Support NeoGAF

[Topher]

The obligation is money. Sony don't have to sign anything. COD will always be on Playstation.

And Phil Spencer said that publicly as well. Seems some have no problem whatsoever if Spencer cashes in his integrity as long as he takes COD from PlayStation.

 

[Three]

As per Reuters

http://[URL]https://www.msn.com/en-...-with-licensing-offer-sources-say/ar-AA189mHM

[/URL]

Nothing here suggests that they will have to offer CoD for Playstation outside the licensing deal. If Sony doesn’t sign it putting CoD of Playstation would be gesture of good faith by MS (realistically I cannot see them removing it from playstation due to revenue it generates), but legally there would not be anything forcing MS to do it.

What you're asking them to sign is the licensing deal.

 

[pasterpl]

The obligation is money. Sony don't have to sign anything. COD will always be on Playstation.

There are only two groups that can't seem to grasp this simple concept.
1, People who secretly want MS to remove COD from playstion because Phil Spencer is Daddy.
2, Dumbass regulators with dumbass ideals.

And Phil Spencer said that publicly as well. Seems some have no problem whatsoever if Spencer cashes in his integrity as long as he takes COD from PlayStation.

It is not like I have heard the same arguments before zenimax acquisition

 

[Topher]

It is not like I have heard the same arguments before zenimax acquisition

Incorrect. Phil Spencer never said any Zenimax game would be on PlayStation "as long as PlayStation exists". He said that about COD.

 

[knocksky]

Incorrect. Phil Spencer never said any Zenimax game would be on PlayStation "as long as PlayStation exists". He said that about COD.

I don't know why it is still being discussed. Even if they wanted to remove cod, the regulators won't allow it if the deal passes.

 

[ToadMan]

The obligation is money. Sony don't have to sign anything. COD will always be on Playstation.

There are only two groups that can't seem to grasp this simple concept.
1, People who secretly want MS to remove COD from playstion because Phil Spencer is Daddy.
2, Dumbass regulators with dumbass ideals.

It was so simple when the same was said about Zenimax too...

 

[ToadMan]

So now EU is likely to approve with behavioural remedies, FTC is still unknown, but they are likely to loose MS appeal in court outside of FTC, this leaves us with CMA. I still think they will approve with behavioural remedies after deals goes through with FTC and EU.

Why is it likely? What is the FTC's record in federal court?

I am wondering what will happen if this deal gets approved and Sony is the only party that haven’t signed the licensing deal. MS then would have no obligation to put CoD on playstation. Deal was offered, from what we have heard multiple times and was refused by Sony.

Sony don't have to do anything - the regulators will decide where MS must offer the content. Sony can choose it at that time if it's beneficial.

 

[Topher]

I don't know why it is still being discussed. Even if they wanted to remove cod, if the deal passes the regulators won't allow it anyway.

Warriors can dream I guess.

 

[ToadMan]

Personally, I find that to be the definition of anti-competitive. You can afford timed exclusives far easier and far more cheaply because of a dominant position. So you use that to basically prevent anyone else from competing against you on equal footing, because they would have to pay 10x more for an exclusive, and it would still result in lower sales. Repeat this over and over for years and it cheaply prevents competition. It makes perfect sense that one of the only responses to this is acquisitions, as it's one of the only ways to pay for something at the standard price, as opposed to repeatedly paying 10x more than your competitor for less.

There are 70 billion reasons why this argument is faintly tragic.

 

[Helghan]

Realistically speaking.
How many playstation gamers you think is going to switch to Xbox if Microsoft acquires Activision and leave behind these?
PlayStation exclusives
Dualsense features
PS VR 2
Their Playstation catalog

It doesn't matter how much revenue or popularity COD generates on consoles.
What matter is where that revenue and popularity lies and 80% of that lies with Playstation.

How many copies did COD sell on PS, and what was the best sold exclusive? The difference between those two doesn't care about what you just listed and will move to Xbox if it's cheaper there. Obviously there are other things at play, but most people don't care about what device they play on.

 

[ToadMan]

As per Reuters

http://[URL]https://www.msn.com/en-...-with-licensing-offer-sources-say/ar-AA189mHM

[/URL]

Nothing here suggests that they will have to offer CoD for Playstation outside the licensing deal. If Sony doesn’t sign it putting CoD of Playstation would be gesture of good faith by MS (realistically I cannot see them removing it from playstation due to revenue it generates), but legally there would not be anything forcing MS to do it.

The behavioral remedies are between the regulators and MS.

