Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT|

laynelane

Member
Only just seen this;

https://www.gamedeveloper.com/conso...elder-scrolls-vi-i-will-be-xbox-exclusive#nnn

In that filing, Microsoft refers to the fantasy RPG as a "mid-size game," and therefore justifying its potential isolation from PlayStation or Nintendo consoles.

They’ve not quoted the actual submission, so their interpretation may be wrong. However classifying TES as a mid-size game/series is a bare faced lie.

Legal maneuvering aside, this reminds me of how far removed the people who make and deliver games can be from the people who actually play them. Whether it's classifying the Elder Scrolls as mid-sized or introducing elements into games where they don't fit (but could be profitable or more mainstream), there can be a real disconnect there sometimes.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
"lol"



Microsoft's games sell also, my friend. But what is even the purpose of releasing premium (COD/God of War/Elden Ring) or freemium (Fortnite/Warzone/Destiny 2/Overwatch 2) games in the first place? To bring in money, right? Microsoft has simply found an alternate method to get its customers to pay them for the games they offer. Game Pass helps tremendously with that process by taking the pressure off any one game from Microsoft needing to make all the money it can make on its own solely through traditional up-front sales.

Game Pass is basically an Xbox first-party game live service subscription that delivers guaranteed day one first-party AAA games as its most anticipated seasonal or DLC content, and gives it to you at no additional cost. The monthly subscription fee is how you're paying for whatever new or existing content you consume. Or like a monthly patreon with over 25 million subscribers paying a minimum of $9.99/month or a maximum of 14.99/month to access the content. People think because they may not see the exact same headlines for every Microsoft first-party game, or a first-party title may not chart as high in NPD from one month to the next, it means Microsoft is not making any money off their games. That is incorrect. Game Pass, like Fortnite & COD Warzone, doesn't need to top NPD charts or whatever other best-selling lists out there because they bring in money, period. $2.9 billion on xbox consoles alone just in 2021 to be exact.

If people are newly subscribing to and/or staying subscribed to game pass to play Xbox first-party games (or even third-party games), then Microsoft doesn't need every person to buy their first-party games upfront, because the money they would have received is still coming, but in bigger portions, I believe, thanks to Game Pass. The thing that I feel some people still can't wrap their heads around today is that people pay for Xbox/PC Game Pass. The shit isn't free. We don't pay with sexual favors, we pay for Game Pass using real money. The sexual favors are how publishers agree to sell to Microsoft in the first place. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Dr Evil GIF


On a serious note, people paying for Xbox Game Pass (new and existing subscribers) is a large part of how Microsoft gets paid for all the first-party games they add to Game Pass, past and present. Some people don't like hearing this, but it's true. Many can't accept this because they think it doesn't square with their worldview of how first-party AAA games should be sold. People think "yea, but how many copies did it sell!?" The answer, in the case of Xbox Game Pass, may be that it really doesn't matter. People are subscribing to Game Pass at the pace they are yearly because of the existing and future Xbox first-party titles that are guaranteed on day one at an incredible price. They're the big attractions and why Game Pass is growing at the speed it is and maintaining subscribers. Yes, even older, already released first-party games. That there are plenty of 3rd party games and the occasional 3rd party AAA as well, is the icing on the top that further helps Microsoft pay for the first-party games they're putting into game pass because those too attract and maintain subscribers.

People gravely underestimate the power of game catalogs, especially one that keep growing at no additional cost with many of the biggest games a platform has to offer as Game Pass does. Huge digital game catalogs are a big reason PC gaming has been so popular for years, it's the reason digital has so strongly surpassed physical console sales in like no time at all, and it's why Steam is so damn popular today. I was there at the earliest days of Steam as an early tester. My Steam ID is literally 4 digits in the 1xxx range. Game Pass in many ways feels exactly like what Steam was in those early days -- back when CS 1.6 was the only damn thing on there. And even then you knew exactly what Steam had the potential to become. You knew steam would grow into a juggernaut that would feel essential for many reasons outside of whatever brought you to it because it just made too much damn sense. Xbox Game Pass has that exact same early Steam vibe to it. We haven't yet fully seen the fully formed version of what it will become, but 2023 will start making that picture much clearer, especially with major releases like Starfield. Xbox's first party games, present and future, are the steam equivalent of what counter-strike 1.6 meant for steam in those early days.

Some may have issues with anyone saying Microsoft is being paid for putting its first-party games in game pass day one because we aren't getting the type of data necessary to individually assign credit to specific games, or even to fully know which game is most responsible for keeping people on Game Pass. It is important data to know, true, which is why the people at Microsoft who need to know this actually do. The money is coming in regardless of which game/games are responsible. Game Pass represents a collective effort by many games, headlined by all of Xbox's first-party titles. We can make educated guesses, and likely turn out correct for the most significant releases, but it ultimately doesn't matter which is most responsible for bringing new subscribers and what's most responsible for retaining them. All that matters is that they are retained and the money is coming in. Outside of that..

Sport Who Cares GIF


In fact, Microsoft is making more money per individual who stays subscribed to game pass as compared to a single person who purchases God of War Ragnarok for $60 or $70, more than a person who bought Forza Horizon 5 or Halo Infinite Campaign for $60, and certainly more than anyone who will go on to buy Starfield and Redfall. A full purchase is a one-time deal. Game Pass is likely generating just over $300 million per month right now. And I highly suspect I'm actually lowballing that figure.

Game Pass just gives Microsoft another method of payment to collect money for its games over the course of a one-year time period, rather than attempting to get it all at once. I repeat, the business model is not too dissimilar in its objective from free-to-play games that also seek to collect money over the course of the year. Or like MMOs such as World of Warcraft or Elder Scrolls Online that operate in a similar fashion. It hasn't fully caught on yet that Game Pass, despite being a subscription games service, makes more sense to be viewed like free to play service title in terms of how its money is generated gradually. It's more like fortnite, genshin impact or candy crush in that respect. Only viewed that way will Game Pass begin to make a little more sense for some.

Microsoft isn't actually giving away its games for free like some people bizarrely suggest. They're surely getting far more for them now than at any point during the previous generation. Halo 5 before Game Pass launched did 5 million sold in 3 months. Game Pass right now is likely making more than twice that revenue in only 2 months, and significantly more per calendar/fiscal year.

Now consider that over 1 million gamers had already paid for Forza Horizon 5 in early access before it officially launched on Game Pass.


There were only 2 ways to get early access. The premium add-ons bundle for $49.99 for game pass users who wanted everything in the premium edition without having to buy the game, or by purchasing the premium edition that was sold for $99. For every one of those million early access players who had game pass you're looking at $170-$230 (if they had ultimate) for the year off one game pass customer who bought the premium add-on bundle.

Even if first party games sold a bit more copies without Game Pass existing, it would not be enough to beat the revenues that Game Pass is bringing in for Xbox currently. I don't know of a single xbox first-party game that brought in $2.9 billion in revenue for the year on the Xbox 360.

Halo 3 did $170 million on its first day and $300 million in its first week.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna21139328

I don't think anyone disagrees Halo 3 was a successful traditional game launch, right? Well, Game Pass each year is smashing those numbers. Game Pass does over $300 million per month. Microsoft makes more money with their first party games in game pass than they would without Game Pass. Microsoft found a different way to help generate enough money yearly to support its first party games. That method is game pass. It isn't the only means by which the Xbox business brings in money to fund their operations, but it's by far the most game-changing, and the one Microsoft has the strongest ability to dictate the return.

Xbox doesn't ever have to be the console sales leader with something like Game Pass. Without Game Pass, Xbox consoles need to sell a whole lot more units to better sell first party games to recoup investments made. Each game would need to put up much bigger numbers the old-fashioned way, something Xbox has already demonstrated it can do with a variety of games, but now there's no need to? Lots of games likely never got sequels because they didn't perform well enough on Xbox before Game Pass. If Quantum Break released today for game pass, there would be a sequel confirmed already.

The way I see it, Sony is opting to get all its money faster by demanding it upfront, which is the traditional way of doing it. Whereas Microsoft is comfortable with getting some of its money upfront for their first-party games, and is totally okay with getting the rest of their money later throughout the year. It's a distinctly fortnite in its nature or a psuedo free to play model, except not actually free-to-play because to enter the eco-system you must pay a subscription fee. That's what Game Pass is.

Forza Horizon 5 over 3 million players day one. People don't think this matters because they're like "haha players, not sales", but the people playing it on game pass (paying game pass customers) ARE the sales. And they pay per month for an entire year. Game Pass has not lost subscribers a single year since it has existed. It might one day, but that time clearly isn't now.
https://gamingbolt.com/forza-horizon-5-crosses-3-million-players-on-day-1


TLDR Version - Game Pass' revenue yearly = practically Xbox first party game revenue and should be considered as such along with actual traditional first party game sales because Xbox First Party games are the biggest reason game pass is so popular, why people subscribe, and why it has been growing at the pace it has been. The third-party titles are a bonus on top of the xbox first party games. Even when you think you or someone you know has beaten all xbox first party games, there are many who haven't and are playing through some games for the first time even up to this month. There are plenty xbox first party titles on game pass I've never beaten, but intend to. Do not underestimate the popularity of having a growing catalog at no additional cost at your fingertips. It's why pc gaming has been popular for years, it's why steam is so popular, it's why digital has blown physical sales away. Game Pass has the vibe of Steam in its early days. You knew it would be big.
Ain't nobody reading all that marketing ass shill thesis. Even your TL;DR is an eyesore.
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
You need an eye doctor, if you are going to read that.
I don't have the patience of being marketed to passed off as "gamer opinion." If I wanted a marketing circle jerk, I would follow all the execs on social media (I don't) and beg them for pussy crumbs in the discords (I don't use discord).

