It's pretty funny MS has to belittle their own purchase to get the agreement.
Now for once I kinda agree with MS, they make zero must have game, at least for me.
Microsoft doesn’t make Call of Duty
It's pretty funny MS has to belittle their own purchase to get the agreement.
Now for once I kinda agree with MS, they make zero must have game, at least for me.
No. It’s a direct response to a comment from Sony that COD is essential to PlayStation.
They’ve come back to say that it isn’t essential, and that the game type itself isn’t unique.
What part of that is incorrect?
Microsoft doesn’t make Call of Duty
No. It’s a direct response to a missive from Sony that COD is essential to PlayStation.
They’ve come back to say that it isn’t essential, and that the game type itself isn’t unique.
What part of that is incorrect? They aren’t trying to downplay the value or quality of the franchise.
It's a waste of time, they already know this, they are just having some fun with the quote. Even if it comes at the cost of making them appear to have a reading comprehension problem.
You may as well be saying as long as Sony is still funcationing anything goes. Even if they become a shell of their former self.
That's literally what regulators should be looking at in that context. If they start to make decisions based on preserving a certain pecking order, they've gone a bit too far. It's not their job to help Sony preserve its "former self".
Did he say that? He said belittle their purchase. They are buying CoD.Microsoft doesn’t make Call of Duty
Regulators aren't thinking as long as it doesn't litterally put them out of business it's fine. That's not how it works
They should be looking at the health of competition in the market, which a lot of times does come down to the solvency of weaker participants. They shouldn't be worrying about one party potentially losing 5 or 6% of their bottom line, or a small potential shift in brand popularity.
^ In the console market, MS is the smallest fish in the pond.
A pond with two fish
But the other fish is more than twice as big. And there's that other big fish too that just swims at a different depth most of the time.
Lol they're not more than twice as big.
That other fish may as well be in a different pond
In terms of market share, sure.
PS5 is what? 20 million? Xbox is at 15 or something?
Well, I think last-gen performance will be considered as well. LOL
The game type is not unique and nor is it essential in the same way that youtube is not unique or essential to windows phone/store yet MS argue the same thing about youtube to the EU commission as a complaint in a Google antitrust case. It's not about being unique or essential. It's about whether blocking something is good for competition or not. Both sides would downplay the other company's side.No. It’s a direct response to a missive from Sony that COD is essential to PlayStation.
They’ve come back to say that it isn’t essential, and that the game type itself isn’t unique.
What part of that is incorrect? They aren’t trying to downplay the value or quality of the franchise.
You got “lmao, MS said COD doesn’t have value” from reading between the lines?
If only you’d have bothered to read the first paragraph of the quote in the OP. this is becoming quite embarrassing.
Well, we can't be totally sure, but do you remember the huge 360 barren phase of new first party IP software when PS3 was firing on all cylinders? And then just before the Kinect deal - to acquire the 3D camera technology - rumours started about Microsoft selling off Xbox - presumably because the 10 year plan had expired and they weren't close to dominating as was their stated objective of Direct-X-box - and they weren't seeing any ROI, then after the Kinect project started, Xbox was once again awash with money,, the only caveat being that all spending needed to have a Kinect project success objective - hence why the X1 had a mandate of Kinect and TVTVTV until somewhere around 5years after kinect was first acquired for the 360. Coincidence? I doubt it.How was Xbox One paid for by Kinect?
Any license fees paid to Primesense would have been easily paid for by just one of the Kinect Sports titles. I’m not sure you fully understand how well Kinect hardware and software sold in the 360 era.
Let's be honest, if project Xbox ever returns the original investments made, and becomes a big net win, we will all hear about it. Surely the bundling of results for all these years to make xbox ROI opaque to people as observant as neogaf tells its own story, no?Again, this makes no sense. These acquired studios and publishers aren’t put against Gamepass. They make games that are still profitable at retail only, even if you exclude subs. Their first party titles like Halo, Forza et al still sell millions of units across console and PC.
Microsoft also doesn’t need to recover the cost of these acquisitions. They’re exchanging cash for an asset. It’s like saying you need to recover the cash you’ve spent buying a house or you’re negative on networth. How does that make sense? MS bought Zenimax for $7bn. Until they write down the value of the asset, it’s $7bn value on their balance sheet.
Reading between the lines? There's no lines to read between lol, you're just making up whatever you want it to say lol. The statement is as clear as can be. They're saying Sony doesn't need Activision games to be able to compete with Xbox. Do you disagree with that?Reading between the lines is tough huh?.
So you think Sony wouldn't be able to compete with Xbox if they made CoD exclusive?If this was remotely true (and it isn't) MS wouldn't be trying to spend $70B trying to buy this company.
It's a completely inane statement. There is no single FPS franchise as prolific and successful as COD. Even if you individually don't like it, it's irrelevant. No one has been able to replicate COD's success and your clear evidence for this is the PS360 gen which was fucking jam-packed with failed attempts by completing publishers: Battlefield, Socom, MAG, Medal of Honor, Resistance, Bodycount, Section 8, Operation Flashpoint, Brink, Homefront, Killzone etc etc.
