PropellerEar
Member
rich boy phil spencer cant be stpped
"As a head of xbox, i see my self as an enabler..." i can produce 16times more hot air(exhausts).

Last edited:
rich boy phil spencer cant be stpped
NoHere's a real question I asked elsewhere: ABK deal is meant to bolster Gamepass, right? And having Diablo and Crash and all of Call of Duty in Gamepass is very, very attractive.
But I'd say at least half of Call of Duty users buy one game a year - COD. Paying $180 per year (need Gold/Ultimate for online play) doesn't make any sense for that COD user when they're already mostly on PlayStation and can just pay for the title plus PS+ Essential, which is a much better service than Live Gold.
Like.....will the ABK deal - or more specifically the acquisition of COD - actually move that many subscriptions for Microsoft?
This guy has been attacking Idas for some reason, because he has been covering this deal nonstop.
Fame is getting in to people's head these days
Here's a real question I asked elsewhere: ABK deal is meant to bolster Gamepass, right? And having Diablo and Crash and all of Call of Duty in Gamepass is very, very attractive.
But I'd say at least half of Call of Duty users buy one game a year - COD. Paying $180 per year (need Gold/Ultimate for online play) doesn't make any sense for that COD user when they're already mostly on PlayStation and can just pay for the title plus PS+ Essential, which is a much better service than Live Gold.
Like.....will the ABK deal - or more specifically the acquisition of COD - actually move that many subscriptions for Microsoft?
It kinda is.It definitely feels like schoolyard drama. I am just ignoring that all crap.
This guy has been attacking Idas for some reason, because he has been covering this deal nonstop.
Fame is getting in to people's head these days
there is a reasonIt kinda is.
There is no reason for him to go after ida like that.
He could have ignore it.
good luck trying to acquire another big publisher.Well, it's clear that Activision is just a beginning. They want to have all big games in there and nowhere else.
He is not disingenuous though (at least not much), but there is no point to try to correct people as nobody cares.There is too much misinformation around and he's gonna combat it. That disingenuous fuck is part of the problem.![]()
Man with ties to MS and Activision shilling like fuck. The only thing missing is him tweeting the cheques.He is not disingenuous though (at least not much), but there is no point to try to correct people as nobody cares.
falseYes. Because COD will give gamepass more exposure for casuals.
But the main thing is that COD gives MS more power to get bigger games.
Right now, gamepass doesn't have a must buy game day1 outside of Xbox 1st party games. It can't get games like Valhalla day1 because of that. Activitision library changes that equation.
Regular people don't think like this. They see a sticker price of $70 and they see a sticker price of $1 dollar for access to a bunch of games including Call Of Duty. They go for that $1 dollar deal. Then they keep getting asked for small amounts every month that they keep paying. They can end up paying more sure but they're not actively thinking about that. Even MS said gamepass users spend more but didn't really say how.Here's a real question I asked elsewhere: ABK deal is meant to bolster Gamepass, right? And having Diablo and Crash and all of Call of Duty in Gamepass is very, very attractive.
But I'd say at least half of Call of Duty users buy one game a year - COD. Paying $180 per year (need Gold/Ultimate for online play) doesn't make any sense for that COD user when they're already mostly on PlayStation and can just pay for the title plus PS+ Essential, which is a much better service than Live Gold.
Like.....will the ABK deal - or more specifically the acquisition of COD - actually move that many subscriptions for Microsoft?
is not all about the Sticker price. There is an economic concept called the "Veblen effect" in which something cheaper is less desirable or attractive because is perceived to be of lesser quality.Regular people don't think like this. They see a sticker price of $70 and they see a sticker price of $1 dollar for access to a bunch of games including Call Of Duty. They go for that $1 dollar deal. Then they keep getting asked for small amounts every month that they keep paying. They can end up paying more sure but they're not actively thinking about that. Even MS said gamepass users spend more but didn't really say how.
Another example:
Nobody was thinking hey PS3 is $599 but with a 360 if i buy a hdd, a possible wifi adapter, or pay for 6 years of XLG over the gen that would be $900. People just see the sticker price at the time of purchase.
I think they have 5 days to read it and see what's up.Wasn't Microsoft expecting the remedy working paper from CMA this week?
Private info? CMA is not ready? Can they announce a delay past April 26th if necessary?
It can be 'private'.Wasn't Microsoft expecting the remedy working paper from CMA this week?
Private info? CMA is not ready? Can they announce a delay past April 26th if necessary?
That is true but in the case of trying to get Call of duty it's the same product.is not all about the Sticker price. There is an economic concept called the "Veblen effect" in which something cheaper is less desirable or attractive because is perceived to be of lesser quality.
Tell me how is it false?false
Yes but I thought it would be published by CMA itself when issued or that Mlex and crew would leak it anyway.I think they have 5 days to read it and see what's up.
It does not matter if he has ties with Microsoft or Activision as long as he does not lie.Man with ties to MS and Activision shilling like fuck.
This guy has been attacking Idas for some reason, because he has been covering this deal nonstop.
Fame is getting in to people's head these days
There is no $1 trial anymore...People will see $70 to play call of duty or $1 to sign up and play call of duty plus a bunch of other stuff.
That is true but in the case of trying to get Call of duty it's the same product.
People will see $70 to play call of duty or $1 to sign up and play call of duty plus a bunch of other stuff. They may not play much else for a year, and they may end up paying more over the year but they wouldn't think CoD on gamepass is lesser quality than the CoD you purchase. They would probably see it as more for less when doing that instantaneous comparison. I don't think the veblen effect would apply for the same product.
Their market position is why they are able to make this sort of deal in the first place. Historically mergers passing were based on the how the new merged entity would affect the current market. Since MS is not the gaming market leader and is far from a monopoly in this space there isn't a legal reason to block the deal. Simply disliking MS personally or feeling that since the Xbox isn't successful currently MS should not be allowed to buy another company is the opposite of how regulators should evaluate the legality of a potential merger or acquisition. Like it or not the other far more successful companies in this space gives room for this deal to happen.If every decision was made based on MS current market position, then what's stopping them from buying every third-party publisher on the market to create a monopoly???
It doesn't make any sense...
They should make decisions based on the possible consequences of the acquisition, not what happened BEFORE it
"COD gives MS more power to get bigger games."Tell me how is it false?
Their market position is why they are able to make this sort of deal in the first place. Historically mergers passing were based on the how the new merged entity would affect the current market. Since MS is not the gaming market leader and is far from a monopoly in this space there isn't a legal reason to block the deal. Simply disliking MS personally or feeling that since the Xbox isn't successful currently MS should not be allowed to buy another company is the opposite of how regulators should evaluate the legality of a potential merger or acquisition. Like it or not the other far more successful companies in this space gives room for this deal to happen.
Since after the acquisition a new evaluation of the new entity will be taken, future deals of this magnitude will face even greater scrutiny. Seeing how difficult this deal is to get passed it is highly unlikely MS will be able to 'buy the industry'. That was never realistic otherwise MS could just buy their direct competitors. That is more like buying the industry over acquiring a third party developer. As much as some want, MS is not dropping out of gaming or going third party. There are still bigger gaming platforms to support if a person dislikes Xbox.
Never doubt money, power and political influence ... I surely dont ... in this corporate world anything can happen, and furthermore If this kind of decision is only based on market share and activion does fuckall to xbox market share in the gaming scenario.. another big publisher buyout is going to enter in the same permission bias one would think, I know is not that simple but the reasoning would be the samegood luck trying to acquire another big publisher.
He is not disingenuous though (at least not much), but there is no point to try to correct people as nobody cares.
Glad to be of service Jim.Ok Phil, good post....
Guess you didn't pay attention to the post."COD gives MS more power to get bigger games."
what is bigger than CoD?
If CoD alone doesn't do the trick, then nothing else will.
The order of operations would have been for Microsoft to first develop high-quality games, which would have given them more power to attract bigger games, such as Call of Duty.
if MS is thinking in CoD as a Seinfeld, The Office or Friends (even green products); growth would be limited (if someone doesn't give a shit about CoD they are not going to give a shit just because is on GP aka subscribing to the service).
in other words: With or without CoD MS should produce high-quality AAA/ culturally defining games.
It will not be the same.Never doubt money, power and political influence ... I surely dont ... in this corporate world anything can happen, and furthermore If this kind of decision is only based on market share and activion does fuckall to xbox market share in the gaming scenario.. another big publisher buyout is going to enter in the same permission bias one would think, I know is not that simple but the reasoning would be the same
This guy has been attacking Idas for some reason, because he has been covering this deal nonstop.
Fame is getting in to people's head these days
Why is he going out of his way to needlessly be a dick ?
Not much of starting price, they do a simple math and realize its more for less anyways, the PS3 was almost twice the 360 core price that didn't have an HDD, yet no release required mandatory installs for years. For the cost of a very old COD at sale they get one month for the ABK catalogue + 400 games. ABK is known for having old titles at very high default price compared to the rest of the industryRegular people don't think like this. They see a sticker price of $70 and they see a sticker price of $1 dollar for access to a bunch of games including Call Of Duty. They go for that $1 dollar deal. Then they keep getting asked for small amounts every month that they keep paying. They can end up paying more sure but they're not actively thinking about that. Even MS said gamepass users spend more but didn't really say how.
Another example:
Nobody was thinking hey PS3 is $599 but with a 360 if i buy a hdd, possible wifi adapter or pay for 6 years of XLG over the gen that would be $900. People just see the sticker price at the time of purchase.
Cant see this happening if MS remains firmly at third place with out raising their piece of the market pie ... the justification for passing the deal would remain exctly the same or they would have to block it future aquisitions based on another argument that they are not using this time around.....but ... I fully expect MS to use this ABK aquisition to enlarge its market the same way they are using bethesda, by making all of them exclusive games eventually... my bet is some kind of COD exclusivity for the new generation of consoles but we can only speculate at this point what their real intentions are . People trying to pretend they know exactly what a giant corporation as MS will do is just ridiculous.It will not be the same.
Cma and EU will shut them down.
"I write to express concern about Sony's efforts to protect its gaming console business from competition. For more than 20 years, Sony has utterly dominated the gaming console market, as that market has been defined by the Federal Trade Commission. I am concerned Sony's dominance of that market, and its efforts to perpetuate its current position imperils an important economic development opportunity for North Dakota," wrote Senator Cramer.
There was also a launch 20GB PS3 at $499. This doesn't take away from the fact that people don't usually consider additional costs over time. The core was more expensive overall when buying the HDD separately over the gen but even excluding the HDD you were looking at a possible $50-60 reoccurring cost which added up to $300 or more vs the other. Very few people think like this though.Not much of starting price, they do a simple math and realize its more for less anyways, the PS3 was almost twice the 360 core price that didn't have an HDD, yet no release required mandatory installs for years. For the cost of a very old COD at sale they get one month for the ABK catalogue + 400 games.
The third place only works this instance. It won't work once they acquire Activision.Cant see this happening if MS remains firmly at third place with out raising their piece of the market pie ... the justification for passing the deal would remain exctly the same or they would have to block it future aquisitions based on another argument that they are not using this time around.....but ... I fully expect MS to use this ABK aquisition to enlarge its market the same way they are using bethesda, by making all of them exclusive games eventually... my bet is some kind of COD exclusivity for the new generation of consoles but we can only speculate at this point what their real intentions are . People trying to pretend they know exactly what a giant corporation as MS will do is just ridiculous.
![]()
The fact that politicians who clearly don't have a clue what they are getting embroiled just makes this circus all the more entertaining.
Its regular business
![]()
The difference was big enough to most people agreeing on paying it out in a very long term rather than having to right away, it would also apply a very attractive option for those who didn't play online which was still a sizeable chunk back then, didn't also help that PS3 didn't have a major online titles at the launch or with PS2 massively popular online games while Xbox 360 BC could play Halo 2 and Counter Strike if you had the HDD.There was also a launch 20GB PS3 at $499. This doesn't take away from the fact that people don't usually consider additional costs over time. The core was more expensive overall when buying the HDD separately over the gen but even excluding the HDD you were looking at a possible $50-60 reoccurring cost which added up to $300 or more vs the other. Very few people think like this though.
I've seen people check out a free game because it's free and scoff at an $80 game in a store then proceed to spend thousands of pounds in $5 packs on that 'free' game. Land and expand is the way to go.
![]()
The fact that politicians who clearly don't have a clue what they are getting embroiled just makes this circus all the more entertaining.
They don't care, as long as they get paid.Where is this "concern" for Apple's dominance in North Dakota and across America?
Oh that's right, American company, it's fine. This only applies if it's a foreign company that dares to embarrass US big tech.
I think regulators will find it hard to consider them "Firmly in 3rd place" because they will instantly leap-frog Nintendo in overall gaming revenue. I believe they've already eclipsed Nintendo in that stat in at least 1 fiscal year.Cant see this happening if MS remains firmly at third place with out raising their piece of the market pie ... the justification for passing the deal would remain exctly the same or they would have to block it future aquisitions based on another argument that they are not using this time around.....but ... I fully expect MS to use this ABK aquisition to enlarge its market the same way they are using bethesda, by making all of them exclusive games eventually... my bet is some kind of COD exclusivity for the new generation of consoles but we can only speculate at this point what their real intentions are . People trying to pretend they know exactly what a giant corporation as MS will do is just ridiculous.
When Congress withholds jurisdiction, we must respect its choice. But when Congress grants jurisdiction to the Nation's courts, we must respect that choice too. We have no authority to froth plain statutory text with factors of our own design, all with an eye to denying some people the day in court the law promises them. Respectfully, this Court should be done with the Thunder Basin project. I hope it will be soon.
This guy has been attacking Idas for some reason, because he has been covering this deal nonstop.
Fame is getting in to people's head these days
Their market position is why they are able to make this sort of deal in the first place. Historically mergers passing were based on the how the new merged entity would affect the current market. Since MS is not the gaming market leader and is far from a monopoly in this space there isn't a legal reason to block the deal. Simply disliking MS personally or feeling that since the Xbox isn't successful currently MS should not be allowed to buy another company is the opposite of how regulators should evaluate the legality of a potential merger or acquisition. Like it or not the other far more successful companies in this space gives room for this deal to happen.
Since after the acquisition a new evaluation of the new entity will be taken, future deals of this magnitude will face even greater scrutiny. Seeing how difficult this deal is to get passed it is highly unlikely MS will be able to 'buy the industry'. That was never realistic otherwise MS could just buy their direct competitors. That is more like buying the industry over acquiring a third party developer. As much as some want, MS is not dropping out of gaming or going third party. There are still bigger gaming platforms to support if a person dislikes Xbox.
![]()
The fact that politicians who clearly don't have a clue what they are getting embroiled just makes this circus all the more entertaining.
You are arguing with a disingenuous PR pusher.ABK isn't a third-party developer. They're one of the biggest 3P publishers in the whole gaming industry, certainly in the console gaming space.
There's...kind of a difference there, IJS.