Support NeoGAF

[Lognor]

Big mistake by MS honoring older contracts. By 2023, we would be half way through the gen with Sony around 50 million sold. Warzone 2 especially is going to be a big driver since its F2P.

If you are spending $70 billion, you gotta get shit like this done. Like wtf is the point of buying cod if you are going to let the next three games be on Playstation? Throw in another billion. Maybe a hooker. Get this shit done now.

The only way to get ahead of this is announcing today that it wont be exclusive past 2023 so go and buy the xss today if you want to keep playing cod after 2023.

Microsoft won't do that. They didn't do that with Bethesda. They will only state definitively that it's exclusive to Xbox once the deal is final. And the 2023 game will essentially be finished by the time the deal is done. So Activision is supposed to scrap all that work? That makes no sense. And there is the chance the deal does not go through so if they come out now and say COD will no longer be on PS they will only be shooting themselves in the foot if the deal falls through. They are going about it the right way.

And you know that this news is already affecting potential buyers of the current gen consoles. There are over a hundred million people that will buy these consoles over the course of the consoles' lives that have not yet done so. This news will affect many of those potential buyers and many will buy an Xbox instead of a PS just based on this news, not even knowing when the exclusivity starts. People now know that Xbox is the home of Call of Duty. Why buy a PS that may or may not get the game or may or may not get the DLC in a timely fashion? Makes no sense for those people that only want to play COD

 

[Yoboman]

It can be argued they are expanding the market. Just got to give it some time. None of the Activision or Bethesda games have been cut off yet.

And with MS big on xcloud, if that takes off (I think only about 100 games are on xcloud) you'll get a shitload of mobile gamers who can jump in. Sony's reach is only as far as it's console base. And that base hasn't increased in 25 years. PS1 was already at 100M 25 years ago and PS2 was 150M.

The console base between Nintendo, MS and Sony over the generations hasnt grown one bit. IN fact, it's dropped since the total console+handhelds is lower than the 360/PS3 era. What's helped them is giant mtx money and digital cuts. But if console gaming was still heavy into disc sales and mtx never caught on, it would be worse. Growth in mobile and PC the past 20 years blew past them.

Growth is in mobile. And out of the big 3 console makers only MS is trying to get that market. And according to the pie graph people post here every once in a while, mobile is bigger than all console makers combined. I think it was about 50% of gaming. So it's as big as all console and PC combined.

Nonsense, Activision Blizzard already had a big stake in mobile games and MS is not the one introducing that to them. Any streaming is now limited to xcloud whereas it may have been on other services like Geforce, Stadia and PSNow otherwise. So again, it is limiting platforms

This purchase effectively cuts out the 200+ million Sony and Nintendo consoles out there. No matter how you spin it, it is reducing consumer options

 

[RaZoR No1]

Big mistake by MS honoring older contracts. By 2023, we would be half way through the gen with Sony around 50 million sold. Warzone 2 especially is going to be a big driver since its F2P.

If you are spending $70 billion, you gotta get shit like this done. Like wtf is the point of buying cod if you are going to let the next three games be on Playstation? Throw in another billion. Maybe a hooker. Get this shit done now.

The only way to get ahead of this is announcing today that it wont be exclusive past 2023 so go and buy the xss today if you want to keep playing cod after 2023.

Dont worry, they only have to release the games on PS4/5, but nobody says that the games have to be on par in terms of features / DLC or resolution/FPS. (except the contrqct says something else)
Additionaly this will be extra money for MS from Sony players. All sold CoD and all MTX will go directly to MS minus the cut Sony takes.

 

[GigaBowser]

Nonsense, Activision Blizzard already had a big stake in mobile games and MS is not the one introducing that to them. Any streaming is now limited to xcloud whereas it may have been on other services like Geforce, Stadia and PSNow otherwise. So again, it is limiting platforms

This purchase effectively cuts out the 200+ million Sony and Nintendo consoles out there. No matter how you spin it, it is reducing consumer options

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Nonsense, Activision Blizzard already had a big stake in mobile games and MS is not the one introducing that to them. Any streaming is now limited to xcloud whereas it may have been on other services like Geforce, Stadia and PSNow otherwise. So again, it is limiting platforms

This purchase effectively cuts out the 200+ million Sony and Nintendo consoles out there. No matter how you spin it, it is reducing consumer options

There's tons of Activision games on Geforce, PS Now and Stadia?

Call of Duty isn't even on Switch.

 

[ManaByte]

 

[Yoboman]

There's tons of Activision games on Geforce, PS Now and Stadia?

Call of Duty isn't even on Switch.

Activision made a partnership with Google, where that was going we won't know. The streaming market is tiny though so it really doesn't have much relevance to expanding options

Call of Duty is the only game they make? Crash, Tony Hawk, Overwatch, Diablo all came to Switch

 

[bushwookie]

MS is shrinking the market rather than expanding it. Instead of building their own collection of studios that can compete with Activision and give more choice to gamers, they just buy them and limit the platforms

It is reducing competition in the market and weakening the third party space even further

How many developers does Activision employ? In order to factually shrink the development market, there would have to be the same amount of unemployed developers out there looking to go to work.

Nothing regarding this deal is shrinking anything until MS lays off employees once the deal is finalized. (Which it almost certainly will) Anyone who plays call of duty today, will be able to play it 4 or 5 years from now except those on Xbox One and PS4 consoles, but that would be the case regardless.

The only difference here is that previously... Someone who played COD could upgrade from last gen consoles to either a PS5 or XBSeries console. Where now they'll need to upgrade to simply a XB Series console.

