Jim Ryan: "[Microsoft is] a tech giant with a long history of dominating industries, the choices gamers have today will disappear"

Lupin25

Member
Except, this is why Microsoft has made the purchases they've made.

For years people clamored for Microsoft to compete with sony. To bring more than halo, gears and forza. This is what it looks like when they fix their first party issues. They purchase talented devs and publishers who can assist in the remedy. People need to get over it. You asked for competition. You got it! Only many forgot Microsoft was a trillion dollar company. So did Sony. Oops!

Who cares. Like Nadella said, "if this is about competition. Let us compete!" You can't ask for competition then bitch about how it happens. You don't get to dictate that.

MS bought their way to creativity.

They took they easy way out lol.

Even the Simpsons have made skits out of MS’ buying habits and here people are advocating for it, instead of encouraging a better product/output from studios they already had.

They’ve could’ve bought Insomniac after Sunset Overdrive. The same team that’s about to pump out 4 games in 5 years. Again, bad decisions on MS’ behalf doing Sony’s job for them then crying about later in the dark.

What happened Gavon?
 
Last edited:
You are alluding to one of the better arguments in favor of the merger and I think it's an excellent one. I myself am not 100% convinced that CoD is irreplaceable, certainly not to the extent as Sony has described it. You're also right that regulators ultimate interests are with the well-being of the consumer, but by extension that requires them to maintain a fair competitive environment, which means they rightfully care about competitor well being. 20% of Sony annual profit can be directly linked to income generated from CoD alone. That's major. At the very least, it is a significant concern of competitor well being. To muddy the waters even more, politics does play a part in all this, for better or worse. This administration's agenda calls for greater scrutiny of big tech consolidation. Nothing wrong with this as all political administrations have their own priorities. Who's to say whether this particular focus at this particular time is fair or unfair? Perhaps the prior administrations should have been tougher on certain M&A deals but instead had a laissez faire attitude, and the current administration is steering the ship for proper scrutiny? From Microsoft's perspective, it looks like really unfortunate timing for all of this to go down. In short, the overarching principles of antitrust regulations are relatively straightforward, but measuring equitable application of regulations from one case outcome vs another is useless because of the changing ideologies/politics.
This is why the court is the best place to resolve these issues. Let regulators prove that the companies need protection over consumers. Prove this acquisition is illegal and MS has a gaming monopoly.
Not a smart idea, imo. He is far from infallible and some of his reasonings have been soundly debunked in the other thread.
Hoeg was one of the main people questioning the input harm theory. I'd take his legal assessments over anyone on this forum for sure.
 

Kagey K

Banned
MS bought their way to creativity.

They took they easy way out lol.

Even the Simpsons have made skits out of MS’ buying habits and here people are advocating for it, instead of encouraging a better product/output from studios they already had.

They’ve could’ve bought Insomniac after Sunset Overdrive. The same team that’s about to pump out 4 games in 5 years. Again, bad decisions on MS’ behalf doing Sony’s job for them then crying about later in the dark.

What happened Gavon?
Interesting that you admit Sony bought thier way into the same.

None of thier big studios are homegrown "or organic" they were all bought and paid for.

But I guess that's good for them, bad for everyone else.
 

Gavon West

Member
MS bought their way to creativity.

They took they easy way out lol.

Even the Simpsons have made skits out of MS’ buying habits and here people are advocating for it, instead of encouraging a better product/output from studios they already had.

They’ve could’ve bought Insomniac after Sunset Overdrive. The same team that’s about to pump out 4 games in 5 years. Again, bad decisions on MS’ behalf doing Sony’s job for them then crying about later in the dark.

What happened Gavon?
I can't see where the crying took place. They didn't make purchases of devs back then as the Xbox division was barely a second thought. That said, this certainly isn't the case now, as it seems only Sony and their fanboys are actually crying with that "fabled" war chest wide open.
 
Last edited:
Interesting that you admit Sony bought thier way into the same.

None of thier big studios are homegrown "or organic" they were all bought and paid for.

But I guess that's good for them, bad for everyone else.

I guess it depends on what you call organic or homegrown, but by any definition wouldn't Sony Santa Monica fit the bill?
 
Interesting that you admit Sony bought thier way into the same.

None of thier big studios are homegrown "or organic" they were all bought and paid for.

But I guess that's good for them, bad for everyone else.
Can't think of a single publisher Sony has bought.
It's a shame you cheer on buying up companies for games your Xbox was going to get anyway since they were all 3rd party. Weird tbh. When with the cash available Phil could have gave you more and new ips on top of the 3rd parties you were already getting.

Cheering the lazy way.
 

Gavon West

Member
Can't think of a single publisher Sony has bought.
It's a shame you cheer on buying up companies for games your Xbox was going to get anyway since they were all 3rd party. Weird tbh. When with the cash available Phil could have gave you more and new ips on top of the 3rd parties you were already getting.

Cheering the lazy way.
Nothing lazy about it, really. They needed to fix a dire situation. They could no longer afford to lean on Halo, Gears and Forza. They needed more! Pretty much the entire gaming community can get on board with that.

