Support NeoGAF

[Topher]

I'm not the one denying objective reality though.

Saying it ain't that impressive is not denying objective reality.

 

[elmos-acc]

They were still acquired and not built from the ground up by Sony, which is what most Sony fans believe to be true about any of their studios.

Did Sony manage those acquired studios well? Absolutely.

Its just about passage of time, people forget…

Oh come on. We know the difference between a single studio and an entire publisher.

Like MS acquiring Undead Labs when they had already had a console exclusive in State Of Decay. People still remember the difference of Rare in N64 and Rare for the past 2 decades.

If Microsoft had acquired Remedy after Alan Wake and Quantum Break, it would be analogous to how Sony has been acquiring studios. But they didn't, and they even sold Remedy back their IPs.

Insomniac had been the lead developer of Ratchet & Clank and Killzone franchises for almost two decades, but it took until 2018 for Sony to buy them. By then, MS had already started to open their wallet and buy literally whoever they could.

 

[K2D]

#DivestXbox2025 eh?

 

[jroc74]

Oh come on. We know the difference between a single studio and an entire publisher.

Like MS acquiring Undead Labs when they had already had a console exclusive in State Of Decay. People still remember the difference of Rare in N64 and Rare for the past 2 decades.

If Microsoft had acquired Remedy after Alan Wake and Quantum Break, it would be analogous to how Sony has been acquiring studios. But they didn't, and they even sold Remedy back their IPs.

Insomniac had been the lead developer of Ratchet & Clank and Killzone franchises for almost two decades, but it took until 2018 for Sony to buy them. By then, MS had already started to open their wallet and buy literally whoever they could.

Reading some of the post in this and similar threads....apparently some ppl dont.

Which is mind boggling. This entire post is excellent tho.

MS acquires Double Fine, Ninja Theory....barely a peep.

MS acquires Bethesda, ABK....all hell breaks loose.

Take a wild guess why.

 

[Gavon West]

Has nothing to do with equipment or buildings. Just look at the games. Naughty Dog went from making Crash Bandicott to Uncharted and TLOU. Guerrilla went from making Game Boy games as Lost Boys Studios to making Killzone for Sony. Sucker Punch was more like an Insomniac acquisition. Before they started making exclusive games for Sony they made a single Nintendo 64 game.

Again, if we want to compare those studios to those with a similar trajectory look to studios like Compulsion, not ABK and Bethesda.

What's the difference though? ABK is just a collective of studios under one umbrella. Same with Bethesda. Now their both under one bigger umbrella. Games still getting made. Microsoft isn't really trying to change the culture or force devs to make what they think is financially sound. They allow them to make whatever they want.

The only real difference is the cost. As note, ABK and Bethesda don't even expect Microsoft to write their checks. These companies write their own checks, still. If they need extra finances they can go to the parent company (Microsoft in this case) but, for the most part, they still operate independently. That goes for financials, too.

 

[Mr Moose]

What's the difference? Games are still being made by the same studios. They all just have different owners now. Nothing has changed aside from the name over the door. Weird flex..

wHat's thE DifFeREncE?

 

[adamsapple]

Saying it ain't that impressive is not denying objective reality.

No, saying they're not a first party is.

"Activision is first party"
"No they aren't".

That part.

So far for this year's numbers, they've been a big miss. So some people are clearly dropping off

So far we only know about a 20~ % drop in physical only sales in the UK. Calling it a 'big miss' just based on one metric is kinda jumping to conclusions.

Looking at the reviews and reception of the new one, you'd assume it would be a 50, 70% drop.

 

[Gavon West]

wHat's thE DifFeREncE?

Did I stutter?

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

What's the difference though? ABK is just a collective of studios under one umbrella. Same with Bethesda. Now their both under one bigger umbrella. Games still getting made. Microsoft isn't really trying to change the culture or force devs to make what they think is financially sound. They allow them to make whatever they want.

The only real difference is the cost. As note, ABK and Bethesda don't even expect Microsoft to write their checks. These companies write their own checks, still. If they need extra finances they can go to the parent company (Microsoft in this case) but, for the most part, they still operate independently. That goes for financials, too.

Big difference is MS already foreclosed Bethesda on Playstation, so they are losing out on a significant revenue source.

Second big issue is that acqusitions from Microsoft, and in general, don't tend to end well if the companies haven't been working together for a long time. Wholesale acquisitions usually don't merge together well and fit in seamlessly like a Playground Games or Insomniac do.

