Wow! That's huge.............The UK is the biggest single games market.........
When the guy had to go back all the way back to 1993 I already knew that some BS was coming our way.
MS has now purchased two publishers.
MS is slowly but surely establishing itself as second place, but your point is still valid.
I definitely wouldn't do this... if you do, I wish you lots of luck!
That isn't exactly true, at-least not the way you are stating it. I mean, OS wise, sure, but you could play together and chat in games. You couldn't chat while playing different games.
Oh you mean the time when PSN was targeted and attacked due to Sony's controversial decision to remove OtherOS? Why are you trying to use that to support that it was down often and suggesting Sony had to reward people with games for it being down on a normal basis?
Believe it or not, XBL was also down during that generation at times. To completely gloss over that is a bit fishy.
I had both also. Your point?
Blame them or credit them for it. Does it matter? They launched the XBL service with a yearly subscription.
That's usually what happens when there are competitors in the market.
Who is MS overtaking? Nintendo or Sony?
There was plenty of competition in the market when MS tried to launch the Xbox One or when they introduced the online paywall. The pressure of a competitor alone doesn't necessarily results in things that are desirable to the players. There was plenty of pressure from Nintendo on the portable market but Sony still fumbled every decision they've made regarding the Vita.
just using Google. Psygnosis was big and very famous (one of the most) the industry wasn't like is today there was hundreds of small devs dividing the business ...
Are you saying the industry is more consolidated today or that it is less consolidated today? Can't really understand what you are trying to say, looks like you are making an argument against yourself.
Sure, yeah, I can see that. But I do think the competitive landscape had an influence over the need to restructure/reposition their offerings so they seem more competitive or better value overall. And having two entirely different services with a subscription modal wasn't working for them so they had to put it under the same branding.
So basically Sony buying Psygnosis had no detrimental effect on games being taken away from other platforms or getting a large amount of developers. Huge difference to the Acti/Blizz deal
wtf u talking about i said the opposite. Also because basically Sony destroyed Psygnosis.
Xbox outrevenued Nintendo for the past two quarters, IIRC.
Yeah in terms of rev
Good luck with that honey bun, he can't even wipe his arse without assistance...
Sony never destroyed Psygnosis. Most Psygnosis games before Sony acquired were for Amiga and ST which were graphically amazing but limited gameplay wise. The home computer gaming boom was dying as consoles started taking the spotlight. Sony bought them as they were on a downward trend anyway.
Geez, what an idiot. Guess he never followed Jason "Money Magnet" Schreir on twitter.
Warren Buffett has boosted stake in Activision Blizzard stake to 9.5%
The investor determined Activision Blizzard's stock price was too far below Microsoft's offer for the video-games company, and swooped on the stock.markets.businessinsider.com
Warren Buffett has boosted stake in Activision Blizzard stake to 9.5%
The investor determined Activision Blizzard's stock price was too far below Microsoft's offer for the video-games company, and swooped on the stock.markets.businessinsider.com
read the story of Psygnosis and what is the general consensus about it after so my y acquisition.
You really tongue punched Phil Spencer's fart box with that one.
Warren Buffett has boosted stake in Activision Blizzard stake to 9.5%
The investor determined Activision Blizzard's stock price was too far below Microsoft's offer for the video-games company, and swooped on the stock.markets.businessinsider.com
it IS inaccurate. Jason it is time to stop typing dude. You ARE the one misleading here.
as i said he is not even to be taken into consideration when is about Xbox...he will do anything, even lie and then hide behind the guilt of his sources, just to put Ms in a bad light. this clown should be a banned source given its bias ... for everything related to Microsoft
Probably not the best time to double down. You should have shut up and tried to ride it out.
Agreed, it's certainly not as bad when MS are doing it as when Sony or Nintendo are doing it.
COD is still the number one selling game most years, think its 7/10 of the top selling games in the last decade in the US. Being multiplatform doesn't make it less valuable and it also has an impact on thier platform growth (see the yougov poll).
Nothing says they'll keep on selling as much. And what's their yearly profit? How long until they've recouped the money? 5 years? 10 years? And if this goes through, will this stop other better studio acquisitions?
They transferred a huge amount of cash (which by itself loses 10% per year due to inflation) into an asset that makes money. Even if Activision Blizzard made zero profits from this day on, it would have been a better investment than holding onto $70 billion cash that will be half as valuable in five years. So I don't think they need to waste any thoughts on how to "recoup" the money.
Last year it was like 3bn in profits (will need to double check when I get to a laptop), the Activision and Blizzard have issues in the short term imo but its not unrecoverable. King grew 10% YoY last quarter.
That's a very good question. I think you would need to first define 'better', better in terms of generating a profit and causing a shift in user behaviour or better in terms of games quality.
After Activision, the remaining interesting ones are Take Two and Epic (and Valve).
