You can play Gamepass on any device that can run the Edge web browser.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
ReBurn
Gold Member
If that's not it then what is it? What is preventing Sony from streaming PS4 and PS5 games on PS+ aside from not making the decision and investment to do so? They clearly had at least $4 billion to invest when they bought Bungie, so funding wasn't the problem.
Other than not wanting to do It, why haven't they?
If it's not the model Sony wants then that's cool. But it's hard to see what's stopping them, especially considering the cloud investment they'll need to make to run a dozen live service games.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
I wish the streaming stuff wasnt tied to GP ultimate.
ReBurn
Gold Member
I'm not sure what you personally seeing profit numbers has to do with it. We know Gamepass on consoles pulled through $2.9 billion in revenue in 2021 and it didn't require 100 million consoles to do it, and that was only 18% of Xbox revenue.
01011001
Banned
I kind abet it won't be forever, at least not tied to the games in gamepass but eventually be available for all or most games.
Microsoft is encouraging all developers to make their games streaming friendly.
their API now lets developers implement arbitrary resolution and aspect ratio detection, and they encourage devs to implement mouse and keyboard support so that PC users can play xCloud with their preferred input method.
this seems to me like they want games to be ready for cloud streaming no matter if they are in gamepass or not.
So why can't you see it for cloud gaming then and this acquisition?
Tell MS that when it was bringing that to the FTC and complaining about it. It was Windows Phones funeral unfortunately. iOS had the hardware install base. WP on the other hand didn't.
Because people are underestimating the cost, time and work required for such a thing. People here seem to believe that costs are reduced for new entrants. They're not, they are significantly higher for new entrants. It has nothing to do with simply diverting SoCs instead of putting them in consoles.
Let me paste from the actual document because it's clear people aren't reading it:
And this isn't Sony saying this btw.
Last edited:
SportsFan581
Member
And we see all the grand changes that materialized for YT in regards to MS's complaints.
Topher
Identifies as young
Pretty much the same stuff they said before.
Because it was written by lawyers, that's why.
Last edited:
ReBurn
Gold Member
Well there is that one guy the other week who was mad that Hulu didn't work on his PS3 any more.
SportsFan581
Member
MS came out punching there. But it makes sense.
Topher
Identifies as young
I still have my PS3 up and running. Is that why I had to tell Phil Spencer to get off my lawn? He was counting consoles, wasn't he? Sneaky bastard.
MS are making that exact argument right now. They are saying sony sold more consoles so there is less competition.
So if somebody believes that the sole reason MS is competitive in cloud is because they took a hit on console chip supply, does that also mean the sole reason Sony are competitive on consoles is because they took a hit to cloud?
Google had an antitrust case. nothing unfortunately for Windows phone because it was dead. But surely you can see that regulators look at market competition beyond "if they aren't competitive in that segment that's on them" and youtube can't just be easily replicated like you said it can. Neither can Azure, Amazon services, or COD. "Well just build your own then" isn't a valid defence to regulators.And we see all the grand changes that materialized for YT in regards to MS's complaints.
Last edited:
ReBurn
Gold Member
I disagree that people are underestimating any of that. Everyone knows that cloud infrastructure isn't free, but it's an investment Sony has already made through purchasing OnLive and Gaikai, which ultimately resulted in PS Now. This Is infrastructure Sony already has and does not have to build from the ground up. They are not a new entrant. They have been there since January of 2014. It has been available on PS4, PS5 and PC for years.
At this point, for Sony, it pretty much is diverting SoC and making it happen. They have the network and infrastructure right now. But so far they have chosen not to. So it's kind of disingenuous to push the notion that they would have to start from zero.
SportsFan581
Member
Not really. A like for like would have been MS jumping in trying to block the Bungie deal because "Sony had sold too many consoles".
What MS is pointing out is just their own inability to compete in the market status quo and their need to attempt to swing the pendulum in a different direction for that reason. A move that if successful would make them more competitive. Likely triggering an iron sharpens iron scenario in the market by forcing a Sony response (just the type of thing the CMA should want).
12Dannu123
Member
Sony is free to rely on Amazon, Google, IBM, Oracle etc for their cloud gaming servers. Azure is not essential to cloud gaming. Nvidia GeForce uses different third-party cloud providers for each country.
Sony had PS Now which was released in 2014. Instead of improving the service by expanding their cloud infrastructure, they instead decided to wind down the service by discontinuing TVs and mobile devices, so when Microsoft released their service, they rapidly overtook them.
So why should MS by held back in Cloud gaming by Sony's incompetence in the cloud gaming market?
Last edited:
ReBurn
Gold Member
Mine's running strong, too. Tough little box.
Neofire
Member
Again how much of that is profit? I'll keep waiting.
ReBurn
Gold Member
Literally what does it matter?
SportsFan581
Member
I still can't believe MS put that line alluding to the CMA carrying Sony's water for them in their "official response".
That cracked me up right there. I agree with the sentiment, but still it cracked me up.
That cracked me up right there. I agree with the sentiment, but still it cracked me up.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Is that even a genuine question?
ReBurn
Gold Member
In the context of this thread? Absolutely. If it's truly not profitable then perhaps that's more evidence that this acquisition won't harm Sony as much as they say it will. After all a business that's losing money won't last long, right?
But at the end of the day, with the way Microsoft manages their financials, it doesn't matter whether one single line of business is individually profitable. Just like it doesn't matter for Apple or Google, etc. If it becomes more expensive than the value it provides they'll shut it down.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
Yeah you said Microsoft had an amazing opertunity to capitalise and I agree and they didn't and they fell behind. Sony went money batting exclusives and exclusive content and pulled miles ahead
GHG
Member
In the context of having a discussion around the business dynamics in play here it absolutely matters. They are not a charity, they are a business. As a consumer if you're being subsidised for a period of time then at some point you need to ask the question of what the catch is and when does it come into effect.
The CMA touched on this:
I've said it before but this whole strategy revolves around forgoing profits for as long as it takes in order to gain market share dominance and/or put less well financed competitors who also attempt to follow this stragey underwater - whichever comes first.
Last edited:
SportsFan581
Member
Because Activision is neither a cloud operator or a customer of significant enough size to change the general cloud landscape. MS Azure will be right where it is today after this deal would close, it's a nothingburger for that division.
Maybe they pickup Activision as a client down the line, but Activision is nowhere near a large enough customer to change the landscape because they chose a different provider.
ReBurn
Gold Member
What business isn't? Sony has also been willing to make losses for its gaming division in the short term to make long term gains. They sell hardware at a loss to encourage people to buy into their software ecosystem. I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make.In the context of having a discussion around the business dynamics in play here it absolutely matters. They are not a charity, they are a business. As a consumer if you're being subsidised for a period of time then at some point you need to ask the question of what the catch is and when does it come into effect.
The CMA touched on this:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
It wasn't for the exclusive content bro.
It was because Sony double down on First Party Productions. Not relying on Third Party deals like MS did on the 360, not investing on First Party and pivoting towards kinect.
GHG
Member
The loop of selling hardware at a loss and then recouping that loss via software sales is something that works at the point of sale. There is no short term loss, there is positive flow from day one - provided the person who purchases the console actually buys a couple of games of course.
There is no loop as far as gamepass is concerned. You may have missed my edit in my previous post where I elaborated but it explains what their longer term goals are with it. The same goes for the vast majarity of these "all you can eat" media and entertainment subscription services.
PaintTinJr
Member
In the CMA's phase 1 document page 39 MSFT's/ABK's (the Party's) reasoning for PlayStations selling more consoles is:
Topher
Identifies as young
If you think about it, CMA has basically been using Xbox console warrior takes on why Xbox is going to win this generation while Microsoft is using Sony console warrior takes as to why they won't.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Ok. Let me get this straight.
Are you saying that, it does matter and it dosen't matter at the same time?
GHG
Member
If you think about it, CMA has basically been using Xbox console warrior takes on why Xbox is going to win this generation while Microsoft is using Sony console warrior takes as to why they won't.
