Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
You should go back to the link I posted about the CMA and CAT. The CMA can do as they deemed necessary to do their job, and using other data they haven't disclosed even has a CMA case example and defence on appeal. Even when the CMA were recovering costs from someone's failed appeal, they were allowed to charge much more than their staff rate, basically because the CAT said the work involved to accurately calculate the exact amount was too extensive and simplicity was better, so just okayed the higher amount per person for the CMA staff used, even though it was excessively high.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
The difference is that the public found out their mess and they issued a new revision.
Going back on this revision means they are unable to do their job and will lose public trust.
Their integrity is on the line here.
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
Read the article. In the repetitious words of the CAT - probably in the beginning of all their rulings - the CMA "enjoy a wide margin of appreciation".
Them publicly updating the figures for transparency of what was communicated to concerned parties doesn't need to be what gets stated in the final decision. Them doing it so publicly would mean Microsoft couldn't even argue what was communicated, because it was done in public view with impartial observation.
They don't need to tell Microsoft - or Sony, etc - what data they are working with to determine the pass or failure of the tests they do to reach their final conclusions, so long as it is noted they all have - in the CAT's view - adequate data to argue their point for or against an SLC in the CMA process.
Satansblade
Banned
Lol you guys are hilarious if you think the CMA cares about thd trust of a gamer on a web forum. I assure you the publics trust is not lost. Most of the public doesn't give a damn about this deal, or how mad some are that Sony had no real argument because MS had no real monopoly, and won't when this deal is finished this summer.
The CMA cares about the facts, not the arguments of fanboys of either brand.
Last edited:
I wouldn't in a million years imagine you saying such a thing. Of course you would never do that.
Accusations of hypocrisy and double standards by suggesting Sony is doing it on the other hand, well that's something you 100% did.
I knew the excuses would roll in one by one as to how these all don't count. Tell me what in the bedrock edition required crossplay as an essential feature? to delay performance, engine and gameplay improvements by 2 years. Meanwhile an actual third party game like rocket league continued to get all updates on all consoles having crossplay disabled and even got the xbox/PS crossplay update a year before MS updated Minecraft on PS.
I know Doom eternal isn't nefarious I have a lot of respect for id. VRS is avaliable on PS5 though and the gap was larger in Doom than most third party games maybe because they weren't really implementing alternatives that exist to optimise it better on that platform, a bit like that MLB difference.
How did I know you would start with this "no obligation" , "not entitled" bullshit when presented with these examples you can't wriggle your way out of. Who do you think will own the COD IP when/if this acquisition goes through? Who do you think would be paying to develop COD? Now apply a single ounce of logic.It's ok to admit MS didn't put in the effort on other competing platforms sometimes. Your overlords won't fire you.
I don't know why you're pivoting to and hung up on "bugs" all of a sudden. You nor I mentioned 'bugs' specifically when talking about inferior software.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Introducing the KFConsole | Cooler Master
The KFConsole has arrived. Forged from the fires of the KFC ovens and built by Cooler Master from the ground up, there has never been a tastier way to experience the latest titles in stunning 4k, 240fps.
landing.coolermaster.com
The Colonel got us covered.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Introducing the KFConsole | Cooler Master
The KFConsole has arrived. Forged from the fires of the KFC ovens and built by Cooler Master from the ground up, there has never been a tastier way to experience the latest titles in stunning 4k, 240fps.
The Colonel got us covered.
Just wait till the sneak king slits his fucking throat
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
What's that pervy little king doing with his hands as the woman approaches? Getting into position?Just wait till the sneak king slits his fucking throat
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
ToadMan
Member
Well the 26 is for the CMA to provide it's final report with associated findings and decision.
But both MS and Sony have used language which could be the basis for an appeal to CAT if they don't like the CMA decision. So that can go round the system again and although it's unlikely to change the outcome, it could delay the final final approval.
I suppose there is an outside possibility the CMA reviewed the responses to it's amended PFs, and decide they need more time to review, pushing back the closing date. If so, we would hear about that soon.
EU's decision is due in May - don't know enough about their process to comment.
US court case starts in August. If the FTC keeps going, this decision could take years to finalise. In principle MS could go ahead with the acquisition even while the adjudication court decision is pending (on the assumption the FTC don't obtain a federal injunction) - if ultimately the acquisition is prohibited in the US, then MS would have to unwind the acquisition (ie divest ABK at great expense) and leave themselves open to litigation from many sides, so it's a risk to proceed without FTC approval but waiting years for a definitive outcome is also risky.
