Support NeoGAF

[mckmas8808]

It's interesting to see so much back and forth about Microsoft's smaller install base and this being the reason for their inability to equally negotiate for third-party exclusives versus Sony.

While there is some logic to this, that Sony is in a better negotiating position for these types of deals, everyone keeps making it seem like it's shady business practices by Sony that are the cause. But the real cause is Microsoft's decision to focus their strategy on game pass which has clearly led to a decrease in their market share and more importantly significant decreases in traditional software sales on their platform.

They chose to go that route and publishers and developers are just aligning themselves with the business model that best suits them. It's not merely a matter of traditional market share anymore. And Microsoft's only way out is to buy up everything, because who the hell else is going to make expensive software and put it on a loss leading platform except for heavily monetized GAAS games, Indies trying to get eyes on their software, and those Microsoft is willing to throw big dollars at while they try and artificially grow their platform.

It's a war of business models not simply install base and to argue otherwise is disingenuous. The exclusives are going where the money is because game pass IS 'value destructive' and anyone with opposable thumbs can see that it's an unsustainable business model for almost everyone in the industry except Microsoft.

The bolded is the underlining truth that this FTC vs. MS case has shown us. Anybody not talking about it or saying it's wrong are straight lying to themselves and others. kungfuian is 100% right on this point.

Don't think you read my whole post.

I'm well aware of the realities of their market share. What I said is that Sony using their market share to get deals that Microsoft can't afford to is also anti-competitive. It's a barrier to competition. Just as much as Microsoft (parent) swopping in and making a purchase that Sony can't compete with.

It's pretty complicated actually.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-8#:~:text=Exclusive dealing describes an arrangement,of its requirements from it.&text=Exclusive dealing is common and can take many forms.

You're supposing that MS "aren't" buying exclusives at the moment. They are! They 100% still are buying exclusive rights to 3rd party games. It just so happens that Sony is picking the better games this time around. So, yes MS can compete on some 3rd party exclusives. The question you need to ask yourself is, will Microsoft allow that exclusive that they bought to NOT be a day one GamePass game?

 

[THE DUCK]

So you want to penalize Sony for being good at their jobs? Because you can only say Sony is dominating if you exclude Nintendo from the picture. And I'm not sure you're doing that. Or do you want MS to be allowed to get an unfair upper hand, since they've underperformed over the last 10 years? And underperformed is relative because their revenue amount is more than Nintendo.

If I'm the judge I give the injunction since it doesn't kill the deal. Not directly at least. It just stops MS from finishing the deal before the CAT\CMA appeal. And MS closing the deal illegally before the CMA deal will only be a bad thing for all parties. How do people honestly think this will look to the government of the UK? Do you all honestly believe they can allow a foreign country to ignore their laws and just walk all over them with little to no penalty? The regulation body in the UK will cease to exist if they allow MS to do this at this point.

I think you kind of glossed over the point I was making (and the judge). It's not about sony, it's about consumers. Can you honestly say you know that a free market (vs government controlled) will yield the result you want as a consumer? It's highly variable.

 

[mckmas8808]

I think you kind of glossed over the point I was making (and the judge). It's not about sony, it's about consumers. Can you honestly say you know that a free market (vs government controlled) will yield the result you want as a consumer? It's highly variable.

Yes, because if MS doesn't get to buy ABK, the video game's market will continue on like he has for the last 35 years of success. What MS is trying to do here is different from anything that's ever been done in video games history.

 

[THE DUCK]

Yes, because if MS doesn't get to buy ABK, the video game's market will continue on like he has for the last 35 years of success. What MS is trying to do here is different from anything that's ever been done in video games history.

It is the largest, but hardly the first acquisition by any of the big 3. So answer this then, is it OK to buy 20 smaller companies over 10 years or should the ftc block those too? And at what point do they step in? Company 1 or company 19?

