Support NeoGAF

[Three]

The third place only works this instance. It won't work once they acquire Activision.
CMA and EU will tell them to compete with their studios.
I can see them acquiring small publishers, but not EA, take 2 or Ubisoft.

IMO this third place works as an argument they've constructed while they buy them up. But they know they can compete now with what they have. They're waiting for these to go through in this short period and they're putting in very little effort to compete right now. They can legally pull or degrade some of the biggest games out there after all this.

Some people who want this to go through are adamant they would never but I'm not so sure. For example they should ask in court about the Minecraft raytracing preview that 'accidentally' got sent out to Xbox Series S and X in March 2022 then pulled for some reason. Was that in active development or ever planned for PS? Once this goes through would that magically reappear as only on xbox? These are the questions they should be asking to find out if this is all a ruse.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

You are arguing with a disingenuous PR pusher.

That is a good point.

 

[feynoob]

IMO this third place works as an argument they've constructed while they buy them up. But they know they can compete now with what they have. They're waiting for these to go through in this short period and they're putting in very little effort to compete right now. They can legally pull or degrade some of the biggest games out there after all this.

Some people who want this to go through are adamant they would never but I'm not so sure. For example they should ask in court about the Minecraft raytracing preview that 'accidentally' got sent out to Xbox Series S and X in March 2022 then pulled for some reason. Was that in active development or ever planned for PS? Once this goes through would that magically reappear as only on xbox? These are they questions they should be asking to find out if this is all a ruse.

Even without effort, their studio count is huge.
Regulators cant overlook their 32 studios(if they acquire Activision).

Plus they will have some of biggest hit games, most of RPG and shooter games. That should make them compete with PS.

Any funny jokes and they might get cought up with anti competitive lawsuits.

For example, EA will make them have a monopoly in shooter genre. Ubisoft on rpg genre. Take 2 on owning biggest games in the world (COD and GTA plus Minecraft), which can cause irreparable harm to PS.

It will not be an easy process for MS. Activitision alone is causing them these issues.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Guess you didn't pay attention to the post.
The original point was that COD will give MS leverage for 3rd party games.

it will not, as I already explained to you.

 

[reksveks]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-86_l5gm.pdf


R reksveks how does this impact this deal? Would ftc have any chance?

Afaik people actually misunderstood (including me) the potential impact. Axon or MS or other companies can now take the FTC to court over their process/structure. If they (Axon) win that, then it could have an impact on how mergers could be reviewed.

It's probably not going to be relevent unless there is some real delays in the US process.

 

[feynoob]

it will not, as I already explained to you.

Their games have no power.
You need a big that sells up to 20m copies to be day1 on the service in order for MS to convince EA, take 2 and Ubisoft.

CoD meets that criteria. The game being day1 on gamepass allows MS to renegotiate with those publishers for day1 gamepass.

Right now, they don't have. Unless they drop fallout 5 and TES6.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Their games have no power.
You need a big that sells up to 20m copies to be day1 on the service in order for MS to convince EA, take 2 and Ubisoft.

you need a big (game) that sells up to 20m copies to be day 1 on the service in order for MS to convince EA Take 2 and Ubisoft.

did you even think before writting?
contradictions all around.

CoD meets that criteria. The game being day1 on gamepass allows MS to renegotiate with those publishers for day1 gamepass.

Right now, they don't have. Unless they drop fallout 5 and TES6.

that is not how it works.

 

[feynoob]

you need a big (game) that sells up to 20m copies to be day 1 on the service in order for MS to convince EA Take 2 and Ubisoft.

did you even think before writting?
contradictions all around.

that is not how it works.

Let me guess, MS will magically convince these publishers to put their games day1 on gamepass Right?

Let me have what you smoking my friend.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Let me guess, MS will magically convince these publishers to put their games day1 on gamepass Right?

Let me have what you smoking my friend.

dont be dumb.

Sells is not a metric used for Game Pass at all.

its about the number of subscribers

MS can buy a game that sells 1000M it will literally not make a difference if there is not substantial subscriber growth on Game Pass.


CoD WILL NOT substantially increase GP subscribers.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Their games have no power.
You need a big that sells up to 20m copies to be day1 on the service in order for MS to convince EA, take 2 and Ubisoft.

CoD meets that criteria. The game being day1 on gamepass allows MS to renegotiate with those publishers for day1 gamepass.

Right now, they don't have. Unless they drop fallout 5 and TES6.

Why would Microsoft want competing FPS games in Game Pass Day 1 from 3P publishers, whom they'd have to pay hundreds of millions for, when they already have COD? What makes you think those 3P publishers want to play second-fiddle to COD on MS's own platform when they own the #1 FPS on the market? When they would (rightfully) feel they could get preferential treatment with Sony and PlayStation instead, regardless of what money Microsoft could throw at them for Game Pass?

I think you grossly misunderstand Microsoft's acquisition strategy with ABK. This isn't about leveraging that content to draw in big 3P AAA Day 1 releases for Game Pass. The acquisitions are because of Microsoft's failure to prove Game Pass as a viable model for those very type of games! They couldn't draw them in on the merits of the service itself, so now they've resorted to purchasing publishers directly to get that type of content.

COD in Game Pass has no draw for 3P AAA releases unless Microsoft can definitively prove that its inclusion leads to a huge growth in Game Pass subs AND it being in the service can be directly correlated to a certain boost in revenue due to that game specifically (through a mix of sub revenue growth, MTX/DLC sales generated through the service, etc.). AND, they would also have to show COD in Game Pass either doesn't significantly damage B2P sales revenue, or can generate at least as much through the Game Pass model as it would've through B2P sales if not more.

And I honestly doubt even COD would be able to successfully achieve these targets.

 

[feynoob]

dont be dumb.

Sells is not a metric used for Game Pass at all.

its about the number of subscribers

MS can buy a game that sells 1000M it will literally not make a difference if there is not substantial subscriber growth on Game Pass.


CoD WILL NOT substantially increase GP subscribers.

In order to increase those numbers, you need bigger games. And to get those bigger games, you need a big game that can give a reason as to why publishers should put their games on your service.

CoD name being attached to gamepass as day 1 is enough to do that. Once MS gets COD marketing rights, expect gamepass day1 ads everytime, there is an ad about COD.

That type of publicity increases the awareness of your service to casuals.

That is what you are missing.

MS can make all best games in the world, and it won't have the same impact.
It's why it's important to have a huge game like COD, Hogwarts legacy, TES6, GTA6 as day1, compare to having high quality games.

Names are what sells, not quality.

 

[Ozriel]

I doubt regulators had any concern about EE or that EE complained about anything. EE don't have their own cloud gaming platform. It's just a partner that provides xbox bundles with subscription plans for internet. It says PC and Xbox so it's just likely to be continued xCloud in those plans. A bit like their announced Steam 10 year deal it is the status quo in a PR blurb.

That tweet says EE has their own cloud gaming plans

 

[feynoob]

Why would Microsoft want competing FPS games in Game Pass Day 1 from 3P publishers, whom they'd have to pay hundreds of millions for, when they already have COD? What makes you think those 3P publishers want to play second-fiddle to COD on MS's own platform when they own the #1 FPS on the market? When they would (rightfully) feel they could get preferential treatment with Sony and PlayStation instead, regardless of what money Microsoft could throw at them for Game Pass?

I think you grossly misunderstand Microsoft's acquisition strategy with ABK. This isn't about leveraging that content to draw in big 3P AAA Day 1 releases for Game Pass. The acquisitions are because of Microsoft's failure to prove Game Pass as a viable model for those very type of games! They couldn't draw them in on the merits of the service itself, so now they've resorted to purchasing publishers directly to get that type of content.

COD in Game Pass has no draw for 3P AAA releases unless Microsoft can definitively prove that its inclusion leads to a huge growth in Game Pass subs AND it being in the service can be directly correlated to a certain boost in revenue due to that game specifically (through a mix of sub revenue growth, MTX/DLC sales generated through the service, etc.). AND, they would also have to show COD in Game Pass either doesn't significantly damage B2P sales revenue, or can generate at least as much through the Game Pass model as it would've through B2P sales if not more.

And I honestly doubt even COD would be able to successfully achieve these targets.

Because MS wants gamepass subs to grow. They already got EA play as part of the service.
And COD will join that list.

They are willing to spend 67b to make that happen.

 

[Ozriel]

Their games have no power.
You need a big that sells up to 20m copies to be day1 on the service in order for MS to convince EA, take 2 and Ubisoft.

CoD meets that criteria. The game being day1 on gamepass allows MS to renegotiate with those publishers for day1 gamepass.

Right now, they don't have. Unless they drop fallout 5 and TES6.

Lol, this isn't a plausible point at all.

One of the key reasons you invest heavily in your own first party library of AAA content is so you don't have to pay very hefty fees for third party content.

 

[Three]

That tweet says EE has their own cloud gaming plans

Which tweet and what's the plan?

So far they just have plans that are third party

https://ee.co.uk/help/help-new/offe...nt/how-do-i-get-xbox-game-pass-ultimate-on-ee

 

[feynoob]

Lol, this isn't a plausible point at all.

One of the key reasons you invest heavily in your own first party library of AAA content is so you don't have to pay very hefty fees for third party content.

MS right now don't have a potential competition for gamepass.
It's their best interest to increase those number as fast as possible, and not have to wait for their content to do the job.

 

[Ozriel]

IMO this third place works as an argument they've constructed while they buy them up. But they know they can compete now with what they have. They're waiting for these to go through in this short period and they're putting in very little effort to compete right now. They can legally pull or degrade some of the biggest games out there after all this.

Some people who want this to go through are adamant they would never but I'm not so sure. For example they should ask in court about the Minecraft raytracing preview that 'accidentally' got sent out to Xbox Series S and X in March 2022 then pulled for some reason. Was that in active development or ever planned for PS? Once this goes through would that magically reappear as only on xbox? These are the questions they should be asking to find out if this is all a ruse.

They should ask in court about a feature for their own IP that was never released, and could really only be accessed by going through hoops?

Nobody's going to ask that in court, because it'll come out that the only time PlayStation users had an outdated version of Minecraft came because Sony dragged their feet on the crossplay needed to get the Bedrock edition.

Maybe they can also answer questions about how they put out a PlayStation exclusive VR mode, eh?

 

[bentanchorbolt]

based supreme court

 

[zapper]

Imo, we need to see the responses of the regulators to understand if they will still be able to buy large publishers.
if "bring cod to as many devices as possible, increasing their accessibility and at a negligible price for consumers" will be considered more "positive" than a possible "monopoly on cloud gaming" by Microsoft, then perhaps they can continue to buy.
we will know more from the responses of cma, ec and ftc

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Because MS wants gamepass subs to grow. They already got EA play as part of the service.
And COD will join that list.

They are willing to spend 67b to make that happen.

But that doesn't answer anything to why EA or other 3P pubs would suddenly want to put their AAA releases on GP Day 1 just because COD will be there Day 1.

Truth be told, companies like EA are cool with MS acquiring ABK because they know when COD goes to GP Day 1, that will weaken its B2P selling power, and that creates more of a market for their FPS games (Battlefield, Apex Legends, etc.) to reach more customers in B2P sales. They're not going to want to negate that with GP Day 1 deals of those AAA releases, and MS isn't going to want to shell out the hundreds of millions for those games for what would be a limited period of time, when they may already own IP like COD they can use for GP for no extra cost.

That's the part I don't think you're realizing yet.

 

[Three]

They should ask in court about a feature for their own IP that was never released, and could really only be accessed by going through hoops?

Nobody's going to ask that in court, because it'll come out that the only time PlayStation users had an outdated version of Minecraft came because Sony dragged their feet on the crossplay needed to get the Bedrock edition.

Maybe they can also answer questions about how they put out a PlayStation exclusive VR mode, eh?

Yes if MS defense in court is that it would not result in interoperability or feature issues because minecraft is an example they should ask if that update was planned or ever in development for PS. It certainly was for xbox. It's not that farfetched a thing.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

I honestly just want this to be over so that we can go back at having monthly heart attacks on threats of new acquisitions from both sides and Phil and Jim saying they are looking for new acquisitions, lmao.

