Support NeoGAF

[Ar¢tos]

25 million subscribers at $120 a year is $3B. Assuming everyone of Microsoft's current 23 studios is making a AAA game that costs $200M over 4 years, the developer costs would be $1.15B. That's profit of near $2B.

That only applies to "current" users, not the ones that will be coming for Bethesda/Activision games. I'm not leaving my digital library on Playstation to move to Xbox, I'm getting a Xbox for the games I can't play on ps5.
Just buying a Xbox will cost MS money, since hardware is sold at loss, then buying 1 month of GP to play a 70$ game is another cost to MS, even buying 2 months if I want to chase achievements would be a loss, but most gamers nowadays don't even finish games, let alone getting all the achievements.
Then I'll move back to ps5 until there is a game I can't play there.
There will be many more like me, and in the end we will just cost MS, not give any profit (and we aren't doing it on purpose!).

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

Yeah, but how about Tony Hawk, Diablo, Warcraft, Starcraft and Overwatch? If the deal goes trough, we can have these games on Switch, Gamepass, Steam and major streaming services. Probably EGS too. And COD will still excist on PlayStation. There are only benefits with this deal.

Nope, it would be on the Xbox App on PC instead.

 

[ManaByte]

Nope, it would be on the Xbox App on PC instead.

MS has been releasing their games on Steam lately.

I mean yea, if you buy the Xbox version you also get a copy on the PC in the Xbox App on the PC as well, but there are some people who get weird about installers these days.

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

The amount of weed that you take everyday, because most people have no clue about that 3 year trick.

And those 1$ expires fast, which you are forced to pay 15$ after that.

It's ironic that you don't the limitations of that 1$.

I guess it's easy to make those false claims.

I used gamepass for 12 months up to now.
Never payed more then 4€ for a Month.

6 times I paid 1 €
6 times I paid 3,99€

I just don't let that subscription running if its getting pricier.
I just use it to try some games that are on gamepass and I i like/want them I buy them on steam then.

 

[mrmustard]

Just buying a Xbox will cost MS money, since hardware is sold at loss, then buying 1 month of GP to play a 70$ game is another cost to MS, even buying 2 months if I want to chase achievements would be a loss, but most gamers nowadays don't even finish games, let alone getting all the achievements.
Then I'll move back to ps5 until there is a game I can't play there.
There will be many more like me, and in the end we will just cost MS, not give any profit (and we aren't doing it on purpose!).

That's the price for exclusivity. It's the same for Nintendo and PlayStation if people buy used discs and resell them.

 

[feynoob]

I used gamepass for 12 months up to now.
Never payed more then 4€ for a Month.

6 times I paid 1 €
6 times I paid 3,99€

I just don't let that subscription running if its getting pricier.
I just use it to try some games that are on gamepass and I i like/want them I buy them on steam then.

Yours won't work, unless you change accounts.
Or you do the 1$ 1-3 month, skip 3 months process, it's impossible to pay that cheap the next month. Because they will charge you $15 for the next billing cycle.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

MS has been releasing their games on Steam lately.

I mean yea, if you buy the Xbox version you also get a copy on the PC in the Xbox App on the PC as well, but there are some people who get weird about installers these days.

This is common sense... With GP growing in relevance and titles, and with the massive library of IPs MS gets after this deal in addition to what they already have, and being able to grossly undercut steam on in-store sales cuts, and making their games exclusive to their store... why in Godsnamewoud they continue putting their games on steam? When they literally have everything they need to make steam irrelevant.

Would you?

 

[feynoob]

That only applies to "current" users, not the ones that will be coming for Bethesda/Activision games. I'm not leaving my digital library on Playstation to move to Xbox, I'm getting a Xbox for the games I can't play on ps5.
Just buying a Xbox will cost MS money, since hardware is sold at loss, then buying 1 month of GP to play a 70$ game is another cost to MS, even buying 2 months if I want to chase achievements would be a loss, but most gamers nowadays don't even finish games, let alone getting all the achievements.
Then I'll move back to ps5 until there is a game I can't play there.
There will be many more like me, and in the end we will just cost MS, not give any profit (and we aren't doing it on purpose!).

