Support NeoGAF

[Yoboman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Microsoft combine all gaming revenue? Shareholders don't get to look at how individual games sold and what percentage of growth in subscribers is attributed to whatever release.

Microsoft explains how they did this quarter. How their actual profits lined up against their projected profits, same with subscriber numbers, etc.

Micrososft's management would be able to know how much engagement titles are getting, but I don't think Shareholders would be privy to this knowledge outside of Microsoft telling them (which usually only happens to boast).

They do and shareholders are fine with that or it would have changed

Unless you have a particular nosey large shareholder who requests more detailed documents, those numbers won't be seen.

And such a thing is unlikely to happen because Microsoft is the richest company in the world and their overall bottom line keeps improving. MS shareholders aren't interested in gaming let alone a detailed breakdown of its revenue sources

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Actually he is wrong but I couldn’t be bothered to respond to someone so misinformed.

Corporate entities in the west don’t have “rights” - individual citizens do. Corporate entities operate in accordance with laws which, as it happens, regulators can make.

The government and its various agencies are there to protect public interest - that is our right.

So no, a corporate merger isn’t automatically ok just because they have the money to do it.

The Supreme Court of the US actually determined in a landmark decision that corporations are in fact individuals and have the same rights.

This decision was controversial in case you were wondering.

 

[TheGodfather07]

Again, do you seriously believe Bungie's next game is coming out on Xbox consoles after being bought by Sony?

so you believe bungie are straight up lying? why? if sony wanted them to make exclusives, they wouldnt have said anything at all. they went out of their way to emphasise that bungie will remain exactly as they are. why? sony never did that with any of their other acquisitions. bungie have zero reason to lie here.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

They do and shareholders are fine with that or it would have changed

Unless you have a particular nosey large shareholder who requests more detailed documents, those numbers won't be seen.

And such a thing is unlikely to happen because Microsoft is the richest company in the world and their overall bottom line keeps improving. MS shareholders aren't interested in gaming let alone a detailed breakdown of its revenue sources

You are correct. MS does not break out most individual divisions and revenue streams in their annual reports. They like to bundle stuff like Xbox and Surface into a much larger category, which tends to shift every few years, to obfuscate the financial contributions (read: losses) made by those divisions. It doesn't matter to MS shareholders because the company made about $200 billion in revenue and $72 billion in net profit in 2022 and yes they are doing a good job of increasing that every year.

I'm an MS shareholder BTW. I follow their quarterly and annual financial results. We care about growth of Windows, Office, and Azure. I personally oppose MS continuously spending more on gaming because it's just pissing money away, granted I also know they are like the Saudis and have more money than they could ever know what to do with.

 

[In Cold Blood]

What's amazing is that you never participated in this thread the entire time, but you come into it with a retard level victory dance. Stick to twittard.

I posted in it prior to the CMAs recent decision. Unlike yourself I realised there wasn't much point to going over a ton of ground until the regulators start to make their decisions.
Once we start to know if the deal is going to go through then there's plenty to talk about, like how ABK will work under MS. What exclusives will there be.

I could also say to you that you were on this thread with your chest pumped out when you thought the CMA would block it.

Nothing any of us say here will be of any influence over what decisions the regulators make. For all we know the EU might come out and block it.
There is an environment of trying to rein in big tech and their influence. Some of that has effected what we have seen from the FTC.

When you just consider the core elements then there is no reason to block the deal.
Would this make a monopoly? No it won't.
Will this reduce competition? No it won't.
If MS was to take COD away from Sony, would the PS fail? No it wouldn't.
And as Hoeg said in his latest video, competition is where companies try to injure each other, and MS buying ABK is what competition is about.

You are just looking at it from a console war point of view. You are team PS. Up until recently your team was winning. Now Xbox has upped their game and Sony has some real competition. That competition means that you might miss out on some good exclusives and Sony might not win so big in the sales race.

 

[Yoboman]

so you believe bungie are straight up lying? why? if sony wanted them to make exclusives, they wouldnt have said anything at all. they went out of their way to emphasise that bungie will remain exactly as they are. why? sony never did that with any of their other acquisitions. bungie have zero reason to lie here.

Bungie aren't lying nor were Sony, that's their path for now

But market conditions change so their objective at the start of the acquisition may be different in 5 years or 10 years

 

[Topher]

I posted in it prior to the CMAs recent decision. Unlike yourself I realised there wasn't much point to going over a ton of ground until the regulators start to make their decisions.