Honestly in the case of the CMA they will have a much easier time when they start being honest about why they are acquiring Activision Blizzard and what their intentions are with the IP they will inherit. The more this back and forth goes the more the CMA will dig their heels in, especially if they continue to make the types of responses they have to the CMA thus far. Some of the stuff in that most recent response from Microsoft is outright confrontational.
ReBurn
Gold Member
What do you mean there's no short term loss? If it costs you more than $500 to make something that you sell for $500 then that is a loss. The investment from creating and stockpiling inventory ahead of release can lead to losses and has for Sony in the past, particularly with PS3.
The fact that it's a pattern for consoles doesn't magically make the cash outflow not a loss in the short term. If software sales or other revenues offset those losses in the short term then as a whole Sony is still profitable.
Somehow you guys want this to be different for Microsoft. Somehow it matters if Gamepass on its own makes a profit or loss and the rest of Xbox or Microsoft P&L doesn't matter. It's so weird.
IFireflyl
Gold Member
Wow. Microsoft's response was not great.
In the first page they state that the CMA is, "[overstating] the importance of Activision Blizzard's content to competition in gaming." They bring nothing to the table to corroborate this statement other than a quote from an editor at The Verge which says, "written like they want to protect Sony's #1 position in gaming, while claiming there isn't much competition to Call of Duty (?!)" They never back this quote up with evidence proving that there is similar competition outside of Call of Duty, which makes sense as there is no First-Person Shooter that comes even close to the amount of business that Call of Duty generates.
In the second page they state that Sony is abusing their position to increase console prices. This is ridiculous on its face as increasing console prices makes the Xbox Series S/X even more lucrative in comparison. Additionally, that has nothing to do with market dominance. Prices have gone up globally in a ton of markets. There is no evidence to assume that Sony raised the prices because they don't think they can lose buyers. It's a ridiculous assertion.
Microsoft then brings up Sony's acquisition of Bungie, and Sony's minority shareholding with Epic Games as if either of these are remotely similar to acquiring the single largest publisher in the world. They also state that there were more than five times the amount of exclusive titles on PlayStation than on Xbox in 2021, but they fail to source this or differentiate between timed exclusives, third-party exclusives, and first-party exclusives.
Next, Microsoft states that they stand to lose a significant amount of revenue by making Call of Duty console-exclusive, but then they go on to say on page three that they are going to make Activision Blizzard's content available on Game Pass. This means that even without making Call of Duty a console exclusive title, they are encouraging gamers to Switch to Xbox going forward because they can get the game for free (with the Game Pass subscription) instead of paying for it like they would have to do if they stayed with PlayStation. This isn't something that Sony could compete with because they would have no leverage to compete. The only way to keep the Call of Duty die-hards from switching to Xbox would be to allow Game Pass on PlayStation, but then they're making no revenue from the content anyway and it would severely limit sales for other third-party games that make agreements for Game Pass.
Later in that page Microsoft addresses the above, and state this:
So it's Sony's fault if gamers can't play Call of Duty for free because Big Bad Sony won't put Game Pass on PlayStation so they can make zero revenue from every game played via Game Pass (both from game sales and DLC)? I mean, technically that's true, but it's a bullshit argument because no direct competitor would want to allow that. Also, Microsoft is acting like gamers wouldn't switch because they wouldn't pay full price for an Xbox console just for one game. While that is also true, it ignores the fact that they wouldn't be switching just for one game, but for every Game Pass game including the one in question. It also ignores the fact that this is what people consider when they don't already own the console and want to purchase a new console. There are plenty of people who have a PlayStation 4 who haven't yet moved to the PlayStation 5. Those people could decide to move to Xbox when they do upgrade to a current generation console. This also impacts what gamers purchase next generation.
I haven't read further than that yet, but so far Microsoft's comments are reminiscent of politicians. They're framing their arguments in the best possible light, but if you actually dig into them there is very little substance. And I don't blame them for doing this. If Sony were in their position they would be doing the exact same thing, and I would be just as irritated with those responses.
P.S. I ditched my PlayStation 5 a while back. The only gaming devices I currently own are the PSP, PS Vita, Nintendo Switch, Xbox Series X, Steam Deck, and my gaming PC. My gaming PC is my primary device to play on, so I'm the person with the least to lose (in the short term) with this merger. Microsoft releases all of their games on PC day one, so I'll be fine either way. This isn't a pro-Sony, anti-Microsoft post. I just hate massive acquisitions like these because they are anti-competitive.
What I see is Microsoft buying up publishers and then improperly managing them. (Hey, 343i. I'm looking at you.) Their solution to gaining dominance in the gaming market seems to be to buy up publishers who know what they're doing instead of working with publishers to figure out how their own studios and publishers can be better. To Sony's credit, they at least work closely with developers/studios/publishers before acquiring them. Sony seems to build relationships while Microsoft appears to just throw their money around until they get what they want.
I'm not saying this is definitely what it is. I'm just saying that's how it appears to be as a relatively impartial observer who doesn't even own a current generation PlayStation console. (P.S. to any mods who might read this: this isn't a console warring post. This is simply my opinion on this specific merger.)
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
Microsoft knows it lost the race to compete with Sony head to head in the royalty accrual business based off of individual software sales.
They've been playing this game with Sony for 20 years. Nintendo learned that lesson after just two generations (N64 and Gamecube).
The difference between Nintendo and Microsoft however is money.
Microsoft wants to shift the dynamic away from individual software sales into a subscription model. Ultimately, they see consoles as meaningless. They want their product, "gamepass" on every platform, because they want to sell the subscription and the more platforms the better. Same reason why 3rd party publishers want their games on multiple platforms.
This Xbox Streaming stick is going to be their gateway to that. HDMI plugin gaming that can work on any TV combined with GamePass on PC and xCloud on Mac and Mobile.
They want as many subscribers as they can get and they know that they don't need to match subscriber base with PlayStation's userbase.
But what gamers should be aware of is that revenue alone is not the goal, ultimately it needs to be profitable and Microsoft will want their 70 billion dollars back out of gamers. This means that eventually, they'll start cutting corners on quality and content within GamePass as well as raising the monthly price. That's something that should worry all gamers about the future of the sub model. Gaming is not TV and the future of subscription and streaming is a bad one for us all.
Ultimately 70b for Activision is a crazy price, but Microsoft doesn't care. They know they won't get this back from CoD, but they need something to keep GamePass and Xbox relevant long enough to leverage their sub/cloud plan.
As I mentioned for Sony, they're betting off not challenging this and spending half a billion dollars to a billion dollars on a couple CoD competitors. Investing in Deviation Games, Firewalk, Guerrilla and Bungie. The ROI they can potentially get from these 3 studios will make that 70 billion look pretty bad for Microsoft in the long run, but again, Microsoft doesn't care about Activision in the long run. They just want CoD on GamePass ASAP along with Diablo, Overwatch, and WarCraft.
Sony should focus on making strategic investments where it can and let Microsoft pursue what they're going to pursue.
They've been playing this game with Sony for 20 years. Nintendo learned that lesson after just two generations (N64 and Gamecube).
The difference between Nintendo and Microsoft however is money.
Microsoft wants to shift the dynamic away from individual software sales into a subscription model. Ultimately, they see consoles as meaningless. They want their product, "gamepass" on every platform, because they want to sell the subscription and the more platforms the better. Same reason why 3rd party publishers want their games on multiple platforms.
This Xbox Streaming stick is going to be their gateway to that. HDMI plugin gaming that can work on any TV combined with GamePass on PC and xCloud on Mac and Mobile.
They want as many subscribers as they can get and they know that they don't need to match subscriber base with PlayStation's userbase.
But what gamers should be aware of is that revenue alone is not the goal, ultimately it needs to be profitable and Microsoft will want their 70 billion dollars back out of gamers. This means that eventually, they'll start cutting corners on quality and content within GamePass as well as raising the monthly price. That's something that should worry all gamers about the future of the sub model. Gaming is not TV and the future of subscription and streaming is a bad one for us all.
Ultimately 70b for Activision is a crazy price, but Microsoft doesn't care. They know they won't get this back from CoD, but they need something to keep GamePass and Xbox relevant long enough to leverage their sub/cloud plan.
As I mentioned for Sony, they're betting off not challenging this and spending half a billion dollars to a billion dollars on a couple CoD competitors. Investing in Deviation Games, Firewalk, Guerrilla and Bungie. The ROI they can potentially get from these 3 studios will make that 70 billion look pretty bad for Microsoft in the long run, but again, Microsoft doesn't care about Activision in the long run. They just want CoD on GamePass ASAP along with Diablo, Overwatch, and WarCraft.
Sony should focus on making strategic investments where it can and let Microsoft pursue what they're going to pursue.
GHG
Member
I had a feeling the PS3 would come up, I was going to preemptively mention it but thought there was a chance for you to be able to spot the difference with that console in terms of how much of a blunder it was on their part. The PS3 is the only console they've released where the recoup strategy didn't work because it was so expensive for them to manufacture. I would have thought you would be able to see the difference between a console that made a loss of $240—$300 per unit and ~$60 per unit every other time. The loss per unit can be covered at the point of (or very close to) sale provided the person purchasing the console is going to use it as intended.
It's not about wanting it to be different, it's about recognising it for what it is. It's no secret that these loss leader subscription service strategies revolve around industry control and what is defined as predatory foreclosure.
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Member
Are you serious?
Anyone suggesting that an outcome other than totally consolidated cloud computing will fit with the world's rapid endeavours to lower our carbon footprint - as a world - clearly isn't getting the memos IMHO.
How many huge energy chugging cloud farms in each and every country of the world - to lower cloud gaming latency - do you think the planet can sustain? Do you think it could cope with one for each platform holder, one for each major publisher with Amazon and Google also? What about 1 for each major company in the world - just so they aren't out business manoeuvred by MSFT like Sony is with cloud services? Don't you think that sounds ridiculous?
The three big players are already probably 2, too many IMO - because there should be zero need for redundant cloud farms - and this will be the overriding reason why an ecologically conscious company like Sony isn't looking to be the 4th big player, beyond all the other technical, financial and staffing reasons they don't have their own Azure.
Ideally, like an extension of the telecom networks, cloud should have many providers all working together with redundancy of service offerings provided virtually, rather than farms physically being replicated by each provider in every country.
The CMA's analysis of MSFT's current unique placement with Azure/xcloud and zero costing of windows OS licensing makes it easy to see that even if this deal isn't blocked, MSFT/Amazon/Google might all be forced to OpenReach their Cloud operations in the coming years, so that a basic cloud service capability at a technical level can be offered by all that wish to replicate the telecom's market LCR (least-cost-routing), but with cloud (Least cost cloud serving or LCCS).
Last edited:
ReBurn
Gold Member
You guys are the ones saying that it only matters for Microsoft and more specifically it only matters for Game Pass.
Please detail exactly how the specific profit margin for game pass actually matters. I've already told you that I don't believe it does because the value that it adds for Microsoft is worth the investment they are making in it for them to grow it. That's been my position all along with zero ambiguity. If they didn't think it was worth it they wouldn't be doing it.
I also don't think that any individual investment Sony makes matters in aggregate. It's perfectly fine to me that they paid $4 billion for Bungie because that investment could grow their market share and long term profitability, Certainly there are parts of what they do that don't generate profit at the line item detail. But it doesn't matter because many of those things that don't earn profit on their own serve to enable things that do make profit.
If we were going by your logic then the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars Sony invests in a single new game would be throwing money away and would be an example of Sony using its pile of cash to bolster a failing project until it earns more money than it costs to make it. It's a completely stupid notion, but it's exactly the argument you guys make about Game Pass. If a product needed to be profitable on day 1 then there would be no new products ever. Literally everything requires investment to be successful. But somehow it's bad and will kill the industry when Microsoft does it.
Topher
Identifies as young
They already invested in cloud. With Azure.
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
The CMA doesn't need evidence that Microsoft owning CoD is going to make them the market leader. All they need is to to come to the conclusion that, that hurts competition and thus hurts consumers.
I don't know that I necessarily believe that. I actually think that this will help the industry. Activision is a mess and to a degree so is Microsoft, but I think Microsoft making this move forces Sony to be more competitive, which helps the industry. It also means that other companies like Take2, EA, and Ubi Soft can put more money into an FPS in case CoD does disappear from PlayStation.
I'm convinced that CoD game be replaced. Unlike Madden or FIFA there is no license associated with CoD that keeps it in the mainstream.
You look at FPS historically and there has never been a sustained leader in this field, until people kind of just stopped trying.
You had Quake, Doom, and Unreal back in the day and really it was all PC for FPS.
Then Halo kind of changed the landscape with console and Sony never really tried hard enough to compete directly with Halo because at the time Sony didn't really care about 1st party software as much as they do now.
Then you saw a shift towards military shooters with Medal of Honor and Call of Duty. Medal of Honor fell off, but then you saw the rise of Battlefield, which also fell off.
Then we kind of saw the rise of the F2P era with games like Fortnite, PUBG, Apex Legends, and Overwatch.
Sony dreads that they really missed the boat on all of these, which is why you see them talking about GaaS. They tried to get into the FPS space to a degree with Resistance and with Killzone. Resistance 1 actually sold really well, but the franchise got worse rather than got better and they shut it down. Killzone got better but then got worse.
I think they're looking to make several moves, but they don't want to influence the CMA and other regulators anymore than they already have, but there's another side to that. If the CMA approves this, it opens things up for Sony to respond.
I think the biggest response they could make is buying Take2, but there are a number of small buys they could make that could have an impact. I think CDPR, FromSoftware, Capcom, Square Enix (though it isn't a good buy) are obvious choices. Take2 is the best option they can and should make.
I don't know that I necessarily believe that. I actually think that this will help the industry. Activision is a mess and to a degree so is Microsoft, but I think Microsoft making this move forces Sony to be more competitive, which helps the industry. It also means that other companies like Take2, EA, and Ubi Soft can put more money into an FPS in case CoD does disappear from PlayStation.
I'm convinced that CoD game be replaced. Unlike Madden or FIFA there is no license associated with CoD that keeps it in the mainstream.
You look at FPS historically and there has never been a sustained leader in this field, until people kind of just stopped trying.
You had Quake, Doom, and Unreal back in the day and really it was all PC for FPS.
Then Halo kind of changed the landscape with console and Sony never really tried hard enough to compete directly with Halo because at the time Sony didn't really care about 1st party software as much as they do now.
Then you saw a shift towards military shooters with Medal of Honor and Call of Duty. Medal of Honor fell off, but then you saw the rise of Battlefield, which also fell off.
Then we kind of saw the rise of the F2P era with games like Fortnite, PUBG, Apex Legends, and Overwatch.
Sony dreads that they really missed the boat on all of these, which is why you see them talking about GaaS. They tried to get into the FPS space to a degree with Resistance and with Killzone. Resistance 1 actually sold really well, but the franchise got worse rather than got better and they shut it down. Killzone got better but then got worse.
I think they're looking to make several moves, but they don't want to influence the CMA and other regulators anymore than they already have, but there's another side to that. If the CMA approves this, it opens things up for Sony to respond.
I think the biggest response they could make is buying Take2, but there are a number of small buys they could make that could have an impact. I think CDPR, FromSoftware, Capcom, Square Enix (though it isn't a good buy) are obvious choices. Take2 is the best option they can and should make.
sainraja
Member
Yeah, what a horrible thing to happen on a forum that is for discussing topics related to gaming. How horrible that would be!
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
Exactly right. The failures of the PS3 really helped Sony find their footing. They had already really seen success with God of War, but it was Uncharted that really helped usher them into the next stage. Before Uncharted, Sony never really had a first party franchise that could sell more than 5 million copies an outing (let alone consistently) outside of Gran Turismo.
Now they had these TWO franchises that were able to generate that, both very cinematic, 3rd person action games. That's where they doubled down on single player where others like EA were saying single player was dead.
Had they pivoted to PC earlier though, they would have seen greater success. This is why they had to buy Nixxes to really speed up their PC port strategy.
ReBurn
Gold Member
It makes no difference whether it was a blunder on their part. Sony burned cash to keep PlayStation going and ultimately turned it around with PS4. They lost money for years because they thought it was worth it. Not wanting it to matter doesn't make it not matter. The amount of the loss per unit is not relevant in any way. You still have to multiply it by the millions of units they lost on it. It doesn't magically not matter because they lost less in subsequent cycles. It's still money they had to invest up front, money that came off the bottom line, before they could make a profit on it.
It's exactly the same with Game Pass. It does not have to be profitable 100% of the time on its own. It's perfectly fine for Microsoft to be investing in it to grow it because they have the money to do so. But somehow you guys think that's different than when Sony or even Nintendo do similar things. It was perfectly fine for Sony to buy exclusivity for games on PS4 while burning through billions in cash keep PlayStation afloat and hang on to their #1 place as the biggest player in the console space. It was fine for Nintendo to lose money to ultimately make the Switch it is now. But Microsoft refusing to tell you how much profit Game Pass makes means they're bleeding money to buy the industry right out from under Sony.
Menzies
Banned
There is no 70 billion dollars to 'take back out of gamers'.
If you have 70 billion is liquid assets, just sitting there in
inflationary markets you are losing money. Activision is a business earning ~3 billion profits in a year. Then you've got the usual "quality will drop and monthly price will rise" spiel. Well so far there's no evidence about a decline in quality, and only one competitor has raised game and console prices. Not sure where this ever-pervasive and irrational fear of a CPI GamePass adjustment continues to spread like wildfire here, all whilst the alternative model game distribution price hikes are here right now in front of our eyes.
PaintTinJr
Member
I thought this part on page 57 of the CMA document was quite insightful by the CMA
I'm guessing they are looking at games like Minecraft and wondering why they are only on Gamepass exclusively as a multi-game subscription service and extrapolating from that, ABK games will have the same fate.
I'm guessing they are looking at games like Minecraft and wondering why they are only on Gamepass exclusively as a multi-game subscription service and extrapolating from that, ABK games will have the same fate.
Last edited:
Hero of Spielberg
Member
There is no 70 billion dollars to 'take back out of gamers'.
If you have 70 billion is liquid assets, just sitting there in"temporary"
Then you've got the usual "quality will drop and monthly price will rise" spiel. Well so far there's no evidence about a decline in quality, and only one competitor has raised game and console prices. Not sure where this ever-pervasive and irrational fear of a CPI GamePass adjustment continues to spread like wildfire here, all whilst the alternative model game distribution price hikes are here right now in front of our eyes.
Also, the idea would be that they get more subscribers with this acquisition so that the service becomes more profitable that way. They don't buy games for the service and then say, 'haha we got everyone, now let's make shit games only cuz it's cheaper!'. I mean they might, but it may make better sense for them financially to you know, retain those new subscribers and attract even more ... crazy thought.
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
There is no 70 billion dollars to 'take back out of gamers'.
If you have 70 billion is liquid assets, just sitting there in"temporary"
Then you've got the usual "quality will drop and monthly price will rise" spiel. Well so far there's no evidence about a decline in quality, and only one competitor has raised game and console prices. Not sure where this ever-pervasive and irrational fear of a CPI GamePass adjustment continues to spread like wildfire here, all whilst the alternative model game distribution price hikes are here right now in front of our eyes.
By your own estimation, it would take ~23 years of them averaging 3 billion in profit to pay itself off. The reality is that with less exposure and individual sales, it would take even longer. With a CoD competitor, as I mentioned, it would make it impossible.
That is the nature of subscription content from premium content, especially when it's a loss leader. If you can't understand that, you've got a problem understanding basic things.
We can see that with streaming tv content right now. Why you think gaming would be immune makes no sense to me.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
Maybe part of this acquisition is to bring on more subscribers to make more money and get a return on their investment sooner than that? I mean if they made 2.9bn revenue from consoles alone in 2021, and they want to expand their service to TVs, streaming sticks, more PCs, with the addition of the new IP ... you'd have to assume they plan on growing that revenue significantly in the coming years.
- Status