 

[FrankWza]

While there is some logic to this, that Sony is in a better negotiating position for these types of deals, everyone keeps making it seem like it's shady business practices by Sony that are the cause. But the real cause is Microsoft's decision to focus their strategy on game pass which has clearly led to a decrease in their market share and more importantly significant decreases in traditional software sales on their platform.

They also came in underpowered to start last gen. Keeping momentum is important and they didn't after 360.

It's a war of business models not simply install base and to argue otherwise is disingenuous. The exclusives are going where the money is because game pass IS 'value destructive' and anyone with opposable thumbs can see that it's an unsustainable business model for almost everyone in the industry except Microsoft.

1000% The only way to to remedy is to own everything or a strategically important majority where you funnel users into GP.
It's very obvious as you say.

I think you kind of glossed over the point I was making (and the judge). It's not about sony, it's about consumers. Can you honestly say you know that a free market (vs government controlled) will yield the result you want as a consumer? It's highly variable.

If you(consumer)feel cheated or unhappy with the product you're getting for your money you chose wrong. There are hundreds of millions that choose generation after generation, and continue to. We know this because they have a choice. When you cease allowing that choice is when things get skewed because you are forcing that in perpetuity by owning 3rd party you were always going to have anyway and removing it from the competition.

 

[mckmas8808]

It is the largest, but hardly the first acquisition by any of the big 3. So answer this then, is it OK to buy 20 smaller companies over 10 years or should the ftc block those too? And at what point do they step in? Company 1 or company 19?

Personally, I'd say Company 1. Company 19 could be better for the industry if all those 19 companies are looking for suitors to purchase them. Just like how MS bought DoubleFine. If MS bought 18 other DoubleFine companies, I don't think many people here would be mad at that.

 

[THE DUCK]

They also came in underpowered to start last gen. Keeping momentum is important and they didn't after 360.

1000% The only way to to remedy is to own everything or a strategically important majority where you funnel users into GP.
It's very obvious as you say.

If you(consumer)feel cheated or unhappy with the product you're getting for your money you chose wrong. There are hundreds of millions that choose generation after generation, and continue to. We know this because they have a choice. When you cease allowing that choice is when things get skewed because you are forcing that in perpetuity by owning 3rd party you were always going to have anyway and removing it from the competition.

I get the point of that arguement, but if you are going to apply it, it shouldn't just be for the Activision purchase. Zenimax and Bungie should have been blocked as well.

 

[THE DUCK]

Personally, I'd say Company 1. Company 19 could be better for the industry if all those 19 companies are looking for suitors to purchase them. Just like how MS bought DoubleFine. If MS bought 18 other DoubleFine companies, I don't think many people here would be mad at that.

Your running on the assumption that the regulating agency actually knows what's best, which is questionable at best.
If ms bought 18 double fines, how does that not "weaken" choice for consumers just like Activision?

Again I don't know for sure what the best answer is but the idea that it's clear cut doesn't seem accurate.

If a line is drawn in the sand that big gaming companies shouldn't be allowed to expand via acquisition, it should be for all sizes and all companies.

 

[FrankWza]

I get the point of that arguement, but if you are going to apply it, it shouldn't just be for the Activision purchase. Zenimax and Bungie should have been blocked as well.

Bungie is releasing games on all consoles. I believe that was in their deal when they were acquired. We've already seen behind the curtain where Zeni was supposed to, or was presented as such under a "game by game basis" but they already started to make games exclusives and will continue to do so. So, in both cases, a precedent was set. If it continues with Activision then when does it end?

 

[THE DUCK]

Bungie is releasing games on all consoles. I believe that was in their deal when they were acquired. We've already seen behind the curtain where Zeni was supposed to, or was presented as such under a "game by game basis" but they already started to make games exclusives and will continue to do so. So, in both cases, a precedent was set. If it continues with Activision then when does it end?

It's a tricky proposition, any company can say and even mean they will stay multiplatform and actually change thier minds latr for business reasons, legitimate or otherwise.