Nah, DeepEnigma is right. You barely posted here and now you are all about bragging in the aftermath.

You are just looking at it from a console war point of view.

 

[The_Mike]

I'm sorry guys I just stumbled upon this and I really imagine this is going around behind the monitors in here so it seems fitting lol.

 

[Varteras]

If this deal goes through I'm gonna give you all the same advice the doctor gave my parents. Look out, because it's gonna get ugly!

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

If this deal goes through I'm gonna give you all the same advice the doctor gave my parents. Look out, because it's gonna get ugly!

if?

 

[Varteras]

if?

Can you NOT just laugh at my pain?

 

[The Tourmaline Gorilla]

I mean, you aren't wrong, but you are also bundling the group of people (ignoring those who are only here to only cause chaos) who were mostly going through documents being put out by both parties and sharing their analysis of them. Sure, this thread has a lot of non-sense being thrown in but it is a hot topic and you can't really fault people for discussing it (for 700 pages or 50 pages).

Yes, I'm guilty of balling a bunch of people together, however, the context of my post clearly means it's specific to the people who have been guilty of riding the dick of either party in this console race to the top.

Those who are impartial, or can see that practicality of both sides (because, really, both sides are being practical for their needs) are exempt from my pointing finger, or anyone else's.

And make no mistake, even though I support MS's attempt to purchase AKB, I also support Sony's attempt to block it; because if I was the head of Sony, you can bet your last fucking penny that I would do everything in my power to block any serious competitive advantage MS (or any company) would have in this market, even if I'm the market leader. That's just good, basic, common sense business. I don't care who's vex or who thinks I'm being greedy. If any company can potentially take a chunk of my pie, I'm not having it. So, while I approve of the buyout, I completely understand Sony not wanting to take it lying down. And the same would be said if the roles were reversed and MS were the market leaders, and Sony was trying to buy AKB, while MS tried to block the deal; it's completely understandable, and in the case of business, nothing is wrong with it.

It's the principles and rights I'm supporting here; any company has any right to purchase anything another company has for sale. And their competitors have the right to disapprove of that sale. That is what should be expected.

My problem here, is with the people who...for some strange reason, think that neither company has the right to do what they're doing, and additionally, feel as though either company owes them something. It's moving from annoying to just sickening, at this point.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

...for some strange reason

fanboyism.

 

[In Cold Blood]

Nah, DeepEnigma is right. You barely posted here and now you are all about bragging in the aftermath.

Instead of getting so upset at me, maybe some introspection is warranted? Maybe you were looking at the deal with Rose tinted glasses. Maybe you were only thinking of it from a PS players eyes, and not one from a factual point of view.
Yes, you will lose content on PS. I have lost content on Xbox that went to PS.
I see that as good. The more unique exclusives on both console the better.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

you will lose content on PS. I have lost content on Xbox that went to PS.

I dunno why that made me chuckle.

yep. this image comes to mind:

 

[XesqueVara]

I think the CMA is essentially a judge and they are ruling on the strongest arguments made to them in the current time. They have requested responses and may yet again change their mind if new data is compelling enough.

Both Sony and MS\ABK provided data for the average revenue from PS COD users. The data from both more or less lined up

The CMA then compared to updated Xbox LTV figures based on the first two years of Series X lifecycle

From this they concluded that the revenue lost from a foreclosure strategy on PS would far outweigh the expected LTV of Xbox users

The potential areas that may be still flawed and picked at by Sony's side in my estimation:

• The CMA have decided to only use revenue from users who have spent >$100 over an undisclosed time frame. If that time frame is 1-2 years then it's a very flawed model because it basically excludes anyone who doesn't buy MTX
• Sony may be able to expose a flaw in the rationale of using the first two years of Series X data to calculate LTV eg they can demonstrate if LTV increases over a consoles life span
• They don't account for PC Gamepass user LTVs which is another viable switching option for Microsoft
• As far as I can tell they don't account for an increase in Xbox LTV from users switching from PS to Xbox in a total foreclosure strategy. Which would essentially be all COD user revenue + Xbox LTV. This is hard to clarify though as they aren't showing numbets
• They don't account for price increase strategies on Gamepass to increase Xbox user LTVs
• They don't account for the fact that Microsoft have moved their entire business model away from a royalties model and into an upfront licensing model with Gamepass. They are not reliant on point of sale revenue for any of their titles or even games licensed to Gamepass from third parties, so why would they be now?

