Tiago Rodrigues
Member
With these late-year discounts and everything yeah…i feel next year they will increase prices for hardware and possibly gamepass as well. At least in Europe.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Phil Spencer hints at future Xbox Game Pass or console price increases at WSJ Live
- Thread starter remember_spinal
- Start date
- Business
Chronicle
Member
You think Ms can throw around 70 billion willy nilly? Made it back already? Lol yeah right!
Have a look at MS financial reports on their net income each quarter, it’s like $20 billion - so yeah they have almost made it back
Chronicle
Member
You make it seem so simple. If they had that money why not just buy nintendo and Sony and be done with it. Nonsense.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Chronicle
Member
Everything is for sale. Even Activision
Roni
Gold Member
As long as more people are being born than dying.What on earth are you on about? Everything increases in price at some point, you're hardly Nostradamus
Last edited:
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
That's because Activision openly said they wanted to be bought.
Neither Nintendo or Sony said that.
God, some people on this forum.
nocsi
Member
You didn't know MS treats billions in the same way Elon Musk does? MS is also going through rounds of layoffs right now
cireza
Member
I don't see why you cannot buy a company that is publicly traded. It's not up to the company to decide anymore. Best thing they can do is try to prevent a situation where they would lose deciding majority, but that's it.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
It depends on if the company is Ltd.
If it isn't, or if the company itself owns more than 50 percent of the company, then they decide for them selves if they want or not.
If the company doesn't own them selves, then who decides the price?
You can't be forced to be bought against your will.
I've never heard anything this delusional and I'm surprised seeing two saying it in here.
Last edited:
If a company is publicly traded then it can be bought or at least attempted to be bought if regulators have no issues with it. The board decides and shareholders have a say. And you can be bought against your will. It's known as a hostile takeover.
Last edited:
cireza
Member
This is called an "hostile OPA" in French (don't know the English term), but basically, the company wanting to buy announces it and offers to buy all available shares (the ones that are not secured privately by key people of the company, which means from investors outside of the company) at a significantly higher price than the current market value. Outside investors can be really tempted to sell their shares and turn a nice profit. The buying company can then acquire a majority stake, depending on how the company has secured its shares or not. This is common knowledge, and was very close to happening in the last few years to Ubisoft.
Last edited:
sainraja
Member
The article that I remember reading wasn't too specific on what they will be raising prices on, just that they will and the article quoted Phil saying something along the lines of next year and I don't know if anyone is seriously thinking people will jump simply due to price — that didn't happen with game prices anytime it went up (PS2 ($49.99 → PS3/X360 $59.99). If people switched during that gen, it was for other reasons.
--
And everyone that keeps associating the $70 price increase simply to Sony should also look at the Microsoft store on Xbox and see how much is being charged for The Callisto Protocol, the Xbox Series X version. There is also something weird happening on the Xbox side given smart delivery is a thing.....you can buy TCP for Xbox One for $59.99. If you select the XSX version, the price is $69.99. Don't you just get the XSX version via smart delivery? So what is going on here? I mean, better to just buy the XONE version and get the XSX version for free? I will have to check this on console later but I just came across this when looking at the game and thought it strange (I know other publishers also charge $69.99 on both platforms).
If you want to see this scenario for yourself and the different pricing, you will have to navigate to the pages via TCP's website.
Last edited:
MadPanda
Banned
In addition to what others have said, look how heavily they're scrutinized for ABK which is a third party publisher in the market and imagine what would happen if they wanted to buy one of their two major competitors. You can be 100% be sure it would be blocked.
What's going on is that not every game supports smart delivery exactly because of the difference in prices. Call of Duty being the prime example. You also have FIFA and probably some others which I'm not aware of.
sainraja
Member
Ah, I see. I thought "Smart Delivery" was across the board no matter what, at-least that's how most people talk about it.
Last edited:
DarkMage619
$MSFT
It comes down to the developer if they want to support Smart Delivery. MS has it for their titles but they can't force 3rd parties to use it.
sainraja
Member
So if someone gets the Xbox One version for $59.99 and later wants the XSX version, how do they upgrade?
I'll check out the game on my XSX later today but this is a bit surprising.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
sainraja
Member
So that is for games that support 'smart delivery', are you saying it is the same situation for a game that does not? So my original statement made sense, someone could purchase the XONE version for $59.99 and get the XSX version? But DarkMage pointed out that not all games are supported via smart delivery; my question is, how does that work, for the ones that don't support, where MS can't enforce it, how do those people upgrade?
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
If the game supports smart delivery, your console will automatically download the right version if you're buying digital.
If you insert an XBO disc, you get a prompt to upgrade to the Series version (it will download the entire Series version), you can choose to ignore that and play the XBO version via disc.
If a game doesn't support smart delivery, if you insert the XBO disc, it just runs the XBO version. Smart delivery doesn't prompt anything.
Last edited:
sainraja
Member
Speaking of buying digitally. Look at the TCP example I posted about above. I am getting everyone chiming in here (I know you are trying to help) but try to see what I am getting at.
EDIT
Nevermind, I think, you get it lol. The prompt to upgrade, does it have a cost? Otherwise, why are they even offering the game at two different prices?
