Support NeoGAF

[Tomeru]

I don't agree with your assertion that all Microsoft's acquisitions are about trying to take away from PlayStation, but putting that to one side, the differentiator here is the scale of the deal.

If Microsoft they were driven by trying to restrict the choice of PlayStation's customers, they would be able to do so far, far more effectively by buying multiple publishers for $70bn, rather than one publisher costing $70bn.

As has been repeatedly stated and ignored, though Xbox is a Microsoft product, it has it's own accounts to balance, and cannot access the entirety of Microsoft's resources.

It is a mistake to assume that Xbox is buying ABK. Microsoft is. That is not the same thing.
Microsoft are not spending $70bn to compete with Playstation. You would have to be completely insane to think that makes sense, or assume that Microsoft is run by Timdog.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

For the record, I agree with this. As a matter of fact, I even believe that this entire day-one subscription model is not financially sustainable, especially for big AAA games. That's my current belief based on the information we have.

But just to clarify -- the discussion wasn't from Microsoft's financial POV. The argument was that "a group of people supports this acquisition and consolidation of industry because it brings games to Game Pass and gives them a cheap way to play games."

The people who don't want to buy games to play them obviously aren't interested in Microsoft's financials. And let's be honest, Microsoft's financial health isn't something that most people would be concerned about. If the line of thinking is that "this acquisition brings me cheaper games; i don't give a fuck about the rest" (which is an opinion that's fine to have), but then shouldn't adding a 1,000 game (+ABK catalog) would be even more preferable for those people over spending $70 billion for acquisitions?

I think we both know the answer to that. The answer is a resounding yes.

The real reason why people like I ironmang kept avoiding this question because they know that this acquisition is about minimizing PlayStation's library of games. They're still supporting it but using the veil of "more games on Game Pass" as the reason for supporting this acquisition. But the true reason is Xbox exclusives that won't be available on PlayStation.

The problem with your question and your post here is that you’re approaching it entirely from a warrior point of view. You’re saying that on the one hand, people can’t really just be excited about more games on GamePass, it must be a hidden sinister motive against your precious PlayStation toy.

You then propose a fantasy scenario where you literally say people should be excited for more games on GamePass. Again, at the same time you are saying people can’t be excited because the acquisition will bring more games to GamePass.

The difference is, the real world situation is real and makes financial sense for MS and gamers. Your fantasy question is silly and while great for gamers, makes no financial sense for MS. Why would fans of GamePass want MS to engage in a money burning endeavor that they have no chance of recouping anything close to their investment? GamePass is already profitable.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

A really stupid one that can't see an obvious trojan horse.
Glad you asked.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

So $70B is being spent to start to make 'yacht loads of cash' 7+years down the line to maybe greenlight some xbox studio games ? Makes sense since their MO is about waiting. Wouldn't want to use that $70B yacht load of cash to greenlight some projects now.

I guess we can add investment and money management to the list of things you don’t know shit about.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

I'd have agreed with you 2 years ago.

In fact, I was one of the people who said that Zenimax would remain multiplatform and had the same justifications that you just presented: the scale of the acquisition (think InXile or Double Fine or Ninja Theory vs. a $7.5 billion Zenimax), separate accounts to balance, and Microsoft (not Xbox) buying Zenimax as a separate entity to remain alongside XGS.

But here we are.

Hi-Fi Rush, Redfall, Starfield, all 3 new games releasing under Microsoft management post-acquisition are Xbox exclusives.

The CMA said that Microsoft's internal strategy documents all focus on exclusivity. That's their North star.

As for ABK, let's not forget that Microsoft only offered a 3-year contract for COD to Sony. Because they want to make it exclusive as soon as possible. They are not offering other ABK games to remain multiplatform at all; those are all gonna be exclusive from the get-go.

It's okay if you have a different feeling about this, but every single piece of evidence (current ABK offers, internal strategy documents, and past precedence in the case of Zenimax) literally points out the inevitable exclusivity of ABK games after the acquisition.

As stated, the scale of this acquisition means it's a different proposition than zenimax. Xbox has practically zero chance of making $70bn back before everyone at executive level who backs the deal retires.

It'd be regarded as a ludicrous waste of money that would tarnish the reputation of everyone who backed it. Nobody would support it.