Licensing is mitigation for the regulators to try and avoid a legally binding decision from them - that Sony haven't agreed is in part forcing MS to negotiate with regulators but that's not the only reason.

The regulators could say 10 years isn't enough - make it non-terminating, and then MS's agreements so far are all null and void. Same as if they're forced to divest.

Oh and one more thing - Sony gains a lot from the regulators making a formal decision. Whatever the regulators decide with MS, Sony will know what is and isn't on the table for future acquisitions themselves.

So there is no incentive for Sony to do anything right now as far as I can tell - the terms just get more favorable the longer they wait.

 

[Elios83]

I don't know why it is still being discussed. Even if they wanted to remove cod, the regulators won't allow it if the deal passes.

It's called being delusional.
The deal won't pass without remedies and this is pretty much certain at this point (the big question is if CMA will block or make these remedies super strict).
Remedies will force Microsoft to offer these 10 years deals, it won't be their choice.

 

[b6a6es]

The obligation is money. Sony don't have to sign anything. COD will always be on Playstation.

There are only two groups that can't seem to grasp this simple concept.
1, People who secretly want MS to remove COD from playstion because Phil Spencer is Daddy.
2, Dumbass regulators with dumbass ideals.

If any company in the world can handle the financial impact of making CoD games exclusive, it’s Microsoft. They are literally the 2nd Biggest company in the world (only behind Apple), that also have the 2nd biggest cash on hand reserves, nearly 150 Billion+ $ which is how they got ABK in the first place (without a bank loan/debt Mind you), once the 10 years deals over you can kiss your future CoD titles on PS goodbye, as they’ll have no obligation to put it there whatsoever,

Whatever the exclusivity impact would It’ll be a drop in the bucket, as their long term goals is to gain marketshare for their Netflix of gaming strategy (Gamepass) once cloud gaming becomes viable


And for the love of god dont bring (TES Online/ FO76) situations, those were available on PS before the Acquisition happened, come back to me once The next Zenimax Online announces which platform receives their next title.

 

[ToadMan]

Incorrect. Phil Spencer never said any Zenimax game would be on PlayStation "as long as PlayStation exists". He said that about COD.

The principle is Phil and MS will say whatever before an acquisition to set "expectations" and then change the terms post acquisition - zeni being the most recent example. A point all 3 regulators have raised in their investigation to date, and why they are going to rely on formal remedies.

 

[pasterpl]

Why is it likely? What is the FTC's record in federal court?



Sony don't have to do anything - the regulators will decide where MS must offer the content. Sony can choose it at that time it's beneficial.

Not sure about the historical record of FTC in federal court but their most recent big tech case they have lost was Meta/Within just last month.

Re. 2nd point I have asked what will happen if Sony doesn’t sign the licensing deal. There are no grounds on which MS would have to offer COD on Playstation (if the behavioural remedies limit to “MS have to offer licensing deals to all interested parties”.

 

[b6a6es]

And Phil Spencer said that publicly as well. Seems some have no problem whatsoever if Spencer cashes in his integrity as long as he takes COD from PlayStation.

As if he didn’t already

 

[Superayate]

Alright, let's use Battlefield then.
Microsoft claims a 80% Playstation vs 20% Xbox.

Like I said already.
20% jumps to Xbox, that other 60% switches to Battlefield.

Battlefield becomes more popular than COD in the console space (60% vs 40%), simply because Playstation will remain the dominant platform.

OMFG, that's completely ridiculous...

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

As per Reuters

MSN

Nothing here suggests that they will have to offer CoD for Playstation outside the licensing deal. If Sony doesn’t sign it putting CoD of Playstation would be gesture of good faith by MS (realistically I cannot see them removing it from playstation due to revenue it generates), but legally there would not be anything forcing MS to do it.

Reuters just quoted three people familiar with the matter… they could be three Microsoft executives.

 

[b6a6es]

Alright, let's use Battlefield then.
Microsoft claims a 80% Playstation vs 20% Xbox.

Like I said already.
20% jumps to Xbox, that other 60% switches to Battlefield.

Battlefield becomes more popular than COD in the console space (60% vs 40%), simply because Playstation will remain the dominant platform.

……. Then MS buys EA takes the remaining audiences…..

 

[Loxus]

OMFG, that's completely ridiculous...

You really think COD is enough to make Xbox the dominant platform if it becomes exclusive?

At the end of the day, which ever console is the dominant platform will have the more popular fps game.

 

[Loxus]

How many copies did COD sell on PS, and what was the best sold exclusive? The difference between those two doesn't care about what you just listed and will move to Xbox if it's cheaper there. Obviously there are other things at play, but most people don't care about what device they play on.

You still didn't answer the question and if people didn't care about those things, why the hell didn't they buy the cheaper Xbox in first place?

It still amazes me that you guys think that COD is enough to turn Xbox into the dominant platform.

Even GTA 6 Online is enough to stop PS gamers from leaving behind the PS5 features and their games catalog.

 

[Pelta88]

Can someone give me a quick summary of yesterdays events?

So far I'm up to article saying EU will approve, followed by next to no movement in the ATVI stock price. Other than that, I'm outside the loop.

 

[ToadMan]

Not sure about the historical record of FTC in federal court but their most recent big tech case they have lost was Meta/Within just last month.

So, to deduce it is "likely" MS wins a hypothetical federal case, you cited ONE example?

How scientific...

Math is hard so let me tell you, looking at the historic outcomes at federal court, on balance of probability it is "likely" the FTC wins.

There is a supreme court case proceeding right now - Axon v FTC - precisely because of the 100% administrative court record the FTC maintains, and it's disproportionate percentage of wins in Federal court.

Re. 2nd point I have asked what will happen if Sony doesn’t sign the licensing deal. There are no grounds on which MS would have to offer COD on Playstation (if the behavioural remedies limit to “MS have to offer licensing deals to all interested parties”.

The regulators are already forcing MS to provide access to content. This outcome was hypothesized up to about 6 months ago - it's no longer a hypothetical outcome.

 

[wolffy71]

The developers don’t have to take it. But Sony’s marketing, engineering and pipeline are the best of any publisher in the most markets.

That’s a way of creating value, goodwill and moving the industry forward rather than just buying up anything and everything because you can’t compete due to poor management.

By now Microsoft in their 20+ year investment in the console space should have had a far larger, more successful content portfolio. Given they own the dominant development platform, the drivers and software behind a lot of projects they should have far superior development teams, engineers and a better pipeline.

Just what they’ve been doing for that time is beyond me. They literally have all the tools and money to be a roaring success in most areas. But it feels like they’ve squandered success and have lurched form crisis to poor management repeatedly.

Sony is evidence that you can be hugely successful by valuing talent, trusting them and spending your money wisely.

Sony, as an alalogy have invested in the best doctors, surgical methods and customer relations whereas Microsoft didn’t and have decided to buy whole hospitals. Except the doctors can leave - we’ve seen that with some of their acquired studios already.

They were on the right track with studios like Playground where they helped set them up, invested in the talent and IP and moved to a purchase.

The only reason Microsoft can’t compete, if they can’t compete, is because of their own ineptitude.

That's all irrelevant. It's money spent to develop exclusives. Doesn't particularly matter how you spend it

 

[Elios83]

Can someone give me a quick summary of yesterdays events?

So far I'm up to article saying EU will approve, followed by next to no movement in the ATVI stock price. Other than that, I'm outside the loop.

Reuters just reported that according to three people close to the matter they talked with the feeling over the direction the EU will take is this:

The European Commission, which is scheduled to decide on the deal by April 25, is not expected to demand that Microsoft sell assets to win its approval, the people said.

In addition to the licensing deals for rivals, Microsoft may also have to offer other behavioural remedies to allay concerns of other parties than Sony, one of the people said. Such remedies typically refer to the future conduct of the merged company.

Not much else, it's interesting to note that the article was updated and it now states that remedies asked will go beyond what MS offered according to the same sources, in particular it might be required that the conduct of the merged company has to be under observation.
But the whole article is speculative atm. The EU just delayed their decision until April 25th so it's unlikely they already have agreed on a final ruling.

The whole article can be read through yahoo finance: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-eu-unlikely-demand-asset-135710610.html

 

[ToadMan]

That's all irrelevant. It's money spent to develop exclusives. Doesn't particularly matter how you spend it

It matters to the regulators who are there to protect free market concepts.

You see, everyone is trying to compare timed or even long term 3rd party exclusivity to acquisition.... But those 3rd party deals are in effect in an "open market" - MS can bid, Sony can bid, Amazon, Nintendo etc. There's a negotiated market rate and each deal stands alone without prejudice to other deals.

The question is whether an acquisition by MS is removing competition.

Now if that buyer - MS - is prepared to keep their content in the open market - Minecraft for example or even Sony with Bungie - all is well. The open market continues to function and consumers get to decide fair values.

But when MS buy that content, professing to plan to keep it open market - Zenimax - and then take it off the open market to coerce users to use their service, regulators get agitated because those products are no longer available to consumers at rates the market has decided.

It's nuance - but it's there despite the false equivalence a lot of people try to bring.

 

[ToadMan]

If COD was popular on the XB360, way didn't those gamers stay with Xbox?

No matter how much text you type. At the end of the day, it was the Playstation exclusives that made the PS4 as popular as it is and COD being exclusive to Xbox isn't going to change that.

But just to sound some concern - your 360 analogy is right. It came as a surprise to MS that the 360 generation wasn't sticky and people just left the ecosystem for PS instead of xbone.

The same can easily happen to PS - which is exactly why MS is trying to make an anticompetitive merger happen.

 

[IllegalLemon]

you guys still believe him after what he did?

Nope! Do you?

 

[KungFucius]

There were a shit load of people which moved from xbox 360 to ps4 instead of xbox one because of tv focus and drm.

They didn't move because of sonys exclusives. If that was the case they wouldn't have had a 360 to begin with.

Again, the majority who plays fifa or cod usually play a little less of everything else, including exclusives.

Also, Gaf isn't the outside picture of reality.
People gave up assymetrical controllers for symmetrical, which shows the majority doesn't give a shit about the controllers, especially gimmick ones.
The average timmt who plays cod is probably not the same niche guy who tosses the console price on a niche Gr peripheral.
VR is still niche and will always be it.

Cods revenue is from the platform that has most users.
A lot of these people will follow where cod is.
Xbox getting cod as exclusive will move a lot of xbox consoles.
Not everyone is a dedicated fanboy.
Some can move, some can have both platforms at the same time.
Crazy, I know.

They might not sell their ps, but they would very likely buy a xbox, s or x doesn't matter, to play cod.

This is ridiculous. They did not move to PS4 because of TV and DRM. The DRM was dropped anyways well before any launch. They moved because of price and the fact that the PS4 was more powerful. Game lineup was a factor too. Once enough of their friends chose PS4 early on, they followed. If you want, you can blame it on Kinect, because that drove price, but blaming it on how they initially revealed it, is insane. The mass market doesn't work like that. 500 bucks for a system that plays games worse than the other vs 400 bucks for a system that plays games a little better. Add to that no Halo or major launch exclusive, and that is why they lost.

Sony also had a late gen uptick with the PS3. They had a lot of great games and created a lot of buzz. That coupled to a better launch lineup was also a factor in making people confident that moving to PS was a good choice.

 

[mansoor1980]

Nope! Do you?

maybe

 

[KungFucius]

It is not like I have heard the same arguments before zenimax acquisition

Why the fuck do people think this is a good comparison? COD is an annual release that generates billions in sales. Zenimax only really has one major franchise, TES that is anywhere near that in sales and they have not released a new game from it since 2011. So maybe COD to TES is 10:1. When something is an order of magnitude higher it is not comparable. If you don't get that, then you don't get numbers. FFS when is the last time you considered a $1000 expense as easy to take on as a $100 one. Or a house vs a car? Or a car vs a gaming PC. But sure go ahead and apply the same logic to games that release once in a decade to those releasing every year with additional content because you are dishonest in your comparisons if you want to make a point that needs you to be.

 

[Topher]

The principle is Phil and MS will say whatever before an acquisition to set "expectations" and then change the terms post acquisition - zeni being the most recent example. A point all 3 regulators have raised in their investigation to date, and why they are going to rely on formal remedies.

I don't recall Phil Spencer making any such statements prior to the Bethesda acquisition.

As if he didn’t already

Nah, not the same

 

[wolffy71]

It matters to the regulators who are there to protect free market concepts.

You see, everyone is trying to compare timed or even long term 3rd party exclusivity to acquisition.... But those 3rd party deals are in effect in an "open market" - MS can bid, Sony can bid, Amazon, Nintendo etc. There's a negotiated market rate and each deal stands alone without prejudice to other deals.

The question is whether an acquisition by MS is removing competition.

Now if that buyer - MS - is prepared to keep their content in the open market - Minecraft for example or even Sony with Bungie - all is well. The open market continues to function and consumers get to decide fair values.

But when MS buy that content, professing to plan to keep it open market - Zenimax - and then take it off the open market to coerce users to use their service, regulators get agitated because those products are no longer available to consumers at rates the market has decided.

It's nuance - but it's there despite the false equivalence a lot of people try to bring.