I suppose you could consider that shrinking their options by a factor of one, but then technically... So would any exclusive. Why should you have to buy a Series console just to play COD works just the same as why should I have to buy a PS5 just to play God of War. The eventual answer to both will end up being because they're first party exclusives. End of story, that's it, there's nothing else to it.

Why some of you try so hard to drive, wedge, pry, screw so many tiny little caveats in between the two to portray them as being entirely different and in no way comparable is baffling.

 

[Yoboman]

How many developers does Activision employ? In order to factually shrink the development market, there would have to be the same amount of unemployed developers out there looking to go to work.

Nothing regarding this deal is shrinking anything until MS lays off employees once the deal is finalized. (Which it almost certainly will) Anyone who plays call of duty today, will be able to play it 4 or 5 years from now except those on Xbox One and PS4 consoles, but that would be the case regardless.

The only difference here is that previously... Someone who played COD could upgrade from last gen consoles to either a PS5 or XBSeries console. Where now they'll need to upgrade to simply a XB Series console.

I suppose you could consider that shrinking their options by a factor of one, but then technically... So would any exclusive. Why should you have to buy a Series console just to play COD works just the same as why should I have to buy a PS5 just to play God of War. The eventual answer to both will end up being because they're first party exclusives. End of story, that's it, there's nothing else to it.

Why some of you try so hard to drive, wedge, pry, screw so many tiny little caveats in between the two to portray them as being entirely different and in no way comparable is baffling.

I said reducing competition in the market, not reducing the employment market. Reading is key

 

[SlimySnake]

Additionaly this will be extra money for MS from Sony players. All sold CoD and all MTX will go directly to MS minus the cut Sony takes.

MS made $24 billion in profit from last 3 months alone. I dont think they care too much about the extra money CoD brings in.

The purpose of this move is not to generate more revenue but to do something about Playstation and the best way to do that is by ripping off the contract and paying whatever fine to Sony.

 

[RaZoR No1]

MS made $24 billion in profit from last 3 months alone. I dont think they care too much about the extra money CoD brings in.

The purpose of this move is not to generate more revenue but to do something about Playstation and the best way to do that is by ripping off the contract and paying whatever fine to Sony.

MS made that profit, not MS Gaming.
MS Gaming has still a long way to make up for the purchases

+ If the best console version is Xbox (tbh I don't think MS is that stupid to let Activision release games which run better on PS5) , then alot of the CoD players will move to Xbox MS could give away exclusive double XP perks or skins by Gamepass, too.

 

[adamsapple]

MS made $24 billion in profit from last 3 months alone. I dont think they care too much about the extra money CoD brings in.

The purpose of this move is not to generate more revenue but to do something about Playstation and the best way to do that is by ripping off the contract and paying whatever fine to Sony.

No. I can't believe multiple users here are saying this .. y'all don't seem to understand the legal ramifications of something like this lol.

 

[Kagey K]

MS made that profit, not MS Gaming.
MS Gaming has still a long way to make up for the purchases

+ If the best console version is Xbox (tbh I don't think MS is that stupid to let Activision release games which run better on PS5) , then alot of the CoD players will move to Xbox MS could give away exclusive double XP perks or skins by Gamepass, too.

MS also made the purchase not MS gaming, it's all the same pot of money.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

MS made that profit, not MS Gaming.
MS Gaming has still a long way to make up for the purchases

+ If the best console version is Xbox (tbh I don't think MS is that stupid to let Activision release games which run better on PS5) , then alot of the CoD players will move to Xbox MS could give away exclusive double XP perks or skins by Gamepass, too.

Doubtful. That would require them to buy additional hardware. Do you really think casuals who love call of duty will give a shit if it runs a bit better on xbox?

 

[GigaBowser]

MS made $24 billion in profit from last 3 months alone. I dont think they care too much about the extra money CoD brings in.

The purpose of this move is not to generate more revenue but to do something about Playstation and the best way to do that is by ripping off the contract and paying whatever fine to Sony.

No way. The deal hasn't even gone through yet and will never go through if MS were to try and pull something like that.

 

[ReBurn]

MS made that profit, not MS Gaming.
MS Gaming has still a long way to make up for the purchases

+ If the best console version is Xbox (tbh I don't think MS is that stupid to let Activision release games which run better on PS5) , then alot of the CoD players will move to Xbox MS could give away exclusive double XP perks or skins by Gamepass, too.

MS Gaming does not have to "make up" for these purchases. They're not in some kind of hole until they make enough profit to cover the Zenimax and Activision Blizzard purchases. I don't even know where that's coming from.

 

[RaZoR No1]

MS also made the purchase not MS gaming, it's all the same pot of money.

Also true, but at the moment MS Gaming did "nothing" to get back the costs.
You cannot have enough money.

Like with Bethesda contracts, MS will keep the contracts and play fair.
Deathloop and Tokyo Ghostwire

Additionaly it is probably not worth the fine/ brand damage from canceling the contracts.

 

[adamsapple]

No way. The deal hasn't even gone through yet and will never go through if MS were to try and pull something like that.

Yeah, expecting them to make committal statements about exclusive CoD games before the deal fully finalizes is just a fools errand. Phil's tweets are probably vetted by a dozen or so people before they get published.

They didn't start making committal statements about Betheda games before the deal closed either.

 

[Swift_Star]

Big mistake by MS honoring older contracts. By 2023, we would be half way through the gen with Sony around 50 million sold. Warzone 2 especially is going to be a big driver since its F2P.

If you are spending $70 billion, you gotta get shit like this done. Like wtf is the point of buying cod if you are going to let the next three games be on Playstation? Throw in another billion. Maybe a hooker. Get this shit done now.

The only way to get ahead of this is announcing today that it wont be exclusive past 2023 so go and buy the xss today if you want to keep playing cod after 2023.

If they don’t honor the contracts, they’ll have a bigger chance of suffering from anti trust actions and failing at the acquisition.

 

[RaZoR No1]

Doubtful. That would require them to buy additional hardware. Do you really think casuals who love call of duty will give a shit if it runs a bit better on xbox?

Have you ever checked what additional hardware alot of the gamers buy? Gaming headsets, controller addons, Stick "extenders" (Dont know the correct term) or even all of the MTX?
Imagine all MTX on Xbox are cheaper than on PS because they dont have to give 30% to Sony (like the case with Epic and Apple).
This will move some gamers too.

Of course not all, but some of them.

MS Gaming does not have to "make up" for these purchases. They're not in some kind of hole until they make enough profit to cover the Zenimax and Activision Blizzard purchases. I don't even know where that's coming from.

Of course they have to make it up in the mid or long term otherwise it would be a failed/wrong/bad investment. MS invested/bought them to make more profit in the future. What other reason should MS have to buy Bethesda and Activision/Blizzard?
This isn't some kind of an hobby for them, this is business as usual.

 

[NickFire]

The rumors about how long they are obligated to keep COD on PS, if true, will be a really big deal in terms of affect on console sales. That would give Sony close to 3 full years, at a minimum, to get one of their devs to get a new first party FPS to market. I don’t know if that would be enough time to get something done from scratch, but they’d at least have a chance to get the primary COD players interested in something else. If they can’t, I think they do need to seriously entertaining a GP deal with MS if MS is still interested. I really think COD will shift things dramatically if the day comes only 1 console has it. I don’t think that user base, talking COD only and COD / sports only will be all that tuned into news in advance of the deal. But if they don’t have another option they like when it gets turned off, they will follow I think.

 

[Haggard]

Big mistake by MS honoring older contracts.

Contracts aren't suddenly void when a company changes owners..... That is not how contracts work....

 

[ReBurn]

Of course they have to make it up in the mid or long term otherwise it would be a failed/wrong/bad investment. MS invested/bought them to make more profit in the future. What other reason should MS have to buy Bethesda and Activision/Blizzard?
This isn't some kind of an hobby for them, this is business as usual.

No, they actually don't have to make it up. It's doubtful that there's going to be some red line item on the books that gets credited with revenue earned from the Activision Blizzard studios. The investment pays off in more ways than just profit from those studios. Especially when all of their future titles are going to drop to game pass on day 1. Success is most likely going to be determined by the overall health of the revenue stream MS Gaming provides via game pass and how much market share they acquire vs. the individual contribution of each company acquired.

 

[RaZoR No1]

No, they actually don't have to make it up. It's doubtful that there's going to be some red line item on the books that gets credited with revenue earned from the Activision Blizzard studios. The investment pays off in more ways than just profit from those studios. Especially when all of their future titles are going to drop to game pass on day 1. Success is most likely going to be determined by the overall health of the revenue stream MS Gaming provides via game pass and how much market share they acquire vs. the individual contribution of each company acquired.

I didn't mention Activision has to make up the costs, but MS Gaming in total.
And what you described is excactly the case for MS gaming. It is even what I tried to explain... Gamepass and the Studios / Activision etc. belongs to MS Gaming. So in the end it doesn't matter how they get the money, but the goal is to make money and profit from the investments.
MS has a long term plan for MS Gaming otherwise they wouldn't have spend that much money.

And in every investment they is always a redline, otherwise you couldnt convince them to invest such a huge amount. Only MS intern knows, when the calculated ROI will be.

 

[ReBurn]

I didn't mention Activision has to make up the costs, but MS Gaming in total.
And what you described is excactly the case for MS gaming. It is even what I tried to explain... Gamepass and the Studios / Activision etc. belongs to MS Gaming. So in the end it doesn't matter how they get the money, but the goal is to make money and profit from the investments.
MS has a long term plan for MS Gaming otherwise they wouldn't have spend that much money.

And in every investment they is always a redline, otherwise you couldnt convince them to invest such a huge amount. Only MS intern knows, when the calculated ROI will be.

No, every investment does not have a red line because acquisitions don't represent a loss. Not every investment is about making the money back in profit. Sometimes it's about growing the business or changing place in the competitive landscape. If the value proposition were just to buy a company and wait to earn your money back then most companies wouldn't acquire other companies. It's just as much (or sometimes more) about the value of the assets acquired as it is the revenue those assets generate.

Acquisitions offset the loss of value of cash that sits in the bank wasting away with inflation. They move funds from cash to other, less liquid asset categories on the balance sheet. So Microsoft hasn't "lost" money with the purchase that they have to "make back." They will have added about $60B in tangible assets in the form of intellectual property to their balance sheet that currently generate annually an additional $8B in revenue and $2B in profit, meaning it probably didn't take a lot of convincing to get the board to spend the money.

The value of Activision Blizzard doesn't just disappear with the cash. If it were just about sunk cost and needing to earn back the purchase price in profit to realize the value of the investment it would take 25-30 years for Microsoft to earn back their money. But that's not how it works. Microsoft could earn profit on the assets from the purchase for the next 5 years, sell off the pieces of Activision Blizzard after that, and probably still make money on this deal.

 

[M16]

Reminder on how not all the enormous acquisitions go through.

This isn't a suggestion that the AB acquisition is in grave danger or something, but for an acquisition of this scale the legislators will be pushing for anti-monopoly obligations.

see disney buying fox for $71 billion

 

[DaGwaphics]

If they don’t honor the contracts, they’ll have a bigger chance of suffering from anti trust actions and failing at the acquisition.

They would not be in a position to have any say about fulfilling contracts unless the deal has already closed, not much connection there. But I expect them to just let things play out, that's what they've done with everything so far.

Like @ adamsapple mentioned, I wouldn't take any statements MS makes in regards to Activision as written in stone until after the ink dries.

 

[M16]

Big mistake by MS honoring older contracts. By 2023, we would be half way through the gen with Sony around 50 million sold. Warzone 2 especially is going to be a big driver since its F2P.

If you are spending $70 billion, you gotta get shit like this done. Like wtf is the point of buying cod if you are going to let the next three games be on Playstation? Throw in another billion. Maybe a hooker. Get this shit done now.

The only way to get ahead of this is announcing today that it wont be exclusive past 2023 so go and buy the xss today if you want to keep playing cod after 2023.

microsoft doesnt take control till at most mid 2023. they cant do shit till then.

 

[JLB]

2,2 trillion usd company that owns:

Windows operating system,
Azure, a cloud platform,
Skype,
Bing,
GitHub,
MSN,
LinkedIn
Office suite,
Microsoft Teams,
Outlook.com,
OneDrive,

Plus some hardware:
Surface notebooks, PC accessories, PCs, tablets, gaming and entertainment consoles, and other devices;
Gaming, including Xbox hardware, and Xbox content and services; video games and third-party video game royalties

What's next? Groceries? Farmlands?

Wondering what will trigger a monopoly threshold?

What you are describing is a well funded and healthy corporation that was able to diversify its portfolio.
Its a valid debate if a company should be allowed to be as big as MS or Apple or Amazon. But that does bot convert it in a monopoly.

 

[ReBurn]

Big mistake by MS honoring older contracts. By 2023, we would be half way through the gen with Sony around 50 million sold. Warzone 2 especially is going to be a big driver since its F2P.

If you are spending $70 billion, you gotta get shit like this done. Like wtf is the point of buying cod if you are going to let the next three games be on Playstation? Throw in another billion. Maybe a hooker. Get this shit done now.

The only way to get ahead of this is announcing today that it wont be exclusive past 2023 so go and buy the xss today if you want to keep playing cod after 2023.

Neither Microsoft nor Activision can announce today that COD will or won't be exclusive past 2023 because neither company is really in a position to do so. Activision has to keep it status quo so they don't do anything to impact the value of the company prior to the sale. Microsoft can't say what they are going to do after the sale for the same reason.

Honoring agreements to keep CoD on PlayStation doesn't mean that the state of CoD on PS5 isn't impacted by this merger. Almost certainly we'll see the Xbox and PC versions getting content that PS5 players don't get or Microsoft creating incentives for CoD diehards to move to Xbox or PC. Limiting cross play to Xbox and PC would be enough to get some people to sell their PS5 and make the jump. The game staying on PS5 isn't the same thing as nothing changing.

 

[JLB]

Big mistake by MS honoring older contracts. By 2023, we would be half way through the gen with Sony around 50 million sold. Warzone 2 especially is going to be a big driver since its F2P.

If you are spending $70 billion, you gotta get shit like this done. Like wtf is the point of buying cod if you are going to let the next three games be on Playstation? Throw in another billion. Maybe a hooker. Get this shit done now.

The only way to get ahead of this is announcing today that it wont be exclusive past 2023 so go and buy the xss today if you want to keep playing cod after 2023.

You are asuming that MS has Sony as target. Its not the case, and they were very explicit about it.
In 5/7 years, subs, not hardware will be the main driver of this industry, and Sony is simply out of the league to compete there. Selling some more or less Playstations now is irrelevant.

 

[Kagey K]

microsoft doesnt take control till at most mid 2023. they cant do shit till then.

They gave themselves until June 2023 to make sure there was ample time to go through all the measures it has to pass.

If it goes relatively unchallenged and goes smoothly through the courts it can close much sooner.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Wrong. You should check your dates. Mass Effect 2 was timed-exclusive, same for Bioshock. For COD, GTA and Skyrim I meant the exclusive DLC on 360.

I thought Sony was the devil for doing it with COD? MS did it too.

Morrowind was exclusive and Oblivion was timed-exclusive + Skyrim DLC. Todd Howard said it himself in this interview so you can keep your lies to yourself.

Elder Scrolls 6 being an Xbox exclusive is “hard to imagine”, says Todd Howard

The Skyrim and Fallout director also says future games will have their platform decided on a "case-by-case" basis

www.pcgamesn.com

MS did the exact same thing or worst with Bioshock, Mass Effect, Tales of Vesperia, GTA 4 DLC, COD DLC, Skyrim DLC, Oblivion and more.

Why do you always skip that?

Was MS trying to "kill Playstation" with these timed-exclusive? That's what I've been reading all week. Evil Sony tried to kill Xbox with SFV, Final Fantasy and COD DLC. That's why they had to buy 2 publishers. Turns out they did the same thing but no one talks about it.

Can you tell your boys ManaByte , SenjutsuSage and all the Twitter warriors that timed-exclusive are cool now. MS started it.

Mana disappeared again since he lost the argument lol

A few hours later and I'm surprised I didn't get a reply. You can add Dead Rising series to the list too. Damn! MS were really vicious with the moneyhats. You guys don't have anything to say about this double standard? SenjutsuSage ManaByte H Hitchyhero

Dude, hush that mouth lol.

Mass Effect was funded fully by Microsoft. They were the original publishers of Mass Effect with Bioware before Bioware's parent company was purchased by EA, which is what made the franchise go multi-plat. That wasn't some moneyhat timed deal or timed exclusive. It was a full Xbox exclusive published by Microsoft, and it's sequel would have also been exclusive had EA not purchased Bioware's parent company, thus creating a situation where Microsoft and EA worked something out.

The franchise exists because Microsoft and Xbox funded it. You can thank Xbox for that lol.

COD 2 launched with 360 when PS3 wasn't even released yet till a whole year later. COD4 launched on both consoles simultaneously. GTA 4 released simultaneously on PS3 and 360. The ballad of gay tony DLC isn't the same as a whole game, and it came to PS3 6 months later. Skyrim also launched simultaneously on PS3 and 360.

Oblivion released March 2006, PS3 wasn't even a launched console yet till November 2006...

Dude, do you even do any damn research before you say thing?

Bioshock also released simultaneously on PS3 and 360. You must not have been born back then or something to get all of this so wrong. How old are you? Tales of Vesperia, yes, that one was a timed deal for Xbox 360.

What about you DarkMage619 and all the others? You respond with the fire emoji on this badly researched post. So easily manipulated it's sad.

Spider-Man was also funded and published by Sony. That didn't stop people calling it a moneyhat.

 

[SlimySnake]

microsoft doesnt take control till at most mid 2023. they cant do shit till then.

Contracts aren't suddenly void when a company changes owners..... That is not how contracts work....

No. I can't believe multiple users here are saying this .. y'all don't seem to understand the legal ramifications of something like this lol.

Contracts can be voided. It's not the first time. if you can void your contract with a cell phone provider, a billion dollar company with an army of lawyers can figure it out too.

Besides, if the contracts MUST be honored then Phil wouldnt have had to call Sony to assure them they will be honored. It was Phil's decision to honor them and Sony was at his mercy until he called them up.

 

[SlimySnake]

You are asuming that MS has Sony as target. Its not the case, and they were very explicit about it.
In 5/7 years, subs, not hardware will be the main driver of this industry, and Sony is simply out of the league to compete there. Selling some more or less Playstations now is irrelevant.

Nah, hes giving Sony a year and a half head start here to go and buy more studios or create more content and services of their own. He's holding all the cards here, today, and allowing them to have the next three games is just a waste of time and money.

If services are the future and I dont think they are then it's imperative MS gets Sony in the fold today by announcing CoD wont be coming anymore. You dont want to give someone a year and a half running start.

Selling playstations matters today and it will matter 5-7 years from now. Even if MS, who is only at 25 million subs after five years, gets to 100 million with the help of Playstation and Nintendo, thats still only $1 billion a month. $12 billion a year. Playstation made Sony $25 billion in revenue last year without gamepass. The traditional model earns them $21 per copy sold for each third party game and $70 for each first party game. That goes down the moment they run out of users to sell those games to.

It's insane to suggest that hardware sales wont matter this gen or next gen. I see it uttered every goddamn generation. No one gives a shit about cloud gaming today. No one is gonna care about it 5-7 years from now. Or 50 years from now when we are all hooked into the matrix because we will need a big giant PC capable of running virtual reality simulations. These guys think they have the reach of Netflix or Disney or even HBO. They dont. The movie and tv audience is way bigger than the gaming audience and always will be. Thinking they will ever get to 200 million Netflix users is wishful thinking.

 

[Clintizzle]

Nah, hes giving Sony a year and a half head start here to go and buy more studios or create more content and services of their own. He's holding all the cards here, today, and allowing them to have the next three games is just a waste of time and money.

If services are the future and I dont think they are then it's imperative MS gets Sony in the fold today by announcing CoD wont be coming anymore. You dont want to give someone a year and a half running start.

Selling playstations matters today and it will matter 5-7 years from now. Even if MS, who is only at 25 million subs after five years, gets to 100 million with the help of Playstation and Nintendo, thats still only $1 billion a month. $12 billion a year. Playstation made Sony $25 billion in revenue last year without gamepass. The traditional model earns them $21 per copy sold for each third party game and $70 for each first party game. That goes down the moment they run out of users to sell those games to.

It's insane to suggest that hardware sales wont matter this gen or next gen. I see it uttered every goddamn generation. No one gives a shit about cloud gaming today. No one is gonna care about it 5-7 years from now. Or 50 years from now when we are all hooked into the matrix because we will need a big giant PC capable of running virtual reality simulations. These guys think they have the reach of Netflix or Disney or even HBO. They dont. The movie and tv audience is way bigger than the gaming audience and always will be. Thinking they will ever get to 200 million Netflix users is wishful thinking.

Sony made a big chunk of their money via 3rd party games. They can sell all the hardware they want, but if the better version or more valuable version of these third-party games are exclusive to PC/Xbox then that 3rd party revenue is going to take a huge hit.

I don't think it'll matter too much in the long run. Sony still has a robust 1st party and a very loyal fan base. They MIGHT make less money than they did before, but that'll be the worst of it.

 

[adamsapple]

A few hours later and I'm surprised I didn't get a reply. You can add Dead Rising series to the list too. Damn! MS were really vicious with the moneyhats. You guys don't have anything to say about this double standard? SenjutsuSage ManaByte H Hitchyhero

Not sure what you're expecting to be replied with lol.