Zenimax was a $7.5bn deal. This is ten times that. The expectation of results and return have to be complete different.

It's not about the feeling I have, it's just having some basic grasp of how corporations invest and how those decisions are made.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

No, the fantasy falls apart well before then.
You're taking as if Xbox has $70bn to spend to strengthen Gamepass.

They definitely don't.

If that was the case, they'd buy multiple publishers for less money.

This is about buying Activision as a money making entity that owns IP that sells all over the world on every platform.

If the deal fails, then it doesn't mean Xbox get to keep the money for something else.

I was responding to a hypothetical where business was suppose to be taken out of the equation and in this hypothetical, Microsoft pays all 3rd parties to put their games in Gamepass. I would be a fan of that if it could be done and maintained. But I don't think such a strategy is sustainable, financially.

I personally would rather long term, consistent quality/quantity in the Gamepass offering than short term amazing quality/quantity then to have the service shut down.

I wasn't remarking on what Microsoft has earmarked for their game division investments, because I do agree that absent this acquisition, Xbox would not have $70B to do what they will with it.

For the record, I agree with this. As a matter of fact, I even believe that this entire day-one subscription model is not financially sustainable, especially for big AAA games. That's my current belief based on the information we have.

But just to clarify -- the discussion wasn't from Microsoft's financial POV. The argument was that "a group of people supports this acquisition and consolidation of industry because it brings games to Game Pass and gives them a cheap way to play games."

The people who don't want to buy games to play them obviously aren't interested in Microsoft's financials. And let's be honest, Microsoft's financial health isn't something that most people would be concerned about. If the line of thinking is that "this acquisition brings me cheaper games; i don't give a fuck about the rest" (which is an opinion that's fine to have), but then shouldn't adding a 1,000 game (+ABK catalog) would be even more preferable for those people over spending $70 billion for acquisitions?

I think we both know the answer to that. The answer is a resounding yes.

The real reason why people like I ironmang kept avoiding this question because they know that this acquisition is about minimizing PlayStation's library of games. They're still supporting it but using the veil of "more games on Game Pass" as the reason for supporting this acquisition. But the true reason is Xbox exclusives that won't be available on PlayStation.

I believe that the day 1 model is sustainable. The model sacrifices short term profits to gain subscribers. When the service gains enough subscribers, they'll be able to cover 1st party development costs, 3rd party gamepass deals and make profit (I believe Microsoft is at this point already). As subscribers grow past this point, the service's revenue grows while expenses stay relatively the same. Microsoft's long term goal is to gain enough subscribers that they'll eclipse the profit they would have made from what they would have made from strictly B2P sales. (They're not here yet)

All that aside, I agree that there are console warriors who are cheering this to go through simply because it's a "fuck you" to Sony and they want CoD to be exclusive to make them feel better about their choice of console.

However, I genuinely do care about the business side of things. I think ABK is a smart business move for Microsoft, but I also think Sony should go after Square Enix or CDPR. I'm not against consolidation when it suits me.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

1 - I never said that MS is not making any exclusives, read again please, I said that people championing this deal for more MS exclusives are gaining virtually nothing because those games would be played for them anyway, so is literally championing taking away games from others forever, which is just sad, childsh and petty

2 - yes.. GP is beside this point that I making, about exclusives, aquisitions to include games on GP day one are a separate subject

3 - if you really, truly, believe in this GP utopia that MS is selling to its fans, well, cant say much, but reality is going to hit hard some day, this robin-hood persona MS is masking itself its just hilariously obvious, just like any kind of pseudo-socialist model of manegement/distribution is made for luring poor/cheap/dreamers in and lock them and never letting go .... but keep telling yourself you will be playing COD and etc for "almost free" for now on if it justifies your believes.

1. Yes, you said “new and exciting exclusives”. MS doesn’t do exclusives anymore. But I listed three “new and exciting” games that the people who made them have since come out and said they wouldn’t have happened without the acquisitions. I also listed a couple of games greatly improved because of the acquisition. Do I give a shit if PlayStation users can play Wasteland 3? No, I care that because of MS money, it got more content and every line of dialogue was voiced.

2. GamePass can be beside the point you’re making but you can’t remove what is by far the number one reason people are pro ABK purchase and then make up a bullshit reason people want the purchase and then shift that to the top.

3. Man… when did this thread get infested with conspiracy theorists? What even is this word diarrhea you just typed? “Robin Hood”

 

[FalsettoVibe]

I guess we can add investment and money management to the list of things you don’t know shit about.

Well this is an unnecessarily aggressive post...

Edit:
Can't see how we can have a productive conversation when people do this kind of thing. (Not that the conversation is actually productive at this point)

 

[Zephyrus0]

Yeah mate, it's all a crazy conspiracy.


Like I said a few days ago, I just resign myself to the whims of the majority.
Go get your short term gains.

 

[Zephyrus0]

Well this is an unnecessarily aggressive post...

Edit:
Can't see how we can have a productive conversation when people do this kind of thing. (Not that the conversation is actually productive at this point)

You can't.
You just resign yourself to the obvious outcome.
You can pinpoint exactly what will happen to the industry if this aquisition happens.
And when it happens, if you point it out people won't care and the damage will be done.

The guy expects the company that sat on their asses after two amazing years with the xbox 360 that put the brand in the cultural zeitgeist, to invest heavily on a product with worse revenue.
He also believes it won't negatively impact the playstation brand which will lose a lot of money from one of the IP's that makes them the most money on mtx. That money will also not be important to fund first parties so they can mantain the quality they currently have.

None of that will happen. It's just a conspiracy theory to someone that claims he understands what he's talking about while mocking others.

 

[adamsapple]

Guess we will find out eventually.

It’s the primary reason I’m not in favor of the deal, it brings no added value to me as a customer and could lessen the quality of my subscription. I also don’t think the deal should be blocked or have any forced concessions if approved.

New Activision game(s) come, maybe what once a year for CoD and once a decade for other brands like Diablo. MS won't be able to coast just on that and will still need an active supply of games coming (and going) from the service. I don't think this acquisition will put a stop on games coming to the service, if anything it might promote *more* smaller/indie/experimental games as they might consider putting more AAA caliber games as a detriment to their own 1P offers on the service.

All speculation at this point tho.

 

[Zephyrus0]

New Activision game(s) come, maybe what once a year for CoD and once a decade for other brands like Diablo. MS won't be able to coast just on that and will still need an active supply of games coming (and going) from the service. I don't think this acquisition will put a stop on games coming to the service, if anything it might promote *more* smaller/indie/experimental games as they might consider putting more AAA caliber games as a detriment to their own 1P offers on the service.

All speculation at this point tho.

It's hardly speculation to expect lower quality of AAA games when they will be released day 1 on a service that will drain them money if they keep the same model.

Nobody but MS will gain from this deal in the long term.

 

[Three]

I guess we can add investment and money management to the list of things you don’t know shit about.

I guess we can ad hominem to the list of things you do when you don't know shit to respond with.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I mean it depends what they do with those developers. CoD will stay releasing on Sony for at least sometime.

Maybe they'd get more freedom for different IP's.

Mental gymnastics.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

You can't.
You just resign yourself to the obvious outcome.
You can pinpoint exactly what will happen to the industry if this aquisition happens.
And when it happens, if you point it out people won't care and the damage will be done.

The guy expects the company that sat on their asses after two amazing years with the xbox 360 that put the brand in the cultural zeitgeist, to invest heavily on a product with worse revenue.
He also believes it won't negatively impact the playstation brand which will lose a lot of money from one of the IP's that makes them the most money on mtx. That money will also not be important to fund first parties so they can mantain the quality they currently have.

None of that will happen. It's just a conspiracy theory to someone that claims he understands what he's talking about while mocking others.

You just called anyone who is excited about what the deal will do for GamePass “stupid” and “unable to see the Trojan horse”. Please don’t reply to someone calling out an “aggressive” post as if you’re immune.

Also why do I care what happens to PlayStation revenue? They’ll still have CoD, and even if they lose it in TEN YEARS, they have the first party to overcome it. I bought a PS5 because of their first party

It’s adorable how some of you blow GamePass up to something bigger than even what the shilliest of shills can come up with.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Yeah mate, it's all a crazy conspiracy.


Like I said a few days ago, I just resign myself to the whims of the majority.
Go get your short term gains.

It is a crazy conspiracy.

Please tell us more about how a service MS expects to account for 10-15% of their revenue is going to radically shift their game design and monetization.

 

[Three]

It is a crazy conspiracy.

Please tell us more about how a service MS expects to account for 10-15% of their revenue is going to radically shift their game design and monetization.

What has the percentage of revenue gained from third parties or gamepass subs got to do with game design and monetisation?

MS have committed to first party games on gamepass, that automatically changes monetisation on first party games. What percentage of their overall revenue comes from third party game sales, XLG, or whatever else doesn't change that.

 

[DrFigs]

You just called anyone who is excited about what the deal will do for GamePass “stupid” and “unable to see the Trojan horse”. Please don’t reply to someone calling out an “aggressive” post as if you’re immune.

Also why do I care what happens to PlayStation revenue? They’ll still have CoD, and even if they lose it in TEN YEARS, they have the first party to overcome it. I bought a PS5 because of their first party

It’s adorable how some of you blow GamePass up to something bigger than even what the shilliest of shills can come up with.

It's great that you personally bought a ps5 for first party. But not everyone did. And losing a game like COD will prevent Sony from receiving the revenue necessary to make those first party games anyway. It raises the barrier to entry since anyone wanting to get into this market is excluded from the biggest third party game. This deal will severely hurt, not improve competition. It's clear as day that at least in the long run, it'll be bad even for Xbox owners, who are still in denial about the possibility of any price increases to the service.

 

[Kilau]

New Activision game(s) come, maybe what once a year for CoD and once a decade for other brands like Diablo. MS won't be able to coast just on that and will still need an active supply of games coming (and going) from the service. I don't think this acquisition will put a stop on games coming to the service, if anything it might promote *more* smaller/indie/experimental games as they might consider putting more AAA caliber games as a detriment to their own 1P offers on the service.

All speculation at this point tho.

Of course not just coast on what's coming but there is a huge back catalog of stuff to dump on the service and the $70 billion is being spent now, that will suck a lot of air out of going for other stuff. MS will want to make the most of this purchase.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

It's great that you personally bought a ps5 for first party. But not everyone did. And losing a game like COD will prevent Sony from receiving the revenue necessary to make those first party games anyway. It raises the barrier to entry since anyone wanting to get into this market is excluded from the biggest third party game. This deal will severely hurt, not improve competition. It's clear as day that at least in the long run, it'll be bad even for Xbox owners, who are still in denial about the possibility of any price increases to the service.

1. They aren’t losing CoD

2. Who are these Xbox fans in denial about GamePass increasing in price? It’s the exact opposite everywhere I have seen and all the gamers I know. Everyone knows it is a matter of when and not if.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

What has the amount of revenue gained from third parties or gamepass subs percentage got to do with game design and monetization?

MS have committed to first party games on gamepass, that automatically changes monetisation on first party games. What percentage of their overall revenue comes from third party game sales, XLG, or whatever else doesn't change that.

Change and radically shift aren’t the same thing, and you know that.

It’s ok, maybe by the time the ten year CoD deal is up, we’ll finally start seeing some of these crystal ball conspiracies come to light.

 

[ironmang]

The real reason why people like I ironmang kept avoiding this question because they know that this acquisition is about minimizing PlayStation's library of games. They're still supporting it but using the veil of "more games on Game Pass" as the reason for supporting this acquisition. But the true reason is Xbox exclusives that won't be available on PlayStation.

I avoided your question because I thought it was a joke. You know, the idea that MS can and will spend 10 20 70 billion to put every 3rd party game on GP.

If MS made their acquisitions to take away from Sony then how do you explain Minecraft? They've had 9 years to minimize Minecraft off the PS library. Or do you mean minimizing some timed exclusives and exclusive content? Do you think pro-GP is a sham and we all just really want you to have less games to play?

And when are you going to explain this comment to me:

That now seems like a completely different stance than the one you had on the previous page. Changing the narratives like this on the fly makes discussions impossible.

What are these two completely different stances? Can anyone who "liked" this answer it? You framed it like a gotcha so it should be a quick answer.

 

[DrFigs]

2. Who are these Xbox fans in denial about GamePass increasing in price? It’s the exact opposite everywhere I have seen and all the gamers I know. Everyone knows it is a matter of when and not if.

You got it man

 

[Three]

Change and radically shift aren’t the same thing, and you know that.

It’s ok, maybe by the time the ten year CoD deal is up, we’ll finally start seeing some of these crystal ball conspiracies come to light.

What's this goalpost move? Nobody even said radical change. He even mentioned "short term gain" meaning he sees short term gain but overall long term negative change.

Also why do I care what happens to PlayStation revenue? They’ll still have CoD, and even if they lose it in TEN YEARS, they have the first party to overcome it. I bought a PS5 because of their first party

It’s adorable how some of you blow GamePass up to something bigger than even what the shilliest of shills can come up with.

What do you care what happens to PlayStation revenue that affects game output, first party can still be there, but when it comes to MS it's all about that 7+ year investment and money management plan you're an expert in that ensures it and not that first party output now that can be there.

 

[Zephyrus0]

You just called anyone who is excited about what the deal will do for GamePass “stupid” and “unable to see the Trojan horse”. Please don’t reply to someone calling out an “aggressive” post as if you’re immune.

Also why do I care what happens to PlayStation revenue? They’ll still have CoD, and even if they lose it in TEN YEARS, they have the first party to overcome it. I bought a PS5 because of their first party

It’s adorable how some of you blow GamePass up to something bigger than even what the shilliest of shills can come up with.

And I stand by what I called them. Each and every time I'll do it.
I replied to the part about having a productive conversation which nobody here is going to have with you when you dismiss real concerns from obvious outcomes.

It's pretty obvious you don't care about what will happen to playstation. It's adorable you mention that you got a ps5 for their first parties though. Specifically for them.

But sure we're blowing up the product that MS is shilling at every instance and makes sure to peddle day 1 availability as a highlight of their announcements.

*woooooooooooooooooooooooooosh*

Stellar choice of avatar though.

 

[Heisenberg007]

1. They aren’t losing CoD

The regulators disagree. According to them, Microsoft will have a strong incentive to make COD exclusive. Microsoft's past precedence also points to that being a more probable scenario.

 

[adamsapple]

Of course not just coast on what's coming but there is a huge back catalog of stuff to dump on the service and the $70 billion is being spent now, that will suck a lot of air out of going for other stuff. MS will want to make the most of this purchase.

Oh I'm sure they'll want to make most of the purchase, but after a couple of games from the last gen, putting games from the 360 era won't do as much for the service as newer games. Folks like us will be all about those 360 and older games, but we're in the minority of people who subscribe to GP.

It's pretty obvious you don't care about what will happen to playstation. It's adorable you mention that you got a ps5 for their first parties though. Specifically for them.

In a hypothetical where CoD becomes a first party Xbox franchise, as it stands, it still gets released on PS and the only thing different is the marketing on the games adverts. The games will continue to be released on those platforms and, no, they won't get updates just to add glitches to the final level of the campaign.

 

[Ar¢tos]

If Microsoft they were driven by trying to restrict the choice of PlayStation's customers, they would be able to do so far, far more effectively by buying multiple publishers for $70bn, rather than one publisher costing $70bn.

And what publishers would they have available to buy?
Nobody wants Ubisoft.
Any Japanese publisher/dev is out of MS' reach because of Japanese laws preventing foreign takeovers and not every publisher is open to the idea of being bought. So what's left?
EA?
Take Two?

 

[Heisenberg007]

I avoided your question because I thought it was a joke. You know, the idea that MS can and will spend 10 20 70 billion to put every 3rd party game on GP.

When did I ask about what Microsoft would do? I only asked what you'd prefer because you said pro-GP people are happy with these acquisitions because it puts games on Game Pass, and that's a cheap option. Let me put the options again for you to pick one:

• Option A: Microsoft acquires ABK, spends $70 billion, and only add ABK games to Game Pass.
• Option B: The ABK acquisition gets blocked, and Microsoft spends some of that money to bring games to Game Pass from numerous third-party developers and publishers, including ABK.

Which option do you wish turns out to be true?

If MS made their acquisitions to take away from Sony then how do you explain Minecraft? They've had 9 years to minimize Minecraft off the PS library. Or do you mean minimizing some timed exclusives and exclusive content?

Minecraft? The game that was already published on PlayStation? Nobody is saying that Microsoft will remove Call of Duty Black Ops 1 from PSN. But they can stop future Call of Duty games, as the CMA has also pointed out.

You'll have to find a better example.

Like Hellblade 2, Outer Worlds 2, Starfield, Redfall, etc. All Xbox exclusives now.

And when are you going to explain this comment to me:

What are these two completely different stances? Can anyone who "liked" this answer it? You framed it like a gotcha so it should be a quick answer.

• Your first stance was: we support these acquisitions because it adds more games to Game Pass, and that's more affordable.
• Your second stance was: I prefer the option that ensures the survivability of the Xbox gaming division, as if you don't believe in the GP model and that adding more games to Game Pass will sabotage the survivability of the Xbox division.

Note: I am not interested in disingenuous discussions and shifting narratives. If you want to have an honest discussion, let's have it. If you change narratives or deflect, don't expect a response from me.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

And I stand by what I called them. Each and every time I'll do it.
I replied to the part about having a productive conversation which nobody here is going to have with you when you dismiss real concerns from obvious outcomes.

It's pretty obvious you don't care about what will happen to playstation. It's adorable you mention that you got a ps5 for their first parties though. Specifically for them.

But sure we're blowing up the product that MS is shilling at every instance and makes sure to peddle day 1 availability as a highlight of their announcements.

*woooooooooooooooooooooooooosh*

Stellar choice of avatar though.

Why wouldn’t Microsoft market their service

They also see it as, at max, a very small part of their revenue. But continue waiting for your Trojan horse and calling everyone else stupid, friend. Have fun.

 

[poppabk]

I understand that, but that wasn't the topic of conversation. The discussion was that pro-GP people support these big acquisitions because they get more games on Game Pass at a cheaper price. So my question was, regardless of Microsoft's ROI, wouldn't pro-GP people prefer if, instead of acquiring ABK, Microsoft uses this money to get hundreds of games to Game Pass?

Well yeah, hypothetically yes. But hypothetically I would rather MS just divvy that money up and send every gamepass subscriber a check for $2000. Not gonna happen though.

 

[Zephyrus0]

Oh I'm sure they'll want to make most of the purchase, but after a couple of games from the last gen, putting games from the 360 era won't do as much for the service as newer games. Folks like us will be all about those 360 and older games, but we're in the minority of people who subscribe to GP.




In a hypothetical where CoD becomes a first party Xbox franchise, as it stands, it still gets released on PS and the only thing different is the marketing on the games adverts. The games will continue to be released on those platforms and, no, they won't get updates just to add glitches to the final level of the campaign.

It'll get released if there are deals in place to prevent exclusivity.
MS has 0 interest in keeping the game multiplatform.
They don't buy a publisher to keep their games on other consoles.
This isn't a minecraft situation that forces ms to support the ps version due to it producing the most revenue on what essentially is a live service game.
This is a bethesda situation. Existing titles and deals get supported. Future games? Buy a xbox.
Are people so forgetful to what microsoft immediatly said regarding cod, warzone (the p2p live version of cod) and ps following the abk deal? That warzone would remain on ps but future cod were a wait and see?
Microsoft outed their plans immediatly. They've just recently been backpeddling most of what they said. But the intent remains the same. They'll just concede and delay it for as long as they are required.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

Its kinda crazy to me that everyone is focusing on CoD when Microsoft's big play is mobile. Them buying up publishers is just a path to that. They want to bolster a mobile games platform and I am surprised Apple and Google have
not spoken up yet. Regulators focusing on CoD is probably Microsoft's preferred diversion. lol

Edit:
Correction, Google has.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Its kinda crazy to me that everyone is focusing on CoD when Microsoft's big play is mobile. Them buying up publishers is just a path to that. They want to bolster a mobile games platform and I am surprised Apple and Google have
not spoken up yet. Regulators focusing on CoD is probably Microsoft's preferred diversion. lol

Regulators are focused on both.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Its kinda crazy to me that everyone is focusing on CoD when Microsoft's big play is mobile. Them buying up publishers is just a path to that. They want to bolster a mobile games platform and I am surprised Apple and Google have
not spoken up yet. Regulators focusing on CoD is probably Microsoft's preferred diversion. lol

Not unless Microsoft is forced to divest COD. That would be a problem for them.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

You got it man

It is the reality of the situation. Even here on GAF, we know the price increase is coming. Who are you talking about? IGN dwellers?