Ever heard of % cut from 3rd party sales?
That is how MS covers their loss money.

Every game you buy on the service, is used to cover that console loss.

And for gamepass, you are paying $180 a year, plus buying 3rd party games on their consoles and spending money on dlc and mtx.

They are squeezing alot of money from you, while making you believe that you are saving money.

 

[reksveks]

Just buying a Xbox will cost MS money, since hardware is sold at loss, then buying 1 month of GP to play a 70$ game is another cost to MS, even buying 2 months if I want to chase achievements would be a loss, but most gamers nowadays don't even finish games, let alone getting all the achievements.
Then I'll move back to ps5 until there is a game I can't play there.
There will be many more like me, and in the end we will just cost MS, not give any profit (and we aren't doing it on purpose!).

There will be many that aren't like you though, right?

Just like there are many f2p players that don't spend a penny on a game.

It's all percentages and statistics that we don't have the numbers on.

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

Yours won't work, unless you change accounts.

I never changed accounts. I looked up my purchase history in my microsoft account.
Thats my history with gamepass subscriptions.

Or you do the 1$ 1-3 month, skip 3 months process, it's impossible to pay that cheap the next month. Because they will charge you $15 for the next billing cycle.

I don't know and haven't cared enough about it yet to know how exactly it works.
But whenever I see or get told by friends about the 1€ deal I take it.

As I said I don't need gamepass. I only use it to test games I didn't buy or am not sure if I want to buy them.

 

[Hendrick's]

I'm afraid crows may go extinct once this deal is done.

But there will be oceans of glorious tears. This deal is good for the industry because it lessens Sonys dominance which is much needed. Maybe you all forgot arrogant Sony and how a competitive Xbox brought them back in line with the PS4.

And it goes both ways. Arrogant (or stupid) Xbox with the Xbox One TV TV TV generation was smacked down last gen. We need both Sony and Xbox to be neck and neck in this race because that's where gamers benefit the most.

And save your "Xbox can compete the Sony way bs", because it's clear they can't, don't want to, and shouldn't have to. Why should Sony dictate how to run a business in this industry? Buying ATVI gives them the ability to compete the way they want to, with services. That's what MS does best so why wouldn't they want to do business that way for gaming?

And no, they are not taking COD away from anyone. Just like Minecraft l, there is zero incentive to do so, and they are clearly just fine with putting that in writing.

 

[Elios83]

If Microsoft really wants COD they will have to make some pretty big concessions to the CMA. I don't think your typical 10 year deal will cut it.

It won't it's clear, even in EU the Reuter report (assuming it's reliable) stated they're going to ask for more and the conduct of the company will be under investigation and constant monitoring.

CMA wants a divestment, achieving something equivalent to that through behavioral remedies will be hard. They might ask to treat the COD business as a separate business where every decision will be under investigation and approval of a third party independent regulator, the 10 years deal will have the option to get renewed, Microsoft has to offer all rivals parties the possibility to get the game and that includes cloud and subscription platforms.
This is is the only way I could see CMA approving, if these things are not feasible a block is the most likely option.

But we'll have to wait until the end of April to know the truth, in any case the world will go on for all the parts involved. If it's blocked Microsoft will find other targets, if it's approved with remedies Sony will still keep COD for a long time and be able to find and grow alternatives.

 

[DaGwaphics]

They did. MS made assurances to the EU which turned out not to be true but the EU didn't enforce any remedies anyway because it didn't see it as causing harm regardless of what MS decided to do post acquisition. They passed without concessions. The fact that no remedies were made I think made MS' decision change and they would have maintained that assurance if they faced any pushback. They played the same game with the ABK acquisition but the regulators absolutely do want concessions now.

A link to the legal document where the MS made this declaration to the EU please.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

British chip giant Arm chooses New York listing in a blow to London

British chip designer Arm and building materials group CRH are planning to pursue a listing in the U.S., dealing a blow to London.

www.cnbc.com

What a L for UK.