Nintendo did this to Sega, Sony did this to Nintendo and Sega, Microsoft did this to Sony, Sony did this to Microsoft. Microsoft has a lot more capital available so they just straight up bought one of the biggest publishers. You can bet your ass if Sony had similar capital, they would be doing the same, since they don't, they're relying more on singular timed exclusives (FF16, Deathloop etc).

It's no different when either X or Y company does it. But you gotta recognize when it happens on both fronts, not just one.

Contracts can be voided. It's not the first time. if you can void your contract with a cell phone provider, a billion dollar company with an army of lawyers can figure it out too.

Besides, if the contracts MUST be honored then Phil wouldnt have had to call Sony to assure them they will be honored. It was Phil's decision to honor them and Sony was at his mercy until he called them up.

Contracts with individuals aren't held to the same level of scrutiny as contracts with multi billion dollar companies. If MS were to void a contract, especially for a game that has a dedicated marketing deal with Sony, you can bet Sony would be throwing all kinds of injunctions at both MS and Activision and try to stop any kind of distribution of the game.

This would not only potentially cause a lot of monetary loss, but also incur a shit ton of negative PR on Microsoft's behalf. If nothing else, Phil has been trying to improve MS's image over the last couple of years after the Don Mattrick eras debacle, I doubt he would want even a hint of this to happen.

So, yes, you are right that this seems like a Phil decision, but it really is the common sense decision if you think about it. Why ruffle needless feathers when you get all of Activision output after just waiting 1 more year in a 7 to 10 year console generation and all future generations.

 

[DarkMage619]

What about you DarkMage619 and all the others? You respond with the fire emoji on this badly researched post. So easily manipulated it's sad.

Spider-Man was also funded and published by Sony. That didn't stop people calling it a moneyhat.

What about me? I said the difference between what MS and Sony are doing is that Sony pays to keep IP they don't own off Xbox and MS buys the studios and the IP and in some cases still puts their IP on PlayStation. MS also doesn't require you to buy their console to get access to their IP. Unless you can disprove that there really isn't much more to say.

 

[SlimySnake]

Sony made a big chunk of their money via 3rd party games. They can sell all the hardware they want, but if the better version or more valuable version of these third-party games are exclusive to PC/Xbox then that 3rd party revenue is going to take a huge hit.

I don't think it'll matter too much in the long run. Sony still has a robust 1st party and a very loyal fan base. They MIGHT make less money than they did before, but that'll be the worst of it.

I have no doubt that their revenue will take a hit. i am just trying to point out that gamepass revenue even for 100 million users is really not that much compared to what you earn from a traditional gaming model.

There is this massive misconception that cloud gaming is free. Nothing is free. It will require just as big of an investment by microsoft to get those servers up. Those servers will still cost just as much as new consoles. They will still need the same CPUs and GPUs. RAM and SSDs. They will need to be housed all over the world in hundreds of data centers and every single one of those tens of millions of servers will be paid by MS. And they will need a lot more than that if their aim is to get 100-200 million users. How much are 50 million Xbox are going to cost when the client isnt the one shelling out $500 for each one?

The servers Netflix uses are also far cheaper than what MS and Sony will need for gaming. It's just insane to think that we are all going to be gaming on servers in 5-7 years.

 

[MonarchJT]

When did Sony buy Square Enix?

You listed a bunch of Sony first party to back up Penello's statement point that "buying studios to bring IP internal is how it works"

So which IP are you referring to?

you are not forced to stay in Sony PlayStation ecosystem. If my beloved series go from Netflix to Disney+ i just change subs or buy the other (i have all of them honestly) is my choice. If Microsoft with the Elder Scrolls, StarCraft, Starfield, Warcraft, Cod, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, Doom, Quake, Fallout, The evil within, Wolfenstein,Diablo, Heroes of the storm, etc etc ..they have solidified the idea that too many of the games you want to play are on their platform .... change it or just join that too. It is not difficult. But we both know you don't have that intention and are complaining just about a irrilevant futility.

 

[SlimySnake]

Not sure what you're expecting to be replied with lol.

Nintendo did this to Sega, Sony did this to Nintendo and Sega, Microsoft did this to Sony, Sony did this to Microsoft. Microsoft has a lot more capital available so they just straight up bought one of the biggest publishers. You can bet your ass if Sony had similar capital, they would be doing the same, since they don't, they're relying more on singular timed exclusives (FF16, Deathloop etc).

It's no different when either X or Y company does it. But you gotta recognize when it happens on both fronts, not just one.




Contracts with individuals aren't held to the same level of scrutiny as contracts with multi billion dollar companies. If MS were to void a contract, especially for a game that has a dedicated marketing deal with Sony, you can bet Sony would be throwing all kinds of injunctions at both MS and Activision and try to stop any kind of distribution of the game.

This would not only potentially cause a lot of monetary loss, but also incur a shit ton of negative PR on Microsoft's behalf. If nothing else, Phil has been trying to improve MS's image over the last couple of years after the Don Mattrick eras debacle, I doubt he would want even a hint of this to happen.

So, yes, you are right that this seems like a Phil decision, but it really is the common sense decision if you think about it. Why ruffle needless feathers when you get all of Activision output after just waiting 1 more year in a 7 to 10 year console generation and all future generations.

The man just spent $70 billion. He didnt do it to make friends or to avoid ruffling feathers. This is it. This is the trump card. You dont show your hand and then give your competition 2 years to figure shit out. Hitler didnt invade the UK right away and it gave them just enough time to prepare their defenses. What are you doing spending $70 billion and giving the other team 2 years when you hold all the leverage today. CoD sold 44% fewer copies this year than last year's CoD. it could be a franchise in decline. Do you really want to risk waiting 2 years to see where it goes? Fornite came out of nowhere. Anything can happen in two years. When MW launched, Halo 3 was the biggest dick in town. it would sell 3 million in three days earning more revenue in a weekend than any hollywood movie ever at the time. Just two years later, MW2 made $500 million in three days.

