Maybe. A lot people probably already buy those games elsewhere tho
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
They (MS) have said it's seen some uptick on PC. But a 250% increase isn't saying much when the numbers prior were probably pretty low.
Doesn't even get into the possible revenue amounts, which are likely well below market ARPU on PC, maybe even more so than on the console side.
But I'm not denying that GP has seen some growth on PC the past few months. Question is how much is it really?
Microsoft can never buy Nintendo.
If I'm reading it right, that deal's just all Xbox and ABK games on Nintendo platforms for the next 10 years, correct?
Actually, Nintendo potentially getting all XGS games on Switch (assuming Switch 2) for 10 years is very interesting and more of them shifting to a full 3P (but still making gaming hardware) position that's been hypothesized. But how is that going to play out in practice?
Can Microsoft really ensure Gears 6 or Flight Simulator 2 (assuming another one is made anytime soon; it was a while between the 2020 version and the one before that) can be scaled down to run on a Switch 2 natively? Or is the promise of all XGS, Zenimax (I'm assuming) & ABK games being on Nintendo just extending to cloud streaming support? And what about after the 10 years?
Like R reksveks was saying, it's a bit hard to believe. At least not without more information. But, it potentially could be an interesting development and make it harder for Sony to reject a similar deal.
Game Pass is still bundled with xCloud and xCloud is an equivalent to GeForce Now, even on PC.
MS already had games on GeForce Now earlier on, then they started removing them. I don't think the install base of GeForce Now is large enough to lead to a huge swell of new subscribers just because they'll have XGS & ABK games compatible on GeForce Now.
Which kind of feeds into the bigger reason I feel they're okay with this: it's not necessarily a direct competitor to Game Pass as it currently exists (with xCloud bundled in), and while the sizable audience with GeForce wanting the functionality is not large, it's still larger than Game Pass's total PC subscriber base.
Last edited:
I'd expect new consoles before that right? 7 years, that's a long cycle
SneakersSO
Member
Gamepass on PC, based on both some data-sets some analysts have given, quotes from Spencer, and just things i've heard from my talks with colleagues at MS, is that 85%> of their GP sub base is on Console. There are indicators that since 2021, when prior it was said to be about 90/10 split between Console/PC, that PC GP adoption is growing, but I can't really say for sure whether or not that is meeting MS' own internal goals.
If Sony is already in a winning position in this battle, and to me its quite clear Sony doesn't really have an interest in allowing the consolidation phase to continue any longer than it has to, then why would Sony take a deal to get a couple of games they already get exclusively for a decade, when if they stay the course they keep that platform support in perpetuity?
If MS wants to publish games on PS at full MSRP, i'm sure Sony would be more than happy to allow them to do so; if its published only through GP, with the deal that MS has repeatedly (from what I have heard) offered to Sony/Valve/Nintendo, then its not going to be enough for them and MS needs to step off those positions.
Or in 10 years things continue as normal and new IPs stay exclusive to xbox.
Last edited:
Buy Nintendo consoles not the company lol. I should have said buy switches
feynoob
Banned
You still don't get it.
GeForce won't make a dent on gamepass PC.
You have to buy the game to use GeForce.
If you are doing that, then you really don't need gamepass PC at all for Xbox games. Since you can buy them on steam.
Also PC gamepass doesn't cloud. That is ultimate gamepass, which includes Xbox and PC.
Another point is that gamepass ultimate has 3rd party games, which GeForce doesn't have. So GeForce won't have that much impact.
Ash Sparrow
Banned
MS playing chess. Nvidia a trojan horse? Brilliant.
So less choice for those not on Xbox. I have both consoles but not everyone can afford that. This is terrible for people not currently on Xbox.Or in 10 years things continue as normal and new IPs stay exclusive to xbox.
Mr Moose
Member
Worked out well with Bethesda *cough Elder Scrolls*Or in 10 years things continue as normal and new IPs stay exclusive to xbox.
Ar¢tos
Member
Nintendo is japanese, so it's off limits to MS, along with all other japanese publishers and most Japanese studios. They should feel lucky they managed to get Tango when they bought Zenimax.
Andodalf
Banned
If regulators want to block the deal, the biggest issue laying in front of them is…. Their own arguments! If more people need to access COD, this does it. If cloud gaming is in danger, this helps it.
If they block the deal, they are basically saying their previous statements were lies
If they block the deal, they are basically saying their previous statements were lies
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Are these trolls in a different castle?
Because I haven't seen anyone saying that around here. If they have, been too busy reading other posts to care noticing.
This isn't a "gotcha". For one we don't know the full terms of MS's proposed deals and at the moment neither do regulators. I doubt MS have shown them the full contracts and had them reviewed (either by regulators or whoever would be responsible for reviewing them, but I'm assuming lawyer representatives of the regulatory bodies would review them).
Additionally this is very services-oriented; it doesn't address concerns of the games being available natively on other platforms for direct purchase. COD being made available to GeForce Now for 10 years, or Nintendo NSO for 10 years (as a hypothetical) means nothing when it comes to the direct sales side of the argument. Neither of those companies are affected by terms that don't address native port availability or availability for direct purchase.
ToadMan
Member
This looks like a standalone thing to me.
This would make sense if there were many other chances to discuss about these things and reach some kind of agreement but we're way past that, we're almost at the finishing line.
It's as if Microsoft were still thinking that they're in the early negotiation phase while regulators like the CMA basically told them that either they give up on COD or it's deal blocked
Also this mini conference they made was quite embarrassing, it's almost as if they thought they would be able to change everyone's minds today and announce it as a triumph instead nothing changed except for nVidia being happy about more games on GFNow.
Maybe.
Here’s the timeline from fosspatents …
Still a couple of months before the CMA deadline according to this.
Not long, but there’s time for more concessions to come about.
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
So I had to backtrack three pages of this to find out what deal with Nintendo was being discussed now.......only to find out it is the same damn deal that has been discussed for weeks.
Microsoft, you need new material.
Well, I said they needed new material, didn't I?
MisterXDTV
Member
The nintendo deal has been known for months and they (the regulators) didn't care one bit before
What NVIDIA has to do with high perfomance console market, I have no idea...
They sell PC graphics cards.....
Last edited:
Neo_game
Member
I also agree in 10yrs time COD may not be the best FPS either. DICE is an example, their BF games had so much potential but it seems as if the some talented devs left the company ? You need a good team of devs to come up with great games. I never understood why Microsoft is so deseprate to buy them. If they are going to make COD available on all platforms for 10yrs. What is the point ? May be they think consoles will be irrelevant in 10yrs time and they will have control over cloud gaming
jm89
Member
Microsoft are proving regulators wrong at every point by addressing their concerns? Seems like the accepted the regulators points.
Last edited:
Still think there might one more concession re: windows licensing required for the EC/CMA.
Remember that ABK make a shit tone of profit and have ~10bn in cash/short term assets. I also don't think the mobile app store opportunity (although a long long shot) is going to be open for long.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
That’s a whole lot of conjecture
Banjo64
cumsessed
That would be absolutely huge if true and all but confirms Xbox as a third party publisher. I’m eager to see how this looks as it’ll mean I can shed one more piece of hardware.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
You're only highlighting the reasons why it's relatively easy for Microsoft to offer such a deal to Nvidia. They never considered Nvidia a main competitor, did they?
Where are similar offers for Amazon Luna, or even Google Stadia before that got shut down? Microsoft could have made these offers to Google if they wanted, if they did not in fact see Stadia as a competitor and therefore saw a benefit in Stadia going away.
And again we do not know the terms in regards to the fiscals for what MS is requiring from Nvidia or Nintendo for these agreements, or certain "fine print" details at that. For full transparency, they should offer the contract in its entirety for review by a legal council of the regulatory bodies. That way a more complete assessment can be made.
I don't think Microsoft will stop manufacturing Xbox hardware, there's no reason to. But if this is shaping up into what it seems like it could be shaping up into, I can see them shifting Xbox away from a console model and to a more PC-like business model.
But if that's what they are actually doing, their self-imposed remedies also need to take into account native port versions available for other platforms. So far I only see that might be a case with the Nintendo stuff, but it's not a factor in the Nvidia stuff.
And again in terms of the cloud, have Microsoft made similar arrangements and deals with Amazon? Why did they not do such with Google before they shut Stadia down? Stadia's closure took place during the middle of this acquisition process, Microsoft could have squashed a lot of regulatory concern on the cloud front by getting in front of things and offering Google a deal like the one with Nvidia, way back early summer of 2022.
Last edited:
jm89
Member
They are literally offering every game on nintendo if the deal goes through, and they may do the same for sony, it may not be full third party but that damn well gets close to it.
Chiggs
Gold Member
Big surprise that when Phil is out of the picture, MS can appear competent.
MisterXDTV
Member
They can't be "third party" as long as they are making console hardware....
That's the reason why regulators hate the deal
Evil Calvin
Afraid of Boobs
Buy an XSX...........it's only $500
Last edited:
fred420170
Member
They painted themselves as bad guys because they are and have been since the PS3.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
In what way? At least elaborate.
Nvidia and Nintendo definitely get a lot out of this but on the Nvidia front, it's just kind of like they're getting what they were already getting a few years ago before Microsoft stopped providing GeForce Now support. And I don't think ABK would have resisted adding GeForce Now compatibility to their games on PC if the deal happened to not go through; their previous statements on subscription services and their hesitation to them, I don't think those were ever specifically hinged on the cloud side of things.
I do think the deal has a higher chance of being approved now with the latest developments, but I won't be surprised if the CMA & EC still require some type of structural remedy alongside this.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
The problem isn't not about GeForce being a competitor to them, but the way GeForce operates.
GeForce allows users who own the game to stream it. This means that GeForce was making money, using their products.
It's not only MS had that issue with that. Other companies took their games from the service too.
This act is just pleasing regulators who have cloud market issue like CMA.
ToTTenTranz
Banned
So Brad Smith effectively killed the deal with this one sentence?
Topher
Identifies as young
Nvidia is also a key player in cloud gaming service with Geforce Now.
Sanepar
Member
My biggest concern is not that. On the long term with many studios on hands. They will dictate this market. I really think the final goal is to only let u access games by rent(gamepass) not allowing consumer to buy games. Only rent for a full price game per month.
Last edited:
IllegalLemon
Member
Microsoft's executives were the ones responsible for running Mouth.exe in the wrong places and for all the wrong reasons it seems. Now Pr.exe has been ran and it's causing memory overloads and leaks over the place. Let's see how far they're willing to push things.I know you are trying to be sarcastic, but they really don't know what they are doing. Otherwise, this would have been smooth sailing, wouldn't it?
Also, Brad Smith is the guy who compared Sony with Blockbuster (dead) and Microsoft/Xbox with Netflix (the killer of Blockbuster), which helped CMA establish that this acquisition is anti-competitive.
And Brad is also the guy that the CMA quoted twice -- and both instances damaged Microsoft's case.
The first statement threw out Microsoft's claim that this acquisition is primarily for King and the want to compete against Google and Apple. His second statement helped CMA discard Nintendo as a direct competitor, leaving only Sony as the affected party in the gaming console market. lol.
So, yeah, Brad really doesn't know what he is doing lol. That's why they are losing this case.
Last edited:
Snake29
Banned
CoD is already on the Xbox so, what's going to change? Is MS getting a pass for not to have to be creative and just to buy every major well known and even old IP's up, just for their "fake" compete?
MS is after these major IP's so that they can control them. They are not here to bring you new innovative fresh games. People just need to admit that MS did a bad job for over 2 gens right now and this is their way to take away a lot of games. This 10 year deal they give away to everyone right now is the reason why people don't like this at all.
Everything about these deal shows that MS just don't want to be creative anymore and just want to have control over major IP's so that they can choke their competitors.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Then how is this actually addressing regulator concerns over the cloud part of things?
Microsoft's deal with Nvidia just now means Microsoft are getting the cut they felt they should have gotten beforehand. Except the "cut" is (presumably) an upfront payment of a contract deal between the two parties.
I don't think Microsoft guaranteeing they get their monetary compensation for their games being accessed through GeForce Now, was a sticking point for regulators.
So there are many shite so-called "sources" inflating xbox sales numbers when it's already 1:4 ratio according to Microsoft. MASSIVE GAP!
TBF this probably includes PS4 & PS5, and XBO & Series. And outside of the UK, Xbox saw a big drop in majority of other European countries last gen. They're seeing further drops in quite a few of them this generation, so far.
Last edited:
Got me, cod blows
ToTTenTranz
Banned
I don't think European regulators are going to react to all this public spectacle like Microsoft hopes.
This sounds like a very US-like marketing stunt that might have worked well in the US.
Nvidia's "approval" only really counts for the cloud streaming aspect of it, which is a small portion of the market at hand therefore a small weight into the scale. I also think people are overestimating Nvidia's part in this.
This sounds like a very US-like marketing stunt that might have worked well in the US.
Nvidia's "approval" only really counts for the cloud streaming aspect of it, which is a small portion of the market at hand therefore a small weight into the scale. I also think people are overestimating Nvidia's part in this.
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
Had to come back to this because it is hilarious. Activision Blizzard had no problems whatsoever with helping Sony along the way with their "two-decade dominance in video games". As long as they were riding the PlayStation cash cow, all was good.
Now ABK are riding in for a big payday with Microsoft's money and they found Jesus.
feynoob
Banned
The concern was MS monopoly on cloud gaming.
This still doesn't address the other 2 parties that are actual cloud companies (Luna, plus the dead stadia).
This is more of PR stunt for them.
"Here we are putting our games on GeForce. See we don't have a monopoly on cloud gaming".
But in reality, those users would have to actually buy those games, compared to gamepass users who only pay a sub month for all those cloud games.
demigod
Member
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Ybarra always told Phil to pay Acti whatever it took to make COD some sort of Xbox exclusive now look where Ybarra isHad to come back to this because it is hilarious. Activision Blizzard had no problems whatsoever with helping Sony along the way with their "two-decade dominance in video games". As long as they were riding the PlayStation cash cow, all was good.
Now ABK are riding in for a big payday with Microsoft's money and they found Jesus.
The receipts I have
mansoor1980
Gold Member
god damnit phil just bribe the regulators with cash and end this "we are so small" drama
SneakersSO
Member
Fundamentally not true - there is nothing in the nature of MS completing this purchase that allows a singular game to expand that couldn't also be done with ATVI remaining independent. MS signed a deal with an asset they do not yet own. This is not something the regulators will buy for a singular second - most of them were fully aware of these deals before MS announced today that NVidia and Nintendo had signed.
ATVI could decide literally tomorrow to put their games on xCloud/GFN/Luna, Switch and Switch 2 as well, GamePass & PS+ also as well. There is nothing stopping them *right now* from doing all of those things. This deal doesn't allow a single one of them from happening, any moreso than keeping them independent would.
mansoor1980
Gold Member
\
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked