Support NeoGAF

[ToadMan]

This has been posted at least half a dozen times already.

There are 7 stages of grief. Once more and it's the acceptance stage.

You claim 'whataboutisms' after I give specific examples of titles that should have hit Xbox but did not AND gave examples of announced PlayStation games that hit that system after a MS acquisition. You just made a statement with no evidence at all.

Interestingly enough MS ALSO has another example of IP they acquired and made available to 'maximize ROI' like Minecraft and plans with CoD too so again your argument is unsubstantiated.

My previous examples of Street Fighter and Final Fantasy could also be included in a way to 'maximize revenue' but yet they still skipped the Xbox so it's obvious that not all games hit all platforms as I've stated before.

You have no proof the games mentioned were coming to PlayStation and there are plenty of games that 'were coming to Xbox anyway' that did not. Nothing is guaranteed when it comes to games hitting certain systems.

There are plenty of benefits to consumers from this deal especially people who prefer to pay for game access with a subscription over traditional retail. Nintendo will get additional support they currently are not getting (ROI maximum investment right?) and Activision employees are getting new leadership after years of being unhappy with Kotick. Regulators should be able to scrutinize the deal like all others but it's obvious that Xbox is in third place, far from a monopoly and hasn't hurt consumers at all.

Well I thought it was obvious but lets spell it out then.

1. You cite examples of single expiring exclusivity deals. Deals which are common in the industry and practiced by all including MS.

2. Exclusivity deals expire and have limited applicability. See SF returning to xbox in a few months for example.

3. Both (1) and (2) are trumped by acquisitions which don't expire and where the new ownership can effectively neutralise competition, innovation and consumer choice.

4. Sony, Nintendo and any other gaming company isn't under investigation. MS and ABK are. No amount of "whatabout" company X or Y and what happened previously is the question here. The only question is whether an acquisition by MS of this scale will harm the sustainability of the wider market and have a negative effect on consumers.

Yes, your whataboutisms are irrelevant for obvious reasons to anyone with an ounce of objectivity.

 

[Elios83]

Microsoft are a good actor this thread is now plummeting to absurd levels. Please CMA, end my misery.

We're at the end of the show, based on a recent New York Times article it seems like even Microsoft's lawyers are currently expecting CMA to block the deal.
We might hear more about their complaints and if there's a bit of room for Microsoft to address some of the concerns.

 

[demigod]

This is a perfect example of absolute stupidity. Giant corporations are not your friends. They are not good. Everything they do revolves around money. Microsoft would euthanize everyone over 50 if they could make a trillion dollars and be lauded for it.

He has ms stock.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

I appreciate your positive spin man. Gamecube and WiiU were certainly victories to the Xbox brand. This article indicates PS3 outsold X360. Still doesn't really change the fact that Xbox is in third right now as they try and complete this acquisition and talk about how they beat Gamecube fifteen years ago isn't a good indicator of their market strength.

Actually you seem to be spinning here. Nothing I said was wrong. I'm also not the one that brought up the original Xbox, you were, and you skipped over Wii U because you know this was a bad argument.

No one knows Xbox 360 numbers, your article is basing it on the last reported 360 numbers in 2014(pre 4th quarter), when the 360 was still ahead of the PS3, and when Sony stopped reporting numbers.

 

[Talkin Hawkin]

T Talkin Hawkin , how old are you? Because I remember talking on forums like you are when I was in high school. Too much unnecessary swearing, and too many "lol" and "haha" comments. Welcome to the forum, but try and class up your posts a bit.

This is how i talk irl. I read the terms of service and yeah i have to keep profanity to a minumum cos the world has gone soft, but if them be the rules so be it.

There's no rules for laughing though, why you wanna ban laughing? pop me on ignore if you dont like it, but lemme ask you. when you used to talk on forums when you were in high school did those forums ever ban you or huffy posters give you a hard time?

I respect your post and all but how you come across isnt that great. sometimes peoples class be low and they ok with that. should they be banned for not being privilaged and from high class?

 

[Daniel_Mallorca1985]

http://www.eurogamer.net/microsoft-expects-the-uk-to-oppose-its-acquisition-of-activision-blizzard

 

[GHG]

This is how i talk irl. I read the terms of service and yeah i have to keep profanity to a minumum cos the world has gone soft, but if them be the rules so be it.

There's no rules for laughing though, why you wanna ban laughing? pop me on ignore if you dont like it, but lemme ask you. when you used to talk on forums when you were in high school did those forums ever ban you or huffy posters give you a hard time?

I respect your post and all but how you come across isnt that great. sometimes peoples class be low and they ok with that. should they be banned for not being privilaged and from high class?

Communicating in correct English (or at least attempting to do so) is not a matter of class, it's a matter of correctness.

We have a number of non-English native speakers on this forum and they at least make the effort, you should too if it's your native tongue.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Microsoft are a good actor this thread is now plummeting to absurd levels. Please CMA, end my misery.

And that my friends is what a bootleg version of shrek in a tub looks like.

 

[Astray]

The comparison between Minecraft and COD don't really hold a lot of water imo, COD has multiple fundamental differences to Minecraft that make it a genuinely unique proposition, and can definitely incentivize MS to withhold it:

- It's an annually-released game (Excluding Warzone): Minecraft is Minecraft, it has feature updates, it can have spinoffs, but it's not gonna sell a gazillion copies every single year like the COD mainline game franchise does, which in turn makes it very desireable for console bundles, tihink about how many times you saw a PS4+thisyearsCOD bundle in the past gen, bundles are mostly meaningless after launch to us because we are the type that would buy during launch year, but they are extremely meaningful to retailers (they can get benefits from vendors for the additional SKU), and an easy sell to parents who typically come later in the cycle and typically buy during the Holidays. Notice how whenever MS talks about their 10 year offer to Sony, they only talk about feature and release parity, they don't talk about bundling or stuff like that.

- It has a community that's ready-made and buys the game every year, meaning that if MS times their withhold/preferential treatment correctly, they definitely CAN induce a mass switch of said community. Sony itself did that at the beginning of the PS4 era with timed exclusive DLC and reaped a ton of reward from it, and MS would be stupid not to do it at some point, they are just delaying that point to get the deal through (and will still benefit from %70 rev cut on PS platform while they bide their time to do so). The COD 10 year deal is not this amazing deal ppl think it is.

- It is not beholden to an external licensor: If MS went for EA instead to get FIFA or whatever EA calls it next year, they will have to deal with license owners like FIFPro for example (they license the names and likeness of the players), and those can definitely have an impact on publishing decisions, like what happened with Sony and their MLB game. This removes an additional barrier against MS attempts to exclude Sony out of the COD franchise.

 

[reksveks]

R reksveks

God bless him (for tonight only though)

 

[YeulEmeralda]

The "open market" does not function "freely" in the US or Europe and this is not the "opposite of capitalism". If this were the "opposite of capitalism" then these companies would not exist at all. Pointing to the extremes is a useless argument in these circumstances as it doesn't reflect the reality of the situation where capitalists are able to make money within the boundaries put in place by government regulations.

In a market without regulations Sony and Microsoft would merge to form WaylandYutani and charge 500 dollars for games.

 

[ToadMan]

I appreciate your positive spin man. Gamecube and WiiU were certainly victories to the Xbox brand. This article indicates PS3 outsold X360. Still doesn't really change the fact that Xbox is in third right now as they try and complete this acquisition and talk about how they beat Gamecube fifteen years ago isn't a good indicator of their market strength.

Oh and just to talk about this.

This is what the FTC (USA) has to say

Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for a company to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize," trade or commerce. As that law has been interpreted, it is not illegal for a company to have a monopoly, to charge "high prices," or to try to achieve a monopoly position by what might be viewed by some as particularly aggressive methods. The law is violated only if the company tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly through unreasonable methods. For the courts, a key factor in determining what is unreasonable is whether the practice has a legitimate business justification.

The regulator isn't there to protect companies even ones that are failing in the market place. MS's third place in the market doesn't grant them additional rights or a free pass and neither do Sony or Nintendo or anyone else get a tougher time.

As this states - it's acceptable for a company to have a monopoly assuming they got that position through legitimate business methods - innovation, consumer acceptance, participation in the market through legitimate business practice.

The only question is whether MS and ABK are doing something "reasonable" in the context of the videogame market when it comes to this acquisition.

Is it "reasonable" for a company to use funds obtained outside the gaming market to acquire an existing high profile publisher - perhaps the highest profile - for 70bn - an amount no company could reasonably derive from the videogame industry.

And then, instead of trying to maximise the ROI of that acquisition by putting that content on as many platforms as possible (ie a legitimate business practice), instead lock that content to less platforms than it's currently available on, thereby reducing consumer choice to "one" - take MS's service or say goodbye to existing popular multiplatform franchises now and in future.

I don't have much faith in regulators but this is such an obvious case of unreasonable business practice I really don't see how it gets approved. But then again, some brown envelopes full of cash here and there, some bullshit baffling brains in a courtroom and who knows.

One other lol-point - the FTC website uses a previous judgement against MS as an example of the work it does. This isn't MS's first rodeo

 

[phil_t98]

I only play COD warzone. Why can't microsoft use that 70 billion to make my console cheaper? $500 dollars is a lot of money for a Series X. If they lowered the price I would buy one.



Do you get paid for posting here or are you working for Activision? I play COD because I like smoking weed and chilling with my mates. We don't care if there are most posters up or microsoft make money. What's the benefit to me as a cod player?




warzone


I don't play on mobile. and COD is free already on xbox. wats the point in spending that money

What don't you buy a os4 or Xbox one for a cheaper console the if you only play that

 

[3liteDragon]

 

[feynoob]

In essence, we screwed up, so we have to make example of this deal.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

The only way I see this deal going through and mind you I'm not qualified in these matters, but it seems as though MS will need to put things in writing not just for ten years but likely in perpetuity. CoD at the bare minimum, and likely even more than makes this deal more or less worthless of MS. This deal works best if intimately it's a play for Game Pass content but I worry MS could be forced to entertain parity on that front with PS+

 

[CuNi]

The only way I see this deal going through and mind you I'm not qualified in these matters, but it seems as though MS will need to put things in writing not just for ten years but likely in perpetuity. CoD at the bare minimum, and likely even more than makes this deal more or less worthless of MS. This deal works best if intimately it's a play for Game Pass content but I worry MS could be forced to entertain parity on that front with PS+

To be fair, that would be a bigger win for MS than Sony, since so far Sony always paid big buck to keep exclusive content to itself and lock PC/Xbox out of it.
So if they'd have to have parity, it's a bigger loss for Sony than MS, especially when MS will be allowed to offer it in GP.

 

[Thirty7ven]

In essence, we screwed up, so we have to make example of this deal.

It has all the hallmarks of those deals.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

This is a perfect example of absolute stupidity. Giant corporations are not your friends. They are not good. Everything they do revolves around money. Microsoft would euthanize everyone over 50 if they could make a trillion dollars and be lauded for it.

Take a chill pill. Sony makes its decisions based on money, too, do they not? If Microsoft's decision is about money and only money, then they will do what's best for their money, correct? Which is not taking COD away from Playstation. COD isn't the same situation as with Starfield or even Elder Scrolls 6 in the future. Even if they will still be huge games, but the differences are obvious so I won't even go down that road.

Microsoft believes that adding more and more value to Game Pass is great for business and will lead to them making more money. Why do people such as yourself continue to seemingly be upset or even find it evil that people love the deal Microsoft offers with Game Pass? Thinking Microsoft has made some fantastic, consumer-friendly decisions (which they have made a shit ton of) and praising them for those good decisions is such a crime to you that it warrants an association with a deadly death by lethal injection campaign? Is that really what we doing right now?

If they're making decisions that millions of gamers deem GOOD for their pockets and GOOD for their love of videogames, then the company has made a tremendous fucking decision that it deserves praise for. They can be the quietly evil corporation you think they are, but it still doesn't change that they're doing some very good things in the area of gaming, and they continue to make such excellent decisions. Monster Hunter Rise is one, Hi-Fi Rush recently is another, all the Game Pass day ones they have planned this year are all things that Microsoft deserves to be lauded for whether you and anybody else likes that or not.

 

[IFireflyl]

Take a chill pill. Sony makes its decisions based on money, too, do they not?

Where in my post did you see me put Sony on a pedestal? Don't jump into someone else's conversation if you're not capable of reading.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Take a chill pill. Sony makes its decisions based on money, too, do they not? If Microsoft's decision is about money and only money, then they will do what's best for their money, correct? Which is not taking COD away from Playstation. COD isn't the same situation as with Starfield or even Elder Scrolls 6 in the future. Even if they will still be huge games, but the differences are obvious so I won't even go down that road.

Microsoft believes that adding more and more value to Game Pass is great for business and will lead to them making more money. Why do people such as yourself continue to seemingly be upset or even find it evil that people love the deal Microsoft offers with Game Pass? Thinking Microsoft has made some fantastic, consumer-friendly decisions (which they have made a shit ton of) and praising them for those good decisions is such a crime to you that it warrants an association with a deadly death by lethal injection campaign? Is that really what we doing right now?

If they're making decisions that millions of gamers deem GOOD for their pockets and GOOD for their love of videogames, then the company has made a tremendous fucking decision that it deserves praise for. They can be the quietly evil corporation you think they are, but it still doesn't change that they're doing some very good things in the area of gaming, and they continue to make such excellent decisions. Monster Hunter Rise is one, Hi-Fi Rush recently is another, all the Game Pass day ones they have planned this year are all things that Microsoft deserves to be lauded for whether you and anybody else likes that or not.

Another example of why you are the biggest warrior on this site. No where did anyone suggest Sony is except from this discussion, but you just had to try and bring them into it to bitch and say "But they do it toooooo DX". No fucking shit they do. The point is that MS is not your friend and you people need to stop trying to make them out to being some "Good guy" and attaching your entire personality around them. FFS, mate.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

To be fair, that would be a bigger win for MS than Sony, since so far Sony always paid big buck to keep exclusive content to itself and lock PC/Xbox out of it.
So if they'd have to have parity, it's a bigger loss for Sony than MS, especially when MS will be allowed to offer it in GP.

Sure, but is that worth $70b?

 

[demigod]

To be fair, that would be a bigger win for MS than Sony, since so far Sony always paid big buck to keep exclusive content to itself and lock PC/Xbox out of it.
So if they'd have to have parity, it's a bigger loss for Sony than MS, especially when MS will be allowed to offer it in GP.

Let me know if Sony ever blew $100mil for 1 year exclusive.

 

[DForce]

Take a chill pill. Sony makes its decisions based on money, too, do they not? If Microsoft's decision is about money and only money, then they will do what's best for their money, correct? Which is not taking COD away from Playstation. COD isn't the same situation as with Starfield or even Elder Scrolls 6 in the future. Even if they will still be huge games, but the differences are obvious so I won't even go down that road.

Microsoft believes that adding more and more value to Game Pass is great for business and will lead to them making more money. Why do people such as yourself continue to seemingly be upset or even find it evil that people love the deal Microsoft offers with Game Pass? Thinking Microsoft has made some fantastic, consumer-friendly decisions (which they have made a shit ton of) and praising them for those good decisions is such a crime to you that it warrants an association with a deadly death by lethal injection campaign? Is that really what we doing right now?

If they're making decisions that millions of gamers deem GOOD for their pockets and GOOD for their love of videogames, then the company has made a tremendous fucking decision that it deserves praise for. They can be the quietly evil corporation you think they are, but it still doesn't change that they're doing some very good things in the area of gaming, and they continue to make such excellent decisions. Monster Hunter Rise is one, Hi-Fi Rush recently is another, all the Game Pass day ones they have planned this year are all things that Microsoft deserves to be lauded for whether you and anybody else likes that or not.

Microsoft is very consumer friendly because they're in third place trying to get to the top.

Xbox fans really need to stop with the "Microsoft cares about the gamers" narrative.

One of the main reasons why Game Pass exist is because that's a subscription service Sony and Nintendo are going to have a hard time competing with. Microsoft is willing to drop billions of dollars just to make it work, they're also willing to buy every single major publisher to weaken the competition.

Microsoft and Sony aren't here to be friends, they're here to win.

 

[Gone]

So those regulators are saying that Microsoft can't put CoD on gamepass because that would hurt Sony and Playstation (who don't want to offer a similar friendlier service to their users)? What about the end user, isn't that what should matter the most?

If Microsoft offers a 10 years deal (and they're ready to do so) of offering CoD on PS and Nintendo consoles then why the fuck won't them let deal through?

 

[demigod]

So those regulators are saying that Microsoft can't put CoD on gamepass because that would hurt Sony and Playstation (who don't want to offer a similar friendlier service to their users)? What about the end user, isn't that what should matter the most?

If Microsoft offers a 10 years deal (and they're ready to do so) of offering CoD on PS and Nintendo consoles then why the fuck won't them let deal through?

10 years isn't that long. That's almost as long as phil spencer been in charge of xbox. How many games has ms released that sold over 10mil since he took over?

 

[YeulEmeralda]

406 pages. How many warriors have fallen on this battlefield?

PC gamers are up on their spaceship looking down on the trenches.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

So those regulators are saying that Microsoft can't put CoD on gamepass because that would hurt Sony and Playstation (who don't want to offer a similar friendlier service to their users)? What about the end user, isn't that what should matter the most?

If Microsoft offers a 10 years deal (and they're ready to do so) of offering CoD on PS and Nintendo consoles then why the fuck won't them let deal through?

Basically what will drag/play out in global courts if these regulators block in the current process. MS lawyers will push the legal route if things don't go well at the moment with regulators. For example the FTC has a horrible track record and a fucked up process where they're judge/jury/executioner and private industry has had well enough of it. The overwhelming majority of "relevant" FTC rulings have been overturned in court after the fact. There is a whole big tech push and push back occurring at the moment, outside of this deal.

 

[noise36]

Microsoft is very consumer friendly because they're in third place trying to get to the top.

Who cares why? MS have reduced the cost of gaming and made it more accessible, not forcing people to buy their brand box to play games.

Sony have been doing the opposite, increased the cost of gaming , and have be raising the walls on their garden via years of "moneyhatting" paid exclusivity deals and up until recently not supporting PC. Even now its a someday maybe with PC support, you are just supposed to shut up and buy a PS5.

 

[DForce]

Who cares why? MS have reduced the cost of gaming and made it more accessible, not forcing people to buy their brand box to play games.

Sony have been doing the opposite, increased the cost of gaming , and have be raising the walls on their garden via years of "moneyhatting" paid exclusivity deals and up until recently not supporting PC. Even now its a someday maybe with PC support, you are just supposed to shut up and buy a PS5.

You're asking me who cares when I'm responding to his post about how Microsoft is being consumer friendly.

And Microsoft hasn't been moneyhatting? They've been doing it ever since they entered the console market. I also recall Sony buying studios to increase the output of their PC titles.

Also, isn't Microsoft increasing the sales of its consoles and games? That's not Sony's fault when publishers were going to do it anyways. lol

 

[IFireflyl]

Who cares why? MS have reduced the cost of gaming and made it more accessible, not forcing people to buy their brand box to play games.

This is not sustainable. Netflix has over 100 million more subscribers than Game Pass. Game Pass is cheaper than Netflix's standard subscription (even with Game Pass Ultimate at full price). AAA video games cost more to make than the average Hollywood movie. All of this points to the inevitable conclusion that Microsoft will either have to increase the cost of Game Pass, reduce the quality of content on Game Pass, eliminate Game Pass entirely, or a mixture of the first three options.

Sony have been doing the opposite, increased the cost of gaming , and have be raising the walls on their garden via years of "moneyhatting" paid exclusivity deals and up until recently not supporting PC. Even now its a someday maybe with PC support, you are just supposed to shut up and buy a PS5.

I disagree with the $60 to $70 price hike, but their system of gaming obviously works, and it works well. Otherwise they would be floundering, and Sony is not floundering in the gaming department.

As I side note, I wish it were illegal to pay third-parties for exclusivity unless Microsoft or Sony (or Nintendo) were the ones approaching the third-party to fund their own game.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

This is not sustainable. Netflix has over 100 million more subscribers than Game Pass. Game Pass is cheaper than Netflix's standard subscription (even with Game Pass Ultimate at full price). AAA video games cost more to make than the average Hollywood movie. All of this points to the inevitable conclusion that Microsoft will either have to increase the cost of Game Pass, reduce the quality of content on Game Pass, eliminate Game Pass entirely, or a mixture of the first three options.

More misinformation. Gamepass is already profitable and sustainable. It's an irrefutable fact now.

Price increases are as inevitable as inflation, for all players in gaming.

 

[IFireflyl]

More misinformation. Gamepass is already profitable and sustainable. It's an irrefutable fact now.

Price increases are as inevitable as inflation, for all players in gaming.

Game Pass is profitable if you don't look at first-party development costs and ROI for those games. If Game Pass actually takes off then it's not going to be a supplementary service like Microsoft is currently claiming that it currently is. Either Game Pass doesn't really expand and remains supplementary, or Game Pass takes the focus and becomes the primary way that gamers consume content. Those are your options. My response is assuming the latter (because why would they be pushing Game Pass so hard if they don't want it to become more popular?).

On top of that, we still don't have a breakdown of HOW Game Pass is profitable. Game Pass subscribers don't also subscribe to Xbox Live because it is included in the Game Pass subscription. Which funds from Microsoft's gaming division is paying for their Xbox Live infrastructure and its upkeep? Is Game Pass just removing money that was previously allocated to the division that handles Xbox Live and putting it in Game Pass's revenue, but then infrastructure costs are still allocated to the Xbox Live division? If so then Game Pass is making less money for Microsoft than Xbox Live by itself was. This means that even if it is profitable it is less profitable than their old standalone service because more money will be lost from people no longer buying games.

 

[Yoboman]

In essence, we screwed up, so we have to make example of this deal.

Sure, why not? Or is your suggestion they keep making the same mistakes they have made before?

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Game Pass is profitable if you don't look at first-party development costs and ROI for those games. If Game Pass actually takes off then it's not going to be a supplementary service like Microsoft is currently claiming that it currently is. Either Game Pass doesn't really expand and remains supplementary, or Game Pass takes the focus and becomes the primary way that gamers consume content. Those are your options. My response is assuming the latter (because why would they be pushing Game Pass so hard if they don't want it to become more popular?).

On top of that, we still don't have a breakdown of HOW Game Pass is profitable. Game Pass subscribers don't also subscribe to Xbox Live because it is included in the Game Pass subscription. Which funds from Microsoft's gaming division is paying for their Xbox Live infrastructure and its upkeep? Is Game Pass just removing money that was previously allocated to the division that handles Xbox Live and putting it in Game Pass's revenue, but then infrastructure costs are still allocated to the Xbox Live division? If so then Game Pass is making less money for Microsoft than Xbox Live by itself was. This means that even if it is profitable it is less profitable than their old standalone service because more money will be lost from people no longer buying games.

Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

Gamepass is profitable, confirmed. Anything you say beyond that is bullshit conjecture at best. Xbox isn't stopping direct sales, third party games don't stay on GP forever for free, you're free to purchase or not be part of GP any old time. You can mix and match too. There are discounts post launch and you're "free" to try any GP titles while they're on the service. Buy them any time etc.

Your post is just opinion with misinformation sprinkled throughout. Again, laughable.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

Gamepass is profitable, confirmed. Anything you say beyond that is bullshit conjecture at best. Xbox isn't stopping direct sales, third party games don't stay on GP forever for free, you're free to purchase or not be part of GP any old time. You can mix and match too. There are discounts post launch and you're "free" to try any GP titles while they're on the service. Buy them any time etc.

Your post is just opinion with misinformation sprinkled throughout. Again, laughable.

Some other "confirmations" from Microsoft:
Halo Infinite will have coop on launch.
There will be a lot to look forward to from Xbox First Parties in 2019... 2020... 2021... 2022...
Windows 10 will be the final windows
Zune is a massive success

Want me to continue?

Companies lie. Unless we see actual data on *how* it is supposedly profitable, you should remain skeptical. I am saying this as someone who genuinely loves Game Pass as a supplementary service. But I am sure I will get some dismissal warrior comment while you ignore the fact that you are making the mother of all fuckups via making assumptions.

 

[IFireflyl]

Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

Gamepass is profitable, confirmed. Anything you say beyond that is bullshit conjecture at best. Xbox isn't stopping direct sales, third party games don't stay on GP forever for free, you're free to purchase or not be part of GP any old time. You can mix and match too. There are discounts post launch and you're "free" to try any GP titles while they're on the service. Buy them any time etc.

Your post is just opinion with misinformation sprinkled throughout. Again, laughable.

Microsoft doesn't provide a breakdown of the Xbox gaming division's revenue, profit margins, et cetera. You have nothing to base this on except for Phil Spencer saying that, "It's profitable for us." Beyond the fact that of course Phil is going to paint this in the best light possible (because if Game Pass fails then he is probably screwed), there's also the question of what the "to us" part means. He didn't say "Game Pass is profitable" and have that be a complete sentence.

I'm not saying that Game Pass isn't profitable. I'm saying that your opinion is worthless because you're trusting big tech to be completely transparent with you, and they ALWAYS say whatever they can to paint themselves in a good light if they can get away with it. And Microsoft can get away with it, because again, nobody has any details on how their Xbox gaming division is doing. Just like we don't know how many console sales they have. Because Microsoft is not transparent.

 

[ChiefDada]

Gamepass is profitable, confirmed.

 

[poppabk]

This is not sustainable. Netflix has over 100 million more subscribers than Game Pass. Game Pass is cheaper than Netflix's standard subscription (even with Game Pass Ultimate at full price). AAA video games cost more to make than the average Hollywood movie. All of this points to the inevitable conclusion that Microsoft will either have to increase the cost of Game Pass, reduce the quality of content on Game Pass, eliminate Game Pass entirely, or a mixture of the first three options.

Number of games on gamepass - approx 500
Number of titles on US netflix - Approx 6000 (apparently 17000 titles globally)
And for some catalog titles like Seinfeld they are paying over $500 million. So with roughly 6 times as many subscribers but roughly 30 times as many titles Netflix is probably burning money faster than gamepass especially as a good deal of those 500 games are catalog titles they already own outright without the need to pay massive residuals on.

 

[IFireflyl]

Number of games on gamepass - approx 500
Number of titles on US netflix - Approx 6000 (apparently 17000 titles globally)
And for some catalog titles like Seinfeld they are paying over $500 million. So with roughly 6 times as many subscribers but roughly 30 times as many subscribers Netflix is probably burning money faster than gamepass especially as a good deal of those 500 games are catalog titles they already own outright without the need to pay massive residuals on.

Netflix's infrastructure is also entirely streaming. Game Pass also includes cloud gaming, which means we need to take into consideration that cost as well. But regardless, your response was good. It's helpful to break that down a little further. Thanks!

 

[poppabk]

Netflix's infrastructure is also entirely streaming. Game Pass also includes cloud gaming, which means we need to take into consideration that cost as well. But regardless, your response was good. It's helpful to break that down a little further. Thanks!

Plus for everyone who doesn't sign up to gamepass they get to sell.them the actual games - and going by steam numbers that isn't an insignificant amount. Then on top of that they get to sell DLC for these games - we saw with FH5 that well over a million people bought the DLC before the game launched and most of the DLC was 'unknown' at that time.

 

[DarkMage619]

There are 7 stages of grief. Once more and it's the acceptance stage.




Well I thought it was obvious but lets spell it out then.

1. You cite examples of single expiring exclusivity deals. Deals which are common in the industry and practiced by all including MS.

2. Exclusivity deals expire and have limited applicability. See SF returning to xbox in a few months for example.

3. Both (1) and (2) are trumped by acquisitions which don't expire and where the new ownership can effectively neutralise competition, innovation and consumer choice.

4. Sony, Nintendo and any other gaming company isn't under investigation. MS and ABK are. No amount of "whatabout" company X or Y and what happened previously is the question here. The only question is whether an acquisition by MS of this scale will harm the sustainability of the wider market and have a negative effect on consumers.

Yes, your whataboutisms are irrelevant for obvious reasons to anyone with an ounce of objectivity.

You can start by accepting reality. A claim was made that MS was 'taking games away' from PlayStation. Rather that all the back in forth simply provide proof MS had announced titles removed or canceled from the PlayStation platform. I've already repeatedly named the titles that were announced and miraculously hit the PlayStation anyway defying the narrative that MS is taking things away. You have engaged in baseless speculation and failed to cite even one game.

It may be more convenient to pretend that it is Xbox that is taking games away games from other platforms rather than losing them like I mentioned in the previous examples but facts are stubborn things. You don't like whataboutisms? I don't like baseless speculation. It would appear that there is no evidence MS has taken anything from anyone.

Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

Gamepass is profitable, confirmed. Anything you say beyond that is bullshit conjecture at best. Xbox isn't stopping direct sales, third party games don't stay on GP forever for free, you're free to purchase or not be part of GP any old time. You can mix and match too. There are discounts post launch and you're "free" to try any GP titles while they're on the service. Buy them any time etc.

Your post is just opinion with misinformation sprinkled throughout. Again, laughable.

This guy struggled to understand how Game pass was profitable when so many here argued that it was 'bleeding MS dry'. Best to not waste time trying to explain it to him.

Who cares why? MS have reduced the cost of gaming and made it more accessible, not forcing people to buy their brand box to play games.

Sony have been doing the opposite, increased the cost of gaming , and have be raising the walls on their garden via years of "moneyhatting" paid exclusivity deals and up until recently not supporting PC. Even now its a someday maybe with PC support, you are just supposed to shut up and buy a PS5.

Excellent point. It's clear MS and Sony are doing slightly different things. MS is far more interested in getting people into their ecosystem via console, PC, and mobile devices. It's great they are providing customers options to access games outside of traditional retail and not forcing anyone to purchase a console. No one else is really doing that.

 

[IFireflyl]

Plus for everyone who doesn't sign up to gamepass they get to sell.them the actual games - and going by steam numbers that isn't an insignificant amount. Then on top of that they get to sell DLC for these games - we saw with FH5 that well over a million people bought the DLC before the game launched and most of the DLC was 'unknown' at that time.

We're going backwards. Call me old fashioned, but I hate GaaS.

 

[SneakersSO]

I've worked within the industry for a long time. Have colleagues within all levels of publishers with knowledge on these and similar matters.

Game Pass has not been profitable. The only angle it can be evaluated as being of any profit value, from what i've heard from folks with knowledge of the matter, is when its assessed as a vertical integration asset thanks to Azure integration for most of these titles/studios that are running on it now. The more users being served by Azure, the more profitable that division gets, which is one of their fastest growing divisions by revenue. Azure's natural expansion due to the expansion of Xbox has been the only way Game Pass has ever come close to being viewed as worth the level of investment put forth (thus far).

 

[IFireflyl]

This guy struggled to understand how Game pass was profitable when so many here argued that it was 'bleeding MS dry'. Best to not waste time trying to explain it to him.

You're confusing me with someone else. Next time you get on the internet try to put together a few more brain cells first.

 

[feynoob]

Gamepass is profitable, confirmed.

Sustainable, not profitable.
it needs more userbase to reach that profitable status.

Couple of millions is not a profit, when the investment is massive.

If it reachs 35+m, then its a profit business.

But as of now, its on sustainable stage.

 

[feynoob]

Sure, why not? Or is your suggestion they keep making the same mistakes they have made before?

Nah. It better they fix those mistakes. But they still have to justify their decision, and not just go and make their decision in order to fix their mistakes like the ftc.

 

[Nubulax]

More misinformation. Gamepass is already profitable and sustainable. It's an irrefutable fact now.

Price increases are as inevitable as inflation, for all players in gaming.

Sure it can be "profitable and sustainable" if you are sly with how you account for the expenses of it.

 

[feynoob]

IFireflyl

I dont see him surviving the hammer, if he doesnt cool himself down.

T Talkin Hawkin

Feb 5, 2023

Feb 12, 2023

Take a week and decide if you want to be here or not.

People dont learn man.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Gamepass is profitable, confirmed.

Well that settles it

I guess Microsoft is doing so well with their "profitable" GamePass that acquiring a 70B company would be anticompetitive