Sony cant do anything to stop this purchase. This is the u.s, if you want to buy something you can buy it. This isnt even a merger like that AT&T and Time Warner thing. They are legit paying straight cash for this and will still have $70 billion left after this. The government will have some questions but U.S politicians are spineless and can be bought for a fraction of the $70 billion they paid for this.

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

Haven’t posted much, but just wanted to give my thoughts on this.

I’ve been a PS owner since I promised I wouldn’t buy a MS system again after they knowingly put out faulty machines in the 360 era.

That said, I decided I’d buy one for this gen just to play gears tactics. And then the buy out of Bethesda sealed the deal. I couldn’t not play fallout, elder scrolls or probably even star field.

I don’t play COD and haven’t for about 10 years. I’m not a fan of any multiplayer games.

Having given the background, my thoughts are as follows:

1: this adds nothing to game Industry. It simply takes away from the whole and gates it off from roughly half of the community. Xbox fans are in no better position with his acquisition. Sony fans are worse off. Assuming they play COD.

2: aside from Microsoft releasing soon to break consoles in the 360, they also
A) tried to bully through anti consumer policies with the Xbox one
B) essentially abandoned a whole generation of console owners with little exclusives. They failed at making exclusives and were embarrassed by Sony.

3: gamepass is obviously compelling value. But do people think given all of the above that as soon as Microsoft can screw consumers with price rises they won’t do it?

All in all, the strategy Microsoft is employing will do nothing but hurt the games industry. How much is still unclear. But those thinking a company using money not earnt from the gaming industry to try and cripple the market leader of the game industry, can be anything but bad for everyone has no scope to look at things from a long term point of view.

Ignoring your Sony and/or anti-Microsoft tinted glasses, the bolded is just factually incorrect. Not only do Xbox gamers get way more out of their Game Pass subscription, this acquisition opens up a lot of the Activision studios to work on things other than being tethered to being COD support studios, and the existence of Game Pass allows all the devs at Activision-Blizzard more opportunities to make smaller games (something like Grounded for instance) jthat don't have to be massive blockbusters. Plus if they fix the culture at Activision-Blizzard, it allows the devs to be happier, which could also result in higher quality games. As an Xbox primary gamer I view all of those things as beneficial to me. And it's still early in the gen so those Sony fans have an opportunity to not be excluded by this.

MS is shrinking the market rather than expanding it. Instead of building their own collection of studios that can compete with Activision and give more choice to gamers, they just buy them and limit the platforms

It is reducing competition in the market and weakening the third party space even further

Maybe in name, but if they were to instead open up an equivalent number of studios as Bethesda and Activision-Blizzard had, and thus poach talent to fill those studios with an equivalent number of people. The net result is basically the same. A certain amount of devs went from being 3rd party to working for MIcrosoft. The only difference is the acquiring of IP and the names of the studios.





Also one of my favorite things is how people view certain ways of acquiring companies as "right" or wrong". It doesn't matter if a studio only made exclusives, or if they had no history with the company whatsoever. Unless it's a hostile takeover (which none so far have been), the company clearly decided it was worth it to sell, and thinks it would benefit the company. Just because they sell to a first party doesn't make it any different than selling to a 3rd party. Whether they make exclusives or not, the end result of every acquisition is the same, taking away an independent developer. And I promise you that when Microsoft or Sony (or Nintendo) buy a company, "taking away a franchise from gamers" isn't anywhere on their lists of reasons to buy them. They don't make 9-10 figure purchases out of spite or pettiness. Trying to act like Microsoft is being evil taking away games from gamers while Sony is noble and doesn't do that is incredibly biased. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to acquire a studio, you can be mad about an acquisition having a negative effect on you, but trying to hide it in some nonsense argument about "homegrown organic acquisitions"

 

[adamsapple]

The man just spent $70 billion. He didnt do it to make friends or to avoid ruffling feathers. This is it. This is the trump card. You dont show your hand and then give your competition 2 years to figure shit out. Hitler didnt invade the UK right away and it gave them just enough time to prepare their defenses. What are you doing spending $70 billion and giving the other team 2 years when you hold all the leverage today. CoD sold 44% fewer copies this year than last year's CoD. it could be a franchise in decline. Do you really want to risk waiting 2 years to see where it goes? Fornite came out of nowhere. Anything can happen in two years. When MW launched, Halo 3 was the biggest dick in town. it would sell 3 million in three days earning more revenue in a weekend than any hollywood movie ever at the time. Just two years later, MW2 made $500 million in three days.

Sony cant do anything to stop this purchase. This is the u.s, if you want to buy something you can buy it. This isnt even a merger like that AT&T and Time Warner thing. They are legit paying straight cash for this and will still have $70 billion left after this. The government will have some questions but U.S politicians are spineless and can be bought for a fraction of the $70 billion they paid for this.

You're making it sound like Phil can just flip a trump card and have Call of Duty exclusive tomorrow, that's simply not how it'll work in the real world .. and it's not just the US, hell there'll be more push back and interrogation on this probably from the EU. Why would MS risk any kind of litigation for what is an all-but-certain deal in their upcoming fiscal year. It just doesn't make any sense for them to do anything rash, having CoD on PS4/5 for 2022/2023 won't somehow irreparably damage the Xbox brand.

