Support NeoGAF

[Victor Omega]

Disclaimer: This is not a console war thread in the realm of discussing brand loyalty or bias, but rather a dissection of the term itself and a possible origin of its current state.

In light of Microsoft's recent acquisition of Activision Blizzard, it's becoming increasingly apparent that the gaming industry is shifting from a "Console War" to a Content/Service War. This acquisition signifies a strategic move by Microsoft to not only gain control over major franchises like Call of Duty but also to alter the landscape of the gaming market itself.

The push for cloud gaming further proves Microsoft's shift in focus, even though the majority of the world outside North America doesn't have the internet speed necessary to adopt this technology. This is particularly evident when examining current devices connected to the internet; a vast majority are in Western society, with North America being the densest region.

(I'm fully aware that map projections like these focus on dense areas, and I also know that China, India, and Africa account for the majority of the world population and are scarcely not online.)

Despite these changes, it's important to note that the majority of the world, including Europe, still sees Sony's PlayStation as their preferred platform. Call of Duty and FIFA have been the biggest franchises in video games for years, and most players have purchased them together exclusively on PlayStation around the world. Even till this day.

Microsoft's acquisition of Activision/Blizzard was likely intended to remove Call of Duty from PlayStation's list of exclusives, further shifting the industry towards a content/service focus. This situation can be compared to Apple's acquisition of Beats by Dre; however, after the acquisition, Apple slowly reduced Beats headphone sales, and it's possible that Microsoft could do the same with Call of Duty sales on PlayStation (times exclusive, exclusive DLC, graphical parity etc) (this "aquire your competitor" tactic is all too common outside of gaming)

In conclusion, the acquisition of Activision Blizzard by Microsoft, the push for cloud gaming, and the changing preferences in gaming platforms all signal a shift from a Console War to a Content/Service War.

Key points:
1) Cloud gaming is not a reality outside North America
2) Brand loyalty toward Sony Playstation is stronger outside of North America.
3) Aquiring companies to reduce a competitor's sale is common.
4) UK's CMA Activision Blizzard block is a sign the world is not for Microsoft in gaming.

 

[SeraphJan]

I don't care about this war that war, I only care about games, for example Starfield

 

[mansoor1980]

interesting and true

 

[Bernoulli]

They still wanted to remove them from all rivals consoles and started backing when regulators looked into it
it isn't about cloud because even microsoft doesn't believe in it

here Microsoft is downplaying cloud saying that most users use it to just test games

 

[feynoob]

Keep in mind that Xcloud is tied to gamepass ultimate, and that Gamepass ultimate cost is 15$ right now.

Now lets do these steps carefully.

1: MS has the technology for cloud gaming (infrastructures)

2: Cloud gaming is the future, as consoles have 5-8 year cycle.

3: Consoles have limited reach due to their production limitation.

4: MS cloud gaming can be accessed around the world due to their data centers.

5: Internet in 5-10 years from now wont be the same as current internet. Meaning more people will have good internet.

6: With companies transitioning to cloud gaming, MS will be in a comfortable position, due to their investment.

7: 15$ price tag for gamepass would be attractive for majority of people. With no 1$ discount, MS can earn alot of money from Xcloud/Gamepass subscription.

8: Google stadia showed us a glimse of what is the future like. Buying your games through cloud, not having to download your games, and starting up immediatly is attractive to common consumers.

9: Not having to spend 500$ on new console is plus for consumers and console makers who will not waste their money making all these consoles.

10: You can get up to 100m xcloud users, who will spend 15$ monthly for the service. That is $1.5b a month or $18b a year.

We can laugh as much as we want to, but that is the future. That is what MS and Sony are paying attention to. And why alot of companies are investing in cloud. It might not work right now currently, but it will in the future. Just like how Nintendo and Sony banked on their consoles during early console period, this will be the case for cloud gaming. There is alot of money on the line.