I mean look at Mojang, all these years later and it's still multiplatform, what if ms is being truthful this time? Would it be ok then?
How would we know......

Or conversely, ms could buy Activision with intent to go exclusive but suddenly reverse course and not launch a console next gen.
Maybe just a pc box similar to the ally.
And just basically be a full on software company.

 

[supernova8]

What's the current situation? Has anything actually happened yet or have we just been bickering for the last 20-30 pages?

 

[mckmas8808]

Your running on the assumption that the regulating agency actually knows what's best, which is questionable at best.
If ms bought 18 double fines, how does that not "weaken" choice for consumers just like Activision?

Again I don't know for sure what the best answer is but the idea that it's clear cut doesn't seem accurate.

If a line is drawn in the sand that big gaming companies shouldn't be allowed to expand via acquisition, it should be for all sizes and all companies.

I don't think you are discussing this in good faith. There's clearly a difference between MS buying Ninja Theory for $117 million and them buying Activision\Blizzard\KING for $69 Billion! Denying that means you maybe just lying to us or yourself.

 

[Yoboman]

Yes, everything that is exclusive. The "obvious reasons" narrative is what I am talking about, people simple accepted that narrative, which then gets applied to larger franchises such as FF and SFV and everyone acts like it isn't a huge problem and instead act like it is acceptable for "obvious reasons".

PS closed as many studio and still had twice as many studio before Xbox started to go on a buying spree in 2018 and still had less studios until the Zenimax/Bethesda acquisitions to over take them based on how your counting dev studios and are now try to overtaken then properly with the ABK acquisition, but still won't have more than twice as many studios as PS had one point in the early 2010's.

And again at no point am I blaming Sony. In my original post I simply said that MS for the first time is investing heavily into acquiring studios/publisher to bolster they offerings, because thus far they have always been behind Sony when it comes to developers.

Sony moved their "2nd party" devs like Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Bend and Sucker Punch to being Sony owned. Microsoft did not do this with their 2nd party teams

Instead they threw it all out and chased the Kinect bandwagon and doubled down on just pumping out Halo, Gears and Forza

MS are buying publishers now because they threw away what was a very solid first party lineup in 360 days away

 

[Jigsaah]

Sony moved their "2nd party" devs like Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Bend and Sucker Punch to being Sony owned. Microsoft did not do this with their 2nd party teams

Instead they threw it all out and chased the Kinect bandwagon and doubled down on just pumping out Halo, Gears and Forza

MS are buying publishers now because they threw away what was a very solid first party lineup in 360 days away

That's not exactly true. Playground games and Undead Labs are both 2nd party studios, for example.

It is true that a great many of the acquisitions are 3rd party, but to say "Microsoft did not do this with their 2nd party teams" Is demonstrably false.

 

[Yoboman]

That's not exactly true. Playground games and Undead Labs are both 2nd party studios, for example.

It is true that a great many of the acquisitions are 3rd party, but to say "Microsoft did not do this with their 2nd party teams" Is demonstrably false.

Both came in after the period I am talking about

 

[Jigsaah]

Both came in after the period I am talking about

Why does that matter?

 

[Nydius]

What's the current situation? Has anything actually happened yet or have we just been bickering for the last 20-30 pages?

Just bickering. I recently read (IGN, I think) that there's one more filing deadline for late supplemental paperwork that expires noon eastern time tomorrow, Monday, July 3. So Judge Corley won't really be able to begin writing her opinion until after that. Tuesday is a holiday. Wednesday is earliest there could be an outcome but, realistically, I wouldn't expect it until late Thursday or Friday.

Edit: Found the reference. It was IGN:

 

[THE DUCK]

I don't think you are discussing this in good faith. There's clearly a difference between MS buying Ninja Theory for $117 million and them buying Activision\Blizzard\KING for $69 Billion! Denying that means you maybe just lying to us or yourself.