COD is to FPSs what GTA is to open-world city sandbox games. This is why at the investment-cost level of games today, only mega-franchises like these are the last remaining survivors.
Well, we can't be totally sure, but do you remember the huge 360 barren phase of new first party IP software when PS3 was firing on all cylinders? And then just before the Kinect deal - to acquire the 3D camera technology - rumours started about Microsoft selling off Xbox - presumably because the 10 year plan had expired and they weren't close to dominating as was their stated objective of Direct-X-box - and they weren't seeing any ROI, then after the Kinect project started, Xbox was once again awash with money,, the only caveat being that all spending needed to have a Kinect project success objective - hence why the X1 had a mandate of Kinect and TVTVTV until somewhere around 5years after kinect was first acquired for the 360. Coincidence? I doubt it.
It seems like project kinect was paying the bills and the last five years of funding was allowed to salvage ROI allowing it to focus on a kinect free console, again - probably why the X1X release date was way behind the Pro - and money was then seemingly available again to fund new kinect free IPs - like Sunset - but as you can't just turn it on and off for SW development there was a large barren period of - wait until next year - for new IP which was how long?
Let's be honest, if project Xbox ever returns the original investments made, and becomes a big net win, we will all hear about it. Surely the bundling of results for all these years to make xbox ROI opaque to people as observant as neogaf tells its own story, no?
Yes. Reading between the lines.Reading between the lines?
Lol. That's not the definition of "reading between the lines".There's no lines to read between lol
No., you're just making up whatever you want it to say lol.
Mega lol.The statement is as clear as can be.
That's is not what they "say" between the lines.They're saying Sony doesn't need Activision games to survive.
What is explicitly being said is meaningless because the important thing is the meaning (what is being said ) between the lines.Do you disagree with that?
Sony: the world is ending if Microsoft buys Activision because nobody else is as good as them
Microsoft: Activision is complete trash with nothing worth owning, who would even want to buy them? (please let us buy them)
NeoGAFlawyers.gif
What's that got to do with anything being discussed or anything in the OP?So you think Sony wouldn't be able to compete with Xbox if they made CoD exclusive?
So from your fictional post am I to conclude that you don't believe Xbox answers to microsoft shareholders at least once every ten years in regards of ROI? Or am I to conclude that you've seen figures that state they made an ROI on project Xbox?
I am in awe of your ability to make up the past. You could have gone with “do you remember when the Teletubbies made the Ouya the best selling console in the UK?” and you’d be just as accurate as what you typed above.
Doesn't contradict anything. Some Activision Blizzard games sell very well but they are a tiny percent of total gaming (or console) sales or revenue. All Activision Blizzard King games have many similar competitors, many of which perform very well too, plus games of other types are super successful too. And doesn't say anything about making AB games exclusive.https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/mi...g-the-company-doesnt-make-any-must-have-games
This contradicts the theory that Microsoft will be open with Activisions games on other platforms outside of contracts. If Microsoft believes that, or is saying they believe Activision doesn't make "must have" games, that excuse would only really make sense if they wanted to try and address the concern that several of those games may become console exclusive. I can't see any other case where they would use wording that specific.
I assume that is regulators biggest concern, and Microsoft is trying to downplay them with this statement.
To be fair to Microsoft, on the Activision end at least, COD would be the only point of concern regarding this issue these days. So if they can get around regulators concern for this one series, they can probably get this deal done by August or September without having to convince regulators about Blizzards stuff. That could be advantageous given the rather dry holiday lineup this year.
None of them lie, both are correct. CoD is super successful and even with a lot of money other publishers can't make an IP that successful. But the CoD money is only a tiny portion of the total game revenues or sales generated in platforms like PS, where >90% of their players don't buy CoD at least every year, and there are relatively similar games/IPs that are very successful, even if not that successful. And the market share is spread among many companies. All this, combined with the yearly growth that PS is experiencing since many years ago leads to think Sony wouldn't miss CoD if in the future it would go exclusive.It's funny that Microsoft and Sony are kinda saying the opposite things.
Sony didn't say the deal is concerning. But they are right when said that their competitors never have been able to make a shooter more successful than CoD. Even considering that, it's true that CoD or the other AB games aren't unique, there are many other similar games that are very successful, even if not as successful as CoD.Sony: No one can make something like COD, the deal is concerning!
Microsoft: This publisher has never made anything unique or must have and we want to spend 70 billions on it for...reasons
MS won't have any restrictions to make the acquisition because they are far from being market leaders and even more of having something close to a monopoly. So there is no reason to stop it or to do anything.MS just wants this deal to get done with as little restrictions as possible for any future decisions. It is all legal manoeuvring. MS may still keep it on PS, but want that to be wholly at MS’ discretion. I think it goes through with no restrictions aside from honouring existing contracts. Shame to see such a badly managed company as ABK get such an easy out but it is what it is.
Its actually literally what's said in the OP.What's that got to do with anything being discussed or anything in the OP?
Don't be dense or make such silly strawman arguments.
There are no antitrust concerns and selling Crash and Spyro wouldn't alleviate them if there were.You watch, some government will have Microsoft sell off some insignificant parts of Activision to satisfy antitrust concerns.
