Support NeoGAF

[Three]

My post you've linked were in reply to some users who were in denial with comments like "so nothing came out of it" etc etc. Plenty did come out of it with examples. But that's another discussion for another topic. Also I've said a couple of dozen times already that I don't think CoD will become exclusive, hell I've said they should keep it multiplat so at least the one big complaint can be resolved.

Yes, you don't think it will be exclusive now. You did when it was announced even when Phil was telling you it will release on PS. You thought Sony were "bleeding MS" with 1 week betas, Deathloop and Hogwarts skins:

Sure, Sony wasn't buying those studios outright but they were bleeding MS (as someone else said elsewhere) with making so many timed exclusivity deals that made their platform irresistible to players who want to play those big third party games.

But when it comes to google I'm sure massive publishers like Zenimax and Activision Blizzard being completely removed from the equation was no big deal for Google. I get it, arguments change depending on who is doing it and what you're trying to argue.

 

[Kagey K]

In the past, you've wanted Sony to buy Leyou (a publisher), Take Two and Square Enix. You've contributed enthusiastically in threads talking about SIE's rumored $13bn acquisition warchest All with the expectation that games would be exclusive post-acquisition.

Why reach for the 'horrendous' and 'disastrous' adjectives when it's MS doing something you've previously advocated?

Goddammit man.

 

[Gone]

Are you asking why Sony don't just spend 10s or 100s of billions on their own data centres?

As I've probably said about 4 times now, they are a publicly traded company with PlayStation being a main pillar and can't simply copy Microsoft's strategy if it loses them a lot of money. Pretty simple really.

Ok, that's not Microsoft problem if Sony can't afford to do it.

What about something like Gamepass where they put their first party games day and date on it? Does that also cost 100s of millions of dollars? Nope, it doesn't.

 

[Banjo64]

What about something like Gamepass where they put their first party games day and date on it? Does that also cost 100s of millions of dollars? Nope, it doesn't.

Yes? If Sony have crunched the numbers and would be losing hundreds of millions of dollars annually compared to outright game sales, then yes it would.

 

[C2brixx]

Are you asking why Sony don't just spend 10s or 100s of billions on their own data centres?

As I've probably said about 4 times now, they are a publicly traded company with PlayStation being a main pillar and can't simply copy Microsoft's strategy if it loses them a lot of money. Pretty simple really.

Both are publicly traded companies. Sony and Microsoft make business decisions on where they want to deploy capital. Microsoft chose over a decade ago to invest in data centers not knowing if such bets would pay off since AWS already dominated the market. Sony on the other hand chooses to spend billions annually on things like music catalogs, movies, and other forms of entertainment like Crunchyroll. It's not Microsoft's problem that Sony's wants to invest in those things rather than their own cloud infrastructure. You don't need to be a trillion dollar market cap company to do that. IBM, Oracle, and Salesforce have cloud infrastructures with market cap positions similar to Sony's.

 

[PaintTinJr]

It's barely holding at 73.00 right now, when the stock is promising 95.00 at close.

Lots of investors buying with the promise of near 20.00 gains. The second this deal fails (if it should) there is going to be a rush to dump stocks before they bottom out.

I estimate that it will fall to around 30.00 and create a massive cash problem for them, as most stock dumps do.

Should that happen they will lose a bunch of cash flow that they use to maintain overhead expenses and they will need to trim the fat.

With that being said I believe this goes through and the ones that invest now are going to see big fat gains during a bear market. As soon as 1 of the big 3 approves this the stock is going to jump to 85 almost immediately.

So, what about the deposit of $3b MSFT have to pay ACTIV I read someone talking about - if the deal fails?

Surely ACTIV wage bill for 1year is less than $3b (quick sum 3x10^9 / 50x10^3(AVG salary) gives 60K employees, they only have 10K staff according to wiki)

But wouldn't they just use that money to buy back shares, no - to sure up the price?