At this point i'm actually afraid of how much talks behind closed doors with developers and publishers there has been during this year and half - since January last year. Just because they are clearly trying not to acquire anyone else while this deal isn't solved, doesn't mean they can't talk to other companies about possible mergers. We know they will happen for sure.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Why would Microsoft want competing FPS games in Game Pass Day 1 from 3P publishers, whom they'd have to pay hundreds of millions for, when they already have COD? What makes you think those 3P publishers want to play second-fiddle to COD on MS's own platform when they own the #1 FPS on the market? When they would (rightfully) feel they could get preferential treatment with Sony and PlayStation instead, regardless of what money Microsoft could throw at them for Game Pass?

I think you grossly misunderstand Microsoft's acquisition strategy with ABK. This isn't about leveraging that content to draw in big 3P AAA Day 1 releases for Game Pass. The acquisitions are because of Microsoft's failure to prove Game Pass as a viable model for those very type of games! They couldn't draw them in on the merits of the service itself, so now they've resorted to purchasing publishers directly to get that type of content.

COD in Game Pass has no draw for 3P AAA releases unless Microsoft can definitively prove that its inclusion leads to a huge growth in Game Pass subs AND it being in the service can be directly correlated to a certain boost in revenue due to that game specifically (through a mix of sub revenue growth, MTX/DLC sales generated through the service, etc.). AND, they would also have to show COD in Game Pass either doesn't significantly damage B2P sales revenue, or can generate at least as much through the Game Pass model as it would've through B2P sales if not more.

And I honestly doubt even COD would be able to successfully achieve these targets.

(I'll preface this by saying I'm just using your post as a jump off point, I don't really disagree with much from your post, infact we agree on a lot)

Gamepass won't ever sway 3rd party AAA games to be on Gamepass day 1.

Microsoft will pay to have a few 3rd party AAA titles day 1 on Gamepass every year, but that is mainly just to gain new subscribers and keep current subscribers happy.

Something like Wo Long, might grab someone who was thinking about buying that game but wasn't sure about paying $70. Could just test it out for a month for cheap on Gamepass. And for the current subscriber, they see Wo Long added and are happy to stay subscribed.

CoD being day 1 on Gamepass does nothing for 3rd party publishers. In fact it probably scares some away, as their title would have to compete for consumer's time with CoD. What CoD being day 1 does is grabs a casual audience and keeps them subscribed year round. That yearly release always keeps them subbed.

As subscriber numbers grow, day 1 AAA games will be more expensive for Microsoft. But where they'll really shine is indie and AA games. Hi Fi Rush, Grounded and Pentiment's success show how great of a marketing tool Gamepass is for smaller games.

Major publishers might use Gamepass as a second wind type of tool for games already released, or perhaps if they fear their big release might flop. I will not be surprised if that Suicide Squad games ends up on Gamepass relatively quickly after release.

 

[suspicious mind]

Ms isnt done with acquisitions they already told us that.
I could see them grabbing take 2 if the opportunity presents itself.

 

[feynoob]

But that doesn't answer anything to why EA or other 3P pubs would suddenly want to put their AAA releases on GP Day 1 just because COD will be there Day 1.

Truth be told, companies like EA are cool with MS acquiring ABK because they know when COD goes to GP Day 1, that will weaken its B2P selling power, and that creates more of a market for their FPS games (Battlefield, Apex Legends, etc.) to reach more customers in B2P sales. They're not going to want to negate that with GP Day 1 deals of those AAA releases, and MS isn't going to want to shell out the hundreds of millions for those games for what would be a limited period of time, when they may already own IP like COD they can use for GP for no extra cost.

That's the part I don't think you're realizing yet.

FPs games that has mtx benefits more from gamepass, than b2p model, as you can reach more audience that way.
So no, GP won't negate that.
You have to remember that most money from these type of games comes from mtx.
MS and EA would be happy for gamepass day1b(in EA case, that is if gamepass is more than 30m+ user base).

The only issue will be SP games, which can't make money from MTX. In that regard, B2P is the model to go for these publishers.

 

[BeardGawd]

Yes if MS defense in court is that it would not result in interoperability or feature issues because minecraft is an example they should ask if that update was planned or ever in development for PS. It certainly was for xbox. It's not that farfetched a thing.

Asking about some unreleased mode is really grasping at straws for a "gotcha" here. When does Xbox get a VR Minecraft edition? What about all the exclusive DLC that Minecraft gets on Switch?

 

[DeepEnigma]

When does Xbox get a VR Minecraft edition?

When they made a VR headset?

Still waiting on that E3 Hololens vaporware.

 

[Ozriel]

MS right now don't have a potential competition for gamepass.
It's their best interest to increase those number as fast as possible, and not have to wait for their content to do the job.

Yes. Which is why they're securing more AAA content for their service, and expanding availability in more regions.

Asking about some unreleased mode is really grasping at straws for a "gotcha" here. When does Xbox get a VR Minecraft edition? What about all the exclusive DLC that Minecraft gets on Switch?

It's such a ludicrous point, I'm having trouble imagining it's a serious line of thought.

 

[DarkMage619]

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.

Fundamentally it means little. Activision develops games. They are big developer but a developer none the less. Activision also was not a competitor to MS. This is a vertical merger so it's nothing like buying another platform holder.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Afaik people actually misunderstood (including me) the potential impact. Axon or MS or other companies can now take the FTC to court over their process/structure. If they (Axon) win that, then it could have an impact on how mergers could be reviewed.

It's probably not going to be relevent unless there is some real delays in the US process.

Surely it would be a big risk for mega-corporations in the US to disrupt the status quo of US regulation?

In this merger, it already seems that regulator power (China aside) is CMA, EC then FTC.
If the whole regulation process in the US becomes a pay-to-win situation that everyone concerned then deems it unfit for purpose and in need of reform, wouldn't the US congress want that order of power to read FTC, CMA, EC? A new regulation system in the US forced by the weak existing system being deemed unfit for purpose by all would only get stronger in reform, or am I reading that situation wrong?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Fundamentally it means little. Activision develops games. They are big developer but a developer none the less.

They don't develop, you are being a disingenuous shill right now.

They publish, stop changing the language to suit your bullshit narrative.

Words and roles have meaning.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Ms isnt done with acquisitions they already told us that.
I could see them grabbing take 2 if the opportunity presents itself.

It really depends on the opportunity. For now T2 will continue to grow and stakeholders won't want to be acquired. Especially with the upcoming GTA6 that will increase their market cap at least with additional couple of billions.

Surely it would be a big risk for mega-corporations in the US to disrupt the status quo of US regulation?

Not really considering that it is actually FTC that was trying to disrupt the status quo. Mergers should be looked at from the point of view of law.

 

[feynoob]

thicc_girls_are_teh_best

For example, if 5m players from gamepass are able to spend 10$ on mtx for 1 year (battle pass, etc), EA will be able to gain $420m(after 30% cut) from them.

That is equivalent of selling 1m copies at 42$(after 30% cut). price tag.

That is what MTX and Gamepass can do for these type of games. While SP games cant do that.

 

[reksveks]

Surely it would be a big risk for mega-corporations in the US to disrupt the status quo of US regulation?

In this merger, it already seems that regulator power (China aside) is CMA, EC then FTC.
If the whole regulation process in the US becomes a pay-to-win situation that everyone concerned then deems it unfit for purpose and in need of reform, wouldn't the US congress want that order of power to read FTC, CMA, EC? A new regulation system in the US forced by the weak existing system being deemed unfit for purpose by all would only get stronger in reform, or am I reading that situation wrong?

I don't think MS would file the case to weaken the FTC but they may piggyback off the back of it. I suspect that the Congress isn't going to be giving the FTC any more power. Whilst both sides don't like big tech, not sure the solutions are going to align.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

(I'll preface this by saying I'm just using your post as a jump off point, I don't really disagree with much from your post, infact we agree on a lot)

Gamepass won't ever sway 3rd party AAA games to be on Gamepass day 1.

Microsoft will pay to have a few 3rd party AAA titles day 1 on Gamepass every year, but that is mainly just to gain new subscribers and keep current subscribers happy.

Something like Wo Long, might grab someone who was thinking about buying that game but wasn't sure about paying $70. Could just test it out for a month for cheap on Gamepass. And for the current subscriber, they see Wo Long added and are happy to stay subscribed.

CoD being day 1 on Gamepass does nothing for 3rd party publishers. In fact it probably scares some away, as their title would have to compete for consumer's time with CoD. What CoD being day 1 does is grabs a casual audience and keeps them subscribed year round. That yearly release always keeps them subbed.

As subscriber numbers grow, day 1 AAA games will be more expensive for Microsoft. But where they'll really shine is indie and AA games. Hi Fi Rush, Grounded and Pentiment's success show how great of a marketing tool Gamepass is for smaller games.

Major publishers might use Gamepass as a second wind type of tool for games already released, or perhaps if they fear their big release might flop. I will not be surprised if that Suicide Squad games ends up on Gamepass relatively quickly after release.

Exactly. With COD in GP, you have a platform holder with the #1 FPS on the market, on their main stage, and there is zero chance any other 3P FPS game in the service is going to get preferential treatment on the level of COD. They will ALWAYS play second-fiddle. And that actually would extend to any 3P AAA games IMHO. 3P dont' want to feel like they're being made to play second-fiddle, and companies like Sony figured that out very well and have generally always made sure to provide key 3P partner releases with preferential treatment. Just look at what they're doing with FF XVI at current, or Hogwarts Legacy earlier this year.

Microsoft simply does not provide that type of treatment or attention at that quality for 3P titles, and they'll have less a reason to do so in the future when they own big IP from Zenimax and ABK. But like you said, for indies and AA, Game Pass could be a benefit to them...although I'm starting to think they will suffer quite a bit in terms of getting preferential treatment if they are 3P. Because, again, MS have their own legion of 1P content including indie and AA content. You just mentioned some of them, like Pentiment and HiFi Rush; will future 3P indie and AA releases be as readily approved for Game Pass if more MS 1P teams put out more content like Pentiment and HiFi? Will MS push those 3P indie and AA games to the degree they would their own? If sub growth is tied to the big AAA releases, Microsoft could just as easily scale back from relying on indie and AA content knowing those won't give them big boosts in subs.

Right now there's a game coming to GP called Ravenlok that seemingly is getting very little promotion from Xbox Game Pass, even though IMO it looks very promising and unique, like the studio's last game, Echo Generation (which is still an Xbox console exclusive). If Ravenlok were something coming to PS and Sony had some kind of marketing agreement, you'd see a lot more attention and hype for Ravenlok IMHO.

thicc_girls_are_teh_best

For example, if 5m players from gamepass are able to spend 10$ on mtx for 1 year (battle pass, etc), EA will be able to gain $420m(after 30% cut) from them.

That is equivalent of selling 1m copies at 42$(after 30% cut). price tag.

That is what MTX and Gamepass can do for these type of games. While SP games cant do that.

Okay but are those 5m NEW Game Pass subscribers directly attributable to COD inclusion into the service? The MTX revenue you describe is just an equivalent; if COD weren't in the service you'd still get that MTX revenue and that would be on top of the B2P sales revenue.

So in theory you would need a LOT more in MTX sales and some obvious boost in GP sub revenue directly attributable to COD in the service, alongside still decent B2P sales revenue, in order for that model to actually work.

 

[feynoob]

Surely it would be a big risk for mega-corporations in the US to disrupt the status quo of US regulation?

In this merger, it already seems that regulator power (China aside) is CMA, EC then FTC.
If the whole regulation process in the US becomes a pay-to-win situation that everyone concerned then deems it unfit for purpose and in need of reform, wouldn't the US congress want that order of power to read FTC, CMA, EC? A new regulation system in the US forced by the weak existing system being deemed unfit for purpose by all would only get stronger in reform, or am I reading that situation wrong?

Let me introduce you to our politicians.
As long as these sleezy politics exist, our regulations would be weak.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

I don't think MS would file the case to weaken the FTC but they may piggyback off the back of it. I suspect that the Congress isn't going to be giving the FTC any more power. Whilst both sides don't like big tech, not sure the solutions are going to align.

I don't think there is an appetite to go after big tech at this point in USA. USA seems to be less concerned about big tech per se, but more about media and app stores - but not because Apple or Google are too big. Lina Khan does not have any supporters (except Warren and Sanders) anymore.

Even Europe arguably does not care much about big tech at this point and they are more into specific areas only rather than big tech in general. There was a sentiment against big tech a couple of months ago. But not anymore.

 

[Celcius]

What are the chances of MS adding Overwatch to Steam if this deal goes through?

 

[Dane]

They don't develop, you are being a disingenuous shill right now.

They publish, stop changing the language to suit your bullshit narrative.

Words and roles have meaning.

They develop 99% of what they publish, what was the last time they published something that wasn't them? Sekiro?

 

[reksveks]

I don't think there is an appetite to go after big tech at this point in USA. USA seems to be less concerned about big tech per se, but more about media and app stores - but not because Apple or Google are too big. Lina Khan does not have any supporters (except Warren and Sanders) anymore.

Even Europe arguably does not care much about big tech at this point and they are more into specific areas only rather than big tech in general. There was a sentiment against big tech a couple of months ago. But not anymore.

I think it's kinda related, I would agree the Lina Khan and Warren is definitely much more anti-Big Tech for the sake of it.

EC definitely does seem much more focused on the issues of app stores, interoperability, social media platform and now AI usage/products. They have proper policy plans and investigations. I would put the UK slightly similar but they don't really have much in terms of policy. Very similar investigation re app stores.

Congress had a couple of bills similar to the DMA but they are basically dead at the moment.

 

[DeepEnigma]

They develop 99% of what they publish, what was the last time they published something that wasn't them? Sekiro?

Another one.

 

[feynoob]

Okay but are those 5m NEW Game Pass subscribers directly attributable to COD inclusion into the service? The MTX revenue you describe is just an equivalent; if COD weren't in the service you'd still get that MTX revenue and that would be on top of the B2P sales revenue.

So in theory you would need a LOT more in MTX sales and some obvious boost in GP sub revenue directly attributable to COD in the service, alongside still decent B2P sales revenue, in order for that model to actually work.

B2P is 60$-70$ price tag with potential mtx sales. While 1 person mtx price tag for a year can net you 120$ with no B2P(gamepass)

You can see the type of mtx for COD here on steam.
https://store.steampowered.com/dlc/1938090/Call_of_Duty_Modern_Warfare_II/

You can potentially get 1 person to spend around 150$ a year on those mtx, while they are using gamepass. 120$ for 12 month of battle passes, and 30$ for some cool limited skins. An easy task to achieve as that is not a lot of money, if we go by the yearly spend.

This is just from Xbox side. You also have steam side and PS side who will have to buy the game and spend money on mtx.

EA will do these calculations too and see how much they can generate it.

You don't need 5m new subscribers to achieve that data. 2m new subs and 3m existing Xbox users can achieve that data.

Right now gamepass is 25m userbase. If MS can hit 50m (big hurdle), the amount of money they can generate from MTX would be insane. You can have 25m users spending money on mtx that is on par with 10m-20m copies price.

MS is aiming for that. Get more mtx type games (shooter, racing, dlc or character pack games). Users mayvspend more money on things like these, when they are able to play the game through gamepass.

 

[feynoob]

What are the chances of MS adding Overwatch to Steam if this deal goes through?

Alot higher.

At most, we might get wow on steam.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

B2P is 60$-70$ price tag with potential mtx sales. While 1 person mtx price tag for a year can net you 120$ with no B2P(gamepass)

You can see the type of mtx for COD here on steam.
https://store.steampowered.com/dlc/1938090/Call_of_Duty_Modern_Warfare_II/

You can potentially get 1 person to spend around 150$ a year on those mtx, while they are using gamepass. 120$ for 12 month of battle passes, and 30$ for some cool limited skins. An easy task to achieve as that is not a lot of money, if we go by the yearly spend.

This is just from Xbox side. You also have steam side and PS side who will have to buy the game and spend money on mtx.

EA will do these calculations too and see how much they can generate it.

You don't need 5m new subscribers to achieve that data. 2m new subs and 3m existing Xbox users can achieve that data.

Right now gamepass is 25m userbase. If MS can hit 50m (big hurdle), the amount of money they can generate from MTX would be insane. You can have 25m users spending money on mtx that is on par with 10m-20m copies price.

MS is aiming for that. Get more mtx type games (shooter, racing, dlc or character pack games). Users mayvspend more money on things like these, when they are able to play the game through gamepass.

If a person is spending $150 a year on COD MTX, they are much more likely to just...buy the game. As that would be a cost savings for them, rather than spending $180 a year for GP just for COD and then $150 for COD MTX.

A big problem with GP revenue ATM are the payment loopholes that suppress the ARPU. I don't believe GP at the current sub rate is pulling in more than $2 billion a year annually. If MTX sales were being bolstered through the GP model, we would have seen MS reference that as an offset to dropping gaming revenue in the previous fiscal report. Instead they reference growth of GP subscribers on PC.

EA don't need COD in GP to calculate the data and see if that model works; they have had years of other FPS and such games in GP, including Halo Infinite, to see if it works and the truth seems like GP doesn't foster a massive boost in MTX spending. I don't see why it would when models like F2P are what in fact foster such huge boosts in MTX spending, to the point of ridiculousness in some cases, and F2P doesn't need a service model like Game Pass to exist.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Congress had a couple of bills similar to the DMA but they are basically dead at the moment.

Yeah, but stuff like DMA are also not "anti-big tech" per se. But more about foreclosure essentially. But it is a common trend this day across the whole world - gaming, mobile, media app stores were relatively unregulated for years. Gaming was not considered important and since Windows 90s era we haven't had any big foreclosure issue (only against Microsoft from time to time like Media Player) in regards of media content. Even music markets are more regulated that app stores or gaming. And until recently nobody cared about gaming.

I do think that ABK triggered more scrutiny into the gaming market. It does not help that Sony complained so loudly about that issue.

 

[feynoob]

If a person is spending $150 a year on COD MTX, they are much more likely to just...buy the game. As that would be a cost savings for them, rather than spending $180 a year for GP just for COD and then $150 for COD MTX.

Except those guys are playing on Xbox.
That is what you need to account to.
Because they aren't only paying price tag, but also Xbox live gold. Having gamepass will allow them to play them COD and other Xbox games.

That is a reason for them to sub to gamepass. This doesn't account for other platforms like steam or PS.

A big problem with GP revenue ATM are the payment loopholes that suppress the ARPU. I don't believe GP at the current sub rate is pulling in more than $2 billion a year annually. If MTX sales were being bolstered through the GP model, we would have seen MS reference that as an offset to dropping gaming revenue in the previous fiscal report. Instead they reference growth of GP subscribers on PC

Payment loopholes are small. Less than 2m people use it, and majority are on monthly payments.

Also that 2b of your estimation doesn't include mtx, dlc sales or games bought using gamepass. It only includes the sub price.

If you add the rest, it will be higher than 2b (your estimation).

EA don't need COD in GP to calculate the data and see if that model works; they have had years of other FPS and such games in GP, including Halo Infinite, to see if it works and the truth seems like GP doesn't foster a massive boost in MTX spending. I don't see why it would when models like F2P are what in fact foster such huge boosts in MTX spending, to the point of ridiculousness in some cases, and F2P doesn't need a service model like Game Pass to exist

F2p only covers f2p games. It doesn't cover games like battlefield.
Then there is the fact the EA has their own gamepass model on PC which contains day1 of their games. They also put their games on EA play after 6 months, which is on all platforms.

They have an idea how that works. Or else, they wouldn't have put their games on their service after 6 months.

Also Gamepass gets their games after 6 month of release. The potential loss will be covered by MS, and the options to gain more money through mtx.

Matter of fact, Ubisoft has their own gamepass on Xbox.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.xbox.com/en-us/2023/04/13/ubisoft-plus-multi-access-xbox/amp/

fine print.

100+ games including new releases and premium1 editions

https://store.ubisoft.com/us/ubisoftplus/?lang=en_US

it won't be different than gamepass day1.

 

[feynoob]

DeepEnigma
It seems Ubisoft is doing gamepass day1 service on all platforms for their games.
They are coming for you.

 

[DeepEnigma]

DeepEnigma
It seems Ubisoft is doing gamepass day1 service on all platforms for their games.
They are coming for you.

I don't play UbiSoft games.

 

[feynoob]

I don't play UbiSoft games.

You know the drill, if we find out you play those game.

 

[DeepEnigma]

You know the drill, if we find out you play those game.