It would be wild if Sony bought the rights to Crash Bandicoot and Spyro that way.
You watch, some government will have Microsoft sell off some insignificant parts of Activision to satisfy antitrust concerns.
It would be wild if Sony bought the rights to Crash Bandicoot and Spyro that way.
There are no antitrust concerns and selling Crash and Spyro wouldn't alleviate them if there were.
Sorry. I missed the sarcasm on the post. It's hard to tell nowadays.That was the point of my post. I was picking at governments for doing trivial crap for show.
There are no antitrust concerns and selling Crash and Spyro wouldn't alleviate them if there were.
They were a significant percentage for a long time, and wouldn't be surprised f they still are now even if less so, especially for non-GaaS releases.but they are a tiny percent of total (or console) sales or revenue.
PS5 is what? 20 million? Xbox is at 15 or something?
Revenue will pretty much be neck to neck after the ActBliz deal. If COD were to go exclusive how much would that impact Sony's bottom line? Could it put them in 3rd place? I'd say it could
They're not a little fish anymore.
So from your fictional post am I to conclude that you don't believe Xbox answers to microsoft shareholders at least once every ten years in regards of ROI? Or am I to conclude that you've seen figures that state they made an ROI on project Xbox?
Do you have any explanation why the Xbox one had two major issues at launch, but only fixed the DRM one? Why did they have to wait years before decoupling kinect from the product - that was hated by ardent gamers - even xbox fans - and they didn't want to pay £100 extra for kinect for a weaker machine. How do you explain that decision if my recall is fiction?
It is not the regulators job to ensure that Sony maintains its lead in the console space. It's their job to see that this transaction doesn't make Xbox' competitors businesses untenable. Nintendo has already demonstrated that's not the case.
Wut?Microsoft don't make any "must have" operating systems or productivity tools, which is very true,
I suspect Microsoft have lost more money directly on the Xbox/Kinnect/TVTVTV/gamepass project since they joined the industry than combined the losses of the last 20 companies that have gone bust or left the industry in the last 30years
even adjusting for inflation.
No other company that has ever joined the console market could have sustained the losses Microsoft had with the original xbox,
the last place company
So why are you lying and pretending only Microsoft has been in the process of consolidating the industry, a complaint that had been happening since before they even brought Minecraft for years and years?keep throwing marbles for as long as it takes until they own all the marbles.
In the PS3 generation it would have potentially killed PlayStation given the yearly revenue sums involved. Sony skated very close to going out of business IIRC because of Xbox being able to blindly spend on original Xbox and the launch years of the 360,
Nintendo just isn't a good case to use. CODs significant to Sony the same way Pokemon is significant to Nintendo. Take away COD it affects one but not the other. Take away Pokemon and it's vice versa.
Hope we're still on for dinner tonight tho honey
"PrimeSense was best known for licensing the hardware design and chip used in Microsoft's Kinect motion-sensing system for the Xbox 360 in 2010"Xbox One launches end of November 2013.
Sold without Kinect and with a substantial price cut by early June 2014.
Do NOT contradict me!
And NO dinner is not on. While you were out running around in your Kinky Catsuit, your Boi, Lognor caught a ban for console warring again. Maybe you should take care of your responsibilities and teach him the evils of console warring before you dare to contradict me or worry about eating.
Platform?i did buy the crash and spyro remakes
wanted also to buy sekiro, but it never goes on sale or if it does is never enough
Do NOT contradict me!
And NO dinner is not on. While you were out running around in your Kinky Catsuit, your Boi, Lognor caught a ban for console warring again. Maybe you should take care of your responsibilities and teach him the evils of console warring before you dare to contradict me or worry about eating.
"PrimeSense was best known for licensing the hardware design and chip used in Microsoft's Kinect motion-sensing system for the Xbox 360 in 2010"
Project would have started year before licensing so:
2014-2009 = 5
Re-read, you are having a strawman, I was copying their technically correct, yet false statement, and you have agreed with my point about in reality their OS is a must haveWut?
Half the planet would fall apart if Windows vanished overnight.
It is in context of bill claiming they would dominate gaming and be firstYou must be on something strong since Kinect/TVTVTV/Gamepass was taking out of wack with MS saying games would be E3 and internet boards not listening while the average consumer didn't care and brought the console in mass at launch with Microsoft selling 1 million in 24 hours, and they released the box one with the intention of not losing money on the hardware.
You also have no evidence they are losing money on gamepass.
...
There's the fanboyism.
If you actually read my comments you would see I defined the difference of them continuing yet never show a ROI - working profit that you mentioned "being profitable" isn't covering the investment.So why are you lying and pretending only Microsoft has been in the process of consolidating the industry, a complaint that had been happening since before they even brought Minecraft for years and years?
My original timeline was ~5years from the start of project kinect - which started with the 360. feel free to re-read.You referenced them not correcting the two major problems they had at launch (only fixing one, but leaving kinect bundled for years). Nice try at redirection though.
They continued to sell Kinect both in bundles and separately for years. I seriously doubt licensing contracts for Kinect had much to do with it at all.