[CNBC] Phil Spencer: We are not putting a pause on acquisitions. Also not raising console prices.
- Thread starter jhjfss
- Start date
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
Actually, it would be world regulators' faults - in the eyes of gamers - because the industry has spoken ever since Xbox enter the market and repeatedly said it isn't a viable self sustaining platform that people want at the level they are pitching it.
Last edited:
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
90 difference ? What are you talking about ? Are you equating the disc-less edition with the disc based ones for both PS5 and SX which sold at the same MSRP ?
My dude you're talking about royal rumbles, your logic has gone to the Elimination Chamber here
He's said this stupid shit a couple of times now. They are no longer sold at the same MSRP now either. The PS5 is $50 more than the Series X and the PS5DE is $150 more than the Series S most regions other than the US.
SteelCurtain 59
Member
The fact you consider that a shill opinion tells a lot more about you than me
yurinka
Member
Sony not only competes, they are way more successful than MS in both gaming their gaming divisions and in consoles. Or in game subscriptions specifically too.
Regarding pricing, we also have to remember the difference between buying a game and renting a service, from where games are removed. We also have to remember that games being sold also get discounts and price cuts.
Yes, there wouldn't be nothing wrong on being honest saying -if it's the case- "we have some unreleased games signed to be released on PS, and some series like CoD will continue releasing on PS 3 more years beyond that, but other than that we'll make their future games Xbox console exclusive and we won't release them on rival consoles to make our console and ecosystem more appealing and help us compete against Sony, who is our direct competitor the market leader in consoles and game subs".
Last edited:
pasterpl
Member
MS 1st party games (and if deals closes CoD will be first party) are not getting removed from gamepass. Plus you will get discounts on mtx and dlc's etc.
Btw. Sony itself claimed that gamepass is the leading game subscription service.
Last edited:
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Guaranteed there's another, and I'm almost certain I know exactly which one it will be. Probably not the one people are expecting, but it will be big.
pasterpl
Member
They can afford take 2 and ea so you never know. With fifa, nfl etc. they would have to make some concessions (like Sony did with `MLB), but t2 would actually make sense (historic ip, Zynga purchase etc). I can see them doing 1-2 big publisher deals and lots of smaller independent studios.
Last edited:
Timberwolf25
Member
Spill
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Embracer.
Swedish company, worth just $8 billion in U.S. dollars, barely more than what they paid for Bethesda. So with a potential markup Microsoft maybe spends $12-$14 billion. They get what they've always wanted, the Tomb Raider franchise and Crystal Dynamics in house. Important also because Crystal Dynamics is helping The Initiative with Perfect Dark. I expect that to be a long-term partnership, one I think Microsoft wants control of. They get the Metro Exodus studio, 4A Games (who is also owned by Embracer) and the Metro IP, and one of the most technically gifted studios out there. They get Gearbox (meaning Borderlands also), they get key assets such as Darkhorse Comics, who have been known to partner with various brands for merchandise and collectibles. They have history with Halo as well. An excellent asset when wanting to do collector's editions and what not. They get the Guardians of the Galaxy studio, Eidos Montreal. Not a single IP in that entire list raises to the concern level of a COD, meaning it will pass a whole lot easier, likely without a phase 2.
They also get in the deal the studio that was originally working on the Kotor Remake, Aspyr, as well as the new Saber Interactive team working on it now.
Though some of Embracer's more famous assets may be in the USA or Canada, majority of them are in other territories where regulatory approval will be rather easy. But again, of the ones in the USA and Canada, nothing raises competitive red flags.
Microsoft with that purchase would have the complete development army I believe they're seeking, not just for new Game Pass content, but for providing as much development studio support capacity as would ever be needed for all their various studios. They also get access to a not so insignificant back catalog of content as well.
Just my thinking out loud. I believe Embracer got those assets from Square Enix with the intent to increase their sale value to a specific interested buyer, Microsoft. I expect the deal to be announced in the second half of Microsoft's Fiscal Year 2024, so Jan 1st - June 30th 2024. Only one thing could possibly turn Microsoft's eyes away from Embracer, and it's maybe Warner Bros Studios such as Mortal Kombat studio NetherRealm Studios (who I know they want for Killer Instinct or for that Mortal Kombat IP), Rocksteady (Batman Arkham Studio and who is now making Suicide Squad) and especially the Shadow of Mordor Studio now making Wonder Woman.
They also get the Saints Row IP and studio. And if not all of that, I think Microsoft is willing to make Embracer an offer just for Crystal Dynamics, Eidos etc. I know how badly Microsoft has always wanted the Tomb Raider IP. Phil in particular has always been after it.
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
The more I think about it, it seems that Microsoft's end game is to neutralise the threat (Bill Gates identified two decades ago) of PlayStation being ideally positioned to be the box of convergence in the home (when the home PC, laptop markets become redundant) and one box is likely to be the conduit and control access to content and services in the way Windows has with the home PC.
Microsoft keep funding Xbox despite it never funding itself, they don't focus on the creative side to provide gamers with games like Nintendo or PlayStation, so they aren't looking to work hard for gamers to make games, and the amount of money both PlayStation and Activision make isn't really that significant to Microsoft; in that they could get better direct returns elsewhere than funding all the Game Pass acquisitions and xbox losses and risk, so from that I can only deduce that their only reason for their two decades in gaming is still to kill off the PlayStation threat, by either killing the PlayStation platform or damaging it enough to get PlayStation out of their independent hardware platform, console OS with SDK, and make them dependent on Windows and DirectX and even on xbox where they'd offer no threat.
So I think Microsoft will keep trying to acquire things until PlayStation is no threat.
Hopefully regulators see that this isn't a positive acquisition to build anything great, but just a cynical means of tearing down a long term threat to Microsoft's importance in the home., just like it was from the start.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
Who do you think it will be?
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Interesting, I've wondered that myself, or more like hoped for it to be the case. It does make some sense though; those studios became available while Xbox is still tied up with A/B/K so not a great time to buy more studios. They get Embracer to make a straw purchase for them so no one else gets those games?
They could buy those 2 studios from Embracer without any problems, but I don't see Xbox buying Embracer itself, they have too many properties and studios to get it past the regulators after Bethesda and A/B/K
Last edited:
DaedalusGrim
Banned
In what world is that not the most corporate boot licking nonsense you've ever seen?
"Youre locking YOURSELF out of these historically 3rd party franchises, don't blame Microsoft for forcing you to buy an Xbox! Its not their fault they bought them all up!"
Fuck outta here lmao
Last edited:
In Cold Blood
Banned
Yep.
I think they need to target smaller studios that can fit in with what's missing in their genres.
ZehDon
Member
This has nothing to do with my post and nothing to do with the topic on hand. I'm guessing that's why you literally cut out 4/5ths of my post and responded to one sentence out of context to post this? What are you doing?
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Number of properties and studios has never been a major issue for regulators alone, it's about market impact. Embracer doesn't have nearly enough under their belt to raise competitive concerns. If the concern is the raw number of development studios they possess, that alone won't be enough as new development studios are formed all the time. Microsoft could have safely bought every last one of the studios under Embracer in smaller transactions without raising regulatory concern, so there should be even less concern in just buying it all as part of a package.
There's a lot of assets under Embracer, but none considered particularly market moving. The most high profile thing they possess is Tomb Raider and Crystal Dynamics. And Phil made a comment that jumped out at me a while back, about a lot of their development talent being focused more so in their usual markets, such as the USA, England or Canada. Embracer is the primary purchase that spreads their internal development studios in the way Phil seems to want to see. I can't remember where he said it, but he definitely said something about wanting more internal development studios outside their usually strong markets.
Jimmyisback
Banned
Great job for Phil Spencer.
SteelCurtain 59
Member
I never said anything about the morality of Microsoft's acquisition and stated pretty clearly how I have empathy for people unable to play games due to it. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you skimmed my post) However, given that the acquisition is likely happening, consumers have a choice, either find a way to play those games via the many affordable and convenient options, or refuse to do that. Outside of the few who legitimately are unable to access Xbox games and are truly locked out, people who refuse are 100% locking themselves out. It's fine to complain about the acquisition, there's plenty of logical reasons to oppose it. But the vast majority of people complaining about being unable to play Bethesda or Activision games anymore are just complaining to complain. If they truly cared about those franchises they'd find a way to have access to those franchises, they wouldn't avoid it like the plague because it didn't release on their favorite Playstation console
John Wick
Member
Not likely!
pasterpl
Member
J
Ms msntiond couple of times that gamepass is sustainable. . I know it is not the same as profitable, but I am sure that they are not that faraway from becoming profitable.
pasterpl
Member
J
The famous ms war chest that was being mentioned from since release of the first og Xbox. Now it is open and a lot of people are uncomfortable with what this means.
Fess
Member
That is so not happening, can't believe you believe what you're writing there.
64gigabyteram
Reverse groomer.
"we aren't raising console prices"
"we're not putting a pause on acquisitions"
you have enough studios already.... just get them to make games. simple as. You wouldn't need all these acquisitions if you could just get everyone to make games faster.
"we're not putting a pause on acquisitions"
you have enough studios already.... just get them to make games. simple as. You wouldn't need all these acquisitions if you could just get everyone to make games faster.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hobbygaming
has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
It sounds like Microsoft might be changing their minds on price increases
DarkMage619
$MSFT
They also changed their mind on Game pass sustainability too, it's profitable now.
Hobbygaming
has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
They've always said it was sustainable (it is for them, for a while at least) But they've also said they need to look into increasing the price for the service too
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Fair point.
I dont think MS raise the price of GP in the 5 years it's been around. I looked at a launch article and it was the same US price in 2017. Costs and inflation are going up around the world (especially the last few years during covid), so it makes sense MS hikes up the price at some point. They've been great eating the costs in Canada. Even currency effects. MS always sold One X and Series S/X at subsidized prices. The price was always a bit lower than real life exchange rates and the system prices never changed even though the currency exchange rate is now sky high at 1.36x. Yet consoles were always priced at 1.20x the US price. Sony on the other hand bumps up the price to more 1:1 currency effects. If any company out there should be trying to bump up pricing it's MS.
All really comes down to if gamers care enough to bolt if the price goes up. Maybe they will, maybe not. Amazon has increased prices of Prime twice the past 5 years yet memberships are at record levels. Nobody seems to care. I guess people enjoy fast shipping and more movies to justify the hikes.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
This will be Phils "We believe in generations"