Having a quick look at the stock, if the average share volume is what? around 7M per day if I'm reading things right, and the share price was dropping from 90 per share to 75, then surely, they'd have enough of that free money to buy back enough shares at 75 to make a difference, no? Or am I reading those numbers all wrong?

 

[Neofire]

This is embarrassing, bro. Get off console warrior twitter. You got that talking point from there, I know it for a fact.

It's "console warrior" when someone has a different opinion huh?

I enjoy this topic though it lets me know how deep the divide is and that how quick someone will switch up just to get a game on GP.

 

[drganon]

It's "console warrior" when someone has a different opinion huh?

I enjoy this topic though it lets me know how deep the divide is and that how quick someone will switch up just to get a game on GP.

Bernd especially is in no position to be calling out "console warriors ".

 

[Ozriel]

It's "console warrior" when someone has a different opinion huh?

To be fair, it isn't a 'different opinion', is it? It's straightforward misinformation, taking a 2020 announcement of investments in Brazil and painting it as a 2022 bribe to influence regulator decisions.

And as someone linked above, this conspiracy theory is being amplified by known Twitter console warriors. Which is a shame.

 

[adamsapple]

Yes, you don't think it will be exclusive now. You did when it was announced even when Phil was telling you it will release on PS. You thought Sony were "bleeding MS" with 1 week betas, Deathloop and Hogwarts skins:

But when it comes to google I'm sure massive publishers like Zenimax and Activision Blizzard being completely removed from the equation was no big deal for Google. I get it, arguments change depending on who is doing it and what you're trying to argue.

Oh ok, you're one of those who wants to shift the argument by blaming MS for Stadia failing, despite earlier saying that they might be disingenuous. Not stadia's poor management itself.

Got it

It's "console warrior" when someone has a different opinion huh?

Using a 2 year old thing to counter something that happened 2 days ago as a "gotcha" is not a difference in opinion though. It's straight up misinformation.

 

[oldergamer]

I find this all extremely laughable.

Activision, a company with known despicable anti labour behavior towards its employees. Multiple scandals. Attempts to bust unions forming that was on a company path to implode within a matter of a few years after investigations comes in. Has a board that decides hey we might need an off ramp.

Ms a company with past anti competitor behavior decides to put in a purchase offer after multiple scandals had just occured. Ms also the only console maker publishing games on all platforms is accused by sony, the market leader ( also with past anti competitive behavior ) accused ms of doing something that will hurt thier business and the game industry.

First i gotta say bullshit to sony. What would really hurt sony is if Activision crumbles and dissolved (as has happened with past large publishers ) with less scandals and problems ). Was acquired by an amazon or google and restricted thier propriety platforms

Ms is the ONLY publisher capable of making this purchase that would be willing to keep publishing games on their platforms. Not only that, but publish on MORE platforms (switch, pc, mobile in addition to current supported consoles )

I've yet to see a single argument that proves this is "bad for the industry". I dont buy the MS will stop publishing it on PlayStation consoles excuse. They have yet to demonstrate this behavior with any established franchise that already existed on other platforms.

No starfield doesn't count. Its not an established franchise. There is no gaurentee it ever would have launched on playstation. Bethesda was another company that needed to weather a financial storm and massive delays. Ms have yet to pull any other bethesda franchise from PlayStation. They have still released updates and addons for current play station games. Still supported games on stadia!

Sony do not release or publish games on competing consoles. Mlb the show isnt published by sony on other consoles. and they were forced into it by MLB directly. If it were up to sony, it would still be exclusive.

I also dont think sony will keep publishing on pc. They have done this in the past and then stopped once the console base was large enough. Imo i think there is a higher likelyhood of sony stopping or limiting pc support then there is of ms stopping or limiting games on PlayStation. New unknown franchises may be exclusive however. But COD stays.

There is no chance of that occuring in this instance, as the franchise makes far too much money on playstation. Sonys arguments are only to ensure they keep a market advantage ( dont forget some of the cod games are exclusive to playstation) with something which isnt likely to happen for years from occurring. Despite the likelyhood of it occuring with activision imploding.

Me personally i want these games on gamepass. I swore years back i would never buy another activision game. So if there is anything worth playing its via gamepass or i go without.

its a bit odd to accuse a company of behavior they havent exhibited in years to protect the market leader that frequently pays to block games appearing on other platforms.

 

[Gone]

Yes? If Sony have crunched the numbers and would be losing hundreds of millions of dollars annually compared to outright game sales, then yes it would.

They won't, they have like 47 million ps plus subscribers. And if they are "4ThePlayers", they can easily eat those "losses" up.

Imagine defending Sony with such an excuse.

 

[Topher]

They won't, they have like 47 million ps plus subscribers. And if they are "4ThePlayers", they can easily eat those "losses" up.

Imagine defending Sony with such an excuse.

Imagine thinking a corporation not wanting to take losses needs defending.

Yes? If Sony have crunched the numbers and would be losing hundreds of millions of dollars annually compared to outright game sales, then yes it would.

Just as any corporation would do, including Microsoft. Find the way to maximize revenue and make money for the stockholders.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

NHL and NBA.

Those were third party games no? Nothing to do with PC. A lot (if not the most) Xbox games never came to PC or were not ported from PC to Xbox. So Microsoft's experience in gaming was not that relevant aside architecture design (DirectX, Windows) but it is not different from Sony being the tech giant at that time.

Sony weren't out there buying up Rockstar and EA either.

The whole slate of japanese publsihers were producting Playstation exclusive content. Capcom, Konami, Square Enix and Rockstar (time exclusive, but Xbox to blame). They did not need to acquire anybody, however they did need the exclusive content - something that Google was not willing to invest seriously. And Sony got that exclusive content without acquisitions simply by leveraging their ties in the industry and deep moneyhats .

In the past, you've wanted Sony to buy Leyou (a publisher), Take Two and Square Enix. You've contributed enthusiastically in threads talking about SIE's rumored $13bn acquisition warchest All with the expectation that games would be exclusive post-acquisition.

He then woke up

Having $80B on hand and an established console marketshare that's no less than 33% in the UK and US, and an OS stranglehold on games developed is not the unfair advantage when it comes to competing with Google

I am not sure why you are bringing Microsoft's 30% for Google, if Sony's 50% marketshare is the one that Google should tackle. Microsoft had to invest almost 100b to tackle that, Google will have to do more of course, but you have to bleed the money to enter the market. Microsoft was bleeding money for years, going against PS2 with 120m+ while selling only 20m OG Xbox and it did not stop them. Google going with Windows is their own stupid choice though. Google is not a poor company so they could invest in gaming. They decided not to.

 

[adamsapple]

I am not sure why you are bringing Microsoft's 30% for Google, if Sony's 50% marketshare is the one that Google should tackle. Microsoft had to invest almost 100b to tackle that, Google will have to do more of course, but you have to bleed the money to enter the market. Microsoft was bleeding money for years, going against PS2 with 120m+ while selling only 20m OG Xbox and it did not stop them. Google going with Windows is their own stupid choice though. Google is not a poor company so they could invest in gaming. They decided not to.

The argument is often made that MS is a big company and can afford to take losses. Google is also an incredibly huge company, they could have made power moves and opted for acquisitions but they have a clear historical pattern of shutting down programs within 2~ years if it doesn't meet their satisfaction, while MS stuck with their Xbox program despite rumors about it shutting down in the early/mid 2010s.

History repeated itself with google. Trying to put the blame on any other console maker for that is nothing but bad faith trying to further an arbitrary point.

 

[Neofire]

Oh ok, you're one of those who wants to shift the argument by blaming MS for Stadia failing, despite earlier saying that they might be disingenuous. Not stadia's poor management itself.

Got it



Using a 2 year old thing to counter something that happened 2 days ago as a "gotcha" is not a difference in opinion though. It's straight up misinformation.

Because you say so right? I've noticed you love to run into other individuals replies and trolling. I got a solution for that though.

 

[SportsFan581]

Ok, that's not Microsoft problem if Sony can't afford to do it.

It's not realistic to say that Sony couldn't do this $70b deal anyway. They couldn't do it "all cash", but with a mix of debt/stock for stock or something like that it would be possible. Activision is still smaller than Sony, making it possible for them to close it and still maintain controlling interest, it would just be more of a merger than an acquisition. If this were a $200b deal or something like that it would be different.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

MS stuck with their Xbox program despite rumors about it shutting down in the early/mid 2010s.

Microsoft is well known for being persistent. Only Ballmer's era was different as - aside suffering the consequences from 90s lawsuits - it was too business and money oriented era.
Still the investement in the cloud was a brilliant move - otherwise Microsoft would be another IBM right now.

historical pattern of shutting down programs within 2~ years if it doesn't meet their satisfaction,

Personally I wonder sometimes what Google is gonna do if Google search declines...They are probably betting right now on Youtube (due to rise of TikTok as TikTok is not only decimating Facebook slowly but also is popular as a search engine)

 

[reksveks]

Personally I wonder sometimes what Google is gonna do if Google search declines...They are probably betting right now on Youtube (due to rise of TikTok as TikTok is not only decimating Facebook slowly but also is popular as a search engine)

The DMA and DSA is coming for Google, if Google is forced to open YouTube ad inventory to other players that's going to be a big chunk of profits being impacted

 

[twilo99]

In the past, you've wanted Sony to buy Leyou (a publisher), Take Two and Square Enix. You've contributed enthusiastically in threads talking about SIE's rumored $13bn acquisition warchest All with the expectation that games would be exclusive post-acquisition.

Why reach for the 'horrendous' and 'disastrous' adjectives when it's MS doing something you've previously advocated?

Probably because Xbox is simply not allowed to have games…

 

[nikolino840]

What about jason shreier? He said something? He blocked me..

 

[adamsapple]

What about jason shreier? He said something? He blocked me..

No he's only tweeted about the Mario trailer recently

 

[nikolino840]

No he's only tweeted about the Mario trailer recently

I remember "monopoly monopoly! I call some friends of mine!"

 

[Three]

Oh ok, you're one of those who wants to shift the argument by blaming MS for Stadia failing, despite earlier saying that they might be disingenuous. Not stadia's poor management itself.

Got it



Using a 2 year old thing to counter something that happened 2 days ago as a "gotcha" is not a difference in opinion though. It's straight up misinformation.

Not shifting the argument to anything I was arguing that the bunch of you have contradictory veiwpoints based on who is doing what.

Completely ridiculous thing to say about me saying they could be disingenuous as if I've contradicted myself when I said

"They could be disingenuous though but I don't see why they would be."

I'm sure you don't find MS poor mismanagement as the reason why PS had a large install base to be making those exclusivity deals either but it's PS bleeding MS or whatever.

 

[ErRor88]

 

[twilo99]

Nintendo presents a problem for Sony's case?

 

[Three]

Those were third party games no? Nothing to do with PC. A lot (if not the most) Xbox games never came to PC or were not ported from PC to Xbox. So Microsoft's experience in gaming was not that relevant aside architecture design (DirectX, Windows) but it is not different from Sony being the tech giant at that time.

No, they were first party Microsoft Game Studio's games. MS had the license for a while for PC and was releasing the games on PC then when it made xbox released its games on xbox too:

Capcom, SE and the like didn't make games for og xbox for the same reason people didn't make games for stadia. It had a crappy install base especially at home. Nothing to do with Sony. I'm saying Google even had it worse today because big western publishers are being completely removed from the equation with around $80B worth of spending. Something it could never recoup or justify with the supposed 2M users. At least during the OG xbox days EA wasn't removed so that they can partner for Mass Effect, Take 2 was around so they had Bioshock etc. It had no already established publishing house either to be doing it on their own.

 

[Topher]

Spencer saying mobile is the primary reason for acquiring ABK.

 

[adamsapple]

Spencer saying mobile is the primary reason for acquiring ABK.

Yep yep, he said that a few months ago as well.

I think if FTC or EU demands it, they'll be happy to keep COD multiplat for a long/indefinite time just to get their hands on King.

 

[onesvenus]

Nintendo presents a problem for Sony's case?

Of course. Nintendo is the example of not needing Activision to be market leader and that is in direct contradiction with Sony claiming to need it to compete

 

[adamsapple]

Nintendo presents a problem for Sony's case?

The Hoeg video goes into this quite a bit.

Basically one of CADE's response points is that if Sony claims they can't compete without Call of Duty, then Nintendo wouldn't have been able to gain market share without a single recent CoD game. Yet they have been gaining market share where MS lost it (in Brazil as an example) over the last couple of years.

 

[SportsFan581]

No, they were first party Microsoft Game Studio's games. MS had the license for a while for PC and was releasing the games on PC then when it made xbox released its games on xbox too:

Capcom, SE and the like didn't make games for og xbox for the same reason people didn't make games for stadia. It had a crappy install base especially at home. Nothing to do with Sony. I'm saying Google even had it worse today because big western publishers are being completely removed from the equation with around $80B worth of spending. Something it could never recoup or justify with the supposed 2M users. At least during the OG xbox days EA wasn't removed so that they can partner for Mass Effect, Take 2 was around so they had Bioshock etc.

If Google was very serious about gaming they could have purchased publishers like Zenimax and ABK. They could have just let those businesses run as they are across all platforms, with the caveat that all those releases would be day one on Stadia with a few smaller exclusive projects along the way and maybe some day one additions to the pro service library. The whole thing just played out like so many Google initiatives do, where they were only half-way committed to it to begin with.

 

[phil_t98]

If the agency isn't focused on consumer protection and fair competition what are they doing?

The initial CMA review certainly read like they were most concerned about Sony's market position. They even mimicked similar arguments Sony made to CADE. Rick Hoeg mentioned that in his analysis video. I wouldn't call him childish at all.



There is no chance of Sony being a small footnote. They've been in the industry longer than MS has. As mentioned earlier Nintendo is doing fantastically without any real support from Activision.

Of course we never mention that MS has not stated they will remove any games from PlayStation. In fact they've said the opposite. This whole deal is about getting more games into Game pass and that doesn't really affect PlayStation much at all. Many of those fans hate sub services anyway.

Who's protecting Nintendo though? Lol

The whole thing about this deal is Sony loosing something, never hear poor Nintendo won't get access. The whole thing is foucused on what Sony will loose and your 100% right.

 

[SportsFan581]

I find this all extremely laughable.

Activision, a company with known despicable anti labour behavior towards its employees. Multiple scandals. Attempts to bust unions forming that was on a company path to implode within a matter of a few years after investigations comes in. Has a board that decides hey we might need an off ramp.

Ms a company with past anti competitor behavior decides to put in a purchase offer after multiple scandals had just occured. Ms also the only console maker publishing games on all platforms is accused by sony, the market leader ( also with past anti competitive behavior ) accused ms of doing something that will hurt thier business and the game industry.

First i gotta say bullshit to sony. What would really hurt sony is if Activision crumbles and dissolved (as has happened with past large publishers ) with less scandals and problems ). Was acquired by an amazon or google and restricted thier propriety platforms

Ms is the ONLY publisher capable of making this purchase that would be willing to keep publishing games on their platforms. Not only that, but publish on MORE platforms (switch, pc, mobile in addition to current supported consoles )

I've yet to see a single argument that proves this is "bad for the industry". I dont buy the MS will stop publishing it on PlayStation consoles excuse. They have yet to demonstrate this behavior with any established franchise that already existed on other platforms.

No starfield doesn't count. Its not an established franchise. There is no gaurentee it ever would have launched on playstation. Bethesda was another company that needed to weather a financial storm and massive delays. Ms have yet to pull any other bethesda franchise from PlayStation. They have still released updates and addons for current play station games. Still supported games on stadia!

Sony do not release or publish games on competing consoles. Mlb the show isnt published by sony on other consoles. and they were forced into it by MLB directly. If it were up to sony, it would still be exclusive.

I also dont think sony will keep publishing on pc. They have done this in the past and then stopped once the console base was large enough. Imo i think there is a higher likelyhood of sony stopping or limiting pc support then there is of ms stopping or limiting games on PlayStation. New unknown franchises may be exclusive however. But COD stays.

There is no chance of that occuring in this instance, as the franchise makes far too much money on playstation. Sonys arguments are only to ensure they keep a market advantage ( dont forget some of the cod games are exclusive to playstation) with something which isnt likely to happen for years from occurring. Despite the likelyhood of it occuring with activision imploding.

Me personally i want these games on gamepass. I swore years back i would never buy another activision game. So if there is anything worth playing its via gamepass or i go without.

its a bit odd to accuse a company of behavior they havent exhibited in years to protect the market leader that frequently pays to block games appearing on other platforms.

They have stated that their intent is for ES6 to be Xbox/PC/Cloud, I think it's safe to say that the Zenimax content is moving to be console exclusive, outside the MMO most likely (although even the MMO studio has tweeted about a new project for Xbox so who knows on that front). Those studios very much had the size and release schedule that fit with the classic first-party approach, and MS was weak in that area so it makes sense. They need large IPs to compete with Sony and Nintendo as a platform, Zenimax fit the bill and did so in a way that was affordable for them to do so.

CoD is different, pulling it from PS could lead to huge growth for Xbox, but it could also just give oxygen to new entrants in the space, greatly reducing the value of the ip overall. Something I don't think MS is looking to take a chance with, at least not right away. IF a lot of players migrated to Xbox down the road due to GP, etc., then you might see them move to console exclusive. I don't think they try to force that position though. They've said CoD is staying multi-plat and it makes the most sense for it to stay that way. The machine behind the game is so huge (isn't it like 8.000 or 10,000 devs or something like that?) it is reasonable to assume they want to be in position to earn every $ they can from as many players as possible.

 

[Clear]

The Hoeg video goes into this quite a bit.

Basically one of CADE's response points is that if Sony claims they can't compete without Call of Duty, then Nintendo wouldn't have been able to gain market share without a single recent CoD game. Yet they have been gaining market share where MS lost it (in Brazil as an example) over the last couple of years.

Its not about "being able to compete", any argument will centre upon whether it impinges upon competition within the marketplace. As in it gives the acquiring party undue influence and control over how business is transacted within its sector.

I wish people would stop limiting their thinking to MS versus Sony. Any discussion would be much broader in scope because ultimately its about consequences for all competitors both extant and in the future. For example consider how having a single party controlling multiple market-leading properties *in any product category* allows them to suppress competition via co-ordinated counter-marketing. Leading in the long-term to monopolization due to all those potential rival vendors deciding that the risk is simply too high to attempt to enter the sector.

This in turn is bad for business generally because without a steady influx of new contenders the market is liable to stagnate should the incumbent not continually freshen and/or improve their product.

 

[Three]

If Google was very serious about gaming they could have purchased publishers like Zenimax and ABK. They could have just let those businesses run as they are across all platforms, with the caveat that all those releases would be day one on Stadia with a few smaller exclusive projects along the way and maybe some day one additions to the pro service library. The whole thing just played out like so many Google initiatives do, where they were only half-way committed to it to begin with.

I'm sure the likes of Facebook and Google tried but they were outbid because they are less likely to recoup. Much the same way that MS got outbid on exclusivity deals because they have less to recoup. Sony giving up part of their 30% equates to a lot more than xbox.