London has relaxed its listings rules in an effort to attract leading global tech companies to go public in the U.K. It faces barriers, with venture capitalists complaining of a lack of understanding of often loss-making tech ventures.

Looking at how CMA handles ABK+MS deal - no wonder Kotick compared UK to a potential death valley

 

[Heisenberg007]

Nothing 'typical' about a 10 year deal. And it's probably likely that's good enough to pass, especially if CMA is convinced there's sufficient enforcement and monitoring to ensure they keep to the deal.

The CMA has already tossed it out and, rightly so, because of Microsoft's past behavior.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Pull out of their 2nd biggest market? That would be the end of Xbox.

Would be a bold move.

But, if they were prepared to be that bold I doubt it would be the end of Xbox with ABK in the fold. LOL

 

[feynoob]

I never changed accounts. I looked up my purchase history in my microsoft account.
Thats my history with gamepass subscriptions.

I don't know how is that possible.
I get charged $15 for it.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

That only applies to "current" users, not the ones that will be coming for Bethesda/Activision games. I'm not leaving my digital library on Playstation to move to Xbox, I'm getting a Xbox for the games I can't play on ps5.
Just buying a Xbox will cost MS money, since hardware is sold at loss, then buying 1 month of GP to play a 70$ game is another cost to MS, even buying 2 months if I want to chase achievements would be a loss, but most gamers nowadays don't even finish games, let alone getting all the achievements.
Then I'll move back to ps5 until there is a game I can't play there.
There will be many more like me, and in the end we will just cost MS, not give any profit (and we aren't doing it on purpose!).

I think you quoted the wrong post, but I do know what you're responding to regardless. The new customer boost in revenue : Some customers may just buy an Xbox and a singular title, which won't make up for the lost sales on Playstation, and the Xbox will cost Microsoft money.

However there will be customers who buy more than 1 title, customers who subscribe to Gamepass. We don't exactly know the equation behind how many new customers Xbox needs to make up for making games exclusive, but they're employing that strategy, so that's something gamers have to deal with.

 

[feynoob]

Would be a bold move.

But, if they were prepared to be that bold I doubt it would be the end of Xbox with ABK in the fold. LOL

It will be.
Xbox has no presence outside of NA.
If they close down UK, it will affect the console massively.

 

[IFireflyl]

A link to the legal document where the MS made this declaration to the EU please.

It has been mentioned and linked ad nauseum.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/micr...oval-watch-ot.1641775/page-581#post-267678059

 

[jm89]

British chip giant Arm chooses New York listing in a blow to London

British chip designer Arm and building materials group CRH are planning to pursue a listing in the U.S., dealing a blow to London.

www.cnbc.com

What a L for UK.



Looking at how CMA handles ABK+MS deal - no wonder Kotick compared UK to a potential death valley

CMA must be burning your soul alive. Keep the salt coming, i need it for my sunday roast.

 

[DaGwaphics]

It will be.
Xbox has no presence outside of NA.
If they close down UK, it will affect the console massively.

Like I said, it would be a bold move.

If they pulled a stunt like that, it would still be very unlikely to result in MS being blocked from that market for long, it would be a very short-term thing. Probably less than a month.

As ridiculous as it sounds, similar scenarios have already played out with other mergers in the past in both the UK and the US. I think there is a very slim chance of such soap opera drama playing out here though.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

CMA must be burning your soul alive. Keep the salt coming, i need it for my sunday roast.

So far I see only Sony fanboys are frothing from mouth when they gradually begin to realise that the deal is happening

I do wonder what's gonna happen when even CMA will approve and all the hope for them to block the deal is lost. After EU, twitter was already full of salt.

 

[feynoob]

It has been mentioned and linked ad nauseum.

http://[URL][URL]https://www.neogaf.com/threads/micr...oval-watch-ot.1641775/page-581#post-267678059

[/URL][/URL]

The OP is ignoring the part where MS is weighting new users that those games will bring to their ecosystem.

MS is stating that they will make it exclusive, If those games can attract new customers, and those customers can bring enough money compared to putting those games on the service.