The whole document is difficult to parse because all the numbers are removed but if I can spot flaws, then Sony lawyers will definitely come back with a response. Whether it sways the CMA at all is yet to be seen

Actually in the Past Model, they were not counting MTX.

 

[Topher]

Instead of getting so upset at me, maybe some introspection is warranted? Maybe you were looking at the deal with Rose tinted glasses. Maybe you were only thinking of it from a PS players eyes, and not one from a factual point of view.

That's the thing. If you had been a real part of this discussion then you would known that I've been saying this thing was going through from the beginning.

Yes, you will lose content on PS. I have lost content on Xbox that went to PS.

And no, I will not lose content. At all. Hilarious that Hendrick's is giving you high fives when he learned (the hard way) that you don't know anything about where I play games.

 

[Varteras]

Instead of getting so upset at me, maybe some introspection is warranted? Maybe you were looking at the deal with Rose tinted glasses. Maybe you were only thinking of it from a PS players eyes, and not one from a factual point of view.
Yes, you will lose content on PS. I have lost content on Xbox that went to PS.
I see that as good. The more unique exclusives on both console the better.

I mean frankly I'd take Final Fantasy over Crash Bandicoot and Spyro any day. So I don't know what the big deal is. I'm being told that Call of Duty isn't going anywhere. Or is that not the argument anymore? So hard to keep up with all the shifting narratives. Oh! Forgot the next Diablo 10 years from now because that's how long it takes Blizzard to make new entries. So I mean really this barely affects PlayStation gamers and all Xbox gamers are getting are not having to buy games many of them weren't going to buy anyway. In addition to waiting decades for Blizzard to get games out. Hardly worth crying or boasting over, really.

You alright there, J johnjohn ? Is that a tear or semen coming off your eye?

 

[sainraja]

I'm sorry guys I just stumbled upon this and I really imagine this is going around behind the monitors in here so it seems fitting lol.

Now we know how you **try** to keep a level head any time Sony's name is mentioned. Unfortunately, you seem to be failing even at that.

 

[In Cold Blood]

I mean frankly I'd take Final Fantasy over Crash Bandicoot and Spyro any day. So I don't know what the big deal is. I'm being told that Call of Duty isn't going anywhere. Or is that not the argument anymore? So hard to keep up with all the shifting narratives. Oh! Forgot the next Diablo 10 years from now because that's how long it takes Blizzard to make new entries. So I mean really this barely affects PlayStation gamers and all Xbox gamers are getting are not having to buy games many of them weren't going to buy anyway. In addition to waiting decades for Blizzard to get games out. Hardly worth crying or boasting over, really.

You alright there, J johnjohn ? Is that a tear or semen coming off your eye?

I don't think it hurts PS players much either. I expect MS to make all other Activision games exclusive, and depending if MS build more teams in them the output from Activision might be bigger that current.
You would assume that MS will put Toys for Bob onto some platformer that was their bread and butter, considering that Phil has flagged they need more of that content.
So there will be some lose of content, but not an overwhelming amount.

While I believe there should be no reason for the deal not to go through, and it makes sense from MSs point of view for many reasons, It doesn't do all that much for me as an Xbox gamer.
I would have got all Activision games any way, I don't care for Blizzards games, and King can go fuck themselves.
Imagine if MS had of bought 9 Zenimax type companies for that same money?
Imagine the influx of exclusive games onto the platform.

So while a PS gamer might not care too much, I can assure you Sony really cares.
Sure they get COD, but MS having it in GP day and date, with all marketing rights, it will absolutely attract people to get it on Xbox and to go into the Xbox ecosystem. It will also make GP numbers boom.

 

[IFireflyl]

I love how people are arguing about whether sony killed sega or not, while no one talks about how Sony screwed over Nintendo.

Per your own article:

In 1991, Sony introduced a modified version of the Super Disk as part of their new game console: the Sony PlayStation. Research and development for the PlayStation had begun in 1990 and was headed by Sony engineer Ken Kutaragi. It was unveiled at the Consumer Electronics Show in 1991, but the next day Nintendo announced they were going to use Philips instead. Kutaragi would be tasked with further developing the PlayStation to beat Nintendo.

Nintendo screwed over Sony. Sony was not intending to be a main party in the console format, but was rather just planning on developing hardware to be sold/licensed to the main players (in this case, Nintendo).

 

[Varteras]

I don't think it hurts PS players much either. I expect MS to make all other Activision games exclusive, and depending if MS build more teams in them the output from Activision might be bigger that current.
You would assume that MS will put Toys for Bob onto some platformer that was their bread and butter, considering that Phil has flagged they need more of that content.
So there will be some lose of content, but not an overwhelming amount.

While I believe there should be no reason for the deal not to go through, and it makes sense from MSs point of view for many reasons, It doesn't do all that much for me as an Xbox gamer.
I would have got all Activision games any way, I don't care for Blizzards games, and King can go fuck themselves.
Imagine if MS had of bought 9 Zenimax type companies for that same money?
Imagine the influx of exclusive games onto the platform.

So while a PS gamer might not care too much, I can assure you Sony really cares.
Sure they get COD, but MS having it in GP day and date, with all marketing rights, it will absolutely attract people to get it on Xbox and to go into the Xbox ecosystem. It will also make GP numbers boom.

That's the gamble. That CoD on GamePass will attract a ton of people not already in that ecosystem and that Sony won't come up with franchises to take the edge off. We really don't know. A whole lot of assumptions but no robust metrics to tell us how many people would leave PlayStation for it or at least also buy Xbox. The heads at Xbox better hope things pan out. Because if not they're gonna be put into a $70 billion guillotine.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

That's the gamble. That CoD on GamePass will attract a ton of people not already in that ecosystem and that Sony won't come up with franchises to take the edge off. We really don't know. A whole lot of assumptions but no robust metrics to tell us how many people would leave PlayStation for it or at least also buy Xbox. The heads at Xbox better hope things pan out. Because if not they're gonna be put into a $70 billion guillotine.

Absolute worst case scenario from MS's perspective is that CoD in Gamepass shifts zero increase in GP subs, and still gets 70% of CoD sales on Playstation.

Oh no, we made metric shit-tones of profit, whatever shall we do!?

 

[DaGwaphics]

That's the gamble. That CoD on GamePass will attract a ton of people not already in that ecosystem and that Sony won't come up with franchises to take the edge off. We really don't know. A whole lot of assumptions but no robust metrics to tell us how many people would leave PlayStation for it or at least also buy Xbox. The heads at Xbox better hope things pan out. Because if not they're gonna be put into a $70 billion guillotine.

That bold part is a bit weird because ABK can generate 1.5-$2b in pure profit every year. A roughly 3% return on the whole, which while not great in a vacuum, isn't necessarily that bad considering they are also getting the content for GP and securing access to market this content, etc. Even if they only sold 10 extra consoles over what they would have without the deal, they aren't exactly betting the farm, they bought a stable, profitable business and added it to their portfolio.

 

[Varteras]

Absolute worst case scenario from MS's perspective is that CoD in Gamepass shifts zero increase in GP subs, and still gets 70% of CoD sales on Playstation.

Oh no, we made metric shit-tones of profit, whatever shall we do!?

That bold part is a bit weird because ABK can generate 1.5-$2b in pure profit every year. A roughly 3% return on the whole, which while not great in a vacuum, isn't necessarily that bad considering they are also getting the content for GP and securing access to market this content, etc. Even if they only sold 10 extra consoles over what they would have without the deal, they aren't exactly betting the farm, they bought a stable, profitable business and added it to their portfolio.

If you cannibalize your own sales with GamePass and Sony makes a competitor that reduces CoD sales, that might be a problem.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

If you cannibalize your own sales with GamePass and Sony makes a competitor that reduces CoD sales, that might be a problem.

Jimbo humiliated himself to the regulators that Sony 1st party studios were incapable of competing with CoD. Sounds like Sony needs to diversify their development teams.

Edit-. Oh shit, how much revenue would MS get from 100% of MTX purchases from dude-bros who got CoD from GamePass vs. 30% of everything with ABK being 3rd party. I enjoyed the free Fallout Shelter, and I enjoyed it so much I kicked them $20 for goodies.

 

[Varteras]

Jimbo humiliated himself to the regulators that Sony 1st party studios were incapable of competing with CoD. Sounds like Sony needs to diversify their development teams.

