Support NeoGAF

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I view organic growth, acquisitions, consumer friendly practices and competitive pricing as competition.

But if we are solely talking about acquisitions, yes, it does. And I don't think consolidation within limits is a bad thing. When looking at Microsoft's Gamepass strategy, it's very positive.

MS has to rely on consolidation for the "Game Pass strategy" because they have completely failed at showing to the wider market why they should voluntarily offer their new releases Day 1 into a subscription service, without needing the owner of that subscription service to pay them a fat check. And even in those cases it has no sway on 3P AAA games.

It's almost as if the revenue off the Game Pass subscription service is so low that Microsoft can't upfront offer a revenue-sharing payment model or payment model based on player traffic/downloads etc. that can match the actual sales revenue those very same games would get in a B2P model. And the promise of making up revenue through increased MTX purchases of content in the service aren't manifesting, not even for 1P AAA content like Halo Infinite.

And, since Microsoft have completely failed to show to the industry that a subscription model works in terms of revenue to the point where 3P would want to voluntarily provide their content (especially AAA games) to such services Day 1, they are trying to force the subscription model to work by just buying up that 3P content through acquiring the publishers who own it .

I think your concerns around consolidation are valid. I don't feel we are at a point where we'll see negative impacts of this consolidation. I choose to look at the positives of whatever consolidation is going on along with the negatives.

Specifically in terms of the ABK acquisition? I think we're going to see some negative impacts rather soon. The moment games like Diablo IV and the newest COD are Day 1 in Game Pass, their sales revenue is going to take a huge dip. That will negatively affect total industry revenue. Lower industry revenue means more investors who may become apprehensive towards investing into companies in the industry, or banks becoming less willing to provide loans of certain sizes or even to certain companies (generally smaller ones).

And I say that because there is no reality where Game Pass revenue increases due to subscriber uptick to offset the potential total revenue drops. Though, it wouldn't be "just" ABK being acquired leading to concerns I expressed above; it's the precedent them being acquired can have in other notable 3P developers & publishers being acquired, which collectively could lead to a manifestation of those concerns, that I'm focused on.

 

[BrutalTruth_]

It does.

You avoided everything I said, which was not incorrect.

If you're not willing to discuss and just warrior then we're done this conversation.

 

[Varteras]

You avoided everything I said, which was not incorrect.

If you're not willing to discuss and just warrior then we're done this conversation.

Don't be dense. You claimed Microsoft wouldn't do something really stupid. I gave examples of dumb shit they've done. You told me to be logical. I said Microsoft wasn't logical when they did dumb shit. You said that has nothing to do with it. It clearly does. Get it now?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

And, since Microsoft have completely failed to show to the industry that a subscription model works in terms of revenue to the point where 3P would want to voluntarily provide their content (especially AAA games) to such services Day 1, they are trying to force the subscription model to work by just buying up that 3P content through acquiring the publishers who own it .

Who ever said sub plans for any kind of media have to have all blockbuster third party content on day 1? You?

The only ones doing it seem to be MS, EA with their PC Origins Ultimate Plan and maybe certain Disney movies on Disney+. Most sub plans out there get big third party content later, and some do their own first party content like Netflix series. Their own big name products come later (like EA Play)

If anything, putting better newer games is a more successful strategy for membership. Thats why GP is at around 25M people, while PS Now was only at 3.2M members as of 2021. Sony would get more members paying a higher tier sub plan if the content was good. But its not. Thats why you got no more than 4M PS Now subs across 115M PS4 users and 25M GP sub across 50M Xbox gamers. And PS Now even came out earlier by a couple years.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

it seems our fellow friends may have a reason to hope, however faint it may be

 

[Murdok]

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

like CoD?

 

[splattered]

like CoD?

That's not what the CMA says, no

 

[Solidus_T]

And I'm saying that is okay. Don't misread what I'm saying here, buying the entire market is wrong. Buying a slice of the market is okay.


Arbitrary is saying a platform's studio count can't exceed the other's. Arbitrary is saying organic growth is the only fair way to compete. Arbitrary is saying exclusivity contracts are fine but acquisitions are not. Arbitrary is saying studio acquisitions are fine and publisher acquisitions are not.

You claimed that it is an arbitrary act to state that it is not competition to buy the market out - I chimed in specifically to address that point and correct it. What MS is doing is, by definition, not competition.