 

[DaGwaphics]

It has been mentioned and linked ad nauseum.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/micr...oval-watch-ot.1641775/page-581#post-267678059

I'm not seeing it there, especially if you include the next two sentences that get cut off there from that image. Just looks like laying out some scenarios, what they think is likely/unlikely results. I see nothing where they make a declaration that all Zenimax games were going to continue to release on PS.

 

[feynoob]

Like I said, it would be a bold move.

If they pulled a stunt like that, it would still be very unlikely to result in MS being blocked from that market for long, it would be a very short-term thing. Probably less than a month.

As ridiculous as it sounds, similar scenarios have already played out with other mergers in the past in both the UK and the US. I think there is a very slim chance of such soap opera drama playing out here though.

The issue will be much larger than Xbox for them though.
Aside of Xbox, it will also massively affect other purchases in UK.
CMA would block any future purchase/acquisition MS makes in UK.

 

[MasterCornholio]

It won't it's clear, even in EU the Reuter report (assuming it's reliable) stated they're going to ask for more and the conduct of the company will be under investigation and constant monitoring.

CMA wants a divestment, achieving something equivalent to that through behavioral remedies will be hard. They might ask to treat the COD business as a separate business where every decision will be under investigation and approval of a third party independent regulator, the 10 years deal will have the option to get renewed, Microsoft has to offer all rivals parties the possibility to get the game and that includes cloud and subscription platforms.
This is is the only way I could see CMA approving, if these things are not feasible a block is the most likely option.

But we'll have to wait until the end of April to know the truth, in any case the world will go on for all the parts involved. If it's blocked Microsoft will find other targets, if it's approved with remedies Sony will still keep COD for a long time and be able to find and grow alternatives.

Wouldn't a block this large would influence other acquisitions?

Like if Microsoft wanted go after another big multiplat publisher I can see it being more difficult for them.

 

[IFireflyl]

I'm not seeing it there, especially if you include the next two sentences that get cut off there from that image. Just looks like laying out some scenarios, what they think is likely/unlikely results. I see nothing where they make a declaration that all Zenimax games were going to continue to release on PS.

Then you didn't read the post.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Then you didn't read the post.

I'm talking about the document not the opinions of the posters. Just looks like they are laying out the business logic for exclusive/non-exclusive games. There is no statement in that document that declares that Zenimax games could not become exclusive under the right conditions.

 

[Elios83]

Wouldn't a block this large would influence other acquisitions?

Like if Microsoft wanted go after another big multiplat publisher I can see it being more difficult for them.

It would rule out similarly big acquisitions like EA,Take Two maybe Ubisoft (but given its current state I doubt it) but I don't think that there would be ground to block something smaller like CDPR as an example.

 

[IFireflyl]

I'm talking about the document not the opinions of the posters. Just looks like they are laying out the business logic for exclusive/non-exclusive games. There is no statement in that document that declares that Zenimax games could not become exclusive under the right conditions.

They stated that they have no incentive to withhold ZeniMax titles from rival consoles, and that they don't feel like they would be able to do that for 5 years. This is a factual statement of a claim that they made. You can't dispute this.

Two days after the acquisition they did a 180 and said that future ZeniMax titles would be Xbox/Game Pass exclusive. This is also a factual statement of a claim that they made. You can't dispute this.

These two claims are diametrically opposed. Your opinions on the matter are irrelevant to the verifiable facts.

 

[DaGwaphics]

They stated that they have no incentive to withhold ZeniMax titles from rival consoles, and that they don't feel like they would be able to do that for 5 years. This is a factual statement of a claim that they made. You can't dispute this.

Two days after the acquisition they did a 180 and said that future ZeniMax titles would be Xbox/Game Pass exclusive. This is also a factual statement of a claim that they made. You can't dispute this.

These two claims are diametrically opposed. Your opinions on the matter are irrelevant to the verifiable facts.

The document doesn't say there is no incentive for exclusives. In fact it even lays out what that incentive would be. It eludes to them being unlikely to go that way with with some titles (never makes a declaration for all though) and that their forecast at the time did not demonstrate financial incentive. Unlikely is not equivalent to never happening in a legal document. Again, there are no declarations in that document that Zenimax games would or would not be exclusive.