And they have been. Hence the acquisition of 8 studios in the last two years where before it took them over 20 years to buy 11 of them. Plus partnerships with other studios whom are believed to be making FPS titles.

 

[wolffy71]

The only reason MS will not make CoD exclusive is due to all this pressure. Before regulator pushback, the plan was to make CoD exclusive the first chance they could. Their intention was always that.

No chance

 

[Torrent of Pork]

And they have been. Hence the acquisition of 8 studios in the last two years where before it took them over 20 years to buy 11 of them. Plus partnerships with other studios whom are believed to be making FPS titles.

And that's a good thing. For all their success the PS4 era was the worst PS gen in my opinion. It was boring, and Sony got lazy.

I want MS and Sony at each other's throats giving me compelling reasons to give them money.

 

[Varteras]

And that's a good thing. For all their success the PS4 era was the worst PS gen in my opinion. It was boring, and Sony got lazy.

I want MS and Sony at each other's throats giving me compelling reasons to give them money.

Oh of course! I think any of these companies being complacent is bad. That is exactly what led to the PS3 and XBO.

 

[HoofHearted]

That's the thing. If you had been a real part of this discussion then you would known that I've been saying this thing was going through from the beginning.



And no, I will not lose content. At all. Hilarious that Hendrick's is giving you high fives when he learned (the hard way) that you don't know anything about where I play games.

 

[In Cold Blood]

That's the gamble. That CoD on GamePass will attract a ton of people not already in that ecosystem and that Sony won't come up with franchises to take the edge off. We really don't know. A whole lot of assumptions but no robust metrics to tell us how many people would leave PlayStation for it or at least also buy Xbox. The heads at Xbox better hope things pan out. Because if not they're gonna be put into a $70 billion guillotine.

I think ABK sets them up against failure really. If the xbox takes a dive for the worst and ends up selling only 10 million a generation, and MS decides to get out of hardware, with all the studios they have they will still be the biggest publisher in the world by far.

The beauty about Subscriptions is this. One of the main things that kept a PS person in that ecosystem, and a Nintendo person in that ecosystem was that that they had invested so much into it. They had tons of games they had already bought which they can carry over into the next gen etc, and so now they can buy a series console, pay $15 a month's and have over 300 games you can play straight away, and you can get all their first party ones that get released as well. The barrier of entry into another ecosystem is so much lower now.

The same goes for PS with PS+, and I expect down the track Sony will have to match GP. They don't have to be the exact same price as GP. These subscription services arnt in a competition for the cheapest monthly price.
People will find $15 and $20 a month for both GP and PS+ if they both have great exclusive content.
I don't make a decision to either get Netflix or Disney+, I get both of them.
I think the same can be true for the consoles.
Xcloud also gives a PS person a way to play GP games without having to buy another console if they live in an area with good internet.

 

[DaGwaphics]

If you cannibalize your own sales with GamePass and Sony makes a competitor that reduces CoD sales, that might be a problem.

And if the moon fell out of the sky and smashed their headquarters they would have even bigger problems.

Such what ifs exist with all investments in almost any field. What is successful today may start to lose relevance tomorrow, such is the way of the world. MS would hope that the teams behind CoD could adapt to changing trends enough to keep themselves relevant in the event that scenario played out. Plus, I've heard from a reputable console manufacturer that CoD is a one-of-a-kind entity that is impossible to compete with regardless of budget or time.

 

[Varteras]

I think ABK sets them up against failure really. If the xbox takes a dive for the worst and ends up selling only 10 million a generation, and MS decides to get out of hardware, with all the studios they have they will still be the biggest publisher in the world by far.

The beauty about Subscriptions is this. One of the main things that kept a PS person in that ecosystem, and a Nintendo person in that ecosystem was that that they had invested so much into it. They had tons of games they had already bought which they can carry over into the next gen etc, and so now they can buy a series console, pay $15 a month's and have over 300 games you can play straight away, and you can get all their first party ones that get released as well. The barrier of entry into another ecosystem is so much lower now.

The same goes for PS with PS+, and I expect down the track Sony will have to match GP. They don't have to be the exact same price as GP. These subscription services arnt in a competition for the cheapest monthly price.
People will find $15 and $20 a month for both GP and PS+ if they both have great exclusive content.
I don't make a decision to either get Netflix or Disney+, I get both of them.
I think the same can be true for the consoles.
Xcloud also gives a PS person a way to play GP games without having to buy another console if they live in an area with good internet.