Of course, but your also completely ignoring that almost half of Activision profit came from mobile, which really has nothing to do with the console race. And I'm not talking about ninja theory, hardly anyone even blinked an eye about zenimax. Do that a few times and your at the same place.

There's plenty of good faith, at this point I just want the gorillas to be the same size.
Right now, Nintendo ran away, Sony is the biggest gorilla, and ms is the smallest.
Having ms buy Activision evens it out.

I'd settle for Nintendo to re-enter the traditional console race, that might help too.

 

[mckmas8808]

Of course, but your also completely ignoring that almost half of Activision profit came from mobile, which really has nothing to do with the console race. And I'm not talking about ninja theory, hardly anyone even blinked an eye about zenimax. Do that a few times and your at the same place.

There's plenty of good faith, at this point I just want the gorillas to be the same size.
Right now, Nintendo ran away, Sony is the biggest gorilla, and ms is the smallest.
Having ms buy Activision evens it out.

I'd settle for Nintendo to re-enter the traditional console race, that might help too.

You don't think it would have been better for MS is actually "WORK" for their right to even it out? What lessons do you think they are learning if all they need to do is buy their way to the top?

 

[adamsapple]

You don't think it would have been better for MS is actually "WORK" for their right to even it out? What lessons do you think they are learning if all they need to do is buy their way to the top?

Wouldn't you say acquiring talent and IP *is* working to get even?

 

[Yoboman]

Why does that matter?

Because the argument being made was that Microsoft has had to buy publishers because Sony has always had a bigger first party stable

Which is strictly untrue, Xbox threw out what was great about the Xbox first party at the end of the 360 gen and have essentially started from scratch. Mismanagement plain and simple

 

[Fabieter]

Ok, thanks for the valuable input. Have a nice day.

Dude not a single thing you said was "valuable input". The vicitim complex xbox and most of their fans has is unmatched and even a little bit disturbing. Regulars have so many reasons to dismantle the whole company in 10 smaller companies to make different markets more bearable. There is no reason for these executives or "paid fans" to cry about anything really. Have a nice day.

 

[mckmas8808]

Wouldn't you say acquiring talent and IP *is* working to get even?

No, not like this. If it was just talent, yes. But this is bigger than that. These are wholesale publisher purchases with dozens of development teams a piece. MS are buying 15 dev teams (9,500 employees) with the ABK deal. And the Bethesda\Zenimax deal they bought them 8 dev teams (2500 employees).

So that's a purchase total of 23 dev teams and 12,000 employees in 2 deals spanning 3 years!!! That's not work.

 

[Fabieter]

No, not like this. If it was just talent, yes. But this is bigger than that. These are wholesale publisher purchases with dozens of development teams a piece. MS are buying 15 dev teams (9,500 employees) with the ABK deal. And the Bethesda\Zenimax deal they bought them 8 dev teams (2500 employees).

So that's a purchase total of 23 dev teams and 12,000 employees in 2 deals spanning 3 years!!! That's not work.

Yea imagine they could build up indie studios and make like 300 horizons and last of us(210m$ budget) with the investment of avb and Bethesda. Maybe its a little bit taking games off other platforms as well to make this investment worthwhile.

 

[THE DUCK]

You don't think it would have been better for MS is actually "WORK" for their right to even it out? What lessons do you think they are learning if all they need to do is buy their way to the top?

Completely seperate arguement, ethics/responsibility vs acquisitions strategy.
Some would argue acquisitions as a strategy is safer and more responsible for shareholders than organicly grown success with inherent risk factors.

They did "work" for the cash to be available to buy said companies.

 

[mckmas8808]

Completely seperate arguement, ethics/responsibility vs acquisitions strategy.
Some would argue acquisitions as a strategy is safer and more responsible for shareholders than organicly grown success with inherent risk factors.

They did "work" for the cash to be available to buy said companies.

The bolded is my problem and most people here.

