• 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.

DO THE MATH.... Sony expanding first party development is a FAR better strategy than acquiring a big third party publishers

clarky

Gold Member
Because you said this:


Isn't your example of soda and snacks equivalent to MTX purchases within the context of Game pass? Or are you literally suggesting Microsoft sell Skittles and Pepsi to GP subs?




You need evidence if you want your position to be taken seriously. We can definitively measure the value of that 30% cut in dollars. You claim that the additional sub is "vastly more valuable". What is the value of the additional Xbox GP subscriber to Microsoft and how do we measure?
Ok now your just being difficult and obtuse.

Let me ask you one question. Lets keep it simple. What's worth more to Sony or MS? is it ............

A) 70% of £70 and associated MTX sales once a year at best.

B) 100% of £70 + 100% of MTX sales, the chance of further spend on other titles, peripherals, gift cards & recurring subscription to either service for the lifetime of a console.

Hint: One is clearly a lot more valuable than the other can you guess which one?

How much more? (You can take a guess)

A) a little bit
B) a bit
C) quite a bit
D Loads
E) I can't answer because I'm asking for stats that nobody has the access to, but its definitely a lot more.
 
Last edited:

Warablo

Member
Think about this for a second...

The PS4 alone sold over 100m consoles, and the XB1 may be 40-50+m.

There is not a single COD game that sold up to 70m copies, and the above is not even counting PC.

There is no universe in which 55% of all gamers play COD. You're either pulling numbers out of your ass, or just plain old misinformed.
Well of course not, a new CoD comes out every single year.
 

clarky

Gold Member
Skyrim is a single player game vs COD which is multiplayer focused with a single-player campaign (recurring revenue due to MTX as well). I don't think the person you are quoting is wrong to say that MS will consider keeping the series multi-platform due to that (given they have done so with MineCraft — now if the point I read about MS being required to keep it that way due to a contract during acquisition, does change that dynamic a little bit for sure.)

Sure, it's not a guarantee that they will but it doesn't completely rule it out either. Since we're all taking a stab at what we think MS will do, all options are on the table, specially because of all the vague statements made by MS (Phill Spencer) and similar actions taken by them in the past — put simply, I wouldn't rule it out.
I was just replying to the fact that the poster said Bethesda ( yes the whole company) doesn't come close to COD numbers when this is in fact not correct. I didn't mention anything about anything else.

And if hes talking about singular games then i provided skyrim as an example.
 
Imagine if Microsoft acquired EA, and owned the Battlefield IP...

The Joker Popcorn GIF
 

clarky

Gold Member
Having them in the ecosystem is way more valuable than a sale on PS4/PS5. They wouldn't need anywhere close to 100% of COD players to switch, honestly they could probably only switch 1/3rd or less and they would still end up with more money than leaving it on Playstation. Especially considering basically every COD player on Playstation would subscribe to PS+ and instead would subscribe to Gold or Game Pass, that's way more money for Microsoft, let alone any games or microtransactions they would then buy on the Xbox ecosystem. The funny thing is all the people that think COD fans care more about Playstation than they do about COD, and they'll just "find another game". Hint, people go where the games are, and if they play COD every year they will buy the console where they can continue to do that, they won't just go "oh well, can't play COD anymore because I have to stay with Sony"
Yay! this guy gets it.
 

phil_t98

#SonyToo
for all the people who say COD isn't important Activision wouldn't be valued as high as it was without COD or did Microsoft just make a number upon and pay it lol
 

ChiefDada

Gold Member
Ok now your just being difficult and obtuse.

I am not. These are the difficult problems that Microsoft will need to find a solution for.

Let me ask you one question. Lets keep it simple. What's worth more to Sony or MS? is it ............

A) 70% of £70 and associated MTX sales once a year at best.

B) 100% of £70 + 100% of MTX sales, the chance of further spend on other titles, peripherals, gift cards & recurring subscription to either service for the lifetime of a console.
I'm assuming B) is GP strategy. If so, why are you including the $70 only applicable under product pricing?
 

MonarchJT

Banned
Think about this for a second...

The PS4 alone sold over 100m consoles, and the XB1 may be 40-50+m.

There is not a single COD game that sold up to 70m copies, and the above is not even counting PC.