 

[feynoob]

I'm talking about the document not the opinions of the posters. Just looks like they are laying out the business logic for exclusive/non-exclusive games. There is no statement in that document that declares that Zenimax games could not become exclusive under the right conditions.

The condition for the exclusives were.
1: if a game can attract and sell more Xbox consoles, then MS will make it exclusive.
2: if a game can't manage to bring those cost from attracting users and selling more consoles, then it won't be exclusive.

It was outlined in the EU report.

 

[wolffy71]

Why would CMA care if Microsoft leave or not though?

Think about being a local politician. You have to explain to some non gamer small business owner why their office has to stop using MS products. And you start talking about Call of Duty...

I don't think that would go well. But idk if MS would really allow themselves to be banned from the UK. But it would be pretty stupid of the UK

 

[IFireflyl]

The document doesn't say they would have no incentive. In fact it even lays out what that incentive would be. It eludes to them being unlikely to go that way with with some titles (never makes a declaration for all though) and unlikely is not equivalent to never happening in a legal document. Again, there are no declarations in that document that Zenimax games would or would not be exclusive.

Dude, read the post or go back to watching Teletubbies.

"Therefore, according to the Notifying Party, Microsoft would not have the incentive to cease or limit making ZeniMax titles available on other consoles."

That's an actual quote from the document that you're not reading. Section 114. Previously in the document it is clarified that the "Notifying Party" refers to Microsoft. Check and mate.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Wouldn't a block this large would influence other acquisitions?

Like if Microsoft wanted go after another big multiplat publisher I can see it being more difficult for them.

Depends how big and how influential the publisher's IP. The only harm to competition has revolved around CoD. After this acquisition, block or pass, Microsoft will have a better idea of what's on the table.

My guess is GTA and Fifa would run into the same problems as CoD.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Depends how big and how influential the publisher's IP. The only harm to competition has revolved around CoD. After this acquisition, block or pass, Microsoft will have a better idea of what's on the table.

My guess is GTA and Fifa would run into the same problems as CoD.

Also the number of studios probably has an influence as well. I don't think Microsoft will be allowed to own the majority of devs in the market for example.

 

[Ozriel]

The CMA has already tossed it out and, rightly so, because of Microsoft's past behavior.

That’s not how it works.

They clearly state that they’re concerned about exclusivity if the deal is allowed. And state here that they’re not convinced MS separate offer to Sony fully assuages their concern. Elsewhere, they state MS can try to demonstrate how behavioral concessions will cover all the risks they outline.

MS position will be to tender the 10 years agreements drawn up with other parties, as well as the proposed 10 year deal with Sony. They’ll also be detailing enforcement and iron clad compliance guarantees. Which will include steep fines from the EU. I’ve also seen report that Microsoft is also volunteering to cover fees for a third party monitoring company that will monitor for compliance.

The concessions they’ll be putting forward to the CMA are dramatically different in scope and regulation…and that’s why there’s confidence in some circles that they will fly.


And now I await the inevitable LOL emojis

 

[adamsapple]

Let's see what comes out of the remedial discussions happening right now. We'll probably start hearing (hopefully) in the coming week.

 

[Pelta88]

British chip giant Arm chooses New York listing in a blow to London

British chip designer Arm and building materials group CRH are planning to pursue a listing in the U.S., dealing a blow to London.

www.cnbc.com

What a L for UK.

Looking at how CMA handles ABK+MS deal - no wonder Kotick compared UK to a potential death valley

I called it

A narrative that was conceived in a twitter thread by the bestbuy stalker Timdog. Now being posted on gaf.

That moment when Cope morphs into anti-British sentiment.

Us UK gaffers still love the United States. I hope that's a narrative we collectively call out.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Also the number of studios probably has an influence as well. I don't think Microsoft will be allowed to own the majority of devs in the market for example.