That's a different argument. They both spend on exclusives. This isn't about that necessarily. It's the scope of the deal, not it's uniqueness in practice.

 

[wolffy71]

How many copies did COD sell on PS, and what was the best sold exclusive? The difference between those two doesn't care about what you just listed and will move to Xbox if it's cheaper there. Obviously there are other things at play, but most people don't care about what device they play on.

I really don't see COD having anywhere even close to the market pull they used to have. Warzone is free to play anyway

This whole argument makes more sense 10 years ago

 

[IllegalLemon]

And Phil’s the first man you kissed, you were so nervous that you nearly missed.

Ok, I'll bite this time.
Everytime I do, it makes me laugh!!!

 

[SportsFan581]

Why is it likely? What is the FTC's record in federal court?

When you get to court with the FTC in the US things get very mathematical and exact, the numbers are in MS's favor in regards to this deal. The government deciding they don't like big, bad tech companies doesn't hold a lot of water at this level.

 

[Pelta88]

I appreciate the summary E Elios83

 

[Topher]

Why is it likely? What is the FTC's record in federal court?

FTC's record isn't good from what I recall. That is largely in part because Lina Khan has said that she is willing to lose cases in order to push the envelope in antitrust law. So winning isn't her primary goal in this. Big reason why I think the acquisition will be approved in the US. CMA is the only potential roadblock.

 

[DeepEnigma]

And Phil Spencer said that publicly as well. Seems some have no problem whatsoever if Spencer cashes in his integrity as long as he takes COD from PlayStation.

That's what it really comes down to, to the most ardent cuntwarriors.

 

[begotten]

There were a shit load of people which moved from xbox 360 to ps4 instead of xbox one because of tv focus and drm.

They didn't move because of sonys exclusives. If that was the case they wouldn't have had a 360 to begin with.

This is just wrong. I was a hardcore 360 resident from Day 1 until it's multiple dated deaths.

Most people I knew (Xbox Gamers) jumped to PC Gaming which hit it's biggest spike since the early 2000s because of things like League of Legends, CSGO and Dota 2 becoming multiplayer behemoths - not to mention services like Humble Bundle and key sites popping up letting people in for cheap. Lots of people jumped from 360 to PS3 first actually, and then PS4 because of the exclusive offerings. Just look at the consoles sales in the second half of it's run and what Xbox was publishing during that time period also.

And no, it wasn't just because of the garbage Xbox One Showcase and their multimedia focuses. Did you actually play the Gears of War Judgement beta and then again on release, or Halo 4? They were both COMMUNITY killers above all else. Did you see what MS was doing with their developers at the time also and what the Xbox One Launch was looking like?

How many times are you going to prove that you don't have a clue and just provide finger-nail deep opinions when you post just to desperately self-validate your gaming habits.

 

[The Tourmaline Gorilla]

The principle is Phil and MS will say whatever before an acquisition to set "expectations" and then change the terms post acquisition - zeni being the most recent example. A point all 3 regulators have raised in their investigation to date, and why they are going to rely on formal remedies.

That point is baseless, when using Zenimax as an example. MS and Phil never said or promised Zenimax games would stay on PS. They said, they'd take those considerations into account on a game-by-game basis. They never "created any expectations, and then changed the terms post acquisition", as it regards the Zenimax acquisition.

People who are running with that narrative are simply wrong. That is a false narrative that is easily refuted by what MS and Phil have actually said. Initially, it was hinted that Zenimax games might still be multiplat, but there was never any strong statements to indicate this, conclusively. The most conclusive, sure statement we have from MS on that is, they'd take it on a case-by-case or game-by-game basis.

 

[ToadMan]

If any company in the world can handle the financial impact of making CoD games exclusive, it’s Microsoft. They are literally the 2nd Biggest company in the world (only behind Apple), that also have the 2nd biggest cash on hand reserves, nearly 150 Billion+ $ which is how they got ABK in the first place (without a bank loan/debt Mind you), once the 10 years deals over you can kiss your future CoD titles on PS goodbye, as they’ll have no obligation to put it there whatsoever,

Whatever the exclusivity impact would It’ll be a drop in the bucket, as their long term goals is to gain marketshare for their Netflix of gaming strategy (Gamepass) once cloud gaming becomes viable


And for the love of god dont bring (TES Online/ FO76) situations, those were available on PS before the Acquisition happened, come back to me once The next Zenimax Online announces which platform receives their next title.

Great summation of why the deal is being blocked.

