Support NeoGAF

[BeardGawd]

Yes, and more importantly if MS is bringing up PlayStation first-party exclusives in a conversation about acquiring ABK, it sends all the wrong signals to regulators. Like MS is justifying making ABK games exclusives because PS has so many exclusives.

This is not gonna help their cause at all. If anything, it might damage it.

No the point MS is making is that even if they did want to make COD exclusive that Sony has so many huge exclusives of their own that any impact of making COD exclusive would be negligible. Keep in mind that Sony is arguing they could no longer compete without COD.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Man, how much money are people spending on CoD coins or whatever for there to be this big of a fight about it

 

[Elios83]

saw these tweets from era. Seems huge. So if there is a math error then this basically kills CMA's theory of harm about mass PS users switching to Xbox and causing foreclosure/SLC. How is this going to play out. Math is objective, surely MS and CMA can both hire statisticians and they will come up with the same numbers.

This guy is completely delusional and has been shilling for the acquisition going through since forever.
Apparently this, mathematically wrong there (without an explanation or counter argument from the CMA).
I fear that if things do not go as expected, he's so emotionally invested that he will become clown material all over the net.

 

[reinking]

In fact Sony has 286 games which are
exclusive to PlayStation including some of the most successful and popular titles such
as God of War,27 Spider-Man and Last of Us

Are they retarded? Those are released on PC already.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Wow. So biased you feel the need to make such a comment without even looking at the data. It's game sales. Here let me make it easier for you:

Microsoft needs to hire people who can read and interpret graphs

You can easily ask some relevant questions from the points Microsoft bring up. Firstly, why do they not assume there is a crossover effect in people buying ABK games, then buying Sony, EA, T2, Ubisoft etc. games in part because of the ABK games they purchase on the system?

Microsoft acts like 'market power' only matters if you are the majority; the point remains, them buying ABK would roll ABK's revenue streams into Xbox's, and by doing that, Xbox as a publisher would immediately supersede Bandai-Namco, Warner Bros, Capcom, Take-Two AND Sony in software revenue going by that exact same graph! It's funny how they don't mention that in their results

 

[poppabk]

This ridiculous spin is why nobody should ever trust sales figures or "profitability" metrics coming with vague statements out of Microsoft's mouth. Measuring largest third party competitor by number of games released is absurd.

That's why they didn't do that and went with game sales. Not sure where that poster was pulling the idea that it was number of titles or why you while voicing an opinion to be careful about trusting data would in the same breath immediately take him at his word.

 

[CRAIG667]

Oh gosh, so they're making EVEN MORE money!

 

[b6a6es]

All this drama and Activision is only the 5th largest Publisher on Playstation. Behind EA, Ubisoft and Take Two.

How many times have we heard they were #1 in this thread?

http://[URL][URL]https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/microsoft-says-ea-not-activision-131213255.html

[/URL][/URL]

Based on what metric ? Revenue ?

 

[Kenshin775]

Your first mistake was going in that ERA thread on the acquisition and getting the tweets from there. Who's the user who linked them?

Secondly, FOSS is a very sketchy character. He has done paid libel against MS competitors for decades, has a 30+ year history with Microsoft, and additional history with Blizzard. He has both financial and emotional biases in his outlooks here, I would say he is worst than Micheal Pachter (who works for Wedbush Securities, who have $50 million worth of shares in Microsoft) and Lulu Cheng Meservey combined.

IMO he's a good example of a crooked "phony politician" lawyer. But about the CMA stuff; I doubt there were any miscalculations. It's more than MS are using a completely different metric to measure COD's worth to the PlayStation brand and that metric incidentally reduces its value significantly, so they'd rather use it. The irony being, Microsoft are so stupid, they don't realize an attempt to say the CMA overestimated COD's impact on PS so should it be removed, only makes Microsoft's insistence against divestiture of COD that much worst.

If COD's removal from PS would cause so little impact, why are Microsoft so hellbent to acquiring it and not divesting the asset? They want ABK for King, right? Then why do they need absolute control over an IP that, in their estimates, is so limited in value or impact to PlayStation? Why are they not willing to divest something that's supposedly insignificant?

You dig deep enough questioning the motive and it exposes their hypocrisy clearly. Microsoft would be forced to prove that somehow, COD removed from PlayStation has "little effect" yet them owning it makes them "competitive" with PlayStation, and to try pointing to the differentiation in their system and PlayStation's which doesn't work to MS's favor nearly as much as they think it does. Because the truth is virtually 80% of the same 3P games release on both systems Day 1. 10% are probably select 3P games that may be timed or full exclusive but both Sony & Microsoft engage in this. The last 10% are 1P exclusives, and even in Sony's peak FY for PS (so far), 1P games only accounted for 18.5% of their software revenue.

Also Microsoft's insistence on downplaying the impact of COD's removal on PS damages the value of their 10-year offers to all these other companies. What value is having COD on these cloud services going to bring when many of these services are very small in userbase, and provide non-optimal ways to play a competitive FPS? Like who thinks even a third of those GeForce NOW subscribers are going to play COD streamed as their goto method? Why would they?