There is no universe in which 55% of all gamers play COD. You're either pulling numbers out of your ass, or just plain old misinformed.
55% of the console gamers (all) played cod ..is this that was said in the article don't know if this is worst
 

Swift_Star

Banned
55% of the console gamers (all) played cod ..is this that was said in the article don't know if this is worst
They gave CoD os PS Plus, obviously some of they tried CoD out, me included, I still say this number is bogus until they say how they really got that number. It really makes no sense at all.
 

Alebrije

Member
The only strategy that will keep.Sony competitive is to relase great new IPs.

The good news is thar Sony is great on relasing them... just look at Sonys IPs of PS3 vs PS5

Not only they managed to create.great new ones but also keep old ones alive.
 
Last edited:

MonarchJT

Banned
The Citigroup estimates feels weird cause Activision says that 33% of their revenue aka 2.8 to 3bn (2902m using the last 12 months) annually comes from console. I am then unsure how they get to 262m from that number.

2.9*ps split*their revenue cut
2.9*0.5*0.3 = 435m
that 260m estimation is in fact completely useless
 
Last edited:

clarky

Gold Member
I am not. These are the difficult problems that Microsoft will need to find a solution for.


I'm assuming B) is GP strategy. If so, why are you including the $70 only applicable under product pricing?

Oooops misinterpreted your answer, you didn't give one at all lol.


I asked "What's worth more to Sony or MS?"

And no B) is not GP strategy it applies to both platforms?
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
It's in here.

https://investor.activision.com/static-files/7778a1e9-8fb6-4e2e-8237-2ed0f9f6e7a9

I also am not 100% sure if Sony is reporting net bookings aka including the publisher cut and the 70% is removed as part of the costs.
So I see you summed the Rev by Platform sheet over the last 4 quarters. It's all console revenue there whereas Citigroup I think are referring to COD only. Could be the cause of the discrepancy.

i Nevers said 70% of 3b
I showed you all the mainline Cod sales and I took 2015 as an example (is not the one that sold the most) sold more than 26m copies ...and more than 15 was on ps (more than 60%)

"Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 is part of the hugely successful Call of Duty franchise of video games. Of the over 15 million units of the game sold around the world on PlayStation 4"


...that excluding the 70% taken by Activision would leave Sony more than 320m ....and this from just one game ...usually we have in those chart always two cod games the current and the game of the past year....plus this clearly exclude any mtx of the games.
So you get why that estimate is basically nothing to take seriously?
Sony without the mainline would lose a gazillion of FREE (no risk) money accept it
So you went 7 years in the past to show Citigroup are wrong on their 2022 estimates? Come on man. This is exactly what you said

"First of all, the famous 260 million is just an estimate from Citigroup secondly I would like to understand how in 2020 CoD mainline, warzone, and mobile generated 3 Billion in revenue if playstation that is said to have 70% of the player base could lose just 260m ......that estimate it is far-fetched when compared to the current real money made ..."

" more than 70% of their player is coming from playstation in 2020 alone cod made 3b....counting cod mainline, warzone and the mobile game......
just the mainline game alone ..30% cut would on 13millions copies sold generated more than that 260m.."

And I asked you for a source that they have 70% of the player base and how you're using that $3B figure for mobile, warzone and mainline incorrectly to try and suggest it's wrong.
 

ZywyPL

Banned
How many more consoles did Sony sell than Xbox last gen even though they had pretty much the same third party support?

120 million to 40 million and a lot of those were because of the first party difference makers.

XB1 was done already long before even a single 1P exclusive showed up on PS4, what carried the console was indeed 3P games and ability to play them for 100$ less (plus no always-online DRM bullshit). If you'd dig up old GC/E3/TGS threads you'd find countless posts of people not only being disappointed, but actually angry at Sony for not showing anything more than cross-gens, lazy remasters and indie ports from PC/mobile, the "Playstation (4) has no games" meme was more alive than ever before, and it was all merely 6-7 years ago. But then UC4 showed up, then HZD, GoW, S-M, and so on and so on, and people quickly forgot, but before any of those games arrived, PS4 was already established on the market as the absolute dominant console of the generation.

So it's a question whether the software really carried the hardware, or was it the other way around? Because keep in mind, the gen before PS4 no one gave a damn about Sony's exclusives, people went straight after the cheaper console (X360) without even thinking twice. And all the Nintendo praise you see nowadays? WiiU anyone, we forgot about that one already? Where were all those legendary IPs to sell the system? So again, if Switch didn't sell as well it sold, all those Marios, Zeldas, Pokemons etc. would again be completely meaningless, let alone hitting 20M+ numbers.

But going back to Sony specifically - IG games sell within just 2-3M range, and nobody cries when they're gone (OK I lied here because I still cry after Resistance), their only truly huge hit is Spider-Man, you know, "only" the biggest, most popular super hero on the planet, not even Batman and Super Man come close nowadays thanks to what MCU is doing, basically the name alone carried the game, last week people went out of cinemas from NWH and S-M2 trailer immediately saw an uplift in views, you'd have to be blind or ignorant to not to see the correlation. But IG's own IPs? Nothing significant, and they've been under Sony's wings since forever.

Sucker Punch? Same deal basically, they've been making inFamous for god knows how long, which is just a decent franchise at best, arguably Prototype was the more fun counterpart to play back in the days, and they literally just now hit the jackpot with GoT, which again, was released on an already established ~120M userbase, so did the game carried the console, or did the console do a huge favor for the studio and their new game?

GG - again, up until HZD they were nothing special, KZ franchise is pretty much dead because of how poorly they managed it, the games just kept getting worse and worse.

So all in all, those studios weren't all that great until Sony started pumping some serious money into them while the console kept selling on its own. Like that infamous tweet said - Sony's talent = money and time. Because really, those guys have the longest dev cycles in the entire industry (well maybe except Star Citizen ;)), while making just the SP campaign, and half of the game takes place in mo-cap studio. And still, people seem to have a very short/selective memory - Driveclub? Bombed. Days Gone? We all know the story. Death Stranding? Not a huge seller either, Sony rejected Kojima's next project for a reason. The Last Guardian? The game came and gone unnoticed. So while there are those games that indeed sold in 15-20M units and were hugely successful, don't let that blind your vision, because there are just as many games that were a total miss, some even resulting in studio closures (RIP Evolution).

And speaking financially? It's Sony's executives themselves that openly admit that their games are literally unsustainable, so if anyone did the right math, it's Sony themselves.

The bottom line is, if there's no hardware, the software won't sell, the attach rate is a real thing, if 1 on 20 people decides to gave the game a try, it's crucial to have a 100M userbase instead of 10M.
 

TGO

Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
The funny thing is all the people that think COD fans care more about Playstation than they do about COD, and they'll just "find another game". Hint, people go where the games are, and if they play COD every year they will buy the console where they can continue to do that, they won't just go "oh well, can't play COD anymore because I have to stay with Sony"
I agree, gamers go where the games are..
But that number of people that'll actually buy an Xbox solely for COD is gonna be a lot smaller then you think.
 

ChiefDada

Gold Member
Having them in the ecosystem is way more valuable than a sale on PS4/PS5. They wouldn't need anywhere close to 100% of COD players to switch, honestly they could probably only switch 1/3rd or less and they would still end up with more money than leaving it on Playstation.
Support your position with evidence, please.
 

coffinbirth

Member
Think about this for a second...

The PS4 alone sold over 100m consoles, and the XB1 may be 40-50+m.

There is not a single COD game that sold up to 70m copies, and the above is not even counting PC.

There is no universe in which 55% of all gamers play COD. You're either pulling numbers out of your ass, or just plain old misinformed.
I think you are forgetting about Warzone.
At some point last year it surpassed 100 million players.
Also, CoD mobile has something like 50 million players as well.
 
55% of the console gamers (all) played cod ..is this that was said in the article don't know if this is worst

I'm addressing the claim made by MrFunSocks MrFunSocks .

55% of all console players playing COD was a BS number he pulled out of his arse.

If what he means is that 55% of all players have played any COD game, then that's a pretty meaningless metric in the grand scheme of the discussion being had.
 
Support your position with evidence, please.
Selling COD on Playstation does two things for Microsoft

1. 70% of revenue from COD (large but not game changing for somebody like Microsoft)
2. Removes incentive for that person to buy an Xbox or subscribe to Game Pass (way worse than any benefits from #1)

Let's say the average person who buys COD buys 2 more games a year (some will obviously buy more, some less), and buys Gold/PS+ at $60/year
The person on Playstation earns Microsoft $49/year (70% of $70 game)
The person on Xbox earns Microsoft $156/year (100% of $60 game + 100% of $60 Gold + 30% of 2 games)

That doesn't even account for any microtransactions (of which Microsoft earns 100% vs 70% on Playstation), or potential to subscribe to Game Pass that is lost when playing on Playstation.