 

[TheGodfather07]

Use logic dude, the PS sales make over 50 percent of COD sales, there's no way Microsoft would pull the plug on that, and the CMA agreed, and I'll side with them over some upset PlayStation fans on a forum.

conspiracy theories about MS throwing millions away for nothing to "stick it to Sony" is absolutely ridiculous, the backlash and loss of money would be insane.

They did this for Gamepass and overall profit.

use your logic. why would microsoft say 10 years is enough for sony to create alternatives if they didnt want to remove call of duty? theres no logic in that at all. wheres the logic in believeing microsoft will keep cod on ps to make money when majority of the ip they bought wont be on PS? wheres the logic in that. to believe microsoft will keep cod on PS when they aint obligated to is pure delusion. they will only as long as they have to. the moment they dont, of course they will pull it! im shocked people dont understand this

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Who ever said sub plans for any kind of media have to have all blockbuster third party content on day 1? You?

So you are admitting subscription services cannot work of their own merit and have to consolidate independent 3P talent and content through M&As in order to have the content they need to actually appeal to customers?

If a supposed alternative requires by default a strategy that can significantly weaken the independent 3P market, and cannot prove through its own revenue figures that it is a viable financial alternative for other companies, then the model itself needs to come under questioning.

The only ones doing it seem to be MS, EA with their PC Origins Ultimate Plan and maybe certain Disney movies on Disney+. Most sub plans out there get big third party content later, and some do their own first party content like Netflix series. Their own big name products come later (like EA Play)

Disney stopped doing Day 1 in Disney+ for most films because they realized it was financially disastrous. EA Origins only provides 10-hour demos of new games because they know providing full games Day 1 in the service would be financially disastrous. Both Disney+ and EA Origins are offerings that their owners cannot afford to bleed money on through heavy subsidization strategy.

Guess which service doesn't fit that same requirement, and what company doesn't even need to rely on gaming revenue or profit whatsoever to the point they can afford a heavy subsidization strategy while putting everything Day 1? If you guessed Game Pass and Microsoft, you are correct!

If anything, putting better newer games is a more successful strategy for membership. Thats why GP is at around 25M people, while PS Now was only at 3.2M members as of 2021. Sony would get more members paying a higher tier sub plan if the content was good. But its not. Thats why you got no more than 4M PS Now subs across 115M PS4 users and 25M GP sub across 50M Xbox gamers. And PS Now even came out earlier by a couple years.

Game Pass has stagnated at 25 million for the better part of a year, and we still have no revenue figures despite it being considered such a growth pillar for Xbox in gaming from the 2020 - 2022 period. Meanwhile PS+ saw increases in revenue to record levels after the service revamp, and total subscriber counts have been gradually on the increase again after a partial drop.

Also Sony barely ever marketed or pushed PS Now, whereas Microsoft made SURE you knew Game Pass existed, and their influencers made sure you knew it was the best deal in gaming. So no duh it saw bigger numbers, in addition to the "promises" of 1P AAA games finally releasing regularly (which have yet to manifest, probably part of the reason sub growth has been stagnating and why they aren't comfortable sharing its revenue figures), the pandemic lockdowns, and all of the pricing discounts, deals, loopholes and various other means to pay off the service (such as with MS Reward points).

Microsoft has been marketing Game Pass on the level some companies spend on marketing actual AAA games. Sony never came close to doing that with PS Now.

 

[feynoob]

like CoD?

It says that COD would generate losses unlike redfall and Starfield.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

It says that COD would generate losses unlike redfall and Starfield.

but CoD will become First Party right?

 

[feynoob]

but CoD will become First Party right?

It will, but not exclusive like Starfield and redfall.

 

[Dick Jones]

Are we at the stage we are actually taking the Sage on his interpretations?

I wouldn't ask his opinion on the Halo TV show and he is the only one I know who saw it more than once [7 times]

I'm clocking out for the evening, this is too much

 

[feynoob]

Are we at the stage we are actually taking the Sage on his interpretations?

I wouldn't ask his opinion on the Halo TV show and he is the only one I know who saw it more than once [7 times]

I'm clocking out for the evening, this is too much

Guy made Twitter his home.
Look at how much he is posting there.