It only made sense that they looked for studios LOOKING to be bought. You got resources, talent and management all ready in place, not to mention a successful pedigree and culture fans were familiar with.

They still have a studio being built from the ground up in The Initiative. But, needing a remedy as quickly as they did, purchasing devs who were willing to become part of the family was the sound, rational move, and all parties win -- including gamers. Again, the only ones making the most noise are those coming from the "other camp".

Like I stated before, gamers don't get to dictate HOW Microsoft competes. If you wanted them to compete and give Sony a run for their money, this is how they get it done. And frankly, it's working. And the real bangers haven't even been released yet.
 

ProtoByte

Member
Punished Miku Punished Miku
It's funny actually. You post GoT as though one of the biggest limiting factors/outright flaws I'm its writing isn't its contrarian philosophy.

But in any case, it's not about "honor" so much as it is about actually providing games
in the games market. Particularly ones that otherwise wouldn't have existed. If you think that concept is funny and arbitrary, that's just you.

I'm sure you'll be ready and willing to stand up and clap when Phil Spencer gets his legend award for contributions to the industry in a year where he provided precisely one first party game: A narrative adventure title (which has to be one of the most "not new" thing I've seen people pretend is new and innovative in a long time) with no voice acting.
 
Last edited:

Lupin25

Member
Interesting that you admit Sony bought thier way into the same.

None of thier big studios are homegrown "or organic" they were all bought and paid for.

But I guess that's good for them, bad for everyone else.

After a proven product typically funded for and by Sony.

I don’t see Sony buying publishers, but calculated purchases with independent studios.

Sony hasn’t threatened to take away multiplatform games so widely popular on all platforms. That’s not happening with Bungie and Destiny lol.

You can acknowledge FINAL FANTASY, but the reality is the east hasn’t supported Xbox (and maybe home consoles in general) in a long time.

Sunset Overdrive, STALKER 2, Ark 2, Replaced, High on Life, Somerville, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Contraband’s and Kojima’s New IP’s are all timed and/or exclusive.

The back and forth over exclusives is trivial at this point lol.

They gave a 10-year deal for COD, then flipped the script lying to the public about it being on the platform forever.

Edit: Microsoft even had a chance with Genshin Impact before Sony picked it up. More bad decisions that need to be bailed out with a publisher pickup?

They give them the ammo and blame Sony instead of themselves.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
This is an important definition to show. Now we should show how MS purchasing Activision makes them a monopoly and we'd have reasonable grounds to block that deal. I haven't seen anything resembling 'domination' with regard MS and gaming.
I always said that doesn't make sense at all to consider that MS acquiring ABK may lead to anything similar to a monopoly. They won't ever be close to be market leaders of gaming, console gaming, pc gaming, mobile gaming, vr gaming or game subs.

And well, I always also said that CoD/ABK represents a tiny percentage of Sony's gaming revenue and userbase. Even if Sony would lose all of them (which won't happen if all ABK games go Xbox console exclusive) Sony would continue dominating MS and being market leaders.

Even MS also publicly mentioned all this to the regulators and they aren't bullshiting, it's all facts looking at the numbers. I think regulators should allow MS acquire ABK and make CoD console exclusive if they want: that in fact would improve the competition between Sony and MS, helping MS to get closer to Sony.

Something that gaming has is that the gaming market, console market, pc market or mobile markets are so big and diverse that the big players of the market have a small market share. I mean, Tencent and Sony are the gaming market leaders and don't have even a 20% revenue share. Or even if CoD every year is the best selling game on PS, ABK generates under 10% of PS revenue and is bought by less than 10% of their customers.
 
Last edited:
You clearly have no idea what monopoly means. Instead of being rude you should go and read a dictionary https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/monopoly

That's cute but wrong in terms of the FTC definitions, governing body in USA, and regulator practices globally.

Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules...
Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.


Xbox + ActiBliz does not approach even 50% market share, more like 15-20%.

Sony's imaging, not gaming, business is confirmed over 60%.

Regulators don't go for 100% literal monopoly; alarms are raised around 50-75% market dominance.

Facts.

Instead of spouting an incorrect assumption and a generic dictionary link try doing the actual correct research for the authorities in control. In the USA that is the FTC not the dictionary professor.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
That's cute but wrong in terms of the FTC definitions, governing body in USA, and regulator practices globally.


Xbox + ActiBliz does not approach even 50% market share, more like 15-20%.

Sony's imaging, not gaming, business is confirmed over 60%.

Regulators don't go for 100% literal monopoly; alarms are raised around 50-75% market dominance.

Facts.

Instead of spouting an incorrect assumption and a generic dictionary link try doing the actual correct research for the authorities in control. In the USA that is the FTC not the dictionary professor.
So then MS has a monopoly in gaming? They have above 60% of multigame subscriptions in geographic regions.
 
So then MS has a monopoly in gaming? They have above 60% of multigame subscriptions in geographic regions.

