Support NeoGAF

[Calverz]

So why were they carrying these boards across Europe?

Why do you think?

 

[Mr Reasonable]

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.

But Phil Spencer always lies, right? They must sell the consoles for three or four times the manufacture price.

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

What did Phil say and when did he say it?

Read the topic from Heisenberg007 about the summary of the FTC case on the frontpage, the Lies of P are exposed for everyone to see...ore ignore it like most Xboxfans are doing....

 

[GHG]

I said ‘inherently’ value destructive.

At the moment, it is. It has the potential, with sufficient scale, to break through. It all depends how much money MS are willing to waste getting there. Looks like they’re happy to spend a great deal.

It only gets worse with scale due to the fact that these business models result in less capacity for financial leverage on the creator's side.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Why do you think?

Because I believe that consoles sales are absolutely 100% important to them and still their big focus. Everything else is a sham to divert attention away from their poor console sales.

Now why do you think they were carrying those boards across EU if console sales is not their focus?

 

[Kilau]

Read the topic from Heisenberg007 about the summary of the FTC case on the frontpage, the Lies of P are exposed for everyone to see...ore ignore it like most Xboxfans are doing....

 

[mckmas8808]

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.

I'm not sure we all should be convinced that buying Activision for $69 Billion will get them the return they want either. The only way it truly works is if it helps push Playstation out of the picture globally. If Sony can continue to sell over 100 million consoles and produce over $20 Billion in annual revenue through their gaming brand, then I don't see this purchase paying off for MS.

 

[Calverz]

Because I believe that consoles sales are absolutely 100% important to them and still their big focus. Everything else is a sham to divert attention away from their poor console sales.

Now why do you think they were carrying those boards across EU if console sales is not their focus?

Well it looks like you are about to answer your own question while simultaneously debunking your first point. So go on, put us out of our misery.

 

[Ogbert]

It only gets worse with scale due to the fact that these business models result in less capacity for financial leverage on the creator's side.

Yes, to an extent - see Steam.

But as the judge had to remind the FTC, her concerns are about the consumer, not Sony or other developers. If MS is willing to throw away billions to offer content at a cheaper rate, does the consumer face an immediate threat?

Of course, you then come full circle to the original argument. How important is CoD? Is it really more than just a game? Pun intended.

If the trial shows one thing, it’s how directionless MS is. They have all these IPs and no ability to make them compelling. The Hooli of video games.

 

[GHG]

But as the judge had to remind the FTC, her concerns are about the consumer, not Sony or other developers. If MS is willing to throw away billions to offer content at a cheaper rate, does the consumer face an immediate threat?

And to what end? Microsoft are not a charity.

How naive do you have to be to think they are going to continue to throw away billion's of dollars like they are at the moment? This is a multi-trillion dollar corporation, at some point they will seek ROI, at the very least shareholders will demand it.

The way all of this works is that you destroy value to such a degree that consumers don't purchase anything anymore and they are reliant on your subscription. Once that's happened you hold all the cards since the only way people is accessing content is via your service. Developers have to come to you, consumers have to come to you, that then allows you to control both sides of the equation financially. We've seen this play out in real time over the last decade or so with music streaming.

 

[Pelta88]

I said ‘inherently’ value destructive.

At the moment, it is. It has the potential, with sufficient scale, to break through. It all depends how much money MS are willing to waste getting there. Looks like they’re happy to spend a great deal.

This is also false. XBOX is not happy that they're losing gargantuan sums in the gaming space. They've literally been telling regulators that their own service is cannibalizing itself. XBOX is so unhappy about GP that behind the scenes, they're debating leaving the console space for mobile. Because they literally can't buy a win.

The problem with your posts is that you keep trying to paint a narrative that when viewed through the prism of rose-tinted specs, everything is actually ok. However, the problem with that is that XB execs are on record admitting that behind the scenes, it's an absolute shit show. So to us, and anyone else debating in good faith, your posts come across like

 

[Bernoulli]

When is the final decision?

 

[Ogbert]

This is also false. XBOX is not happy that they're losing gargantuan sums in the gaming space. They've literally been telling regulators that their own service is cannibalizing itself. XBOX is so unhappy about GP that behind the scenes, they're debating leaving the console space for mobile. Because they literally can't buy a win.

The problem with your posts is that you keep trying to paint a narrative that when viewed through the prism of rose-tinted specs, everything is actually ok. However, the problem with that is that XB execs are on record admitting that behind the scenes, it's an absolute shit show. So to us, and anyone else debating in good faith, your posts come across like

Where on earth am I saying MS is in a good shape?

They’re in the absolute fucking mud. Their principle IPs are stale and tired, their console sales are flatlining and they have a nebulous business model with Gamepass that isn’t working.

What I’m saying is that Gamepass *could* notionally work when it hits the sort of economy of scale that, for example, Amazon enjoys with Prime.

 

[Ogbert]

And to what end? Microsoft are not a charity.

How naive do you have to be to think they are going to continue to throw away billion's of dollars like they are at the moment? This is a multi-trillion dollar corporation, at some point they will seek ROI, at the very least shareholders will demand it.

The way all of this works is that you destroy value to such a degree that consumers don't purchase anything anymore and they are reliant on your subscription. Once that's happened you hold all the cards since the only way people is accessing content is via your service. Developers have to come to you, consumers have to come to you, that then allows you to control both sides of the equation financially. We've seen this play out in real time over the last decade or so with music streaming.

No idea. I expect that’s the conversation taking place right now.

 

[GHG]

No idea. I expect that’s the conversation taking place right now.

Well the fact is that we know there have already been discussions that have taken place internally (stemming from Tim Stuart, the CFO) regarding day and date first party games launching via gamepass. That tells us they are already looking towards a pivot point of some sort.

 

[mrmustard]

I'm not sure we all should be convinced that buying Activision for $69 Billion will get them the return they want either. The only way it truly works is if it helps push Playstation out of the picture globally. If Sony can continue to sell over 100 million consoles and produce over $20 Billion in annual revenue through their gaming brand, then I don't see this purchase paying off for MS.

Didn't AB have a net income of 4 or 5 billions last year? Shouldn't be a bad investment even if their cloud or Game Pass strategy fail at some point.

 

[Sanepar]

So why people worries about ftc decision if cat decision is only in August?

 

[MasterCornholio]

So why people worries about ftc decision if cat decision is only in August?

Has it been confirmed to be in August?

 

[foamdino]

Yes, true.

During the hearing, Spencer did state that Xbox is wholly independent within MS. And if I remember correctly, he said that it had its own PnL.

If that's the case, then it somehow magically has $70billion line of credit/borrowing facility, because it sure as shit hasn't made that much in profit.

 

[Ogbert]

When is the final decision?

From the FTC stuff?

Some point in the next couple of weeks. But the decision is under seal and will simply be delivered to MS and the FTC, who will pick and choose what to make available to the public.

 

[splattered]

From the FTC stuff?

Some point in the next couple of weeks. But the decision is under seal and will simply be delivered to MS and the FTC, who will pick and choose what to make available to the public.

I'm sure either will be quick to make a quick victory announcement online though... i hope?

 

[Ogbert]

If that's the case, then it somehow magically has $70billion line of credit/borrowing facility, because it sure as shit hasn't made that much in profit.

Residual Kinect profits.

 

[Topher]

So why people worries about ftc decision if cat decision is only in August?

Microsoft has said that if the FTC grants the PI then the deal is dead.

 

[foamdino]

Residual Kinect profits.

of course how silly of me to forget that "massive success"

 

[Ar¢tos]

Read the topic from Heisenberg007 about the summary of the FTC case on the frontpage, the Lies of P are exposed for everyone to see...ore ignore it like most Xboxfans are doing....

They are too busy circle jerking in the thread If MS buys Activision, what are some positives you’d like to see happen?

Some of the things posted there are completely mindless. I can't believe people can actually be that ignorant.

 

[Thirty7ven]

I mean, they do have to pay more than Sony.
They were forced to a better split on COD.

The issue here is, they are all anti competitive. Microsoft and Sony, there's no lesser evil. there's only evil.

Now if you wanna play game to find out what's the most anti competitive of those two, good luck.

It’s not anti competitive, it’s by its very nature competitive since they are bidding for third party content. Sony also offers a better rate for COD, guess the real winner this competition? Activision.

Which is more anti competitive? Outta here with that bs, let’s not play dumb.

The way some people have tried to rewrite market dynamics and competition just to comply with MS’s new views of the market is hilarious.

 

[Kilau]

I mean, they do have to pay more than Sony.
They were forced to a better split on COD.

The issue here is, they are all anti competitive. Microsoft and Sony, there's no lesser evil. there's only evil.

Now if you wanna play game to find out what's the most anti competitive of those two, good luck.

Do we know that for sure? The CMA found that Sony takes a discounted rate on COD also.

 

[mckmas8808]

Didn't AB have a net income of 4 or 5 billions last year? Shouldn't be a bad investment even if their cloud or Game Pass strategy fail at some point.

Maybe, but that's when Activision and Blizzard games were being put on Playstation consoles. Without that, I'm not sure how profitable AB would be.

 

[Pelta88]

Where on earth am I saying MS is in a good shape?

They’re in the absolute fucking mud. Their principle IPs are stale and tired, their console sales are flatlining and they have a nebulous business model with Gamepass that isn’t working.

What I’m saying is that Gamepass *could* notionally work when it hits the sort of economy of scale that, for example, Amazon enjoys with Prime.

Phil is on record saying that GP has peaked on console. Behind the scenes, they've acknowledged that Cloud isn't having much success either. And GP on PC isn't getting the type of traction or hitting the metrics they want.

 

[Jigsaah]

Sony also didn't have a head start over Nintendo and Sega. Not sure if that should matter, if at all.

But Sony did have support. All 3 companies being Japanese, I'd imagine it was much easier for Sony to introduce themselves into the market at that time. I think the first notable Japanese games on Xbox were Dead or Alive 3 and Shin Megami Tensei (the latter only released in Japan). Then Majesco came along and brought over my favorite game of all time: Phantom Dust, the first exclusive Japanese Xbox game that I can remember actually releasing in America. There were maybe others only released in Japan, but I doubt they were exclusive. Xbox followed behind other American made systems that saw similar struggle, Atari Jaguar had only 50 games in it's entire library during it's lifetime. 3DO was a joke.

My point is, though Xbox didn't do itself any favors as Yoboman was keen to point out, they were also trying to enter a space that was dominated by Japanese games being the gold standard in America as well is in Japan. So yea they did home grow some studios, but not enough to be able to compete. It was at a time where very few American developers had a foothold in the industry, and if they did, they were not inclined to release exclusives for Xbox. Playstation or Dreamcast also got those games. Not too sure about Nintendo, but I doubt Nintendo needed them.

 

[Sanepar]

Has it been confirmed to be in August?

Hearings start last week of July only.

 

[nikolino840]

 

[mrmustard]

Maybe, but that's when Activision and Blizzard games were being put on Playstation consoles. Without that, I'm not sure how profitable AB would be.

I don't think MS would do that, but we probably will never know. Pretty sure the deal fails.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

They do not use their market share to get deals Xbox can’t. For them to do that they would have to for example, tell a dev they can only release the game on PlayStation if it’s timed exclusive, or if it has added content or features. That would be leveraging access to their userbase.

What you speak of is a false idea that was brewed in social media circles, aka narrative, to make Sony look anti competitive.

When MS entered the industry with Xbox, it was full of exclusives. 360 was the same. The idea that MS can’t get exclusives like PlayStation is a bunch of bs.

Seems like you're having difficulty comprehending what I wrote.

I didn't say Microsoft can't get exclusives, but in order to get exclusives Microsoft has to pay significantly more due to the market share difference, especially for Japanese games.

And in *some* cases, partners will simply refuse to enter into exclusivity agreements with Microsoft.

For example, Square Enix would probably have never put Final Fantasy 16 exclusively on Xbox even if Microsoft paid them 4x what Sony did. Because there is a cost associated with that game not appearing on PlayStation outside of just foreclosed sales, that has an immediate impact on the brand popularity when it comes to an FF17 or FF18.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Hearings start last week of July only.

Doesn't mean the verdict will be given in August.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Which doesn't mean much in this situation.

Can't you share something that will have an actual impact?

 

[mckmas8808]

I think Microsoft is finding the balance. Xbox consoles aren't "the platform" in the same way as PS5 is "the platform". Microsoft divorced the Xbox eco-sytem from the console to avoid the Xbone scenario: you don't sell enough hardware to have a platform, then the entire business teeters. They're basically using Xbox consoles as gaming PCs for casuals and trying to find a way to make it work. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but this is their big innovation and it looks like they're fully prepared to die on this hill. Their only other choice was Round 4 against Sony in a one-v-one, and we all know how they'd play out without needing to see the footage.

Couldn't they try to replicate what they did during the x360 era?

I said ‘inherently’ value destructive.

At the moment, it is. It has the potential, with sufficient scale, to break through. It all depends how much money MS are willing to waste getting there. Looks like they’re happy to spend a great deal.

It CAN'T scale unless Playstation is out of the picture. That's what MS was saying in their emails. Hence spending Sony into a hole. Making the landscape so dire, that no one at Sony feels like they can compete anymore. It's Bethesda\Zenimax and ABK now. Next is EA and Ubisoft.

Seems like you're having difficulty comprehending what I wrote.

I didn't say Microsoft can't get exclusives, but in order to get exclusives Microsoft has to pay significantly more due to the market share difference, especially for Japanese games.

And in *some* cases, partners will simply refuse to enter into exclusivity agreements with Microsoft.

For example, Square Enix would probably have never put Final Fantasy 16 exclusively on Xbox even if Microsoft paid them 4x what Sony did. Because there is a cost associated with that game not appearing on PlayStation outside of just foreclosed sales, that has an immediate impact on the brand popularity when it comes to an FF17 or FF18.

So what's the problem with this?

 

[DJ12]

I'm not sure we all should be convinced that buying Activision for $69 Billion will get them the return they want either. The only way it truly works is if it helps push Playstation out of the picture globally. If Sony can continue to sell over 100 million consoles and produce over $20 Billion in annual revenue through their gaming brand, then I don't see this purchase paying off for MS.

I am not convinced MS care if they make the money back.

They seem quite happy to lose profits hand over fist already. Writing of $69 billion dollars for the 1 million playstation owners that only play cod will seem like the best idea they've ever had to Microsoft execs. To a man foreclosure was and is the plan.

The sad thing is when the swing to xbox doesn't happen, what next, another publisher to be unable to compete with, or just calling it quits and going third party and potentially giving priority deals to whomever buys the xbox brand from them if anyone does.

 

[Ogbert]

It CAN'T scale unless Playstation is out of the picture. That's what MS was saying in their emails. Hence spending Sony into a hole.

If that is sincerely MS line of thinking, rather than idle, off the cuff speculation then they’re even more screwed. Sony isn’t going anywhere. They’re absolutely entrenched as the dominant market leader.

Perhaps that’s where the cloud comes in; MS is banking on a ‘post-console’ tipping point, at which point we will all throw away our static consoles and switch over to the matrix. And this is where the CMA comes in. I’m simply not convinced that the cloud is going to become that significant, anytime soon.

It’s a pity, because their insanely fucking shit management is focussed on ‘winning’ rather than simply creating good games. The former is a byproduct of the latter.

 

[Rubim]

Do we know that for sure? The CMA found that Sony takes a discounted rate on COD also.

No, i dont think we actually know the numbers. Sadly the court is over.

It’s not anti competitive, it’s by its very nature competitive since they are bidding for third party content. Sony also offers a better rate for COD, guess the real winner this competition? Activision.

Which is more anti competitive? Outta here with that bs, let’s not play dumb.

The way some people have tried to rewrite market dynamics and competition just to comply with MS’s new views of the market is hilarious.

Unless im mistaken, Xbox does it now but was "forced". Right?

Activision CEO Threatened to Skip Call of Duty on Xbox Over Higher Than 'Standard' Revenue Share

Microsoft has claimed that it was forced by Activision to make a new deal about Call of Duty revenue share to put the series on Xbox.

wccftech.com

The way some people have tried to rewrite market dynamics and competition just to comply with MS’s new views of the market is hilarious.

Exclusives are not good for consumers, it is how the game is played trough.

Buying and doing a partnership with a game vs buying the whole publisher. Ether are bad, but i agree not equally.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Well it looks like you are about to answer your own question while simultaneously debunking your first point. So go on, put us out of our misery.

So you've no answer? Got it.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Seems like you're having difficulty comprehending what I wrote.

I didn't say Microsoft can't get exclusives, but in order to get exclusives Microsoft has to pay significantly more due to the market share difference, especially for Japanese games.

And in *some* cases, partners will simply refuse to enter into exclusivity agreements with Microsoft.

For example, Square Enix would probably have never put Final Fantasy 16 exclusively on Xbox even if Microsoft paid them 4x what Sony did. Because there is a cost associated with that game not appearing on PlayStation outside of just foreclosed sales, that has an immediate impact on the brand popularity when it comes to an FF17 or FF18.

I understood it perfectly. You are the one who doesn’t seem to understand how leveraging market share in anti competitive ways goes about. It’s not what you describe.

Guess what, Stadia had a harder time of getting exclusives. If tomorrow Amazon releases a videogame console, they will have an harder time convincing pubs to support it or even make exclusives to it, than Microsoft. How do you draw the line all the way to it being anti competitive? It’s senseless.

You are describing a third party finding the best deal possible for itself as a problem in the market, when that’s a feature of competition. So MS who has the inferior product for a third party, has to be the one that makes it worth it for the third party.

 

[Calverz]

So you've no answer? Got it.

Disappointing Heisenberg007 i thought you would revert to the old tactic of posting comments, outwith original context to back your arguments.

 

[Ogbert]

I understood it perfectly. You are the one who doesn’t seem to understand how leveraging market share in anti competitive ways goes about. It’s not what you describe.

Guess what, Stadia had a harder time of getting exclusives. If tomorrow Amazon releases a videogame console, they will have an harder time convincing pubs to support it or even make exclusives to it, than Microsoft. How do you draw the line all the way to it being anti competitive? It’s senseless.

You are describing a third party finding the best deal possible for itself as a problem in the market, when that’s a feature of competition. So MS who has the inferior product for a third party, has to be the one that makes it worth it for the third party.

You draw it at the point the dominant market player uses its scale and reach to limit choice for consumers. It’s clear abuse of a position of dominance. I don’t think anything Sony has done to date qualifies as such, but as their position grows, their deals will come under more scrutiny.

 

[Thirty7ven]

You draw it at the point the dominant market player uses its scale and reach to limit choice for consumers. It’s clear abuse of a position of dominance. I don’t think anything Sony has done to date qualifies as such, but as their position grows, their deals will come under more scrutiny.

Its not abuse of dominance because they aren’t leveraging their market share against the third party. That’s an anti competitive way of doing business. You are basically describing a scenario where a market leader cannot cut exclusive deals, that’s not competition.

 

[mckmas8808]

I am not convinced MS care if they make the money back.

They seem quite happy to lose profits hand over fist already. Writing of $69 billion dollars for the 1 million playstation owners that only play cod will seem like the best idea they've ever had to Microsoft execs. To a man foreclosure was and is the plan.

The sad thing is when the swing to xbox doesn't happen, what next, another publisher to be unable to compete with, or just calling it quits and going third party and potentially giving priority deals to whomever buys the xbox brand from them if anyone does.

I think they'll go looking for another publisher to eat up. EA, Take Two with Zynga, or Ubisoft.

If that is sincerely MS line of thinking, rather than idle, off the cuff speculation then they’re even more screwed. Sony isn’t going anywhere. They’re absolutely entrenched as the dominant market leader.

Perhaps that’s where the cloud comes in; MS is banking on a ‘post-console’ tipping point, at which point we will all throw away our static consoles and switch over to the matrix. And this is where the CMA comes in. I’m simply not convinced that the cloud is going to become that significant, anytime soon.

It’s a pity, because their insanely fucking shit management is focussed on ‘winning’ rather than simply creating good games. The former is a byproduct of the latter.

Me and you 100% agree with the bolded. I've seen literally zero signs that gamers are willing to toss aside their PCs and consoles for streaming-only gaming.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I understood it perfectly. You are the one who doesn’t seem to understand how leveraging market share in anti competitive ways goes about. It’s not what you describe.

Guess what, Stadia had a harder time of getting exclusives. If tomorrow Amazon releases a videogame console, they will have an harder time convincing pubs to support it or even make exclusives to it, than Microsoft. How do you draw the line all the way to it being anti competitive? It’s senseless.

You are describing a third party finding the best deal possible for itself as a problem in the market, when that’s a feature of competition. So MS who has the inferior product for a third party, has to be the one that makes it worth it for the third party.

The irony... you should read the link that I posted that you know describes the law in detail

 

[HoofHearted]

When is the final decision?

 

[Ogbert]

Its not abuse of dominance because they aren’t leveraging their market share against the third party. That’s an anti competitive way of doing business. You are basically describing a scenario where a market leader cannot cut exclusive deals, that’s not competition.

Competition rules are there to primarily protect consumers, not third parties. Third parties have a right to access, not cutting the best deal.

If you’re the market leader and you use that position of dominance to cut deals that entrench your position, that’s the most basic form of potentially anti-competitive business going.

You’re not leveraging the market share against the third party. You’re leveraging it against the other publishers in that market.

 

[bitbydeath]

When is the final decision?

Judge said it shouldn’t take 2-3 months.