 

[Zephyrus0]

Nah, I'm good. So sorry that me not having any love for a company that is directly responsible for me having a worse deal each generation upsets you.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

It will, but not exclusive like Starfield and redfall.

that is a logic flaw

 

[Varteras]

use your logic. why would microsoft say 10 years is enough for sony to create alternatives if they didnt want to remove call of duty? theres no logic in that at all. wheres the logic in believeing microsoft will keep cod on ps to make money when majority of the ip they bought wont be on PS? wheres the logic in that. to believe microsoft will keep cod on PS when they aint obligated to is pure delusion. they will only as long as they have to. the moment they dont, of course they will pull it! im shocked people dont understand this

Personally, I find it odd to believe, without a doubt, that despite Microsoft clearly willing to lose money on a brand for 20 years to try to gain significant market share, if not market dominance, that they will suddenly reverse course and not try to use CoD as the silver bullet to achieve that. Will they? Who knows. You'd think the answer would be easy, but, as I pointed out, Microsoft has done some dumb shit that anyone could have told them would be a bad idea. The question there is; how dumb would that move actually seem to a company with more money than God who have been willing to lose a bunch of it to win the market?

 

[Zephyrus0]

Nah, I'm good. So sorry that me not having any love for a company that is directly responsible for me having a worse deal each generation upsets you.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

like CoD?

Regarding COD, CMA mentioned that even if MS does a partial foreclosure it won't affect Playstation because people would play COD on Playstation anyway.

 

[feynoob]

that is a logic flaw

Maybe idas one can help.

{On the other hand, if there was any doubt that the CMA already knew about the PS5 version of Redfall, the addendum to the PF includes this (page 12):

We remain of the view that console providers, including Microsoft, place significant value in having exclusive content to differentiate their platform and attract more users. Most first-party Xbox and PlayStation games are exclusive to their respective platform, and almost every studio that Microsoft has bought now makes games exclusive to Xbox. Moreover, where Microsoft has seen value in making multiplatform third-party studio games exclusive to Xbox, it has done so (eg, the upcoming release in the Redfall franchise following the Bethesda acquisition).

So, as we said the CMA already knew about it and the statement from Arkane this week changed nothing.

This bit about partial foreclosure is also very interesting, because if the deal goes through and MS is in the mood, I think that this is legally opening the door to exclusive content, perks or availability (only on Game Pass, for example) for COD (page 13):

We have not seen any robust evidence to suggest that PlayStation users would switch from PlayStation to Xbox at the same rate in response to partial and total foreclosure strategies. We consider that it is unlikely that they would do so, since under a partial foreclosure strategy CoD would still be available on PlayStation (albeit not at the same time, or not with the same exact content). Given that any deterioration in PlayStation's offering would be more modest under a partial foreclosure strategy, we would expect that only a fraction of gamers would switch to Xbox. On this basis, we have provisionally concluded that Microsoft would not have the ability to foreclose PlayStation on the basis of partial foreclosure strategies.

I don't think that it will happen in the short - medium term because MS has said multiple times in public and private that they want full parity. But right now the reality is that the EC and CMA doesn't care about that anymore (from a legal point of view).

Regarding COD on Game Pass, if the deal goes through it's important to remember that MS is limited in that regard and that Sony will have access to COD until the end of 2024, no matter what:

Microsoft has publicly stated that it plans to "launch Activision Blizzard games into Game Pass". Microsoft's intention is that future Activision releases, including Call of Duty, will be made available on Game Pass on the day of release, similar to Microsoft's first-party content. This is subject to existing contractual obligations with Activision, which will be honoured (REDACTED).}

 

[reksveks]

You claimed that it is an arbitrary act to state that it is not competition to buy the market out - I chimed in specifically to address that point and correct it. What MS is doing is, by definition, not competition.

What market definition are we using?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Regarding COD, CMA mentioned that even if MS does a partial foreclosure it won't affect Playstation because people would play COD on Playstation anyway.

i am not talkig about that

 

[Nubulax]

Why? There is no hard-and-fast rule about that or an obligation that console manufacturers should release their games on PC day one.

Sony would do it if it makes financial sense for them. If it doesn't, they won't do it. Having said that, if they purchase any publisher, I don't expect Sony to remove day-one releases from Steam/Epic, but they won't be obligated to do so, and it wouldn't be wrong if they stop doing it.

