DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Like Minecraft?Those games are on Xbox, because Sony had no choice.
Like Minecraft?Those games are on Xbox, because Sony had no choice.
Lol...
Next thing you know, Phil is going to be crying that Jim Ryan won't swallow his cumload.
is 30% not the standard cut?
Unbelievable....
Sony....
Those "200 games" are also an investment too though and "buying assets" in the hope of making more money than you've spent. I don't know why xbox fans are acting so strange regarding Phil's response to that question.This has been the weirdest part of the two hearings, the FTC lawyers (or maybe yesterday was a lawyer and the first hearing was Khan? They seem so lost and ignorant of video games and the market.
But at one point yesterday, Phil had to explain how mergers work and how acquiring a large asset isn’t really “spending money” so much as it is transferring assets. Like it’s one thing for one of our anti-acquisition armchair analysts here to say “well MS should just spend that 70B to develop 200 games!”. It’s another for a fucking FTC lawyer to say it
Yes it's the standard on almost all storefronts. Some may provide lower rates but taking 30% is the standard.This. Please someone answer this question.
Yes.This. Please someone answer this question.
Those "200 games" are also an investment too though and "buying assets" in the hope of making more money than you've spent. I don't know why xbox fans are acting so strange regarding Phil's response to that question.
Yes it's the standard on almost all storefronts. Some may provide lower rates but taking 30% is the standard.
Those games are on Xbox, because Sony had no choice. MLB had to be multiplat because of the license and Bungie only joined Sony under the condition that their games are multiplat.
The underlying meaning of Phil's statement is that voluntarily "sharing" your games with the competition will partially weaken you, because the competition is not willing to do the same.
Personally I disagree, but it's not that hard to understand where he's coming from. Then again, some people just don't want to understand because it wouldn't fit their point of view.
Unbelievable....
Sony....
It was also mutually agreed upon with the MLB. They didn't "force" a thing.Factually you are inserting conditions that do not exist in what Spencer is saying. And it is irrelevant. No one put a gun to Sony's head. Sony had a choice not continue with MLB. Sony had a choice to not buy Bungie. Those choices voluntary "weaken" Sony, to use your words. Clearly you do not want to understand this because it does not fit your point of view.....again using your words. I'd be fine just disagreeing, but....
What has this got to do with the CMA and FTC lacking knowledge when you're endorsing this lack of knowledge the judge might have instead?Our narratives don’t matter. All the matters is what is said in court and how it’s interpreted by the judge in a legal sense.
Remember we wouldn’t be here if the CMA and FTC decision wasn’t based in such a lack of fundamental knowledge in how the industry worked. Yes or no doesn’t matter unless it’s backed up with a really good argument legally. Plenty of analysts have expressed concerns on how the regulators came to the decision as opposed to the decision itself.
I'm trying to wrap my head around that myself.What has this got to do with the CMA and FTC lacking knowledge when you're endorsing this lack of knowledge the judge might have instead?
Then what the fuck is uncle phill on about?Those "200 games" are also an investment too though and "buying assets" in the hope of making more money than you've spent. I don't know why xbox fans are acting so strange regarding Phil's response to that question.
Yes it's the standard on almost all storefronts. Some may provide lower rates but taking 30% is the standard.
He's making excuses as to why he's removing content from PS but they would have found it's a daft excuse if they were actually questioned on it or asked to elaborate by the lawyers.Then what the fuck is uncle phill on about?
I'm drawing conclusions like everybody else in this thread. If it doesn't make sense to you then that's fine.Factually you are inserting conditions that do not exist in what Spencer is saying. And it is irrelevant. No one put a gun to Sony's head. Sony had a choice not continue with MLB. Sony had a choice to not buy Bungie. Those choices voluntary "weaken" Sony, to use your words. Clearly you do not want to understand this because it does not fit your point of view.....again using your words. I'd be fine just disagreeing, but....
Yeah, pretty much. Although I guess they could've pulled Minecraft from Sony consoles if they wanted to. Would have been a dick move though.Like Minecraft?
They can't. Phil Spencer in court yesterday said that he wants to, but currently can't get around it. Which adds credence to Notch having it in the original sales contract for the IP.Yeah, pretty much. Although I guess they could've pulled Minecraft from Sony consoles if they wanted to. Would have been a dick move though.
I'm drawing conclusions like everybody else in this thread. If it doesn't make sense to you then that's fine.
Well that's pathetic. Didn't he make a big deal about how he wanted to keep the Minecraft community the way it is or something?They can't. Phil Spencer in court yesterday said that he wants to, but currently can't get around it.
Phil Spencer double speaking. I'm shocked.Well that's pathetic. Didn't he make a big deal about how he wanted to keep the Minecraft community the way it is or something?
The way you're putting it, I think you're right. I went too far there.That's fine and all, but suggesting willful ignorance is likely for anyone who doesn't agree with your conclusion is uncalled for. We can agree to disagree.
As I have said in many of these threads, "Yeah, no shit."That works both ways, Phil
Sony have built a platform that is selling well and is projected to sell incredibly well and they’ve cultivated a userbase that buys a lot of games and spends a lot in the games they play.I'm pretty sure that if that 70-30 split wasn't there, Microsoft would release more games on Playstation. For the same reason they don't keep that many exclusives from PC. And that's probably the point Phil Spencer was making.