 

[Victor Omega]

I don't care about this war that war, I only care about games, for example Starfield

I 100% agree. Your care should only be games. I hope when Bethesda tweets "putting the finishing touches" and "Starfield has gone gold" there are 0 bugs when released.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Disclaimer: This is not a console war thread

no is not, is a content war thread

 

[Victor Omega]

Keep in mind that Xcloud is tied to gamepass ultimate, and that Gamepass ultimate cost is 15$ right now.

Now lets do these steps carefully.

1: MS has the technology for cloud gaming (infrastructures)

2: Cloud gaming is the future, as consoles have 5-8 year cycle.

3: Consoles have limited reach due to their production limitation.

4: MS cloud gaming can be accessed around the world due to their data centers.

5: Internet in 5-10 years from now wont be the same as current internet. Meaning more people will have good internet.

6: With companies transitioning to cloud gaming, MS will be in a comfortable position, due to their investment.

7: 15$ price tag for gamepass would be attractive for majority of people. With no 1$ discount, MS can earn alot of money from Xcloud/Gamepass subscription.

8: Google stadia showed us a glimse of what is the future like. Buying your games through cloud, not having to download your games, and starting up immediatly is attractive to common consumers.

9: Not having to spend 500$ on new console is plus for consumers and console makers who will not waste their money making all these consoles.

10: You can get up to 100m xcloud users, who will spend 15$ monthly for the service. That is $1.5b a month or $18b a year.

We can laugh as much as we want to, but that is the future. That is what MS and Sony are paying attention to. And why alot of companies are investing in cloud. It might not work right now currently, but it will in the future. Just like how Nintendo and Sony banked on their consoles during early console period, this will be the case for cloud gaming. There is alot of money on the line.

What strange about this post is I imagine you drinking a Mountain Dew with a WIN A XBOX labeling on it while you wrote that.

Edit: there is a lot of hope with no proof of guarantee. Google stadia fail. It showed us that American, the only consumer that has the internet capabilities to use it, did not want it. Most of what you are saying is just a sale pitch.

 

[Captain Toad]

In light of Microsoft's recent acquisition of Activision Blizzard

 

[Flutta]

Disgusting.

 

[feynoob]

What strange about this post is I imagine you drinking a Mountain Dew with a WIN A XBOX labeling on it while you wrote that.

Why can't you provide something useful?

 

[Warablo]

This is why everyone wants in on that mobile.

 

[Victor Omega]

no is not, is a content war thread

Hue hue hue~~ I'm simply calling out what Microsoft has forbid us to talk about, global Brand loyalty of Playstation , to what we are too blind to see, an attempt to consolidate gaming as a service. (still playing devil's advocate)

 

[Bonfires Down]

Hope they can make it possible to stream games you’ve bought without having to pay a subscription. If Stadia could do it then it should be possible.

Also, they should push cloud gaming through Smart TVs aggressively. People don’t want to play traditional games on mobile but they might want to on their TV. Bundle a controller and Game Pass with new TVs.

 

[feynoob]

Hope they can make it possible to stream games you’ve bought without having to pay a subscription. If Stadia could do it then it should be possible.

If MS manages to do this, then that is boom for their quest.

People don't want to sub to gamepass. But would gladly play xcloud, if they can stream their owned games.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

In light of Microsoft's recent acquisition of Activision Blizzard,

Don't you mean, lack thereof?

They made an expensive attempt. It's been blocked. You didn't get the memo?

Microsoft's acquisition of Activision/Blizzard was likely intended to remove Call of Duty from PlayStation's list of exclusives, further shifting the industry towards a content/service focus.

MS wasn't trying to shift the focus of the industry at all. They were trying to compete by buying up all the 3rd party content.

Gaming has always been a content-focused business. Regardless of how much idiots on the internet like to crow about this console or that console, it's the games that are king, and between Sony and MS, Sony realized this during the PS3 era and invested in a first-party portfolio of top-tier studios and gaming franchises. Whereas, MS initially shat the bed during the 360 gen by focussing on the non-core gamer with Kinect (following the Wii fad), then inexplicably thrust themselves into their "TV, TV, TV" BS that nearly cratered their business with the XB1. Since then, MS has utterly failed to build up a strong stable of first-party developers and so they've taken the next best option and pivoted towards buying up existing studios and eventually whole publishers.