Not to mention that ONE of the console hardware companies also owns the PC operating system said PC games are on.. Im sure that has NOTHING to do with MS pivoting to put their games on PC.

 

[reksveks]

Origins only provides 10-hour demos of new games

True for console not for PC also think Ubisoft have something similar.

 

[feynoob]

True for console not for PC also think Ubisoft have something similar.

Ubisoft has the Uplay+.
Both services are locked to their launcher, aside of Ubisoft with Luna.

 

[C2brixx]

use your logic. why would microsoft say 10 years is enough for sony to create alternatives if they didnt want to remove call of duty? theres no logic in that at all. wheres the logic in believeing microsoft will keep cod on ps to make money when majority of the ip they bought wont be on PS? wheres the logic in that. to believe microsoft will keep cod on PS when they aint obligated to is pure delusion. they will only as long as they have to. the moment they dont, of course they will pull it! im shocked people dont understand this

The 10 years is more of a benefit for Microsoft. It allow it to grow the COD install base on a number of different platforms while reserving the right to make it exclusive if market conditions dictate.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

It says that COD would generate losses unlike redfall and Starfield.

This isn't accurate at least in pertains to Starfield. It's on the same Creation Engine 2 as previous Bethesda games, and console sales for games like Skyrim and Fallout 4 were very high, and relatively even in split between Xbox and PlayStation. Gamers would look at something like Starfield as in the lineage of at least the Fallout games, if not also TES, so while Starfield is "technically" a new IP, it is by no means an unknown quantity or from an unknown quantity itself. People know what a "Bethesda game" is and know the lineage and weight that carries, especially for something that is marketed as Bethesda's "next big thing" like Starfield.

By making a game like Starfield not only non-available on PlayStation consoles, but also knowing that it will be available in Game Pass Day 1, and given Game Pass's proliferation on Xbox consoles specifically, that actually creates a situation where Starfield stands to LOSE a significant portion of money versus if it were also on PlayStation and were not in a subscription service like Game Pass Day 1.

Because, and while by no means official or 100% accurate, there are many reasons to assume that Game Pass's own revenue is significantly smaller than the suggested value by sub count x ARPU @ asking rate cost, would be. Possibly by at least $1 billion, and that's assuming zero Game Pass Ultimate subscribers (which we know isn't the case).

Interestingly I don't think Microsoft have provided Game Pass revenue figures to any of the regulators yet. I guess regulators don't consider it important? Don't see why they would consider it non-important. The closest we got were the CADE documents which were combined for Game Pass and other Microsoft gaming services (which would have included Zenimax subscriptions for Fallout '76, ESO, plus XBL Gold).

But nothing specifically isolating Game Pass revenue has been requested?

 

[adamsapple]

that is a logic flaw

first party does not have to mean platform exclusive, we have examples from both sides of the aisle proving that.

Minecraft, MLB The Show. They're both first party but getting new releases on the 'competition'.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

It says that COD would generate losses unlike redfall and Starfield.

This is terminally stupid.

Microsoft made $200 billion in revenue and $72 billion in net profit in 2022. They literally do not care how much the entire Xbox division makes or loses, with or without CoD on PS. I believe that CoD brings in about $1 billion a year for ATVI, and let's be generous and pretend that it's a 50/50 split so $500 million a year on PS and $500 million a year on Xbox. So if MS decides to acquire ATVI and take CoD away from PS tomorrow, they lose......

$500 million a year, for a company that makes $200,000 million a year in revenue.

They don't give a tiniest fuck about $500 million a year. It's a rounding error to them.

CMA are the stupidest regulators on Earth and that's saying a lot. Imagine if regulators had regulators of their own. No one watches the Watchmen, which is why mergers like this are allowed to go through.

The goal of MS is to acquire CoD so they can take it away from PS ASAP because to them, $69 million in acquisition cost is only 1 year of net profit and the yearly revenue that ATVI makes from CoD is completely insignificant and meaningless. You wouldn't care if you paid $1 for something and then gave up $0.05 a year in revenue, that's what ATVI is like to them. CMA pretending otherwise? These findings are proof of terminal stupidity or corruption, take your pick.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

the first party does not have to mean platform exclusive, we have examples from both sides of the aisle proving that.

Minecraft, MLB The Show. They're both first party but getting new releases on the 'competition'.

because of licenses and/or financial incentives and even possible damage to the brand's reputation right?