At least you can get through his posts without needing a cup of coffee, 30 minutes of your time, and pom poms.
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
You're lucky if I post more than 2 sentences and I just spit facts but you can't handle it.

Supposedly I'm the worst you have to deal with here. Imagine if you had to deal with people like Darkmage, Senjutsu, Ozriel, Kagey and philballs on your side. You would break down and cry. Spineless rats.
Team blue did have thelastword thelastword that was just like them, then Team green whined him into a perm. Ironic.
 
Last edited:

PaintTinJr

Member
Network testing is obviously a thing. Having those users count in the rankings when you wouldn't even be able to interact with them is a weird thought
Not really, because unless you put them in a live server exactly as a normal user on the system you aren't actually stress testing the system before actual players join in the 100's of thousands - or more. You can have those players just drive via AI, this isn't me trying to downplay the sales of a successful game, but unless the numbers are official, you can't infer purchases/player counts as easily as just looking at the server player counts IMO, and that holds for all network games.
 

feynoob

Member

CNBC's David Faber appeared to throw some cold water on a Politico report from last Wednesday that the Federal Trade Commission is likely to file an antitrust lawsuit to block the $95/share Activision sale to Microsoft.

"I don't necessarily directional believe that story from Politico is correct from last week," Faber said on the business network. "I don't have any reporting that I would go out strong with, but this is a situation that continues to bear watching. And those who believe that there's an extraordinarily high likelihood that it's going to get blocked, let's give it a little more time."
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member

feynoob

Member

Activision Blizzard was added to Wedbush's Best Ideas List with the firm expecting the game maker's $69 billion sale to Microsoft "highly" likely to be completed within the next six months.

Microsoft is likely to make formal guarantees around the availability of Activision content, such as making "Call of Duty'' available on Sony's Playstation for the next decade, Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter wrote in a note.

The Wedbush recommendation comes after a Politico report last Wednesday that the FTC is likely to file an antitrust lawsuit to block the $95/share Activision deal. On Monday, Reuters reported that Microsoft is likely to soon offer the European Union concessions in order to dismiss objections to its Activision deal. Microsoft's plan would be a 10-year licensing deal with Sony.

Pachter highlighted that the combined Activision/Microsoft will still have just 10% or so of the combined worldwide video game market, behind Tencent and Sony.

"We think that regulatory challenges in the U.S., U.K., and E.U. are unlikely to materialize in a formal manner, and even less likely to succeed if they do," Pachter wrote.

If the Activision deal doesn't get done, Pachter expects the game maker's shares will eventually get towards his $95 price target due to a combination of "strong profit potential" and a high net cash balance
 

DForce

Member
"lol"



Microsoft's games sell also, my friend. But what is even the purpose of releasing premium (COD/God of War/Elden Ring) or freemium (Fortnite/Warzone/Destiny 2/Overwatch 2) games in the first place? To bring in money, right? Microsoft has simply found an alternate method to get its customers to pay them for the games they offer. Game Pass helps tremendously with that process by taking the pressure off any one game from Microsoft needing to make all the money it can make on its own solely through traditional up-front sales.

Game Pass is basically an Xbox first-party game live service subscription that delivers guaranteed day one first-party AAA games as its most anticipated seasonal or DLC content, and gives it to you at no additional cost. The monthly subscription fee is how you're paying for whatever new or existing content you consume. Or like a monthly patreon with over 25 million subscribers paying a minimum of $9.99/month or a maximum of 14.99/month to access the content. People think because they may not see the exact same headlines for every Microsoft first-party game, or a first-party title may not chart as high in NPD from one month to the next, it means Microsoft is not making any money off their games. That is incorrect. Game Pass, like Fortnite & COD Warzone, doesn't need to top NPD charts or whatever other best-selling lists out there because they bring in money, period. $2.9 billion on xbox consoles alone just in 2021 to be exact.

