Iced Arcade
Member
And that's a great dollar comparison argument for someone who buys 1 game a year. Brilliant.
Last edited:
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
And that's a great dollar comparison argument for someone who buys 1 game a year. Brilliant.
demigod
Member
It's always awesome to see Sony selling their consoles to folks who constantly bash them.
And that's a great dollar comparison argument for someone who buys 1 game a year. Brilliant.
jhjfss
Member
I guess you don't need gold after you buy the game for 70.
Iced Arcade
Member
You ok little buddy?
I mean both of our post histories are viewable to see who is a console warrior. I love my PS5
relax.
Last edited:
demigod
Member
You realize CoD has a campaign right? Not everyone plays multiplayer.I guess you don't need gold after you buy the game for 70.
Astray
Member
Since the days of the Gaben memes, I have legitimately never seen anyone get so deified by gamers like Spencer has, and looking at what data we have, the man is:
- Basically failing at every business metric.
- Consistently making either the most boring/pointless remarks, and sometimes even outright lying!
- Not delivering any brand-new content that's been developed from zero at Xbox Studios (and therefore actually additive to the choices we have as consumers), it's been literally acquisitions saving his hide, and sometimes, they can't even manage that (2022 is a big example).
There is no reason this guy should be this revered by anyone imo, and I genuinely think there is some serious astroturfing at play here.
IFireflyl
Gold Member
Take the console warrior stuff down a notch.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Who's hinting at that? What are their credentials? Did they recently become lawyers through Twitter?
MS has to hope things go their way with the CMA and EC before thinking about "destroying" the FTC in court. Which is a really weird way for people to fantasize about it; it's like they're cheering for them to win to get their dopamine fix, or like it's the son having his big moment at a football game.
These are companies buying other companies to try making more money from the companies being bought and you, the customer. I'm not gonna cheer for a company doing something to squeeze more money out of me...but if the product seems worth the value, I'd pay it.
Yeah, same thing happened with NEC/Hudson, with the 3DO Company, with Atari, with Sega (at least leaving as a platform holder). Competitors coming and going has been the standard more often than them staying entrenched for a long time. The main exceptions to that are Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft.
But Microsoft are arguably only still around because their sheer size and resources in revenue & profits from non-gaming markets have allowed them to tank losses that'd of destroyed smaller companies.
I'm glad some other people have caught on to this. When MS announced that strategic partnership with Sega early last year, and the fuller terms came about, it helped clue me in to what Xbox and gaming could serve for them as a vector in being a growth market for Azure and productivity stacks running on it. One of the main reasons MS want ABK is to have them using Azure cloud for their network infrastructure, instead of AWS, and leveraging their data alongside that.
It's actually exactly the things you touch on here why I started to be of the belief that Sony may be better off rolling with another big cloud provider, rather than relying on Microsoft (whom IIRC they signed an MOU with, but I'm not sure if Sony actually entered through on or will do so going forward in light of what's going on with these acquisition inquiries, particularly if the ABK acquisition is approved). MS are getting a lot of the development side of the gaming community to use their tools, so in a sense they still have them in their ecosystem. And (IMO) as we've seen with Sega, they want to leverage gaming (through Xbox) to expand that reach with Asian game developers. In turn, we could end up seeing "perks" like we've been seeing with various Sega & Atlus games going into Game Pass and MS getting marketing rights to them, there's even a rumor Soul Hackers 2 might be coming to Game Pass. I doubt much of this would be happening if MS & Sega hadn't settled on a partnership for Azure (which Sega are also using for their Super Game project).
My thing is, how does Sony actually compete with that, especially if MS stay the course with Xbox going forward, keep it operating as a regular console business, and happen to get the ABK deal approved with very few concessions? That's why I think they should probably consider working with Google when it comes to expanding cloud infrastructure. Not just for cloud gaming, but hosting, technical support, development tools & resources, etc. Google would have more than a few reasons to want to enter such a partnership, because it gets them a way to be relevant within gaming even if Stadia is done for. Sony can salvage the best of the Stadia resources for PlayStation and maybe also help bring some of Google's grander concepts to reality in terms of gaming features they had planned for Stadia (direct Youtube integration, massive simultaneous cloud-powered game world instances, etc.). They could probably also work out a really sweet deal between them and Google for it, too.
Point is, it would also help ensure that Sony can provide the dev tools & support 3P developers need, in a manner as much of an independent as possible. Them turning to Microsoft Azure for cloud infrastructure, when MS still sell a direct competitor to PlayStation, and have already shown they're willing to push loss-leading strategies like Game Pass in order to attempt gaining market share, let alone buying big 3P publishers to do the same (and gate content away from PlayStation at their discretion), just doesn't sound like good recipe IMO. We know Sony provide tools that aren't Windows or MS-based for developers to use (even if they do also use MS tools for parts of software development); anything they can do to keep 3P developers preferring their development environment and pipeline over Microsoft's is going to be to Sony's benefit.
After all, Sony are already aware how much having the superior developer environment benefited them over Sega & Nintendo with the PS1, and has benefited them over MS with the XBO (the PS2 & PS3 weren't as easy to work with, but Sony eventually improved the tools plus they had a lot of brand strength regardless with customers). Well, if the development side is starting to favor more agnostic tools and location-agnostic pipelines (meaning cloud), Sony have to be ready to provide that. And I think they are. However, I personally think they would be better off partnering with a company like Google to facilitate that, rather than Microsoft, but a lot of that depends on how this ABK deal goes and what MS's intentions with further acquisitions in gaming are (assuming ABK is approved and concessions aren't severe).
Agreed with this; only thing I see somewhat differently is that MS still keep Xbox hardware around but as a PC device (think mini PCs specifically aimed at gaming, or what the Steam Machines wanted to be last decade). I think Valve actually had a great idea with Steam Machines in theory, but the execution was bad; they tried doing it like the 3DO but we're still decades away from that business model ever actually being possible.
If MS would just treat Xbox like an extension of Windows that actually makes sense (as a PC, not a dedicated games console), it would open so many things up for them. They can finally sell the hardware at a profit, they can justify cutting back on the volume of unit production, they can put all their games on as many platforms as can natively run them Day 1, they can (probably) get specific versions of Game Pass on all platforms, and they would probably even have an easier time going forward with gaming acquisitions (in fact I think if they were doing that already, this ABK acquisition would have probably been going over in their favor much better).
But that requires MS to compromise and admit something internally I don't know if they're ready to yet. Though, as you basically said, the reason why is likely down to the current management; as long as they remain there, Satya and other higher-ups at Microsoft will probably never see the actual greener (no put intended) pastures in gaming, if they would just actually act like a full 3P publisher and shift Xbox to a line of gaming consolized mini-PC devices running Windows in full.
Topher
Identifies as young
He seems to be a bit quiet lately.
jhjfss
Member
right...because the vast majority of people buying COD buy it only for SP.
demigod
Member
Too much reeeeeee.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
Maybe he read everyone's advice on here and he's concentrating making games
Topher
Identifies as young
I'm sure he is cranking out code as we speak.
abacab driver
Banned
Didn't Phil do like a half hour interview just a couple weeks ago?
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Good.
Though he was on Twitter promoting Age of Empires 2. Besides that though, nada.
I think he's become a liability to MS in trying to get the ABK deal cleared.
GHG
Gold Member
That would actually be a nice and welcome change.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
He's a one man dev machine
Iced Arcade
Member
Which is exactly what he needs to do. Man is beyond cringy everytime he speaks.
abacab driver
Banned
Phil Spencer kissing goodbye to the dream of getting PlayStation's studio management documents.
I missed this and wanted to read it but it's gone now.
If it is/was fake news, I'm not coming back to this thread until the deal is done.
Pelta88
Member
What?
IFireflyl
Gold Member
It was "fake news" in the sense that that they got it wrong. The judge hasn't ruled on this yet. The last activity from the FTC is on February 9th, and that was for an extension being granted to Google.
Microsoft/Activision Blizzard, In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission authorized an administrative complaint against the proposed merger between Microsoft Corp. and Activision Blizzard, Inc., a video game developer that creates and publishes games such as Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Diablo, and Overwatch. Microsoft sells the Xbox...
Last edited:
Astray
Member
Seems like tweaktown made a mistake and deleted the article.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Probably because he won an award for acquiring Activision and doesn't want anyone to take it from him.
Topher
Identifies as young
It was "fake news" in the sense that that they got it wrong. The judge hasn't ruled on this yet. The last activity from the FTC is on February 9th, and that was for an extension being granted to Google.
Microsoft/Activision Blizzard, In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission authorized an administrative complaint against the proposed merger between Microsoft Corp. and Activision Blizzard, Inc., a video game developer that creates and publishes games such as Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Diablo, and Overwatch. Microsoft sells the Xbox...www.ftc.gov
Kotaku fucked up and reported the judge sided with Sony and everyone else cited Kotaku.
Last edited:
demigod
Member
Oh hey i thought you were dead ever since the CMA came out. No more idas/hoeg posts?
feynoob
Banned
Are you a fan of my update?
Its hard to keep track of fans.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
I'm pretty sure they use condoms made out of lombax skin, so they're good.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Good observation. And with big tech in particular, while there's kind of the argument they can leverage resources & funds from other parts of the company to "buy their way in" to new markets, it's evened out among big tech because they ALL more or less have that ability so ironically, it creates a more level playing field.
That obviously doesn't apply with Microsoft vs Sony here when it comes to ABK.
yurinka
you want to come tell this dude how much COD constitutes PlayStation's revenue or nah? Probably where I'm leaning, too. But there's also the possibility, seemingly, that Activision could just be established as its own wholly independent company, which would probably be the best option in case of divestiture.
Well, best case for Microsoft.
Especially if they only want to push for behavioral remedies.
Pelta88
Member
Gameplay Gods Bless
Member
No actually it's not. See: Vivendi's ownership of Activision & Blizzard as well as Microsoft acquisition of Bungie.
3liteDragon
Member
3liteDragon
Member
EFFECTS OF FORECLOSURE ON COMPETITION
Last edited:
yurinka
Member
No, the CMA survey was for UK PS CoD players, not all PS players and not all UK PS players. According to the CMA survey, 73% said that Call of Duty influenced their decision to buy a PS, and that 24% would leave PS if CoD goes exclusive.
Considering that only around 10% of (worldwide, not only UK) PS Monthly Active Users buy CoD, if that UK percentage would be representative of worldwide numbers, that would mean around 0.7% of the UK (or worldwide) PS MAU and around 0.24% of the PS MAU would leave PS if CoD goes exclusive.
See below:
As I remember they announced a year or so ago Activision said that CoD made their record yearly revenue of around $3B in a year, being around $1B from CoD mobile. So the other $2B would be splitted between the PS+XB+PC versions of that yearly CoD, Warzone and previous CoD.
Assuming that around half of that is from PS, Activision would make with CoD around $1B/year on PS (or less, since that was a record year). From digital copies, Sony gets 30% and the publisher gets 70% of the revenue. So if a year Activision makes around $1B, Sony makes that year less than half a billion from CoD.
Not couting the multibillion gaming business that Sony has in Sony Music, if we only look at the SIE (PS division) part, Sony makes around $25B/year in revenue.
Meaning, CoD makes maybe around 1 or 2% (or less) of the Sony PS division revenue.
Also, CoD games sell around 20-30M copies on their lifetime. If we assume that around half of that may be on PS, this means around 10-15M users buy CoD every year on PS. PS has 112M monthly active users, meaning around 90% of the PS active users don't buy CoD.
Last edited:
reinking
Gold Member
Fool me once....
POKEYCLYDE
Member
As someone who primarily plays on Xbox, personally, I don't play Call of Duty or any Blizzard property really. I view this acquisition as a chance for Xbox to scare Sony out of complacency. The generation where Sony was getting their ass kicked, saw them bounce back like never before.
A rising tide lifts all boats. I'm surprised more of you aren't worried at the trajectory of Sony regardless of this acquisition. 10 GaaS (in 5 years was it?), worked on by a lot of their best studios. Chasing trends. How many GaaS actually hit and how many shut down after like a year or 2?
Anyways, if this does go through, maybe I'll have fun checking out Call of Duty on Gamepass, but that's not important to me. But selfishly, I'd rather Microsoft acquire something like Devolver Digital, much more excited for what they show in their showcase every year than Call or Duty. Maybe it would be cool to see what else these studios could work on, give Toys for Bob a shot at Banjo Kazooie. Give IW or Treyarch a shot at a new IP or maybe even a AA game. As it currently stands Activision has like 6 studios just churning out Call of Duty. I think that would be different under Microsoft.
There was an interview Todd did that basically said he'll work til he dies lol. I assume Todd, after the 20+ years at Bethesda have some protégé that would carry the torch. But regardless, Todd dying and leaving Bethesda to whomever is a scenario that would be worrisome even if they were independent. I see a lot of people saying Starfield being delayed is mismanagement, but the delay is something they probably wouldn't be able to afford if they were independent. The narrative has always been Bethesda games come out buggy as fuck. They were on a a shaky path after FO4 and FO76, it was really do or die for them with Starfield if they stayed independent, and that pressure was still there maybe Starfield would be rushed out in a typical Bethesda state.
Regardless, I think we should wait to see how Starfield turns out before we assume they're being mismanaged. The mismanagement narrative in general is slightly off I think. By and large I think Microsoft has a hands off approach, let's studios have the time they need under as little pressure as possible. This definitely has it's negatives as we saw with Halo Infinite, but my assumption is the extra time for Starfield is a good thing. Giving studios that ability/incentive to make gems like Penitent, Grounded, HiFi Rush is a good thing.
jm89
Member
Worrying times indeed. Jimbo will be living on the streets at this rate.We live in a timeline where COD can essentially forclosure SIE.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Wonder if phil can share a room with him.
Satya seems to be mad these days.
DrFigs
Member
It is a bit strange to think that Sony could plausibly lose COD, but that them trying to make a successful GAAS is also a bad investment?
ToadMan
Member
Well yea ok then. An acquisition is for as long as MS prefers rather than with a contractually mandated end date.
I think you know the difference but prefer to play semantic games.
jm89
Member
Hero of Spielberg
Member
Maybe they could do a reboot of Perfect Strangers ...Phil and Jim in the same house, it won't end well
freefornow
Member
Man, a survey where they had to "incentivise" participants?
https://assets.publishing.service.g...nline_survey_research_report_DJS_Research.pdf
jm89
Member
Unless they got paid to answer a certain way, incentives for surveys are normal.
baphomet
Member
- Status