 

[SportsFan581]

I'm sure the likes of Facebook and Google tried but they were outbid because they are less likely to recoup. Much the same way that MS got outbid on exclusivity deals because they have less to recoup. Sony giving up part of their 30% equates to a lot more than xbox.

It's a classic chicken and egg situation though, if you aren't committed enough to invest what is needed on the belief things will come into focus with growth, you will never have a shot at said growth to begin with.

 

[Three]

It's a classic chicken and egg situation though, if you aren't committed enough to invest what is needed on the belief things will come into focus with growth, you will never have a shot at said growth.

Yeah it's a wall you have to climb. A barrier to entry. I don't see why people are pretending it doesn't exist or isn't made more difficult though but they seem perfectly able to see it when MS is on the receiving end of a smaller barrier.

 

[adamsapple]

Who's protecting Nintendo though? Lol

The whole thing about this deal is Sony loosing something, never hear poor Nintendo won't get access. The whole thing is foucused on what Sony will loose and your 100% right.

Yeah, folks on this forum are mostly limited to Sony vs MS because Sony is the biggest vocal critic and using CoD as their main talking point.

The moment you bring in how Nintendo has continued to grow without needing CoD, that argument falls flat.

 

[SportsFan581]

Yeah it's a wall you have to climb. A barrier to entry. I don't see why people are pretending it doesn't exist or isn't made more difficult though but they seem perfectly able to see it when MS is on the receiving end of a smaller barrier.

It is a barrier, but at the same time, when you are as figuratively tall as Google is (as is MS) it certainly would still be easy enough to step over if the commitment was there. If Stadia was something Google really believed in, something they could see as being a substantial source of future profits, spending $100b wouldn't have been an issue. Especially since ABK was a freestanding profitable business. The reality was likely that Google was willing to give Stadia a shot, but never quite believed in it completely and had aggressive milestones they wanted to hit in order to continue investing.

At Google's size, there is no industry they can't enter at will if they desire. Certainly success would not be guaranteed, but startup costs would not be an issue.

 

[C2brixx]

Yep yep, he said that a few months ago as well.

I think if FTC or EU demands it, they'll be happy to keep COD multiplat for a long/indefinite time just to get their hands on King.

I believe they want to keep COD multiplat as well, but they can't agree to do it in perpetuity. Consoles are closed platforms requiring the game publishers to give up to 30% of their game revenue to platform holders. Why would Microsoft or any publisher agree to that in perpetuity?

 

[adamsapple]

I believe they want to keep COD multiplat as well, but they can't agree to do it in perpetuity. Consoles are closed platforms requiring the game publishers to give up to 30% of their game revenue to platform holders. Why would Microsoft or any publisher agree to that in perpetuity?

If its an ultimate hurdle and mandatory concession for the acquisition to go through, I think they'll do it with little hesitation.

 

[SportsFan581]

If its an ultimate hurdle and mandatory concession for the acquisition to go through, I think they'll do it with little hesitation.

I'll agree with C C2brixx regarding a broad blanket guarantee of support in perpetuity being impossible considering we are talking about future platforms with unknown capabilities. It would likely be written in a way that provided some wiggle room in regards to supported platforms. Say PS7 is just a freestanding VR headset and MS and ABK aren't doing VR or the architecture is otherwise completely divergent from Xbox/PC. Doesn't seem like a likely scenario, but would have to be allowed for. In this situation a simple "thou shalt always support PS" would never work. Would probably be something along the lines of them pledging to support platforms when technologically feasible, which would provide a needed out if the platforms moved away from each other on the technical side.

I think they'll fight tooth and nail against basically any concessions in this case though, just because ABK simply isn't a big enough piece of the overall market to warrant it. But, if it was an absolute deal breaker, I don't think they'd walk away over that type of concession. either

 

[Three]

I believe they want to keep COD multiplat as well, but they can't agree to do it in perpetuity. Consoles are closed platforms requiring the game publishers to give up to 30% of their game revenue to platform holders. Why would Microsoft or any publisher agree to that in perpetuity?

I'm not sure I understand the 30% in perpetuity argument here. They wouldn't fight the 30% by removing their 70% entirely and then expect other publishers to agree to them charging 30% on their xbox too.

 

[C2brixx]

I'm not sure I understand the 30% in perpetuity argument here. They wouldn't fight the 30% by removing their 70% entirely and then expect other publishers to agree to them charging 30% on their xbox too.

The argument isn't so much about the 30% fee as it's more about being forced by Government to have your employees do the work to port a games to a competitors platform AND give up 30% of your revenue to do it. When you can just publish it on your own platforms and PC without giving up revenue.

 

[Pelta88]

What about something like Gamepass where they put their first party games day and date on it? Does that also cost 100s of millions of dollars? Nope, it doesn't.

Sony have gone on the record 5-6 times saying that the GP model can't sustain the games they want to create. Microsoft on the other hand haven't released numbers. The only confirmation we've had is through their trusted insider who stated that Halo Infinite didn't recoup.

Giving credence to Sony's public statements about the day and date GP model.

 

[Three]

The argument isn't so much about the 30% fee as it's more about being forced by Government to have your employees do the work to port a games to a competitors platform AND give up 30% of your revenue to do it. When you can just publish it on your own platforms and PC without giving up revenue.

I get what you're saying now. Saying 'any publisher' threw me off. You meant MS the platform holder. No publisher would be giving up 70% revenue to not pay 30%. Activision as a separate publisher right now benefits from being multiplatform. The benefit would be to MS mainly.

It's akin to what Phil was saying about Bungie a year ago:

https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-new...odern-day-xbox-could-have-kept-bungie-3111150

MS benefited from Halo more than Bungie did. When they went they released Destiny on all platforms (including stadia!) and did better.

 

[BeardGawd]

Imagine thinking a corporation not wanting to take losses needs defending.



Just as any corporation would do, including Microsoft. Find the way to maximize revenue and make money for the stockholders.

Losses vs Less profit upfront are two completely different things. It's not a loss unless they have negative profits.

It's an investment. They would be trading some short term profits for long term subscription revenue. They would still be making profits just not as much up front.

 

[DarkMage619]

Who's protecting Nintendo though? Lol

The whole thing about this deal is Sony loosing something, never hear poor Nintendo won't get access. The whole thing is foucused on what Sony will loose and your 100% right.

This is why it's silly to focus this acquisition solely on Sony and CoD. Nintendo proves a company can be successful without CoD. Sony has huge exclusive IP and could survive just fine without CoD but they would certainly lose some marketshare. That is OK. Companies will lose and gain share as an order of doing business. The regulatory agencies aren't here to protect the market leader's position and CADE said it perfectly.

Sony have gone on the record 5-6 times saying that the GP model can't sustain the games they want to create. Microsoft on the other hand haven't released numbers. The only confirmation we've had is through their trusted insider who stated that Halo Infinite didn't recoup.

Giving credence to Sony's public statements about the day and date GP model.

Well you could go with some 'insider' said about the Game pass model or you can take what Phil Spencer said 'Game pass was very sustainable'. The only credence is that Sony will do what they want to do. Remember Sony also said they had to raise prices on consoles and games. Other companies did not follow suit. Sony was largely opposed to putting their games on PC until one day they were all for it. Sony COULD go day and date releases on their service if they wanted to but chose not to for now. That's perfectly fine but I'm glad there are alternatives available for people who do want that option. Diversity makes the industry strong.

 

[reksveks]

Just as any corporation would do, including Microsoft. Find the way to maximize revenue and make money for the stockholders.

As someone else comment, there is a minor difference between taking a loss and taking a low margin to build the audience.

The amazon model has influenced a shit tonne of people in business and whether you have the ability to pull it off (both execution and attempt) varies massively.