EDIT
I get how smart delivery works. I am asking about how it is going to work for The Callisto Protocol. If the game does not support it, how does that work in terms of upgrading.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Yeah, so Calisto is one of those games that does *NOT* support smart delivery, so you will not be able to skirt that $10 to get the Series version by buying the XBO version.
If you buy the XBO version on Series, you get the XBO version in BC mode. Not the Series version.
And there may be an upgrade path for $10 to upgrade from XBO version to SX, but that is something at the developers discretion. MS can't force that. (See, Persona 5 royal example where Atlus specifically said you gotta buy the PS5 version again, there is no upgrade path, even though it is 100% identical in terms of content).
Last edited:
sainraja
Member
Yeah, I am seeing that now. I didn't know this was also a problem with the Xbox Series S|X consoles or perhaps I forgot that it was. If there was an upgrade path, then it'd be $10 dollars or there just isn't and you have buy the game again or it supports smart delivery and you don't have to worry about it, it sounds like.
Last edited:
Nautilus
Banned
In general, or JUST in gaming? There is a big difference.No company looks at a division, sees it bleeding money, and says "Oh its fine, that other division makes it up for it".
Especially considering that that division that makes money may start bleeding someday.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
It's comes down to the developer if there is a fee. MS doesn't charge a fee for game updates and the system is 'smart' enough to see which version of the game to download based on the system you are playing on.
ReBurn
Gold Member
Actually lots of companies do that. Amazon.com loses money on Prime shipping but those losses enable the higher sales volumes that ultimately make the company more money. That company couldn't make the money it makes without losing money on shipping.
sainraja
Member
Well, yeah, it comes down to the developer and in the case of TCP, that is the case [there is a fee or no upgrade option]; otherwise it would just support 'smart delivery' — I covered that in my conclusion, which you have quoted.
Last edited:
Nautilus
Banned
So the money came from other divisions, not gaming alone. So MS didn't make the money back, that's not how it works.
Yes, companies reinvest the money they earn in other areas. But for an investment to make sense, to be successful, the investment itself needs to cover its own costs in order to be sustainable, and to justify the purchase/investment to your investors. You can't just say "Ah, we both this expensive thing that we though would pay itself in 5 years but didn't. But hey, don't worry, we are making money elsewhere".
70 billion is an insane ammount of money even for MS. It will take more than a decade to make up for that. You guys take these things too lightly.
ReBurn
Gold Member
That's not true. Not everything a company invests in has to be sustainable and successful on its own to be worth it. Not every individual purchase or investment is something that has to be recouped somehow. Amazon Prime shipping is probably never going to be profitable on its own, but Amazon's total revenue can't be what it is without free shipping for Prime members. Sometimes companies never stop losing money on something if it makes their overall position in the market stronger.
Nobody outside of Microsoft knows exactly how much Xbox makes or loses, but console warriors not knowing doesn't mean that it must be losing them money. Xbox has been a thing for 20+ years. By your logic, if Xbox was a losing so much money for Microsoft and didn't add any value to their business then surely they would have killed it off long before now. We know the yearly revenue is in the billions so it's not out of the realm of possibility that it's profitable.
You're not looking at the acquisition correctly, either. The $70 billion Microsoft will spend on Activision isn't a loss that needs to be recouped. They don't have to make $70 billion in cash to recoup the investment. Cash is just another asset on the balance sheet. When Microsoft pays for the acquisition their cash will decrease but their net assets don't decrease by $70 billion. They are purchasing assets and receivables from Activision that are worth nearly as much as the cash they are spending. Cash that's losing value by sitting in the bank. Any drop in net assets would likely be recouped by earnings on the assets acquired.
Last edited:
Nautilus
Banned
Eh, doesn't work that way. Every investment has to be recoup in some way or another. The amazon example you gave is a good one.Prime is never going to give a profit on its own, but then again the objective of this service was always about giving the other half of that SAME business, an aditional edge.
So the cost was recouped, just in a different way.
The same is true for this deal. Either they get their money's worth out of regular sales, through subs in Gamepass, or hardware sales. But that recoup needs to happen, and in the same division it belongs to. Otherwise the investment was badly misplaced, as it normally happens. Not all investments work out.
ReBurn
Gold Member
Do you think Microsoft spends $68.9 billion on Activision and gets absolutely nothing in return?
The bulk of the "recoup" happens the moment Microsoft gets control of Activision's balance sheet. They get the buildings, intellectual property, receivables, etc. of a company worth $58 billion the moment money changes hands. If they had to "make up" the investment then all they need to "make up" is the $12-ish billion premium they're paying to buy the company. Activision as-is brings in enough money to "make up" that $12 billion in just a few years at their present business model.
It's unlikely "Activision" remains its own entry on the balance sheet once the deal goes through, though. They'll be folded into the same pile as all of the rest of the gaming assets and their ~$8 billion in annual revenue will be blended into the overall gaming revenue. Not a single person on Microsoft's board is going to be pestering management about how they're going to "make up" $70 billion because they aren't losing $70 billion buying Activision.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
That's not the same as "just buy everything if you want" which was what you said in the previous post.
remember_spinal
Banned
cireza
Member
You were proven wrong when you stated that "a company can't be bought against its will". It absolutely can, that's the risk when it is publicy traded.
JLB
Banned
You mean like any other good and service since ancient times? GP has been behind inflation rate since its inception, so of course it will increase price. Like water, chocolates, medicine and vibrators.