Support NeoGAF

[Ozriel]

It's pretty funny MS has to belittle their own purchase to get the agreement.

Now for once I kinda agree with MS, they make zero must have game, at least for me.

Microsoft doesn’t make Call of Duty

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

No. It’s a direct response to a comment from Sony that COD is essential to PlayStation.
They’ve come back to say that it isn’t essential, and that the game type itself isn’t unique.

What part of that is incorrect?

Essential = anything that could cause me to go bankrupt is the dumb argument here

You may as well be saying as long as Sony is still funcationing anything goes. Even if they become a shell of their former self.

 

[Rivet]

Microsoft doesn’t make Call of Duty

? That's not what I meant in my sentence, I meant Activision Blizzard made zero must have game for me. So I actually agree with MS.

 

[DaGwaphics]

No. It’s a direct response to a missive from Sony that COD is essential to PlayStation.
They’ve come back to say that it isn’t essential, and that the game type itself isn’t unique.

What part of that is incorrect? They aren’t trying to downplay the value or quality of the franchise.

It's a waste of time, they already know this, they are just having some fun with the quote. Even if it comes at the cost of making them appear to have a reading comprehension problem.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

It's a waste of time, they already know this, they are just having some fun with the quote. Even if it comes at the cost of making them appear to have a reading comprehension problem.

Not having fun with the quote. I've read it for litterally how they put it and i'm still saying it's pathetic

Try harder

 

[DaGwaphics]

You may as well be saying as long as Sony is still funcationing anything goes. Even if they become a shell of their former self.

That's literally what regulators should be looking at in that context. If they start to make decisions based on preserving a certain pecking order, they've gone a bit too far. It's not their job to help Sony preserve its "former self".

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

That's literally what regulators should be looking at in that context. If they start to make decisions based on preserving a certain pecking order, they've gone a bit too far. It's not their job to help Sony preserve its "former self".

Regulators aren't thinking as long as it doesn't litterally put them out of business it's fine. That's not how it works

 

[Captain Toad]

Microsoft doesn’t make Call of Duty

Did he say that? He said belittle their purchase. They are buying CoD.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Regulators aren't thinking as long as it doesn't litterally put them out of business it's fine. That's not how it works

They should be looking at the health of competition in the market, which a lot of times does come down to the solvency of weaker participants. They shouldn't be worrying about one party potentially losing 5 or 6% of their bottom line, or a small potential shift in brand popularity.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

They should be looking at the health of competition in the market, which a lot of times does come down to the solvency of weaker participants. They shouldn't be worrying about one party potentially losing 5 or 6% of their bottom line, or a small potential shift in brand popularity.

The issue is how much impact will COD have. That's what we don't know and that should be the concern. if PlayStation was the big boy like they used to be next to Xbox you'd have have point. But they're not.

 

[DaGwaphics]

^ In the console market, MS is the smallest fish in the pond.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

^ In the console market, MS is the smallest fish in the pond.

A pond with two fish

 

[DaGwaphics]

A pond with two fish

But the other fish is more than twice as big. And there's that other big fish too that just swims at a different depth most of the time.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

But the other fish is more than twice as big. And there's that other big fish too that just swims at a different depth most of the time.

Lol they're not more than twice as big.

That other fish may as well be in a different pond

 

[DaGwaphics]

Lol they're not more than twice as big.

That other fish may as well be in a different pond

In terms of console market share, sure they are.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

In terms of market share, sure.

PS5 is what? 20 million? Xbox is at 15 or something?

Revenue will pretty much be neck to neck after the ActBliz deal. If COD were to go exclusive how much would that impact Sony's bottom line? Could it put them in 3rd place? I'd say it could

They're not a little fish anymore.

 

[DaGwaphics]

PS5 is what? 20 million? Xbox is at 15 or something?

Well, I think last-gen/historical performance would be considered as well. LOL

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Well, I think last-gen performance will be considered as well. LOL

Sure but what matters is the current trend

 

[Three]

No. It’s a direct response to a missive from Sony that COD is essential to PlayStation.
They’ve come back to say that it isn’t essential, and that the game type itself isn’t unique.

What part of that is incorrect? They aren’t trying to downplay the value or quality of the franchise.

The game type is not unique and nor is it essential in the same way that youtube is not unique or essential to windows phone/store yet MS argue the same thing about youtube to the EU commission as a complaint in a Google antitrust case. It's not about being unique or essential. It's about whether blocking something is good for competition or not. Both sides would downplay the other company's side.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

You got “lmao, MS said COD doesn’t have value” from reading between the lines?




If only you’d have bothered to read the first paragraph of the quote in the OP. this is becoming quite embarrassing.

I read it and still came away with the same conclusion.

Maybe you should take your own advice and read the actual statement, instead of reading whatever BS spin into the statement you're clearly trying to do so to give this a free pass.

 

[PaintTinJr]

How was Xbox One paid for by Kinect?
Any license fees paid to Primesense would have been easily paid for by just one of the Kinect Sports titles. I’m not sure you fully understand how well Kinect hardware and software sold in the 360 era.

Well, we can't be totally sure, but do you remember the huge 360 barren phase of new first party IP software when PS3 was firing on all cylinders? And then just before the Kinect deal - to acquire the 3D camera technology - rumours started about Microsoft selling off Xbox - presumably because the 10 year plan had expired and they weren't close to dominating as was their stated objective of Direct-X-box - and they weren't seeing any ROI, then after the Kinect project started, Xbox was once again awash with money,, the only caveat being that all spending needed to have a Kinect project success objective - hence why the X1 had a mandate of Kinect and TVTVTV until somewhere around 5years after kinect was first acquired for the 360. Coincidence? I doubt it.

It seems like project kinect was paying the bills and the last five years of funding was allowed to salvage ROI allowing it to focus on a kinect free console, again - probably why the X1X release date was way behind the Pro - and money was then seemingly available again to fund new kinect free IPs - like Sunset - but as you can't just turn it on and off for SW development there was a large barren period of - wait until next year - for new IP which was how long?

Again, this makes no sense. These acquired studios and publishers aren’t put against Gamepass. They make games that are still profitable at retail only, even if you exclude subs. Their first party titles like Halo, Forza et al still sell millions of units across console and PC.

Microsoft also doesn’t need to recover the cost of these acquisitions. They’re exchanging cash for an asset. It’s like saying you need to recover the cash you’ve spent buying a house or you’re negative on networth. How does that make sense? MS bought Zenimax for $7bn. Until they write down the value of the asset, it’s $7bn value on their balance sheet.

Let's be honest, if project Xbox ever returns the original investments made, and becomes a big net win, we will all hear about it. Surely the bundling of results for all these years to make xbox ROI opaque to people as observant as neogaf tells its own story, no?

 

[johnjohn]

Reading between the lines is tough huh?.

Reading between the lines? There's no lines to read between lol, you're just making up whatever you want it to say lol. The statement is as clear as can be. They're saying Sony doesn't need Activision games to be able to compete with Xbox. Do you disagree with that?

 

[johnjohn]

If this was remotely true (and it isn't) MS wouldn't be trying to spend $70B trying to buy this company.

It's a completely inane statement. There is no single FPS franchise as prolific and successful as COD. Even if you individually don't like it, it's irrelevant. No one has been able to replicate COD's success and your clear evidence for this is the PS360 gen which was fucking jam-packed with failed attempts by completing publishers: Battlefield, Socom, MAG, Medal of Honor, Resistance, Bodycount, Section 8, Operation Flashpoint, Brink, Homefront, Killzone etc etc.

COD is to FPSs what GTA is to open-world city sandbox games. This is why at the investment-cost level of games today, only mega-franchises like these are the last remaining survivors.

So you think Sony wouldn't be able to compete with Xbox if they made CoD exclusive?

 

[Ozriel]

Well, we can't be totally sure, but do you remember the huge 360 barren phase of new first party IP software when PS3 was firing on all cylinders? And then just before the Kinect deal - to acquire the 3D camera technology - rumours started about Microsoft selling off Xbox - presumably because the 10 year plan had expired and they weren't close to dominating as was their stated objective of Direct-X-box - and they weren't seeing any ROI, then after the Kinect project started, Xbox was once again awash with money,, the only caveat being that all spending needed to have a Kinect project success objective - hence why the X1 had a mandate of Kinect and TVTVTV until somewhere around 5years after kinect was first acquired for the 360. Coincidence? I doubt it.

It seems like project kinect was paying the bills and the last five years of funding was allowed to salvage ROI allowing it to focus on a kinect free console, again - probably why the X1X release date was way behind the Pro - and money was then seemingly available again to fund new kinect free IPs - like Sunset - but as you can't just turn it on and off for SW development there was a large barren period of - wait until next year - for new IP which was how long?


Let's be honest, if project Xbox ever returns the original investments made, and becomes a big net win, we will all hear about it. Surely the bundling of results for all these years to make xbox ROI opaque to people as observant as neogaf tells its own story, no?

I am in awe of your ability to make up the past. You could have gone with “do you remember when the Teletubbies made the Ouya the best selling console in the UK?” and you’d be just as accurate as what you typed above.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Reading between the lines?

Yes. Reading between the lines.

There's no lines to read between lol

Lol. That's not the definition of "reading between the lines".

, you're just making up whatever you want it to say lol.

No.

The statement is as clear as can be.

Mega lol.

The statement is clear = the explicit statement made with words that you can read?

Reading between the lines implies 'reading' what is not explicitly being said.

They're saying Sony doesn't need Activision games to survive.

That's is not what they "say" between the lines.

Do you disagree with that?

What is explicitly being said is meaningless because the important thing is the meaning (what is being said ) between the lines.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Sony: the world is ending if Microsoft buys Activision because nobody else is as good as them
Microsoft: Activision is complete trash with nothing worth owning, who would even want to buy them? (please let us buy them)

NeoGAF lawyers.gif

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

So you think Sony wouldn't be able to compete with Xbox if they made CoD exclusive?

What's that got to do with anything being discussed or anything in the OP?

Don't be dense or make such silly strawman arguments.

 

[PaintTinJr]

I am in awe of your ability to make up the past. You could have gone with “do you remember when the Teletubbies made the Ouya the best selling console in the UK?” and you’d be just as accurate as what you typed above.

So from your fictional post am I to conclude that you don't believe Xbox answers to microsoft shareholders at least once every ten years in regards of ROI? Or am I to conclude that you've seen figures that state they made an ROI on project Xbox?

Do you have any explanation why the Xbox one had two major issues at launch, but only fixed the DRM one? Why did they have to wait years before decoupling kinect from the product - that was hated by ardent gamers - even xbox fans - and they didn't want to pay £100 extra for kinect for a weaker machine. How do you explain that decision if my recall is fiction?

 

[yurinka]

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/mi...g-the-company-doesnt-make-any-must-have-games



This contradicts the theory that Microsoft will be open with Activisions games on other platforms outside of contracts. If Microsoft believes that, or is saying they believe Activision doesn't make "must have" games, that excuse would only really make sense if they wanted to try and address the concern that several of those games may become console exclusive. I can't see any other case where they would use wording that specific.

I assume that is regulators biggest concern, and Microsoft is trying to downplay them with this statement.

To be fair to Microsoft, on the Activision end at least, COD would be the only point of concern regarding this issue these days. So if they can get around regulators concern for this one series, they can probably get this deal done by August or September without having to convince regulators about Blizzards stuff. That could be advantageous given the rather dry holiday lineup this year.

Doesn't contradict anything. Some Activision Blizzard games sell very well but they are a tiny percent of total gaming (or console) sales or revenue. All Activision Blizzard King games have many similar competitors, many of which perform very well too, plus games of other types are super successful too. And doesn't say anything about making AB games exclusive.

It's funny that Microsoft and Sony are kinda saying the opposite things.

None of them lie, both are correct. CoD is super successful and even with a lot of money other publishers can't make an IP that successful. But the CoD money is only a tiny portion of the total game revenues or sales generated in platforms like PS, where >90% of their players don't buy CoD at least every year, and there are relatively similar games/IPs that are very successful, even if not that successful. And the market share is spread among many companies. All this, combined with the yearly growth that PS is experiencing since many years ago leads to think Sony wouldn't miss CoD if in the future it would go exclusive.

Each company obviously focus their message on protecting their interests, but what they all say is correct.

Sony: No one can make something like COD, the deal is concerning!

Microsoft: This publisher has never made anything unique or must have and we want to spend 70 billions on it for...reasons

Sony didn't say the deal is concerning. But they are right when said that their competitors never have been able to make a shooter more successful than CoD. Even considering that, it's true that CoD or the other AB games aren't unique, there are many other similar games that are very successful, even if not as successful as CoD.

MS bought them because they make very successful games, not because they make unique games.

MS just wants this deal to get done with as little restrictions as possible for any future decisions. It is all legal manoeuvring. MS may still keep it on PS, but want that to be wholly at MS’ discretion. I think it goes through with no restrictions aside from honouring existing contracts. Shame to see such a badly managed company as ABK get such an easy out but it is what it is.

MS won't have any restrictions to make the acquisition because they are far from being market leaders and even more of having something close to a monopoly. So there is no reason to stop it or to do anything.

MS said they will continue making their big ABK franchises multiplatform. And pretty likely is because since they'll put their games on GP sales in Xbox and PC will drop a lot and that money isn't compensated with GP, so they'll need to continue selling games like CoD everywhere they can (their president even mentioned they'll release it on Switch) to compensate it if they don't want it to be a money hole.

To keep it exclusive would only mean MS would stop getting a shit ton of revenue. People don't play ABK games on Switch and around 90% of PS MAU don't buy CoD. And if it would go exclusive a good chunk of these PS players wouldn't leave PS because they already have Xbox or PC or because they'd move to other games. This tiny % of players lost would be replaced by the growth trend PS has/will have in the following years.

 

[Kagey K]

What's that got to do with anything being discussed or anything in the OP?

Don't be dense or make such silly strawman arguments.

Its actually literally what's said in the OP.

there is nothing unique about the video games developed and published by Activision Blizzard that is a ‘must have’ for rival PC and console video game distributors that could give rise to a foreclosure concern

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

You watch, some government will have Microsoft sell off some insignificant parts of Activision to satisfy antitrust concerns.

It would be wild if Sony bought the rights to Crash Bandicoot and Spyro that way.

 

[Kagey K]

You watch, some government will have Microsoft sell off some insignificant parts of Activision to satisfy antitrust concerns.

It would be wild if Sony bought the rights to Crash Bandicoot and Spyro that way.

There are no antitrust concerns and selling Crash and Spyro wouldn't alleviate them if there were.

 

[Ozriel]

You watch, some government will have Microsoft sell off some insignificant parts of Activision to satisfy antitrust concerns.

It would be wild if Sony bought the rights to Crash Bandicoot and Spyro that way.

There’s zero chance of that happening. You’ll have to find some stuff to go wild for.

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

There are no antitrust concerns and selling Crash and Spyro wouldn't alleviate them if there were.

That was the point of my post. I was picking at governments for doing trivial crap for show.

 

[Kagey K]

That was the point of my post. I was picking at governments for doing trivial crap for show.

Sorry. I missed the sarcasm on the post. It's hard to tell nowadays.

 

[blacktout]

There are no antitrust concerns and selling Crash and Spyro wouldn't alleviate them if there were.

Yeah, it seems like the limited concerns that might exist are exclusively about Call of Duty, so I don't see how any sort of IP sell-off would help, since the one relevant IP is almost certainly a nonnegotiable part of the deal.

Edit: I see the person you responded to clarified his point. I'm not sure I get the joke, but you can disregard this post.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

but they are a tiny percent of total (or console) sales or revenue.

They were a significant percentage for a long time, and wouldn't be surprised f they still are now even if less so, especially for non-GaaS releases.

 

[CatLady]

PS5 is what? 20 million? Xbox is at 15 or something?

Revenue will pretty much be neck to neck after the ActBliz deal. If COD were to go exclusive how much would that impact Sony's bottom line? Could it put them in 3rd place? I'd say it could

They're not a little fish anymore.

It is not the regulators job to ensure that Sony maintains its lead in the console space. It's their job to see that this transaction doesn't make Xbox' competitors businesses untenable. Nintendo has already demonstrated that's not the case.

 

[DaGwaphics]

So from your fictional post am I to conclude that you don't believe Xbox answers to microsoft shareholders at least once every ten years in regards of ROI? Or am I to conclude that you've seen figures that state they made an ROI on project Xbox?

Do you have any explanation why the Xbox one had two major issues at launch, but only fixed the DRM one? Why did they have to wait years before decoupling kinect from the product - that was hated by ardent gamers - even xbox fans - and they didn't want to pay £100 extra for kinect for a weaker machine. How do you explain that decision if my recall is fiction?

Xbox One launches end of November 2013.

Sold without Kinect and with a substantial price cut by early June 2014.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

It is not the regulators job to ensure that Sony maintains its lead in the console space. It's their job to see that this transaction doesn't make Xbox' competitors businesses untenable. Nintendo has already demonstrated that's not the case.

Nintendo just isn't a good case to use. CODs significant to Sony the same way Pokemon is significant to Nintendo. Take away COD it affects one but not the other. Take away Pokemon and it's vice versa.

Hope we're still on for dinner tonight tho honey

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Microsoft don't make any "must have" operating systems or productivity tools, which is very true,

Wut?

Half the planet would fall apart if Windows vanished overnight.

I suspect Microsoft have lost more money directly on the Xbox/Kinnect/TVTVTV/gamepass project since they joined the industry than combined the losses of the last 20 companies that have gone bust or left the industry in the last 30years

You must be on something strong since Kinect/TVTVTV/Gamepass was taking out of wack with MS saying games would be E3 and internet boards not listening while the average consumer didn't care and brought the console in mass at launch with Microsoft selling 1 million in 24 hours, and they released the box one with the intention of not losing money on the hardware.

You also have no evidence they are losing money on gamepass.

Sony lost more on the PS3 than Xbox+RROD.

even adjusting for inflation.

No other company that has ever joined the console market could have sustained the losses Microsoft had with the original xbox,

Which was only around 4 billlion which Sony arguably mre than doubled, and Sega had lost that on the console end across several years not making a dime in profit on their last two consoles, Atari lost half that on just their Computer division having a price war with Commodore, Nintendo and Sony could take those losses, so could Commodore, and if they wanted to Warner owned Atari. Sega kind of did too, I mean they needed help to release the Dreamcast in the end but the company itself could have went on without it, crippled sure but they would have survived and ended up going software anyway when the Dreamcast didn't pan out. Phillips lost over $2 billion on CD-I players, over $4 billion if you combine that with the investment in the disc format and the attempt to push online TV surfing and gaming, among other accessories and expansions, so that's another company. Tandy/RadioShack was huge and could handle such a thing, Bandai could handle such a thing during the 90's and 80's, NEC could handle such a thing, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Microsoft isn't some magic company that flew in from hogwarts.

the last place company

There's the fanboyism.

keep throwing marbles for as long as it takes until they own all the marbles.

So why are you lying and pretending only Microsoft has been in the process of consolidating the industry, a complaint that had been happening since before they even brought Minecraft for years and years?

In the PS3 generation it would have potentially killed PlayStation given the yearly revenue sums involved. Sony skated very close to going out of business IIRC because of Xbox being able to blindly spend on original Xbox and the launch years of the 360,

What is this made up fairy tale? Sony was in turmoil closing departments, discontinuing or selling g product lines, selling buildings, and restructuring because of them doubling down on expensive bad decisions and bad leader ship, a lot of it revolving around Blu Ray and the PS3 both directly and indirectly. Sony lost more money than MS did on Xbox+RROD with PS3 so they already disproved you repoint, 260 was starting to be profitable late 2008, maybe even earlier.

Yes, earlier https://www.audioholics.com/news/microsoft-xbox-360-profits

Sony lost over $4.7 million in 2009, and unlike the MS stuff that wasn't all encompassing and included everything loss related involving the PS3 and was still a loss leader in 2010. https://www.videogamesblogger.com/2009/10/31/sony-lost-47-billion-on-ps3-so-far.htm

Xbox 1 imaginary "blind spending" and launch years of the 360 have nothing to do with Sony's losses. Only Sony is responsible for sony's losses, and it wasn't just with the PS3, it was in the PSP as well, along with other parts of the company gaming or others.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

The people saying Tony Hawk is dead while ignoring the remake of 1+2 sold millions and became among the fastest and best selling games in the series since what Pro Skater 2? 3?

Don't forget Crash N.Sane which estimated 14-15 million shipped with unknown sold that sold 10 million rather quickly, and the other two games selling millions all with less marketing push than the previous because Activision was trying to save COD.

COD is the main franchise for Activisions bottom line but let's not pretend they have other games that sell and make money, some of which would end up selling more and making even larger profits with consistent marketing since an MS brought Activision wouldn't need to kill studios to support COD.

 

[CatLady]

Nintendo just isn't a good case to use. CODs significant to Sony the same way Pokemon is significant to Nintendo. Take away COD it affects one but not the other. Take away Pokemon and it's vice versa.

Hope we're still on for dinner tonight tho honey

Do NOT contradict me!

And NO dinner is not on. While you were out running around in your Kinky Catsuit, your Boi, Lognor caught a ban for console warring again. Maybe you should take care of your responsibilities and teach him the evils of console warring before you dare to contradict me or worry about eating.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Xbox One launches end of November 2013.

Sold without Kinect and with a substantial price cut by early June 2014.

"PrimeSense was best known for licensing the hardware design and chip used in Microsoft's Kinect motion-sensing system for the Xbox 360 in 2010"

Project would have started year before licensing so:

2014-2009 = 5

 

[DaGwaphics]

Do NOT contradict me!

And NO dinner is not on. While you were out running around in your Kinky Catsuit, your Boi, Lognor caught a ban for console warring again. Maybe you should take care of your responsibilities and teach him the evils of console warring before you dare to contradict me or worry about eating.

A "diuretic polar bear in the snow" that's creative, oddly poetic. Poor guy was probably just trying to keep his bp down, had to lose some salt.

 

[Banjo64]

i did buy the crash and spyro remakes

wanted also to buy sekiro, but it never goes on sale or if it does is never enough

Platform?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Do NOT contradict me!

And NO dinner is not on. While you were out running around in your Kinky Catsuit, your Boi, Lognor caught a ban for console warring again. Maybe you should take care of your responsibilities and teach him the evils of console warring before you dare to contradict me or worry about eating.

Sigh you know I can't fight you

Boi gotta ruin everything for me. Worst life choice I ever made. Guess it's back to work again

 

[DaGwaphics]

"PrimeSense was best known for licensing the hardware design and chip used in Microsoft's Kinect motion-sensing system for the Xbox 360 in 2010"

Project would have started year before licensing so:

2014-2009 = 5

You referenced them not correcting the two major problems they had at launch (only fixing one, but leaving kinect bundled for years). Nice try at redirection though.

They continued to sell Kinect both in bundles and separately for years. I seriously doubt licensing contracts for Kinect had much to do with it at all.

See we really can argue about even the most remote details on here.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Wut?

Half the planet would fall apart if Windows vanished overnight.

Re-read, you are having a strawman, I was copying their technically correct, yet false statement, and you have agreed with my point about in reality their OS is a must have

You must be on something strong since Kinect/TVTVTV/Gamepass was taking out of wack with MS saying games would be E3 and internet boards not listening while the average consumer didn't care and brought the console in mass at launch with Microsoft selling 1 million in 24 hours, and they released the box one with the intention of not losing money on the hardware.

You also have no evidence they are losing money on gamepass.

...

There's the fanboyism.

It is in context of bill claiming they would dominate gaming and be first

So why are you lying and pretending only Microsoft has been in the process of consolidating the industry, a complaint that had been happening since before they even brought Minecraft for years and years?

If you actually read my comments you would see I defined the difference of them continuing yet never show a ROI - working profit that you mentioned "being profitable" isn't covering the investment.
So many out of context strawman statements I'm not sure how to respond when you haven't read the comments fully and dealt with each one as is, and have just glued together things you want to disagree with.

 

[PaintTinJr]

You referenced them not correcting the two major problems they had at launch (only fixing one, but leaving kinect bundled for years). Nice try at redirection though.

They continued to sell Kinect both in bundles and separately for years. I seriously doubt licensing contracts for Kinect had much to do with it at all.

My original timeline was ~5years from the start of project kinect - which started with the 360. feel free to re-read.