If people are newly subscribing to and/or staying subscribed to game pass to play Xbox first-party games (or even third-party games), then Microsoft doesn't need every person to buy their first-party games upfront, because the money they would have received is still coming, but in bigger portions, I believe, thanks to Game Pass. The thing that I feel some people still can't wrap their heads around today is that people pay for Xbox/PC Game Pass. The shit isn't free. We don't pay with sexual favors, we pay for Game Pass using real money. The sexual favors are how publishers agree to sell to Microsoft in the first place. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Dr Evil GIF


On a serious note, people paying for Xbox Game Pass (new and existing subscribers) is a large part of how Microsoft gets paid for all the first-party games they add to Game Pass, past and present. Some people don't like hearing this, but it's true. Many can't accept this because they think it doesn't square with their worldview of how first-party AAA games should be sold. People think "yea, but how many copies did it sell!?" The answer, in the case of Xbox Game Pass, may be that it really doesn't matter. People are subscribing to Game Pass at the pace they are yearly because of the existing and future Xbox first-party titles that are guaranteed on day one at an incredible price. They're the big attractions and why Game Pass is growing at the speed it is and maintaining subscribers. Yes, even older, already released first-party games. That there are plenty of 3rd party games and the occasional 3rd party AAA as well, is the icing on the top that further helps Microsoft pay for the first-party games they're putting into game pass because those too attract and maintain subscribers.

People gravely underestimate the power of game catalogs, especially one that keep growing at no additional cost with many of the biggest games a platform has to offer as Game Pass does. Huge digital game catalogs are a big reason PC gaming has been so popular for years, it's the reason digital has so strongly surpassed physical console sales in like no time at all, and it's why Steam is so damn popular today. I was there at the earliest days of Steam as an early tester. My Steam ID is literally 4 digits in the 1xxx range. Game Pass in many ways feels exactly like what Steam was in those early days -- back when CS 1.6 was the only damn thing on there. And even then you knew exactly what Steam had the potential to become. You knew steam would grow into a juggernaut that would feel essential for many reasons outside of whatever brought you to it because it just made too much damn sense. Xbox Game Pass has that exact same early Steam vibe to it. We haven't yet fully seen the fully formed version of what it will become, but 2023 will start making that picture much clearer, especially with major releases like Starfield. Xbox's first party games, present and future, are the steam equivalent of what counter-strike 1.6 meant for steam in those early days.

Some may have issues with anyone saying Microsoft is being paid for putting its first-party games in game pass day one because we aren't getting the type of data necessary to individually assign credit to specific games, or even to fully know which game is most responsible for keeping people on Game Pass. It is important data to know, true, which is why the people at Microsoft who need to know this actually do. The money is coming in regardless of which game/games are responsible. Game Pass represents a collective effort by many games, headlined by all of Xbox's first-party titles. We can make educated guesses, and likely turn out correct for the most significant releases, but it ultimately doesn't matter which is most responsible for bringing new subscribers and what's most responsible for retaining them. All that matters is that they are retained and the money is coming in. Outside of that..

Sport Who Cares GIF


In fact, Microsoft is making more money per individual who stays subscribed to game pass as compared to a single person who purchases God of War Ragnarok for $60 or $70, more than a person who bought Forza Horizon 5 or Halo Infinite Campaign for $60, and certainly more than anyone who will go on to buy Starfield and Redfall. A full purchase is a one-time deal. Game Pass is likely generating just over $300 million per month right now. And I highly suspect I'm actually lowballing that figure.

Game Pass just gives Microsoft another method of payment to collect money for its games over the course of a one-year time period, rather than attempting to get it all at once. I repeat, the business model is not too dissimilar in its objective from free-to-play games that also seek to collect money over the course of the year. Or like MMOs such as World of Warcraft or Elder Scrolls Online that operate in a similar fashion. It hasn't fully caught on yet that Game Pass, despite being a subscription games service, makes more sense to be viewed like free to play service title in terms of how its money is generated gradually. It's more like fortnite, genshin impact or candy crush in that respect. Only viewed that way will Game Pass begin to make a little more sense for some.

Microsoft isn't actually giving away its games for free like some people bizarrely suggest. They're surely getting far more for them now than at any point during the previous generation. Halo 5 before Game Pass launched did 5 million sold in 3 months. Game Pass right now is likely making more than twice that revenue in only 2 months, and significantly more per calendar/fiscal year.

Now consider that over 1 million gamers had already paid for Forza Horizon 5 in early access before it officially launched on Game Pass.


There were only 2 ways to get early access. The premium add-ons bundle for $49.99 for game pass users who wanted everything in the premium edition without having to buy the game, or by purchasing the premium edition that was sold for $99. For every one of those million early access players who had game pass you're looking at $170-$230 (if they had ultimate) for the year off one game pass customer who bought the premium add-on bundle.

Even if first party games sold a bit more copies without Game Pass existing, it would not be enough to beat the revenues that Game Pass is bringing in for Xbox currently. I don't know of a single xbox first-party game that brought in $2.9 billion in revenue for the year on the Xbox 360.