So as long as Microsoft is able to get 31.4% (49/156) of Playstation COD players to play COD on Xbox/PC (even if it's a Series S), they will make just as much money if not more. Even if we assume the average COD player buys literally 0 games other than COD (an incredibly pessimistic assumption, but we'll do it anyways), then it would still be $120 vs $49, and only need 40.8% of COD players to play COD on Xbox/PC instead (even if literally every other game they play is on Playstation)

Now obviously it's hard to say with exact certainty how many people would buy/switch to Xbox/PC, but I feel fairly confident that enough people would switch to Xbox for at least to be a similar amount of revenue (and with the potential for all the microtransactions, and Game Pass subscribers they could gain, it would be a no brainer unless all those "casual COD gamers" are somehow more allegiant to Playstation than COD (spoiler alert: they're not)


Feel free to question any numbers I used or assumptions I make, but I can't see a realistic way where Microsoft makes more money long term from keeping COD on Playstation, outside of Game Pass coming to Playstation
 

Leyasu

Banned
Investor's don't like uncertainty. Cutting off revenue stream from PS player base with no obvious method for replacing lost revenue would cost Microsoft billions.

It goes both ways and in this case exclusivity doesn't benefit either party.
Investors also don't like giving away 30% of their revenue in perpetuity either.

This isn't a 5yr turn around investment, this a long game play. The lost revenue from cutting off Acti/Blizzard I.Ps has already been calculated and factored in.
 

coffinbirth

Member
Sure.

It's F2P.
Moving the goalposts, eh?
Price or lack thereof has no bearing on player count...you decided to do math, and there it is.

You cited the top selling CoD as 70 million, without thinking about the fact that there were about EIGHT CoD releases last gen, haha. Unless, of course...you think all the same people bought all of those games, looool.

You have baaaad math here.
 
Last edited:

ChiefDada

Gold Member
Investors also don't like giving away 30% of their revenue in perpetuity either.

This isn't a 5yr turn around investment, this a long game play. The lost revenue from cutting off Acti/Blizzard I.Ps has already been calculated and factored in.
What is the alternative that will ensure they receive more revenue than the deal that is currently in place?

It's ok to say this is a long-term play but then you have to define not only what it is and for how long, but from a financial standpoint, how does it yield better results than the current strategy?
 
I personally think Sony should just keep doing what they are doing. If they keep going and make some more quality titles, they might get lucky and get acquired by Phil, the ceo of gaming.
 

ChiefDada

Gold Member
LOL we've all given you the answer to this but you just seem to be ignoring the answer.
You have not. Most of you here who are convinced Microsoft will make CoD exclusive have tried to paint such a scenario as financially viable using nothing more than unchecked optimism to support your views.
 

Concern

Member
Exact same situation here. I have five brothers and seven male cousins. Not to mention friends I made both in the industry, GameStop before that, and my early life in jobs/sports/school.

The amount of people asking if they should get an Xbox to guarantee they can play CoD going forwards was staggering to me and the deal isn't even closed. These are ages 17-40 year old males and they aren't completey unknowledgeable about gaming. The mindshare alone is crazy. Nevermind the moment the purchase goes through and there's marketing and Xbox Wire posts.


Exactly what the point of this will be. They will try to secure the casuals business. This doesn't mean "oh no Sony's doomed". Just that most of these casuals will most likely buy a Séries S and Gamepass Ultimate sub. And if Sony doesn't increase its mp offerings they will lose some Plus subs.
 
Last edited:
eh...they may need a combination of the two...Sony's biggest issue is the possibility of losing to MSFT on the sheer number of exclusives. Taking 10 years to organically grow PS Studios will just take too long and won't help that.
Hence why Microsoft is not organically growing anything. It would take too long.

The problem remains gamepass. Suddenly I’m 12 again renting games with no late fees. I have no interest to pay $70 for a game anymore. Now that the -one- game I make that exception for will end up on gamepass….there is no reason for me to drop $70 again.

Majority of the reason Sony’s PlayStations sell are because of COD marketing and having “best versions” of COD on their console. That’s changing, even if the unlikely occurs and COD still releases on PS platforms. Even then MS gets 70% of every game and mtx sold on COD. Sony is also losing out on COD bundles.
 
Last edited:

Swift_Star

Banned
Hence why Microsoft is not organically growing anything. It would take too long.

The problem remains gamepass. Suddenly I’m 12 again renting games with no late fees. I have no interest to pay $70 for a game anymore. Now that the -one- game I make that exception for will end up on gamepass….there is no reason for me to drop $70 again.

Majority of the reason Sony’s PlayStations sell are because of COD marketing and having “best versions” of COD on their console. That’s changing, even if the unlikely occurs and COD still releases on PS platforms. Even then MS gets 70% of every game and mtx sold on COD. Sony is also losing out on COD bundles.
I find really amusing that people believe that PS sells well because of CoD. A year from now y’all be wondering why PS is still selling like hotcakes without CoD.
 

clarky

Gold Member
You have not. Most of you here who are convinced Microsoft will make CoD exclusive have tried to paint such a scenario as financially viable using nothing more than unchecked optimism to support your views.
Your asking what will happen it the future (along with receipts!) mate nobody can be 100% certain. its called speculation, not optimism. Personally I couldn't give a fuck if COD goes exclusive. Just speculating on what i think is the most likely outcome. some of us have said what we think will happen based on past dealings and common sense, other seem to be hoping that doesn't happen based on prayers at this point. You nor anybody else has not offered anything compelling enough to make me think other wise.

MS want you in their eco system, period. For the 100th time releasing your biggest IP on PlayStation does not achieve that. See starfield and ESVI.

Pretty sure the bean counters at MS have gamed the numbers. They didn't wake up on Tuesday and go fuck it! lets buy Activision.
 
Last edited:

coffinbirth

Member
Exactly what the point of this will be. They will try to secure the casuals business. This doesn't mean "oh no Sony's doomed". Just that most of these casuals will most likely buy a Séries S and Gamepass Ultimate sub. And if Sony doesn't increase its mp offerings they will lose some Plus subs.
Sony still has about 90 million consoles to sell over the next 5 or so years to match PS4 numbers, these kinds of water cooler conversations have happened twice in about a year. If 90% of your userbase still hasn't invested in this gen, or worse yet, are on the fence, it's about losing out on hardware sales in addition to software and sub revenue...you are suggesting it's a given that PS5 will be the primary console amongst these folks with a Series S and GP being a secondary purchase, and I do believe you have that backwards.

If taken at face value of your wording, the "casuals" make up the lion's share of Sony's userbase....which seems a lot more problematic for Sony than you are suggesting.
 

Concern

Member
Sony still has about 90 million consoles to sell over the next 5 or so years to match PS4 numbers, these kinds of water cooler conversations have happened twice in about a year. If 90% of your userbase still hasn't invested in this gen, or worse yet, are on the fence, it's about losing out on hardware sales in addition to software and sub revenue...you are suggesting it's a given that PS5 will be the primary console amongst these folks with a Series S and GP being a secondary purchase, and I do believe you have that backwards.

If taken at face value of your wording, the "casuals" make up the lion's share of Sony's userbase....which seems a lot more problematic for Sony than you are suggesting.


Yes I agree but you know some people will absolutely refuse to try Xbox and some rather stay on their same ecosystem.

There's really no sure prediction. Between now and the deal closing something else can happen as well. Only thing that im sure of is plus subs will be the ones to take a hit if they don't offer any first party mp games.
 
Yes I agree but you know some people will absolutely refuse to try Xbox and some rather stay on their same ecosystem.

There's really no sure prediction. Between now and the deal closing something else can happen as well. Only thing that im sure of is plus subs will be the ones to take a hit if they don't offer any first party mp games.

The amount of people in that category are likely far smaller than you're thinking. Most people are allegiant to the games first, and will switch from Xbox to Playstation or vice versa in the blink of an eye if a game they want is exclusive. Even some of the people that are full on "Team Blue" or "Team Green" probably aren't actually that allegiant to the companies and are just defending their purchase.

