Support NeoGAF

[GHG]

Man like Kotick.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Man like Kotick.

I mean, he probably showed up in the heli.

 

[Astray]

It's absolutely nothing. MS is huge. The son has no skin in this game at all apart from the fluctuation in stock price that is not impacted much as all by Xbox.

You need to unbundle two ideas here imo:

Like I think this is overrated too, but a 69bn deal getting waved in or overruled would absolutely have an impact on their stock price. It's their biggest ever deal after all. Not to mention the impact on future big tech deals (which includes future Microsoft deals).

The real question is how much of an impact does her son's stock value have on how she rules on the case. That's something we don't know for sure.

 

[Nydius]

This is false information.

Could be, I was merely going by what I heard near a month ago.

Regardless, doesn't change the fact that her son working at Microsoft will be meaningless either way. If the FTC had concerns, they should have brought it up when the information was disclosed. Because they didn't it makes it unusable as grounds for appeal. Just another fine example of how shoddy our public sector anti-trust lawyers are.

 

[Dick Jones]

I personally think the judge son thing is tenuous, but it's been a slow news week since the last trial session so here goes:

He works in Health and Life Science. Definitely no correlation with Xbox or its fans

I kid, I kid.

 

[Astray]

Could be, I was merely going by what I heard near a month ago.

Regardless, doesn't change the fact that her son working at Microsoft will be meaningless either way. If the FTC had concerns, they should have brought it up when the information was disclosed. Because they didn't it makes it unusable as grounds for appeal. Just another fine example of how shoddy our public sector anti-trust lawyers are.

You don't pick your judges, the case is filed to the appropriate circuit and a judge is chosen by them.

 

[Aguero9320]

You would think Microsoft would be the one wanting her recused. The appeal pretty much writes itself if she rules in favor of Microsoft.

Close to zero chance anyone would appeal on those grounds, having been openly disclosed to all at the start.

Judges have long memories, and so do their friends on the bench. This isn't My Cousin Vinny, you wear a suit and act professionally.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Could be, I was merely going by what I heard near a month ago.

Regardless, doesn't change the fact that her son working at Microsoft will be meaningless either way. If the FTC had concerns, they should have brought it up when the information was disclosed. Because they didn't it makes it unusable as grounds for appeal. Just another fine example of how shoddy our public sector anti-trust lawyers are.

Once again, I have shared why the FTC does not bring that up, nor does it get brought up on average in a lot of legal cases. A legal watchdog group that handles these things is looking into it and explained why most don't object in these scenarios. It can be catch 22.

 

[Nydius]

You don't pick your judges, the case is filed to the appropriate circuit and a judge is chosen by them.

Oh you sweet summer child.

Judge 'shopping' is very much a real thing. It's done all the time through clerks and finding sympathetic judges, filing in more sympathetic districts, getting venue changes to preferable districts, and many other ways. If you don't think both sides here angled to get a preferred judge, you don't understand the basics of American Jurisprudence whatsoever.

 

[Pelta88]

Even in Africa...

I laughed way too hard at this

 

[Nydius]

Once again, I have shared why the FTC does not bring that up, nor does it get brought up on average in a lot of legal cases. A legal watchdog group that handles these things is looking into it and explained why most don't object in these scenarios. It can be catch 22.

Lemme see, who am I gonna believe? "DeepEnigma" on NeoGAF or a law professor who explains why it's meaningless?

Charles Geyh, a law professor at Indiana University who focuses on judicial ethics, argued that the judge was probably on solid ground to stick with the case.

"A rank-and-file employee at Microsoft would probably not have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of this case. … She's right to look at [the fact that] the division that would be affected by the litigation is not where her son is employed," he said.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-group-calls-judge-recuse-ftc-microsoft-case/

Hmm, tough call.

All this "but what about stock"? "But what about retaliation" is absolute nonsense that has zero bearing on the case and is pure delusion by people trying to find any straw to grasp should she rule in Microsoft's favor. It's the same level of delusional thinking as Xbox fans who think Microsoft can just abandon the UK to get around CMA.