It''s the same as Bethesda, MS won't even talk about what's exclusive in any certain terms until the deal closes first. We only started hearing about Starfield and TES VI being Xbox/PC exclusives once that deal had closed.

 

[SlimySnake]

You're making it sound like Phil can just flip a trump card and have Call of Duty exclusive tomorrow, that's simply not how it'll work in the real world .. and it's not just the US, hell there'll be more push back and interrogation on this probably from the EU. Why would MS risk any kind of litigation for what is an all-but-certain deal in their upcoming fiscal year. It just doesn't make any sense for them to do anything rash, having CoD on PS4/5 for 2022/2023 won't somehow irreparably damage the Xbox brand.

It''s the same as Bethesda, MS won't even talk about what's exclusive in any certain terms until the deal closes first. We only started hearing about Starfield and TES VI being Xbox/PC exclusives once that deal had closed.

Again, $70 billion. if I spend that kind of money, I get to make demands.

And yes, he didnt say Starfield would be exclusive until the deal was finalized so the precedence is set. Everyone knows cod is going to be exclusive the moment the deal is finalized so Sony can use that to sue, but they wont because they dont have a case. The u.s and EU lawmakers can use that to litigate but they wont because you cant keep a company from buying another company with straight cash. This aint china.

All I am saying is that $70 billion is fuck you money and that purchase shouldve come with some perks.

 

[Riky]

Like MS never money hatted something to stop it being on other consoles.

You're acting as if MS's shit don't stink.

You even mention a game that this actually happened with FFS, talk about irony.

Also, from what I have seen (admittedly in Sony sponsored videos rofl), KotoR is getting lots of help from Sony first parties, so find better material for your tropes.

We're talking about the here and now and the two strategies, nobody can argue with the logic just that MS did it years ago. Sony just pay for the Xbox version to be sidelined for a year or more, paying so Xbox owners can't have their version that's ready.
Not the same as green lighting and funding development and never will be.

 

[tusharngf]

 

[Hitchyhero]

A few hours later and I'm surprised I didn't get a reply. You can add Dead Rising series to the list too. Damn! MS were really vicious with the moneyhats. You guys don't have anything to say about this double standard? SenjutsuSage ManaByte H Hitchyhero


What about you DarkMage619 and all the others? You respond with the fire emoji on this badly researched post. So easily manipulated it's sad.

Spider-Man was also funded and published by Sony. That didn't stop people calling it a moneyhat.

Not sure what your after. I've mentioned several times already that Sony and Microsoft have done it. What more do you want. I've said I don't like either console maker just using money to keep games or part of a game off the rival console it doesn't provide anything extra to the gaming industry. . Sony has been doing it more of late... But yes MS has done it plenty too.... And I disagree with it.

As I've stated before... And I'll say it again... Activision Blizzard was for sale and they approached several buyers.... MS being one of them. I don't see the issue here... They wanted to sell... MS wanted to buy. The games will go on various platforms (xbox, PC, phone, tablet) and they are willing to put it on PS5 if Sony allow gamepass. You can pretty much guarantee Sony would do none of that... Perhaps PC 5 years after release. With this deal.... MS will be the decision maker in what games get made, they will fund it and oversee it. They will be contributing to the game. So yes it's different to just keeping a game off another platform... .

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Not sure what you're expecting to be replied with lol.

Nintendo did this to Sega, Sony did this to Nintendo and Sega, Microsoft did this to Sony, Sony did this to Microsoft. Microsoft has a lot more capital available so they just straight up bought one of the biggest publishers. You can bet your ass if Sony had similar capital, they would be doing the same, since they don't, they're relying more on singular timed exclusives (FF16, Deathloop etc).

It's no different when either X or Y company does it. But you gotta recognize when it happens on both fronts, not just one

Yeah but that's not the narrative they are pushing. They went as far back as Tomb Raider on Saturn (lol) to prove how evil Sony was and when that didn't work they brought up Final Fantasy XVI and COD DLC. MS had to buy Activision in retaliation.

They completely skipped the 360 generation when MS did their own moneyhat world tour to cripple Sony. They had timed-exclusives from every publishers, even in Japan. Crazy how Xbox fans completely rewrote history this week. #SegaRemembers my ass.

What about me? I said the difference between what MS and Sony are doing is that Sony pays to keep IP they don't own off Xbox and MS buys the studios and the IP and in some cases still puts their IP on PlayStation. MS also doesn't require you to buy their console to get access to their IP. Unless you can disprove that there really isn't much more to say.

They bought Bethesda in 2021 but they didn't own those IPs back then when they made those deals. Same with COD, GTA, Mass Effect and Bioshock. They just wanted to block Sony. Exact same thing.

Now they buy the whole thing instead to keep it off Playstation. All the Final Fantasies are on Xbox minus the Remake. They were even free on Gamepass. So much suffering poor Xbox

 

[GigaBowser]

Again, $70 billion. if I spend that kind of money, I get to make demands.

And yes, he didnt say Starfield would be exclusive until the deal was finalized so the precedence is set. Everyone knows cod is going to be exclusive the moment the deal is finalized so Sony can use that to sue, but they wont because they dont have a case. The u.s and EU lawmakers can use that to litigate but they wont because you cant keep a company from buying another company with straight cash. This aint china.

All I am saying is that $70 billion is fuck you money and that purchase shouldve come with some perks.

So what if MS wants to scoop up another publisher after the deal goes through? You think the press that they don't honour contracts won't come back to haunt them?

 

[WitchHunter]

What you are describing is a well funded and healthy corporation that was able to diversify its portfolio.

Oh man, the wording is stellar : D.