 

[Astray]

I feel for anyone who anticipated Starfield on Playstation, maybe it's even a justified expecation, but the 1st thing I thought when the acquisition was announced is "Starfield will surely be made exclusive", it's honestly such a no-brainer from a business perspective. And from a business perspective, the debatable part was always things like Doom/Fallout/Elder Scrolls etc.

I bought my Series X based on that hunch and it was proven correct, the moment you stop thinking of Phil as Gaben 2.0 and start thinking about him in the same terms as any other businessman, you can anticipate things far easier imo.

 

[HundredThousandTrillion]

Great summation of why the deal is being blocked.

This thing is about to clear EU regulators. They are about 10000000x tougher than the FTC.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the Phil Spencer okie doke rug pull of COD when Sony refuses to sign and this thing passes. I have both consoles and do all my multi on XBOX because that's where my friends are.

 

[ToadMan]

I don't recall Phil Spencer making any such statements prior to the Bethesda acquisition.



Nah, not the same

Looking forward to that Candy Crush/ Halo mash up

 

[ToadMan]

This thing is about to clear EU regulators. They are about 10000000x tougher than the FTC.

This…

Contradicts

This

Personally, I'm looking forward to the Phil Spencer okie doke rug pull of COD when Sony refuses to sign and this thing passes.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

That point is baseless, when using Zenimax as an example. MS and Phil never said or promised Zenimax games would stay on PS. They said, they'd take those considerations into account on a game-by-game basis. They never "created any expectations, and then changed the terms post acquisition", as it regards the Zenimax acquisition.

People who are running with that narrative are simply wrong. That is a false narrative that is easily refuted by what MS and Phil have actually said. Initially, it was hinted that Zenimax games might still be multiplat, but there was never any strong statements to indicate this, conclusively. The most conclusive, sure statement we have from MS on that is, they'd take it on a case-by-case or game-by-game basis.

Ok.

Bethesda was multiplatform. Here is a list of IPs that on a `game by game` basis may not make it to the PS5 but were on at least one Playstation platform

1. Deatloop
2. Ghostwire
3. Doom
4. The Elder Scrolls
5. Rage
6. Wolfenstein
7. Fallout
8. The Evil Within
9. Prey
10. Dishonored

That 10 games that were on PS platforms that are just going to most ikey not be on PS platforms anymore. But yeah,Sony should just shut up and et MS get

1. Call of Duty
2. Crash Bandicoot
3. Diablo
4. DJ Hero
5. Guitar Hero
6. Gun
7. Hearthstone
8. Hexen
9. King’s Quest
10. Overwatch
11. Spyro the Dragon
12. Tenchu (legacy games)
13. Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater
14. True Crime

because MS is promising that COD still coming to PS platforms? And that makes sense to you?

 

[splattered]

I'm looking forward to the rest of the drama and dirty laundry reveals etc... What I'm NOT looking forward to is the hundreds or more of "Sony should buy so and so company to combat Microsoft" threads we're about to be seeing over the next few years.

 

[feynoob]

Other than that, I'm outside the loop.

At least I have someone that feels the same way as I do.

 

[graywolf323]

This is just wrong. I was a hardcore 360 resident from Day 1 until it's multiple dated deaths.

Most people I knew (Xbox Gamers) jumped to PC Gaming which hit it's biggest spike since the early 2000s because of things like League of Legends, CSGO and Dota 2 becoming multiplayer behemoths - not to mention services like Humble Bundle and key sites popping up letting people in for cheap. Lots of people jumped from 360 to PS3 first actually, and then PS4 because of the exclusive offerings. Just look at the consoles sales in the second half of it's run and what Xbox was publishing during that time period also.

And no, it wasn't just because of the garbage Xbox One Showcase and their multimedia focuses. Did you actually play the Gears of War Judgement beta and then again on release, or Halo 4? They were both COMMUNITY killers above all else. Did you see what MS was doing with their developers at the time also and what the Xbox One Launch was looking like?

How many times are you going to prove that you don't have a clue and just provide finger-nail deep opinions when you post just to desperately self-validate your gaming habits.

not a popular opinion but I actually think Phil Spencer has not been good for Xbox overall (I mean I’m glad he convinced Satya Nadella not to shut them down and I do like Game Pass)

the 360 was great it’s first few years but it’s after Spencer took over as head of Xbox Game Studios in 2008 that under his watch their game output went downhill

somehow he never gets any blame for any of the bad stuff that happened under his watch yet gets all the credit for anything good that’s happened, even after he took over as the head of Xbox from Don Mattrick