Support NeoGAF

[pasterpl]

Summary of latest news;

https://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2022/10/02/microsoft-activision-deal-worries-google/

Activision Blizzard and Google announced in January 2020 that they entered into a multi-year partnership, as part of which Activision Blizzard has been utilizing Google’s cloud services. A year later, Microsoft came into the picture with its own cloud solution in Azure. Microsoft is legally obligated to honor Activision Blizzard’s contracts should the acquisition go ahead, but it’s highly unlikely that it’ll extend the publisher’s current partnerships. That’s a concern Sony shares as well, especially when it comes to Call of Duty.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-compliance-chief-frances-townsend-steps-down

Activision Blizzard Inc.’s chief compliance officer, who drew scrutiny over her response to sexual assault allegations last year, is stepping down as the video game publisher seeks to close its sale to Microsoft Corp.

Frances Townsend, who also serves as executive vice president of corporate affairs, leaves two years after taking her role. After Friday, she will become an adviser to the board and to the chief executive officer, Bobby Kotick

And something a bit lighter;

https://www.aroged.com/2022/10/01/c...ng-game-shown-90-characters-and-27-locations/

A user under the nickname blackheartJV presented his concept of what an Xbox fighting game could look like. The images below show 90 characters and 27 locations.

 

[twilo99]

At the peak of Guitar Hero/CoD/Wow a company would have overpaid considering 2 of those are shells of themselves.

Long term tho? I think its been a safe buy for a while.

Their all time high was 104/share and that was in February of 2021

 

[PaintTinJr]

General gaming public equating PlayStation fanboys? There are not a lot of switch or PC players against this.
The market leader and their fans opinion being treated as gospel would be much more harmful for the competition than what this deal does.

Most of us have gamed on everything we've had through our lifetimes and would have made these same observations if this was Sony doing this to Nintendo with something like Monster Hunter, so just because I and others are more vocal about PlayStation doesn't mean we don't still represent the voice of Nintendo, etc on topics we show opposition to the reductive money goes to money damaging gaming take.
/edit
Also do you think the industry staff in studios around the world developing for all, are for or against?

...

So you are you saying that they won't be looking at it from a competition POV but from their own interests? I don't see how that's better.

You've got that back-to-front. The healthiness of the market competition is reflected in the money the treasury earns from the industry. Healthy market competition and higher tax returns go hand-in-hand because it is symbiotic.

When a market has healthy competition there is more players, meaning more taxable companies, more taxable staff, and as a side effect higher wages - from competition for those tertiary skilled works - which in-turn means more products by more companies meaning competition on value for money too, meaning self regulating pricing so the market as a whole can maximise consumer reach, meaning more sales(VAT) taxes.

Letting the deal pass probably means redundant functions within Activision and Microsoft results in staff reductions - through efficiency and less teams for CoD - and 1 less mega-company meaning more avenues to offset losses against gains in Microsoft, meaning they will pay less tax after an acquisition that the straight A+B of MSFT + Activision.

Gamepass will likely devalue CoD on PlayStation meaning less £70 CoD sales across the board and less VAT paid, and less footfall in retail. Then you have the problem that PlayStation is working against itself to promote CoD, because for every 30% they take, they are giving a direct competitor 70%, so they'll scale back on advertising and promotion and because their returns on CoD are then lowered, they'll have less to reinvest in PlayStation games, which in itself isn't a problem if it wasn't for the fact that Nintendo and Sony (and Steam) are the public's chosen champions for the AAA-AA space and now the most effective sales driving game in that space will be controlled by a company division that has had collective losses for over 2 decades, and likely to mess CoD up too, and its tax generation.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Doesn't make any sense to make one of the most popular games franchises exclusive to a console to make people buy their console.

Damn, what are Microsoft thinking?

Microsoft seems to be very weird and doesn't understand economics like you and me, because they were stupid to make elder scrolls 6 and Starfield as well.

I mean why on earth would they do that. No one is gonna buy an Xbox so it seems they make a game no people can play.

The Xbox has no exclusives so it's not worth buying it. Which makes it weird they make exclusive games to make their console look more attractive.

Spencer should get a lesson in basic economics.


Microsoft forced them, just like they forced Sony to make third party purchases.

I remember some people saying it in here when Sony was buying Bungie.

"Microsoft is doomed without call of duty"

Out of 26 most popular games on xbox 2 of them are call of duty.

And just to save you time for replying, out of the 49 games 3 of them are call of duty.

Xbox is doing fine.

And, yes, I know what you are thinking. "but only 3 of the games are are exclusives so Microsoft is in trouble".

If you don't care about the exclusives Sony brings, then there's no reason picking a PlayStation over an Xbox.

Then people pick their favored platform, either because of friends, a controller, or if you also like being able to play games from all generations, or gamepass.

Sony will lose alot, as there's many people buying a console to play fifa or call of duty.

Sony exclusives sells well at first and are forgotten within three months.

Call of duty gets played constantly until the next annual release. Buying battle passes, skins and so on.

Someone in here wrote Sony earns 400 million dollars a year on call of duty.

What a pointless reply. Not sure what I'm looking at. Now post the top from PSN and guess what? It's the same.

I don't see Gears, Grounded, SOT? Halo is also very low, you think they could lose COD and be fine with their games only? They make more money with Destiny from Sony

You would have a point if PSN Top 10 was all COD but it doesn't. It's the same so you're arguing for no reason.

 

[Gavon West]

This is exactly why I fail to see how Sony moneyhats as much as Xbox fans claim they do. Sony doesn't come to the publishers, the publishers come to sony, either because their hardware is better (MGS4, Final Fantasy 7) or because they're simply more popular. It's what happens when you're consistently top of the industry for almost 30 years.

If Xbox focused more on 1st party and tried to make their consoles look more appealing to other countries, they wouldn't be fighting this uphill battle they created for themselves. Phil has 2 trillions worth of backing that could easily change the fate of his brand and the gaming industry. My man needs to actually use it. I couldn't imagine sitting on a hotbed of that much potential and somehow have 0 exclusives for an entire year.

So, like, you realize it takes two willing parties for an acquisition to take place, right?