Oh I don't think Xbox is going anywhere. I just think the current strategies will be abandoned if they can't get significant market share out of them. That the people who have led the charge on them will be axed because of the amount of money spent to not succeed. It will just lead to Microsoft actually having to do things the traditional way, which takes time. The reality is GamePass has been around for almost 6 years now but the console space hasn't really changed and PC gamers still prefer Steam. This is Microsoft's attempt to change that.

And if the moon fell out of the sky and smashed their headquarters they would have even bigger problems.

Such what ifs exist with all investments in almost any field. What is successful today may start to lose relevance tomorrow, such is the way of the world. MS would hope that the teams behind CoD could adapt to changing trends enough to keep themselves relevant in the event that scenario played out. Plus, I've heard from a reputable console manufacturer that CoD is a one-of-a-kind entity that is impossible to compete without regardless of budget or time.

Yeah, that's why I said it's a gamble and we don't know how this will shake out. Glad you agree.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Yeah, that's why I said it's a gamble and we don't know how this will shake out. Glad you agree.

Long standing trends indicate that ABK is one of the safest bets in gaming, but sure, no investment is without some risk.

 

[ProtoByte]

The regulators are being purposefully dense if they cannot identify a foreclosure strategy that is plain as day in front of their face. Heck, the CMA themselves were the ones who originally pointed out that MS' situation with Bethesda, when MS told regulators/EC that they had no financial incentive to remove Zenimax publishing support from PS then did so anyway. They were the ones who originally stated that MS' strategy around studio acquisitions was a foreclosure strategy, so yeah, MS must have presented some very ridiculous study stating that UK consumers just wouldn't move at all if CoD became Xbox exclusive.

This^ is the thing the smugposters aren't addressing and what some on the thread are getting distracted away from. What comprehensive reason has the CMA given to contradict the points they made previously?
Again, I expected this merger to go through, regulatory pump-faking aside. Because that's all it was from the CMA, and that is certainly all it's going to turn out to be from the FTC. These regulatory bodies are (mostly) there to let corporations know they need to start lobbying, whilst also maintaining the appearance of government authority and integrity to public.

 

[Varteras]

Long standing trends indicate that ABK is one of the safest bets in gaming, but sure, no investment is without risk.

Exactly. What Microsoft wants out of this is not immediate revenue gains. They want market share to control more of the industry so they can make a lot more revenue later and their strategy for market control is GamePass. Because their competitors can't sustain the losses needed to do a subscription model the way they are. But GamePass hasn't shifted the market share situation after almost 6 years now. This deal is their gamble to change that right away.

 

[DrFigs]

Instead of getting so upset at me, maybe some introspection is warranted? Maybe you were looking at the deal with Rose tinted glasses. Maybe you were only thinking of it from a PS players eyes, and not one from a factual point of view.
Yes, you will lose content on PS. I have lost content on Xbox that went to PS.
I see that as good. The more unique exclusives on both console the better.

I do like exclusives. I don't like this "everything must be the same on all platforms" idea. but not in this way where xbox has created no value. it's just taken away games from playstation gamers. it's not creating new exclusive content, it's reducing the amount of content for everyone else.

 

[Three]

• They don't account for price increase strategies on Gamepass to increase Xbox user LTVs

This is the easiest strategy I think. They have used the latest LTV which has a a lot more people using gamepass compared to their previous strategy/old LTV. When they start gaining GP subscribers to reach around 40-50M it would require only a $1.50 price hike to completely recoup all lost sales from foreclosure of COD.

Has anybody actually looked at their GP growth projections and seen the feasibility and timeframe?

 

[Ozriel]

You are correct. MS does not break out most individual divisions and revenue streams in their annual reports. They like to bundle stuff like Xbox and Surface into a much larger category, which tends to shift every few years, to obfuscate the financial contributions (read: losses) made by those divisions. It doesn't matter to MS shareholders because the company made about $200 billion in revenue and $72 billion in net profit in 2022 and yes they are doing a good job of increasing that every year.

I'm an MS shareholder BTW. I follow their quarterly and annual financial results. We care about growth of Windows, Office, and Azure. I personally oppose MS continuously spending more on gaming because it's just pissing money away, granted I also know they are like the Saudis and have more money than they could ever know what to do with.