So, at this stage we could still be a year or more away from an acquisition occurring, or the key agencies could decide "nothing to see here" or that the various deals MS has done are enough, and the acquisition with the baggage that goes with it now, gets completed in the next few months.
Once we get the CMA decision then it'll probably be easier to see which way the wind will blow, but that may not be the end of it.
Last edited:
Satansblade
Banned
Major shareholders have every right to question when "Diversity and Inclusion" hurts the stock price.what do you think?
Im no exec or major shareholder, but I have been investing for 24 years, and ill take profit over inclusion EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Im not an activist, causes mean nothing to me, just returns on investment.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Lol, the CMA already did a 180 on their original PF, which they rarely ever do. A couple of folks even came out and said as such, citing the 180 on their PF as very unusual.
So by that metric they are already a laughing stock.
The thing is, MS already set a precedent for what they would make exclusive vs. not with Zenimax. If foreclosure of a specific game on certain platforms can't guarantee a certain minimum threshold of boost in console sales (amount redacted in their documents) or a certain boost in Game Pass subscribers (also redacted), then they would have no reason to make the game exclusive.
Now, the natural assumption is that such logic for Zenimax would carry over for ABK content, although it could be argued MS have already violated their own word (in what world is Starfield a game small enough to make exclusive, or TES6 for that matter? Because that is kind of the insinuation their statement on Zenimax exclusivity could be taken as when looking at Microsoft's own reasons why they say they would not make COD exclusive). If Microsoft are (were) willing to extend COD deals to a direct competitor in the console space like Sony, I think regulators could wonder why they don't offer similar deals to direct competitors in the mobile storefront space like Google and Apple?
The lack of such offers could be interpreted as intent to not provide COD or ABK content to competitor mobile storefronts whatsoever, considering again, Microsoft (well, Phil Spencer) already revealed a big reason they want ABK is for their planned mobile storefront. Google could easily make the argument that, no, Google Play would not be able to compete if ABK content is not provided on their storefront in some fashion, and they can contort the argument as much as they want (i.e Google Play lacking a comparative offering to annual COD, Diablo 4, etc.).
It could easily be argued that most of the 10-year deals Microsoft have been offering to cloud providers so far are performative considering most of these are BYOG providers meaning, ultimately, Microsoft is still the big benefactor and Game Pass gets to proliferate through these over providers in some way or another.
Introducing the KFConsole | Cooler Master
The KFConsole has arrived. Forged from the fires of the KFC ovens and built by Cooler Master from the ground up, there has never been a tastier way to experience the latest titles in stunning 4k, 240fps.
The Colonel got us covered.
A Wrestlemania or AEW with all fast food mascots going at it would get me to preorder SO quick.
And I haven't watched wrestling in over a decade.
Last edited:
Iced Arcade
Member
The... Last... Time...I seen... This typing and Wording has been a bit
lol
Last edited:
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
Jesus Fucking Christ.
I mean, thanks for your informed reply kind sir, it's just that the whole situation is convoluted.
feynoob
Banned
It was never an easy process.
Losing 1 of the 3 regulators meant a big challenge for the deal.
Lucky for MS, it was just the ftc, and not cma or EU that blocked the deal. The other 2 could have sealed the deals fate if they decided early.
FUBARx89
Member
EE already do this, as does BT since it's a merged company. Get a contract and they'll give you a year of GPU.
It's also available to be bolted on your bill.
MS has always been focused on EU and CMA. When the FTC decision to block came down in December MS pretty much dismissed it. During the pre-trial they told the judge that once they reached agreements with regulators in Europe they'd come back to FTC to basically confer the remedies or sue. MS feels like the law is on their side so they are ready for court if that's what the FTC wants.
Again having exclusive content isn't anticompetitive or to the level that regulators will automatically get involved.
And regulators would ask them for the evidence to prove that and imo they would fail especially in no part due to the fact regulators have already defined mobile gaming is a different market to console/PC gaming.
Making an argument for the sake of it is a strategy.
Last edited:
ToadMan
Member
Yes it is. There's also the chinese regulatory clearance to get as well. US, UK, EU and China were the 4 named regulatory approvals required.
But the CMA decision will be a big signpost and the first to be official. Not necessarily the end, but from that the likelihood of it going ahead and the timescales will be clearer.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
why?