 

[Fabieter]

Completely seperate arguement, ethics/responsibility vs acquisitions strategy.
Some would argue acquisitions as a strategy is safer and more responsible for shareholders than organicly grown success with inherent risk factors.

They did "work" for the cash to be available to buy said companies.

Loss leading strategy with money from more successful divisions is illegal so depending on the case it doesn't matter if they "worked" for it.

 

[mrmustard]

You're supposing that MS "aren't" buying exclusives at the moment. They are! They 100% still are buying exclusive rights to 3rd party games. It just so happens that Sony is picking the better games this time around.

He never said Microsoft can't get deals at all, he said Sony can easily get deals Microsoft couldn't afford. Microsoft can get deals for smaller games Sony is not interested in. Microsoft can get deals for smaller games where both are interested in. But they can't get deals for big games without throwing away tons of money while Sony still can make money out of it. And they especially can't get deals for big games if both are interested in without throwing away even more tons of money.

 

[Fabieter]

He never said Microsoft can't get deals at all, he said Sony can easily get deals Microsoft couldn't afford. Microsoft can get deals for smaller games Sony is not interested in. Microsoft can get deals for smaller games where both are interested in. But they can't get deals for big games without throwing away tons of money while Sony still can make money out of it. And they especially can't get deals for big games if both are interested in without throwing away even more tons of money.

Ms is buying a publisher for 69b. What was your argument? Ms dont want to build themselves and they aint interested in some big games, they are interested to take all big game at once.

 

[mrmustard]

Ms is buying a publisher for 69b. What was your argument? Ms dont want to build themselves and they aint interested in some big games, they are interested to take all big game at once.

The theme was exclusive deals, not aquisitions.

 

[mckmas8808]

He never said Microsoft can't get deals at all, he said Sony can easily get deals Microsoft couldn't afford. Microsoft can get deals for smaller games Sony is not interested in. Microsoft can get deals for smaller games where both are interested in. But they can't get deals for big games without throwing away tons of money while Sony still can make money out of it. And they especially can't get deals for big games if both are interested in without throwing away even more tons of money.

But isn't that Microsoft's fault for not being a better platform compared to Sony? Installed base actually means something in the real world, whereas MS constantly says console sales don't really matter. Yet this is proof that console sales do matter.

 

[Jigsaah]

Because the argument being made was that Microsoft has had to buy publishers because Sony has always had a bigger first party stable

Which is strictly untrue, Xbox threw out what was great about the Xbox first party at the end of the 360 gen and have essentially started from scratch. Mismanagement plain and simple

I think the more accurate thing to say is that Microsofty studios because they didn't have a 7 year head start. If they were going to compete they needed to grow and fast. Given that prior to 2001 they were really only on PC, they had to get content to start off with the OG Xbox. From there they needed to fill out their portfolio. It's more about the need for content on their console in the early stages of OG Xbox to 360.

You can't really fault them for that. Sony already had games like Tekken, Metal Gear Solid, Wipeout, Gran Turismo, Killzone. Resistance, etc. It would have taken Xbox too long to develop teams in house to be able to realistically compete with Sony at that time.

Xbox One was where things just fell apart as we all know. Phil came in, they needed to rebuild. They developed a few studios in house, but I'd imagine finding the right folks to start up a studio in the Xbox One era would have been really risky after that debacle. They also were woefully underfunded at the time. So there wasn't a whole lot they could do. Phil was the Xbox Studios head, where Matt Booty is now. However, once he became head of Xbox and got Satya's blessing to actually have a real budget...they needed to go ahead and spend money. I don't think anybody expect the amount that they have been, but the principle is the same.

 

[Fabieter]

The theme was exclusive deals, not aquisitions.

They could buy hundreds of exclusive deals with that kinda money. Your point is false.

 

[mrmustard]

But isn't that Microsoft's fault for not being a better platform compared to Sony? Installed base actually means something in the real world, whereas MS constantly says console sales don't really matter. Yet this is proof that console sales do matter.