In addition to that, there's the marketing aspect of things, too. 3P publishers want brand association and effective marketing that amplifies their returns by magnitudes. Sony have shown they are historically fantastic at helping market big 3P games; Microsoft have not shown this. I also think there's an allure for 3P publishers when they see 1P games like GOW Ragnarok, Spiderman, TLOU etc. setting various standards in one way or another and achieving big sales, and that motivates 3P AAA devs & pubs to push more with their own games, associate with that success and hopefully match it if not exceed it.

When's the last time a Microsoft 1P game was a genuine standard-setter or had massive retail success?

It was a user on there named XboxRulesPSucks. j/k obviously. I put a laughing emoji on your post because you went ham and seemed really passionate and intense. But seriously good post though, Foss does seem biased, I'd have to see where his source is on his math error. Obviously acquiring CoD would have an impact. But to the degree of it causing and SLC foreclosure I have my doubts. You get a fucking fire emoji on your next reply to me if you reply.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

It was a user on there named XboxRulesPSucks. j/k obviously. I put a laughing emoji on your post because you went ham and seemed really passionate and intense. But seriously good post though, Foss does seem biased, I'd have to see where his source is on his math error. Obviously acquiring CoD would have an impact. But to the degree of it causing and SLC foreclosure I have my doubts. You get a fucking fire emoji on your next reply to me if you reply.

There's been some real nastiness brought out (in large part due to Microsoft's theatrics) during this acquisition that have just led me to removing certain pleasantries when talking of specific people involved. Plus just look at the discourse this stuff has encouraged; now everyone wants acquisitions!

I dunno where his "math error" is coming from, either, I'm guessing it's based on the graph & accompanying data B BeardGawd brought up which ironically shows just how many publishers MS would jump ahead of revenue-wise if/when they do acquire ABK. If he ever actually goes into detail about it, I can't wait to see what BS he's spinning, because there's always some of that involved with these folks.

 

[BeardGawd]

It was a user on there named XboxRulesPSucks. j/k obviously. I put a laughing emoji on your post because you went ham and seemed really passionate and intense. But seriously good post though, Foss does seem biased, I'd have to see where his source is on his math error. Obviously acquiring CoD would have an impact. But to the degree of it causing and SLC foreclosure I have my doubts. You get a fucking fire emoji on your next reply to me if you reply.

You can check it out for yourself below in black and white:

Please don't listen to people who constantly attack anyone that agrees with the acquisition or spew that MS is some horrible company hell bent on trying to destroy Playstation. It's nonsense.

 

[Kenshin775]

You can check it out for yourself below in black and white:

Please don't listen to people who constantly attack anyone that agrees with the acquisition or spew that MS is some horrible company hell bent on trying to destroy Playstation. It's nonsense.

Thanks for the info. Whether CMA or MS is using the right model seems like something that can be verified by statisticians and accountants. I mean CMA calculations looks wrong just by reading that sentence.

 

[DrFigs]

You can check it out for yourself below in black and white:

Please don't listen to people who constantly attack anyone that agrees with the acquisition or spew that MS is some horrible company hell bent on trying to destroy Playstation. It's nonsense.

I think we're all in trouble if their model is comparing incomes of withdrawing vs not withdrawing, as if such a thing were meaningful to Microsoft, the 2 trillion dollar company.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

You can check it out for yourself below in black and white:

Please don't listen to people who constantly attack anyone that agrees with the acquisition or spew that MS is some horrible company hell bent on trying to destroy Playstation. It's nonsense.

There is also no incentive for Microsoft to subsidize Game Pass the way they do considering the statements of growth stagnation on console, increasingly well-known $1 conversion, monthly trails and regional offers exploitable through IP switch via VPNs, or even the subsidizations provided for Series S seen through the regular pricing discounts and deals for a console that was designed in a two-console SKU strategy off the belief costs reduction would not scale this generation compared to previous, yet they are still providing those same pricing incentives for Game Pass and deals for Series S, and persisting with their presence.

Microsoft says they have no incentive to remove COD from PlayStation and from a financial POV that might be true, but considering they have elected to remove certain other games from PlayStation that for all intents and purposes have an obvious market presence on the system given previous games from even the same developer (Starfield, for example, when looking at the PS sales for games like Fallout 4 and Skyrim), and considering there is more crossover with COD and Starfield (in terms of hardcore/core gaming audiences) than say COD and Minecraft, the appeal of withdrawal is still there IMO.

Just the fact these offers are limited to 10-year deals rather than the game in perpetuity, as some other users were saying earlier, shows there is still an ultimate intent of withdrawal at least from PlayStation of COD and other ABK properties, if not in addition to other platforms. So this could be an example where the costs benefit vs. losses in a limited example monetarily makes an argument against withdrawal, but we literally have multiple examples of how Microsoft have operated parts of the Xbox division and the division itself that essentially say "We can justify any losses required if it cements us in the market long-term".