Haha, nice one. I'd hazard a guess much of the regulatory reviews focus on just that emerging segment. They've seen Apple and Google in the phone spaces produce a duopoly and likely prefer 3 or 4 final players in a market than 1 or 2.

Overall, it's not enough historically or concrete sustained projections without competition from Sony or Ninentdo or Tencent or Valve/Steam. There's so much competition in any segment right now or very capable of dividing the gaming pizza into 4-8 slices for the midterm of the current industry landscape unfolding. There's just not enough sustained market dominance. Regionally speaking it doesn't add up overall, sure there's some specific areas which could end up in USA > each state taking issue with MS/ActiBliz but given an FTC ruling I doubt many would fight the current.

Take a look at Netflix, first to market, total monopoly and disruptor. Now fast forward and we see a lot of subs out there, too many in fact. Huge players in those segments e.g. Disney, Netflix, Amazon, Hulu etc. The really interesting part to your joke is Netflix gaming. The sustain long term investment proven by Netflix in streaming has pivoted strategy and paired gaming with their core service. Netflix are yet another major, highly funded, player to enter the gaming subs market. So we have nvidia GeForce Now, Sony Plus/Now, Xbox Gamepass, Netflix Gaming (part of your normal Netflix sub), EA Play, Prime Gaming, Loot Crate Gaming and more. Steam and Valve could easily become a huge player in subs against Xbox, right now they have subs services but more aimed at managing gaming subs centrally in Steam than greenlighting games for release like Xbox/Sony etc. We haven't even looked at the Eastern side of gaming subs. We also haven't gone into mobile gaming with Apple or Google stores.

Again, it's just not based in reality of a monopoly nor is it a sustained monopoly. Xbox are not able to control 50-75% of various market segments individually nor overall, certainly not to the point of starving competitors out of the industry forever to end up where Google vs Apple phones are.

There is further conflation with MTX and subs. Take your joke as factual and enforced you'd still have to water down the dominance because MTX is such a huge chunk of the industry and is right in the same segment of financial/industry as subs. This is where Apple and Google have far larger numbers than Xbox to date. This is also where Netflix are able to use a subs base from streaming to turnover gaming MTX rather than subs or increase the subs price. Quite ambiguous to your statement or calculations.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Take a look at Netflix, first to market, total monopoly and disruptor. Now fast forward and we see a lot of subs out there, too many in fact. Huge players in those segments e.g. Disney, Netflix, Amazon, Hulu etc. The really interesting part to your joke is Netflix gaming. The sustain long term investment proven by Netflix in streaming has pivoted strategy and paired gaming with their core service. Netflix are yet another major, highly funded, player to enter the gaming subs market.
Netflix has less than 1% of its subscribers playing anything at all

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/06/netflixs-video-game-push-sees-few-subscribers-playing-along.html

I'm not sure you can paint its gaming endeavour as much of a success.

So we have nvidia GeForce Now, Sony Plus/Now, Xbox Gamepass, Netflix Gaming (part of your normal Netflix sub), EA Play, Prime Gaming, Loot Crate Gaming and more.
PSNow is dead and rebranded, you forgot Stadia and Netflix gaming isn't setting the world on fire. Those competitors existed, a lot of them before MS, but with them around and for longer MS still have 60%.

Steam and Valve could easily become a huge player in subs against Xbox, right now they have subs services but more aimed at managing gaming subs centrally in Steam than greenlighting games for release like Xbox/Sony etc. We haven't even looked at the Eastern side of gaming subs. We also haven't gone into mobile gaming with Apple or Google stores.
How? What content could they offer to compete? How would they acquire the most popular franchises on the planet to offer on it? You think they can buy the likes of Mojang, Zenimax and Activision?

Again, it's just not based in reality of a monopoly nor is it a sustained monopoly. Xbox are not able to control 50-75% of various market segments individually nor overall, certainly not to the point of starving competitors out of the industry forever to end up where Google vs Apple phones are.
How would the individual segment of 'multigame subscriptions' of which they control 60% be any different to your example of a monopoly though?

You were saying that there is a monopoly in the image sensors segment but what control or sustainability is there there for you to suggest that's a monopoly but the other isn't? The only reason they even have that market share is because they are the Apple/Samsung phone supplier. If Apple decides to go with somebody else for their next iPhone then a lot of their market share is gone instantly. How is that any more sustainable or teetering towards a monopoly than a gaming subscription with confirmed 60%?
 

Warablo

Member
You'd have to prove that Game Pass and Playstation Tiers are its own market. I don't think they are. I just think they are choice in the Xbox/Sony market. Plus Playstation Tiers has barely existed.
 
Last edited:
Netflix has less than 1% of its subscribers playing anything at all

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/06/netflixs-video-game-push-sees-few-subscribers-playing-along.html

I'm not sure you can paint its gaming endeavour as much of a success.

Netflix only officially launched the gaming component this 2nd November year and you're trying to make that statement? In 3-4 weeks they've already had 2.5million-ish subs play games and they have a shit library, poor features etc. They have warm audience of 240Million-odd paying customers, let alone new audience with gaming centric subs. It's another Apple/Google mobile gaming in the making, ready to take a slice of the market. Further industry diversity is my point. Where do you think Netflix Gaming is going to be in 5 years?

PSNow is dead and rebranded, you forgot Stadia and Netflix gaming isn't setting the world on fire. Those competitors existed, a lot of them before MS, but with them around and for longer MS still have 60%.

Stadia was more a cloud beast than a subs service hence its omission. Again, Netflix gaming launch in November this year. Amazon Luna/Prime gaming is ramping up too. Diversity and market share pizza pie being sliced again and again.

How? What content could they offer to compete? How would they acquire the most popular franchises on the planet to offer on it? You think they can buy the likes of Mojang, Zenimax and Activision?
In the same way supermarket chains like IGA exist. Conglomerate community/industry based approach, basically PC publisher 101. Nothing stops Steam doing greenlight projects or subs or profit shares or early access etc. They have all the relationships and technical prowess in place to deliver subs for the PC akin to Xbox and Gamepass. One can reasonably argue Valve/Steam on PC is the dominant player, again no valid argument for sustained monopoly or blocking competitor entry to a market segment if they wish to do so. What do you think Epic/store has aspirations to be? A major player and again could choose to focus all that Fortnite money on subs and content...another competitor has open entry any time they choose that corporate direction.

How would the individual segment of 'multigame subscriptions' of which they control 60% be any different to your example of a monopoly though?

You were saying that there is a monopoly in the image sensors segment but what control or sustainability is there there for you to suggest that's a monopoly but the other isn't? The only reason they even have that market share is because they are the Apple/Samsung phone supplier. If Apple decides to go with somebody else for their next iPhone then a lot of their market share is gone instantly. How is that any more sustainable or teetering towards a monopoly than a gaming subscription with confirmed 60%?

Because it's not sustained and in the wider view of the industry you're just cherry picking 20-30% of the market gross turnover to make your point valid. It's not the case in many geographical regions even in your narrow field view e.g compare China PS subs to Xbox GP, Xbox does not have 60% in China. Just because you're first to market and the current market leader (in USA/western let us say) does not equate to being a sustained industry monopoly for decades stifling competition.

In one-year Tencent could rival Xbox if they chose to invest 10s of billions themselves, quite capable of doing so. Competition is not stifled. Apple at any time could do a console or expand their subs to PC and Google could do the same; ;they choose not to in light of walled garden profits.

Your point that it's a lock on monopoly simply by being the market leader (for a short term, as any MBA learns in ivy league business 101 knows) does not hold water in the subs market segment or overall in the wider industry for a long time, if ever at all.

You are literally complaining about First Mover Advantage, stock standard business flows in a new segment, product, service etc.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Netflix only officially launched the gaming component this 2nd November year and you're trying to make that statement? In 3-4 weeks they've already had 2.5million-ish subs play games and they have a shit library, poor features etc. They have warm audience of 240Million-odd paying customers, let alone new audience with gaming centric subs. It's another Apple/Google mobile gaming in the making, ready to take a slice of the market. Further industry diversity is my point. Where do you think Netflix Gaming is going to be in 5 years?
It rolled out November 2021. The article I posted about 1% engagement in a no extra charge addition is from August 2022 this year. I don't think Netflix gaming will be anywhere in 5yrs even in mobile games. In mobile 94% of US app revenue comes from 1% of publishers.

Stadia was more a cloud beast than a subs service hence its omission. Again, Netflix gaming launch in November this year. Amazon Luna/Prime gaming is ramping up too. Diversity and market share pizza pie being sliced again and again.
Stadia Pro was a sub.
In the same way supermarket chains like IGA exist. Conglomerate community/industry based approach, basically PC publisher 101. Nothing stops Steam doing greenlight projects or subs or profit shares or early access etc. They have all the relationships and technical prowess in place to deliver subs for the PC akin to Xbox and Gamepass. One can reasonably argue Valve/Steam on PC is the dominant player, again no valid argument for sustained monopoly or blocking competitor entry to a market segment if they wish to do so. What do you think Epic/store has aspirations to be? A major player and again could choose to focus all that Fortnite money on subs and content...another competitor has open entry any time they choose that corporate direction.
You severely overestimate their ability to get content and shift users. Google, a massive company struggled with content and getting users. Epic gave free games to get users and still didn't get far. When a userbase is engraved it's difficult.
Because it's not sustained and in the wider view of the industry you're just cherry picking 20-30% of the market gross turnover to make your point valid. It's not the case in many geographical regions even in your narrow field view e.g compare China PS subs to Xbox GP, Xbox does not have 60% in China.
We aren't talking about China.
Just because you're first to market and the current market leader (in USA/western let us say) does not equate to being a sustained industry monopoly for decades stifling competition.
Whatever makes you think GP was first to market? Look at the list you gave as those in the segment:

"GeForce Now, Sony Plus/Now, Netflix Gaming (part of your normal Netflix sub), EA Play, Prime Gaming, Loot Crate Gaming and more."