Xbox shouldn't choose to release on PS5 or not based on these people, it's a rather insignificant amount of people that will never switch anyways, and I'd imagine most of those people aren't the ones buying COD every year anyways. Even if revenue would be slightly lower by making it exclusive (I don't think it would), the potential future gains would be much larger than continuing to release on Playstation
 

Warablo

Member
I am not. These are the difficult problems that Microsoft will need to find a solution for.
There are no problems. When you buy a house, you don't lose all that money. You trade that money for the house. Its a asset/investment. There isn't some rush to make the money back as quick as possible. Microsoft was actually losing money by letting that money sit in the bank untouched.

People bought a Xbox for Halo, now people will buy a Xbox for CoD.
 
Last edited:

coffinbirth

Member
Yes I agree but you know some people will absolutely refuse to try Xbox and some rather stay on their same ecosystem.

There's really no sure prediction. Between now and the deal closing something else can happen as well. Only thing that im sure of is plus subs will be the ones to take a hit if they don't offer any first party mp games.
Absolutely.
Though I do believe that Sony need to do a hell of a lot more than getting MP games into their stable of 1st party titles, and given their track record on this front it might even have the opposite effect. They are notorious for having bad MP experiences and prematurely pulling the cord on their servers.
Maybe I'm having a mental block here, but the last Sony 1st party MP game(or MP component) I remember enjoying was the MotorStorm franchise, waaaaay back on PS3. Wipeout Omega Collection is awesome, but I never played MP. Both of which are pretty niche titles that Sony shuttered the studios that developed them.
 
Last edited:

Tschumi

Member
Because I recall you were thinking about selling it, but now if you plan on playing COD or Starfield or any of the other games that will now be exclusively on Xbox, you're gonna want that Series S.
I appreciate your thoughtfulness mate :)

It's gone now, but i just bought a new computer, so I'm set, thanks :)
 
Last edited:

Amiga

Member
They need both IP and more developers. I agree on them on being coasting mode for the last couple of years. They thought that they was going to blow xbox out the water by releasing a ton of first party games at the start of the gen but covid and chip shortages messed them up and gave xbox some breathing room to act.
New IP yes for sure. I meant they don't need to buy publishers for their established IP.
 

ChiefDada

Gold Member
Your asking what will happen it the future (along with receipts!) mate nobody can be 100% certain. its called speculation, not optimism. Personally I couldn't give a fuck if COD goes exclusive. Just speculating on what i think is the most likely outcome. some of us have said what we think will happen based on past dealings and common sense, other seem to be hoping that doesn't happen based on prayers at this point. You nor anybody else has not offered anything compelling enough to make me think other wise.

MS want you in their eco system, period. For the 100th time releasing your biggest IP on PlayStation does not achieve that. See starfield and ESVI.

Pretty sure the bean counters at MS have gamed the numbers. They didn't wake up on Tuesday and go fuck it! lets buy Activision.
Noooo I only disagree with the bolded and still think those who believe this haven't provided adequate support. Not asking to predict the future, just show real world examples of why this would make sense. But hey, we will find out soon enough. This is all exciting.
There are no problems. When you buy a house, you don't lose all that money. You trade that money for the house. Its a asset/investment. There isn't some rush to make the money back as quick as possible. Microsoft was actually losing money by letting that money sit in the bank untouched.

People bought a Xbox for Halo, now people will buy a Xbox for CoD.
I have stated elsewhere why this house analogy is terrible. You don't appear to fully understand the financial concepts you're referencing here in terms of how it applies to Microsoft and how it doesn't.
 

Concern

Member
Absolutely.
Though I do believe that Sony need to do a hell of a lot more than getting MP games into their stable of 1st party titles, and given their track record on this front it might even have the opposite effect. They are notorious for having bad MP experiences and prematurely pulling the cord on their servers.
Maybe I'm having a mental block here, but the last Sony 1st party MP game(or MP component) I remember enjoying was the MotorStorm franchise, waaaaay back on PS3. Wipeout Omega Collection is awesome, but I never played MP. Both of which are pretty niche titles that Sony shuttered the studios that developed them.


They definitely can't just coast like last gen. They're going to have to take some risks. Revive old ips, and overhaul Ps Now for example.

Honestly I enjoyed ShadowFall. It wasn't as good as kz 3 but I had fun with it. Socom needs to come back and Factions 2 hopefully is out this year.
 

Amiga

Member
What would you consider a risk?