 

[Warablo]

None of what you explained answered my question. I'm asking how does a company buying up brands to keep off of other brands bring more competition to the table and you're telling me about a Microsoft business plan. If this worked, we would have seen this happen with Bethesda. So why does Nintendo and Sony not have to buy entire publishers to compete against one of the richest companies in the entire world?

Remove your favorite brand for a moment. 7/11 starts buying up every gas station around, is this making it more competitive or is it removing options?

It does if those other options are everywhere and 7/11 is only in some places.

 

[adamsapple]

because of licenses and/or financial incentives and even possible damage to the brand's reputation right?

Whatever the underlying reasons maybe, to your earlier question of "but CoD will be first party right ?"

Yes, if the deal closes, it *will* be first party but also available on more than the first party platforms.

 

[C2brixx]

The goal of MS is to acquire CoD so they can take it away from PS ASAP because to them, $69 million in acquisition is only 1 year of net profit to them and the yearly revenue that ATVI makes from CoD is completely insignificant. These findings are proof of terminal stupidity or corruption, take your pick.

Is there an example of Microsoft taking away an existing IP from other platforms?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Is there an example of Microsoft taking away an existing IP from other platforms?

yes

 

[reksveks]

I believe that CoD brings in about $1 billion a year for ATVI,

Probably closer to 3bn, the A in ABK is a 3. 25bn revenue and not sure that much of that would have not been COD.

The better way would be to use the 11-13% of revenue that we know comes from Sony and multiple that by the total revenue so would be 1bn usd from Sony.

 

[DrFigs]

This is terminally stupid.

Microsoft made $200 billion in revenue and $72 billion in net profit in 2022. They literally do not care how much the entire Xbox division makes or loses, with or without CoD on PS. I believe that CoD brings in about $1 billion a year for ATVI, and let's be generous and pretend that it's a 50/50 split so $500 million a year on PS and $500 million a year on Xbox. So if MS decides to acquire ATVI and take CoD away from PS tomorrow, they lose......

$500 million a year, for a company that makes $200,000 million a year in revenue.

They don't give a tiniest fuck about $500 million a year. It's a rounding error to them.

CMA are the stupidest regulators on Earth and that's saying a lot. Imagine if regulators had regulators of their own. No one watches the Watchmen, which is why mergers like this are allowed to go through.

The goal of MS is to acquire CoD so they can take it away from PS ASAP because to them, $69 million in acquisition cost is only 1 year of net profit and the yearly revenue that ATVI makes from CoD is completely insignificant and meaningless. You wouldn't care if you paid $1 for something and then gave up $0.05 a year in revenue, that's what ATVI is like to them. CMA pretending otherwise? These findings are proof of terminal stupidity or corruption, take your pick.

It does seem naive of them, but hey, they're the professionals.

 

[Nubulax]

Because this is the largest deal in the gaming history.

If this deal gets approved, everything is on the table.
Before no one had any reason to spend that much money.

This deal isnt just the largest deal in gaming history... its the largest deal in MS history with basically the same value as the next FIVE acquisitions they have made add up to. Thats what is even more insane to me.... one of the smallest divisions in their entire company that basically makes peanuts for them in $. And 2 of the top 5 in MS History is for Xbox between ABK and Zenimax with $76.8 BILLION between the two.

ABK- 68.7 Billion

Next Five
1. Linkedin $26.2 billion
2. Nuance Communications $19.7 billion
3. Skype Technologies $8.5 billion
4. ZeniMax Media $8.1 billion
5. GitHub $7.5 billion

Around 70 Billion.....

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Probably closer to 3bn, the A in ABK is a 3. 25bn revenue and not sure that much of that would have not been COD.

The better way would be to use the 11-13% of revenue that we know comes from Sony and multiple that by the total revenue so would be 1bn usd from Sony.

Seems fair. So $1 billion a year from CoD on PS. My numbers on MS are correct, so $200,000 million a year in revenue total for MS, versus a corrected $1,000 million a year.

