Support NeoGAF

[Pelta88]

I don't play UbiSoft games.

AC Black Flag was the last ubi game I wanted to play. I tried the AC set in Egypt and realized it was forcing me down a P2W strategy, so abandoned it. Got Valhalla of the PS+ tier for free and it was so uninspired I didn't make it past the second act.

I think Microsoft will purchase UBI soon but in that instance, Sony wont make any regulatory complaints about it.

 

[Three]

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

What sort of question is that. When xbox release a VR device? You have minecraft for Oculus and Windows Mixed Reality, it wasn't some one off for Playstation.

Raytracing is something that's possible on PS5 if it's possible on XSS, no? That's not like xbox not having VR support so getting no VR version.

 

[nikolino840]

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

¿?
context?

 

[mansoor1980]

3rd largest gaming company OR 3rd largest gaming monopoly?

 

[HoofHearted]

 

[reksveks]

Lol

And so far, this struggle is unfolding at the hearings of the antimonopoly services. But the noise that accompanies it clearly speaks of fierce competition for the market. Competition, which is getting closer to developing into an open armed struggle for the redistribution of the world market by force.

Comrades!

Politsturm has existed for a long time. So, it became necessary for us to establish a clear and specific program, which can show our views on many problems of the modern communist movement

From the about us page.

The article gets weird

Not so long ago, businessman Elon Musk bought the Twitter network for $ 44 billion. It is believed that there is something more behind this than "just" business interests, since having gained control of Twitter, Elon Musk first of all launched a vote on the return of Trump's account, giving him the opportunity to broadcast his ideas to the widest audience as a result.

Dumb purchaser wanted to make some of his money back and is half-arsed re his commitment to free speech.

However, for no reason at all, the US Federal Commission, European bureaucrats, the British Competition and Markets Authority, as well as the Brazilian and Chinese anti-monopoly services are suddenly involved in the case. It would not be an exaggeration to say that almost the whole world is embroiled in a dispute over this deal, which is called "the largest in history."

No reason at all....

 

[PaintTinJr]

...


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.

I understood that, but in your opinion - presumably as an American - how are laws that are all formed from looking backwards to set precedence ever going to be an effective means to regulate against anti-competitive actions where mega-corporations are already ahead of the laws that exist?

In the UK we have laws that pre-date the formation of many countries including the United States and the wisdom we have from being such an old democracy is that our regulation can actively project forward with common sense and instinct - even without a past legal basis - because failure to regulate effectively is a much bigger mistake for the many, than too much regulation disadvantaging the once in a blue-moon humanitarian mega-corp.

It seems those in the thread saying the FTC shouldn't be fighting this, because the law doesn't support it in the US aren't letting them apply the common sense maxim: "If it walks like a duck, talks like....chances are it is a duck", and instead need them to have the DNA at the zoo and in a duck enclosure.

 

[Dane]

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.

They have a staple of 1st party developers and keeps treating indies well to the point where many of the best indies each year get into the service day one or later, they could have simply ignored them and just go for the AAA from EA, Embracer, Sega and Bamco as they are the major partners today.

 

[adamsapple]

Lol





From the about us page.

The article gets weird


Dumb purchaser wanted to make some of his money back and is half-arsed re his commitment to free speech.


No reason at all....

That is probably the weirdest article I've seen about this acquisition since it got announced ...

 

[BeardGawd]

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.

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.

People keep bringing up developers vs publishers but it doesn't seem like most here actually know the difference. The only difference is a Publisher also has a marketing department and will find ways to sell the game. That's basically it. Publisher is nothing without good developers.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

3rd largest gaming company OR 3rd largest gaming monopoly?

Yes

 

[Ozriel]

People keep bringing up developers vs publishers but it doesn't seem like most here actually know the difference. The only difference is a Publisher also has a marketing department and will find ways to sell the game. That's basically it. Publisher is nothing without good developers.

Yeah. People being perfectly fine with the acquisition of multiple developers but getting pissed off when a collective of development studios gets picked up.

 

[Aguero9320]

I understood that, but in your opinion - presumably as an American - how are laws that are all formed from looking backwards to set precedence ever going to be an effective means to regulate against anti-competitive actions where mega-corporations are already ahead of the laws that exist?

In the UK we have laws that pre-date the formation of many countries including the United States and the wisdom we have from being such an old democracy is that our regulation can actively project forward with common sense and instinct - even without a past legal basis - because failure to regulate effectively is a much bigger mistake for the many, than too much regulation disadvantaging the once in a blue-moon humanitarian mega-corp.

It seems those in the thread saying the FTC shouldn't be fighting this, because the law doesn't support it in the US aren't letting them apply the common sense maxim: "If it walks like a duck, talks like....chances are it is a duck", and instead need them to have the DNA at the zoo and in a duck enclosure.

I'm also British, and one of the most mystifying things in this entire thread has been your consistent opinion that the UK is some kind of shining example of fairness, morality and proud knights in shining armour fighting for consumer protection when it comes to business regulation.

It's not, never has been and never will be. It won't be here either.

The quoted post is particularly condescending too. The UK is a complete mess at the moment - so is the US to be be fair, but people in glass countries shouldn't throw stones…

"Wisdom of an old democracy"? Seriously?

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

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.

What if they don't want to play other Xbox games? $70 for COD and $60 (or less) for XBL Gold is still cheaper than $180 for a year of GPU, and if all that person is playing is COD, why would they ever go with the latter?

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



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

Not if you go by the ARPU. I'm trying not to turn this into a Game Pass revenue discussion, but a while ago Heisenberg007 and I were going through some games services revenue for 2022 based on general market data provided by...Ampere I believe? It wasn't too hard to extrapolate Xbox services revenue (Game Pass, Gold, ES Online, Fallout '76) from Sony's provided PS+ revenue and a probable range of Nintendo's NSO revenue.

Isolating Game Pass revenue from the other Xbox services, I figured that GP itself pulled in little more than $2 billion in 2022 for revenue. Which off a base of 25 million, is an ARPU of ~ $80/year (it's a bit higher than that, maybe around $82/year. Can't pull up the exact number I had for GP ATM). So I'd say a lot of Xbox GP subs are doing the $1 conversion trick for the 3-years of GP deal, and smaller portions are exploiting that with region-switching loopholes (two of which have been shut down recently), and some portion paying off their sub with MS Rewards points as well.

Going by that revenue amount, statistically only about 40% of GP subscribers are on the full regular 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).

Of course it doesn't include MTX, DLC sales or games bought through Game Pass, because we can't measure those metrics. Microsoft doesn't provide them, so it's virtually impossible to break down the revenue that way. But those things would be accounted for in other parts of theirs games revenue, which they do report on. They just don't break down "hey (x) percent of DLC sales was due to Game Pass".

Actually...I don't think MS report on MTX or DLC sales specifically; they just lump in all software revenue as software revenue.

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.

But that's PC, it's a different platform compared to console. And AFAIK, their Day 1 is only for the first 10 hours of the game, not the full game. So it actually has more in common with Sony's model for PS+ Trails (which Sony could be doing a better job on IMO) than Game Pass.

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

Most of EA's games aren't evergreen type of titles, though. They do the vast majority of their sales in the first few weeks and that's that. Plus many of their games are sports releases that are updated annually; after six months most people aren't buying the previous year's release, instead they're getting ready for the next iteration.

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.

Yeah, GP gets those games 6 months after because those games have exhausted their B2P sales revenue path pretty much 100% by the time that six month period is up.

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.

And what do Ubisoft's financials look like? I'm assuming if they do Day 1, then they do it the way Microsoft does, but AFAIK Ubisoft's financials haven't been great the past couple of years.

Now that could be due to multiple reasons, but maybe taking your new AAA releases and putting them in a cheap service isn't the best way to get revenue numbers up?

People keep bringing up developers vs publishers but it doesn't seem like most here actually know the difference. The only difference is a Publisher also has a marketing department and will find ways to sell the game. That's basically it. Publisher is nothing without good developers.

I mean you are technically right, but publishers also have the money to fund the development of the games the developers under them are making, in addition to the things you just mentioned. And while a developer tends to simply consist of one developer entity (maybe with multiple internal studios), publishers often comprise of multiple developers.

They have a staple of 1st party developers and keeps treating indies well to the point where many of the best indies each year get into the service day one or later, they could have simply ignored them and just go for the AAA from EA, Embracer, Sega and Bamco as they are the major partners today.

Why would MS spend magnitudes more for the AAA releases from EA or those other publishers Day 1 when the indie games are monumentally cheaper? Especially when they are trying to reduce losses on the gaming division side?

MS might have good relations with these publishers, but they aren't that good. As to say, not to the point where they can get most of their AAA releases Day 1 for a low price of a dozen million dollars or whatever. Never mind that for a good number of those games Sony could have marketing deals which would shut out MS getting them for Game Pass Day 1 anyway (which apparently has become a heated talking point of controversy when it really shouldn't be, but that's a different conversation).