Halo 3 did $170 million on its first day and $300 million in its first week.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna21139328

I don't think anyone disagrees Halo 3 was a successful traditional game launch, right? Well, Game Pass each year is smashing those numbers. Game Pass does over $300 million per month. Microsoft makes more money with their first party games in game pass than they would without Game Pass. Microsoft found a different way to help generate enough money yearly to support its first party games. That method is game pass. It isn't the only means by which the Xbox business brings in money to fund their operations, but it's by far the most game-changing, and the one Microsoft has the strongest ability to dictate the return.

Xbox doesn't ever have to be the console sales leader with something like Game Pass. Without Game Pass, Xbox consoles need to sell a whole lot more units to better sell first party games to recoup investments made. Each game would need to put up much bigger numbers the old-fashioned way, something Xbox has already demonstrated it can do with a variety of games, but now there's no need to? Lots of games likely never got sequels because they didn't perform well enough on Xbox before Game Pass. If Quantum Break released today for game pass, there would be a sequel confirmed already.

The way I see it, Sony is opting to get all its money faster by demanding it upfront, which is the traditional way of doing it. Whereas Microsoft is comfortable with getting some of its money upfront for their first-party games, and is totally okay with getting the rest of their money later throughout the year. It's a distinctly fortnite in its nature or a psuedo free to play model, except not actually free-to-play because to enter the eco-system you must pay a subscription fee. That's what Game Pass is.

Forza Horizon 5 over 3 million players day one. People don't think this matters because they're like "haha players, not sales", but the people playing it on game pass (paying game pass customers) ARE the sales. And they pay per month for an entire year. Game Pass has not lost subscribers a single year since it has existed. It might one day, but that time clearly isn't now.
https://gamingbolt.com/forza-horizon-5-crosses-3-million-players-on-day-1


TLDR Version - Game Pass' revenue yearly = practically Xbox first party game revenue and should be considered as such along with actual traditional first party game sales because Xbox First Party games are the biggest reason game pass is so popular, why people subscribe, and why it has been growing at the pace it has been. The third-party titles are a bonus on top of the xbox first party games. Even when you think you or someone you know has beaten all xbox first party games, there are many who haven't and are playing through some games for the first time even up to this month. There are plenty xbox first party titles on game pass I've never beaten, but intend to. Do not underestimate the popularity of having a growing catalog at no additional cost at your fingertips. It's why pc gaming has been popular for years, it's why steam is so popular, it's why digital has blown physical sales away. Game Pass has the vibe of Steam in its early days. You knew it would be big.

There's a reason why Microsoft is not revealing profit numbers from Game Pass.
Halo Infinite sold poorly via retail and they were disappointed with the numbers it provided. Xbox community believes every game on Game Pass is successful and they believe this because Microsoft puts out player numbers instead of actual data that would make people believe it's actually "successful."

If they keep adding first-party titles to the subscription service, then they're going to require a lot of growth in the subscription count.
 

gothmog

Member
I don't have the patience of being marketed to passed off as "gamer opinion." If I wanted a marketing circle jerk, I would follow all the execs on social media (I don't) and beg them for pussy crumbs in the discords (I don't use discord).


At least you can get through his posts without needing a cup of coffee, 30 minutes of your time, and pom poms.
Amen. Long ass manifestos and those line by line reply takedowns are the worst. Keep your trolling short and sweet people!
 

Kiraly

Member
There's a reason why Microsoft is not revealing profit numbers from Game Pass.
So what's the reason they don't reveal profit numbers from Azure and Office? You seem to know everything about it so if you could answer this that would be great.
 

feynoob

Member
There's a reason why Microsoft is not revealing profit numbers from Game Pass.
Halo Infinite sold poorly via retail and they were disappointed with the numbers it provided. Xbox community believes every game on Game Pass is successful and they believe this because Microsoft puts out player numbers instead of actual data that would make people believe it's actually "successful."

If they keep adding first-party titles to the subscription service, then they're going to require a lot of growth in the subscription count.
Do people really believe their limit insight of this matter is true for them?
 

feynoob

Member
Last gen xbox used paid shills and got caught. Don't be surprised if they are doing the same this gen.
They are doing that now.
all you need to do, is check twitter. They have free loyal followers who preach their words nonstop.
 

feynoob

Member
Yeah I'm sure Xbox made Microsoft hide the numbers of every division when they're making 15 billion net income a quarter in highly competitive sectors. I refuse to believe anyone is actually stupid enough to believe this.
The reality is that Satya changed how Microsoft operates. It's why their numbers are lumped together.