Last gen everyone was wanting Microsoft to compete. They mocked the infamous war chest. This gen, they are competing and the warchest is real. What's the issue? I'm genuinely not understanding. Even Sony is crying just as loud as their fanbase now.

I've said before, gamers don't know what they want.

 

[Gavon West]

which interesting, if this go through and i think it will. the chance of xbox getting publisher after Acti is low. not MS don't want but What might regulators think, getting more Publishers will strength MS more in cloud business. i expect MS to go shopping spree for indie studios after Acti deal.

Phil already said they are still looking to acquire developers AND publishers. Rumor has it, they are currently seeking publishers in Asia. They aren't done with buying publishers.

 

[Gavon West]

The funnier thing is that cod will still be on PlayStation no one is taking it away for two reasons

1. The money xbox would make is very significant. They will get 70% of every sale to reinvest into the development of services and other titles (goes without saying Sony still get their 30%)

2. Why would anyone with the leading franchise willingly create a black hole like that for a competing game to come and take the prestige and oxygen and hype from it? Just makes no sense

But I do anticipate that Xbox strategy will be more reliant on COD Mobile and warzone on pc consoles to grow and supplement annual titles. I expect titles every 2 years personally and maybe a reinvigorated zombies all in one like warzone but for their pve players

Sony making the crux of their arguments about call of duty is hilarious for me because it’s such a red herring showing they are grasping at straws

Tell you what though, it shows that Sony has been relying heavily on CoD for years and years, using their over the shoulder 3rd person narrative driven games to take up the slack and plug up any financial holes they may have in their stables. These boys is mad worried right now. Microsoft doesn't HAVE to lock CoD down to their ecosystem (although it'll happen eventually) Just marketing CoD alone on Gamepass will be felt throughout the industry, regardless if Sony receives the same game or no. The clink in Sony's armour has been exposed, based on how JR is pulling up these days.

 

[DarkMage619]

Most of us have gamed on everything we've had through our lifetimes and would have made these same observations if this was Sony doing this to Nintendo with something like Monster Hunter, so just because I and others are more vocal about PlayStation doesn't mean we don't still represent the voice of Nintendo, etc on topics we show opposition to the reductive money goes to money damaging gaming take.
/edit
Also do you think the industry staff in studios around the world developing for all, are for or against?

The Brazilian report had commentary from companies all over the industry. The main entity complaining was Sony. Other third parties didn't have any major issues and all said that they would make competitors to CoD. That is a sign of a healthy functioning industry. With regard to your staff question did you consider the rank and file at Activision? Do you think they'd prefer to stay under Kotick to keep Sony happy? This acquisition goes way beyond CoD and Sony. Everything we've seen indicates that the employee of Activision will be far better off under MS leadership.

Gamepass will likely devalue CoD on PlayStation meaning less £70 CoD sales across the board and less VAT paid, and less footfall in retail. Then you have the problem that PlayStation is working against itself to promote CoD, because for every 30% they take, they are giving a direct competitor 70%, so they'll scale back on advertising and promotion and because their returns on CoD are then lowered, they'll have less to reinvest in PlayStation games, which in itself isn't a problem if it wasn't for the fact that Nintendo and Sony (and Steam) are the public's chosen champions for the AAA-AA space and now the most effective sales driving game in that space will be controlled by a company division that has had collective losses for over 2 decades, and likely to mess CoD up too, and its tax generation.

What is this about the public's chosen champion for AAA space mean? Xbox has plenty of AAA titles and more are in development right now. A MS published title won games of the year last year and that is with a Game pass launch.

What does the perceived losses from fans on forums have to do with AAA-AA games on Game pass? I keep hearing that games are being 'devalued' what does that even mean? Are you suggesting that consoles and games should be more expensive? You think that would be GOOD for customers? How does shrinking the potential audience to video games make the industry better?

Game value isn't about the price tag a game company puts on it. By the way every game on Game pass has a normal retail purchase price too but for some reason people always forget that. There has been no evidence that game quality has declined for games on Game pass at all. Game pass is optional.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Last gen everyone was wanting Microsoft to compete. They mocked the infamous war chest. This gen, they are competing and the warchest is real. What's the issue? I'm genuinely not understanding. Even Sony is crying just as loud as their fanbase now.

I've said before, gamers don't know what they want.

Right, I'm sure the Xbox fans that were begging Phil for games were crying about....COD. A yearly franchise they got every year with no risk of losing. I'm sure that's what they meant...use that warchest for more COD Phil please we want COD. Keep spinning

 

[Jimmyisback]

Summary of latest news;

https://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2022/10/02/microsoft-activision-deal-worries-google/



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-compliance-chief-frances-townsend-steps-down



And something a bit lighter;

https://www.aroged.com/2022/10/01/c...ng-game-shown-90-characters-and-27-locations/

I'd master clippy just to troll.

 

[Louay]

Phil already said they are still looking to acquire developers AND publishers. Rumor has it, they are currently seeking publishers in Asia. They aren't done with buying publishers.

i'm not saying they are done, i'm saying regulators may block the next publisher move, it's 50/50 next to get blocked or go through.

 

[Louay]

my bad wrong thread

 

[ZehDon]

What are you even trying to say right now?...

... What are your silly figures trying to show though?...

... Ok? What's the relevance?...

You are saying...

I highlighted in my prior post that you're just disagreeing for the sake of it, and that you didn't really say much at all. Then you turn your next post into this. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

Ok, jokes aside, let's try this approach instead, since we're clearly getting nowhere. The below is the core of issue in my opinion:

... You are saying Sony has nothing to keep PS+ subs whereas Xbox has Grounded. It's multiplatform but that has no bearing on Destiny maintaining PS+ subs. It doesn't need to replace COD. CoD is multiplatform too. Does Grounded, Gears or Halo replace COD if it were to go? They would do a far poorer job than Destiny. We are talking about MS and Sony's reliance on COD which is no different. If COD were to go from Xbox, Halo, Gears and Grounded would not maintain xbox live subs and xbox would lose a huge chunk of their 30% cut money and XLG subs. Halo doesn't even need XBLG and the others are less relevant than Destiny and drive very little...

This is a good jumping off point, so let's stay here.