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

So, does MS still have to show their documents regarding exclusive deals to the FTC?

because is looking grim for that 24%

 

[DrFigs]

Math errors do happen. It's possible the CMA screwed up. I'd just like to see what sorts of losses/gains were being considered.

 

[Banjo64]

You can check it out for yourself below in black and white:

Please don't listen to people who constantly attack anyone that agrees with the acquisition or spew that MS is some horrible company hell bent on trying to destroy Playstation. It's nonsense.

But again, Microsoft seem to be conflating the two separate models that the CMA have detailed. The CMA have detailed the models in plain English, so how is it an error when it appears to be by design?

One model measured the direct financial gains over the course of one year of making CoD exclusive to Xbox. It is a straightforward comparison of the income that Microsoft would lose from not selling CoD on PlayStation against the additional income that it would earn from selling CoD, additional Xbox consoles, and other games to new customers who would switch—as estimated from our survey results—from PlayStation to Xbox.

The other model considered data used by Xbox in the ordinary course of business on the 'lifetime value' of new customers. This has the benefit of accounting for five years of spend on the Xbox platform and on CoD.

 

[BeardGawd]

But again, Microsoft seem to be conflating the two separate models that the CMA have detailed. The CMA have detailed the models in plain English, so how is it an error when it appears to be by design?

One model measured the direct financial gains over the course of one year of making CoD exclusive to Xbox. It is a straightforward comparison of the income that Microsoft would lose from not selling CoD on PlayStation against the additional income that it would earn from selling CoD, additional Xbox consoles, and other games to new customers who would switch—as estimated from our survey results—from PlayStation to Xbox.

The other model considered data used by Xbox in the ordinary course of business on the 'lifetime value' of new customers. This has the benefit of accounting for five years of spend on the Xbox platform and on CoD.

MS isn't conflating anything. The second model they used for LTV used only 1 year for losses in the model instead of 5. While using 5 years for gains.

This document was made for the CMA who can easily verify if what MS is saying is correct or not. MS hammers this point multiple times in the document so you better believe they have thoroughly vetted it.

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

It won't be the full 69bn since they'll have to pay fines to ABK, I think roughly 3bn, so it'll be in the ballpark of 65bn but still that's an insane amount of money.
I truly wonder what MS would do with this amount of money.

Buy every possible console marketing/exclusivity?
Buy every upcoming/growing indie/AA dev up to starve Sony from new games outside already established IPs?
Invest that money into already owned Studios?

I won't lie, I hope the deal goes through with behavioral remedies since that would be the biggest win for me as I neither have an Xbox S/X nor a PS5, so more games being funneled into GP is a win in my books, but I am equally curious into what exactly MS would do in the future if the deal gets outright blocked and MS gets forced to spend the money elsewhere.

When it gets blocked and MS will try something like this again they will face first run in to a wall.

 

[splattered]

One has to wonder if this was a legitimate error on the CMA's part of this was a "Don't worry guys, i work for the CMA and i look forward to continuing to play Call of Duty on my Playstation" twitter moment.... ha. Jk! Maybe?

 

[Heisenberg007]

MS isn't conflating anything. The second model they used for LTV used only 1 year for losses in the model instead of 5. While using 5 years for gains.

But that's exactly how one will calculate the LTV, isn't it?

The lost game sales revenue on PS would of course be limited to 1 year in both scenarios. But only the second scenario estimates the LTV of the switched gamer (from PS to Xbox).

 

[BeardGawd]

But that's exactly how one will calculate the LTV, isn't it?

The lost game sales revenue on PS would of course be limited to 1 year in both scenarios. But only the second scenario estimates the LTV of the switched gamer (from PS to Xbox).

No that absolutely doesn't make sense.

That COD player that would switch would have bought the game on Playstation those 5 years. So it's 5 years of lost revenue.

Keep in mind only a very small percentage would switch. So they'd be losing 5 years of renenue for the entire Playstation market while only gaining revenue from the small percentage that would switch.

Essentially COD is too big and has too large of an audience on Playstation to make sense to make exclusive. It's like Minecraft.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Essentially COD is too big and has too large of an audience on Playstation to make sense to make exclusive. It's like Minecraft.

So does The Elder Scrolls. But MS have already stated the sixth installment will be console exclusive to Xbox.

Basically Microsoft contradict themselves even when they try to prove others wrong. The irony.

 

[Banjo64]

MS isn't conflating anything. The second model they used for LTV used only 1 year for losses in the model instead of 5. While using 5 years for gains.

This document was made for the CMA who can easily verify if what MS is saying is correct or not. MS hammers this point multiple times in the document so you better believe they have thoroughly vetted it.

No.

The first model takes losses in to account.

The second (the 5 year one) does not.

 

[Heisenberg007]

No that absolutely doesn't make sense.