POKEYCLYDE
Member
If the CMA used hidden data to change their findings at the last second not giving Microsoft the chance or ability to remedy the CMA's worries, I'm pretty sure Microsoft could go to the CAT for procedural impropriety.
Bad results for MS gaming followed by 'provisional' approval from the CMA or bad results for MS gaming followed by 'provisional' rejection. Just going to be an interesting couple of news days.
Putting provisional in quotes cause it may get appealled.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
What percentage of Playstation users who would have bought Starfield on PS5 decide to get an Xbox instead? We don't have any data on that, but if it's close to CoD numbers, we could say 15%. Maybe lower, maybe 10%?
If we say 10M would have bought the game on Playstation at $50 a copy (revenue for Microsoft would be: $500M).
If 10% switched to Xbox and they subscribed to the $10/month tier of Gamepass. Microsoft would be making $120M per year from these new users. So it's financially illogical to withhold Starfield from Playstation. (Microsoft would lose $380M)
However, Starfield isn't a yearly release like Call of Duty. The CMA's math where they weighed LTV of new customers over a 5 year period against 1 year of CoD losses and said Microsoft would be incentivized to engage in an exclusivity strategy with CoD, while that doesn't make sense with CoD (a yearly release), it makes sense with Starfield. A mainline Bethesda game (that's released every 5+ years, roughly 8 since Fallout 4).
So at a 10% switch rate and an LTV of $120/year, over 5 years, Microsoft would be making $600M, which is $100M more than what they lost from not selling on Playstation.
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
Not now that they've clearly proved they have adequate data - that they've provided by their own analysis of the console SLC to the CMA - that sits inline with a CAT appeal that was in the CMA's favour on that very issue.
Them providing updated figures to the CMA lets the CMA off the hook to share the data they ultimately use, and would be procedurally fine in the CAT's view.
Here is the link again with past test cases on many of the aspects of this merger
https://www.clearyantitrustwatch.co...threshold-for-review-of-cma-merger-decisions/
Last edited:
ChuckeRearmed
Member
I think if MLex leaks anything this week in regards of remedies, we will basically can predict the final result this week.We may need to find a case where the working remedy paper and findings were changed after the point where the merging parties wasn't able to feedback.
Last edited:
Yeah, I think that's also the case.
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
The console SLC was already present in the provisional findings - the remedy was divestment - so if proven probabilistically with other data wouldn't change the findings or remedies throughout the provisional process, so I don't think that would apply.We may need to find a case where the working remedy paper and findings were changed after the point where the merging parties wasn't able to feedback.
The whole purpose of the CMA is to keep companies like Microsoft when arguing in bad faith about SLCs in check. Arguing in good faith isn't the responsibility of the CMA to police, they aren't there to immediately correct false arguments about console SLCs - like the CoD one this whole forum (and the industry at large) could see the second the deal was announced. They can just let a company continue to act insincerely with false data/arguments and correct them at the end of the process - going by how that test case appeal at the CAT went IMO.
Last edited:
POKEYCLYDE
Member
I'm having a hard time grasping what you think is going to/could happen. I've narrowed it down to a couple options.
A) The CMA uses the same model they used in their revision to their PF but comes to a different decision (Console SLC is back on the table).
B) The CMA uses any combination of models from Sony, Microsoft and themselves already available prior to the response to the revision to come to the conclusion that console SLC is back on the table.
C) The CMA uses new information/math from Sony from the response to the revision to conclude their is a console SLC.
If A, that shows the CMA's incompetence.
If B, you'd kinda have to question why didn't they come to that conclusion in their revision to the PF? They had access to all the same information. In the revision they don't use Microsoft's proposed model outright. They decided what did and didn't make sense to use in their model. So this is highly unlikely.
If C, which I think could happen.. Sony offered (new?) math in their response to the revision, if the CMA uses that to come to the conclusion that brings the console SLC back, I feel as though the CMA would publish that decision and offer the parties a chance to respond, rather than come to that decision and publish it as their final decision. I feel if they did just publish it as their final decision, they would open the door for a CAT appeal. (Procedural impropriety most likely)
ToadMan
Member
This is $50 for a single product.
This is $120 for a multi-game subscription. The content in that sub isn't free for MS to put there - particularly the third party content - the revenue vs profit margins don't align with selling a single product license.
So I'm dubious about this calculation. My feeling - and it's just a feeling which of course, the actual numbers don't care about - is that MS will take a loss in this scenario (EDIT : In terms of Starfield as a single standalone product) compared to keeping Starfield multiplat.
But MS are prepared to take that loss it seems for reasons we can guess at.
Last edited:
ToadMan
Member
Yes I agree. I think if the CMA decided to reactivate the console SLC they would extend their deadline for new responses.
If we don't hear that the deadline is being extended in the next week or so, then it means the CMA are content that their formulae and data are sufficient and the console SLC is not something they are prepared to legislate for going forward.
They've had the responses to their amendment for a while now … should be enough time for them to have crunched new numbers if they wish.
I actually think that reducing this to a pure number/revenue based formula isn't really the right way to assess the impact, but for better or worse that's where the CMA have gone.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Glad we agree.
Because Sony is being hypocritical.
Facts are stubborn things. Bottom line is MS wanted cross play for their title. Because a different developer is willing to allow Sony to have an exception doesn't change that. Sony got the update when they changed their policy. They also got platform specific VR versions too which of course you conveniently omitted since it strays pretty significantly from the 'MS is willing to hurt other platforms with buggy software" narrative.
The fact is VRS is supported in hardware on Xbox Series consoles. There is a difference between tier 1 and 2 VRS. The versions of the game are nearly identical and is completely different than MLB running better on PlayStation hardware years older than the XSS.
Your examples aren't very good and are rightly met with ridicule. No platform is entitled to any software a point clearly lost on you. Just because MS owns a particular IP doesn't and hasn't been proven that MS would intentionally sabotage versions of the games on platforms they don't own. They are a business first so they'd want to maximize proceeds everywhere they sell their games. You don't have to tow the line YOUR overlords have given you especially when that line is nonsensical. Your lack of self awareness is pretty striking.
It's ok to admit MS didn't put in the effort on other competing platforms sometimes. Your overlords won't fire you.
Sony is the one hung up on bugs introduced on their platforms not me. Bugs are very much synonymous with the idea of inferior software being released on a platform. I admit it's pretty ridiculous but I get why you'd support the notion.
Whoosh, way to miss the point entirely.
Not just a different developer, you mean every single third party developer out there who didn't hold updates back to push their platform or something to benefit their console. I wonder what we're discussing? MS having an incentive to degrade software on other platforms perhaps.
Nearly identical is what MLB is too. The teirs are just an DX12 nomenclature that can be done on PS5 in software and get very similar results. Other third party games did already.
Anyway, PS4 pro and xbox one x have better texture fillrate and some lower settings than XSS too but I don't see you complaining about that being the reason XSS might perform at a lower framerate in specific scenarios vs Xbox one X and PS4 pro versions of MLB the show.
Why does the Xbox One X version beat the XSS in the same scenarios on MLB?
Where did I say platforms are entitled to software? Don't be such a clown. I'm just giving you the examples you asked for, Inferior versions of games on other platforms. Now you're trying to deflect with some nonsense about how they are not entitled to better versions. Nobody was saying they are, they are saying MS can and has done that. You're here saying it's their IP and they're entitled to. No shit.
Oh you mean like maximising proceeds from TLOU on PC. Oh wait that's a Sony title, that must be different. Explains why you're complaining about that one in particular.
Just shut up man. You were talking about minor framerate differences in replays for MLB over several pages. I point you to massive platform differences that amount to double the framerate 120fps, 4k, HDR and raytracing and now you're erecting this "no bugs" strawman when talking about inferior sofware on other platforms. I guess now sony isn't being hypocritical too because their games aren't buggy on xbox either.
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
My take is none of those.
I suspect the CMA view the process that both companies did analysis, and neither Sony or Microsoft have supplied console SLC data in good faith on their first attempt. Sony's bad faith data is probably because they didn't want to show vulnerabilities of their business model to shareholders/competitors/3rd parties if they didn't absolutely have to, but in general are making the right argument, where there is clearly an console SLC probably if the CMA is judging by their email inbox.
Microsoft are completely denying the console SLC from CoD, which (IIRC) to use specific terms from one of the 4 ways to overturn a CMA decision, is that no-console-SLC from CoD is "irrational", and IIRC was the response the CMA got from Sony. Microsoft haven't bother to hypotheses of ways they could use CoD in a console SLC and instead provided data - absent of obvious error - that refuted there was an incentive for a console SLC in any possible way.
