Support NeoGAF

[Bumblebeetuna]

Yes, we shouldn't trust the executive beholden to shareholders. All he has is like, all of the numbers and information. Instead let's trust the warrior who has consistently used numbers from their ass to downplay GamePass at every chance.

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.

Already profitable and predicts it will remain only 10-15% of the services revenue. Isn't this interview like months old and yet we still have people claiming it isn't profitable and that MS will stop selling physical games entirely and focus entirely on GamePass? There are also clowns who still claim MS will dramatically alter game design to fit some "GamePass model" even though it accounts for such a small piece of their pie.

Sometimes I wonder how we got such a huge thread here and then I see you repost this old interview and we have a circle jerk of keyboard analysts going on about how it's a lie or "more info is needed!" and then I understand why.

 

[Drell]

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.

The "PC" is a fallacious argument. Why, because we always forget to mention what everyone means by PC is games running mostly exclusively on Windows. It's not a problem for Microsoft to launch games simultaneously on Xbox and Windows, it benefits them both. While Sony, when they release one of their gams on Windows later, get benefits, but Microsoft also get some benefits from it simply because it's running on Windows exclusively.

If one day Windows isn't a monopoly over gaming PCs OS and some Linux distribution becomes viable for these machines to a point we get big most AAA natively day one on it, then maybe we can talk about PC being totally independant. And for now, I wonder if Sony takes this into account for their late PC ports. I guess not because honestly, the gain for MS is minimal. But that's still something most PC people forget when they brag about how "free" they are on their PCs.

 

[ZehDon]

... 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...

So, you're back to Microsoft is lying about their profitability. No more non-sense - prove it. Right here, right now. Or stop posting this garbage.

What's wrong with my comment?...

Read my posts above, I'm not wasting more time on this dishonest dribble.

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

Not at all. Microsoft has said its profitable - end of story. If you can demonstrate otherwise, do so and get your headlines. I'm sure you've got those numbers around here somewhere...

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

You didn't ask for "more information" - you're accusing Phil Spencer of lying about the profitability of Game Pass. Either Microsoft is committing fraud, or you're speaking out of your ass. Which one is it?

 

[Mibu no ookami]

The "PC" is a fallacious argument. Why, because we always forget to mention what everyone means by PC is games running mostly exclusively on Windows. It's not a problem for Microsoft to launch games simultaneously on Xbox and Windows, it benefits them both. While Sony, when they release one of their gams on Windows later, get benefits, but Microsoft also get some benefits from it simply because it's running on Windows exclusively.

If one day Windows isn't a monopoly over gaming PCs OS and some Linux distribution becomes viable for these machines to a point we get big most AAA natively day one on it, then maybe we can talk about PC being totally independant. And for now, I wonder if Sony takes this into account for their late PC ports. I guess not because honestly, the gain for MS is minimal. But that's still something most PC people forget when they brag about how "free" they are on their PCs.

With how many macs are out there and the advancements of the M1 chip, I'd be stunned if Sony doesn't start porting their games to Mac.

Mac has about 10% of the market, but really no games available... that's gotta be tapped sooner rather than later.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

So, you're back to Microsoft is lying about their profitability. No more non-sense - prove it. Right here, right now. Or stop posting this garbage.


Read my posts above, I'm not wasting more time on this dishonest dribble.


Not at all. Microsoft has said its profitable - end of story. If you can demonstrate otherwise, do so and get your headlines. I'm sure you've got those numbers around here somewhere...


You didn't ask for "more information" - you're accusing Phil Spencer of lying about the profitability of Game Pass. Either Microsoft is committing fraud, or you're speaking out of your ass. Which one is it?

Think I'm done with you.

The onus isn't on me to prove anything here, but rather to say, and pretty obviously that Phil Spencer's vague comments can't be taken to heart without ANY detail whatsoever to back them up.

Again, find out what statements rise to the level of fraud, it's very very difficult to prove fraud, especially when all he has to say is, he based his comments without taking into account first party software costs.

His comments are entirely to vague to pin him on fraud, and thus his statements are also too vague to suggest that gamepass is truly profitable.

Let me go further, can you tell me how much profit gamepass has made? For how long it has been profitable? You can't because microsoft has never released information on this.

 

[ZehDon]

The onus isn't on me to prove anything here...

The burden of proof is abso-fucking-lutely on you. And you've offered not a damn thing. I'll apply Hitchen's razor: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Feel free to try again when you've got something more than fan-boy delusions. Until then, stow it.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

The burden of proof is abso-fucking-lutely on you. And you've offered not a damn thing. I'll apply Hitchen's razor: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Feel free to try again when you've got something more than fan-boy delusions. Until then, stow it.

That's literally what Phil Spencer has said in saying that GamePass is profitable without providing any evidence to back that statement up, nor is he challenged in the interview to speak to it at least not on the record.

 

[bitbydeath]

The burden of proof is abso-fucking-lutely on you. And you've offered not a damn thing. I'll apply Hitchen's razor: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Feel free to try again when you've got something more than fan-boy delusions. Until then, stow it.

You read it wrong, he never said they were profitable, he said :

it's profitable for us.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Why are you so triggered? You're a better poster than this; I expect better, more reasonable comments and less hostile responses from you.

So, you're back to Microsoft is lying about their profitability. No more non-sense - prove it. Right here, right now. Or stop posting this garbage.

It is up to Microsoft to share the data, not the other way around. They need to back up their claims with data, being a publicly limited company. Asking for information is not a crime.

Not at all. Microsoft has said its profitable - end of story. If you can demonstrate otherwise, do so and get your headlines. I'm sure you've got those numbers around here somewhere...

And I have already told you that it's more nuanced than that. It is reasonable to have questions. I even listed a bunch of questions that I don't know the answers of. You also don't know the answers to those questions. But if you do know, please share the answers.

I'm listing the questions again for you to answer:

• 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?

You didn't ask for "more information" - you're accusing Phil Spencer of lying about the profitability of Game Pass. Either Microsoft is committing fraud, or you're speaking out of your ass. Which one is it?

Please don't gaslight. I did ask for more information. Here is my comment. I asked for more information details on revenue and expenses. It is literally the very first thing in my comment.

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.

 

[MasterCornholio]

@IFireflyl

@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.

I was right about it being a weird troll/ parody account. Looks like the mods saw that as well.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Part of me sees posters riling things up for ban baiting. Misinformation should be treated like console warring IMO.

 

[ToadMan]

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.

Thats how far it's gone - difficult to tell the parodies from the real propaganda these days

 

[Pelta88]

I don't think people take into account that before everything, Microsoft is concerned only about it's stock price. When Phil Spencer says "GP is profitable for us" pay attention to the caveat. Phil is talking about, referring to, and defining "profitable" to fit Microsoft's internal projections of revenue and profitability.

Before any of you get bogged down in Phil's PR. Check Microsoft's quarterly financial releases. I could be wrong but Microsoft have never provided actual numbers of how Gamepass operates. Which is why whenever the market refers to GP they talk about "growth period." Which is defined as spending money now, to make profit at a later date. Never providing financial details... In the actual market means it hasn't made a profit. That is not up for debate out side of gaming forum discourse. It's a known fact.

On gaming forums PR is used as gospel by some. In terms of share price aka Microsoft's life blood, GP is the bastard child only referred to via nonsensical measurements like hours played or subscriptions percentage without a statistical point of reference. That is the definition of PR.

For those that support GP, I guess this includes myself also, understand this basic fact... Microsoft is funding the service. It is not going anywhere. But in terms of hard numbers and financial filings, approach any analyst or investor and tell them that GP is making a profit because "Phil Spencer said it is" and they'll laugh you clean out of the room. Or at best be like

 

[GHG]

These last few pages... People's true colours are really starting to show now that we're getting towards crunch time huh?

 

[ToadMan]

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.

And your link remains totally irrelevant because Sony are not under investigation.

MS/ABK are under investigation and the locking off of competitors from content that is currently available is exactly the problem with the deal.

Again you've hit the nail on the head, because, as you rightly said, this acquisition will have a direct, unreasonable and negative impact on the market including Sony. That is the end of the deal effectively, summed up well by you.

 

[mansoor1980]

 

[mrmustard]

We need a separate "What happens, if the deal fails" thread.

Part of me sees posters riling things up for ban baiting. Misinformation should be treated like console warring IMO.

Mods are too nice here.

 

[GHG]

Part of me sees posters riling things up for ban baiting. Misinformation should be treated like console warring IMO.

Rich coming from someone who has unabashedly insulted other posters in this thread.

 

[ToadMan]

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

You're right - the regulators aren't there to protect Sony, equally they're not there to assist MS. I have never made a claim to the contrary.

So you have no point as far as I can see.

MS-ABK is under investigation because it appears to be an unreasonable business practice and one that will negatively impact the established market. Sony is not the subject of investigation but they are potentially affected by the outcome.

Every time someone points out that this will negatively impact Sony's market share though and/or ability to continue to operate as they have to date, they are effectively confirming why the regulators will block the deal.

 

[FritzJ92]

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.

They won't happen because then it'll cost too much to do business with Xbox. Literally using your market weight to choke your competitor.

 

[ToadMan]

We need a separate "What happens, if the deal fails" thread.

I was thinking about this - not the thread, but the outcome of a failed acquisition.

First things first, I still expect this acquisition will go through - the question is how much compromise MS will make to get it over the line. The aftermath will just be more arguing about who "won"… <yawn>

But let's assume the apocalypse - the deal is blocked, MS don't like the compromises required and they pull out.

1. MS owe ABK money. The amount owed depends on when the deal is cancelled but its in the billions. The longer MS clings on, the more they have to compensate ABK when it collapses. Either way, MS is paying a decent sum to ABK.

2. The time is lost - over a year of both MS and ABK in limbo, unsure how or where to invest and what their product line up would look like. In an industry with AAA turnaround times exceeding 5 years, losing that time in limbo is very costly. Making and implementing a new plan will take time - probably this gen is over for MS before they get round to anything.

3. Phil. I think he has to go - nevermind the embarrassment, but he has even commented that he was not sufficiently aware of regulator considerations surrounding this deal. Almost anyone here on this forum could have told MS that a deal for ABK would be a majorly difficult thing to pull off and require a lot of compromises. Phil seems to have thought they just handover the cash, take the content exclusive to their platform and count the customer money they rack up from the docile masses just accepting the changes.

It's difficult to imagine a less competent head of xbox. Perhaps he's actually in the pay of Apple or someone.

If it were me, I'd get rid of Phil - his final service to MS is being the scapegoat for this - identify a replacement, restructure the Xbox division and conduct a kind of "soft relaunch", reinvigorated and under new management. They've got the resources to do well in gaming - they need to execute, not look for silver bullet acquisitions.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Literally using your market weight to choke your competitor.

It reminds me of the topic of this thread.

 

[mrmustard]

I was thinking about this - not the thread, but the outcome of a failed acquisition.

First things first, I still expect this acquisition will go through - the question is how much compromise MS will make to get it over the line. The aftermath will just be more arguing about who "won"… <yawn>

But let's assume the apocalypse - the deal is blocked, MS don't like the compromises required and they pull out.

1. MS owe ABK money. The amount owed depends on when the deal is cancelled but its in the billions. The longer MS clings on, the more they have to compensate ABK when it collapses. Either way, MS is paying a decent sum to ABK.

2. The time is lost - over a year of both MS and ABK in limbo, unsure how or where to invest and what their product line up would look like. In an industry with AAA turnaround times exceeding 5 years, losing that time in limbo is very costly. Making and implementing a new plan will take time - probably this gen is over for MS before they get round to anything.

3. Phil. I think he has to go - nevermind the embarrassment, but he has even commented that he was not sufficiently aware of regulator considerations surrounding this deal. Almost anyone here on this forum could have told MS that a deal for ABK would be a majorly difficult thing to pull off and require a lot of compromises. Phil seems to have thought they just handover the cash, take the content exclusive to their platform and count the customer money they rack up from the docile masses just accepting the changes.

It's difficult to imagine a less competent head of xbox. Perhaps he's actually in the pay of Apple or someone.

If it were me, I'd get rid of Phil - his final service to MS is being the scapegoat for this - identify a replacement, restructure the Xbox division and conduct a kind of "soft relaunch", reinvigorated and under new management. They've got the resources to do well in gaming - they need to execute, not look for silver bullet acquisitions.

I think it was 3 billions Microsoft has to pay.

Anything is possible:

- Microsoft could use the money to go on a shopping tour for lots of small/medium devs and publishers that don't require permission

- Activison could be mad at Sony and make some exclusive deals with Microsoft or decline future deals with Sony

- Microsoft could stop investing big money into gaming / leave the console business / leave the gaming business and sell everything

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

You read it wrong, he never said they were profitable, he said :

The hoops some of you will jump through to shit on anything that can be construed as a positive for MS, it's really sad but also very entertaining. Here we have one of the top MS execs saying it's profitable but he must be lying because he didn't provide some random journalist detailed internal documents and tax filings and bank information

 

[Pelta88]

- Activison could be mad at Sony and make some exclusive deals with Microsoft or decline future deals with Sony

With Microsoft's documented and court submitted admissions of a declining console presence? I don't see how that's a viable outcome.

The reason PS has the marketing rights to COD now is because the advantage in instal. Acti isn't a competitor to Sony. If they were they wouldn't have been giving away early access and exclusive content to PS since 2015.

 

[noise36]

The "PC" is a fallacious argument. Why, because we always forget to mention what everyone means by PC is games running mostly exclusively on Windows. It's not a problem for Microsoft to launch games simultaneously on Xbox and Windows, it benefits them both. While Sony, when they release one of their gams on Windows later, get benefits, but Microsoft also get some benefits from it simply because it's running on Windows exclusively.

MS earns nothing from Sony releasing a game on PC, there is no "benefits".

Furthermore everyone got free keys to upgrade from windows 7 > 10 > 11

I can't even remember how much I paid for the original key as it was so long ago but it wasn't very much.

 

[GHG]

I speak for everyone when I say whatever happens with this deal we need to protect Phil at all cost.

 

[pasterpl]

And your link remains totally irrelevant because Sony are not under investigation.

MS/ABK are under investigation and the locking off of competitors from content that is currently available is exactly the problem with the deal.

Again you've hit the nail on the head, because, as you rightly said, this acquisition will have a direct, unreasonable and negative impact on the market including Sony. That is the end of the deal effectively, summed up well by you.

Yes, Sony is not under investigation, And yet Sony is huge part of the process. They have inserted themselves into to it. Or have you forgotten Jim Ryan's world tour around meeting with CMA, FTC, EU in this case. Even though, as you mention Sony is not under investigation they feel the need to insert the severs into it. So, yeah that link is relevant.

Again you've hit the nail on the head, because, as you rightly said, this acquisition can have a direct, negative impact on Sony.

Fixed that for you. And nope deal is not dead, far from it. It will pass with some concessions and everyone will be happy except of Sony.

One thing I cannot get my head around; based on this thread it seems that it is okay Competing via moneyhating exclusives and exclusive content, but it is not okay buying 3rd party publishers to achieve the same goal.

 

[GHG]

Yes, Sony is not under investigation, And yet Sony is huge part of the process. They have inserted themselves into to it. Or have you forgotten Jim Ryan's world tour around meeting with CMA, FTC, EU in this case. Even though, as you mention Sony is not under investigation they feel the need to insert the severs into it. So, yeah that link is relevant.


Fixed that for you. And nope deal is not dead, far from it. It will pass with some concessions and everyone will be happy except of Sony.

One thing I cannot get my head around; based on this thread it seems that it is okay Competing via moneyhating exclusives and exclusive content, but it is not okay buying 3rd party publishers to achieve the same goal.

Yes, Jim Ryan just uninvitedly rocked up to the FTC, CMA, EU commission's offices and managed to schedule meetings to discuss this.

He also cold called them and sent a number of unsolicited emails.

With that in mind I think it is in fact Sony who should be investigated for this deal, not Microsoft.

 

[Astray]

I was thinking about this - not the thread, but the outcome of a failed acquisition.

First things first, I still expect this acquisition will go through - the question is how much compromise MS will make to get it over the line. The aftermath will just be more arguing about who "won"… <yawn>

But let's assume the apocalypse - the deal is blocked, MS don't like the compromises required and they pull out.

1. MS owe ABK money. The amount owed depends on when the deal is cancelled but its in the billions. The longer MS clings on, the more they have to compensate ABK when it collapses. Either way, MS is paying a decent sum to ABK.

2. The time is lost - over a year of both MS and ABK in limbo, unsure how or where to invest and what their product line up would look like. In an industry with AAA turnaround times exceeding 5 years, losing that time in limbo is very costly. Making and implementing a new plan will take time - probably this gen is over for MS before they get round to anything.

3. Phil. I think he has to go - nevermind the embarrassment, but he has even commented that he was not sufficiently aware of regulator considerations surrounding this deal. Almost anyone here on this forum could have told MS that a deal for ABK would be a majorly difficult thing to pull off and require a lot of compromises. Phil seems to have thought they just handover the cash, take the content exclusive to their platform and count the customer money they rack up from the docile masses just accepting the changes.

It's difficult to imagine a less competent head of xbox. Perhaps he's actually in the pay of Apple or someone.

If it were me, I'd get rid of Phil - his final service to MS is being the scapegoat for this - identify a replacement, restructure the Xbox division and conduct a kind of "soft relaunch", reinvigorated and under new management. They've got the resources to do well in gaming - they need to execute, not look for silver bullet acquisitions.

Unless the CMA comes out and surprises us with smaller than expected caveats, I think this deal is now closer to getting nixed than getting approved.

With that said, I think there's a lot of merit to your post, my big thing in it though, is the part about Phil, the man has had a decade at the helm, and spent billions on acquisitions, which got the new gen of consoles sales tracking LESS than the Xbox One did at the same time, which is utter madness considering how much they had to give up in terms of revenue to make Game Pass appealing. This deal is his last roll of the dice and I can see him losing his job if it fails.

 

[mrmustard]

With Microsoft's documented and court submitted admissions of a declining console presence? I don't see how that's a viable outcome.

The reason PS has the marketing rights to COD now is because the advantage in instal. Acti isn't a competitor to Sony. If they were they wouldn't have been giving away early access and exclusive content to PS since 2015.

COD also sells well on Xbox. Of course in the end it's all business, but the relation between Sony and Activion could suffer and who knows if the person in charge is resentful and prefers Microsoft as a partner. It's not that i think this is the most likely result of a failed deal, but never say never.

 

[Spitfire098]

Yes, Sony is not under investigation, And yet Sony is huge part of the process. They have inserted themselves into to it. Or have you forgotten Jim Ryan's world tour around meeting with CMA, FTC, EU in this case. Even though, as you mention Sony is not under investigation they feel the need to insert the severs into it. So, yeah that link is relevant.

Yo if this deal gets blocked, then my boy Jim just dicked down a nearly two trillion dollar company. Legend!

 

[pasterpl]

Yes, Jim Ryan just uninvitedly rocked up to the FTC, CMA, EU commission's offices and managed to schedule meetings to discuss this.

He also cold called them and sent a number of unsolicited emails.

With that in mind I think it is in fact Sony who should be investigated for this deal, not Microsoft.

You can be as sarcastic as much as you like but this doesn't change the fact that Sony inserted themselves into this process.

 

[GHG]

You can be as sarcastic as much as you like but this doesn't change the fact that Sony inserted themselves into this process.

I regret to inform you that your personal fictions are not factual.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

You can be as sarcastic as much as you like but this doesn't change the fact that Sony inserted themselves into this process.

Microsoft inserted every party into this process when they decided to acquire a 70B company they do business with

 

[Heisenberg007]

You can be as sarcastic as much as you like but this doesn't change the fact that Sony inserted themselves into this process.

It's going to have the biggest negative impact on them. Of course, they got involved in the process. It'd be awful and extremely stupid of Sony if they didn't.

 

[Pelta88]

COD also sells well on Xbox. Of course in the end it's all business, but the relation between Sony and Activion could suffer and who knows if the person in charge is resentful and prefers Microsoft as a partner. It's not that i think this is the most likely result of a failed deal, but never say never.

That's not how business works

And by all accounts and very public statements, ATVI loved their partnership with Microsoft. That is, until XBOX market share diminished significantly and continuously after 2013. Then Activision was at Sony's door like

 

[mrmustard]

That's not how business works

That's not how business should work. Business should also work without sexual harassment and yet...
I know it's unlikely, but anything is possible.

 

[ToadMan]

Yes, Sony is not under investigation, And yet Sony is huge part of the process. They have inserted themselves into to it. Or have you forgotten Jim Ryan's world tour around meeting with CMA, FTC, EU in this case. Even though, as you mention Sony is not under investigation they feel the need to insert the severs into it. So, yeah that link is relevant.


Fixed that for you. And nope deal is not dead, far from it. It will pass with some concessions and everyone will be happy except of Sony.

One thing I cannot get my head around; based on this thread it seems that it is okay Competing via moneyhating exclusives and exclusive content, but it is not okay buying 3rd party publishers to achieve the same goal.

Um Sony is a witness, potentially harmed by this acquisition and an expert in the video-game market. Even MS have taken steps to get a subpoena issued on Sony. Everyone wants Sony's opinion - Sony didn't "insert themselves" anywhere.

Sony are not the only ones either. But all of those industry players are for data - the regulator is there to ensure consumers are protected from corporate shenanigans which is what MS/ABK are being investigated for.

 

[DarkMage619]

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.

I gave two examples of announced games that after the acquisition still released on PlayStation contrary to the comment that MS was removing games from PlayStation. I also provided additional titles that MS could have canceled or stop supporting yet they did not. I even named games that should have hit Xbox but did not contrary to statements like 'Xbox would get those games anyway' nonsense narrative dispelling the idea that Xbox was securing games regardless of their acquisitions. You provided zero evidence of anything.

You have no idea what studios were working on nor their financial status prior to the any acquisitions, so no there was no guarantee there were all these PlayStation games ready to go but mean old MS stepped in and canceled them all. No platform holder puts more IP they own on systems they do not than Xbox. No other platform holder allows gamers to play all their new releases without needing to buy an Xbox at all. Let me know when you can provide the list of announced PlayStation games MS canceled otherwise we are done here.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

They won't happen because then it'll cost too much to do business with Xbox. Literally using your market weight to choke your competitor.

That's not Sony's fault.

That's what it means to play in the big leagues. There is a reason why Nintendo doesn't pay for this big exclusives anymore. They'll sometimes go for smaller ones like Octopath Traveler. More targeted.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I was thinking about this - not the thread, but the outcome of a failed acquisition.

First things first, I still expect this acquisition will go through - the question is how much compromise MS will make to get it over the line. The aftermath will just be more arguing about who "won"… <yawn>

But let's assume the apocalypse - the deal is blocked, MS don't like the compromises required and they pull out.

1. MS owe ABK money. The amount owed depends on when the deal is cancelled but its in the billions. The longer MS clings on, the more they have to compensate ABK when it collapses. Either way, MS is paying a decent sum to ABK.

2. The time is lost - over a year of both MS and ABK in limbo, unsure how or where to invest and what their product line up would look like. In an industry with AAA turnaround times exceeding 5 years, losing that time in limbo is very costly. Making and implementing a new plan will take time - probably this gen is over for MS before they get round to anything.

3. Phil. I think he has to go - nevermind the embarrassment, but he has even commented that he was not sufficiently aware of regulator considerations surrounding this deal. Almost anyone here on this forum could have told MS that a deal for ABK would be a majorly difficult thing to pull off and require a lot of compromises. Phil seems to have thought they just handover the cash, take the content exclusive to their platform and count the customer money they rack up from the docile masses just accepting the changes.

It's difficult to imagine a less competent head of xbox. Perhaps he's actually in the pay of Apple or someone.

If it were me, I'd get rid of Phil - his final service to MS is being the scapegoat for this - identify a replacement, restructure the Xbox division and conduct a kind of "soft relaunch", reinvigorated and under new management. They've got the resources to do well in gaming - they need to execute, not look for silver bullet acquisitions.

1. That time is fast approaching. April 18th, 2023 the price goes up from 2.5 billion to 3 billion
2. This doesn't impact ABK. ABK is proceeding as if they are independent until the sale goes through, this is the legal standard of operating. Microsoft however will have lost years of strategy.
3. CEOs don't survive failed acquisitions nor do they survive successful but mismanaged acquisitions.

If Phil is out, it's probably the end of Xbox. Microsoft wanted to kill Xbox, but Phil fought for it. Without him here, the brand is dead.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I think it was 3 billions Microsoft has to pay.

Anything is possible:

- Microsoft could use the money to go on a shopping tour for lots of small/medium devs and publishers that don't require permission

- Activison could be mad at Sony and make some exclusive deals with Microsoft or decline future deals with Sony

- Microsoft could stop investing big money into gaming / leave the console business / leave the gaming business and sell everything

A lot of people keep saying Activision will be mad at Sony... that's not how business works. Sony is their biggest customer the degree in which they can be upset at Sony goes as far as their need to make money by working with Sony. See the same with CDPR and Sony delisting Cyberpunk from the PS Store.

I don't think Microsoft is going on a small buying spree. If this fails it's going to be a draw down on Xbox going forward. You might see them SELL studios, but they aren't going to buy additional ones. I think they keep studios like Mojang, Asobo, Turn10, Bethesda, and close down or sell the rest.

 

[prinz_valium]

A lot of people keep saying Activision will be mad at Sony... that's not how business works. Sony is their biggest customer the degree in which they can be upset at Sony goes as far as their need to make money by working with Sony. See the same with CDPR and Sony delisting Cyberpunk from the PS Store.

I don't think Microsoft is going on a small buying spree. If this fails it's going to be a draw down on Xbox going forward. You might see them SELL studios, but they aren't going to buy additional ones. I think they keep studios like Mojang, Asobo, Turn10, Bethesda, and close down or sell the rest.

They still get money from Sony customers. Just no preferential treatment and partnership anymore.

 

[Three]

MS earns nothing from Sony releasing a game on PC, there is no "benefits".

Furthermore everyone got free keys to upgrade from windows 7 > 10 > 11

I can't even remember how much I paid for the original key as it was so long ago but it wasn't very much.

They get Windows out there. Whether they gave you a free upgrade path from 7 also doesn't matter. Google offers Android for free too but your data is worth something, as is pushing a platform that uses MS Edge by default, MS store by default, etc. They are getting the platform out there and the more content that's windows only the more attractive it is.

 

[Heisenberg007]

They still get money from Sony customers. Just no preferential treatment and partnership anymore.

That'll lead to less money from Sony customers.

 

[mrmustard]

A lot of people keep saying Activision will be mad at Sony... that's not how business works. Sony is their biggest customer the degree in which they can be upset at Sony goes as far as their need to make money by working with Sony. See the same with CDPR and Sony delisting Cyberpunk from the PS Store.

We are not talking about a timed exclusive deal like FF where the devs get less sales from the other platform and the bigger platform gets the deal for less money. It stays the same.
Let's say Sony pays 100 millions for the marketing rights and some exclusive content and Microsoft offers the same. You would usually stay with your longterm partner. But if that partner ruined the deal of your life, you might change the partner. That's all i was saying. In the end it's of course all about business and the most money.

 

[DenchDeckard]

The hoops some of you will jump through to shit on anything that can be construed as a positive for MS, it's really sad but also very entertaining. Here we have one of the top MS execs saying it's profitable but he must be lying because he didn't provide some random journalist detailed internal documents and tax filings and bank information

I'm surprised people are allowed to keep getting away with it tbh. If someone kept demanding receipts from Sony like this I'm sure they would be banned.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

The likely remedies that regulators will propose is divestment from COD and/or Infinity Ward/Treyarch.

That will kill the deal.

What Microsoft is hoping is that it'll be more behavioral, but that is not the direction regulators have been leaning. Especially when you factor in Microsoft.

 

[Evil Calvin]

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

So it's bad for consumers to pay $10 for Gamepass and getting new games included..........rather than pay $75 for each game? Your logic stinks.