The math I did is still sound. It's still a rounding error as far as MS is concerned. They still do not care about how much CoD makes or loses and taking it away from PS immediately would be so meaningless financially that they wouldn't even waste time breaking it out on their annual report. They don't even report the entire Xbox division separately on their annual report because of how financially meaningless that whole division is to them. I wouldn't be surprised if Xbox loses them more money than Surface does but since neither of those are reported no one will ever know. MS purposely keeps their financials pretty opaque and they get away with it because who cares when you have $200,000,000,000 in yearly revenue and $72,000,000,000 in net profit. It's like demanding the Saudis break out non-oil revenue for Saudi Aramco, who gives a shit?

 

[Elios83]

This is terminally stupid.

Microsoft made $200 billion in revenue and $72 billion in net profit in 2022. They literally do not care how much the entire Xbox division makes or loses, with or without CoD on PS. I believe that CoD brings in about $1 billion a year for ATVI, and let's be generous and pretend that it's a 50/50 split so $500 million a year on PS and $500 million a year on Xbox. So if MS decides to acquire ATVI and take CoD away from PS tomorrow, they lose......

$500 million a year, for a company that makes $200,000 million a year in revenue.

They don't give a tiniest fuck about $500 million a year. It's a rounding error to them.

CMA are the stupidest regulators on Earth and that's saying a lot. Imagine if regulators had regulators of their own. No one watches the Watchmen, which is why mergers like this are allowed to go through.

The goal of MS is to acquire CoD so they can take it away from PS ASAP because to them, $69 million in acquisition cost is only 1 year of net profit and the yearly revenue that ATVI makes from CoD is completely insignificant and meaningless. You wouldn't care if you paid $1 for something and then gave up $0.05 a year in revenue, that's what ATVI is like to them. CMA pretending otherwise? These findings are proof of terminal stupidity or corruption, take your pick.

CMA's new findings are full of contradictions.
They agreed and still claim that Microsoft removing COD from Playstation would result in significant harm to their main competitor in the console space and could be classified as an anticompetitive practice.
But now they don't believe Microsoft will do that just because according to their new model they would lose a lot of money in the process....emmm hellooo?
If you say by yourself that the reward is so big given the kind of damage they could make how can you say that one of richest company in world cannot afford the losses?? Dropping the console market concerns altogether is nonsense.
They're throwing eggs on their own faces and it's certainly possible that some levers were moved behind the scenes to justify such stupidity.
But we'll see the new developments in the next few weeks it would be hilarious if they end up asking the same remedies just for their cloud concerns.
But regardless of the final ruling I think it's time for Sony to not overplay their hand and get the best deal they can now that Microsoft still can't backtrack easily from their promises without creating new evidence against them for regulators. Otherwise they risk that all the work their legal team has done goes to the benefit of nVidia, Nintendo and some cloud companies and that would be idiotic for them.

 

[C2brixx]

yes

Care to elaborate, because I don't know of a single IP (that has shipped) that existed on other platforms that Microsoft has taken away.

 

[RoboFu]

Of course any new unreleased games that have never been on any platforms should be ok.

 

[Warablo]

Theory?

• Hellblade 2
• The Outer Worlds 2
• Redfall
• Starfield
• Hi-Fi Rush
• Psychonauts 2 (PS5)
• Bleeding Edge
• Avowed

All these games were in production when Microsoft acquired these studios. TOW2 likely wasn't, but that's still an IP that MS made exclusive after the acquisition. And so will be Elder Scrolls 6.

After ABK, do you think all ABK games will continue to be released on PlayStation? Just like Zenimax's, right?

This is an old tactic of deflecting and derailing the conversation by bringing up these really illogical arguments and naming Guerrilla and Bluepoint as Sony's acquisitions lol. See, now we are not even talking about the actual discussion that @DryvBy raised, i.e., how does acquiring multiplatform companies and making their games exclusive equal to increased competition.

So your problem is you knew about the games before hand? Every company is working on stuff in the background, who knows what these other companies were working on before getting acquired.

 

[reksveks]

Seems fair. So $1 billion a year from CoD on PS. My numbers on MS are correct, so $200,000 million a year in revenue total for MS, versus a corrected $1,000 million a year.

Just correcting numbers.

Re the more personal computing numbers for Microsoft as a division it's profitable as whole but I would have to look again at it, I suspect that surface and/or MS gaming can't be big losses if they are but will need to check those numbers.

May do that tomorrow if I get a bit bored.

 

[Nubulax]

Yeah, I agree but Xbox One isn't stopping Microsoft from fixing their shitty marketing now. Sometimes it's like they are not even trying. I don't get it.

