Support NeoGAF

[DeepEnigma]

Those games are on Xbox, because Sony had no choice.

Like Minecraft?

 

[Bernardougf]

Lol...

Next thing you know, Phil is going to be crying that Jim Ryan won't swallow his cumload.

Thats adamsapple job son! Dont you dare and try to take it away from him!

 

[FalsettoVibe]

is 30% not the standard cut?

This. Please someone answer this question.

 

[Bojanglez]

Stupid thing to say, they are still taking the 70% and that is probably a lot more money than they would get by not selling whatever it is on Playstation

I thought Phil was all about making the pie bigger rather than wanting a bigger proportion of a smaller pie

 

[jonnyp]

Unbelievable....
Sony....

Oh, so they DO have financial incentive not to release their games on PS after all? ... shocking ...

 

[Three]

This has been the weirdest part of the two hearings, the FTC lawyers (or maybe yesterday was a lawyer and the first hearing was Khan? They seem so lost and ignorant of video games and the market.

But at one point yesterday, Phil had to explain how mergers work and how acquiring a large asset isn’t really “spending money” so much as it is transferring assets. Like it’s one thing for one of our anti-acquisition armchair analysts here to say “well MS should just spend that 70B to develop 200 games!”. It’s another for a fucking FTC lawyer to say it

Those "200 games" are also an investment too though and "buying assets" in the hope of making more money than you've spent. I don't know why xbox fans are acting so strange regarding Phil's response to that question.

This. Please someone answer this question.

Yes it's the standard on almost all storefronts. Some may provide lower rates but taking 30% is the standard.

 

[DeepEnigma]

This. Please someone answer this question.

Yes.

Remember Tim Sweeney vs Apple and other storefronts trying to look like "nice guy?"

 

[Don Carlo]

Gonna have a field day looking at comments here.

 

[MikeM]

Now we are complaining about revenue split? Come on Phil… this is standard. Your business does the exact same thing.

 

[Zghia]

Phil is such a whiny bitch

 

[GustavoLT]

Xbox needs a new guy.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Those "200 games" are also an investment too though and "buying assets" in the hope of making more money than you've spent. I don't know why xbox fans are acting so strange regarding Phil's response to that question.

Yes it's the standard on almost all storefronts. Some may provide lower rates but taking 30% is the standard.

And clearly MS doesn’t think that the premium they have to pay to secure content is an investment that sees worthwhile returns. Which is why they are instead opting to expand their studios, so they rely less on third party content. It’s also why you see Sony signing up huge third party deals and MS is mostly signing smaller scale games.

People want to shit on MS for these acquisitions but Sony isn’t innocent.

 

[Topher]

Those games are on Xbox, because Sony had no choice. MLB had to be multiplat because of the license and Bungie only joined Sony under the condition that their games are multiplat.
The underlying meaning of Phil's statement is that voluntarily "sharing" your games with the competition will partially weaken you, because the competition is not willing to do the same.
Personally I disagree, but it's not that hard to understand where he's coming from. Then again, some people just don't want to understand because it wouldn't fit their point of view.

Factually you are inserting conditions that do not exist in what Spencer is saying. And it is irrelevant. No one put a gun to Sony's head. Sony had a choice not continue with MLB. Sony had a choice to not buy Bungie. Those choices voluntary "weaken" Sony, to use your words. Clearly you do not want to understand this because it does not fit your point of view.....again using your words. I'd be fine just disagreeing, but....

 

[PropellerEar]

Unbelievable....
Sony....

Sad lil salty man.
Guys business unit never made any profit.

 

[LordOfChaos]

Err isn't Microsoft at 30% for Xbox releases (12% drop was only for PC)?

Isn't that the same damn thing consoles just do?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Factually you are inserting conditions that do not exist in what Spencer is saying. And it is irrelevant. No one put a gun to Sony's head. Sony had a choice not continue with MLB. Sony had a choice to not buy Bungie. Those choices voluntary "weaken" Sony, to use your words. Clearly you do not want to understand this because it does not fit your point of view.....again using your words. I'd be fine just disagreeing, but....

It was also mutually agreed upon with the MLB. They didn't "force" a thing.

Their first party license was coming up for renewal, (3rd party license has always been available, but nobody wanted it because The Show is the "go to" baseball sim and both the MLB themselves and 2K failed already), thus they picked up the 3rd party license to expand their GaaS endeavors with Diamond Dynasty mode.

If Sony walked away, the MLB would have been just as assed out with that gaming revenue stream. It was a mutually beneficial arrangement that also secures Sony with the Madden-like NFL license and fits into the MLB wanting to expand their global brand as well. Sony doesn't even have to worry about publishing outside of PS since MLB takes care of that from their failed RBI Baseball experience publishing arm.