PS+/Now, EA Play (Access) , Prime Gaming, and Geforce Now, were all before gamepass.

Your point that it's a lock on monopoly simply by being the market leader (for a short term, as any MBA learns in ivy league business 101 knows) does not hold water in the subs market segment or overall in the wider industry for a long time, if ever at all.

You are literally complaining about First Mover Advantage, stock standard business flows in a new segment, product, service etc.
I have no idea why you think gamepass was a "First Mover" when it wasn't but I only brought the idea of a monopoly up because you were trying to suggest simply aiming for 60% of a very narrowed down segment (image sensors) is a monopoly but weirdly you seem to be trying really hard to come up with reasons why 60% isn't a monopoly in another.
 
Last edited:

Cheezewizz

Gold Member
It rolled out November 2021. The article I posted about 1% engagement in a no extra charge addition is from August 2022 this year. I don't think Netflix gaming will be anywhere in 5yrs even in mobile games. In mobile 94% of US app revenue comes from 1% of publishers.
That's a false equivalency. Netflix added a handful of games that were only available on mobile devices. If I'm not mistaken, they didn't expand their gaming sevice to include TV/PC until just recently.
You severely overestimate their ability to get content and shift users. Google, a massive company struggled with content and getting users. Epic gave free games to get users and still didn't get far. When a userbase is engraved it's difficult.
Goggle shot itself in the foot when they decided to charge a sub fee that did nothing other than allow you to buy games. Pay to buy is never going to successfully compete with pay to play. Ever. As for Epic? They quickly became a major player in the PC sub market. While steam still dominates, is Epic doing so poor as to deem it a failure?
We aren't talking about China.
Well of course not. Including China wouldn't support your argument.
Whatever makes you think GP was first to market? Look at the list you gave as those in the segment:

"GeForce Now, Sony Plus/Now, Netflix Gaming (part of your normal Netflix sub), EA Play, Prime Gaming, Loot Crate Gaming and more."

PS+/Now, EA Play (Access) , Prime Gaming, and Geforce Now, were all before gamepass.
And all are still competing, aside from PS Now which was relaunched because it was poorly implemented and offered little value.
I have no idea why you think gamepass was a "First Mover" when it wasn't but I only brought the idea of a monopoly up because you were trying to suggest simply aiming for 60% of a very narrowed down segment (image sensors) is a monopoly but weirdly you seem to be trying really hard to come up with reasons why 60% isn't a monopoly in another.
I get your reasoning for the post. I just think your example is far worse than his. Image sensors is a clearly defined market, where various companies are competing to make largely the same product. The same can be said for console manufacturers. Xbox, Playstation, and Nintendo are all competing to make boxes you can play games on. The features vary a bit, as so the games that they play, but they're all largely doing the same thing.

Which makes multi game sub services a bad comparison. Aside from the fact that sub services can differ greatly between offerings, many of your examples even go beyond that. You throwing Netflix out there when it was literally a handful of games tacked onto their already existing service that only was entirely comprised of mobile games, and only worked on mobile devices isn't a valid argument. Your comparison to PS Now is a much better one, but just because it was launched before Gamepass, doesn't mean it gets first mover advantage. You see, the service has to actually work first in order to get that advantage, and PS Now largely didn't for most people. Well the people who lived in those limited regions it was available in anyway. Sure they eventually added the option to download games, but only after Gamepass came along and did it first.
 

Three

Member
That's a false equivalency. Netflix added a handful of games that were only available on mobile devices. If I'm not mistaken, they didn't expand their gaming sevice to include TV/PC until just recently.
What are you talking about? I'm not the one who brought up netflix as a viable competitor. The person said "Netflix only officially launched the gaming component this 2nd November year". Their gaming component was launched in November 2021, when the guy is referring to 2.5M users and I'm referring to the 1% that bothered to play them we are talking about the games they've launched.

what was launched in November this year? Nothing that I can recall. Mobile has a much bigger market than PC. What makes you think that's more viable for them?

Goggle shot itself in the foot when they decided to charge a sub fee that did nothing other than allow you to buy games. Pay to buy is never going to successfully compete with pay to play. Ever.

Why are you ignoring the fact that Stadia Pro was a multigame subscription service where you didn't have to buy games? They had a platform and store for selling games too just like xbox has both.

As for Epic? They quickly became a major player in the PC sub market. While steam still dominates, is Epic doing so poor as to deem it a failure?
Whats EGS marketshare? Do you know? Have you looked at its projections internally?

"But if Epic stops paying for exclusives and winds down, the company sees EGS market share peaking at around 20 percent before falling to about 8 percent by 2024. That's not nothing, but it would be a disappointing slice after Epic laid out hundreds of millions of dollars for its own foothold."

Now look at steam

"Steam accounts for 50% to 70% of all PC game downloads around the world. Steam is the most widely used video game distribution platform in the world, with around 75% of the global market."

Was EGS able to claw away at Steams marketshare? Not really.
Well of course not. Including China wouldn't support your argument.
Go back and read the post I replied to. That's the one which mentions geographic regions by the courts, not me. He mentioned it being region specific, not me.