They are focusing on investors. Meaning only focus would be big sectors of the brand.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Yeah I'm sure Xbox made Microsoft hide the numbers of every division when they're making 15 billion net income a quarter in highly competitive sectors. I refuse to believe anyone is actually stupid enough to believe this.
See, this is where you go off the deep end. Investors don't like to see loses, not everything they produce is profitable. Thus, you have consistency across the brands. This is to serve investors, not the public.
 

Swift_Star

Banned
So from what is being said it seems MS might not make A/B games exclusive after all as some people were expecting…
Either way, the deal definitely is not happening without concessions.
 

DForce

Member
So what's the reason they don't reveal profit numbers from Azure and Office? You seem to know everything about it so if you could answer this that would be great.

Do people really believe their limit insight of this matter is true for them?

There's a reason why many publishers refuse to do it and that's because it wouldn't be as profitable.

But of course, you get the people who are convinced Sony would make a lot of money if they add their games day one on PS+.

People need to stop kidding themselves. There's a reason why Phil refused to answer the question in regards to the latest Game Pass numbers. There's also a reason why they're not revealing hardware sales numbers. BUT, they'll come out and say Xbox has beaten PlayStation in 3 quarters.

We know Office is successful because it's a widely used Office product around the world and there's nothing to dispute. It's not a gamble like Game Pass. We know they've been giving out cheap subscriptions for years now to increase the user base. We know they've given out 1 dollar subscriptions a week before a major game has launched multiple times.

We have a lot more info as to why they're not revealing actual numbers other than what appears to sound good to investors and to casual consumers. It's by design and it's easy to read between the lines, but many people just refuse to see it.
 

feynoob

Member
So from what is being said it seems MS might not make A/B games exclusive after all as some people were expecting…
Either way, the deal definitely is not happening without concessions.
That was going to be the case.
Popular titles stays on PS, while small titles becomes exclusive (spyro, crash).

Emerging of the new markets complicated this deal. That is the issue at the moment.
There is no concessions on the table for those 2 markets so far(cloud and sub service).
We only have COD contract on the table
 

feynoob

Member
There's a reason why many publishers refuse to do it and that's because it wouldn't be as profitable.
Multiplatform publishers were going to be successful without gamepass (more audience = more sales).
If your game can sell 5m total on all these platforms, gamepass isn't needed for them.
But of course, you get the people who are convinced Sony would make a lot of money if they add their games day one on PS+.
Long term yes, but not short term.
GOW made 375m by selling 5.5m copies on November. That is alot of money. More than what gamepass makes a month.
Sony would lose short term money here, which matters for them alot.

People don't see that.


People need to stop kidding themselves. There's a reason why Phil refused to answer the question in regards to the latest Game Pass numbers. There's also a reason why they're not revealing hardware sales numbers. BUT, they'll come out and say Xbox has beaten PlayStation in 3 quarters.
They reveal that every year around January. Wait for that period.
Last numbers were 25m in January this year.
As for consoles sales, MS needs to share them at some point.

We know Office is successful because it's a widely used Office product around the world and there's nothing to dispute. It's not a gamble like Game Pass. We know they've been giving out cheap subscriptions for years now to increase the user base. We know they've given out 1 dollar subscriptions a week before a major game has launched multiple times.
The cheap entry you are talking is only for new players, or those who didn't use the service for a certain period of time.
Every company does that, in order to reach more people.
Once the service hits a ceiling, then no use for them anymore.


We have a lot more info as to why they're not revealing actual numbers other than what appears to sound good to investors and to casual consumers. It's by design and it's easy to read between the lines, but many people just refuse to see it.
Unless you are investor, you wont any news from it.
It makes sense, since people are only interested in money making products, that makes alot of money.

If you show everything, it can affect your stock numbers.
 

DForce

Member
Multiplatform publishers were going to be successful without gamepass (more audience = more sales).
If your game can sell 5m total on all these platforms, gamepass isn't needed for them.
That's not the point. The point is that people believe games would be more successful if they were released on a subscription service.

Long term yes, but not short term.
GOW made 375m by selling 5.5m copies on November. That is alot of money. More than what gamepass makes a month.
Sony would lose short term money here, which matters for them alot.

People don't see that.
There's currently no proof that it would be successful in the long term. You're losing billions to gain and maintain subscribers. There's no evidence they will make the money back for sure.

They reveal that every year around January. Wait for that period.
Last numbers were 25m in January this year.
As for consoles sales, MS needs to share them at some point.

Yes, we know when they last revealed the numbers and we also know why they haven't released an update: They expected bigger numbers and it didn't meet their expectations.

The cheap entry you are talking is only for new players, or those who didn't use the service for a certain period of time.
Every company does that, in order to reach more people.
Once the service hits a ceiling, then no use for them anymore.
I used the cheap entry multiple times years ago and I wasn't a new member.