He's aware they also have that cost, but this is purely about releasing their games on the Sony platform. Do you think Sony would release games on PC, if for some reason Microsoft would get a 30% cut?
As I have said in many of these threads, "Yeah, no shit."
But you are not looking at the significance of this within the full context of what Phil was saying. Prior to this quote, Phil was asked about market share, and the reply was how they are in third-place, with a significant less market share. With the larger market share on PlayStation, that means a couple of things:
1) games MS release on both platforms, can sell more on Sony, giving Sony a pure 30% revenue cut on those high sales. Sony did not pay anything for the game, but has the potential to make more money from the game than MS due to their install base and MS paying the expense to create the game.
2) If Sony releases a game on Xbox, once again due to market share, Xbox will make a significant less money on those games versus the amount of money Sony makes on MS games released on Sony's marketplace.
This gives Sony a great competitive advantage and explains what decisions are at play when deciding which games MS will also put in the Sony marketplace. Every game MS releases in Sony's marketplace can end up giving Sony more money versus what Xbox makes on the game due to the expense of the game. The impact is not nearly there for Sony releasing on Xbox.
A huge game that was already established like COD or Minecraft makes sense, because even though Sony still makes a ton of money on those games that fuels their own games that slow Xbox's growth, there is a ton of revenue to be generated there. But for new franchises or smaller games, there is a risk of basic giving your competitor free money after the huge investment they placed to make the game.
Sony does not need to release any game on Xbox, due to their market share. However, it makes sense for MS to release some games on PlayStation for potential profit increase, but that comes with the price of fueling your competitor with more cash to compete against you.
Fair points. And yes, I'm only looking at this at surface level. When Xbox has the financial backing of a $2 trillion corporation then I really don't feel the need to go hunting for financial excuses. So I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything you are saying, but at the same time we are talking about a corporation attempting to buy Activision Blizzard. Sorry, but "cry me a river" comes to mind when I hear Phil Spencer talking about difficulties in competing against Sony.
Sorry wrong thread lolWhat has this got to do with the CMA and FTC lacking knowledge when you're endorsing this lack of knowledge the judge might have instead?
Another fallacy to rationalize and positive spin The Brand's behavior.Eliminating competition is kinda the point of business at the end of the day
Eliminating competition is kinda the point of business at the end of the day
Well, you sir, don't think like a sociopath.I'll never understand this kind of rationalization.
Eliminating competition is kinda the point of business at the end of the day
You think that’s good for Phil to repeat to regulators?
That's what he has Matt Booty for.
How about Sarah Bond for that matter!?
Someone has to bite the bullet
Well the FTC didn’t understand the concept of converting cash into an asset, Spencer had to explain it was like buying a house, you just turn an asset into another type of asset.OP just posted it without giving any contexts
I wonder are some of the FTC lawyers are gaf members? Lol. I find lot of similarities between some gaf members and ftc lawyers lol
Well the FTC didn’t understand the concept of converting cash into an asset, Spencer had to explain it was like buying a house, you just turn an asset into another type of asset.
This gave me painful flashbacks of arguing why MS didn’t have to « pay back » the ABK purchase.
When you have your own platform as another revenue stream and game pass as another that doesn’t make sense.Sony have built a platform that is selling well and is projected to sell incredibly well and they’ve cultivated a userbase that buys a lot of games and spends a lot in the games they play.
The 30% royalty is partially for access to that. If Microsoft want more money, giving over 30% isn’t that big of a deal, especially as they keep preaching that they want their games on as many platforms as possible.
Sometimes you have to pay the piper. Bungie will be paying Xbox a lot of 30% too.
Well the FTC didn’t understand the concept of converting cash into an asset, Spencer had to explain it was like buying a house, you just turn an asset into another type of asset.
This gave me painful flashbacks of arguing why MS didn’t have to « pay back » the ABK purchase.
As I have said in many of these threads, "Yeah, no shit."
But you are not looking at the significance of this within the full context of what Phil was saying. Prior to this quote, Phil was asked about market share, and the reply was how they are in third-place, with a significant less market share. With the larger market share on PlayStation, that means a couple of things:
1) games MS release on both platforms, can sell more on Sony, giving Sony a pure 30% revenue cut on those high sales. Sony did not pay anything for the game, but has the potential to make more money from the game than MS due to their install base and MS paying the expense to create the game.
2) If Sony releases a game on Xbox, once again due to market share, Xbox will make a significant less money on those games versus the amount of money Sony makes on MS games released on Sony's marketplace.
This gives Sony a great competitive advantage and explains what decisions are at play when deciding which games MS will also put in the Sony marketplace. Every game MS releases in Sony's marketplace can end up giving Sony more money versus what Xbox makes on the game due to the expense of the game. The impact is not nearly there for Sony releasing on Xbox.
A huge game that was already established like COD or Minecraft makes sense, because even though Sony still makes a ton of money on those games that fuels their own games that slow Xbox's growth, there is a ton of revenue to be generated there. But for new franchises or smaller games, there is a risk of basic giving your competitor free money after the huge investment they placed to make the game.
Sony does not need to release any game on Xbox, due to their market share. However, it makes sense for MS to release some games on PlayStation for potential profit increase, but that comes with the price of fueling your competitor with more cash to compete against you.