While you’re correct that Xbox is grouped along with Surface and a few other stuff in ‘More personal computing’, they do also provide some granular detail on how some of the individual streams are doing. They’ll tell you how Xbox revenue is doing by percentage increase or reduction.

 

[In Cold Blood]

I do like exclusives. I don't like this "everything must be the same on all platforms" idea. but not in this way where xbox has created no value. it's just taken away games from playstation gamers. it's not creating new exclusive content, it's reducing the amount of content for everyone else.

Sony did it more on a third party exclusives than Microsoft was able to do, obviously because it cost them half the amount to get the same game as it would have cost Microsoft. Having this ability to get cheaper third party exclusives was something Sony exploited, and were/are tipped to be even more aggressive with. Last I heard Sony had budgeted 329 Million for third party exclusives. We saw how aggressive they were with Zenimax alone. They got Deathloop, Ghostwire and were in negotiations to get Starfield exclusive as well. They arnt fucking around.

Consolidation is a given. You may not like the idea of it, but it happened in the movie industry, it happened in the music industry as well.
Gaming is the last one to catch on, but it will.
Microsoft and Sony are both moving on it before the big boys finish in the movie and music industries and then turn their heads to gaming.
It will be cheaper to do it now rather than fight against the big money that will be.thrown around when the others enter.
Disney, Amazon, Apple and maybe Netflix and Meta even.
I would rather both Sony and Microsoft have more of the IPs and studios than those other guys.

The big question is just how many studios and IPs do both Sony and Microsoft require?

 

[reksveks]

While you’re correct that Xbox is grouped along with Surface and a few other stuff in ‘More personal computing’, they do also provide some granular detail on how some of the individual streams are doing. They’ll tell you how Xbox revenue is doing by percentage increase or reduction.

They give the actual number (revenue) for Gaming, Devices, Search and News Advertising and Windows. All of which makes up More Personal Computing.

I did have a look at it yesterday but thought speculation on the margin % of each subdivision wasn't too easy. Windows margin is the hard one.

Its all in the 10Q filings.

 

[TheGodfather07]

Bungie aren't lying nor were Sony, that's their path for now

But market conditions change so their objective at the start of the acquisition may be different in 5 years or 10 years

Their primary goal with bungie is their live service expertise, not making exclusive games.

 

[The Tourmaline Gorilla]

Actually he is wrong but I couldn’t be bothered to respond to someone so misinformed.

Corporate entities in the west don’t have “rights” - individual citizens do. Corporate entities operate in accordance with laws which, as it happens, regulators can make.

The government and its various agencies are there to protect public interest - that is our right.

So no, a corporate merger isn’t automatically ok just because they have the money to do it.

You're aware that your "rights" are also laws, guided by a constitution, both of which can be changed. It happens, in many countries, all the time. Laws change. Constitutions, not so much, but they do change. Rights change. And if you could read and comprehend, you'd know that I'm not speaking about legality here, but morality. There's actually a distinction between the two. There are many things that are immoral and illegal. There are many things that are immoral, but legal. There are many things that are illegal, but moral. You're blurring the lines and obviously have a problem understanding simple points.

And just because corporate entities have different governing laws than you do, doesn't mean they don't have rights; they do.

But, let's focus on the legality aspect of it... Is buying another company illegal? Generally no. In this case, it certainly isn't. If it is, tell me why it's illegal. What regulators are trying to achieve (which is their job) is to regulate the market, in the consumer's best interest, which is what they're proposing to do. Allowing something with concessions isn't a declaration that it is illegal. How'd you string those two thoughts together is beyond me.

And, like I said in my OP, I couldn't care less what the EU, CMA or FTC have to say about the matter; government bodies aren't the voices of morality. Do you rely on governing bodies to tell you what is right/wrong, and how to think? If that is where you get your ideas of morality of what is allowed, then I suppose you were perfectly fine with slavery, once upon a time, because the government said it was okay, and legal? We're you pro-abortion, and then when they made it illegal, your principles on the matter suddenly changed? Do you have any capacity at all, to think for yourself?

These are rhetorical questions. I have zero intention of responding to asininity.

 

[ToadMan]

Corporate entities absolutely have rights, I suggest you look up Citizens United which upheld that corporations have the same rights as people

The Supreme Court of the US actually determined in a landmark decision that corporations are in fact individuals and have the same rights.