The point still remains, it's to bring in new customers or even remaining ones.

Unless you are investor, you wont any news from it.
It makes sense, since people are only interested in money making products, that makes alot of money.

If you show everything, it can affect your stock numbers.
And it goes back to my point.

He was boasting about Game Pass success when it's clearly not as impressive as he's making it out to be.

I'm not knocking the service. It's a great deal for gamers, but to brag about the success when we have a good idea of what's going on is just funny.
 

Three

Member
The multiple mentions of Sony specifically, 57 times I believe, more so than consumers shows their primary concern is the current market leader. It was not my bias that had them mention Sony that many times. It was not my bias that had an EU regulator talking about keeping CoD on 'his PlayStation'. It was not my bias that tried to define Nintendo as a non console gaming competitor. We want to believe this is a totally fair and impartial process but the evidence isn't looking that way currently.
Keep believing your crazy conspiracies even though the CMA have directly addressed this talking point from MS you're trying to repeat.
I think that ARM who has a multitude of patents on chip design could actually be seen as a real input to a chip design that should not be in the hands of a single competing chip company. Activision does not provide a CoD as an input to video game development. The entire premise is absurd but again being worried about console prices going up because of MS acquisitions is equally absurd.
ARM has valuable IPs that are not 'essential' to creating a processor but are ubiquitous and other companies rely on heavily for business. Competition in consoles, subscriptions and cloud have input too. It's what input forclosure is in vertical mergers. Activision IPs are considered input to consoles, subscriptions and cloud gaming. That's what the competition authorities are investigating and pushing back on. For the fifth time nobody is saying the impact is the same as ARM or how essential the input is, that's for regulators to decide, but you're being obtuse if you don't see that the principle argument is the same. You said Nvidia has a monopoly, it doesn't have a monopoly in any market, not even video cards, why didn't you address that bullshit you were spreading? ARM is a CPU competitor which Nvidia aren't competing in. You don't need a monopoly to lower competition in an acquisition.
MS is clearly not a threat to competition in video games and anyone who is being honest knows this.
And yet you have not provided well thought out reasons. That may very well be the case but why do you think they are facing issues with regulators to be offering further/extended concessions? Do you still believe that regulators don't see COD as valuable input for competition in those areas?
To argue that Nvidia having sole control over ARMs patents not putting them in a monopolistic anti-competitve position for chip design is just as unbelievable as MS owning Activision keeps PlayStation from competing in video games. Chip patents are a real input to chip design, a game is not an input to game creation. The whole argument is not worth the discussion.
It wouldn't have put them in any more of a monopoly than ARM/softbank had itself. It's not a monopoly and Intel and AMD exist as CPU competitors. The lessening of competition was not due to any monopoly. Why don't you try reading where they had concerns. It was because nvidia could restrict access to Arm's "neutral" IPs which competitors relied on. It's the same principle.
You can't because you'd look as ridiculous as Sony trying to convince regulators they are looking out for consumers and not their own business interests and market position. CoD is not an input to Sony's ability to make games. It's totally OK to acknowledge their arguments are weak you can still be a fan.

Since you like to claim the Nvidia ARM acquisition is so similar you can compare and contrast the companies that spoke out against that deal vs this one. It was obvious there were anti-trust issues with the ARM deal that are clearly absent here but that would require an honest take and has been lacking in your comparison. Nintendo is one of the few competitors in this space. Surely you can provide a comment from them indicating how this transaction hurts their business?

I'm only saying the principle argument is the same. Unsurprisingly Intel and AMD didn't speak out about the ARM deal either. Guess why? because it doesn't really hurt them. It doesn't hurt Nintendo because Nintendo don't rely on that game input either. It's the console, subscriptions and cloud gaming competitors who would be who spoke out.
Reality is what it is based on. Feelings are the only way someone can conclude that MS owning Activision could cause game and console prices to rise. Feelings are making you think Nvidia /ARM is similar to MS/ Activision in any meaningful way.
Feelings are the only way you can conclude they won't rise if competitors ability to compete in consoles, subscriptions and cloud is gone or they foreclose. Imagine MS pulling off that XLG price doubling if you had no alternative products to play your favourite games on. Who would you run to then?

The reality is that out of the regulatory bodies that have actually reached a final conclusion on this acquisition NONE have come out opposing the deal. I suppose they can also tell there is nothing illegal here. My feelings are quite powerful indeed.
Some significant regulators have come out and suggested that those Activision IPs are valuable input which access could be restricted to but you are calling them bias for obvious reasons even when they are on the consumers side.
 