The CMA in this situation have gone with the latest data in their published provisional findings from Microsoft, and have incensed Sony to the point that their response certainly makes it hard to say the CMA are in Sony's pocket when Sony look like gearing up to challenge a decision via the CAT. But the CMA are now free to use their own model from all the data provided by all suppliers, which - unless they truly are incompetent - should easily allow them to use the probabilistic methods to confirm a console SLC that every console gamer in the world can see without any test.
Both Sony and Microsoft have had their chance to provide a data model for the console SLC issue, and with follow up responses and both have been informed of the implications of a console SLC existing or not, and have been advised on the cloud SLC too.
The CMA can easily decide there is an SLC for two things in the final decision and have been consistent that everyone had a chance to act in good faith and advance their argument further from acting in good faith throughout with the data they were asked to provide.
feynoob
Banned
I like how people convinced themselves that MS can make COD exclusive and harm PS.
And the funniest shit about this is that those same people haven't considered the impact that would have on the franchise itself.
We are talking about a game that sells around 10m-20m yearly.
Making a game like that exclusive would harm the franchise in the long term. And all of that so that MS can harm PS. Why would MS sabotage a game that prints billions just so they can harm little Sony? Doing that will make the franchise become another Halo disaster.
I am glad CMA saw their errors. A franchise like that thrives on being a multiplatform, not as exclusive.
And the funniest shit about this is that those same people haven't considered the impact that would have on the franchise itself.
We are talking about a game that sells around 10m-20m yearly.
Making a game like that exclusive would harm the franchise in the long term. And all of that so that MS can harm PS. Why would MS sabotage a game that prints billions just so they can harm little Sony? Doing that will make the franchise become another Halo disaster.
I am glad CMA saw their errors. A franchise like that thrives on being a multiplatform, not as exclusive.
GHG
Gold Member
Because they don't need a game that prints billion's.
If there's any company that can and would be willing to swallow that kind of shortfall, it's them. They are no stranger to mothballing or even outright killing businesses by way of an acquisition in order to reduce competition in a particular business area or in order to ensure their competitors don't continue to benefit from the services offered by said acquired company.
This is something they've done far more than any of the other big tech companies, they are acquisition junkies.
GHG
Gold Member
Given their lack of care with a bunch of other high profile and once lucrative IP that they own, I have a hard time believing they would care.
And the bottom line is that if they don't have any ill-intentions then they should have no problem committing to a formal agreement set out by regulators.
This is not a company (or division, when specifically talking about bout Xbox) that is required to face financial consequences for poor decisions in the same way that most other businesses are.
feynoob
Banned
They said it first day that they won't make it exclusive.
Plus they are working with regulators to comply with that.
Matter fact is that blocking the largest customer for COD will harm the franchise. Making their purchase worthless.
Xbox isn't on position to make exclusive power for COD. They will need more market share for that to happen. Currently, MS will need 2 gen for that to happen.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
Microsoft and Sony provide data and any research they've done to back up said data (Gamer surveys). The CMA also does their own research to get their own data. It's the CMA's job to parse out what data they use and how.
I don't get your "email inbox" line as the overwhelming majority of public and industry participant emails have been in support of the deal.
Microsoft says they aren't incentivized to take CoD off Playstation because it would be financially illogical. The CMA in their PF found that Microsoft would be incentivized to make CoD exclusive because in the long run, it would be profitable to do so. However, the CMA used mathematical errors to come to that conclusion. Once corrected, the CMA sides with Microsoft in that they believe it wouldn't make sense to make CoD exclusive.
The CMA didn't just go with the latest data from Microsoft. They decided what data to use and how and which suggestions to ignore. Ex: Microsoft wanted the LTV to be averaged out between early and late adopters' spending habits. The CMA disagreed and said those likely to switch consoles would more closely resemble an early adopter's spending habits. (Therefore increasing the LTV) Something that works against Microsoft.
They used their own model when deciding there was no console SLC.
And 3/4 of public emails were in favour of the deal going through. Your confirmation bias is showing when you say every console gamer knows there is an SLC.
It's the CMA's job to parse out what data to use and how. Seemingly, with what they've used, they've come to the conclusion that there is no console SLC. I don't think they're scheming to pull the rug out from under Microsoft last minute. I think they honestly made a mathematical error, and when fixed they came to a different conclusion.
