brand and they have some sort of weird obsession with Playstation like Jim Ryan personally kicked them in the balls, took all their money and stole their GF/WIFE.

I'm pro MS because MS games come to PC. I want console exclusivity to die. Consoles as walled gardens suck.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Disagree here.

I think a lot of the pro-MS/Activision people are simply gamers who fit into one or more of these bullets:

1. Dont give a shit at all (a lot of gamers dont even play COD or Diablo)
2. Xbox/PC gamer with GP who now might get tons of Activision games on sub plan so they can save money (a good deal)
3. Stick it to Sony

Not even the most diehard Xbox fan knows PS isnt going anywhere. So you can cut out the hyperbole.

MS has tried tons of deals, S/X, first party games on GP, EA Play, One X etc.... and it hasnt improved their market position one bit. And I doubt COD will either, especially since the game is still on PS for years (including a 10 year offer), will come to Nintendo and spread to gamers using mobile. If anything, COD is diversifying across platforms, as opposed to trying to consolidate everyone into buying an Xbox where MS cuts the cord and only has it there.

MS even had COD partnership deals during the 360 era and they still finished third.

As for sticking it to Sony, hey some gamers like to troll. To be fair, which platform gamer likes to brag about most sales and profits and GOTY awards? Sony gamers. So hey, if an Xbox gamer wants to chime back saying MS owns Activision and controls the games (which they will have 100% full control after and deals/remedies are done) then that's the comeback.

I think GP is certainly the primary reason Xbox users would advocate for the deal, that and it might make the big three more equal (in terms of revenue), which should be good for consumers. The only people I ever see talking about Sony "dying" because of losing the marketing rights to CoD (the game isn't even being taken away) is Sony fans, LOL.
 

Nubulax

Member
Disagree here.

I think a lot of the pro-MS/Activision people are simply gamers who fit into one or more of these bullets:

1. Dont give a shit at all (a lot of gamers dont even play COD or Diablo)
2. Xbox/PC gamer with GP who now might get tons of Activision games on sub plan so they can save money (a good deal)
3. Stick it to Sony

Not even the most diehard Xbox fan knows PS isnt going anywhere. So you can cut out the hyperbole.

MS has tried tons of deals, S/X, first party games on GP, EA Play, One X etc.... and it hasnt improved their market position one bit. And I doubt COD will either, especially since the game is still on PS for years (including a 10 year offer), will come to Nintendo and spread to gamers using mobile. If anything, COD is diversifying across platforms, as opposed to trying to consolidate everyone into buying an Xbox where MS cuts the cord and only has it there.

MS even had COD partnership deals during the 360 era and they still finished third.

As for sticking it to Sony, hey some gamers like to troll. To be fair, which platform gamer likes to brag about most sales and profits and GOTY awards? Sony gamers. So hey, if an Xbox gamer wants to chime back saying MS owns Activision and controls the games (which they will have 100% full control after and deals/remedies are done) then that's the comeback.

The actual majority are #1...but those people dont really even participate in forums or really comment in live streams/youtube video comments etc. #3 seems to be the ones I come across far more often. I said they would WANT nothing more than Playstation to go away or to be severely diminished not that it would actually happen. Theres a difference between trolling and some of the other shit and its not even exclusive to this deal in particular
 
Last edited:
Ya I only played wow during the entire time it was at its peak and for the past couple years but I have no idea what im talking about. I was playing the game when they merged with Activision and it turned to absolute shit... Blizzard as a whole is a shell of its former self. Greedy Bobby and Acitivsion was just about the worse company they could have gone to
Again, no idea what you’re talking about. The game was at its peak after ABK bought it, for about 5 more years. Everyone played at its peak, thats why it’s called a peak.

You’re angry and talking nonsense. Blizzard has released great games, over and over, including under Activision, and MMO’s suck, thats not ABK’s fault.
 
Disney bought Fox for nearly 50% of their business

Is this not what you want? Acquisition wars?
If Sony are allowed to buy them then MS can as well. Sony won't be able to outbid MS, so T2 never happens. They are a public company and as such can't sell to anyone they want to. The biggest offer wins.
Sony buying T2, Ubi or EA are just pipe dreams that will never happen.
 

Nubulax

Member
I think GP is certainly the primary reason Xbox users would advocate for the deal, that and it might make the big three more equal (in terms of revenue), which should be good for consumers. The only people I ever see talking about Sony "dying" because of losing the marketing rights to CoD (the game isn't even being taken away) is Sony fans, LOL.
Oh believe me.... theres some Sony fans that are absolutely rediculous as well its not just exclusive to one side or the other, although my original post was more talking more about the content creation side and the people who watch/comment on alot of that and maybe a little bit here but not as much really. This is one of the few places where it doesnt get too out of hand and its more of an eyeroll if anything
 

nial

Gold Member
It might be hard to believe...but alot of responses or content out there (not as much here).... the vibe I get from the crowd who is more pro MS is 1000000 PERCENT they want Sony to die and be obliterated out of the console market... or "put in their place" at a distant 3rd....
The Sega Saturn guy literally said that, lmao.
 