That COD player that would switch would have bought the game on Playstation those 5 years. So it's 5 years of lost revenue.

Keep in mind only a very small percentage would switch. So they'd be losing 5 years of renenue for the entire Playstation market while only gaining revenue from the small percentage that would switch.

Essentially COD is too big and has too large of an audience on Playstation to make sense to make exclusive. It's like Minecraft.

I think you're misunderstanding what the CMA said here.

The COD player that switched from PS to Xbox bought COD on Xbox and, over the next 5 years, spent even more money on Xbox (first-party games, third-party games, subscriptions, controller, storage, etc.). And that 5-year revenue from the person who switched is more than the lost software sales revenue on PlayStation.

The first CMA scenario is not a realistic one because it assumes the person who switched only bought COD once and nothing else ever after that in his lifetime. We all know that's not how it works.

As the CMA said, the second scenario is more accurate because the gamer who sold his PlayStation and bought an Xbox for (the now exclusive) COD will also spend more money on other games, sub, and Xbox hardware over the next 5 years.

This is what makes it profitable for Xbox.

 

[BeardGawd]

So does The Elder Scrolls. But MS have already stated the sixth installment will be console exclusive to Xbox.

Basically Microsoft contradict themselves even when they try to prove others wrong. The irony.

COD is in another stratosphere compered to Elder Scrolls. People throwing in these Bethesda games as if they compare are delusional.

 

[Three]

No that absolutely doesn't make sense.

That COD player that would switch would have bought the game on Playstation those 5 years. So it's 5 years of lost revenue.

Keep in mind only a very small percentage would switch. So they'd be losing 5 years of renenue for the entire Playstation market while only gaining revenue from the small percentage that would switch.

Essentially COD is too big and has too large of an audience on Playstation to make sense to make exclusive. It's like Minecraft.

Depends how those people would switch. If they can show 1 year exclusivity at next gen console launch would result in most of the people who said they would switch switching and resulting in the LTV being fulfilled and the rest who don't wouldn't be lost revenue anyway. It depends on what they are assuming are lost sales. I think they are trying to push the dynamic incentives analysis they talked about rather than the static ones they pushed during zenimax.

 

[Banjo64]

That COD player that would switch would have bought the game on Playstation those 5 years. So it's 5 years of lost revenue.

That doesn't even make sense.

The models are looking at profitability of foreclosure from a MS perspective.

If 1m players switch to Xbox to buy CoD and they buy it yearly on Xbox instead of PlayStation, how is that lost revenue?

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

COD is in another stratosphere compered to Elder Scrolls. People throwing in these Bethesda games as if they compare are delusional.

That doesn't make Elder Scrolls insignificant. What other (once) 3P franchise has an entry which moved 30+ million units? And is considered, generally, the biggest name in its respective genre (WRPG in Elder Scroll's case)?

 

[BeardGawd]

I think you're misunderstanding what the CMA said here.

The COD player that switched from PS to Xbox bought COD on Xbox and, over the next 5 years, spent even more money on Xbox (first-party games, third-party games, subscriptions, controller, storage, etc.). And that 5-year revenue from the person who switched is more than the lost software sales revenue on PlayStation.

The first CMA scenario is not a realistic one because it assumes the person who switched only bought COD once and nothing else ever after that in his lifetime. We all know that's not how it works.

As the CMA said, the second scenario is more accurate because the gamer who sold his PlayStation and bought an Xbox for (the now exclusive) COD will also spend more money on other games, sub, and Xbox hardware over the next 5 years.

This is what makes it profitable for Xbox.

That doesn't even make sense.

The models are looking at profitability of foreclosure from a MS perspective.

If 1m players switch to Xbox to buy CoD and they buy it yearly on Xbox instead of PlayStation, how is that lost revenue?

That playstation person that switched would have purchased on Playstation those 5 years. So that revenue 5 * cost of game plus cost of DLC has to be subtracted from what they gained.

If 1 million people out of 20 Million COD players on Playstation switch.

MS LOSES 5 YEARS OF REVENUE from that entire audience. 20 million * game cost + DLC.

They would gain 1 million in new users that would potentially buy more games but the amount of what they lost far exceeds what they would gain by doing this.

 

[Heisenberg007]

That playstation person that switched would have purchased on Playstation those 5 years. So that revenue 5 * cost of game plus cost of DLC has to be subtracted from what they gained.

If 1 million people out of 20 Million COD players on Playstation switch.

MS LOSES 5 YEARS OF REVENUE from that entire audience. 20 million * game cost + DLC.

They would gain 1 million in new users that would potentially buy more games but the amount of what they lost far exceeds what they would gain by doing this.

What? How?

Suppose I buy COD on PlayStation every year. And if MS publishes COD on PS, they get the following revenue from me every year.

• Year 1 = $49 (70% of $70)
• Year 2 = $49
• Year 3 = $49
• Year 4 = $49
• Year 5 = $49

Total Xbox revenue on PS = $245

Now suppose I switch from PS to Xbox. This is what MS will get from me over the next 5 years:

• Bought an Xbox = $499
• Xbox Live Gold (5 years) = $600 ($120 per year) Correct me if I'm wrong with this.
• Year 1 = $70
• Year 2 = $70
• Year 3 = $70
• Year 4 = $70
• Year 5 = $70

That's assuming I did not buy ANY first-party Xbox game, ANY third-party game on Xbox, or Game Pass -- which obviously won't be the case.

Total Revenue = $1,449.

Xbox Profit = $1,449 - $245 (lost revenue on PS) = $1,204.

Based on the number of surveyed people who said they will switch, CMA calculates that it will be more profitable for Xbox to remove COD from PlayStation, as their gained revenue on Xbox will be higher than the lost revenue on PS.

 

[Three]

That doesn't even make sense.

The models are looking at profitability of foreclosure from a MS perspective.

If 1m players switch to Xbox to buy CoD and they buy it yearly on Xbox instead of PlayStation, how is that lost revenue?

The lost revenue would be from those who didn't switch and just no longer bought COD. We won't know if they made a mistake unless we know the exact figures they used but they can certainly push the partial foreclosure incentive that results in a sizeable profit for MS.

 

[BeardGawd]

What? How?

Suppose I buy COD on PlayStation every year. And if MS publishes COD on PS, they get the following revenue from me every year.

• Year 1 = $49 (70% of $70)
• Year 2 = $49
• Year 3 = $49
• Year 4 = $49
• Year 5 = $49

Total Xbox revenue on PS = $245

Now suppose I switch from PS to Xbox. This is what MS will get from me over the next 5 years:

• Bought an Xbox = $499
• Xbox Live Gold (5 years) = $600 ($120 per year) Correct me if I'm wrong with this.
• Year 1 = $70
• Year 2 = $70
• Year 3 = $70
• Year 4 = $70
• Year 5 = $70

That's assuming I did not buy ANY first-party Xbox game, ANY third-party game on Xbox, or Game Pass -- which obviously won't be the case.

Total Revenue = $1,449.

Xbox Profit = $1,449 - $245 (lost revenue on PS) = $1,204.

Based on the number of surveyed people who said they will switch, CMA calculates that it will be more profitable for Xbox to remove COD from PlayStation, as their gained revenue on Xbox will be higher than the lost revenue on PS.

Again. 1 million people switching does not equal the 20 million you left behind.

Those 1 million would literally have to buy 20 games a year to make up for the lost revenue.

This isn't hard to understand.

Bring console cost into it is nonsensical as they lose money on every Xbox sold.

 

[Three]

What? How?

Suppose I buy COD on PlayStation every year. And if MS publishes COD on PS, they get the following revenue from me every year.

• Year 1 = $49 (70% of $70)
• Year 2 = $49
• Year 3 = $49
• Year 4 = $49
• Year 5 = $49

Total Xbox revenue on PS = $245

Now suppose I switch from PS to Xbox. This is what MS will get from me over the next 5 years:

• Bought an Xbox = $499
• Xbox Live Gold (5 years) = $600 ($120 per year) Correct me if I'm wrong with this.
• Year 1 = $70
• Year 2 = $70
• Year 3 = $70
• Year 4 = $70
• Year 5 = $70

That's assuming I did not buy ANY first-party Xbox game, ANY third-party game on Xbox, or Game Pass -- which obviously won't be the case.

Total Revenue = $1,449.

Xbox Profit = $1,449 - $245 (lost revenue on PS) = $1,204.

Based on the number of surveyed people who said they will switch, CMA calculates that it will be more profitable for Xbox to remove COD from PlayStation, as their gained revenue on Xbox will be higher than the lost revenue on PS.

This isn't counting the people who no longer buy CoD on Playstation. It is a comparison of what they gain if they switch.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

COD is in another stratosphere compered to Elder Scrolls. People throwing in these Bethesda games as if they compare are delusional.

I disagree, I don't think they're delusional. They know they are arguing nonsense and doing so in bad faith but they have to grasp at straws to argue against the deal.

 

[FritzJ92]

What? How?

Suppose I buy COD on PlayStation every year. And if MS publishes COD on PS, they get the following revenue from me every year.

• Year 1 = $49 (70% of $70)
• Year 2 = $49
• Year 3 = $49
• Year 4 = $49
• Year 5 = $49

Total Xbox revenue on PS = $245

Now suppose I switch from PS to Xbox. This is what MS will get from me over the next 5 years:

• Bought an Xbox = $499
• Xbox Live Gold (5 years) = $600 ($120 per year) Correct me if I'm wrong with this.
• Year 1 = $70
• Year 2 = $70
• Year 3 = $70
• Year 4 = $70
• Year 5 = $70

That's assuming I did not buy ANY first-party Xbox game, ANY third-party game on Xbox, or Game Pass -- which obviously won't be the case.

Total Revenue = $1,449.

Xbox Profit = $1,449 - $245 (lost revenue on PS) = $1,204.

Based on the number of surveyed people who said they will switch, CMA calculates that it will be more profitable for Xbox to remove COD from PlayStation, as their gained revenue on Xbox will be higher than the lost revenue on PS.

Isn't the argument that so few people would switch, that the math still would not add up in favor of Xbox?
I agree more money is to be made when a customer is in your ecosystem, but if few people are switching then its all inaccurate hypotheticals?

 

[Three]

No the point MS is making is that even if they did want to make COD exclusive that Sony has so many huge exclusives of their own that any impact of making COD exclusive would be negligible. Keep in mind that Sony is arguing they could no longer compete without COD.

They don't show that very well though because they assume the person that buys other games from Sony, EA, Ubisoft, etc still buys it because they bought a specific console with the games they wanted. One of those games being COD.

 

[Bernardougf]

1. Yes, you said "new and exciting exclusives". MS doesn't do exclusives anymore. But I listed three "new and exciting" games that the people who made them have since come out and said they wouldn't have happened without the acquisitions. I also listed a couple of games greatly improved because of the acquisition. Do I give a shit if PlayStation users can play Wasteland 3? No, I care that because of MS money, it got more content and every line of dialogue was voiced.

2. GamePass can be beside the point you're making but you can't remove what is by far the number one reason people are pro ABK purchase and then make up a bullshit reason people want the purchase and then shift that to the top.

3. Man… when did this thread get infested with conspiracy theorists? What even is this word diarrhea you just typed? "Robin Hood"

No point in arguing in bad faith with someone this disingenuous ... enjoy your embassador points little warrior

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

No point in arguing in bad faith with someone this disingenuous ... enjoy your embassador points little warrior

What are ambassador points, friend

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

That doesn't make Elder Scrolls insignificant. What other (once) 3P franchise has an entry which moved 30+ million units? And is considered, generally, the biggest name in its respective genre (WRPG in Elder Scroll's case)?

CoD sells tens of millions a year, has MTX in the paid game, and also has a F2P game where players spent money on MTX. So yes, compared to CoD revenue, TES could be described as insignificant.

Also worth pointing out that ESO, which has MTX, is still on Sony consoles and gets updates and new content.

But we don't have to argue about it, just look at how fiercely Sony is trying to stop this deal. That's all that needs to be said about how big CoD is.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

That playstation person that switched would have purchased on Playstation those 5 years. So that revenue 5 * cost of game plus cost of DLC has to be subtracted from what they gained.

If 1 million people out of 20 Million COD players on Playstation switch.

MS LOSES 5 YEARS OF REVENUE from that entire audience. 20 million * game cost + DLC.

They would gain 1 million in new users that would potentially buy more games but the amount of what they lost far exceeds what they would gain by doing this.

You have created an oxymoron here. If they are "COD players on PlayStation", why would they not switch in the event COD were withdrawn from PlayStation? They are COD players, right? They would theoretically need access to COD, and therefore switch.

Unless what you've done here is just use words incorrectly . Because you've incidentally created definitions that present an oxymoron where there's no way only 1/20th of people fitting that definition would switch in case of withdrawal.

I disagree, I don't think they're delusional. They know they are arguing nonsense and doing so in bad faith but they have to grasp at straws to argue against the deal.

If you could learn to read, you'd see the point behind referring to Bethesda games was to illustrate onus on Microsoft's part to withdraw content from PlayStation that for historical purposes has shown to do very good sales revenue and volume of sales on PlayStation with previous installments of games in that same franchise, a franchise that is generally considered #1 in its respective genre space (WRPG) both in terms of cultural relevance and market share for at least the previous console generation.

Arguing against fraudulent points being used to defend the acquisition, or arguing against certain conditions of the acquisition due to larger implications they could have in the industry, is not even necessarily the same thing as arguing against the deal in totality. But people like yourself have taken an "all or nothing" approach where any criticism is seen as abject refusal against the deal in its whole for even existing. That's a rather extreme conclusion on your part.

Though I will admit, I am generally much less favorable of the deal than I was even six months ago, but much of that has to do with Microsoft and ABK's theatrics and near dirty-politics tactics in pushing to get the deal through (plus their incentive on remedies that simply placate ESG values), and their galvanizing a ton of journalists, influencers & fans of their base to have a rapid onset of pro-consolidation viewpoints simply to argue on Microsoft's behalf for acquiring ABK.

CoD sells tens of millions a year, has MTX in the paid game, and also has a F2P game where players spent money on MTX. So yes, compared to CoD revenue, TES could be described as insignificant.

Also worth pointing out that ESO, which has MTX, is still on Sony consoles and gets updates and new content.

But we don't have to argue about it, just look at how fiercely Sony is trying to stop this deal. That's all that needs to be said about how big CoD is.

Soooo.....you're in agreement with the CMA, then? Therefore you at least partially rebuke Microsoft's dismissal of the CMA's estimates of effect of COD withdrawal from PlayStation?

You can't have it both ways. You can't be of the mind that COD is a "huge deal", and curbstomps games like TES into insignificance, while in the same breath, try sliding with Microsoft's claims that COD withdrawal from PlayStation will have a generally insignificant impact, and expect no contradictions to form. Because the two concepts naturally create friction with one another, yet here you are, both speaking to COD's power in the market, but agreeing with B BeardGawd that the impact of COD withdrawal from PlayStation is grossly overestimated.

Choose which one you want to put your belief behind, but enough of this confused line straddling.

 

[Three]

This guy is completely delusional and has been shilling for the acquisition going through since forever.
Apparently this, mathematically wrong there (without an explanation or counter argument from the CMA).
I fear that if things do not go as expected, he's so emotionally invested that he will become clown material all over the net.

I've not been a fan of the guy since MS and Apple became a patent troll during the collapse of Windows phone and rise of Android. He was always on the MS defensive. How Google buying Motorola was unfair and how they abused their FRAND licencing terms. How Motorola would lose this or that. Microsoft trying to get 10% from Android OEMs though was always fair game.

CoD sells tens of millions a year, has MTX in the paid game, and also has a F2P game where players spent money on MTX. So yes, compared to CoD revenue, TES could be described as insignificant.

This only works against MS' favour for lost revenue since they have only used premium game sales in the comparison. If they count the MTX gains from those boosted COD player counts on a service plus the boost in subscriptions itself it would look worse than just game sales.

 

[Three]

Unless what you've done here is just use words incorrectly . Because you've incidentally created definitions that present an oxymoron where there's no way only 1/20th of people fitting that definition would switch in case of withdrawal.

The 1/20 is completely made up and wrong, even lower than the one MS themselves stated in total but redacted.

The CMA survey found that 1/4 COD players said they would switch. So 5M out of 20M.

 

[BeardGawd]

That doesn't make Elder Scrolls insignificant. What other (once) 3P franchise has an entry which moved 30+ million units? And is considered, generally, the biggest name in its respective genre (WRPG in Elder Scroll's case)?

The Witcher 3 is just as big. And no I don't feel either are even remotely as big as COD.

You have created an oxymoron here. If they are "COD players on PlayStation", why would they not switch in the event COD were withdrawn from PlayStation? They are COD players, right? They would theoretically need access to COD, and therefore switch.

Unless what you've done here is just use words incorrectly . Because you've incidentally created definitions that present an oxymoron where there's no way only 1/20th of people fitting that definition would switch in case of withdrawal.



If you could learn to read, you'd see the point behind referring to Bethesda games was to illustrate onus on Microsoft's part to withdraw content from PlayStation that for historical purposes has shown to do very good sales revenue and volume of sales on PlayStation with previous installments of games in that same franchise, a franchise that is generally considered #1 in its respective genre space (WRPG) both in terms of cultural relevance and market share for at least the previous console generation.

Arguing against fraudulent points being used to defend the acquisition, or arguing against certain conditions of the acquisition due to larger implications they could have in the industry, is not even necessarily the same thing as arguing against the deal in totality. But people like yourself have taken an "all or nothing" approach where any criticism is seen as abject refusal against the deal in its whole for even existing. That's a rather extreme conclusion on your part.

Though I will admit, I am generally much less favorable of the deal than I was even six months ago, but much of that has to do with Microsoft and ABK's theatrics and near dirty-politics tactics in pushing to get the deal through (plus their incentive on remedies that simply placate ESG values), and their galvanizing a ton of journalists, influencers & fans of their base to have a rapid onset of pro-consolidation viewpoints simply to argue on Microsoft's behalf for acquiring ABK.



Soooo.....you're in agreement with the CMA, then? Therefore you at least partially rebuke Microsoft's dismissal of the CMA's estimates of effect of COD withdrawal from PlayStation?

You can't have it both ways. You can't be of the mind that COD is a "huge deal", and curbstomps games like TES into insignificance, while in the same breath, try sliding with Microsoft's claims that COD withdrawal from PlayStation will have a generally insignificant impact, and expect no contradictions to form. Because the two concepts naturally create friction with one another, yet here you are, both speaking to COD's power in the market, but agreeing with B BeardGawd that the impact of COD withdrawal from PlayStation is grossly overestimated.

Choose which one you want to put your belief behind, but enough of this confused line straddling.

You're missing a key bit of info. The CMA and other regulators have determined only a small percentage of users would switch. Based off various surveys they've completed.

So yes a game can be huge but that doesn't mean those people would switch consoles. Most are locked in due to previous purchases on Playstation, with some still wanting to play other PS exclusive games, others would just find another FPS to play. In the end only a small percentage would switch.

 

[Zephyrus0]

Especially when they are also the 5th "biggest publisher" on Xbox. It's not like ABK is #1 on Xbox but #5 on PlayStation.

And why doesn't Microsoft understand that arguing that ABK does not release as many games on PlayStation goes directly against their promises that they won't make ABK games exclusive? lol.

You all forget that these arguments are only weird to gamers that have a better understanding of the videogame industry. MS is arguing with the intent of taking advantage of the ignorance of CMA's board.
Microsoft is basically hoping that the CMA will view sony not releasing their own games on xbox consoles as justification to not release COD on playstation should they decide not to. After all, sony isn't releasing their games either.
This is what MS hopes the CMA sees.

 

[Dick Jones]

When legal eagles mix up The Man of Steel with Spider-Man, I'll ask for the workings on their maths conclusions before giving them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

The Witcher 3 is just as big. And no I don't feel either are even remotely as big as COD.

Big Press F to Doubt on that one. I know Witcher 3 has sold a lot of copies, but it's not "just" about copies sold. No one is going to argue that TES has had magnitudes more influence on game design conventions and trends of WRPGs than the Witcher games, which TES games themselves massively influenced.

And it could be argued that TES is as big as an influence for its genre, as COD is for FPS games. Admittedly, at this point I'm going beyond the realm of simply monetary value through actual revenue, but in absolute terms there are other means of defining a game's size or impact on the market than just the amount of revenue it generates.

You're missing a key bit of info. The CMA and other regulators have determined only a small percentage of users would switch. Based off various surveys they've completed.

So yes a game can be huge but that doesn't mean those people would switch consoles. Most are locked in due to previous purchases on Playstation, with some still wanting to play other PS exclusive games, others would just find another FPS to play. In the end only a small percentage would switch.

There's something in this I think you're missing: a PS owner who chooses another FPS game in the case COD is withdrawn is doing so because the option of competitive offerings would have been artificially reduced to the point where that PS owner is now forced to choose an alternative, instead of being tempted by superior offerings of alternatives in a fair competitive market where COD is still one of the available options due to lack of withdrawal.

It's not just about the end result, but IMO how it's arrived to. In this case, MS artificially constrains market offerings for FPS games on PS platforms through a withdrawal strategy of COD, leading to a PS owner forced into buying an alternative.

The truth is that there are no legitimate reasons to withdrawal COD from PlayStation, so on the surface I agree with Microsoft on this. However, in my case it is due to technical reasons, i.e there is no deficit in PS hardware performance that would prove a liability in expending resources for COD development on that platform. Considering MS are saying they can bring COD natively to Switch, this is effectively true in perpetuity.

However, the fact Microsoft are trying to challenge the CMA's estimates of player loss from PS in a withdrawal strategy of the COD franchise, shows that part of Microsoft's motivation is still entertaining withdrawal of the franchise from PlayStation at a future date out of purely business-minded reasons (relating to market opportunity costs), even if they simultaneously may have a point about revenue losses in a withdrawal strategy leading them against that idea (I use "may" because we also know Microsoft are considering offering COD on Game Pass and various cloud services which could run revenue deficits, so they would depend on PS sales revenue to offset those potential losses, meaning they are basically praying that Sony refuses offers for COD on PS+ Day 1 else that sale revenue dependency MS want for offsetting losses in a COD Game Pass & cloud Day 1 strategy, itself drops substantially).

 

[sainraja]

Its amusing fans celebrating more "exclusive" games from Bethesda and now ABK that they would already have the chance to play anyway (maybe not on gamepass day one but is beside the point) ... people are really really easy to persuade when the bias is this strong ... is literally happiness because the other lost and you won virtually nothing ... so sad that this is what you got to feel happy about

MS is not creating new and exciting exclusives .. is buying out the ones already existed ... and not beeing able to see this is fanboyism to its finest

I mean, yeah, you are not wrong lol.

 

[poppabk]

What? How?

Suppose I buy COD on PlayStation every year. And if MS publishes COD on PS, they get the following revenue from me every year.

• Year 1 = $49 (70% of $70)
• Year 2 = $49
• Year 3 = $49
• Year 4 = $49
• Year 5 = $49

Total Xbox revenue on PS = $245

Now suppose I switch from PS to Xbox. This is what MS will get from me over the next 5 years:

• Bought an Xbox = $499
• Xbox Live Gold (5 years) = $600 ($120 per year) Correct me if I'm wrong with this.
• Year 1 = $70
• Year 2 = $70
• Year 3 = $70
• Year 4 = $70
• Year 5 = $70

That's assuming I did not buy ANY first-party Xbox game, ANY third-party game on Xbox, or Game Pass -- which obviously won't be the case.

Total Revenue = $1,449.

Xbox Profit = $1,449 - $245 (lost revenue on PS) = $1,204.

Based on the number of surveyed people who said they will switch, CMA calculates that it will be more profitable for Xbox to remove COD from PlayStation, as their gained revenue on Xbox will be higher than the lost revenue on PS.

Why are you buying the game on xbox?

 

[adamsapple]

We're back to the Steiner math, again ?

This topic does circle back around every couple of weeks.