 

[wolffy66]

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.

Right? It's almost like American politicians should be concerned with America's people and business issues.

 

[wolffy66]

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.

Nah. The game won't move gamepass numbers much. It's a revenue play. And makes the division instantly profitable. As long as it's not exclusive anyway.

 

[reksveks]

"Wisdom of an old democracy"? Seriously?

Don't you know how well qualified the members of our House of Lords are? And not totally donors...

 

[feynoob]

What if they don't want to play other Xbox games? $70 for COD and $60 (or less) for XBL Gold is still cheaper than $180 for a year of GPU, and if all that person is playing is COD, why would they ever go with the latter?

They will contribute to the B2P.

Not if you go by the ARPU. I'm trying not to turn this into a Game Pass revenue discussion, but a while ago Heisenberg007 Heisenberg007 and I were going through some games services revenue for 2022 based on general market data provided by...Ampere I believe? It wasn't too hard to extrapolate Xbox services revenue (Game Pass, Gold, ES Online, Fallout '76) from Sony's provided PS+ revenue and a probable range of Nintendo's NSO revenue.

Isolating Game Pass revenue from the other Xbox services, I figured that GP itself pulled in little more than $2 billion in 2022 for revenue. Which off a base of 25 million, is an ARPU of ~ $80/year (it's a bit higher than that, maybe around $82/year. Can't pull up the exact number I had for GP ATM). So I'd say a lot of Xbox GP subs are doing the $1 conversion trick for the 3-years of GP deal, and smaller portions are exploiting that with region-switching loopholes (two of which have been shut down recently), and some portion paying off their sub with MS Rewards points as well.

Going by that revenue amount, statistically only about 40% of GP subscribers are on the full regular monthly payments.

Unlike those services, gamepass has mtx sales and other content to sell.
You have more than 400+ games that contain mtx, dlc content and people who buy those games. All those are not accounted to the total revenue.
If you count the sub only, it averages around 8$((1+10+15)/3). Multiply that by 25m users and you get around $2b. This not the actual revenue, since the 1$ people are not close to 2m or higher (MS would have closed that loop if that was the case before). That is sub count.

NO, PS+, and XliveGold dont have gamepass extra revenue content. Only thing that comes close to that is PSnow, which is ps+ premium now.

Of course it doesn't include MTX, DLC sales or games bought through Game Pass, because we can't measure those metrics. Microsoft doesn't provide them, so it's virtually impossible to break down the revenue that way. But those things would be accounted for in other parts of theirs games revenue, which they do report on. They just don't break down "hey (x) percent of DLC sales was due to Game Pass".

Actually...I don't think MS report on MTX or DLC sales specifically; they just lump in all software revenue as software revenue.

Because MTX revenue goes to the normal sales. Even though they come from Gamepass users. Same with game sales.
All we can do is estimate.

But that's PC, it's a different platform compared to console. And AFAIK, their Day 1 is only for the first 10 hours of the game, not the full game. So it actually has more in common with Sony's model for PS+ Trails (which Sony could be doing a better job on IMO) than Game Pass.

EA play premium is PC, which contains day1 games.

EA Play Pro members get everything above plus: Unlimited access to all our latest titles as soon as they drop. Pro-level benefits like in-game rewards and exclusive player content. A library of deluxe edition games.

EA play normal is on Xbox, PS, Steam and PC. That one offers the 8 hour trial.

Most of EA's games aren't evergreen type of titles, though. They do the vast majority of their sales in the first few weeks and that's that. Plus many of their games are sports releases that are updated annually; after six months most people aren't buying the previous year's release, instead they're getting ready for the next iteration.

Still they are putting their games on their service day1 with EA premium, and after 6 month with EA play. There is a reason why they are doing this.

And what do Ubisoft's financials look like? I'm assuming if they do Day 1, then they do it the way Microsoft does, but AFAIK Ubisoft's financials haven't been great the past couple of years.

Now that could be due to multiple reasons, but maybe taking your new AAA releases and putting them in a cheap service isn't the best way to get revenue numbers up?

Their issue is their production cycle. Some games are still in development hell like Skull bones and beyond evil and good 2. They also cancel some games in the process. That affects their finacial books, as those games dont recover the cost of their production.
It has nothing to do with them putting their games on their subs.
In reality they get alot of money from MS and Sony for putting their games on those services, while selling their games.

You have to remember that these publishers dont gain 100% of their sales. If a game at $70 price sells 10m copies, it gets around $490m. That is not accounting other costs like disc manufacture, platform royalty from disc sales, etc. On other hand, Sony and MS get 100% of their sales from digital and pay certain % for disc sales. You can see why putting their games on sub service is beneficial for them. They get guarentee money from Sony and MS upfront plus potential sales and long term sales. Or gamble on potential 10m at 70$, which is hard for most games.

 

[GHG]

Right? It's almost like American politicians should be concerned with America's people and business issues.

If they want to become insular and block out foreign businesa competition then good luck with it in the long run. Let's see how that helps drive innovation and consumer choice within the country (it won't).

They already killed Huawei because they were becoming a serious threat to Apple so I guess it's only right that Microsoft gets their opportunity to attempt to extinguish someone from home soil.

 

[feynoob]

They already killed Huawei because they were becoming a serious threat to Apple so I guess it's only right that Microsoft gets their opportunity to attempt to extinguish someone from home soil.

Huawei posed national risk.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56590001

Ownership questions

Technically there are two owners of Huawei's holding company - its founder Ren Zhengfei, who owns 0.9%, and a trade union body which owns the rest.
The company says the union is the platform for the more than 121,000 employees who own shares. These are not like normal shares, however. Non-Chinese staff are not allowed to own them and the shares cannot be publicly traded or kept when someone leaves.

External critics, especially in the US, have argued that the representation committee is no more than a rubber-stamp and real power lies elsewhere, leaving the way open for hidden direction from the state.
That is an idea Mr Jiang seeks to dispel.
"For sure, we can say no to the state," he told the BBC. "Even if some individual government officials wanted to intervene in our company's operations we have the right to say no to that."

Its a political reason, not because they were a threat to apple.

 

[GHG]

Huawei posed national risk.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56590001

Yeh sure. That's why their phones and other electronics are still sold everywhere else in the world. Huge risk, huge.

Meanwhile the surveillance app masquerading as a social media (*cough* mind-virus) app is installed on hundreds of millions of phones across the US.

 

[feynoob]

Yeh sure. That's why their phones and other electronics are still sold everywhere else in the world. Huge risk, huge.

You can ask your goverment.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/huawei-legal-notices-issued

 

[GHG]

You can ask your goverment.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/huawei-legal-notices-issued

You clearly don't know where I reside.

My government didn't ban them.

And as a note on the UK's stance, if the threat was real they wouldn't give them until 2027.

 

[feynoob]

You clearly don't know where I reside.

You sound like british.

And as a note on the UK's stance, if the threat was real they wouldn't give them until 2027.

Because there are issues with immediate removal.

Having considered comments raised by industry in the consultation, the government has formally set interim deadlines that balance the need to remove Huawei as swiftly as possible while avoiding unnecessary instability in networks. The UK's world-leading cyber security experts at the NCSC have agreed this is a sensible balance.

Providers should meet the original target dates for the removal of Huawei from network cores and capping Huawei at 35 per cent in the access network (January and July 2023 respectively) wherever possible, and the government expects most of them will do so.

 

[GHG]

You sound like british.

Because there are issues with immediate removal.

I haven't lived in the UK for the best part of a decade decade

Do you even know why they are removing Huawei equipment? What exactly are they attempting to comply with?

Believe me, if the UK and EU (and everywhere else in the world) also thought a security threat existed then they wouldn't be faffing about still allowing their consumer electronics devices to be sold and allowing their equipment to still exist across infrastructure for at least another 5 years.

 

[feynoob]

I haven't lived in the UK for the best part of a decade decade

Do you even know why they are removing Huawei equipment? What exactly are they attempting to comply with?

Believe me, if the UK and EU (and everywhere else in the world) also thought a security threat existed then they wouldn't be faffing about still allowing their consumer electronics devices to be sold and allowing their equipment to still exist across infrastructure for at least another 5 years.

Short answer.

• Despite this success, HUAWEI has dealt with numerous accusations over the years of shady business practices. It also has been accused — although with no hard proof — of using its products to spy on other nations. This is a worrisome thought considering the company's close ties to the Chinese government.
• In May 2019, then-United States President Donald Trump announced that HUAWEI — along with several other Chinese companies — was now on something called the Entity List. Companies on this list are unable to do business with any organization that operates in the United States.
• The HUAWEI ban thus begins, with HUAWEI suddenly unable to work with companies such as Google, Qualcomm, and Intel, among many others. In the case of Google, this means new HUAWEI smartphones are no longer able to ship with Google-owned applications pre-installed.

With the HUAWEI-US ban in effect, the company has had to completely revamp how it creates and releases smartphones. It also faces mounting scrutiny from other nations, many of which rely on HUAWEI for wireless networking equipment.
Since May 2019, HUAWEI has had some minor wins, but the bulk of the ban is still in place. It appears the HUAWEI ban will be in effect in perpetuity, and the company will need to strategize around it until further notice.

Huawei was part of the companies that were banned from US.

On May 15, 2019, President Trump issued an executive order that bans the use of telecommunications equipment from foreign firms deemed a national security risk. The order itself doesn't mention HUAWEI (or even China) specifically. However, the US Department of Commerce created what it refers to as an "Entity List" related to the order that does contain HUAWEI's name.
Since the order didn't reference HUAWEI specifically, its effect on the company and its various lines of business wasn't totally clear. It appeared the order was mostly directed towards HUAWEI's telecom operations, which would mean its wireless networking equipment, especially those related to 5G.

The only reason they survived for that long was because of extension

Not even a week after Trump issued the executive order that kickstarted the HUAWEI ban, the US issued a 90-day reprieve of the ban's full effects. This gave HUAWEI and its clients until August 19, 2019, to make arrangements for the weight of the ban.
As luck would have it, this 90-day reprieve would be extended three consecutive times. By February 2020, HUAWEI had had nearly a year of living without the full ramifications of the ban. That same month, the US government issued a final 45-day reprieve, allowing the HUAWEI ban to take full and permanent effect by April 1, 2020. Before that date arrived, Donald Trump signed a law banning rural US carriers from using HUAWEI equipment.

https://www.androidauthority.com/huawei-google-android-ban-988382/

 

[GHG]

Short answer.


Huawei was part of the companies that were banned from US.


The only reason they survived for that long was because of extension

https://www.androidauthority.com/huawei-google-android-ban-988382/

I didn't ask you to copy and paste an android authority article, I was asking what you thought and whether it would be wise for other countries to continue to sell their devices and use their equipment if such a security threat existed?

There's also the secondary part of this problem - even if they felt the Huawei's 5G devices should be banned from being able to be part of US infrastructure (which is actually fine, this is a legitimate concern), there was little reason to ban their consumer electronics devices and then take things as step further by banning them from doing business with any US business. That crippled them as it removed their ability to partner with Google on the OS/software side and various other companies on the hardware side. So not only could they no longer sell their phones in the US, but it also meant their ability to sell phones outside of the US was given a killer blow since their products were no longer the same. The primary beneficiary of all of this was Apple who were getting their ass handed to them at the time by Huawei, especially in Europe, the Middle East and across asia.

The smartphone industry has been so much better off without them and we've seen so much innovation - not.

 

[Lasha]

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?

Most cod players buy one game, pay for a console online service, and maybe a battlepass or a skin. Ultimate isn't much of a stretch for the gamer since it includes gold and any other games. Microsoft can further sweeten the deal by throwing in the battle pass or other mtx.

 

[feynoob]

I didn't ask you to copy and paste am android authority article, I was asking what you thought and whether it would be wise for other countries to continue to sell their devices and use their equipment if such a security threat existed?

There's also the secondary part of this problem - even if they felt the Huawei's 5G devices should be banned from being able to be part of US infrastructure (which is actually fine, this is a legitimate concern), there was little reason to ban their consumer electronics devices and then take things as step further by banning them from doing business with any US business. That removed their ability to partner with Google on the OS/software side and various other companies on the hardware side. The primary beneficiary of all of this was Apple who were getting their ass handed to them at the time by Huawei, especially in Europe, the Middle East and across asia.

The smartphone industry has been so much better off without them and we've seen so much innovation - not.

Same story as Tiktok.
When there is a national security threat, you dont take a risk, like allowing consumer product sale. Spying is a serious threat.
They didnt care about apple vs huawei. Considering they banned other companies beside them like ZTE.

As for other countries, it depends on their country relationship with china. US can absorb their war with china, but those countries cant.

 

[Dane]

What if they don't want to play other Xbox games? $70 for COD and $60 (or less) for XBL Gold is still cheaper than $180 for a year of GPU, and if all that person is playing is COD, why would they ever go with the latter?



Not if you go by the ARPU. I'm trying not to turn this into a Game Pass revenue discussion, but a while ago Heisenberg007 and I were going through some games services revenue for 2022 based on general market data provided by...Ampere I believe? It wasn't too hard to extrapolate Xbox services revenue (Game Pass, Gold, ES Online, Fallout '76) from Sony's provided PS+ revenue and a probable range of Nintendo's NSO revenue.

Isolating Game Pass revenue from the other Xbox services, I figured that GP itself pulled in little more than $2 billion in 2022 for revenue. Which off a base of 25 million, is an ARPU of ~ $80/year (it's a bit higher than that, maybe around $82/year. Can't pull up the exact number I had for GP ATM). So I'd say a lot of Xbox GP subs are doing the $1 conversion trick for the 3-years of GP deal, and smaller portions are exploiting that with region-switching loopholes (two of which have been shut down recently), and some portion paying off their sub with MS Rewards points as well.

Going by that revenue amount, statistically only about 40% of GP subscribers are on the full regular monthly payments.



Of course it doesn't include MTX, DLC sales or games bought through Game Pass, because we can't measure those metrics. Microsoft doesn't provide them, so it's virtually impossible to break down the revenue that way. But those things would be accounted for in other parts of theirs games revenue, which they do report on. They just don't break down "hey (x) percent of DLC sales was due to Game Pass".

Actually...I don't think MS report on MTX or DLC sales specifically; they just lump in all software revenue as software revenue.



But that's PC, it's a different platform compared to console. And AFAIK, their Day 1 is only for the first 10 hours of the game, not the full game. So it actually has more in common with Sony's model for PS+ Trails (which Sony could be doing a better job on IMO) than Game Pass.



Most of EA's games aren't evergreen type of titles, though. They do the vast majority of their sales in the first few weeks and that's that. Plus many of their games are sports releases that are updated annually; after six months most people aren't buying the previous year's release, instead they're getting ready for the next iteration.



Yeah, GP gets those games 6 months after because those games have exhausted their B2P sales revenue path pretty much 100% by the time that six month period is up.



And what do Ubisoft's financials look like? I'm assuming if they do Day 1, then they do it the way Microsoft does, but AFAIK Ubisoft's financials haven't been great the past couple of years.

Now that could be due to multiple reasons, but maybe taking your new AAA releases and putting them in a cheap service isn't the best way to get revenue numbers up?



I mean you are technically right, but publishers also have the money to fund the development of the games the developers under them are making, in addition to the things you just mentioned. And while a developer tends to simply consist of one developer entity (maybe with multiple internal studios), publishers often comprise of multiple developers.



Why would MS spend magnitudes more for the AAA releases from EA or those other publishers Day 1 when the indie games are monumentally cheaper? Especially when they are trying to reduce losses on the gaming division side?

MS might have good relations with these publishers, but they aren't that good. As to say, not to the point where they can get most of their AAA releases Day 1 for a low price of a dozen million dollars or whatever. Never mind that for a good number of those games Sony could have marketing deals which would shut out MS getting them for Game Pass Day 1 anyway (which apparently has become a heated talking point of controversy when it really shouldn't be, but that's a different conversation).

Because the costs side from demanding the AAA publisher to give their best seller on gamepass day one its very expensive to the point where it would be almost like paying for an acquisition in installments, except that you're not acquiring it because you're not even owning an increasing slice as you pay, and you won't have a revenue side for the other platforms if you want to keep them.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

It seems those in the thread saying the FTC shouldn't be fighting this, because the law doesn't support it in the US aren't letting them apply the common sense maxim: "If it walks like a duck, talks like....chances are it is a duck", and instead need them to have the DNA at the zoo and in a duck enclosure.

In order to change something you need a legitimate reason and support. FTC with their actions alienated even those who supported them. Why? Because their actions are unreasonable, ineffective and not popular.

 

[GHG]

Same story as Tiktok.
When there is a national security threat, you dont take a risk, like allowing consumer product sale. Spying is a serious threat.
They didnt care about apple vs huawei. Considering they banned other companies beside them like ZTE.

As for other countries, it depends on their country relationship with china. US can absorb their war with china, but those countries cant.

It's not the same as tiktok considering how they are dragging their feet over it. If the evidence is there, there should be no debate, ban that shit. It should be banned anyway IMO, but for other reasons unrelated to potential national security threats.

Of course they cared about Apple vs Huawei, the timeline is all too convenient and the likes of ZTE didn't also get a US trade ban, hence their phones still run Android.

And please, don't kid yourself if you think there's a full blown "trade war" between the US and China. Go to your local store and look at how much shit is from China. If there was in fact a trade war you'd soon know about it, your shelves would be empty. It's got nothing to do with whether or not other countries can "absorb" not doing business with China, the US can't either but they will gladly pick fights with individual companies that pose the biggest threat to their brightest stars.

 

[wolffy66]

If they want to become insular and block out foreign businesa competition then good luck with it in the long run. Let's see how that helps drive innovation and consumer choice within the country (it won't).

They already killed Huawei because they were becoming a serious threat to Apple so I guess it's only right that Microsoft gets their opportunity to attempt to extinguish someone from home soil.

You completely fabricated the scenario basically.

Where did the guy mention blocking out Sony?

 

[adamsapple]

You sound like british.

G ain't no brit, he's filthy rich in arab money.

 

[poppabk]

Most cod players buy one game, pay for a console online service, and maybe a battlepass or a skin. Ultimate isn't much of a stretch for the gamer since it includes gold and any other games. Microsoft can further sweeten the deal by throwing in the battle pass or other mtx.

This has been repeated multiple times in this thread as fact but is there an actual source for CoD players only playing CoD? Seems unlikely.

 

[feynoob]

G ain't no brit, he's filthy rich in arab money.

They both have monarchy systems.

 

[noise36]

Same story as Tiktok.
When there is a national security threat, you dont take a risk, like allowing consumer product sale. Spying is a serious threat.
They didnt care about apple vs huawei. Considering they banned other companies beside them like ZTE.

Its crony capitalism 101, bomb or ban when you cant compete in a "free" market.

"National security threat" is largely just used as cover for crony capitalists to line the pockets of their friends at the expense of "others".

i.e. Please provide evidence or details, NO TRUST US!? its national security, top secret, unnamed sources claim blah blah blah Why did USA hack Huawei if they are the threat? shhhhhhhh

The end result of bombs and bans is ALWAYS a "friendly" company getting more business and more profits.

 

[feynoob]

Its crony capitalism 101, bomb or ban when you cant compete in a "free" market.

"National security threat" is largely just used as cover for crony capitalists to line the pockets of their friends at the expense of "others".

i.e. Please provide evidence or details, NO TRUST US!? its national security, top secret, unnamed sources claim blah blah blah Why did USA hack Huawei if they are the threat? shhhhhhhh

The end result of bombs and bans is ALWAYS a "friendly" company getting more business and more profits.

When you have state owned goverment who have hands on their companies, then there is a risk.
We are talking about china who are spying on their own citizens.

 

[Lasha]

This has been repeated multiple times in this thread as fact but is there an actual source for CoD players only playing CoD? Seems unlikely.

Microsoft doesn't care either way. Owning COD allows Microsoft to nearly triple the revenue of "cod only" gamers on its own platform and it's suddenly entirely to 2/3 of the revenue from PS/PC/Mobile players. Owning COD also gives the tools to entice "cod only" gamers to spend more and convert "cod only" players from other ecosystems with minimal cost.

Not really sure what source you are looking for. Bundling and adding perceived value is a common sales tactic. A "cod only" gamer is already in for 120$-140$ per year between game, subscription, and mtx. Getting everything they already buy, some added carrots in COD, and the perceived value of a full library for slightly more than they pay now is an easier sell. Especially when the price increase is broken up into a low monthly subscription rather than added to one time purchases

 

[poppabk]

Microsoft doesn't care either way. Owning COD allows Microsoft to nearly triple the revenue of "cod only" gamers on its own platform and it's suddenly entirely to 2/3 of the revenue from PS/PC/Mobile players. Owning COD also gives the tools to entice "cod only" gamers to spend more and convert "cod only" players from other ecosystems with minimal cost.

Not really sure what source you are looking for. Bundling and adding perceived value is a common sales tactic. A "cod only" gamer is already in for 120$-140$ per year between game, subscription, and mtx. Getting everything they already buy, some added carrots in COD, and the perceived value of a full library for slightly more than they pay now is an easier sell. Especially when the price increase is broken up into a low monthly subscription rather than added to one time purchases

It's just one of those weird things that get repeated over and over until it's just accepted as fact even though there is absolutely nothing to support it.

 

[sainraja]

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, 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.

Subs and the MSRP price on a product aren't exactly the same. People don't frown at subscriptions anymore due to Netflix, HBO Max, Disney Plus—they've gotten used to it, but people understand that subs are a recurring cost vs. a fixed cost. I'm not saying you are wrong or right, but I don't think it is a good comparison.

 

[Lasha]

It's just one of those weird things that get repeated over and over until it's just accepted as fact even though there is absolutely nothing to support it.

How do you support a hypothetical? Owning Activision gives Microsoft the ability to do what i wrote. Microsoft already pays riot for exclusive benefits in valorant and lol. Doing the same for COD makes even more sense when there is no marginal cost.

There's also no proof that "cod only" gamers would refuse a subscription service yet that is repeated in the thread. Do you have an issue with that assertion too?

 

[feynoob]

Subs and the MSRP price on a product aren't exactly the same. People don't frown at subscriptions anymore due to Netflix, HBO Max, Disney Plus—they've gotten used to it, but people understand that subs are a recurring cost vs. a fixed cost. I'm not saying you are wrong or right, but I don't think it is a good comparison.

The thing that people dont think about is the overall cost.

For example, gamepass cost $180 a year. Now that is alot of money. But when you break it down, it becomes a cheaper option.

1 year of xbox live gold is 60$. COD will cost you 70$. That is a total of $130. That means you have 50$ to spend on something.
Most people who play COD, dont play that game all day. They will need other games during non COD time. 2-5 games at 30$ will cost them around 60$-150$ for that one year.

The total price after that would be 130$+60$/150$=190$/280$. In this sense, gamepass is the cheaper option here.

There is also the potential benefit of gamepass, which is PC/Xbox cross data and Xcloud???.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

The thing that people dotn think about is the overall cost.

For example, gamepass cost $180 a year. Now that is alot of money. But when you break it down, it becomes a cheaper option.

1 year of xbox live gold is 60$. COD will cost you 70$. That is a total of $130. That means you have 50$ to spend on something.
Most people who play COD, dont play that game all day. They will need other games during non COD time. 2-5 games at 30$ will cost them around 60$-150$ for that one year.

The total price after that would be 130$+60$/150$=190$/280$. In this sense, gamepass is the cheaper option here.

There is also the potential benefit of gamepass, which is PC/Xbox cross data and Xcloud???.

volume.

 

[feynoob]

volume.

 

[IFireflyl]

In the UK we have laws that pre-date the formation of many countries including the United States and the wisdom we have from being such an old democracy is that our regulation can actively project forward with common sense and instinct - even without a past legal basis - because failure to regulate effectively is a much bigger mistake for the many, than too much regulation disadvantaging the once in a blue-moon humanitarian mega-corp.

You're not better than me!

 

[In Cold Blood]

The aquisition of Bungie for Sony and ABK for MS are both similar costs for each company.
Both of these deals are around 3% of their prospective market caps.
People overlook just how big of an aquisitions Bungie was to Sony. It's as big to them as ABK is to MS.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I think we can agree that Game Pass is the best deal in gaming. Is so insane that is unbelievable to think that is not convincing 90%+ of the install base already.

you could do all the math you want. clearly is the best value for money. You, the consumer, are always going to win with services like games pass (value wise).

All of this is not even taking CoD into consideration...and yet, its growth has slowed.

is perfectly reasonable to think that 100% of CoD players will look at the unbetable value inside GP for their access to the CoD right? it just doesn't make any logical sense to buy CoD anymore.

let's assume this pans out. how many new subscribers will sign in to GP. 30, 40 M? This is what Pachter "predicted": 100 M subscribers for GP at the end of the year:

flawless logic a slam dunk...and just like that MS's wishes and ambitions are granted and accomplished. we won boys, time to party !!!

Do you actually believe is going to be this easy?

on paper you could say....

such a masterful plan. and why wouldn't right?

well, this case scenario perfectly executed is not going to be enough for MS.

we have two case studies: Netflix and Disney+

Long story short, they keep spending insane amounts of money every year.

and even Disney with 100 years of history, such a juggernaut in the entertainment industry, diversified and shit:

even Netflix is scrambling to keep numbers going up/not lose them:

Bob Iger and David Zaslav talked about the importance of the traditional distribution model (the importance of
exclusivity windows). This model in gaming looks roughly like this:

physical > price cut > reach sub-services

the company makes money in each step. game pass trying to undermine that is such a massive mistake.

Now, you could talk about business models and strategies but at the end of the day:

content is always going to be king. and good content takes time and money:

at odds with the Game Pass model which requires the biggest volume of subscribers to deliver the promise of "Day One First Party Games" which is failing to gain due to the lack of such quality content and its schedule of releases.

volume is the key:
volume of subscribers
Volume of High-quality Games.

is simply not possible.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

The aquisition of Bungie for Sony and ABK for MS are both similar costs for each company.
Both of these deals are around 3% of their prospective market caps.
People overlook just how big of an aquisitions Bungie was to Sony. It's as big to them as ABK is to MS.

interesting. do we know how much money is MS paying for talent retention?