There is something like 8+ studios under ABK, if studio numbers were an issue we would have seen it brought up in a theory of harm. I mean, Embracer group has 132 development studios.

If ABK is blocked, I don't see Microsoft running into any issues acquiring other publishers outside of Take Two, EA or Epic.

Maybe studio numbers would become an issue in future acquisitions if the ABK deal passes. In general I think future acquisitions will come under more scrutiny if the ABK deal passes.

 

[Lyrical]

Would be a bold move.

But, if they were prepared to be that bold I doubt it would be the end of Xbox with ABK in the fold. LOL

No chance this happens. Whilst it wouldn’t be the end of Xbox they would lose a huge amount of market share.

 

[The_Mike]

Think about being a local politician. You have to explain to some non gamer small business owner why their office has to stop using MS products. And you start talking about Call of Duty...

I don't think that would go well. But idk if MS would really allow themselves to be banned from the UK. But it would be pretty stupid of the UK

Given how everything runs Windows etc, then UK would really get knocked back lol.

I, mean there's Linux, then uk could make their own Linux variant.

 

[intheinbetween]

There is something like 8+ studios under ABK, if studio numbers were an issue we would have seen it brought up in a theory of harm. I mean, Embracer group has 132 development studios.

If ABK is blocked, I don't see Microsoft running into any issues acquiring other publishers outside of Take Two, EA or Epic.

Maybe studio numbers would become an issue in future acquisitions if the ABK deal passes. In general I think future acquisitions will come under more scrutiny if the ABK deal passes.

Merging studios would be the workaround for that

 

[MasterCornholio]

There is something like 8+ studios under ABK, if studio numbers were an issue we would have seen it brought up in a theory of harm. I mean, Embracer group has 132 development studios.

If ABK is blocked, I don't see Microsoft running into any issues acquiring other publishers outside of Take Two, EA or Epic.

Maybe studio numbers would become an issue in future acquisitions if the ABK deal passes. In general I think future acquisitions will come under more scrutiny if the ABK deal passes.

Doesn't embracer group produce multiplatform games?

 

[Hendrick's]

Us UK gaffers still love the United States.

 

[adamsapple]

Us UK gaffers still love the United States.

Us US gaffers throw tea in the harbor every time we visit Boston.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Doesn't embracer group produce multiplatform games?

It's just to show that there are plenty of development studios out there, I doubt Microsoft acquiring 5, 10, 15 more studios would be a majority. There might be an argument to be made about the caliber of studio being acquired in relation to the rest of the industry, but that would be hard to argue from a regulatory point of view. Especially when like a poster above said: Studios could just merge.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Dude, read the post or go back to watching Teletubbies.

"Therefore, according to the Notifying Party, Microsoft would not have the incentive to cease or limit making ZeniMax titles available on other consoles."

That's an actual quote from the document that you're not reading. Section 114. Previously in the document it is clarified that the "Notifying Party" refers to Microsoft. Check and mate.

To each their own. "Not having the incentive" and "new Zenimax releases will continue to appear on PS" have decidedly different levels of directness in my mind. One is flimsy, especially in a document that lays out conditions under which you COULD have incentive to do XYZ, the other is a declaration. Saying we don't see ourselves doing it, isn't the same thing as saying we won't do it. Which is why these regulatory bodies continued to look at Zenimax from the angle that everything would be exclusive. MS never made any firm commitments regarding exclusivity. No one got duped here, there was no bait and switch.

MS has made much more forceful declarations in regards to CoD. But even there, the regulators would require legally binding stipulations if they felt CoD exclusivity would be a problem, if they don't do that the regulators didn't really see exclusive CoD as a problem.

 

[MasterCornholio]

It's just to show that there are plenty of development studios out there, I doubt Microsoft acquiring 5, 10, 15 more studios would be a majority. There might be an argument to be made about the caliber of studio being acquired in relation to the rest of the industry, but that would be hard to argue from a regulatory point of view. Especially when like a poster above said: Studios could just merge.

I guess regulators take into account what platforms the one buying owns. Must be easier for a multiplatform publisher to buy multiple developers than someone that only release games on a couple of platforms.