Last edited:
Keep believe your crazy conspiracies even though the CMA have directly addressed this talking point from MS you're trying to repeat.
Not a conspiracy theory when it has actually happened my man. I didn't imagine all the points I made earlier. Just because it doesn't fit your narrative doesn't mean it isn't true.
ArCoD is considered input to consoles, subscriptions and cloud gaming.
Then you should be happy MS will be adding the CoD input on the Switch. It would be doomed without this acquisition. CoD isn't currently available day and date on subscriptions or cloud right now and would not be with out this acquisition. It is ridiculous to conclude something is an input to a service that never had that input in the first place. The input theory is nonsense.
 

feynoob

Member
That's not the point. The point is that people believe games would be more successful if they were released on a subscription service.
Consumer bias. Only looking after themselves.
Never trust them on business side.
We might bring some business data, but we are all in the dark on the actual business spending and profits.


There's currently no proof that it would be successful in the long term. You're losing billions to gain and maintain subscribers. There's no evidence they will make the money back for sure.
You lose money early, but once you have sizable userbase, it can bring alit of profits. And the good thing about that, is that money is guaranteed, and not a risky money.

For example, if gamepass can generate $3.5b - $4b yearly at 35m-40m userbase, with spending cost of 2.5b to maintain it, the service can bring $1b to $1.5b profit.

GOW makes 375m at 5.5m copy sold. That money would generate 2.6x-4x of gow sales. You add what the game makes from copy sold, and you are guaranteed huge profits.

Gamepass isn't there yet, but it will be in the future. MS is looking after that revenue.


Yes, we know when they last revealed the numbers and we also know why they haven't released an update: They expected bigger numbers and it didn't meet their expectations.
They expected growth, but console sales and 1st party made them not reach that target.
2023 might change, considering the huge catalog which gamepass has.


I used the cheap entry multiple times years ago and I wasn't a new member.

The point still remains, it's to bring in new customers or even remaining ones.
If you haven't used gamepass for 3-4 months, you can use the 1$ promotional. But after that month, you will pay the regular cost money. Not alot of people abuse that, as that means canceling gamepass for 3-4 month.


And it goes back to my point.

He was boasting about Game Pass success when it's clearly not as impressive as he's making it out to be.

I'm not knocking the service. It's a great deal for gamers, but to brag about the success when we have a good idea of what's going on is just funny.
Fanboys will use anything to score a win.
Gamepass is good, but that is about it. If it doesn't have the games you want, it's not worth it. Just like any other subscription service.

And boosting for profits is only for extreme fanboys.

Discussing business side is fine. But using it as a win is mental deficit. That person would need to touch some grass.
 

SenjutsuSage

Halo TV Series Promoter - Live from: Reach
https://seekingalpha.com/news/39130...ico-item-on-potential-ftc-microsoft-challenge

Activision (NASDAQ:ATVI) quickly rose 1% after CNBC's David Faber appeared to throw some cold water on a Politico report from last Wednesday that the Federal Trade Commission is likely to file an antitrust lawsuit to block the $95/share Activision sale to Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT).

"I don't necessarily directional believe that story from Politico is correct from last week," Faber said on the business network. "I don't have any reporting that I would go out strong with, but this is a situation that continues to bear watching. And those who believe that there's an extraordinarily high likelihood that it's going to get blocked, let's give it a little more time."

Faber's comment comes after Wedbush added Activision to its Best Ideas List, saying it's highly likely that the deal with Microsoft is completed within the next six months.


Same person who debunked the Amazon buying EA story.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/cnbc-mocks-report-sweden-amazon-160402328.html

CNBC has debunked a report from Good Luck, Have Fun — a Swedish gaming and e-sports outlet and content partner of USA Today’s For The Win — that Amazon was preparing an offer to acquire Electronic Arts.

CNBC’s Joe Kerner and David Faber indeed had fun with it.

While speculation has surged through the industry in recent weeks about a potential buyout for the video game company, particularly after Microsoft purchased Activision Blizzard for $69 billion earlier this summer, there was more smoke than actual fire in this instance. Still, the rumor was powerful enough to cause EA’s stock to climb 4% in pre-market trading, per CNBC.

“The stock was trading up on a Swedish media report, a Swedish meatball report, that said Amazon.com was set to announce an offer to buy the video game company,” Kerner said Friday on “Squawk Box.”


“I review Good Luck, Have Fun — the very well-known Swedish gaming report, every morning. I’m always looking for the latest take-over stories there. That’s my go-to,” Faber said sarcastically.

Faber’s sources relayed that the original report was false and For The Win has added an Editor’s Note to its report noting that it “violated our editorial standards regarding the use of unnamed and unvetted sources.”

“I have talked to some people who would actually know if there was something going on,” Faber said on “Squawk Box.” “They say there is nothing going on.”
 

Topher

Gold Member
Last edited:
Top Bottom