It was never some master plan to steer the industry. Pivoting into services like GamePass and then trying to secure content to make that new focus work was a necessity for them to remain in the gaming business. They would have slunk into complete irrelevance otherwise.

This situation can be compared to Apple's acquisition of Beats by Dre; however, after the acquisition, Apple slowly reduced Beats headphone sales, and it's possible that Microsoft could do the same with Call of Duty sales on PlayStation (times exclusive, exclusive DLC, graphical parity etc) (this "aquire your competitor" tactic is all too common outside of gaming)

I don't comprehend your point here. Beats by Dr. Dre was never a competitor to any of Apple's products. I don't see the parallel at all.

Beats headphones were simply a top-end, very successful brand. Apple prides itself in creating prestige consumer electronic brands. Their acquisition of Beats presented clear synergies with their i-device and iTunes businesses.

In conclusion, the acquisition of Activision Blizzard by Microsoft, the push for cloud gaming, and the changing preferences in gaming platforms all signal a shift from a Console War to a Content/Service War.

What changing preferences in gaming platforms? When were Sony and/or Nintendo not the market leaders in the console business, and when has MS not finished a console generation in third place?

Cloud gaming is an afterthought for everyone. Most of all consumers... Just ask Stadia... lol

Key points:
1) Cloud gaming is not a reality outside North America

Actually, it has more potential in regions like Asia than in America and Europe combined.

Nevertheless, it's a technology that becomes much more important in the future rather than today.

2) Brand loyalty toward Sony Playstation is stronger outside of North America.

Also in North America... as well as the rest of the world. But that's far less relevant.

Sony is winning not because of Brand Loyalty. They're winning because they deliver on the most important thing that gamers want... i.e. games. And MS Don't.

It is and always has been a content business after all.

3) Aquiring companies to reduce a competitor's sale is common.

No... it's anti-competitive and monopolistic. It's not common in the gaming industry. MS is the first and only gaming platform to buy an entire major gaming publisher with their Bethesda deal, and the Activision deal was blocked precisely because it was clear how it would disrupt actual competition in the gaming landscape looking into the future.

 

[Loomy]

This has also been a content war. Sony & Nintendo has known this forever. Every 3rd party publisher knows this. Microsoft was the last one to realize, which is why they're in this position. They have viewed this as a primarily technology thing from the beginning, which is, again, why they're in this position.

They built gamepass, a machine that can only be fed content, while also having one of the most inconsistent and starved content pipelines in the industry. Now they're trying to over correct with these overreaches.

 

[Captain Toad]

If MS manages to do this, then that is boom for their quest.

People don't want to sub to gamepass. But would gladly play xcloud, if they can stream their owned games.

Idk about that. Even the best streaming situation is far inferior to local play.

 

[Victor Omega]

Don't you mean, lack thereof?

They made an expensive attempt. It's been blocked. You didn't get the memo?



MS wasn't trying to shift the focus of the industry at all. They were trying to compete by buying up all the 3rd party content.

Gaming has always been a content-focused business. Regardless of how much idiots on the internet like to crow about this console or that console, it's the games that are king, and between Sony and MS, Sony realized this during the PS3 era and invested in a first-party portfolio of top-tier studios and gaming franchises. Whereas, MS initially shat the bed during the 360 gen by focussing on the non-core gamer with Kinect (following the Wii fad), then inexplicably thrust themselves into their "TV, TV, TV" BS that nearly cratered their business with the XB1. Since then, MS has utterly failed to build up a strong stable of first-party developers and so they've taken the next best option and pivoted towards buying up existing studios and eventually whole publishers.

It was never some master plan to steer the industry. Pivoting into services like GamePass and then trying to secure content to make that new focus work was a necessity for them to remain in the gaming business. They would have slunk into complete irrelevance otherwise.



I don't comprehend your point here. Beats by Dr. Dre was never a competitor to any of Apple's products. I don't see the parallel at all.

Beats headphones were simply a top-end, very successful brand. Apple prides itself in creating prestige consumer electronic brands. Their acquisition of Beats presented clear synergies with their i-device and iTunes businesses.



What changing preferences in gaming platforms? When were Sony and/or Nintendo not the market leaders in the console business, and when has MS not finished a console generation in third place?

Cloud gaming is an afterthought for everyone. Most of all consumers... Just ask Stadia... lol



Actually, it has more potential in regions like Asia than in America and Europe combined.

Nevertheless, it's a technology that becomes much more important in the future rather than today.



Also in North America... as well as the rest of the world. But that's far less relevant.

Sony is winning not because of Brand Loyalty. They're winning because they deliver on the most important thing that gamers want... i.e. games. And MS Don't.

It is and always has been a content business after all.



No... it's anti-competitive and monopolistic. It's not common in the gaming industry. MS is the first and only gaming platform to buy an entire major gaming publisher with their Bethesda deal, and the Activision deal was blocked precisely because it was clear how it would disrupt actual competition in the gaming landscape looking into the future.

Europe Block

While I didn't mentioned it originally, the reason for this thread was actually a reaction to Europe blocking the acquisition. Seeing that, led me to discover how popular Call of duty, FIFA, and Playstation is in Europe. Europe response to the blockage due to cloud gaming ked me to see where the tech is globally.

APPLE / Beat by Dre

The Apple/Beats analogy fits because beats were extremely popular before Apple Introduced their earpods, which have become the most popular in the world. By acquiring Beats, it made what would have been a competitor in the headphone market now allies which ended up not being the case since beats headphones are extremely difficult to find, intentionally, so to push Apple Airpod.

Microsoft clearly can and could do the same with Activision Blizzard which the European fear with the current block.

Playstation Global loyalty

Look at any video game hardware data outside of Europe and the Americas and it will all lead towards Playstation. Please do your own research.

Acquisition not common in gaming

Again please do your research, I don't always post thread just to troll. There a level of data behind what I'm saying. Companies buying other company IS common in the gaming industry.

Microsoft knows the global footprint of Playstaion

Microsoft's acquisition of Mojang Studios, the creators of Minecraft, further exemplifies this shift towards a service-based approach. Since the acquisition, Minecraft has expanded its reach as a service, being available on various platforms and devices, while maintaining its core gameplay experience. However, the spin-off games that have been released, such as Minecraft: Story Mode and Minecraft Dungeons, haven't received the same level of success as the original game. This is further proof that while it may look like a positive in Microsoft buying companies, it doesn't help the studio exsoand. It's just gives Microsoft more to consolidate gaming.

So of course Microsofts next acquisition would be the 3rd highest gaming franchises. Which now we know is blocked.

They can't go after mario and pokemon. Microsoft earliest acquisition was Rare. Microsoft's acquisition of Rare, a company that hasn't produced a successful game since developing for Nintendo, is another example of this shift in focus. Goldeneye 007, a classic Rare game, was recently made available on the Nintendo Switch through the Nintendo Online service. Although Microsoft owns the rights to the game, Nintendo was forced to offer it as a service, thus highlighting the growing importance of content and services in the gaming industry. Even though the Nintendo version of Goldeneye 007 has online multiplayer, the Xbox version offers an HD remastered experience, which is arguably superior. On one hand this showcases Microsoft's commitment to enhancing the gaming experience across multiple platforms but to Microsoft this is monopolizing content.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

APPLE / Beat by Dre

The Apple/Beats analogy fits because beats were extremely popular before Apple Introduced their earpods, which have become the most popular in the world. By acquiring Beats, it made what would have been a competitor in the headphone market now allies which ended up not being the case since beats headphones are extremely difficult to find, intentionally, so to push Apple Airpod.

Microsoft clearly can and could do the same with Activision Blizzard which the European fear with the current block.

This is a weird reading of the situation. Can you show any actual sales data to show Beats headphones sales reduced after Apple bought them?

Also, why would Apple buy a potentially competing brand and then crater that business? Once Beats is owned by Apple, Apple has every incentive to push both Beats and Earpod products.

Your reasoning is unsound.

Playstation Global loyalty

Look at any video game hardware data outside of Europe and the Americas and it will all lead towards Playstation. Please do your own research.

Playstation product and games sales data does not evidence brand loyalty. You're just reading your own conclusions into the data.

Acquisition not common in gaming

Again please do your research, I don't always post thread just to troll. There a level of data behind what I'm saying. Companies buying other company IS common in the gaming industry.

Did you read what I said? I said acquisitions of gaming PUBLISHERS are not common. Please pay attention to the actual issues being discussed.

Buying up studios is common but the prevalence of this practice in no way supports the point you were trying to make. So posting irrelevant data to back up a point about publisher acquisitions by gaming platform owners is just an exercise in misdirection.

I don't even really understand the overall point of the thread you're trying to argue. It's so weirdly contrived.

 

[SSfox]

Legends say that the first Hyena born has spoke those first words: "Microsoft"

 

[Victor Omega]

This is a weird reading of the situation. Can you show any actual sales data to show Beats headphones sales reduced after Apple bought them?

Also, why would Apple buy a potentially competing brand and then crater that business? Once Beats is owned by Apple, Apple has every incentive to push both Beats and Earpod products.

Your reasoning is unsound.



Playstation product and games sales data does not evidence brand loyalty. You're just reading your own conclusions into the data.



Did you read what I said? I said acquisitions of gaming PUBLISHERS are not common. Please pay attention to the actual issues being discussed.

Buying up studios is common but the prevalence of this practice in no way supports the point you were trying to make. So posting irrelevant data to back up a point about publisher acquisitions by gaming platform owners is just an exercise in misdirection.

I don't even really understand the overall point of the thread you're trying to argue. It's so weirdly contrived.

You are still trapped in this closed mindedness where Microsoft is anywhere near a disruption in the global gaming market.

Playstations sales data is a reflection of it brand loyalty and dominance throughout the world of gaming. Even in countrues with scarce data like Africa and India, Playstation still is their default brand. Change your location on Youtube to any country and you will find gaming on social media defaulted to Sony (and Nintendo).

The point is not a misdirection. It strengthen the main point in saying Microsoft could not win in the sense of hardware and attempted, with only success with North America consumers, to shift the market as a service when the world has either already chosen Playstation or isn't capable of cloud gaming when majority of the world doesn't have high speed internet. Not even the largest acquisition in gaming (if it wasn't blocked) could/can help them.

No acquisition, no call of duty, no Gamepass will break a 29 year old hold of Playstation.

Apple had no intention in prolonging Beats, it unequivocally had ever desire to enter the wireless audio market and take out anyone in the way.

What happened to Beats By Dre?

There was a time when Beats by Dre. were the hottest headphones on the market and had a reputation for being the elite audio devices…

www.techjuice.pk

 

[mckmas8808]

Keep in mind that Xcloud is tied to gamepass ultimate, and that Gamepass ultimate cost is 15$ right now.

Now lets do these steps carefully.

1: MS has the technology for cloud gaming (infrastructures)

2: Cloud gaming is the future, as consoles have 5-8 year cycle.

3: Consoles have limited reach due to their production limitation.

4: MS cloud gaming can be accessed around the world due to their data centers.

5: Internet in 5-10 years from now wont be the same as current internet. Meaning more people will have good internet.

6: With companies transitioning to cloud gaming, MS will be in a comfortable position, due to their investment.

7: 15$ price tag for gamepass would be attractive for majority of people. With no 1$ discount, MS can earn alot of money from Xcloud/Gamepass subscription.

8: Google stadia showed us a glimse of what is the future like. Buying your games through cloud, not having to download your games, and starting up immediatly is attractive to common consumers.

9: Not having to spend 500$ on new console is plus for consumers and console makers who will not waste their money making all these consoles.

10: You can get up to 100m xcloud users, who will spend 15$ monthly for the service. That is $1.5b a month or $18b a year.

We can laugh as much as we want to, but that is the future. That is what MS and Sony are paying attention to. And why alot of companies are investing in cloud. It might not work right now currently, but it will in the future. Just like how Nintendo and Sony banked on their consoles during early console period, this will be the case for cloud gaming. There is alot of money on the line.

Almost nothing you typed here is a reality in my opinion. People like you are putting the cart before the horse. You're trying to supply something that the demand (as of now) isn't being requested in huge enough numbers. Plus the math doesn't work out for everyone.

 

[PrimeX]

So here I am in Romania, Europe, just closing my session of gaming on a rtx 4080 equivalent rig, on an Nvidia ultimate subscription and yeah...cloud gaming is the future!
Cheers to UK's CMA to be so ahead of their time and do something about it. As much as I love the Microsoft - Geforce Now 10 years deal, we have to keep competition alive and not support this acquisition.

 

[Crayon]

I'm not sure to what extent the gamepass dream is pinned on streaming. It seems to be a big factor, though. Clock seems to be ticking on streaming, though. The big draw is supposedly that you don't need to buy a console, but it seems more and more like anyone who has interest in playing real games don't consider a console a huge luxury. They are more ubiquitous like vcr's and dvd players once were and it seems easy enough for many people to justify the $300-$500 expense. That leaves mobile gamers, who are not as eager to carry around a controller and play games that require full attention as the more optimistic projections thought. That apple m1 chip makes the whole thing look shaky. Arm processors that can run very convincing versions of aaa games at 720p for a tiny screen are coming, possibly faster than streaming adoption.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Cloud gaming will hurt Windows and PC gaming directly.

You need to think this through. There is good reason why MS wants you to have options while Google wants you to shift completely to cloud gaming (for which they offered Stadia).

Each companies end game isn't hard to see. Sony and Nintendo will ultimately be the bystanders in this war.

 

[DEAD ORIGINAL]

Onlive, Stadia all failed Games are massive there not like music or TV and film's consoles going nowhere internet is shit in most of the world

 

[Victor Omega]

Onlive, Stadia all failed Games are massive there not like music or TV and film's consoles going nowhere internet is shit in most of the world

exactly

 

[Stare-Bear]

Didn’t Phil just say today in that car crash of an interview that cloud gaming wasn’t even important to them?

 

[yurinka]

Key points:
1) Cloud gaming is not a reality outside North America

As far as I know, cloud gaming is a tiny market that doesn't even represent a 1% of the worldwide gaming revenue, since game subs represent only 7-9% of that market.

In Europe we have great connections and no data cap, so I think Europe and NA should have a pretty similar (tiny) cloud gaming market.

2) Brand loyalty toward Sony Playstation is stronger outside of North America.

I'd say everywhere in the world, but specially outside USA and Mexico.

3) Aquiring companies to reduce a competitor's sale is common.

The acquired companies represent a tiny portion of the market. As an example, Activision Blizzard King, by far the biggest 3rd party publisher in consoles, only represents around a 4% of the global gaming revenue.

So they are bought to increase revenue/market share and profitability of the acquiring companies, plus enriching their catalog. On top of that, they also meant to get revenue from rival platforms: Mojang, Zenimax/Bethesda or Bungie meant that their acquirers got more money from rival platforms since they continued releasing their stuff there.

And remember, if ABK was only a 4% these are much, much smaller, so the impact of their exclusivity would be much smaller. The competition wouldn't notice it.

4) UK's CMA Activision Blizzard block is a sign the world is not for Microsoft in gaming.

It was blocked because MS acted as an asshole requiring the 100% of CoD's game and DLC revenue in rival platforms with cloud gaming instead of the typical 70%.

So the block was well deserved, because they have to compete using fair tactics and if not regulators will stop them, because this is their job.

 

[Victor Omega]

Didn’t Phil just say today in that car crash of an interview that cloud gaming wasn’t even important to them?

Phil says alot of things. as for cloud gaming, Microsoft's entire company is cloud focus. Maybe not cloud gaming in the way we think of the cloud, but Xbox being accessible on any platform or hardware, is their current goal.