 

[Zephyrus0]

Why wouldn’t Microsoft market their service

They also see it as, at max, a very small part of their revenue. But continue waiting for your Trojan horse and calling everyone else stupid, friend. Have fun.

Dude stop quoting me. I don't view disingenuous people in a good light.
There's no conversation to be had with people of your ilk, so we can end this now.

 

[DrFigs]

It'll get released if there are deals in place to prevent exclusivity.
MS has 0 interest in keeping the game multiplatform.
They don't buy a publisher to keep their games on other consoles.
This isn't a minecraft situation that forces ms to support the ps version due to it producing the most revenue on what essentially is a live service game.
This is a bethesda situation. Existing titles and deals get supported. Future games? Buy a xbox.
Are people so forgetful to what microsoft immediatly said regarding cod, warzone (the p2p live version of cod) and ps following the abk deal? That warzone would remain on ps but future cod were a wait and see?
Microsoft outed their plans immediatly. They've just recently been backpeddling most of what they said. But the intent remains the same. They'll just concede and delay it for as long as they are required.

I agree with your comments here, but I wonder if you're the one that is misremembering the bolded part. Or at least it seems like if it happened, it would have been brought up in the documents.

It is the reality of the situation. Even here on GAF, we know the price increase is coming. Who are you talking about? IGN dwellers?

It's people in this thread I was arguing with that started because I said something like "COD won't be on gamepass at its current price". Saying that Xbox fans in general are in denial was probably not very charitable on my part though.

 

[adamsapple]

It'll get released if there are deals in place to prevent exclusivity.
MS has 0 interest in keeping the game multiplatform.
They don't buy a publisher to keep their games on other consoles.
This isn't a minecraft situation that forces ms to support the ps version due to it producing the most revenue on what essentially is a live service game.

This is a bethesda situation. Existing titles and deals get supported. Future games? Buy a xbox.

You're directly contradicting yourself here. It *is* essentiall a Minecraft situation. CoD is a multi billion dollar revenue earning franchise. If, in your opinion, the main reason they haven't taken Minecraft off is for the revenue, then that applies doubly so for Call of Duty.

As for the "0 interest in keeping the game multiplatform", if they hadn't been bending over backwards convincing evertyone and their grandmothers, including all the regulators whose job it will be to keep monitoring the acquisition even after its completion, I would have agreed with you. The messaging and commitments being offered are nothing like Zenimax.

Are people so forgetful to what microsoft immediatly said regarding cod, warzone (the p2p live version of cod) and ps following the abk deal? That warzone would remain on ps but future cod were a wait and see?
Microsoft outed their plans immediatly. They've just recently been backpeddling most of what they said. But the intent remains the same. They'll just concede and delay it for as long as they are required.

I don't think this is true at all. If you have a source backing it up, please share.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Dude stop quoting me. I don't view disingenuous people in a good light.
There's no conversation to be had with people of your ilk, so we can end this now.

Fair enough

@ me in twenty years when the evil plan is finally revealed.

You're directly contradicting yourself here. It *is* essentiall a Minecraft situation. CoD is a multi billion dollar revenue earning franchise. If, in your opinion, the main reason they haven't taken Minecraft off is for the revenue, then that applies doubly so for Call of Duty.

As for the "0 interest in keeping the game multiplatform", if they hadn't been bending over backwards convincing evertyone and their grandmothers, including all the regulators whose job it will be to keep monitoring the acquisition even after its completion, I would have agreed with you. The messaging and commitments being offered are nothing like Zenimax.



I don't think this is true at all. If you have a source backing it up, please share.

I’d like to see that source as well, and you’re exactly right about CoD being a service. Hell it’s more of a service than Minecraft is. There’s a reason Sony is fighting so hard to keep control of their CoD money out of Microsofts hands.

 

[b6a6es]

I don't agree with your assertion that all Microsoft's acquisitions are about trying to take away from PlayStation, but putting that to one side, the differentiator here is the scale of the deal.

If Microsoft they were driven by trying to restrict the choice of PlayStation's customers, they would be able to do so far, far more effectively by buying multiple publishers for $70bn, rather than one publisher costing $70bn.

As has been repeatedly stated and ignored, though Xbox is a Microsoft product, it has it's own accounts to balance, and cannot access the entirety of Microsoft's resources.

It is a mistake to assume that Xbox is buying ABK. Microsoft is. That is not the same thing.
Microsoft are not spending $70bn to compete with Playstation. You would have to be completely insane to think that makes sense, or assume that Microsoft is run by Timdog.

Dude MS’s literally cries about PS *”Dominance”* to the regulators around the world just to get the deal approved , and speaks endlessly about *” iTs JuSt OnE iP”* when it comes to why their proposed deal’s no more than 10 years

 

[ironmang]

When did I ask about what Microsoft would do? I only asked what you'd prefer because you said pro-GP people are happy with these acquisitions because it puts games on Game Pass, and that's a cheap option. Let me put the options again for you to pick one:

• Option A: Microsoft acquires ABK, spends $70 billion, and only add ABK games to Game Pass.
• Option B: The ABK acquisition gets blocked, and Microsoft spends some of that money to bring games to Game Pass from numerous third-party developers and publishers, including ABK.

Which option do you wish turns out to be true?

Now it's "some of that money". Literally changes every time you ask. And I'd prefer the one that's realistic because it fits with their strategy of releasing all first party games on GP.

Minecraft? The game that was already published on PlayStation? Nobody is saying that Microsoft will remove Call of Duty Black Ops 1 from PSN. But they can stop future Call of Duty games, as the CMA has also pointed out.

You'll have to find a better example.

Like Hellblade 2, Outer Worlds 2, Starfield, Redfall, etc. All Xbox exclusives now.

MS committed to keep releasing Minecraft on other platforms and they've stuck to it. Even releasing the spinoffs. They're saying they're going to give CoD the same treatment.

• Your first stance was: we support these acquisitions because it adds more games to Game Pass, and that's more affordable.
• Your second stance was: I prefer the option that ensures the survivability of the Xbox gaming division, as if you don't believe in the GP model and that adding more games to Game Pass will sabotage the survivability of the Xbox division.

Note: I am not interested in disingenuous discussions and shifting narratives. If you want to have an honest discussion, let's have it. If you change narratives or deflect, don't expect a response from me.

So in the first one I said I like the acquisitions because it leads to more games on GP. In the second I said I preferred the option that allows the gaming division and therefore GP to keep existing (as well as also leading to more games on GP).

I'm not seeing how those are conflicting statements. No narratives have changed.

 

[Pelta88]

Factual.

 

[DrFigs]

Factual.

we had a lawyer here who said that Jim Ryan wasn't legally obligated to fight the deal. But idk. Seeing how much Sony's stock price fell when the news came out, and it still really hasn't recovered. I just find it hard to believe, honestly that like Sony executives aren't obligated to fight it.

 

[Three]

we had a lawyer here who said that Jim Ryan wasn't legally obligated to fight the deal. But idk. Seeing how much Sony's stock price fell when the news came out, and it still really hasn't recovered. I just find it hard to believe, honestly that like Sony executives aren't obligated to fight it.

The lawyer was just saying they're obligated but it's not against the law. If you don't do your job you'll likely get fired, you won't go to prison for breaking the law though.

 

[poppabk]

Factual.

Goes both ways - literally two posts above -
"Dude MS’s literally cries about PS *”Dominance”* to the regulators"

 

[DrFigs]

The lawyer was just saying they're obligated but it's not against the law. If you don't do your job you'll likely get fired, you won't go to prison for breaking the law though.

oh yes you're right.

 

[Topher]

The lawyer was just saying they're obligated but it's not against the law. If you don't do your job you'll likely get fired, you won't go to prison for breaking the law though.

We need a CEO thunderdome.

Winner take all

 

[Smoke6]

Its kinda crazy to me that everyone is focusing on CoD when Microsoft's big play is mobile. Them buying up publishers is just a path to that. They want to bolster a mobile games platform and I am surprised Apple and Google have
not spoken up yet. Regulators focusing on CoD is probably Microsoft's preferred diversion. lol

Edit:
Correction, Google has.

So why buy ABK when you have the resources to have done this all yourself for way cheaper than this $70b?

 

[MasterCornholio]

We need a CEO thunderdome.

Winner take all

Sorry couldn't resist.

P.S I love that movie BTW.