Nubulax

Member
Again, no idea what you’re talking about. The game was at its peak after ABK bought it, for about 5 more years. Everyone played at its peak, thats why it’s called a peak.

You’re angry and talking nonsense. Blizzard has released great games, over and over, including under Activision, and MMO’s suck, thats not ABK’s fault.
We can just agree to disagree on the whole Blizzard topic, im not sure how they can be seen in a better light now than before they were bought but its all probably subjective.... and ya it took them a few years, its not like things would just immediately fall off... Look at Halo and how 343 slowly diminished that after a while.
 

freefornow

Member
This bitch.
A bit harsh. She is my Queen!
dominatrix-bdsm-sex-work-sex-workers.jpg

jerk off tv land GIF by #Impastor
 
CoD is still going to be on Playstation, the only difference is that they won't get exclusive features and timed releases like Xbox didn't for the past decade.

Microsoft isn't going to be pulling CoD from any platform, it makes way too much money for them to do so.

The only real difference will be that CoD will be Xbox branded and, if Sony don't end up signing an agreement with Microsoft, we may see the Xbox version get all the perks that Playstation used to.

The big deal here is that it'll be on Game Pass.
 
Anybody with a brain doesn't need the CMA to validate reality. Perhaps it was those who were so adamant about the deal meeting zero resistance, or who were sure the CMA were being stupid (and I'm sure you'll see the kind of flip-flop you're referring to now on that side) who needed telling that they didn't know what they were talking about.

Fact is that Microsoft is still unable to compete without throwing money around. Fact is that Microsoft and Sony are not at all the same. It's pretty funny they claim that all Sony needs is 10 years and some pep in their step to come up with a CoD competitor as they buy CoD and the machine that produces it after more than 20 years in the industry.
Sony bought a big publisher when they first got into the console buisness. They have bought more of their studios than they have set up from scratch.
Sony and its fanboys dont get to dictate how a company competes, the company competing gets to decide that.
Companies grow through both organic and acquisition. Sony has bought over 90 companies and offered 50 billion for Fox.
I'm sure that's different tho isn't it? Hypocrisy is the mainstay of Sony and its fanboys.
You can bleat on it all you like, but that's how companies work.
 
Activision is only CoD at this point

I don’t get what point you’re trying to make. This CMA change of face let’s them do whatever they want now, Sony doesn’t have any bargaining even if they had argued differently
There is talk that MS will make COD every two years instead of every year. This will free up half their studios to work on other non COD IPs.
Toys For Bob with a new Crash or Banjo.
Raven studios with a new Hexen.
Beenox with another Tony Hawk.
I think if Sony had of said to MS that they will pull their objection if they also give them all Activision games day and date they probably would have agreed.
 
sony may have the major advantage with marketshare and mindshare, but if this becomes about who can spend the most to buy ip, then sony become like a feather weight going up against a heavy weight. its no longer competition anymore because sony aint even in the equation and now microsoft can freely purchase publishers with no challenge. whos gonna challenge them? if there is nobody, then where is the competition? there isnt one. if sony were apple and nintendo were google, it would be a different story.
 
Last edited:
"Sony has chosen not to compete with MS on a subscription service while MS has gone all in."

Give me a F break..... ya geez I wonder why Sony hasnt chosen to pursue that path. Maybe because they realize without fudging the numbers to look favorable it really isnt that profitable to do and they cant take massive losses like MS can with money made OUTSIDE of Xbox. Even right now Phil himself has stated they lose over $100-$200 on every console they are selling as well.
It's very simple, adapt or die. If Sony hasn't seen that the future is in a subscription model then they have fucked up.
They can fight the future all they like, but the result could hurt them in the end.
MS is looking long term. They are doing things now which will pay off in 10 years time.
They have watched what happened in the other streaming markets in Audio and Movies, and they know that's going to happen in gaming as well.

I honestly believe that Sony could have added their first party games into PS+ and charged more than GP and it would have been a success.
Sony has around 47 million subs to PS+ now. If they added first party releases day and date they would absolutely add half that again giving them maybe 65 million.
If they charged $3 a month more for the service they could bring in an extra 2.3 billion a year in revenue. How many first party games do Sony release a year? Maybe 2 on average? That gives you 1.15 billion extra for each game. That's far more than Sony makes from their sales on the console.
 

DrFigs

Member
There is talk that MS will make COD every two years instead of every year. This will free up half their studios to work on other non COD IPs.
Toys For Bob with a new Crash or Banjo.
Raven studios with a new Hexen.
Beenox with another Tony Hawk.
I think if Sony had of said to MS that they will pull their objection if they also give them all Activision games day and date they probably would have agreed.
I just don't believe that Microsoft thinks these games will be more profitable for them than to just make a new cod every year.
 
I just don't believe that Microsoft thinks these games will be more profitable for them than to just make a new cod every year.
MS also has the capital to grow all the Activision studios as well. If they double the devs in Infinity Ward, Trayarch and Sledgehammer for instance, they could free up the other studios and keep COD annually.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom