Support NeoGAF

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Phil confirmed to The Wall Street Journal and shareholders that Gamepass is profitable and around 10-15% of Xbox total revenue.

Anything else and y'all are just showing your biased asses to the peanut gallery.

The idoicy and misinformation continues.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Phil confirmed to The Wall Street Journal and shareholders that Gamepass is profitable and around 10-15% of Xbox total revenue.

Anything else and y'all are just showing your biased asses to the peanut gallery.

The idoicy and misinformation continues.

Phil also claimed what I stated in my previous post.

Phil makes a lot of promises/claims and rarely backs them up. You, of all people, should not be calling others idiots and complaining about biased asses.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Phil also claimed what I stated in my previous post.

Phil makes a lot of promises/claims and rarely backs them up. You, of all people, should not be calling others idiots and complaining about biased asses.

The usual suspects cannot handle Xbox/GP doing well, best on record just last fin year, factually and in financials.

All this anti-MS circle jerking cracks me up. I cannot wait for the reactions when the deal goes through post regulatory phase.

Best show on the internet.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Phil confirmed to The Wall Street Journal and shareholders that Gamepass is profitable and around 10-15% of Xbox total revenue.

Anything else and y'all are just showing your biased asses to the peanut gallery.

The idoicy and misinformation continues.

It's only profitable if you completely disregard how much Microsoft Games Studios costs to run

Halo infinite and Forza retail sales fell off a cliff due to GamePass.

 

[Dr. Claus]

It's only profitable if you completely disregard how much Microsoft Games Studios costs to run

Halo infinite and Forza retail sales fell off a cliff due to GamePass.

To be fair, Infinite was trash and Forza was a glorified expansion pack. Not the best examples. Will be interesting to see how actually great games like Hi-Fi Rush will be.

 

[Alex Scott]

Bloomberg on MS/ACTBLIZZ and CMA

 

[Heisenberg007]

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

Or ... "we made a mistake. Let's ensure we don't make the same mistake again."

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

To be fair, Infinite was trash and Forza was a glorified expansion pack. Not the best examples. Will be interesting to see how actually great games like Hi-Fi Rush will be.

I thought both were fine. They cost a lot to make but don't think they really lived up to expectations financially, and GamePass is partly to blame for that

 

[bitbydeath]

Phil confirmed to The Wall Street Journal and shareholders that Gamepass is profitable and around 10-15% of Xbox total revenue.

Anything else and y'all are just showing your biased asses to the peanut gallery.

The idoicy and misinformation continues.

Sorry man, but "Profitable" and "Profitable for us" are two completely different statements.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Phil confirmed to The Wall Street Journal and shareholders that Gamepass is profitable and around 10-15% of Xbox total revenue.

Anything else and y'all are just showing your biased asses to the peanut gallery.

The idoicy and misinformation continues.

Share with us the revenue and expenses, so we can see if something is actually profitable or not, if you are saying it with this conviction.

Phil says a lot of things that aren't true, e.g., VR is launching with Xbox One X. Most people don't trust him (or most executives, for that matter).

 

[adamsapple]

Phil confirmed to The Wall Street Journal and shareholders that Gamepass is profitable and around 10-15% of Xbox total revenue.

Anything else and y'all are just showing your biased asses to the peanut gallery.

The idoicy and misinformation continues.

It also generates roughly $3 bn in revenue in a year. Someone was asking earlier about development budgets relative to game pass earlier, I think $3bn is a very good sum to cover a lot of development. You can probably slot in hundreds of smaller games like Hi-Fi Rush in there or a fair number of medium/high budget games per annum. Not every game has a massively ballooned up budget like Halo: Infinite.

 

[Lyrical]

Phil confirmed to The Wall Street Journal and shareholders that Gamepass is profitable and around 10-15% of Xbox total revenue.

Anything else and y'all are just showing your biased asses to the peanut gallery.

The idoicy and misinformation continues.

What % of total profits though Phil?? Weird how he says it's profitable and then mentions what percent of total revenue gamepass is.

 

[3liteDragon]

Why Microsoft's $69 Billion Activision Deal Hinges on London Not Washington - Bloomberg

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Full article:

Microsoft Corp.'s $69 billion Activision Blizzard Inc. takeover faces a key decision in Britain as the nation's merger watchdog marks its arrival as a global regulator with findings that could set the trajectory to the mega deal finalizing — or falling apart.

The Competition and Markets Authority is expected in the coming days to issue its provisional findings, signaling whether it aims to block the deal or clear it with specific remedies such as selloffs. The regulator already flagged concerns that the deal could cause competition issues in the consoles and subscriptions market, as well as the more nascent cloud gaming sector. Microsoft first announced the transaction last year, looking to add blockbuster games like Call of Duty to a business that already includes the Xbox console, the Halo franchise and Minecraft world-building software.

But the tie-up has fallen foul of global regulators who fear that Microsoft could make it harder for rival platforms to get unfettered access to Activision's most popular titles. Crucially, the CMA's filing will come before decisions from the European Union and the US Federal Trade Commission, which is locked in a lengthy legal process after formally suing to veto the transaction.

"The CMA's decision is key because if it chooses to block the deal, there is little recourse for the companies — UK courts rarely overturn a CMA merger decision," said Jennifer Rie, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence. "Conditions will have to be thorough, beyond just licenses for Call of Duty," she said, adding that "an unconditional clearance is unlikely."

Microsoft this week received the EU regulators' initial findings in a so-called statement of objections, laying out the bloc's key concerns about the deal, according to people familiar with the review. The tech firm last year already publicly offered to give its rival Sony Group Corp. a 10-year license for Call of Duty, but it will now have several weeks to formally submit remedies in the EU probe in line with the formal concerns.

Unlike in the EU, where regulators and Microsoft already informally discussed possible remedies, the UK regulatory process has traditionally remained less accessible and discussions weren't happening before the CMA's preliminary decision. However, updated CMA guidance from last year now allows companies to propose potential remedies ahead of provisional findings.

"The FTC may rely on the CMA to block it," said Anne C Witt, a professor of law at EDHEC Business School. "The European Commission just sent out a statement of objections, so there's no way they can get there before the CMA. The CMA is going to win this one and it will be interesting."

The CMA emerged from the shadows of the European Commission after the UK's departure from the EU — with the regulator perusing deals that had previously met their fate in Brussels rather than London. In recent shows of strength, it's taken on Big Tech companies, including telling Meta Platforms Inc. that it must reverse its acquisition of Giphy after worries it could take a strangle-hold of the GIF market.

"To advance the gaming market to the benefit of all stakeholders, we believe it is important to consider clear and easily enforceable solutions to potential competition concerns," a Microsoft spokesperson said. "Our commitment to grant long-term access to Call of Duty to Sony, as well as Nintendo and Steam, accomplishes this be preserving the deal's benefits to consumers and developers and promoting competition in the market," they said.

A CMA spokesperson declined to comment.

Called it a while back.

Like I said before, the CMA & the EU have a higher chance of killing the deal than the FTC does, especially the CMA.

 

[drganon]

Phil confirmed to The Wall Street Journal and shareholders that Gamepass is profitable and around 10-15% of Xbox total revenue.

Anything else and y'all are just showing your biased asses to the peanut gallery.

The idoicy and misinformation continues.

Says the man who can't spell idiocy.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Says the man who can't spell idiocy.

Mobile typing sucks. Helluva gotchya.

Twat.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Why Microsoft's $69 Billion Activision Deal Hinges on London Not Washington - Bloomberg

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Full article:

Called it a while back.

Hope the CMA blocks it and the deal falls apart.

Gonna be an interesting week

 

[Banjo64]

The usual suspects cannot handle Xbox/GP doing well, best on record just last fin year, factually and in financials.

All this anti-MS circle jerking cracks me up. I cannot wait for the reactions when the deal goes through post regulatory phase.

Best show on the internet.

CMA be like

 

[drganon]

Mobile typing sucks. Helluva gotchya.

Twat.

You know phones have this wonderful new thing called spell check. You should check it out sometime between your meltdowns over things not going so well with the buyout.

 

[Banjo64]

Hope the CMA blocks it and the deal falls apart.

This thread has come a long way from posts like this;

Jesus I can't wait for this deal to go through so we can stop having to read the amount of uniformed nonsense in this thread. The CMA is posturing and if this deal is approved by the EU commission on November 8th and the FTC by the end of the year and it's only the CMA standing on this hill of wanting to protect the market leader I wonder how much political pressure is going to be on who ever is doing this probe of the deal.

I remember when the CMA published their phase 1, I've never read so much toss from people on here about the UK.

 

[pasterpl]

Hope the CMA blocks it and the deal falls apart.

Gonna be an interesting week

The only party not benefiting from this deal is Sony , literally everyone else benefit from it passing. No longer gimped version of cod on other platforms. Some sort of order in ABK (benefits ABK workers), unions in ABK (benefits ABK workers). Don't forget that public feedback was 75% in favour of this deal as per the CMA. Blocking this deal benefits no other party than Sony.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

The only party not benefiting from this deal is Sony

Not true

Any third party should not want it either

Consumers should not want it

Only people that want a deal of this magnitude to go through are Microsoft and shills. Now that's a different matter than whether you believe it will go through, but I have a hard time believing anyone that WANTS it go through would be anyone outside the sphere of Microsoft's influence

 

[Three]

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

It's more like we screwed up and learnt from it. Let's not let it happen again.

 

[Heisenberg007]

The only party not benefiting from this deal is Sony , literally everyone else benefit from it passing.

Nope. Xbox/PC gets ABK games that they'll continue to get. Nothing will change from them. In addition, Nintendo will stop getting other non-COD games to their platforms.

So this deal literally doesn't benefit anyone -- apart from the tiny GP userbase. Which represents only a small minority (less than 30%) of Xbox console users.

No longer gimped version of cod on other platforms.

Nobody gets gimped versions currently.

Some sort of order in ABK (benefits ABK workers),

Considering the continuous non-stop management problems in XGS, if anything it'd likely make things worse.

unions in ABK (benefits ABK workers).

Already formed. It doesn't need MS for that.

Blocking this deal benefits no other party than Sony.

And Sony represents the largest community of Activision games, which means the deal does not benefit the largest Activision community.

 

[pasterpl]

Not true

Any third party should not want it either

Consumers should not want it

Only people that want a deal of this magnitude to go through are Microsoft and shills. Now that's a different matter than whether you believe it will go through, but I have a hard time believing anyone that WANTS it go through would be anyone outside the sphere of Microsoft's influence

And yet

Consumers should not want it
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/75-of...-activision-were-in-favor-of-deal-says-uk-cma

Any third party should not want it either
From what we have heard EA, Ubi, T2 etc. have nothing against it. To be honest it is only Sony that it against it with Google and nVidia while not fans of it, didn't say that the deal should be blocked. Rest look to be neutral.
https://www.windowscentral.com/gami...e-positive-comments-for-xboxs-activision-deal
https://www.kitguru.net/blog/2022/0...think-of-microsofts-activision-blizzard-deal/

So nor public or industry agrees with you.


Now it is time to look into the mirror and as yourself that one important question; maybe it is me who is wrong? - just a suggestion.

 

[DenchDeckard]

This is just too boring now. I feel like the only real people losing here is us.

Back and forth bickering about shit no one really understands and peeps with an invested interest in each side going at each other.

Do I want more games on game pass, damn right!

Do I want this deal to be scrutinised, damn right. What I can't deal with is if it does or doesn't go through is the years of pointless warring antagonising and bull shit we will see from one side to the other.

Like I said, if it goes through and it's been fairly scrutinised I'll be happy as I get a lot more games on my game pass subscription. If it doesn't then it's on MS to find other ways to keep me invested in game pass which is also fine I guess.

I'm just here to see the dirty laundry now. If MS wins it's OK if we see some bruises too. Concessions, facts about business.

If it doesn't go through and it's due to statements from Sony etc I want sonys dirty laundry to be aired too in court. Let's see what those third party deals really look like on a contractual level and if you pay less than the competition has to etc.

Then hopefully the playing field can be levelled out a bit....if the rumours we hear on the Internet are real and not complete fabrications that is.

 

[ToadMan]

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.

You're the one making the exceptional claim - that multiplat developers were without any deal at all producing MS exclusives.

Extraordinary claims like that require extraordinary proof. It would be a first in videogame history for so many multiplat developers to suddenly decide to make single platform games.

You don't have any evidence of that happening because it didn't happen.

These were not games destined to be MS only until the acquisition process.

 

[Three]

You're the one making the exceptional claim - that multiplat developers were without any deal at all producing MS exclusives.

You don't get it. The market leader is controlling those publishers making it very difficult to get those exclusives. Free just costs too much for MS so they have to make these acquisitions.

This is just too boring now. I feel like the only real people losing here is us.

Back and forth bickering about shit no one really understands and peeps with an invested interest in each side going at each other.

Do I want more games on game pass, damn right!

Do I want this deal to be scrutinised, damn right. What I can't deal with is if it does or doesn't go through is the years of pointless warring antagonising and bull shit we will see from one side to the other.

Like I said, if it goes through and it's been fairly scrutinised I'll be happy as I get a lot more games on my game pass subscription. If it doesn't then it's on MS to find other ways to keep me invested in game pass which is also fine I guess.

I'm just here to see the dirty laundry now. If MS wins it's OK if we see some bruises too. Concessions, facts about business.

If it doesn't go through and it's due to statements from Sony etc I want sonys dirty laundry to be aired too in court. Let's see what those third party deals really look like on a contractual level and if you pay less than the competition has to etc.

Then hopefully the playing field can be levelled out a bit....if the rumours we hear on the Internet are real and not complete fabrications that is.

I think the playing field is level already, even tipped in MS favour with the market contraction we're having. They have the studios but they have bizarrely not kept a steady flow of content to make their console seem attractive. Even so they have still been selling and keeping up.

I don't even think it's important to their strategy anyway. They see the market contraction, they see that to survive they need the few big games/IPs that will remain in the future and are acquiring them, they see that they need mobile, and they rely less on consoles while still selling more than they had before.

My 50/50 prediction based on just timing is that the CMA might actually allow concessions this week and it would be interesting to know what happens next, especially regarding the FTC.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

At this point the deal is probably less likely than it is likely.

I wonder when we see people getting out of Activision stock before it careens down. That will be quite telling.

 

[Banjo64]

You're the one making the exceptional claim - that multiplat developers were without any deal at all producing MS exclusives.

Extraordinary claims like that require extraordinary proof. It would be a first in videogame history for so many multiplat developers to suddenly decide to make single platform games.

You don't have any evidence of that happening because it didn't happen.

These were not games destined to be MS only until the acquisition process.

You're wasting your time.

 

[ZehDon]

Share with us the revenue and expenses, so we can see if something is actually profitable or not, if you are saying it with this conviction.

Phil says a lot of things that aren't true, e.g., VR is launching with Xbox One X. Most people don't trust him (or most executives, for that matter).

Oh, this fucking garbage again. If you're accusing one of the heads of a publicly traded company of lying about the profitability of said company, you'd better have some serious fucking ammunition. That kind of accusation goes beyond "console wars" and into "federal fraud". Heads of publically traded companies can't just walk around lying about profits and losses. So, no, if you believe Microsoft is actively engaging in a concerted and deliberate effort to defraud their investors and shareholders by lying about the profitability of their business endeavours, you're the one who has to put up the numbers. So, let's see what you've got: show me that Microsoft is lying about the profitability of Game Pass and is openly committing fraud.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

This is just too boring now. I feel like the only real people losing here is us.

Back and forth bickering about shit no one really understands and peeps with an invested interest in each side going at each other.

Do I want more games on game pass, damn right!

Do I want this deal to be scrutinised, damn right. What I can't deal with is if it does or doesn't go through is the years of pointless warring antagonising and bull shit we will see from one side to the other.

Like I said, if it goes through and it's been fairly scrutinised I'll be happy as I get a lot more games on my game pass subscription. If it doesn't then it's on MS to find other ways to keep me invested in game pass which is also fine I guess.

I'm just here to see the dirty laundry now. If MS wins it's OK if we see some bruises too. Concessions, facts about business.

If it doesn't go through and it's due to statements from Sony etc I want sonys dirty laundry to be aired too in court. Let's see what those third party deals really look like on a contractual level and if you pay less than the competition has to etc.

Then hopefully the playing field can be levelled out a bit....if the rumours we hear on the Internet are real and not complete fabrications that is.

You have two principal parties.

Party A and Party B

Party A has a consumer base of 100
Party B has a consumer base of 40

Party C makes products for Party A and Party B.

Will an exclusive deal cost more for Party A or Party B?

Party B has to make Party C whole from lost revenue of not going with Party A whereas Party A only has to make Party C whole based on lost revenue of not going with Party B.

It's not Sony's fault that their exclusivity deals are less expensive than Microsofts, but it is ironic that the more deals Sony does, the cheaper they will get because its market share increases.

Once their market share increases to a certain level, it actually makes doing exclusivity deals less important and reduces the return on investment.

We haven't reached that point in the product life cycle, and Sony's deals are probably established through the next couple of years, but towards the latter half of the generation, I don't think you'll see these deals happening.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Oh, this fucking garbage again. If you're accusing one of the heads of a publicly traded company of lying about the profitability of said company, you'd better have some serious fucking ammunition. That kind of accusation goes beyond "console wars" and into "federal fraud". Heads of publically traded companies can't just walk around lying about profits and losses. So, no, if you believe Microsoft is actively engaging in a concerted and deliberate effort to defraud their investors and shareholders by lying about the profitability of their business endeavours, you're the one who has to put up the numbers. So, let's see what you've got: show me that Microsoft is lying about the profitability of Game Pass and is openly committing fraud.

He hasn't made specific comments that could be called a lie.

Depending on how he is coming up with the term profitability.

He can argue that they were already going to create the first party software titles and thus they don't need to account for their expense directly in gamepass, where I think he NEEDS to account for it is in revenue lost in lieu of GamePass, but that's where we get into speculative analysis.

But the point here is by not giving a breakdown of operating costs along with revenue, he's being disingenuous as to the profitability of the service.

If they only account for 3rd party deals as part of their gamepass expenses, it certainly shouldn't be called profitable.

Also note, he hasn't said how much profit it made or when. Stunning that you don't see these vague statements as just that, because you want to be convinced that GamePass is a sustainable model, when it almost certainly isn't.

 

[ToadMan]

The only party not benefiting from this deal is Sony

If Sony are negatively impacted by this deal, that is an immediate reason to block it. That is the regulatory position.

Literally everything else you wrote as "mitigation" is irrelevant.

To put it another way, while there is a risk to the health of the established market, MS won't get this deal approved.

You've effectively summarised why this is getting push back at the moment - well done.

 

[DenchDeckard]

You have two principal parties.

Party A and Party B

Party A has a consumer base of 100
Party B has a consumer base of 40

Party C makes products for Party A and Party B.

Will an exclusive deal cost more for Party A or Party B?

Party B has to make Party C whole from lost revenue of not going with Party A whereas Party A only has to make Party C whole based on lost revenue of not going with Party B.

It's not Sony's fault that their exclusivity deals are less expensive than Microsofts, but it is ironic that the more deals Sony does, the cheaper they will get because its market share increases.

Once their market share increases to a certain level, it actually makes doing exclusivity deals less important and reduces the return on investment.

We haven't reached that point in the product life cycle, and Sony's deals are probably established through the next couple of years, but towards the latter half of the generation, I don't think you'll see these deals happening.

And that's the problem, Sony has 20 years of doing these deals and are using them to put them in a position where they can not be touched. Its like big business crushing smaller businesses.

Yes overall Microsoft is huge but their xbox devision is much smaller than Sony. I guess everyone wants xbox to fork up the extra money needed to pay for these third party deals at the wrath of the games media and larger user base ( tomb raider deal ).

So I guess little Phil went to papa Satya and said, pops can I have some money to rent this game for a year and we will start clawing back market share....that didn't work and actually hurt the brand more. So papa satya said no more renting games I want to own them.

Now all we can do is hope it all turns out fair.

I do get your point and it makes sense but it's then creating a spiral where Sony just pays less and less and everyone has to pay more and more or becomes irrelevent.

I'm notnsure what the best practice is. Many will argue its just have great exclusive games but it's not just that. It's the whole package. So MS needs to work something out there. Hopefully it starts with 2023 and beyond.

 

[ZehDon]

He hasn't made specific comments that could be called a lie.... he's being disingenuous as to the profitability of the service.

Words games don't work, friend. If you're accusing one of the heads of a publicly traded company of lying about the profitability of said company, you'd better back it up. So, prove it - what do you have?

...Stunning that you don't see these vague statements as just that, because you want to be convinced that GamePass is a sustainable model, when it almost certainly isn't.

I love that you jump from the gymnastics of "Phil isn't lying, but is he is totally lying" to making assumptions about my position that ignore my prior post entirely. My position is self-evidently based on a simple fact: if anyone at Microsoft makes false public statements about the profitability of their businesses, those people go to fucking jail. So, what seems more likely: Phil Spencer is willing to risk ending his career and facing criminal charges to score points in the console war, or, Phil Spencer is telling the truth and console fan boys are simply running Narrative #4476 again, in the hopes it might actually stick this time?

 

[ToadMan]

You don't get it. The market leader is controlling those publishers making it very difficult to get those exclusives. Free just costs too much for MS so they have to make these acquisitions.

In the context of this discussion I'm afraid to say you are misinformed.

Markets have leaders - the regulators accept that and do not oppose it. They don't oppose high prices and they don't even oppose monopolies. Evidence for this? That Sony is not under investigation for anything it is or has done.

This isn't Sony vs MS, its MS vs regulators. This is the mistake a lot of people are making here - Sony are effectively a witness and of course stand to lose a significant revenue stream if the deal is allowed - but they aren't the ones opposing MS, its the government opposing MS.

That (in your opinion) Sony is behaving in an aggressive way in the market is both acceptable to the regulators and irrelevant to this case - Sony aren't under investigation.

The question is whether MS acquisition of ABK is a reasonable and legitimate business operation which will not harm the market and its consumers.

Of course it will harm the market, that's why MS has already put mitigating offers on the table but so far those offers are too little.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Words games don't work, friend. If you're accusing one of the heads of a publicly traded company of lying about the profitability of said company, you'd better back it up. So, prove it - what do you have?


I love that you jump from the gymnastics of "Phil isn't lying, but is he is totally lying" to making assumptions about my position that ignore my prior post entirely. My position is self-evidently based on a simple fact: if anyone at Microsoft makes false public statements about the profitability of their businesses, those people go to fucking jail. So, what seems more likely: Phil Spencer is willing to risk ending his career and facing criminal charges to score points in the console war, or, Phil Spencer is telling the truth and console fan boys are simply running Narrative #4476 again, in the hopes it might actually stick this time?

Again, without presenting operating costs that include all pieces going into the cost of operating a service you can not suggest that it is profitable.

Vague statements alone here are not enough to tie him legally to whether GamePass is truly profitable or not.

Ultimately, I don't think you know what profitable actually means and how many companies massage whether they are profitable or not.

 

[Three]

In the context of this discussion I'm afraid to say you are misinformed.

Markets have leaders - the regulators accept that and do not oppose it. They don't oppose high prices and they don't even oppose monopolies. Evidence for this? That Sony is jot under investigation for anything it is or has done.

This isn't Sony vs MS, its MS vs regulators. This is the mistake a lot of people are making here - Sony are effectively a witness and of course stand to lose a significant revenue stream if the deal is allowed - but they aren't the ones opposing MS, its the government opposing MS.

That (in your opinion) Sony is behaving in an aggressive way in the market is both acceptable to the regulators and irrelevant to this case - Sony aren't under investigation.

The question is whether MS acquisition of ABK is a reasonable and legitimate business operation which will not harm the market and its consumers.

Of course it will harm the market, that's why MS has already put mitigating offers on the table but so far those offers are too little.

Sorry, I should have made it clear I was being sarcastic.

I was making fun of the ridiculous contradicting arguments where people seem to be suggesting that MS has a hard time securing exclusives for their platform because "woe is me" MS has to pay too much while simultaneously suggesting they were getting free exclusives for their platform.

Contradicting positions to both justify the acquisition and suggest that nothing was taken away. Anything to make MS look like the "good actor" I guess.

 

[ZehDon]

Again, without presenting operating costs that include all pieces going into the cost of operating a service you can not suggest that it is profitable...

Microsoft didn't suggest it, they stated it. Either you believe Microsoft is committing open fraud, or, you know you're spouting non-sense. Which is it?

 

[Warablo]

If Sony are negatively impacted by this deal, that is an immediate reason to block it. That is the regulatory position.

Literally everything else you wrote as "mitigation" is irrelevant.

To put it another way, while there is a risk to the health of the established market, MS won't get this deal approved.

You've effectively summarised why this is getting push back at the moment - well done.

That is not how it works whatsoever. The regulators aren't there to protect Sony market share.

Anyway, Sony fans obviously want the deal not to go through. While Gamepass users on Xbox or PC want the deal to go through. You could argue that Gamepass reaches a bigger audience through Xcloud. Plus have more parity between PC/Xbox versions of CoD instead of Sony exclusives.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

And that's the problem, Sony has 20 years of doing these deals and are using them to put them in a position where they can not be touched. Its like big business crushing smaller businesses.

Yes overall Microsoft is huge but their xbox devision is much smaller than Sony. I guess everyone wants xbox to fork up the extra money needed to pay for these third party deals at the wrath of the games media and larger user base ( tomb raider deal ).

So I guess little Phil went to papa Satya and said, pops can I have some money to rent this game for a year and we will start clawing back market share....that didn't work and actually hurt the brand more. So papa satya said no more renting games I want to own them.

Now all we can do is hope it all turns out fair.

I do get your point and it makes sense but it's then creating a spiral where Sony just pays less and less and everyone has to pay more and more or becomes irrelevent.

I'm notnsure what the best practice is. Many will argue its just have great exclusive games but it's not just that. It's the whole package. So MS needs to work something out there. Hopefully it starts with 2023 and beyond.

Let's not act as if Microsoft haven't had their own exclusivity deals. They absolutely have. The 360 had near parity with the PS3 in terms of market share, though not necessarily revenue.

They've made a lot of bad deals and Sony has made a lot of good deals.

Not sure it's Sony's fault that Microsoft has made bad deals. Look at the Tomb Raider deal as a perfect example of this.

Sony also didn't force Mircosoft to make those deals rather than invest in their own first-party studios.

Ultimately this comes down to mismanagement by Microsoft's upper management across the board and you can say that Sony has more experience here, but the reality is that Microsoft has been in the business about as long as Sony has. Sony entered in 1994 and Microsoft entered in 2000. They've had 20+ years to get this right.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Microsoft didn't suggest it, they stated it. Either you believe Microsoft is committing open fraud, or, you know you're spouting non-sense. Which is it?

Top Five Reasons Why EBITDA Is A Great Big Lie

EBITDA, that widely-touted measure of company performance and indicator of value otherwise known as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, is a fairy tale told to investors and credit managers so that they go to sleep happy instead of running for the hills. EBITDA...

www.forbes.com

Just an example, but this isn't new, it just seems to be new to you.

 

[jm89]

And that's the problem, Sony has 20 years of doing these deals and are using them to put them in a position where they can not be touched. Its like big business crushing smaller businesses.

So Microsoft didn't exert it's position during the 360 era? Why ignore that? And microsoft haven't done any exclusivity after the 360 era? You conveniently ignore what microsoft have been doing in those 20 years, this victimisation doesn't work when they had the market share they did the same shit. Don't forgot it's microsoft who popularized paying for online, using their advantage to fuck the industry.

Yes overall Microsoft is huge but their xbox devision is much smaller than Sony. I guess everyone wants xbox to fork up the extra money needed to pay for these third party deals at the wrath of the games media and larger user base ( tomb raider deal ).

You don't want to compare microsoft to sony cause they are huge, but then you compare xbox to the entirety of sony ???

So I guess little Phil went to papa Satya and said, pops can I have some money to rent this game for a year and we will start clawing back market share....that didn't work and actually hurt the brand more. So papa satya said no more renting games I want to own them.

Now all we can do is hope it all turns out fair.

I do get your point and it makes sense but it's then creating a spiral where Sony just pays less and less and everyone has to pay more and more or becomes irrelevent.

I'm notnsure what the best practice is. Many will argue its just have great exclusive games but it's not just that. It's the whole package. So MS needs to work something out there. Hopefully it starts with 2023 and beyond.

It's already fair, microsoft have more studios then sony, they have more money, possibly more ips.

 

[ZehDon]

http://[URL]https://www.forbes.com/...hy-ebitda-is-a-great-big-lie/?sh=1eca717ed2da

[/URL]

Just an example, but this isn't new, it just seems to be new to you.

So, your answer is "accounting". Congratulations, that's a concept older than the civilisation you're currently living in. By your metric, Sony must be lying about its record breaking profits too, right? Surely, I'll find posts from you in that thread explaining Sony's lies?

If you want to accuse companies of large-scale criminal fraud, don't waste my time with this bullshit and bring something serious to the table.

 

[pasterpl]

Nope. Xbox/PC gets ABK games that they'll continue to get. Nothing will change from them. In addition, Nintendo will stop getting other non-COD games to their platforms.

So this deal literally doesn't benefit anyone -- apart from the tiny GP userbase. Which represents only a small minority (less than 30%) of Xbox console users.

Nobody gets gimped versions currently.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/see-call-of-duty-mw2-and-warzone-2-playstation-exclusive-content-in-action/1100-6509299/#:~:text=PlayStation users are also getting,at least October 27, 2023.

Considering the continuous non-stop management problems in XGS, if anything it'd likely make things worse.

This is based purely on rumors, nothing is confirmed. Remember you said non-stop management problems.

Already formed. It doesn't need MS for that.

Maybe I have worded that wrong, easier way to unionize, you know MS is happy for the unions to get created in ABK and under XGS vs
https://www.wired.com/story/activision-blizzard-unionization-albany/ there is difference between MS saying Ok to unions vs ABK fighting these in courts trying stop these from forming completely. This alone warrants better conditions for workers.

And Sony represents the largest community of Activision games, which means the deal does not benefit the largest Activision community.

By games you mean CoD, and that biggest community is not that much bigger than what's on xbox, not mentioning pc and other platforms. Also Sony would only lose access/ability to moneyhat exclusive content for ps players. CoD will stay on ps for the next 10 years after the current deal ends.

If Sony are negatively impacted by this deal, that is an immediate reason to block it. That is the regulatory position.

Literally everything else you wrote as "mitigation" is irrelevant.

To put it another way, while there is a risk to the health of the established market, MS won't get this deal approved.

You've effectively summarised why this is getting push back at the moment - well done.

By not benefiting, I mean no more exclusive content etc. and moneyhatting like this https://www.gamespot.com/articles/see-call-of-duty-mw2-and-warzone-2-playstation-exclusive-content-in-action/1100-6509299/#:~:text=PlayStation users are also getting,at least October 27, 2023
of course after the current contracts end.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

So, your answer is "accounting". Congratulations, that's a concept older than the civilisation you're currently living in. By your metric, Sony must be lying about its record breaking profits too, right? Surely, I'll find posts from you in that thread explaining Sony's lies?

If you want to accuse companies of large-scale criminal fraud, don't waste my time with this bullshit and bring something serious to the table.

Sony offers way more information about it's PlayStation business than Microsoft does about Xbox... there's no denying that.

My point is that it isn't fraud and that you clearly don't understand the level in which a lie has to be here to reach the level of fraud. EBIDTA is in itself a lie, but it's commonly used and completely normal.

What I'm telling you is that you can't assume that based on the vagueries Phil Spencer has said here that the service is actually profitable by what most reasonable people would consider profitable, which would include the revenue lost by first party titles going into gamepass and the cost that it takes to develop said games as an additional operating cost aligned with GamePass.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

We should breakdown why the Tomb Raider exclusivity deal failed.

First, while Tomb Raider was a hit on PS3, the sequel being exclusive was ill timed. The game was met with pretty good reviews, but Tomb Raider was no long really a system seller, already supplanted by Uncharted. Uncharted 4 was coming out just a few months later an was a significantly larger presence.

Most importantly though, it's evidence that PlayStation games (not sony games, just any games that sell on the platform) are not individually larger than the sum of their total.

With the exception of an exclusivity deal for like GTA, Call of Duty, or maybe sustained exclusivity of Madden, NBA 2K, or FIFA, individual exclusivity deals aren't going to move the needle much.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Oh, this fucking garbage again. If you're accusing one of the heads of a publicly traded company of lying about the profitability of said company, you'd better have some serious fucking ammunition. That kind of accusation goes beyond "console wars" and into "federal fraud". Heads of publically traded companies can't just walk around lying about profits and losses. So, no, if you believe Microsoft is actively engaging in a concerted and deliberate effort to defraud their investors and shareholders by lying about the profitability of their business endeavours, you're the one who has to put up the numbers. So, let's see what you've got: show me that Microsoft is lying about the profitability of Game Pass and is openly committing fraud.

What's wrong with my comment?

Did Phil not miscommunicate (lie) about the VR? He did. Here is what he said:

"The best place for VR innovation is the PC," Spencer says. "I think developers should still go focus on the PC, because I think that's a great place to innovate. What we're doing… is we're able to take some of the PC innovation that we see… and bring it to the console space, to enable those magical experiences on Scorpio when it launches."

Which "magical experiences" came when Scorpio launched? Is it not a prime example of a company head lying? We have numerous examples of executives lying, e.g., GT7 being PS5 exclusive, No Man's Sky, Cyberpunk 2077, and what's possible in the game. Where are the fraud cases against them?

Let's not be naive.

Regarding the profitability of Game Pass, it's way more nuanced. And more data is required to form a better viewpoint. For example:

• Does this Game Pass supposed revenue also include MTX?
• Does the operating expenses only include third-party deals?
• Does it include opportunity cost of first-party lost sales because of Game Pass?
• Does the "profit" include inter-departmental Azure Cloud costs?
• Does the operating expenses include the expenses incurred for Series X server blades to enable Cloud gaming?

See? There's a lot more to it.

And when does asking for more information or requiring data points become "fucking garbage?" Come on.

 

[Three]

What's wrong with my comment?

Did Phil not miscommunicate (lie) about the VR? He did. Here is what he said:



Which "magical experiences" came when Scorpio launched? Is it not a prime example of a company head lying? We have numerous examples of executives lying, e.g., GT7 being PS5 exclusive, No Man's Sky, Cyberpunk 2077, and what's possible in the game. Where are the fraud cases against them?

Let's not be naive.

Regarding the profitability of Game Pass, it's way more nuanced. And more data is required to form a better viewpoint. For example:

• Does this Game Pass supposed revenue also include MTX?
• Does the operating expenses only include third-party deals?
• Does it include opportunity cost of first-party lost sales because of Game Pass?
• Does the "profit" include inter-departmental Azure Cloud costs?
• Does the operating expenses include the expenses incurred for Series X server blades to enable Cloud gaming?

See? There's a lot more to it.

And when does asking for more information or requiring data points become "fucking garbage?" Come on.

I think he is referring to the lie of saying "gamepass is profitable for us" which would get him in trouble with the SEC if it turned out to be a lie. I don't think it was a lie but it wasn't very informative either when you look at what's actually happening. He made that comment in Oct 2022 and I can absolutely see them being profitable with the releases made that year vs their budget, even third party big releases (expenditure) were rare. but was he counting the development and operating costs of all games he currently has? Would the $7B acquisition cost of Zenimax to secure content for it count? He has an out when he says it's profitable because it depends how he is balancing the books.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I think he is referring to the lie of saying "gamepass is profitable for us" which would get him in trouble with the SEC if it turned out to be a lie. I don't think it was a lie but it wasn't very informative either when you look at what's actually happening. He made that comment in Oct 2022 and I can absolutely see them being profitable with the releases made that year vs their budget even third party big releases were rare. but was he counting the development and operating costs of all games he currently has? Would the $7B acquisition cost of Zenimax to secure content for it count? He has an out when he says it's profitable because it depends how he is balancing the books.

Exactly. It's nuanced, and unless one knows the criteria of how data is being calculated and pulled, it's nearly impossible to believe a dataset or form an opinion about it.

I listed a bunch of questions off the top of my head regarding the profitability comment. It'd be good if we know their answers or at least have more information about it, instead of simply going by "trust me bro."