harry mason 1989
Banned
That's what I feel when I read this thread
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
That's what I feel when I read this thread
PaintTinJr
Member
Yeah, I get they aren't scared of such relative small risks in general in spite of the large sums involved, but unlike at the peak of MSFT's world dominant position where they effectively lived in a vacuum, they themselves have commented on how they are in competition with the Apples, Amazons, googles and metas - more than Sony - and the power they have as a company relative to those companies IMO will be a mix of their earnings and their market cap, so any further changes in their market cap that might make them look worse than their competitors might see them change tact.
Thinking about MSFT's position relative to those other companies this deal is potentially a 4D chess move by MSFT. If it succeeds they win on many fronts - even if it is with maximum concessions - and if it fails the end result will have effectively be to hamstring all those competitors from such acquisitions, having used Activision to set precedent with regulators blocking deals, including many deals their competitors could attempt that could harm MSFT's interests.
Last edited:
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Yep, it's probably one of the best corpo gaming strategies culminating now from years of restructuring, planning and executing at a high level of success so far. This is what competition is about, leading the pack and not the status quo. I'm anticipating that continues with the FTC case.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
What 5 COD games are on ps+? I must of missed them
When did you start subscribing?
CoD: Black Ops 3, COD: Modern Warfare Remastered, CoD: Black Ops 4, CoD: WW2, COD: Modern Warfare 2 Campaign Remastered.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
Since the day ps+ premium was a thing. Must of missed them tbh
anthony2690
Member
They've had black ops 3, but that's the only one I can think off.
I think they've only had one? (I could be wrong though)
Edit: just read three's reply, never knew all them games came to ps+
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
Probably? It's closer to Xbox's entire lifespan revenue.
Last edited:
Ghost of Caelid
Banned
Has a market leader ever been protected like Sony currently is being by the regulation bodies? This is seeming a bit silly at this point.
Ezekiel_
Banned
Competition and consumers are being protected, it just happens that it aligns with Sony's interest.
Swift_Star
Banned
You are shortsighted.
Thirty7ven
Banned
False!? I said it's closer to revenue not more. Give me the profit numbers and you will see how close they are.
feynoob
Banned
Sony is a little bitch. MS is little bit hypocritical.
Regulators are just doing their business, and gamers are dumb as fuck.
Overall, this is $70b purchase. It needs to be challenged simply because other companies would spend that much.
Also MS would buy more companies once Activision deal is done.
feynoob
Banned
I gave you 2021 revenue. So life time would be more than that.
Revenue isn't a profit, as profit is much lower.
Xbox profit won't even hit 50b at most, considering PS had 3b profit in 2020.
feynoob
Banned
Thirty7ven
Banned
Of course life would be more, let's focus on software revenue though shall we? It gets cut down a bit.
Xbox profit 50b at most? You are out of your mind. I thought you knew this industry?! I wouldn't put money on Xbox having over 15B-20B in profits lifetime.
Last edited:
Swift_Star
Banned
Sony is not being protected.
feynoob
Banned
At max, it would be $20b-$25b lifetime (Og Xbox, x360, Xbox one, and current Xbox).
Here is x360 at retail revenue.
https://www.cinemablend.com/games/Xbox-360-Has-Generated-56-Billion-Retail-Alone-43000.html
splattered
Member
At this point I feel like the deal is going to go through, and much quicker than the ftc wants... What I'm wondering is will MS still honor the concessions they've made to Sony up to this point if Sony shoots them down out of spite? Really curious to see what this all looks like end of next year.
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
That's what I'm trying to say, obviously we are shooting in the dark because MS hides profit numbers. But the entire Xbox gen is deep in red, 360 had red ring of death, and if you look over to Sony profits at the height of PS4 you can tell MS has not made nearly enough profit to cover half of the AB purchase let alone AB + Zenimax + Gamepass.
We are not stupid, you know what I'm talking about.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
Topher
Identifies as young
It will go through, but FTC is going to drag it out. Doesn't look like it will be any earlier than 2024. Remember though, Phil Spencer has made public statements about Call of Duty staying on PlayStation indefinitely. He can't walk that back. It is a PR nightmare if he even tries.
Swift_Star
Banned
Well played, I'd say.
feynoob
Banned
It's a report from MS internal document. One of their marketing team was sharing those details.
oldergamer
Member
How I would answer a fucking dumb post? like this.oldergamer Still curious to see how you would answer this.
For SFV Capcom stated in no less words that sony paid for it:
Speaking with Gamespot, a Capcom representative cited the company's close partnership with Sony in marketing the game as the ultimate decision to skip an Xbox release. "One comment we see a lot is that something like a Super Street Fighter 5 is going to come out on Xbox," they said. "But the reality is that this is a real partnership. We are console exclusive for this franchise for this numbered run."
For Kena Ember studios themselves said ""We are currently focused on our launches for PlayStation and Epic Games store, which are timed exclusives. We will look into other platform releases after launch and a rest," said Ember Labs COO Josh Grier" I guess Sony paid to prevent that?
For Final Fantasy, sony has in the past paid to keep it on PlayStation consoles. just ask Nintendo. You know nintendo consoles where the franchise started and all the fans existed prior to playstation. Oh look they had a demo on N64?: https://kotaku.com/that-time-final-fantasy-ditched-nintendo-for-sony-1735720127 but no this is the same as the situation with Bethesda and starfield right? Wrong!
None of these are the same as claiming that starfield was taken away from Sony, when it was never announced to begin with. There was no demo on the platform, no prior game, for all we know they were looking at PC launch only before Sony and MS got involved.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
So, gears was taken away from PlayStation because it had a PS3 build?.
I guarantee you Starfield and redfall have a PS4 version.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
I think it'sretty obvious that there will have been playstafion versions of redfall and starfield. For me personally, of course those versions were killed due to MS buying the publisher.
I don't know about gears but there must have been a time where it could have been on PlayStation, hence the gears 3 version but obviously MS must have coughed the dough up to keep it exclusive? I don't know the ins and outs of that existing.
Swift_Star
Banned
You owned yourself with this post lol
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
You're only proving my point.
Where does he say it was planned for Xbox?
Where does it say they planned an Xbox version at launch? They said, "we will look into other platform releases after launch."
See how your logic is failing you?
I said look at the history of Bethesda games released on PlayStation, but you told me it was never stated and proven there was going to be a PS version.
Now you're telling me to look at what Sony has done in the past, but the standard for you in regards to Bethesda games were statements showing it was going to be released on PlayStation.
People can see that you just moved the goalpost. LOL. Show me evidence that these games were going to be released on Xbox.
This goalpost moving is hilarious. LOL.
There are previous Elder Scrolls games.
Where's the Street Fighter, Kena, and Final Fantasy demo?
Last edited:
phil_t98
#SonyToo
Who is being protected then?
Swift_Star
Banned
Deal with it.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
So when I want to play street fighter 5 I have to buy a PS CONSOLE. how are the consumers protected then?
If I wannna play final fantasy games I have to buy a PS console how are the consumers protected then?
The whole FTC argument is about protecting Sony as when the argument is to protect consumers it falls apart
ToTTenTranz
Banned
The amount of people here who aren't able to discern revenue from profits is kind of ridiculous. It should be something that everyone out of middle school should know.
Microsoft can't use revenue money to make acquisitions. They need to pay salaries, equipment, office rent, utilities, licenses, etc. out of their revenue and only then do they have their profits. Average profit/revenue ratio in the videogame software market seems to be in the 15% range.
Before Microsoft had to hide their Xbox Division profits numbers behind the Windows Division's, during the 7th-gen's (X360) golden age they were making about $6-7B / year in revenue, of which ~$1B were declared as profits.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Investor/earnings/FY-2012-Q4/segment-revenues
The XBox division never made (i.e. profitted) $70B in its lifetime. I doubt they made (i.e. profitted) over $20B, as the OG Xbox was understandably a loss to them.
It's not the Xbox division that's paying for this acquisition, it's the Office + Windows + Azure divisions who are footing the bill here.
Microsoft can't use revenue money to make acquisitions. They need to pay salaries, equipment, office rent, utilities, licenses, etc. out of their revenue and only then do they have their profits. Average profit/revenue ratio in the videogame software market seems to be in the 15% range.
Before Microsoft had to hide their Xbox Division profits numbers behind the Windows Division's, during the 7th-gen's (X360) golden age they were making about $6-7B / year in revenue, of which ~$1B were declared as profits.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Investor/earnings/FY-2012-Q4/segment-revenues
The XBox division never made (i.e. profitted) $70B in its lifetime. I doubt they made (i.e. profitted) over $20B, as the OG Xbox was understandably a loss to them.
It's not the Xbox division that's paying for this acquisition, it's the Office + Windows + Azure divisions who are footing the bill here.
Last edited:
Swift_Star
Banned
Nope. Timed and Game exclusivity is not the same as buying a whole publisher. This has been discussed and debunked before.
Nobody buys this argument.
sainraja
Member
Yeah, be clear with your intentions and you would likely face less hurdles.
Ghost of Caelid
Banned
I wish that were truly the case.
Ghost of Caelid
Banned
PR nightmares disappear fast, often time companies will go back on their word for more growth.
Swift_Star
Banned
It is despite what you're all trying to push here. No regulator is protecting Sony. That is simply not true at all.
Last edited:
R3claimer117
Member
LolThe amount of people here who aren't able to discern revenue from profits is kind of ridiculous. It should be something that everyone out of middle school should know.
Microsoft can't use revenue money to make acquisitions. They need to pay salaries, equipment, office rent, utilities, licenses, etc. out of their revenue and only then do they have their profits. Average profit/revenue ratio in the videogame software market seems to be in the 15% range.
Before Microsoft had to hide their Xbox Division profits numbers behind the Windows Division's, during the 7th-gen's (X360) golden age they were making about $6-7B / year in revenue, of which ~$1B were declared as profits.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Investor/earnings/FY-2012-Q4/segment-revenues
The XBox division never made (i.e. profitted) $70B in its lifetime. I doubt they made (i.e. profitted) over $20B, as the OG Xbox was understandably a loss to them.
It's not the Xbox division that's paying for this acquisition, it's the Office + Windows + Azure divisions who are footing the bill here
what? Dude you don't even know what you're talking about. Also how this relevant to this this acquisition?
Ghost of Caelid
Banned
Our regulatory bodies suck, that how companies like google, ms and apple become the dominant forces they are today. They are very inconsistent when it comes to how they regulate. Even here they are, if they were going to make the act of buying third party exclusives the main issue in the long run thats one thing. Call out both Sony and Xbox if you have to...but it seems they are more so protecting the market leader as opposed to the consumers in this case.
Topher
Identifies as young
I mean.....if folks are ok with Phil Spencer being a blatant liar then I guess that's all there is to it.
Swift_Star
Banned
Source that Sony is being protected? Do you have any evidence beyond conjecture?
ToTTenTranz
Banned
It would help if you read the posts that provide context to what I wrote.Lol
Also, quipping about "not knowing what I'm talking about" without providing an ounce of references isn't putting you in a very bright spot.
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
The integrity of the market and its future.
Ghost of Caelid
Banned
All executives lie, scratch that...all people in power lie. Don't love any of them. They only care about their bottom line...$$$
I'll do some digging and find the FTC head saying "muhahaha, sony will be protected at all cost" since you want a particular source and not the fact that the regulatory bodies are going out of their way to protect competition in a field where one company dominates and no one else has an issue with said acquisition, because only one company would suffer minorly from said purchase.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Street Fighter sold under 7 million units lifetime. You guys really need to get a grip on reality holy shit. Exclusives are not the problem DUH
Guess what would happen if Sony bought EA and suddenly they could make FIFA and Madden exclusive? It would be the end of Xbox and the integrity of the market would be put on blast because suddenly Sony would be able to control the terms in which everyone else does business.
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
I don't think the gaming industry as a whole is going to see it that way. And they shouldn't. You say don't love them, but you are willing to give them all a pass so you the result is the same. That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Thankfully, I personally believe Phil Spencer has more integrity than that and will honor his public committments.
Last edited:
- Status