Investing heavy on MP again. Starhawk, MAG, SOCOM, Killzone, Resistance, Twisted Metal. Sony tried these out on the PS3. but the MP community was small outside of CoD. XB360 had over 2x the install base in the USA in a time where everything MP lived or died in the NA market. After a half-@$$ed KZ:SF console demo game Sony practically gave up on MP shooters.
Sony should have evolved Japan studio instead of downsizing it to just the Astro team. They had teams that did good games with potential and just needed a bit more investment to go to the next level.
 
Noooo I only disagree with the bolded and still think those who believe this haven't provided adequate support. Not asking to predict the future, just show real world examples of why this would make sense. But hey, we will find out soon enough. This is all exciting.

I have stated elsewhere why this house analogy is terrible. You don't appear to fully understand the financial concepts you're referencing here in terms of how it applies to Microsoft and how it doesn't.


Regardless of whatever analogy you think is appropriate or inappropriate for this situation, Microsoft turned 70 billion in cash into an asset. That 70 billion was just sitting in the bank collecting interest. As long as Activision gives a higher return than the amount that money would've gained in interest then Microsoft is happy with this acquisition. They didn't lose anything and there's nothing they need to recoup. Activision-Blizzard is still worth roughly 70 billion in Microsoft's eyes. And considering this is roughly 2.5x as big as Microsoft's 2nd biggest acquisition ever, it's safe to say there's not even really an opportunity cost there, as Microsoft will still have more than enough cash on hand to make any other acquisition it was thinking of.

I literally do not care in the slightest if COD is exclusive, I rarely play it and I buy 3rd party games on Xbox anyways, so this acquisition doesn't affect me other than making Game Pass better. However, I fail to see any logic that would lead Microsoft to keep making COD on Playstation, the majority of COD players aren't Sony loyalists, they'll swap to wherever they can play COD. And they only need a relatively small percentage of people to swap in order for revenues to be comparable or better. I understand Neogaf and other video game forums are havens for the "hardcore" gamers who look down on COD or Fortnite or sports games, but by making COD exclusive Microsoft will basically win the fight for "casual" gamers, unless Sony buys GTA or FIFA, which both seem unlikely.

Also the existence of the Xbox Series S will also make it even more worth it to go exclusive. Even the people who play most of their games on Playstation can still pick up an XSS for cheap in order to play COD and other Xbox games on Game Pass while still playing their 3rd party games on PS5. That and the ability to stream games, or play them on PC, makes it way easier to just make it exclusive


I've given you numbers that show that Xbox doesn't need the majority of Playstation COD players to switch, and there aren't really real world examples because the concept of exclusives as they exist in the video game space, don't really exist in other markets. If you disagree with any of my assumptions or statements feel free to explain why with your reasons
 
I agree with the OP. Making big acquisitions right now for Sony would be desperate and Sony at this moment aren’t desperate they are still the market leader in home consoles.

They need to just continue growing how they’ve been and putting out good quality games, single player and multiplayer
 
If Sony acquired Konami, or its treasure IPs, they would have to make the games themselves. Konami doesn't have any studios. Which means, they would be outsourced to Sony's american studios, and probably lose their soul along the way.
 
Regardless of whatever analogy you think is appropriate or inappropriate for this situation, Microsoft turned 70 billion in cash into an asset. That 70 billion was just sitting in the bank collecting interest. As long as Activision gives a higher return than the amount that money would've gained in interest then Microsoft is happy with this acquisition. They didn't lose anything and there's nothing they need to recoup. Activision-Blizzard is still worth roughly 70 billion in Microsoft's eyes. And considering this is roughly 2.5x as big as Microsoft's 2nd biggest acquisition ever, it's safe to say there's not even really an opportunity cost there, as Microsoft will still have more than enough cash on hand to make any other acquisition it was thinking of.

I literally do not care in the slightest if COD is exclusive, I rarely play it and I buy 3rd party games on Xbox anyways, so this acquisition doesn't affect me other than making Game Pass better. However, I fail to see any logic that would lead Microsoft to keep making COD on Playstation, the majority of COD players aren't Sony loyalists, they'll swap to wherever they can play COD. And they only need a relatively small percentage of people to swap in order for revenues to be comparable or better. I understand Neogaf and other video game forums are havens for the "hardcore" gamers who look down on COD or Fortnite or sports games, but by making COD exclusive Microsoft will basically win the fight for "casual" gamers, unless Sony buys GTA or FIFA, which both seem unlikely.