And all are still competing, aside from PS Now which was relaunched because it was poorly implemented and offered little value.
Some are, dont forget Stadia too but they have very low marketshare and one has 60%.
I get your reasoning for the post. I just think your example is far worse than his. Image sensors is a clearly defined market, where various companies are competing to make largely the same product. The same can be said for console manufacturers. Xbox, Playstation, and Nintendo are all competing to make boxes you can play games on. The features vary a bit, as so the games that they play, but they're all largely doing the same thing.
His argument seems to be that it is not a sustainable marketshare and therefore can't be regarded as a monopoly whereas image sensors can. Lets even ignore the fact that he wrongly believes that MS was a first mover here so that we can pretend that others are just getting started to claw it back. Why would an image sensor marketshare be more sustainable than a game subscription one? As I said if tomorrow Apple or Samsung decide to switch to another supplier who provides "largely the same product" for phones their marketshare would collapse.

You throwing Netflix out there when it was literally a handful of games tacked onto their already existing service that only was entirely comprised of mobile games, and only worked on mobile devices isn't a valid argument.

Again, I'm not the one who threw Netflix out there. That was the other guy suggesting they are doing great as a new competitor. They've not launched any PC games and I don't expect that to do any better than mobile anyway if they push hard there.

Your comparison to PS Now is a much better one, but just because it was launched before Gamepass, doesn't mean it gets first mover advantage. You see, the service has to actually work first in order to get that advantage, and PS Now largely didn't for most people.

What sort of horseshit is this? The service worked. If you are talking about availability in countries then that comes back to competing being defined in geographic regions.
 
Last edited:

BbMajor7th

Member
For me, it's not about who makes the money or which platform holder is getting shafted, it's about an ever greater number of developers being run and funded by an increasingly small number of incredibly wealthy entities: separate developers and their IPs gradually being acquired by publishers only to then be absorbed along with others into even larger platform holders. The outcome is that all of these once independent creative teams now have to dance to the same corporate jingle: the same values, goals, brand-awareness and marketing methods, the same SLAs, KPIs, compensation schemes, recruitment channels and financial forecasts, and with so many of the these big conglomerates being US-based, the same social and political values too.

Much as film and TV have now been bought up and standardized by a handful of major players, so too are games: turned into an endless conveyer belt of high-production, Anglophonic, westernised, metropolitan media content designed to appeal generally to everyone, challenge nothing and upset absolutely nobody. Any game that refuses to comply? Try hard, edgy garbage or indie darling swallowed into the machine the second it gets a whiff of success.
 
Last edited:

Swift_Star

Member
I think it's safe to say nobody expects this deal to go smoothly and without harsh concessions anymore. It's also safe to say there's a chance for it to be blocked.
Good.
MS shouldn't be allowed to run rampart and buy everything they want.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
So then MS has a monopoly in gaming? They have above 60% of multigame subscriptions in geographic regions.
Just because you're first to market and the current market leader (in USA/western let us say)
In worldwide terms, PS Plus has like twice the subs than them and Nintendo has more than them. In mobile Apple Arcade, Netflix and Google Play Pass must have more subs than them. In PC there's Nvidia Now, Ubisoft+, EA Play, Amazon Prime Gaming and not sure if more.

I highly doubt MS could have 60% market share or even to be market leaders in any platform or country (I mean relevant enough for the market, maybe in some country small enough to be ignored by some competitors they are). And MS wasn't the first to market game subs, several others like Sony were there before them.

The worldwide market share of the top gaming players like Tencent, Sony or MS after the acquisition would be around 15%. In consoles Sony is the market leader but PS4 had a 45% market share (MS has the smallest one being the third) and aims to achive a 55% with PS5. In game subs Sony has twice subs than GP and generates way more revenue.

MS doesn't have any monopoly in gaming (that is having 100% market share or almost) and is far from having enough market power to create or mantain a monopoly. And I think that to see them wanting to spend like almost $100B on acquisitions and almost give away their very expensive AAA games to get customer attention and be closer to compete against gaming market leaders (but still being behind them after doing that) illustrates that.

You'd have to prove that Game Pass and Playstation Tiers are its own market. I don't think they are. I just think they are choice in the Xbox/Sony market. Plus Playstation Tiers has barely existed.
PlayStation Plus is a multi game subscription since 2010, way before GP existed. Back then it offered games of multiple generations, time limited full game trials or discounts. PlayStation Now is a multi game subscription that years before than GP offered an 'all you can eat' library of several hundreds of games and cloud gaming on multiple platforms. These PlayStation tiers are basically a merge and rework of two services they already had.

Game subs are a market with different competitors making their own offerings, each one with their own style. In both MS and Sony cases they have options to play them in other platforms other than their consoles, their game subs aren't limited to consoles.
 
Last edited:
In worldwide terms, PS Plus has like twice the subs than them and Nintendo has more than them. In mobile Apple Arcade, Netflix and Google Play Pass must have more subs than them. In PC there's Nvidia Now, Ubisoft+, EA Play, Amazon Prime Gaming and not sure if more.

I highly doubt MS could have 60% market share or even to be market leaders in any platform or country (I mean relevant enough for the market, maybe in some country small enough to be ignored by some competitors they are). And MS wasn't the first to market game subs, several others like Sony were there before them.

Cool, so we agree the monopoly angles(s) is horseshit.
 

yurinka

Member
That's cute but wrong in terms of the FTC definitions, governing body in USA, and regulator practices globally.

Xbox + ActiBliz does not approach even 50% market share, more like 15-20%.

Sony's imaging, not gaming, business is confirmed over 60%.

Regulators don't go for 100% literal monopoly; alarms are raised around 50-75% market dominance.

Facts.

Instead of spouting an incorrect assumption and a generic dictionary link try doing the actual correct research for the authorities in control. In the USA that is the FTC not the dictionary professor.
I am right, the FTC uses the same definition of monopoly than me. Nothing you posted there proved me wrong. What they investigate isn't exactly if a company has a monopoly, but instead if a company makes unfair stuff to create or mantain a monopoly.

Read what you quoted:

"Market Power​

Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages."

Notice that they mention that does not require literal monopoly (this is, 100% or almost) and that also mention "monopolist" between quotation marks meaning that don't mean literally monopolist (so owning the full market) literally. They are looking instead for cases where a firm has 'typically' more than 50% market share and mentions that some courts required much higher percentages, with enough market power to be in a position to exclude competitors, raise prices of that market, etc.

They specify above that, at the start of the page you quoted:
"The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power. Most Section 2 claims involve the conduct of a firm with a leading market position, although Section 2 of the Sherman Act also bans attempts to monopolize and conspiracies to monopolize. As a first step, courts ask if the firm has "monopoly power" in any market."

So basically they are looking for conspiracies or unreasonably unfair practices of companies with enough market power to create or mantain a monopoly.

The Federal Trade Commision (regulator for USA, not a global regulator) defines on their website that their mission is "protecting consumers and competition by preventing anticompetitive, deceptive, and unfair business practices through law enforcement, advocacy, and education without unduly burdening legitimate business activity."

Sony image sensors owning a 60% of the market aren't in a position to block competitors joining the market or rise the prices of that market (if that would be the case the FTC or other regulators would have done something), and MS -even after adding ABK- is far from getting enough market power to be able to do that in gaming, in console gaming, in PC gaming, in mobile gaming, in cloud gaming, in VR gaming or in game subs because MS is not even a market leader and isn't even close to become market leader in these markets.
 
Last edited:
yurinka yurinka

Mate it's time to just disagree, clearly neither is going to comprise or concede. We have a difference of opinion and I think we know each other's positions well enough now.

To confirm: you believe Sony > Imaging isn't encroaching into monopolistic territory far more than Xbox > Gaming, including sustained long term outlooks?

We both agree MS/Xbox aren't driving a monopoly here, not even a duopoly nor market leader. We disagree about Sony imaging. Cool, have a great day mate but I'll let sleeping dogs lie here.

Thanks for the correction on NOV 21 vs NOV 22 as well. What a shit library of games from Netflix for 12 months then, no wonder they only have 2.5Mil playing, they'll get better content and have already purchased studios quietly dev-ing behind the scenes. I still stand by "where do you think Netflix Gaming will be in 5 years"? Given even 2.5Mil in 12months over 5 more years that 15M subs, you have 2-5 players of that size in the subs market and you have enough healthy competition against the market leader, whomever that may be at the time.

As for Sony imaging sensor business and open market for competitors that retort is for a different time and thread my friend. TL;DR they bought out competitors long ago, own natural resources/lease, supply chain bullying etc. There is hardly a case for an easy competitor to bang out a semiconductor manufacturing supply chain, manufacturing plant, politics and countries in back pockets etc. It's quite a stark difference to a games studio or publisher entering a corporate market. Supply, processing and manufacturing/integrating etc are far more complex than making some games or selling some prefab hardware.

Regarding First Mover Advantage, cool you're correct about first movers. Perhaps I should have termed it "first zeitgeist successful mover" to qualify it better. There are little facts I have seen saying PS subs are more successful than Xbox/GP subs, if it exists, please give a link reply. Take what you're arguing here again, Sony did subs first and Xbox just did it better and bought larger then Sony has. Literally you are complaing to keep competition alive but you're not wanting an underdog success story from Xbox. Literally the perfect example of the open market having competitive trade over time.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
To confirm: you believe Sony > Imaging isn't encroaching into monopolistic territory far more than Xbox > Gaming, including sustained long term outlooks?
I think Sony Imaging is a market leader but doesn't have a monopoly and isn't in a position to perform shady stuff to create a monopoly or to stop others to compete. If that would be the case, FTC and other regulators would have stopped them. They have a big market share because their customers prefer the quality of their products, but competitors have almost half of the market and Sony can't stop them from competing: brands like Samsung, Apple, etc. are the ones who decide if they use Sony image sensors or other ones, Sony can't affect this blocking others to join the market.