Of course it's Microsoft's "fault", because their new stragety automatically gets them lower console sales. But they have to move on somehow and everybody uses what they got and what makes sense econimic-wise. Sony can let Microsoft bleed out with deal after deal and Microsoft could afford the biggest acquisitions. Both strategies are unfair, but let's be real here. It would be the same if the situation was the other way around. Big companies don't fuck around, they low blow if they get the chance.

They could buy hundreds of exclusive deals with that kinda money. Your point is false.

Microsoft could also affort to buy 10.000 elephants and paint them green. Does that make sense econimoc-wise? No. You invest money to get a return, you don't throw it away.

 

[Fabieter]

Of course it's Microsoft's "fault", because their new stragety automatically gets them lower console sales. But they have to move on somehow and everybody uses what they got and what makes sense econimic-wise. Sony can let Microsoft bleed out with deal after deal and Microsoft could afford the biggest acquisitions. Both strategies are unfair, but let's be real here. It would be the same if the situation was the other way around. Big companies don't fuck around, they low blow if they get the chance.


Microsoft could also affort to buy 10.000 elephants and paint them green. Does that make sense econimoc-wise? No. You invest money to get a return, you don't throw it away.

Alrighty. Some people are really weird to excuse consolidation like that. Your comparisons are as muddy as it gets, but as long as it gets you more game on gamepass it's worthwhile, aint it?

 

[mrmustard]

Alrighty. Some people are really weird to excuse consolidation like that. Your comparisons are as muddy as it gets, but as long as it gets you more game on gamepass it's worthwhile, aint it?

Yes, because i'm a greedy and egoistic cunt. Sony acts like every other big company would act in that situation and Microsoft does the same. That's the game.

 

[THE DUCK]

Loss leading strategy with money from more successful divisions is illegal so depending on the case it doesn't matter if they "worked" for it.

Loss leading strategy? Buying a profitable company?

 

[Fabieter]

Yes, because i'm a greedy and egoistic cunt. Sony acts like every other big company would act in that situation and Microsoft does the same. That's the game.

Yes and it's the government job to say when it's enough.

Guess what most of the netflix content is also not actually produced by them they bought exclusive rights for the shows. But any other streaming service can go to those studios and order some shows for themselves. If you dont see the difference between buying multiple big publishers and buying like one big game a year...

 

[Fabieter]

Loss leading strategy? Buying a profitable company?

If cod gets exclusive, on gamepass and some studios freed from cod like fans wish than the profit this company has will go rapidly down.

But actually I meant gamepass with the loss leading strat.

 

[mrmustard]

Yes and it's the government job to say when it's enough.

Guess what most of the netflix content is also not actually produced by them they bought exclusive rights for the shows. But any other streaming service can go to those studios and order some shows for themselves. If you dont see the difference between buying multiple big publishers and buying like one big game a year...

And like Sony Netflix with their very big install base can afford to pay more than streaming services with a much smaller install base.
I see the difference, i'm just saying that's what Sony and every other company would also do in that position. Business it not always fair.

 

[Fabieter]

And and as Sony Netflix can afford to pay more than smaller streaming services, because they got a very big install base.
I see the difference, i'm just saying that's what Sony and every other company would also do in that position. Business it not always fair.

Iam not sure they would. They had almost 30% in shares for sqaure enix some years ago and didn't buy the company. They sold the shares. They preferred a good relationship to a hostile takeover because sqaure didn't want to sell.

But if sony ever tries to get one of the biggest pubs like t2, you will hear the same from me #fuck consolidation.

Iam a tax consultant so I know well what shit companies do and what they don't do but as a consumer iam against this consolidation.

 

[mrmustard]

Iam not sure they would. They had almost 30% in shares for sqaure enix some years ago and didn't buy the company. They sold the shares. They preferred a good relationship to a hostile takeover because sqaure didn't want to sell.

But if sony ever tries to get one of the biggest pubs like t2, you will hear the same from me #fuck consolidation.

Iam a tax consultant so I know well what shit companies do and what they don't do but as a consumer iam against this consolidation.

They would. Big companies are not you friend, big companies are not nice, big companies are not fair. Everything they do is out of calculation.

If Microsoft gets AB i'm 100% sure Sony will go on a shopping spree and that's perfectly fine, because Microsoft and other companies would do the same thing in their position.

If you ask me, i would prefer a gaming world with "no marketing deals, no 3rd party timed or full exlusives, no extra maps, skins, early access or whatever for a certain platform, no acquisitions, no exclusive games of popular movie or book franchises, no crossplay blocking". But it is what it is.

 

[Fabieter]

They would. Big companies are not you friend, big companies are not nice, big companies are not fair. Everything they do is out of calculation.

If Microsoft gets AB i'm 100% sure Sony will go on a shopping spree and that's perfectly fine, because Microsoft and other companies would do the same thing in their position.

If you ask me, i would prefer a gaming world with "no marketing deals, no 3rd party timed or full exlusives, no extra maps, skins, early access or whatever for a certain platform, no acquisitions, no exclusive games of popular movie or book franchises, no crossplay blocking". But it is what it is.

So for sony to do the same, avb needs to be complete? Why?

The last sentence is the reason consumers get screwed more often than not.

And no exclusive per se ain't bad. It's like saying tesla has to share all the tech they made that's dumb, but buying up a huge part of a industry should always be heavily regulated.

 

[mrmustard]

So for sony to do the same, avb needs to be complete? Why?

The last sentence is the reason consumers get screwed more often than not.

And no exclusive per se ain't bad. It's like saying tesla has to share all the tech they made that's dumb, but buying up a huge part of a industry should always be heavily regulated.

They don't have to right now, they are already dominating.

Don't get that.

I didn't say no exclusives at all, i just said don't buy them.

 

[Fabieter]

They don't have to right now, they are already dominating.

Don't get that.

I didn't say no exclusives at all, i just said don't buy them.

Sony dont have to no but imho ms dont have to either.

Consumers always get screwed over by big companies and topeak up and push against their shit its "it is what it is" "well you can't do anything about it" that mindsets will always get you screwed.

So at what point its too much?

 

[mrmustard]

Sony dont have to no but imho ms dont have to either.

Consumers always get screwed over by big companies and topeak up and push against their shit its "it is what it is" "well you can't do anything about it" that mindsets will always get you screwed.

So at what point its too much?

Guess we all could stop gaming to change something, but that's not gonna happen. Therefore "it is what it is". Like it or not.

 

[Fabieter]

Guess we all could stop gaming to change something, but that's not gonna happen. Therefore "it is what it is". Like it or not.

No you are objectevly wrong. So it is what it is I guess.

 

[mrmustard]

No you are objectevly wrong. So it is what it is I guess.

Ok.

 

[Corndog]

100%



In theory no, not at all. When Microsoft got into gaming, I thought it was the best thing to happen to the industry. But the Microsoft we know today, the one that would rather destroy Playstation because they have better studio management and deliver better games... That Microsoft, needs to get the fuck up out of the industry.

They don't want to compete. Their stated goal is to purchase everything just to get a PR win. XBOX as it stands isn't sustainable as a business. They've been losing billions year in year out. And what makes the situation even worse is during that time... Their audience has become so adverse to admitting that XB is in truly fucked up state... That the leadership team poke fun at their own audience and refer to XB fans as "Evangelists."

Truly sad state of affairs.

Show on their financials where it shows Xbox losing billions

 

[Fabieter]

Show on their financials where it shows Xbox losing billions

Microsoft Loses Between $100-$200 On Every Xbox It Sells

Xbox boss Phil Spencer says the company recoups the losses by selling accessories and subscriptions

kotaku.com

This in addition with gamepass all the investment they did. It's not hard to imagine how much money they currently lose.