To be a little general, Microsoft's approach with Xbox is now economies of scale. It lost to Sony in the boxed retail market painfully last generation, painfully so if we're being honest, so it's doing something else. Instead of focusing on 20 million unit blockbusters, it's aiming to cast a wide net, hoping to make up the revenue difference through sheer volume. Instead of needing 1 game to sell 20 million, it wants 20 games that sell 1 million. This allows it to diversify: RTS games (Age of Empire), FPS games (Halo), RPGs (StarField), Survival Games (Grounded), Fighting Games (Killer Instinct). It also offers up Game Pass, pooling those million sellers into a single subscription. Want to play lots of games? Subscribe and enjoy them all and more. It doesn't want PSN's 40 million annual subscribers, it wants Netflix's 100+ million monthly subscribers. It's a tempting offer for the hardcore gamers like us. Microsoft's approach is to make its offering as tempting as possible to as many different kinds and types of gamers as possible. Want an indie farming roman simulator? No problem. Want a massive sci-fi FPS? Got you covered. Love medieval RTS games? They have more than a few.

Sony, instead, has simply doubled down on the blockbuster approach. Bigger games, each expected to sell tens of millions of copies, massive hype trains. This strategy built an unstoppable brand last generation, so it makes sense to continue on with the approach this generation. No one else makes third person cinematic games as good as Sony's, so, they doubled down, and used their extensive third party relationships to built out the platform's roster. They abandoned attempts to diversify and instead specialized. They make third person cinematic games, the best of the best. So, they keep doing that, and leave the FPS games to the FPS developers, the RPGs to the RPG developers, the multiplayer games to the multiplayer developers. Everyone's happy. PlayStation has the diversity to compete with Microsoft, but also the industry leading blockbusters that grab headlines and make for great marketing. It's an approach that brought the PS4 close to the PS2's storied legacy, and no one does it better than Sony.

Now, to come back to the topic on hand, I believe Microsoft's "diversify" approach is now crashing into Sony's "specalise" approach thanks to Microsoft's publisher acquisitions. This is Microsoft filling gaps in its roster to diversify its offerings and bolster Game Pass. Microsoft bought up Bethesda, the biggest WRPG developer in the world. In fact, Microsoft now owns pretty much all of the best WRPG developers in the world. That creates a problem for Sony, because that means they can't rely on those third parties to built out their platform's roster, filling the gaps in their first party development schedule created by Sony's specalisation. No Starfield, no Elder Scrolls, no Fallout. That hurts their platform, because if you want WRPGs, PlayStation now has little to offer you unless Sony starts making it itself. This is the core issue Sony is now facing, because it runs perfectly counter to Microsoft's approach. Sony makes one thing, and does it really well, but it means it has to lean on its partners to fill out the roster. Microsoft seems to want to make one of everything, and I'm betting its to ensure that it doesn't have to rely on third parties to fill out its roster. From a Game Pass perspective, it makes sense: it's trying to avoid the issue Netflix has, where it's simply not producing enough high quality content to justify its subscription cost for millions of people.

With Call of Duty, Microsoft is pocketing the biggest "multiplayer" game in the world. The hole this punches in Sony's bank sheet is a couple of billion dollars wide, absolutely, but I believe its the gap in Sony's roster that hurts it the most. If Microsoft lost Call of Duty, yes, it would lose a lot of money. Like, a lot. However, thanks to its diversified approach, it still has lots of other games exclusive to its own platform to pick up the slack to keep subscribed, either to Xbox Live or to Game Pass. Sony really doesn't make multiplayer games, because it doubled down on its specalisation. Sony is reliant on Call of Duty to fill that gap in its roster, and without Call of Duty, it doesn't have all that many unique titles that people subscribe for. Certainly a lot less than Microsoft. And that is the core of my perspective: Microsoft has (random number) 20 games with small communities all subscribed with potentially some overlap. Sony has (random number) 4 games with much larger communities, but I'd bet the overlap isn't as wide reaching. On Xbox, if you subscribe just for Call of Duty, and it went away, Microsoft's scattershot approach means it might still have other things to keep you around. On PlayStation if you subscribe just for Call of Duty, and it went away, Sony's specalisation approach means it likely doesn't have a lot of other things to keep you around.

So, that wall of text is my perspective. I could be entirely wrong here, and Sony sheds Call of Duty and somehow actually makes more money. I'm keen to read your perspective, which I believe will be quite different from mine.

 

[Three]

I highlighted in my prior post that you're just disagreeing for the sake of it, and that you didn't really say much at all. Then you turn your next post into this. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

Ok, jokes aside, let's try this approach instead, since we're clearly getting nowhere. The below is the core of issue in my opinion:

This is a good jumping off point, so let's stay here.

To be a little general, Microsoft's approach with Xbox is now economies of scale. It lost to Sony in the boxed retail market painfully last generation, painfully so if we're being honest, so it's doing something else. Instead of focusing on 20 million unit blockbusters, it's aiming to cast a wide net, hoping to make up the revenue difference through sheer volume. Instead of needing 1 game to sell 20 million, it wants 20 games that sell 1 million. This allows it to diversify: RTS games (Age of Empire), FPS games (Halo), RPGs (StarField), Survival Games (Grounded), Fighting Games (Killer Instinct). It also offers up Game Pass, pooling those million sellers into a single subscription. Want to play lots of games? Subscribe and enjoy them all and more. It doesn't want PSN's 40 million annual subscribers, it wants Netflix's 100+ million monthly subscribers. It's a tempting offer for the hardcore gamers like us. Microsoft's approach is to make its offering as tempting as possible to as many different kinds and types of gamers as possible. Want an indie farming roman simulator? No problem. Want a massive sci-fi FPS? Got you covered. Love medieval RTS games? They have more than a few.

Sony, instead, has simply doubled down on the blockbuster approach. Bigger games, each expected to sell tens of millions of copies, massive hype trains. This strategy built an unstoppable brand last generation, so it makes sense to continue on with the approach this generation. No one else makes third person cinematic games as good as Sony's, so, they doubled down, and used their extensive third party relationships to built out the platform's roster. They abandoned attempts to diversify and instead specialized. They make third person cinematic games, the best of the best. So, they keep doing that, and leave the FPS games to the FPS developers, the RPGs to the RPG developers, the multiplayer games to the multiplayer developers. Everyone's happy. PlayStation has the diversity to compete with Microsoft, but also the industry leading blockbusters that grab headlines and make for great marketing. It's an approach that brought the PS4 close to the PS2's storied legacy, and no one does it better than Sony.

Now, to come back to the topic on hand, I believe Microsoft's "diversify" approach is now crashing into Sony's "specalise" approach thanks to Microsoft's publisher acquisitions. This is Microsoft filling gaps in its roster to diversify its offerings and bolster Game Pass. Microsoft bought up Bethesda, the biggest WRPG developer in the world. In fact, Microsoft now owns pretty much all of the best WRPG developers in the world. That creates a problem for Sony, because that means they can't rely on those third parties to built out their platform's roster, filling the gaps in their first party development schedule created by Sony's specalisation. No Starfield, no Elder Scrolls, no Fallout. That hurts their platform, because if you want WRPGs, PlayStation now has little to offer you unless Sony starts making it itself. This is the core issue Sony is now facing, because it runs perfectly counter to Microsoft's approach. Sony makes one thing, and does it really well, but it means it has to lean on its partners to fill out the roster. Microsoft seems to want to make one of everything, and I'm betting its to ensure that it doesn't have to rely on third parties to fill out its roster. From a Game Pass perspective, it makes sense: it's trying to avoid the issue Netflix has, where it's simply not producing enough high quality content to justify its subscription cost for millions of people.

With Call of Duty, Microsoft is pocketing the biggest "multiplayer" game in the world. The hole this punches in Sony's bank sheet is a couple of billion dollars wide, absolutely, but I believe its the gap in Sony's roster that hurts it the most. If Microsoft lost Call of Duty, yes, it would lose a lot of money. Like, a lot. However, thanks to its diversified approach, it still has lots of other games exclusive to its own platform to pick up the slack to keep subscribed, either to Xbox Live or to Game Pass. Sony really doesn't make multiplayer games, because it doubled down on its specalisation. Sony is reliant on Call of Duty to fill that gap in its roster, and without Call of Duty, it doesn't have all that many unique titles that people subscribe for. Certainly a lot less than Microsoft. And that is the core of my perspective: Microsoft has (random number) 20 games with small communities all subscribed with potentially some overlap. Sony has (random number) 4 games with much larger communities, but I'd bet the overlap isn't as wide reaching. On Xbox, if you subscribe just for Call of Duty, and it went away, Microsoft's scattershot approach means it might still have other things to keep you around. On PlayStation if you subscribe just for Call of Duty, and it went away, Sony's specalisation approach means it likely doesn't have a lot of other things to keep you around.

So, that wall of text is my perspective. I could be entirely wrong here, and Sony sheds Call of Duty and somehow actually makes more money. I'm keen to read your perspective, which I believe will be quite different from mine.

I think you're the one arguing here for the sake of arguing to the point where I don't think you yourself know what we're arguing about anymore.
Why would my post give you a good laugh when I was asking for you to explain what is the relevance of what you're saying in the context of my replies to you. That context being

a) how is MS relying on "their own titles" to drive subs and not also heavily relying on third parties like COD? Especially in light of past CoD marketing deals and a $70B aquisition now.
b) how is Sony more reliant on COD than MS for "getting 30% on a platform they didn't build" when they have built an install base by selling consoles and a service by offering games.

You refuted my NPD data showing that game sales for xbox are mostly COD with the idea that PS makes the most money for Activision. whereas it's only $809M or whatever for xbox. You failed to understand though that incorrect figure makes a larger percentage of the game sales cut (30%) that xbox make and so they are relying on that 30% more than Sony are based on the NPD charts.

If you want to see where I'm coming from go back and read the posts. I only said MS take 30% from CoD sales and other third party game sales too and rely on CoD to build and maintain subs aswell hence their past marketing deal and this aquisition.

Here:

I don't get this post. MS are all too happy to get the same 30%. MS also did heavily rely on CoD to build xbox live. That's why MS had exclusivity deals with Activision for 5 years during that time. CoD was exploding and it exploded on 360 more than it did PS3 because they had those type of deals.

Then you replied with a long post suggesting I'm somehow rewriting history and the virtue of their own titles, here:

You're re-writing history, and poorly. Halo built Xbox Live. Literally - Halo 2 established console online first person shooters and it did so on the original Xbox, and cemented Xbox Live as the place to play. Microsoft went out and built their online platform using their own titles. And when the Xbox 360 came out, right up until Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Halo 3 was the most played game on Xbox Live...

These were the specific parts that I found completely nonsensical in that reply:

Microsoft take 30% of sales made on the platform it built, and continues to maintain. Sony takes 30% of the platform Call of Duty built and maintains for them.

eventually they had to outbid Microsoft for Call of Duty marketing and DLC to drive their platform. Now, PSN is larger than Xbox Live. That's what Call of Duty built for them.

Because you are completely downplaying CoDs role in establishing and maintaining Xbox subs and why that marketing deal existed in the first place on the 360 and Xbox one. It's even why this $70B deal exists because they are relying on it to build their new sub. One they cannot "build and maintain" "with their own titles that you mentioned Halo, Gears, Forza Grounded etc.

You overplay COD on the other side too by ignoring the fact that PS+ was building an install base prior to COD marketing because they offered 'free' games with the service. especially during the tail end of the PS3 and beginning of PS4 they had all of their big titles on it, PS+ had a lot of momentum and that PS4s install base was massive and people were subbing to PS+ 2yrs after launch before it even had CoD marketing. Xbox one had the marketing for COD for two years. PS+ was releasing games like Rocket League free with the service and building the platform.

You replied with this

You're underplaying it to a laughable, almost fan-boy-ish degree. Simply put: there is no Xbox Live without Halo. Halo 2 and Halo 3 turned Xbox Live in the juggernaut it eventually became during the Xbox 360 era, and gave a place for games like Call of Duty to shine.

I said:

Sure lets say initially Halo was a huge part of that growth. Doesn't take away from the fact that MS rely heavily on COD for subs, more so than Halo.

You doubled down even further suggesting completely contradictory logic:

When talking about PlayStation's revenue, it's PSN revenue and PS+ sub revenue are heavily intertwined, due to the nature of platform buy in. If someone buys a PS5 for Call of Duty in the first year of the PS5's life cycle, the amount of PSN revenue Sony can make from that one person across the PS5's lifecycle has enormous potential

Then literally a paragraph later:

Losing COD costs Microsoft nothing other than its 30% - roughly $890 million in a year.

What happened to the effect you mentioned literally a paragraph earlier?

In the next post when I point out that MS wouldn't lose $890M because that is how much Activision would lose if it lost xbox sales, you are looking at it in reverse. You say I'm giving you a good laugh and that I'm disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing and didn't say much at all. You need to look at how much MS would lose as a percentage of its total sales not Activisions revenue based on platform.

You're completely ignoring what's being discussed and it's getting kind of annoying if I were to be honest.

I'm not trying to argue with you but it gets annoying when a point I'm trying to make or discuss is just swept aside as fanboyish or rewriting history, or giving you a laugh instead of addressing the point.

You actually want my perspective? I don't think either would make more money without COD. That seems obvious to me. Xbox would not fair better either and I've been trying to make the point that it would lose a higher proportion of its reliance on the 30% cut revenue and XBL than Sony would. I too however believe that MS "does not rely on third parties like Sony does" if it happens to make those third parties first party. That again seems obvious, but MS are in no way relying on "their own titles" to build their platform any more than Sony are. MS knows this, it knows it can't rely on Halo, gears, forza to build and maintain a sub which is why it is buying other third party titles in the first place.

 

[ZehDon]

Words

Ok, I tried. Best of luck friend

 

[Three]

Ok, I tried. Best of luck friend

Thanks. We disagree, that's fine. Didn't expect you to address any points either.

Your perspective is that MS are going after hardcore gamers with their own titles of small 1M- sellers and that's building their platform to earn 30% from other games, whereas Sony's 10M+ seller games did not build a platform, COD did.

Instead I believe MS buying massive third party IPs like Minecraft, COD, Diablo, Elder Scrolls etc is the exact opposite of what you are saying.

My perspective differs to yours. They want those once third party IPs that are established to build and maintain their platform. That's what drives their revenue, their platform install base, and subs. Halo, gears etc have far less an effect today than you lead on.

 

[ZehDon]

Thanks. We disagree, that's fine...

No worries at all. Interested to see how it all plays out regardless of how wrong / right I am.

If the deal gets canned, I imagine things will not go well for Phil "Next Year!" Spencer, since the $70b Activision buyout must have a defining role in Xbox's entire strategy.

 

[DarkMage619]

No worries at all. Interested to see how it all plays out regardless of how wrong / right I am.

If the deal gets canned, I imagine things will not go well for Phil "Next Year!" Spencer, since the $70b Activision buyout must have a defining role in Xbox's entire strategy.

Well even if the deal falls through I hope they wouldn't cancel Starfield and Redfall and all the other games planned for next year. This acquisition and next year's planned releases seem like independent events.

 

[Kagey K]

No worries at all. Interested to see how it all plays out regardless of how wrong / right I am.

If the deal gets canned, I imagine things will not go well for Phil "Next Year!" Spencer, since the $70b Activision buyout must have a defining role in Xbox's entire strategy.

It won't go well for Activision either. The stock is barely holding with the promise of big gains.

If it fails the company might not be a company shortly after or someone else will be buying at a massively deflated price.

 

[Punished Miku]

If the deal doesn't go through, that's 70billion in revenge spending freed up immediately, and anything without the sales of Call of Duty would be approved. It would be a bloodbath. You guys have never seen Phil spend when angry.

 

[Kagey K]

If the deal doesn't go through, that's 70billion in revenge spending freed up immediately, and anything without the sales of Call of Duty would be approved. It would be a bloodbath. You guys have never seen Phil spend when angry.

I've seen so many people say they could have spent that money on exclusives, without realizing what 70B of timed exclusives would actually look like. At 100m/pop they could buy every AAA game releasing in at least the next 5 years, likely a lot longer.

They didn't do it because the know it's pissing money out the window

 

[ZehDon]

Well even if the deal falls through I hope they wouldn't cancel Starfield and Redfall and all the other games planned for next year. This acquisition and next year's planned releases seem like independent events.

Oh, it wouldn't impact any of that. However, Microsoft's overall stock price would take a massive battering. This is Microsoft's largest acquisition and apart of Spencer's department. If it goes down, Spencer will need to explain himself.

It won't go well for Activision either. The stock is barely holding with the promise of big gains.

If it fails the company might not be a company shortly after or someone else will be buying at a massively deflated price.

Whoever steps in will need to answer to the same regulators that Microsoft have. If they're too big for Microsoft, they're probably too big to buy period, and would need to be sold off piecemeal. Infinity Ward goes to Microsoft, Blizzard goes to Sony, etc.

 

[Kagey K]

Whoever steps in will need to answer to the same regulators that Microsoft have. If they're too big for Microsoft, they're probably too big to buy period, and would need to be sold off piecemeal. Infinity Ward goes to Microsoft, Blizzard goes to Sony, etc.

I didn't want to get that far into it, but you are absolutely correct, if the last place competitor can't buy them to become more competitive, nobody else can either.

Which basically leaves the company to fall apart and thousands of people out of a job.

Right now I'm sitting +20/-40 on the stock I own. I gain just over 20.00 per share when it goes through. If it was to fail I estimate it will drop to about 30.00 and I won't have anyone willing to buy during that drop to offset the loss.

I still strongly believe that it goes through and most of this is theatrics. I did however slow down on buying more as the price isn't moving, and I have time.

 

[Goalus]

Summary of latest news;

https://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2022/10/02/microsoft-activision-deal-worries-google/

Too bad for Google
They are going to lose a big customer

 

[phil_t98]

I've seen so many people say they could have spent that money on exclusives, without realizing what 70B of timed exclusives would actually look like. At 100m/pop they could buy every AAA game releasing in at least the next 5 years, likely a lot longer.

They didn't do it because the know it's pissing money out the window

but that's what Sony tried to do at the start of this Gen? so is it pissing money away?

 

[PaintTinJr]

The Brazilian report had commentary from companies all over the industry. The main entity complaining was Sony. Other third parties didn't have any major issues and all said that they would make competitors to CoD. That is a sign of a healthy functioning industry. With regard to your staff question did you consider the rank and file at Activision? Do you think they'd prefer to stay under Kotick to keep Sony happy? This acquisition goes way beyond CoD and Sony. Everything we've seen indicates that the employee of Activision will be far better off under MS leadership.

I'm not talking about the opinion of the management in games companies that are responsible for those reports - that could damage their professional relationship with a platform they publish on - but the actual industry opinions of the rank and file staff gamers that actually play games. And although Activision's own staff might be an outlier - if we subscribe to the cancel culture internet info as facts - I don't see a scenario where industry workers at large are going to be favouring this acquisition to think it is good for the market. Approving the acquisition is a completely mutually exclusive issue from any need to fix Activision's business culture/ There are laws, regulations and processes to do that if the proof of crimes or systemic abuse is there. It doesn't factor into regulators justify approving this deal - regardless of public opinion of Kotick.

What is this about the public's chosen champion for AAA space mean? Xbox has plenty of AAA titles and more are in development right now. A MS published title won games of the year last year and that is with a Game pass launch.

Chosen champions in having been the profitable companies or divisions that have expanded AAA-A gaming to be the size it is, today. Xbox as a division has been a huge failure financially, and unsustainable in its own right and that is a reflection of their contribution to games the gaming public actually wants.

What does the perceived losses from fans on forums have to do with AAA-AA games on Game pass? I keep hearing that games are being 'devalued' what does that even mean? Are you suggesting that consoles and games should be more expensive? You think that would be GOOD for customers? How does shrinking the potential audience to video games make the industry better?

AAA at PlayStation first party/Take2 level games on gamepass day 1 is not financially viable- as reported multiple times - so we will end up with less games to the higher production standards. less people employed. I'm not advocating for any specific pricing - higher or lower - just a business model that is sustainable, as is currently the situation for everyone - it seems - but Xbox division, and the current status quo is already better for us than the gamepass model for getting quality, varied and critically acclaimed games.

And let us not forget that gamepass is just a rental, so the price comparison is a slight of hand by you, when ownership costs X and rental typically costs X/Y. Owning a game for life is magnitudes cheaper paying the X price than the rental for life.

 

[Gavon West]

Right, I'm sure the Xbox fans that were begging Phil for games were crying about....COD. A yearly franchise they got every year with no risk of losing. I'm sure that's what they meant...use that warchest for more COD Phil please we want COD. Keep spinning

Who said anything about CoD? I said "compete". Gamers wanted them to compete. Their competing with or without CoD. Just so happens that Microsoft wants to compete with CoD, too. What's the big deal? You didn't want just Halo, Forza and Gears every year. Here we are!

But like with everything with gamers it's always, "not like that, Microsoft!! WTH are you doing??"

I said before this gen started that this gen would be wholly different. Xbox went to having "No GaMeS!" to having too many. Now look at ya! Lol

 

[PaintTinJr]

I've seen so many people say they could have spent that money on exclusives, without realizing what 70B of timed exclusives would actually look like. At 100m/pop they could buy every AAA game releasing in at least the next 5 years, likely a lot longer.

They didn't do it because the know it's pissing money out the window

They would never get that money for the Xbox division to do that, the acquisition is a perfect smoke screen for Xbox to get what it needs while still looking like good MSFT business rather than Xbox division business. And then there's the chance that publishers still might not want Xbox money for such deals because the industry doesn't choose xbox as their preferred dominant platform, and the risk is that xbox exclusivity being less popular kills their IP's appeal by the association - looking at Tomb Raider, Dead or Alive, Mass Effect, etc

 

[oldergamer]

I see despite sony making noise against the activision purchase, a nee goldeneye from rare and game from bethesda were announced for switch. Again showing that ms isnt against releasing games on other platforms.

Jim ryan wont be able to stop this acquisition from happening. Not when they demonstrate how they are the only company releasing games on all platforms

 

[adamsapple]

 

[R3claimer117]

Lmao you do know that Xbox 360 was the dominant third party platform when mass effect came out right ? The only stupid thing that Microsoft didn’t do back then was pick up BioWare who was exclusively only making games for them. What a stupid thing to say that they’re smoke screening the Xbox division by spending the largest money the companies ever spent on an acquisition that’s being talked about more then anything. Yet they’re still out there saying they’re not done buying. It’s not about money hating exclusive it’s not worth it for them to not own the content anymore that’s going to game pass which is their goal. The more the own all the content on there the more financially they get the more people sign up for the service.

They would never get that money for the Xbox division to do that, the acquisition is a perfect smoke screen for Xbox to get what it needs while still looking like good MSFT business rather than Xbox division business. And then there's the chance that publishers still might not want Xbox money for such deals because the industry doesn't choose xbox as their preferred dominant platform, and the risk is that xbox exclusivity being less popular kills their IP's appeal by the association - looking at Tomb Raider, Dead or Alive, Mass Effect, ect.

 

[Kagey K]

but that's what Sony tried to do at the start of this Gen? so is it pissing money away?

Yes.

 

[DarkMage619]

I'm not talking about the opinion of the management in games companies that are responsible for those reports - that could damage their professional relationship with a platform they publish on - but the actual industry opinions of the rank and file staff gamers that actually play games. And although Activision's own staff might be an outlier - if we subscribe to the cancel culture internet info as facts - I don't see a scenario where industry workers at large are going to be favouring this acquisition to think it is good for the market. Approving the acquisition is a completely mutually exclusive issue from any need to fix Activision's business culture/ There are laws, regulations and processes to do that if the proof of crimes or systemic abuse is there. It doesn't factor into regulators justify approving this deal - regardless of public opinion of Kotick.

Pure speculation. There are plenty of developers who prefer to be under a platform where they are not regularly running around trying to secure funds for their creative visions. Double Fine studios was struggling to get funding for Psychonauts 2 but after being acquired by MS the game was made better than it ever was. Bethesda also proved that MS had a much better alternative than their previous business model. Neither of those companies had a mass exodus of employees after being acquired so there is no evidence of what you are saying.

Kotick was already shown to have been a major issue for the employees at Activision but because he made the company so much money the board would have never removed him. Those laws and processes failed those employees. MS is the only company that could change the culture there because it is a forgone conclusion that he will be out after the acquisition. No other companies offered relief for those employees.

Chosen champions in having been the profitable companies or divisions that have expanded AAA-A gaming to be the size it is, today. Xbox as a division has been a huge failure financially, and unsustainable in its own right and that is a reflection of their contribution to games the gaming public actually wants.

Prove Xbox is a failure financially. Let's see the complete numbers and miss me with the 'they are hiding number shtick'. Apple doesn't report the number of iPhones sold and no one would say they have failed.
So many people talk about unsustainable but never provide any proof.

I'll say this I'd rather have MS have some potential losses and save me money by not changing more for consoles and games than have the company raise prices and charge fees for game upgrades. Could you imagine what would happen if a company did that to gamers?

Phil Spencer has already said Game pass is sustainable and there is plenty of info out there showing how income from Game pass can support development. You just need to have enough subscribers and Game pass is doing quite well.

You don't seem to even be aware of Xbox's contributions to gaming so perhaps you should do some research first.

AAA at PlayStation first party/Take2 level games on gamepass day 1 is not financially viable- as reported multiple times - so we will end up with less games to the higher production standards. less people employed. I'm not advocating for any specific pricing - higher or lower - just a business model that is sustainable, as is currently the situation for everyone - it seems - but Xbox division, and the current status quo is already better for us than the gamepass model for getting quality, varied and critically acclaimed games.

Sony said THEY cannot provide AAA games day one on a subscription service. MS has made no such claims. You have again no proof of lower production value in Xbox games and again one of the highest rated games ever hit Game pass last year. MS has proven their model works for them.

In addition it is always funny to hear hypotheticals about how game quality is going to drop at some random time in the future like that drop in quality wouldn't affect Game pass sub numbers. If customers dislike the offerings on Game pass they will unsubscribe. That's how business works. MS has every incentive to keep game quality up if they want to retain customers. The reason they have found success is because they are offering a product people want. Simple as that. Again people are more concerned about what might happen than what has actually happened elsewhere.

And let us not forget that gamepass is just a rental, so the price comparison is a slight of hand by you, when ownership costs X and rental typically costs X/Y. Owning a game for life is magnitudes cheaper paying the X price than the rental for life.

Slight of hand? It is a fact. Game pass is a totally optional service you can completely ignore or use regularly. Gamer choice. You can either purchase a game or 'rent' it as you say. Renting for a lifetime though also gives you a lifetime of new games as well. Purchasing a game gives you just that one title. So I fundamentally disagree with your premise.

 

[DaGwaphics]

They would never get that money for the Xbox division to do that, the acquisition is a perfect smoke screen for Xbox to get what it needs while still looking like good MSFT business rather than Xbox division business. And then there's the chance that publishers still might not want Xbox money for such deals because the industry doesn't choose xbox as their preferred dominant platform, and the risk is that xbox exclusivity being less popular kills their IP's appeal by the association - looking at Tomb Raider, Dead or Alive, Mass Effect, etc

Smoke screen for what? LOL

Not much hidden here. MS Gaming wants content for GP, so they purchased a content creator. The high purchase price is based on the valuation of the company due to its large yearly profits, the traditional ROI isn't even that bad on this, tbh. They didn't spend $70b on games for GP, they spent that for the business itself (the yearly profits, etc.).

Side note: WTF have you done to your avatar @ Kagey K LOL

 

[PaintTinJr]

Smoke screen for what? LOL

Not much hidden here. MS Gaming wants content for GP, so they purchased a content creator. The high purchase price is based on the valuation of the company due to its large yearly profits, the traditional ROI isn't even that bad on this, tbh. They didn't spend $70b on games for GP, they spent that for the business itself (the yearly profits, etc.).

Smoke screen for shareholders that don't want to spend on Xbox after 15years of wanting rid of it because it doesn't return a profit for them. This allows Xbox content funding without being on their tab, as it is funded by the Gamepass project - which is still investing to be successful.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Smoke screen for shareholders that don't want to spend on Xbox after 15years of wanting rid of it because it doesn't return a profit for them. This allows Xbox content funding without being on their tab, as it is funded by the Gamepass project - which is still investing to be successful.

But MS Gaming/Xbox are synonymous with GamePass, it's all the same division, worst smoke screen in history. LOL

More likely scenario is that MS likes the indicators for GP long-term and are investing in that potential, which is what they've said at face value. Investors are more concerned with MS's bottom line as a whole and should want profits invested rather than sitting in a drawer.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Pure speculation. There are plenty of developers who prefer to be under a platform where they are not regularly running around trying to secure funds for their creative visions. Double Fine studios was struggling to get funding for Psychonauts 2 but after being acquired by MS the game was made better than it ever was. Bethesda also proved that MS had a much better alternative than their previous business model. Neither of those companies had a mass exodus of employees after being acquired so there is no evidence of what you are saying.

Kotick was already shown to have been a major issue for the employees at Activision but because he made the company so much money the board would have never removed him. Those laws and processes failed those employees. MS is the only company that could change the culture there because it is a forgone conclusion that he will be out after the acquisition. No other companies offered relief for those employees.


Prove Xbox is a failure financially. Let's see the complete numbers and miss me with the 'they are hiding number shtick'. Apple doesn't report the number of iPhones sold and no one would say they have failed.
So many people talk about unsustainable but never provide any proof.

I'll say this I'd rather have MS have some potential losses and save me money by not changing more for consoles and games than have the company raise prices and charge fees for game upgrades. Could you imagine what would happen if a company did that to gamers?

Phil Spencer has already said Game pass is sustainable and there is plenty of info out there showing how income from Game pass can support development. You just need to have enough subscribers and Game pass is doing quite well.

You don't seem to even be aware of Xbox's contributions to gaming so perhaps you should do some research first.

Sony said THEY cannot provide AAA games day one on a subscription service. MS has made no such claims. You have again no proof of lower production value in Xbox games and again one of the highest rated games ever hit Game pass last year. MS has proven their model works for them.

In addition it is always funny to hear hypotheticals about how game quality is going to drop at some random time in the future like that drop in quality wouldn't affect Game pass sub numbers. If customers dislike the offerings on Game pass they will unsubscribe. That's how business works. MS has every incentive to keep game quality up if they want to retain customers. The reason they have found success is because they are offering a product people want. Simple as that. Again people are more concerned about what might happen than what has actually happened elsewhere.