Also the existence of the Xbox Series S will also make it even more worth it to go exclusive. Even the people who play most of their games on Playstation can still pick up an XSS for cheap in order to play COD and other Xbox games on Game Pass while still playing their 3rd party games on PS5. That and the ability to stream games, or play them on PC, makes it way easier to just make it exclusive


I've given you numbers that show that Xbox doesn't need the majority of Playstation COD players to switch, and there aren't really real world examples because the concept of exclusives as they exist in the video game space, don't really exist in other markets. If you disagree with any of my assumptions or statements feel free to explain why with your reasons

It shouldn't be forgotten that corporate tax reduction strategies further enable such acquisitions and bottom line.
 

ChiefDada

Gold Member
Regardless of whatever analogy you think is appropriate or inappropriate for this situation, Microsoft turned 70 billion in cash into an asset. That 70 billion was just sitting in the bank collecting interest. As long as Activision gives a higher return than the amount that money would've gained in interest then Microsoft is happy with this acquisition. They didn't lose anything and there's nothing they need to recoup. Activision-Blizzard is still worth roughly 70 billion in Microsoft's eyes. And considering this is roughly 2.5x as big as Microsoft's 2nd biggest acquisition ever, it's safe to say there's not even really an opportunity cost there, as Microsoft will still have more than enough cash on hand to make any other acquisition it was thinking of.

Not to pick on you SteelCurtain 59 SteelCurtain 59 , but your paragraph above perfectly illustrates how financial topics in this thread are both misunderstood and erroneously applied.

You said they turned $70b into an asset, but then follow up with: "They didn't lose anything and there's nothing they need to recoup. Activision-Blizzard is still worth roughly 70 billion in Microsoft's eyes". In finance, value/worth is measured in currency. So since Microsoft spends $70b, they are in the red until profits are generated. This is a basic concept. You also say "there's nothing they need to recoup". Every financial investment is made with the intention to recoup/break-even and then make a profit either through income or subsequent sale. Again this is another basic concept that, without full grasp and understanding, makes it tough for discussions to progress in a substantive way.
,
Next, you say "As long as Activision gives a higher return than the amount that money would've gained in interest then Microsoft is happy with this acquisition". This isn't true. Microsoft could have also invested the money in one of their already existing internal studios, or they could have invested into one of their other business units outside of gaming, or they could invest in an index fund, etc. The opportunity cost is nowhere near limited to what they could earn from their bank account.

Finally, you say because this is Microsoft's 2nd largest acquisition, there is no opportunity cost. Again, this is wrong; as you pointed out, Microsoft was earning interest on that $70b that they use to purchase Activision. The interest that they could have continued to earn is literally the textbook definition of an opportunity cost.


All of the above is why we never get anywhere when discussing this topic. To be clear, I'm not denying the possibility that financial benefits exist for Microsoft in a scenario where CoD becomes exclusive, just that no one here has properly supported this position with a sound understanding and correct application of financial concepts.
 

aclar00

Member
Hence why Microsoft is not organically growing anything. It would take too long.

The problem remains gamepass. Suddenly I’m 12 again renting games with no late fees. I have no interest to pay $70 for a game anymore. Now that the -one- game I make that exception for will end up on gamepass….there is no reason for me to drop $70 again.

Majority of the reason Sony’s PlayStations sell are because of COD marketing and having “best versions” of COD on their console. That’s changing, even if the unlikely occurs and COD still releases on PS platforms. Even then MS gets 70% of every game and mtx sold on COD. Sony is also losing out on COD bundles.

Thats definitely the reason MSFT is buying up publishers. They need the content to make Gamespass viable. Without enough content, old and new, then it would be dofficult to market the service as a good value and would be less competitive once the inevitably services from other publishers came.

Netflix had the time and ultimately the money to organically grow because they were the only players in town for a while, but they also saw the riding on the wall amd how beholding to the movie production companies...which is why they started their own amd began making/purchasing originals.

It will take more than buying publishers and studios to make Gamepass a longterm viable gaming option, but its a start in the right direction. Their ultimate goal is to get all the suckers who rarely play games to sunscribe and who are too lazy (because its relatively inexpensive) to care to cancel the subscription
 
Top Bottom