I think MS (even after adding ABK) gaming is even more far from having a monopoly or in a position to create a monopoly in the gaming market, console market, PC gaming market, mobile gaming market, game subs market, cloud gaming market, VR gaming market. Both in hardware and software. Because they are not even market leaders in these gaming markets, and unlike in other markets, the gaming market is very fragmented: its few market leaders only own a 10-15% market share. So a market leader can't do monopolistic stuff.

With the acquisition, the only markets where MS would be best positioned would be game subs and cloud gaming. But I think it's debatable if they are really a market themselves and not only a different business model/way to deliver games for the console/PC/mobile markets, and they are also tiny markets: game subs only generate 7-9% of the gaming revenue, and it's expected that in the next 5 years or so would grow to up to 15% or so. Cloud gaming is a very small subset of that 7-9%, which for several reasons will have even a slower growth worldwide.

And well, MS would be better positioned than before the acquisition in game subs and cloud gaming for the future specially if they don't put their games on rival game subs and cloud gaming services (something they already do, recently included Skyrim in PS Plus as an example), but aren't market leaders of game subs and cloud gaming. There are others with a bigger userbase, way higher revenue and a way more profitable model.

Regarding the long term outlooks, MS, Sony, Tencent and others will continue making acquisitions. So ABK is only part of this consolidation period. If regulators want competition, they should MS acquire ABK to be closer to their main competitors, who are above them. In general gaming Tencent and Sony. In consoles Sony and Nintendo. In PC Tencent and Valve. In mobile pretty much everyone. Game subs there are major players above them like Sony, Nintendo, Amazon Prime Gaming, Apple Arcade and pretty likely Google Play Pass.

We both agree MS/Xbox aren't driving a monopoly here, not even a duopoly nor market leader. We disagree about Sony imaging. Cool, have a great day mate but I'll let sleeping dogs lie here.
Yes, and it's ok to disagree. Have a nice day.

Thanks for the correction on NOV 21 vs NOV 22 as well. What a shit library of games from Netflix for 12 months then, no wonder they only have 2.5Mil playing, they'll get better content and have already purchased studios quietly dev-ing behind the scenes. I still stand by "where do you think Netflix Gaming will be in 5 years"? Given even 2.5Mil in 12months over 5 more years that 15M subs, you have 2-5 players of that size in the subs market and you have enough healthy competition against the market leader, whomever that may be at the time.
I think the gaming market is very huge and has room to many people to compete. Netflix joined a small portion of gaming, the game subs which I mentioned is a 7-9% of the total revenue. And even inside that, they joined a subset: mobile gaming game subs, which is a portion of it. They are competing there with giants like Google and Apple, who must have a way bigger subscriber base than them.

So as of now, Netflix is a tiny player in the gaming market and their gaming section is also a tiny player of the market. They made some acquisitions, but are small devs who had tiny market share. So won't affect the market. They may grow, but in mobile the Apple and Google subs very likely will be bigger than them, plus also there's MS cloud gaming and Sony is working on it (Sony owns the patents of cloud gaming and specifically streaming to mobile gaming including 5G specific stuff, and mentioned that soonish they'd release it). Plus not sure but I'd bet there are more subs in mobile, maybe Amazon Prime Gaming has stuff.

So I think Netflix will grow like everyone else but will continue being a tiny player in gaming and even in the game subs area. And pretty likely even in mobile game subs.

As for Sony imaging sensor business and open market for competitors that retort is for a different time and thread my friend. TL;DR they bought out competitors long ago, own natural resources/lease, supply chain bullying etc. There is hardly a case for an easy competitor to bang out a semiconductor manufacturing supply chain, manufacturing plant, politics and countries in back pockets etc. It's quite a stark difference to a games studio or publisher entering a corporate market. Supply, processing and manufacturing/integrating etc are far more complex than making some games or selling some prefab hardware.

Regarding First Mover Advantage, cool you're correct about first movers. Perhaps I should have termed it "first zeitgeist successful mover" to qualify it better. There are little facts I have seen saying PS subs are more successful than Xbox/GP subs, if it exists, please give a link reply. Take what you're arguing here again, Sony did subs first and Xbox just did it better and bought larger then Sony has. Literally you are complaing to keep competition alive but you're not wanting an underdog success story from Xbox. Literally the perfect example of the open market having competitive trade over time.
Market regulators allow market leaders to make acquisitions if their market share isn't too big and if keeps enough room to others to freely compete. So if they allowed Sony Imaging to acquire etc. is because they consider there's no monopoly/potential monopoly/shady stuff there to block competitors.

I think that with this ABK acquisition it's normal that they investigate the case: because MS as a whole (not its gaming part) is a tech giant with monopolistic shady stuff done in the past sanctioned by them and because any $70B big ass acquisition must be investigated because it isn't common. But I'm sure that once they look at the market data they'll notice that even if MS(+ABK) as a whole is huge, in gaming they didn't have a market leading role after being there for almost 40 years and don't have enough market power/revenue share/etc. to do shady stuff to create a potential monopoly.
 
Top Bottom