Slight of hand? It is a fact. Game pass is a totally optional service you can completely ignore or use regularly. Gmaer choice. You can either purchase a game or 'rent' it as you say. Renting for a lifetime though also gives you a lifetime of new games as well. Purchasing a game gives you just that one title. So I fundamentally disagree with your premise.

Your lol emoji-ing is on par with your maturity in your posting.

If you are going to claim Xbox isn't a financial failure for MSFT while blatantly hiding its numbers in other divisions to obfuscate the failure size over the years, you aren't arguing in good faith.

 

[Kagey K]

Side note: WTF have you done to your avatar @ Kagey K LOL

I put on my Halloween gear.

 

[DaGwaphics]

I put on my Halloween gear.

That explains the increased gore factor.

 

[PaintTinJr]

But MS Gaming/Xbox are synonymous with GamePass, it's all the same division, worst smoke screen in history. LOL

More likely scenario is that MS likes the indicators for GP long-term and are investing in that potential, which is what they've said at face value. Investors are more concerned with MS's bottom line as a whole and should want profits invested rather than sitting in a drawer.

For gamers, but not for shareholders. It is project Gamepass and Xcloud riding Xbox, not the other way round.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Your lol emoji-ing is on par with your maturity in your posting.

If you are going to claim Xbox isn't a financial failure for MSFT while blatantly hiding its numbers in other divisions to obfuscate the failure size over the years, you aren't arguing in good faith.

MS's gaming revenue is on par with Nintendo's now. Could you please explain why you think MS isn't turning a profit? Keep in mind that MS sells less hardware than Sony or Nintendo as a general rule, meaning less of their revenue is tied up in hardware (traditionaly the least profitable part of the console business).

They literally report all the gaming revenue together, GP and Xbox are the same division for both gamers and investors. LOL

 

[DeepEnigma]

Right, I'm sure the Xbox fans that were begging Phil for games were crying about....COD. A yearly franchise they got every year with no risk of losing. I'm sure that's what they meant...use that warchest for more COD Phil please we want COD. Keep spinning

The most ardent fanatics favorite game, is cheerleading the keeping of them away from other platforms. Only when their brand does it of course. Applies to all.

 

[ReBurn]

The deal is going through. Jim is making it cost more for Microsoft with these moves. (MS having to pay off officials). It is a delay tactic, nothing more. Sony doesn't don't care about COD they are trying to drag it out.

Sony doesn't care about COD so much that you can now preorder the PS5 Call of Duty Modern Warfare II bundle only on PlayStation Direct!

 

[PaintTinJr]

MS's gaming revenue is on par with Nintendo's now. Could you please explain why you think MS isn't turning a profit? Keep in mind that MS sells less hardware as a general rule, and that is the least profitable part of the console business.

You are putting words in my mouth.

I said the project has been a failure (long term) because they've never made back their spending on the division and contributed actual project profits - unlike Nintendo or PlayStation had before their losses on projects -, and I bet even their current operating profit attributes console hardware R&D costs and day 1 losses on XsX to the Xcloud division, along with marketing costs to Gamepass/Xcloud, and software API R&D costs to Windows or Xcloud.

In a straight alignment of costs, sales and margins with all Nintendo's infrastructure and R&D there is no way they are matching up. on total profits. That's creative accountancy surely, that you are projecting, no?

Reporting those numbers together was always going to happen with Gamepass/Xcloud riding Xbox, because one is cannibalizing the other's market so Xbox's numbers don't mean much while Gamepass is being pushed by MSFT.

 

[ReBurn]

Your lol emoji-ing is on par with your maturity in your posting.

If you are going to claim Xbox isn't a financial failure for MSFT while blatantly hiding its numbers in other divisions to obfuscate the failure size over the years, you aren't arguing in good faith.

I've been looking for it but I don't see your post with the numbers that support your assertion that Xbox is a financial failure and Microsoft is hiding Xbox financials in other divisions.

 

[reksveks]

There is some real speculation in this thread.

 

[DaGwaphics]

You are putting words in my mouth.

I said the project has been a failure (long term) because they've never made back their spending on the division and contributed actual project profits - unlike Nintendo or PlayStation had before their losses on projects -, and I bet even their current operating profit attributes console hardware R&D costs and day 1 losses on XsX to the Xcloud division, along with marketing costs to Gamepass/Xcloud, and software API R&D costs to Windows or Xcloud.

In a straight alignment of costs, sales and margins with all Nintendo's infrastructure and R&D there is no way they are matching up. on total profits. That's creative accountancy surely, that you are projecting, no?

I'm just referring to the raw revenue minus operating costs. You keep alluding to MS Gaming being unprofitable today. I'm asking you to please explain that position. What are these mysterious costs that cause MS's gaming division to be unprofitable when their rivals turn profit on similar gross revenue numbers?

I'm sure that a strong % of their gaming revenue is being generated by Xbox (via software and services), not sure how that could ever "not mean much". I'm thinking that on average, Xbox users are the more profitable customers for MS, over the customers they have from other platforms.

 

[Kagey K]

I'm just referring to the raw revenue minus operating costs. You keep alluding to the Xbox division being unprofitable today. I'm asking you to please explain that position. What are these mysterious costs that cause MS's gaming division to be unprofitable when their rivals turn profit on similar gross revenue numbers?

Do you need anything more than that? We don't actually want people to back up their claims with facts around here do we?

 

[Chukhopops]

MS's gaming revenue is on par with Nintendo's now. Could you please explain why you think MS isn't turning a profit? Keep in mind that MS sells less hardware as a general rule, and that is the least profitable part of the console business.

Imo if somebody pulls out the « MS gaming division is losing money » argument in 2022, after the profit data was published during the Epic vs Apple trial and after the gaming revenue more than doubled between 2017 and 2022, they cannot be taken seriously.

And yet you see the burning money argument all the freaking time in every argument.

 

[ReBurn]

Do you need anything more than that? We don't actually want people to back up their claims with facts around here do we?

It's funny how the entire argument is "prove me wrong" and then accusing others of bad faith participation when they ask for the info to support the "prove me wrong" claim.