 

[roosnam1980]

Even in Africa...

I laughed way too hard at this

laughed way to hard at this

 

[DeepEnigma]

Lemme see, who am I gonna believe? "DeepEnigma" on NeoGAF or a law professor who explains why it's meaningless?



Hmm, tough call.

All this "but what about stock"? "But what about retaliation" is absolute nonsense that has zero bearing on the case and is pure delusion by people trying to find any straw to grasp should she rule in Microsoft's favor. It's the same level of delusional thinking as Xbox fans who think Microsoft can just abandon the UK to get around CMA.

It's the same article I shared, which this is also said (below). Do you even read the thread, or just fire off the hip?

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/microsoft-activision-deal-approval-watch-ot.1641775/page-1298#post-268136243

Jeff Hauser, founder and director of the Revolving Door Project, argued that the agency could have faced blowback if it tried and failed to get Corley to recuse from the case.

"Nothing antagonizes a judge with whom you might have litigation in the future like calling them recklessly biased," he said. "What are the odds that Judge Corley would recuse if she was already choosing to brazen her way through this apparent conflict of interest?"

Tough call, indeed.

 

[Corndog]

Please read the first line. They don't show financials and hide Xbox P&L. So we do not know for sure if they make or lose money.

Having said that, there are hints that the health of the financial division isn't good. We have:

1. Revenue that missed internal targets,
2. Explicit confirmation by Phil Spencer that the business is not going strong
3. The revelation that Phil Spencer suggested shutting down the Xbox business

You don't suggest shutting down a business that's earning profit. You also don't say that "business is not going strong" when referring to a profitable business.

Besides, we can also come to the conclusion that Xbox is not a profitable business if we use common sense and compare its revenue and projected operating expenses with that of PlayStation.

Last year, PlayStation generated a revenue of $26.9 billion. Their operating profit, however, was only around $600 million. That means PlayStation's operating expenses were $26.3 billion.

Xbox is now bigger than PlayStation and has more games in development. It's safe to assume that Xbox's operating expenses will also be at least $26 billion, the same as PlayStation's, if not bigger. However, their revenue is $17 billion. It's common sense that the Xbox division is not profitable.

Except that Phil said they are profitable. We don't have to guess.

Edit: also PlayStation made 1.85 billion last year. Look it up.

PlayStation delivers record $26.9 billion revenue, operating profit drops 40%

Sony's PlayStation games division made a record-breaking $26.9 billion in revenues throughout FY 2022, but high expenses caused operating income to slide.

www.tweaktown.com

 

[Bernardougf]

Except that Phil said they are profitable. We don't have to guess.

Oh if phil said it must be true... afterall he has a really good track record .. especially after this trial ...

Were Phil Spencer not head of xbox he would be a banned source of information on this forum because pretty much all he spills are lies and pr empty talk

 

[Corndog]

Please read the first line. They don't show financials and hide Xbox P&L. So we do not know for sure if they make or lose money.

Having said that, there are hints that the health of the financial division isn't good. We have:

1. Revenue that missed internal targets,
2. Explicit confirmation by Phil Spencer that the business is not going strong
3. The revelation that Phil Spencer suggested shutting down the Xbox business

You don't suggest shutting down a business that's earning profit. You also don't say that "business is not going strong" when referring to a profitable business.

Besides, we can also come to the conclusion that Xbox is not a profitable business if we use common sense and compare its revenue and projected operating expenses with that of PlayStation.

Last year, PlayStation generated a revenue of $26.9 billion. Their operating profit, however, was only around $600 million. That means PlayStation's operating expenses were $26.3 billion.

Xbox is now bigger than PlayStation and has more games in development. It's safe to assume that Xbox's operating expenses will also be at least $26 billion, the same as PlayStation's, if not bigger. However, their revenue is $17 billion. It's common sense that the Xbox division is not profitable.

The bottom number is income.

 

[Corndog]

Oh if phil said it must be true... afterall he has a really good track record .. especially after this trial ...

Were Phil Spencer not head of xbox he would be a banned source of information on this forum because pretty much all he spills are lies and pr empty talk

Show me proof they are losing money. Not hearsay.

 

[Bernardougf]

Show me proof they are losing money. Not hearsay.

Show me proof other them the word of the biggest liar in this industry

 

[Corndog]

Show me proof other them the word of the biggest liar in this industry

I'm not sure what you want. The question is if they are profitable.
Does this sound like they are losing money?

Xbox Made More Money In Past 3 Months Than It Ever Has For A Q1 In 20-Year History

Microsoft's Xbox division brought in more than $3.6 billion in the past three months.

www.gamespot.com

 

[YeulEmeralda]

Oh you sweet summer child.

Judge 'shopping' is very much a real thing. It's done all the time through clerks and finding sympathetic judges, filing in more sympathetic districts, getting venue changes to preferable districts, and many other ways. If you don't think both sides here angled to get a preferred judge, you don't understand the basics of American Jurisprudence whatsoever.

There's a reason why everyone fights these things in US courts.

The Netherlands does not have a jury system and we appoint judges at random. Nobody wants an incorruptible justice system that you can't game- it's useless for rich people and corporations.

 

[ToadMan]

She disclosed this information at the start of the trial and the FTC took no issue with it, so they can't turn around and use it as a basis for appeal later.

The FTC "taking issue" as you put it, would in practice mean they submit a motion to disqualify Judge Corley from the case due to bias. That is a very serious accusation - they are accusing the Judge of being partial and Judges are by ethical principle supposed to be impartial.

It's not a casual "oh we don't like this judge find another", it is a major legal gamble and not taken lightly.

Guess who gets to decide whether to grant that disqualification motion if it were submitted? Judge Corley herself.

And, in the event Judge Corley did not agree to disqualify herself, the FTC is left presenting this case (and many others) to a judge they formally accused of bias and misconduct.

This is why motions to disqualify judges are very rare even where conflicts of interest clearly exist.

As for appeal - I don't know if Judge Corley stating this openly makes it impossible to appeal. Maybe

If I recall correctly, the FTC practically hand-picked her for this case.

You don't recall correctly then.

Initially a magistrate was randomly assigned but MS immediately refused to accept their jurisdiction. That is their right and not an unusual outcome.

Then a federal Judge other than Corley was randomly assigned, but following that random assignment, Judge Corley herself motioned that she had a related case (the "Gamer's lawsuit") and petitioned to take over the FTC vs MS suit.

Neither the FTC nor MS had any (EDIT: Court actionable) say in this latter part of the process. Judge Corley did that for herself.

Her son working at Microsoft will be a nothingburger no matter how the ruling comes down.

This is accurate in my opinion.

In spite of what I wrote above - which was just to add some accuracy - I don't think this is a significant enough conflict for the FTC or a federal appeals judge to want to get tangled up in.

 

[IDappa]

No issue with new IP. Timed exclusive is part and parcel of gaming. Publishers don't want to take a major risk and may look to platform holders to reduce rhe risk. All of the big 3 do it. MS could have bid for time exclusive on Starfield, we know it from court that it was Bethesda who approached Sony and others about time exclusivity for Deathloop and Ghostwire. What are MS doing in this period?

I'm glad you agree with my earlier points.

Oh I didn't agree with everything you said. To be honest I have to go through and re read everything, busy times. Just curious on your take on 3rd party business.

 

[Astray]

Oh you sweet summer child.

Judge 'shopping' is very much a real thing. It's done all the time through clerks and finding sympathetic judges, filing in more sympathetic districts, getting venue changes to preferable districts, and many other ways. If you don't think both sides here angled to get a preferred judge, you don't understand the basics of American Jurisprudence whatsoever.

If you file in a district or jurisdiction where your case doesn't apply, then the other party retains the right to file for a change of venue.

Of course both sides have angled for a favorable judge, but it's not like you have complete control over things, sometimes you try your best and still end up with a bad outcome.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Does anyone know where this graph is from, or if it's even legit?

It looks legit, and I'm willing to believe it, because if that's actual Game Pass revenue for 2022...

 

[zapper]

Does anyone know where this graph is from, or if it's even legit?

It looks legit, and I'm willing to believe it, because if that's actual Game Pass revenue for 2022...

Derek Strickland did it, based on information released in the last period.

if total xbox revenue is around 16 billion i think below 2 billion is very low. then, (imho), the revenue without knowing the costs of the service, whether it is in profit or not, doesn't say much.
some time ago, however, I remember that from Spencer's words the revenue should have been around 3 billion..

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Derek Strickland did it, based on information released in the last period.

if total xbox revenue is around 16 billion i think below 2 billion is very low. then, (imho), the revenue without knowing the costs of the service, whether it is in profit or not, doesn't say much.
some time ago, however, I remember that from Spencer's words the revenue should have been around 3 billion..

It is quite low indeed; Heisenberg007 and I were talking about Game Pass revenue months back and tried figuring some amounts. I figured about $2 billion for 2022 was realistic, which is still low, but $1.8 billion is even lower and that is the top end from Derek's estimates.

So a safe approach would be to take the middle value, or $1.5 billion, unless there's evidence to support the top end. ARPU for Game Pass is pretty weak and I don't think it does enough to push game sales to offset cannibalization effects or the low ARPU. He used GTAV as an example but GTAV went into PS+ in Summer 2019 (generally a slow period for game sales), while it went into Game Pass Fall 2020 (busiest period for game sales and coinciding with new console releases at that). Which could explain why GP generated 3x more sales revenue for it than PS+.

Also, the possibility GTAV was in Game Pass longer than it was in PS+. Just doing a quick search; I'm finding some conflicting info showing GTAV was in Game Pass earlier than Q4 2020. As early as January 2020, in fact.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

there is no way GP is profitable. they are doing creative accounting to say so.

 

[Three]

Does anyone know where this graph is from, or if it's even legit?

It looks legit, and I'm willing to believe it, because if that's actual Game Pass revenue for 2022...

Looks unofficial and MS have confirmed revenue is ~$1B per quarter from GP.

 

[DrFigs]

I think Colin Moriarty's take on this from months ago is probably right: It's possible they're making a profit just based off how much they pay third party devs vs how much subscription revenue they make. But there's other costs to think about which probably makes it unprofitable: the costs of first party games and the opportunity costs (lost revenue) from the xbox marketplace. Right? Like there's probably a reason why there aren't more day 1 third party releases on gamepass.

 

[FlyyGOD]

And those replies are right. That's why he purposely worded it that way, instead of giving a simple yes. It covers his ass since he was in court.

We already know that goals change. I mean all the Xbox shills were bragging about exclusive COD for Xbox, talk which MS didn't try to quell, when the deal was announced. Then when the regulatory agencies came calling, the narrative changed to that wasn't the goal ever and Xbox wouldn't dream of taking games away from PS gamers...honest. Oh, and ignore the many examples where that is what they are doing and recently revealed emails that say otherwise.

If Xbox wasn't so incompetent they would have been smart enough to not brag about the many acquisitions they wanted to do after this one and also get the narrative straight for their shills before they announced the deal.

Where is the back lash of when lawyer asked Jim Ryan if Sony bought Activision would COD be exclusive and he choose not to answer? Selective outrage.

 

[Dick Jones]

Where is the back lash of when lawyer asked Jim Ryan if Sony bought Activision would COD be exclusive and he choose not to answer? Selective outrage.

You don't answer hypotheticals. There is no world that Sony can afford ABK so why would Jim Ryan entertain a stupid question. If Sony buys a big publisher and choose to keep its IP exclusive, then you're able to call out hypocrisy. With Bungie, I thought it was a shit move until both Sony and Bungie confirmed Bungie can release the games on any platform.

 

[Corndog]

there is no way GP is profitable. they are doing creative accounting to say so.

Well there you have it. It's got to be true.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Well there you have it. It's got to be true.

and that is obvious.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Looks unofficial and MS have confirmed revenue is ~$1B per quarter from GP.

No, the $1 billion was from all gaming services, including but not exclusively Game Pass.

FWIW, things like ESO subscriptions, Fallout '76 subs, Bethesda's service (forget what it's called), XBL Gold (obviously) also factor into that.

But since MS obfuscates their numbers so much, it's a bit difficult to say what's what in revenue between them. Though there are things which help (like knowing ESO sub counts, for starters).

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Does anyone know where this graph is from, or if it's even legit?

It looks legit, and I'm willing to believe it, because if that's actual Game Pass revenue for 2022...

Revenue isn't profit. Profit is what you get when you subtract the cost from the revenue.

 

[FlyyGOD]

You don't answer hypotheticals. There is no world that Sony can afford ABK so why would Jim Ryan entertain a stupid question. If Sony buys a big publisher and choose to keep its IP exclusive, then you're able to call out hypocrisy. With Bungie, I thought it was a shit move until both Sony and Bungie confirmed Bungie can release the games on any platform.

That's a stipulation Bungie had to be purchased. If it was up to Sony all thier stuff would be exclusive.

 

[Corndog]

I think Colin Moriarty's take on this from months ago is probably right: It's possible they're making a profit just based off how much they pay third party devs vs how much subscription revenue they make. But there's other costs to think about which probably makes it unprofitable: the costs of first party games and the opportunity costs (lost revenue) from the xbox marketplace. Right? Like there's probably a reason why there aren't more day 1 third party releases on gamepass.

How do you determine what first party sales are lost?

 

[Freelance Yakuza]

Everyone knows that if Microsoft was making a profit with the Xbox division, the first sign of it would be Greenberg boasting on Twitter. Until that happens, it's a sign that they are not making a profit. It's as simple as that.

 

[Pelta88]

Revenue isn't profit. Profit is what you get when you subtract the cost from the revenue.

Sometimes you gotta let certain folk live in their own world. I mean, in his mock up, he states that GP...

"Can spark full game sales to offset cannibalization effects"

Dude is clearly having a hard time dealing with the facts that Microsoft presented.

 

[DrFigs]

How do you determine what first party sales are lost?

This is something MS probably worked out. You can look at historical sales of xbox games series before and after gamepass, you can compare how third party games sell compared to how they sell during the periods they are on gamepass, compare games that launch on gamepass with that game's ps5 sales numbers if they launch at the same time; probably lots of other ways i'm not thinking of. MS did come to the conclusion that gamepass cannibalized game sales (from the CMA trial), so they must have some method of doing it. But the thing would be that since this is opportunity cost, they can say that gamepass is profitable, but that (1) they're leaving a lot of money on the table by doing it this way, and (2) only a company with deep pockets like MS can operate like this for a long period of time.

But also I do think they're just lying about gamepass being profitable. I just think there's a way for it to be "technically" true.

 

[drganon]

FTC hearing was another in a long line of wins for MS. They've got the U.S. side of this locked up.

Next, they tackle the CMA, Rogan style:

MS next move - use political and legal clout gained through FTC impending win to sway the CMA. CMA will resist but eventually call for a redo to their decision with something like "In revisiting or decision we were too hasty. MS has taken great strides to correct all of our inertial concerns. MS please proceed with our blessing."

 

[RickMasters]

I bet he turned up in a Bugatti, with Jim jones bumping out the speakers….. well probably not, but that would be funny.


Edit: this site is terrible to use from a phone!

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I actually can't stop laughing.

 

[FrankWza]

I figured about $2 billion for 2022 was realistic, which is still low, but $1.8 billion is even lower and that is the top end from Derek's estimates.

Do they even separate gold from gp numbers yet? Gold is probably highly profitable. If they include gold numbers that would lend to gp's profitability. They attempted a price increase on gold in the middle of when they were still allowing the gp $1 loophole.

 

[demigod]

Guys remember who you're arguing with...
https://imgur.io/t/politics/9QPTjYG

What forum is this? Not surprised at all.

 

[Bernardougf]

Where is the back lash of when lawyer asked Jim Ryan if Sony bought Activision would COD be exclusive and he choose not to answer? Selective outrage.

Make COD exclusive.. make all games they have exclusive.. but be honest about it and stop the good guys PR bullshit and blatant lies ... thats it .. no one is disputing MS right to make every games they own and future acquisitions exclusives.. people are jsut fed up with the endless PR bullshit

 

[Alex Scott]

What forum is this? Not surprised at all.

I am pretty sure it is this forum.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Do they even separate gold from gp numbers yet? Gold is probably highly profitable. If they include gold numbers that would lend to gp's profitability. They attempted a price increase on gold in the middle of when they were still allowing the gp $1 loophole.

Nope; all services numbers are reported as a lump sum, so Game Pass & XBL Gold are counted together (as well as ESO, F'76, Bethesda's creators service, etc.).

The only way to figure XBL Gold numbers would be to look at PS+'s numbers compared to number of PS4s & PS5s, find a ratio, and apply that to XBO & XBS with maybe a +/- 4% margin.
So if PS is roughly 157.2 (assuming PS5 is at least 40 million now if they were at 38.5 million by end of March) and PS+ is ~ 47 million, that's a 1/3.3 ratio. If XBO & XBS are at 79 million, that would be 23.9 million XBL Gold subscriptions. A 4% shift would be around 22.98 million.

However, there's no actual telling what percentage of XBL Gold subs have converted to Game Pass. The $1 conversion offer's been very popular at least among enthusiasts. I'd say at least 50% of Gold subs have switched to Game Pass, so that would be 11.95 million on XBL Gold. At a $40 ARPU, that's $478 million annually from XBL Gold. I did some calculations earlier this year trying to find Game Pass revenue, but my estimates came to $2 billion. If it's actually closer to $1.8 billion on the top-end, then I'm guessing XBL Gold sub counts would be lower than initially assumed, but subscriptions to ESO and F'76 would be higher than initially expected.

Also guessing another reason XBL Gold sub counts could be lower than I calculated earlier in the year would be due to further growth of Game Pass in general, particularly on PC. Not that you need Game Pass on PC for online gaming, which would suggest more a thing of Xbox console owners leaving the console and going towards the PC instead and subbing to PC Game Pass there. The dramatic slowdown of Xbox Series console sales for basically the past 8-9 (maybe even longer) months would only support that idea IMO.

 

[FrankWza]

Also guessing another reason XBL Gold sub counts could be lower than I calculated earlier in the year would be due to further growth of Game Pass in general, particularly on PC. Not that you need Game Pass on PC for online gaming, which would suggest more a thing of Xbox console owners leaving the console and going towards the PC instead and subbing to PC Game Pass there. The dramatic slowdown of Xbox Series console sales for basically the past 8-9 (maybe even longer) months would only support that idea IMO.

On the console side, wouldn't having gp without gold not allow for online play for a lot of games? That would diminish the value of gp overall so I would think people would be more inclined to have gold.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

On the console side, wouldn't having gp without gold not allow for online play for a lot of games? That would diminish the value of gp overall so I would think people would be more inclined to have gold.

Technically yes. But, the most popular online games on Xbox seem to be F2P games which wouldn't require XBL Gold anyway. And again, things like the $1 conversion deals would technically take a Gold sub and turn that into a GPU one, and GPU has online play wrapped into it.

So even if Gold sub numbers dropped heavily, you'd have enough with GPU (and some sizable chunk getting it via $1 conversion, MS Reward points, heavy stacking with VPN regional exploits, etc.) to offset that. It's what Microsoft wanted anyway, when they tried that stupid 100% price increase last year.