Worth pointing out that Starfield is a $70 game and most of the premium game sales revenue would be frontloaded like most releases are.
The more important omission is that it assumes Bethesda is not interested in growth. It assumes Starfield would not get any sequels or (the now on steriods in todays market) 'horse armour' monetisation the elder scrolls franchise did. I don't think that's going to happen. It will do what most games do. Premium game sales would be frontloaded at $70, the rest would be dlc/mtx or upfront payments (for third party) longterm. Bethesda will want to expand on the franchise and spending and it won't be only a static amount from premium game sales over 5yrs.
The LTV includes all spend so you're missing it there. That's where the larger audience being omitted would really shift spending over time, meaning there could have been a loss for Starfield too if LTV was what's being used to see losses on the other side. The large audience on PS spending on Starfield over the 5yrs could have made it an irrational decision too. Especially if Sony were to pay to include it in their sub like they did other Zenimax games like Deathloop or Ghostwire tokyo and it included DLC/mtx.
The model you use ignores the land-and-expand strategy of today's games (f2p and subs, backed by mtx and dlc expansions). That's todays market. $50 games less so.
I'm willing to bet once Starfield gets an audience on GP you will see $20-30 expansions for sale in 6months to a year or mtx for skins, ships, or some in-game currency. What big budget MS game on gamepass hasn't had something like that so far? That's where the money comes in over the 5yrs and that's the money you've omitted by looking at only premium game sales in losses.
The gamepass strategy makes this good for them because they're shifting the market strategy. That's where large audiences are, where they intentionally forego premium game sales for mtx and dlc expansions.
30M audience now possibly spending on mtxs in game is the main thing now. MS are making these acquisitions in a market shift knowing that lost premium game sales wouldn't matter, they lead the charge in making them not matter with their strategy, but they want the mtx and cloud/subscription spend on their platform. That's where they want to attract people.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Starfield won't have that much loss, because of the SP mode, and the fact that MS can recover lost sales from 3rd party sales (those who switched to Xbox).
To have a substantial loss, you need long term sales vs long term loss in that period.
For SP games, their price gets depreciate fast, which negates loss sales over period of time.
1m userbase subbing to gamepass ultimate for 1 year would generate $180m. MS would need 5m gamepass ultimate userbase in order to cover starfield, which would adequate around 12m copies at 70$ or 15m at 60$. But since 5m is hard to achieve, they will need to retain that 1m userbase for 5 years to recoup that loss.
In this case, MS can cover those losses.
But this won't be the same for COD which is yearly, has mtx, season passes, and dlcs. MS will need more than 5m ultimate users paying for every every year to cover some of those losses. That is harder to achieve.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
$50 is the 70% cut Microsoft makes from a $70 game.
It assumes Starfield will get sequels, just 5 or more years apart. If we were to use the LTV of customers switched due to Starfield over the time until a Starfield sequel (and not until the next mainline Bethesda game) it would be way more apparent that there is an incentive to make Starfield exclusive.
With MTX and DLC, the losses from not releasing on Playstation grow for sure. However, the life time value of new customers on Xbox also grow.
Life time value of a new customer does take into account spending habits across the entire ecosystem. However, since we do not have this data, it's easier just to simplify the LTV to a year of base tier Gamepass.
I don't think Starfield will have a live service type nature where MTX make up a significant amount of ongoing revenue. Maybe if Bethesda tries to reintroduce paid mods... maybe then...
It's just simplifying because we don't have the data on average MTX/DLC spend on a game like Skyrim or Fallout 4. And we don't have the average LTV spend of an early adopter to the Xbox ecosystem.
If we wanted to we could take what Sony believes is a likely LTV of a "switcher", which is more than what I said.
I'm pretty sure first party DLC is included on Gamepass for free. (Which works against a higher LTV, depending on the mix of Gamepass subscribers and non-subs)
I don't think Grounded has any Microtransactions, at least not on Gamepass. Which is weird cause it is a live service game.
I think the strategy isn't just get a sub and they're more likely to buy MTX, but get a sub and keep that sub. Part of doing that is just offering a great game that doesn't feel like it's just nickel and dimeing you.
mansoor1980
Member
feynoob
Banned
mansoor1980
Member
who is he?
That guy is going to be a great buddy.
influencer?
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Don't who he is, but his dad jokes is gonna be lit.
- Status