Why try when you can just buy everything and own all the content once you get "behind"

 

[StreetsofBeige]

first party does not have to mean platform exclusive, we have examples from both sides of the aisle proving that.

Minecraft, MLB The Show. They're both first party but getting new releases on the 'competition'.

Overall, I think the issue at hand is expectations and experience.

For Sony gamers, they are used to studios locking in games into their eco system. Only in the past couple years have a select number of PS games gone PC and MLB is on Xbox only because the league forced them too. And the PC ports are all old games (with UC4 being a really old one coming out in 2016). So the fear is there they will be locked out of a game given how their studios make games. Many have a big focus on exclusivity list wars, so a game being or not being on PS is a big deal.

For MS gamers, their games come out on Xbox and PC, day one, on GP and for Bethesda and Minecraft games they are multiplat. So it's more open. The typical Xbox gamer doesn't give a shit if first party games are multplat because many have been for ages and many originated on PC anyway (Age of Empires or Flight Sim). MS even released early PC editions of Gears and Fable and Halo back in the day when Xbox OG and 360 were being sold. Dont think any Xbox gamer cared.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Questions for Xbox bros:

• What do you think Sony will do to respond to this acquisition once approved?
• What would you be okay with? And what would you be not?

[/LIST]
What do you think they are most likely to do? And what would you be okay with/not okay with?

I maintain my position that there won't be any big acquisition from Sony. Not even Square Enix (especially with Sony getting FF anyway and small games don't really matter). Ubisoft won't be acquired by anybody (don't care about Ubisoft) and CDPR feels like Tencent material at this point (for some reason).

On the west, I don't see Sony going full exclusive on any major multiplatform franchise. Which western publisher would be crazy enough to go full exclusive in favor Playstation? No one, not with aggressive Microsoft. On the east, I don't see big franchises going full exclusive as these days a lot of money comes from PC. If it was another Xbox One gen, I for example would expect Yakuza or RE to be full exclusive at this point. FF is an exception though, but Square Enix is Square Enix - as long as they have mobile and FF14, they don't care.

I expect some content exclusive deals (like exclusive missions and so on), but even they will become more expensive. Same with time exclusivity - there will be some smaller time exclusive games, but anything big? No, I don't think so. Some content from China might have some exclusivity, but I don't expect big franchises going full exclusive.

Overall, It is hard to say with what I would not be not okay simply because Sony tried almost all the possible tricks against Xbox. They tried to moneyhat Starfield even, and that is something I won't forget. I could care less about games like Silent Hill or whatever, but not the Bethesda game.

After Xbox One era, I am pretty happy that Microsoft is not playing anymore and with Satya at the helm we can be sure that Microsoft will be aggressive. Just look at all their moves everywhere. In gaming, in AI, in mobile. Pretty big and aggressive moves (just look at AI for example). We also haven't see the ramifications of ABK deal as it hasn't been closed yet. Not to mention those rumblings regarding the trade deal with Japan. I do think that is something, that Microsoft will try to benefit from as much as possible.

Yeah, I agree but Xbox One isn't stopping Microsoft from fixing their shitty marketing now. Sometimes it's like they are not even trying. I don't get it.

I think they will move marketing to ABK and Bethesda. Persona 5 marketing was a huge outliner (I wonder if it was Sega who got money from MSFT to do marketing) and their developer direct had 100% Bethesda's touch.

 

[RoboFu]

I can’t believe people are using red fall not coming to PS as an argument. Lol

 

[Demon2blades]

use your logic. why would microsoft say 10 years is enough for sony to create alternatives if they didnt want to remove call of duty? theres no logic in that at all. wheres the logic in believeing microsoft will keep cod on ps to make money when majority of the ip they bought wont be on PS? wheres the logic in that. to believe microsoft will keep cod on PS when they aint obligated to is pure delusion. they will only as long as they have to. the moment they dont, of course they will pull it! im shocked people dont understand this

It's not about pulling cod it's about putting the game on gamepass day one with lots of goodies to entice people to switch and only when they have managed to get the cod crowd from ps to subscribe to gamepass they then might think about pulling cod you can't compete with "perceived free games".... People must understand it's all about gamepass for Sony that's why they are against the deal .

No other company in the console market could bankroll gamepass and ms know it ,
Imo this aquisition shouldn't have gone through but whatever .