The ruling wasn’t to that extent and the constitution of the US is fairly clear on where rights lie. Unless one wants to define the word “rights” as any legally afforded status conferred by a court.

The SC (amongst others) has afforded companies some legal status that are equivalent to individual rights - property ownership, political advocacy (i.e. lobbying senators with money) for example - but these are not constitutional rights an individual has. These rulings have largely been to allow a corp to be a standalone legal entity with all that entails.

In terms of this topic, corporations don’t have a right to spend their money as they wish - which was the assertion made.

 

[ToadMan]

You're aware that your "rights" are also laws, guided by a constitution, both of which can be changed. It happens, in many countries, all the time. Laws change. Constitutions, not so much, but they do change. Rights change. And if you could read and comprehend, you'd know that I'm not speaking about legality here, but morality. There's actually a distinction between the two. There are many things that are immoral and illegal. There are many things that are immoral, but legal. There are many things that are illegal, but moral. You're blurring the lines and obviously have a problem understanding simple points.

And just because corporate entities have different governing laws than you do, doesn't mean they don't have rights; they do.

But, let's focus on the legality aspect of it... Is buying another company illegal? Generally no. In this case, it certainly isn't. If it is, tell me why it's illegal. What regulators are trying to achieve (which is their job) is to regulate the market, in the consumer's best interest, which is what they're proposing to do. Allowing something with concessions isn't a declaration that it is illegal. How'd you string those two thoughts together is beyond me.

And, like I said in my OP, I couldn't care less what the EU, CMA or FTC have to say about the matter; government bodies aren't the voices of morality. Do you rely on governing bodies to tell you what is right/wrong, and how to think? If that is where you get your ideas of morality of what is allowed, then I suppose you were perfectly fine with slavery, once upon a time, because the government said it was okay, and legal? We're you pro-abortion, and then when they made it illegal, your principles on the matter suddenly changed? Do you have any capacity at all, to think for yourself?

These are rhetorical questions. I have zero intention of responding to asininity.

Government bodies are set up to represent the public and the public do indeed define what is acceptable in their society.

That Includes regulating corporate activities.

Corporations do not have a right either legally or morally to spend their money as they wish.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Sony did it more on a third party exclusives than Microsoft was able to do

How many times must it be pointed out that a timed exclusive is nowhere near as damaging as a forever exclusive?

Why act like they are anywhere remotely the same?

You get ghost wire and Deathloop a year after it launched on PS5.

PS5 will never get Starfield, a much bigger title than either of those timed exclusive AA tier deals

 

[DrFigs]

Sony did it more on a third party exclusives than Microsoft was able to do, obviously because it cost them half the amount to get the same game as it would have cost Microsoft. Having this ability to get cheaper third party exclusives was something Sony exploited, and were/are tipped to be even more aggressive with. Last I heard Sony had budgeted 329 Million for third party exclusives. We saw how aggressive they were with Zenimax alone. They got Deathloop, Ghostwire and were in negotiations to get Starfield exclusive as well. They arnt fucking around.

Consolidation is a given. You may not like the idea of it, but it happened in the movie industry, it happened in the music industry as well.
Gaming is the last one to catch on, but it will.
Microsoft and Sony are both moving on it before the big boys finish in the movie and music industries and then turn their heads to gaming.
It will be cheaper to do it now rather than fight against the big money that will be.thrown around when the others enter.
Disney, Amazon, Apple and maybe Netflix and Meta even.
I would rather both Sony and Microsoft have more of the IPs and studios than those other guys.

The big question is just how many studios and IPs do both Sony and Microsoft require?

I don't want to rehash these same arguments. but yeah it's also not good that sony is doing this. but paying for largely timed, temporary exclusives (something which MS does also) is not the same as buying out a publisher and making their games permanently exclusive. that's not even to mention the price tag. also i don't agree that the industry would be worse off if google or apple bought activision. they really don't have an incentive to make their games exclusive, since they're not trying to sell a console. MS does. I never bought this argument from MS fans.

 

[TheGodfather07]

Government bodies are set up to represent the public and the public do indeed define what is acceptable in their society.

That Includes regulating corporate activities.

Corporations do not have a right either legally or morally to spend their money as they wish.

You really believe that? I don't think governments give a shit about the people and do whatever the hell they want. Even if the public disagree.

 

[RickMasters]

Their primary goal with bungie is their live service expertise, not making exclusive games.

yeah but...console warz...