But, fanatic derpy doos want to paint narratives to make their perceived "enemy" look bad. All emotionally stunted shit.

 

[Edgelord79]

Our narratives don’t matter. All the matters is what is said in court and how it’s interpreted by the judge in a legal sense.

Remember we wouldn’t be here if the CMA and FTC decision wasn’t based in such a lack of fundamental knowledge in how the industry worked. Yes or no doesn’t matter unless it’s backed up with a really good argument legally. Plenty of analysts have expressed concerns on how the regulators came to the decision as opposed to the decision itself.

Edit: wrong thread please delete.

 

[Three]

Our narratives don’t matter. All the matters is what is said in court and how it’s interpreted by the judge in a legal sense.

Remember we wouldn’t be here if the CMA and FTC decision wasn’t based in such a lack of fundamental knowledge in how the industry worked. Yes or no doesn’t matter unless it’s backed up with a really good argument legally. Plenty of analysts have expressed concerns on how the regulators came to the decision as opposed to the decision itself.

What has this got to do with the CMA and FTC lacking knowledge when you're endorsing this lack of knowledge the judge might have instead?

 

[DeepEnigma]

What has this got to do with the CMA and FTC lacking knowledge when you're endorsing this lack of knowledge the judge might have instead?

I'm trying to wrap my head around that myself.

 

[wvnative]

Those "200 games" are also an investment too though and "buying assets" in the hope of making more money than you've spent. I don't know why xbox fans are acting so strange regarding Phil's response to that question.

Yes it's the standard on almost all storefronts. Some may provide lower rates but taking 30% is the standard.

Then what the fuck is uncle phill on about?

 

[Three]

Then what the fuck is uncle phill on about?

He's making excuses as to why he's removing content from PS but they would have found it's a daft excuse if they were actually questioned on it or asked to elaborate by the lawyers.

 

[KaiserBecks]

Factually you are inserting conditions that do not exist in what Spencer is saying. And it is irrelevant. No one put a gun to Sony's head. Sony had a choice not continue with MLB. Sony had a choice to not buy Bungie. Those choices voluntary "weaken" Sony, to use your words. Clearly you do not want to understand this because it does not fit your point of view.....again using your words. I'd be fine just disagreeing, but....

I'm drawing conclusions like everybody else in this thread. If it doesn't make sense to you then that's fine.

Like Minecraft?

Yeah, pretty much. Although I guess they could've pulled Minecraft from Sony consoles if they wanted to. Would have been a dick move though.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Yeah, pretty much. Although I guess they could've pulled Minecraft from Sony consoles if they wanted to. Would have been a dick move though.

They can't. Phil Spencer in court yesterday said that he wants to, but currently can't get around it. Which adds credence to Notch having it in the original sales contract for the IP.

 

[Topher]

I'm drawing conclusions like everybody else in this thread. If it doesn't make sense to you then that's fine.

That's fine and all, but suggesting willful ignorance is likely for anyone who doesn't agree with your conclusion is uncalled for. We can agree to disagree.

 

[KaiserBecks]

They can't. Phil Spencer in court yesterday said that he wants to, but currently can't get around it.

Well that's pathetic. Didn't he make a big deal about how he wanted to keep the Minecraft community the way it is or something?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Well that's pathetic. Didn't he make a big deal about how he wanted to keep the Minecraft community the way it is or something?

Phil Spencer double speaking. I'm shocked.

He PRs that to the public, because he's not going to admit to the public that he can't take it away. But he had to under oath in court since it was said in board meetings.

 

[KaiserBecks]

That's fine and all, but suggesting willful ignorance is likely for anyone who doesn't agree with your conclusion is uncalled for. We can agree to disagree.

The way you're putting it, I think you're right. I went too far there.

 

[soulbait]

That works both ways, Phil

As I have said in many of these threads, "Yeah, no shit."

But you are not looking at the significance of this within the full context of what Phil was saying. Prior to this quote, Phil was asked about market share, and the reply was how they are in third-place, with a significant less market share. With the larger market share on PlayStation, that means a couple of things:

1) games MS release on both platforms, can sell more on Sony, giving Sony a pure 30% revenue cut on those high sales. Sony did not pay anything for the game, but has the potential to make more money from the game than MS due to their install base and MS paying the expense to create the game.

2) If Sony releases a game on Xbox, once again due to market share, Xbox will make a significant less money on those games versus the amount of money Sony makes on MS games released on Sony's marketplace.

This gives Sony a great competitive advantage and explains what decisions are at play when deciding which games MS will also put in the Sony marketplace. Every game MS releases in Sony's marketplace can end up giving Sony more money versus what Xbox makes on the game due to the expense of the game. The impact is not nearly there for Sony releasing on Xbox.

A huge game that was already established like COD or Minecraft makes sense, because even though Sony still makes a ton of money on those games that fuels their own games that slow Xbox's growth, there is a ton of revenue to be generated there. But for new franchises or smaller games, there is a risk of basic giving your competitor free money after the huge investment they placed to make the game.

Sony does not need to release any game on Xbox, due to their market share. However, it makes sense for MS to release some games on PlayStation for potential profit increase, but that comes with the price of fueling your competitor with more cash to compete against you.

 

[StealthGoblin]

I'm pretty sure that if that 70-30 split wasn't there, Microsoft would release more games on Playstation. For the same reason they don't keep that many exclusives from PC. And that's probably the point Phil Spencer was making.

He's aware they also have that cost, but this is purely about releasing their games on the Sony platform. Do you think Sony would release games on PC, if for some reason Microsoft would get a 30% cut?

Sony have built a platform that is selling well and is projected to sell incredibly well and they’ve cultivated a userbase that buys a lot of games and spends a lot in the games they play.

The 30% royalty is partially for access to that. If Microsoft want more money, giving over 30% isn’t that big of a deal, especially as they keep preaching that they want their games on as many platforms as possible.

Sometimes you have to pay the piper. Bungie will be paying Xbox a lot of 30% too.

 

[Topher]

As I have said in many of these threads, "Yeah, no shit."

But you are not looking at the significance of this within the full context of what Phil was saying. Prior to this quote, Phil was asked about market share, and the reply was how they are in third-place, with a significant less market share. With the larger market share on PlayStation, that means a couple of things:

1) games MS release on both platforms, can sell more on Sony, giving Sony a pure 30% revenue cut on those high sales. Sony did not pay anything for the game, but has the potential to make more money from the game than MS due to their install base and MS paying the expense to create the game.

2) If Sony releases a game on Xbox, once again due to market share, Xbox will make a significant less money on those games versus the amount of money Sony makes on MS games released on Sony's marketplace.

This gives Sony a great competitive advantage and explains what decisions are at play when deciding which games MS will also put in the Sony marketplace. Every game MS releases in Sony's marketplace can end up giving Sony more money versus what Xbox makes on the game due to the expense of the game. The impact is not nearly there for Sony releasing on Xbox.

A huge game that was already established like COD or Minecraft makes sense, because even though Sony still makes a ton of money on those games that fuels their own games that slow Xbox's growth, there is a ton of revenue to be generated there. But for new franchises or smaller games, there is a risk of basic giving your competitor free money after the huge investment they placed to make the game.

Sony does not need to release any game on Xbox, due to their market share. However, it makes sense for MS to release some games on PlayStation for potential profit increase, but that comes with the price of fueling your competitor with more cash to compete against you.

Fair points. And yes, I'm only looking at this at surface level. When Xbox has the financial backing of a $2 trillion corporation then I really don't feel the need to go hunting for financial excuses. So I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything you are saying, but at the same time we are talking about a corporation attempting to buy Activision Blizzard. Sorry, but "cry me a river" comes to mind when I hear Phil Spencer talking about difficulties in competing against Sony.

 

[Clear]

Fair points. And yes, I'm only looking at this at surface level. When Xbox has the financial backing of a $2 trillion corporation then I really don't feel the need to go hunting for financial excuses. So I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything you are saying, but at the same time we are talking about a corporation attempting to buy Activision Blizzard. Sorry, but "cry me a river" comes to mind when I hear Phil Spencer talking about difficulties in competing against Sony.

Exactly, its not a particularly convincing argument when they are expending $70billion to beat out a competitor with a total market cap of $114b including divisions and interests outside the contested market!

 

[Edgelord79]

What has this got to do with the CMA and FTC lacking knowledge when you're endorsing this lack of knowledge the judge might have instead?

Sorry wrong thread lol

 

[SmokedMeat]

That’s how it works Phil. You pay royalties to the platform holder.

I mean, if it’s not worth it to you then don’t put any games on the platform.

 

[wolffy66]

Eliminating competition is kinda the point of business at the end of the day

 

[DeepEnigma]

Eliminating competition is kinda the point of business at the end of the day

Another fallacy to rationalize and positive spin The Brand's behavior.

 

[Topher]

Eliminating competition is kinda the point of business at the end of the day

I'll never understand this kind of rationalization.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I'll never understand this kind of rationalization.

Well, you sir, don't think like a sociopath.

 

[Lupin25]

Eliminating competition is kinda the point of business at the end of the day

You think that’s good for Phil to repeat to regulators?

 

[Topher]

You think that’s good for Phil to repeat to regulators?

That's what he has Matt Booty for.

 

[Moriarty1889]

Phil is as petty as they come. These hearings are truly bringing out the worst in MS and Xbox. If this deal doesn’t go through expect some major changes at Xbox.

 

[Lupin25]

That's what he has Matt Booty for.

How about Sarah Bond for that matter!?

Someone has to bite the bullet

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Can a 2.6 trillion dollar company sound even more desperate? Stay tuned!

 

[Topher]

How about Sarah Bond for that matter!?

Someone has to bite the bullet

lol.....I think Sarah Bond has too much class for that level of nonsense. Matt Booty though......

 

[PropellerEar]

Phil Spencer:
"Everytime we ship a game Day1 on GamePass we get 0 profit."
"Everytime we sell a console, we get 0 profit."

"Sonyyyy!"

 

[Chukhopops]

OP just posted it without giving any contexts

I wonder are some of the FTC lawyers are gaf members? Lol. I find lot of similarities between some gaf members and ftc lawyers lol

Well the FTC didn’t understand the concept of converting cash into an asset, Spencer had to explain it was like buying a house, you just turn an asset into another type of asset.

This gave me painful flashbacks of arguing why MS didn’t have to « pay back » the ABK purchase.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Well the FTC didn’t understand the concept of converting cash into an asset, Spencer had to explain it was like buying a house, you just turn an asset into another type of asset.

This gave me painful flashbacks of arguing why MS didn’t have to « pay back » the ABK purchase.

Yes it was quite the head scratcher. The FTC dude was basically making the same warrior argument lots here make. “Well they have to pay more for exclusives than Sony, but they’re spending 70B on Activision, so clearly they have the money!”.

That’s exactly what the lawyer was saying. It’s not the same thing, and it was very surprising that Phil had to explain that.

 

[Helghan]

Sony have built a platform that is selling well and is projected to sell incredibly well and they’ve cultivated a userbase that buys a lot of games and spends a lot in the games they play.

The 30% royalty is partially for access to that. If Microsoft want more money, giving over 30% isn’t that big of a deal, especially as they keep preaching that they want their games on as many platforms as possible.

Sometimes you have to pay the piper. Bungie will be paying Xbox a lot of 30% too.

When you have your own platform as another revenue stream and game pass as another that doesn’t make sense.

If game pass is the end goal, then you don’t release those games on PS, since they’ll use that money to grow bigger and then there’s nowhere to release game pass on besides PC. But PC market is a much more difficult market to get money from per person.

 

[Pop]

 

[adamsapple]

Well the FTC didn’t understand the concept of converting cash into an asset, Spencer had to explain it was like buying a house, you just turn an asset into another type of asset.

This gave me painful flashbacks of arguing why MS didn’t have to « pay back » the ABK purchase.

To play the devils advocate, the lawyer probably gave an open-ended question so Phil can explain for the benefit for the people who aren't aware of how it would work.

Cause we've all seen our share of posts here and elsewhere from users who think that if the deal does not go through, MS will lose $70 bn.

 

[twilo99]

As I have said in many of these threads, "Yeah, no shit."

But you are not looking at the significance of this within the full context of what Phil was saying. Prior to this quote, Phil was asked about market share, and the reply was how they are in third-place, with a significant less market share. With the larger market share on PlayStation, that means a couple of things:

1) games MS release on both platforms, can sell more on Sony, giving Sony a pure 30% revenue cut on those high sales. Sony did not pay anything for the game, but has the potential to make more money from the game than MS due to their install base and MS paying the expense to create the game.

2) If Sony releases a game on Xbox, once again due to market share, Xbox will make a significant less money on those games versus the amount of money Sony makes on MS games released on Sony's marketplace.

This gives Sony a great competitive advantage and explains what decisions are at play when deciding which games MS will also put in the Sony marketplace. Every game MS releases in Sony's marketplace can end up giving Sony more money versus what Xbox makes on the game due to the expense of the game. The impact is not nearly there for Sony releasing on Xbox.

A huge game that was already established like COD or Minecraft makes sense, because even though Sony still makes a ton of money on those games that fuels their own games that slow Xbox's growth, there is a ton of revenue to be generated there. But for new franchises or smaller games, there is a risk of basic giving your competitor free money after the huge investment they placed to make the game.

Sony does not need to release any game on Xbox, due to their market share. However, it makes sense for MS to release some games on PlayStation for potential profit increase, but that comes with the price of fueling your competitor with more cash to compete against you.

That is correct.