 

[Banjo64]

On the same glorious blessed day that we also had the fantastic news that Microsoft have sold a ginormous 6 thousand Xbox units in Europe this year. 4 eva winning.

 

[Gavon West]

What does it matter how much revenue they are making. How much profit will the new company bring? They spend 70 billion for it. How much time will it take to recoup that and start actually making money from this acquisition?

They aren't focusing on making the money back. Microsoft (the company) has already done that. The money was just chilling in the bank collecting interest. Microsoft decided to use it towards an asset to make more money. They aren't worried about making it back. If they were, I can assure you their playing the long game.

 

[Topher]

What's the difference though? ABK is just a collective of studios under one umbrella. Same with Bethesda. Now their both under one bigger umbrella. Games still getting made. Microsoft isn't really trying to change the culture or force devs to make what they think is financially sound. They allow them to make whatever they want.

The only real difference is the cost. As note, ABK and Bethesda don't even expect Microsoft to write their checks. These companies write their own checks, still. If they need extra finances they can go to the parent company (Microsoft in this case) but, for the most part, they still operate independently. That goes for financials, too.

The difference is between buying fledgling studios and buying massive established publishers. That's a big difference. I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but we cannot factually say that buying ABK and buying Naughty Dog are the same. It's just not true.

No, saying they're not a first party is.

"Activision is first party"
"No they aren't".

That part.

Of course, ABK is first party now. You replied to a post saying it would be more impressive if MS did this with their own studios and IP. Obviously meaning prior to the ABK acquisition, but you said "they are". That's where the disagreement stems from.

 

[apple_of_enlightenment]

for the first time in gaming history, Microsoft will supplant Sony PlayStation

If you factor in the cost they spent on their acquisition, it's unlikely they'll pass PlayStation this lifetime.

 

[elmos-acc]

What's the difference though? ABK is just a collective of studios under one umbrella. Same with Bethesda. Now their both under one bigger umbrella. Games still getting made. Microsoft isn't really trying to change the culture or force devs to make what they think is financially sound. They allow them to make whatever they want.

Yeah, no. Publishers are the ones funding the games and they own the IP rights. They literally are not a "collective", they are HUGE multi-billion publicly traded corporations with technology and a lot of other assets. They are the ones responsible for keeping up the stock price and calling the shots.

Publishers compete with each other with sales and marketing, studios are there to develop the best games they can with the resources they have.

In the past, Zenimax had to make sure that the new Doom games could thrive when the gamers saw it as a dated legacy franchise. Even Microsoft had to make sure that Halo would be able to compete with the new CoD as a solid console FPS.

But those times are over, since all of these publishers are under the same fucking corporate umbrella to pad out the software portfolio.

 

[Gojiira]

On track when every month official figures show Playstation outselling Xbox 2/1,3/1 and even more in some places?
Goddamn the delusion is crazy, and why the fuck is everything to do with Xbox just ‘Control’, ‘Market Leadership’ and every fucking buzzword EXCEPT ‘GOOD GAMES’…Until Xbox gets that, they will always be third and rightfully so

 

[THE DUCK]

This article actually makes some sense in terms of the mobile market, a lot of people seem to be missing what it's saying.

If they do launch a mobile store akin to the Apple store or Google play store and move all this stuff over, that's a pretty big increase in revenues for many of it's IP's. In addition, if that was drawing the kind of customers expected, they can draw in 3rd party companies as well and make more off of that as well.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

On track when every month official figures show Playstation outselling Xbox 2/1,3/1 and even more in some places?
Goddamn the delusion is crazy, and why the fuck is everything to do with Xbox just ‘Control’, ‘Market Leadership’ and every fucking buzzword EXCEPT ‘GOOD GAMES’…Until Xbox gets that, they will always be third and rightfully so

Almost like the selling of plastic boxes do not equal asset acquisition and revenue

One is for console warriors and one is the bottom line

And no I am not defending just buying up the market to become the elader.

 

[KaiserBecks]

Has nothing to do with equipment or buildings. Just look at the games. Naughty Dog went from making Crash Bandicott to Uncharted and TLOU.

I agree with your overall point of view, but this right here is a bit of a stretch. Crash Bandicoot was a top tier game, a flagship title for the PSX, commercially and critically acclaimed.
Naughty Dog knew how to make a great game before they were bought by Sony. Your comparison makes it sound like they developed Bubsy 3D.

 

[BigLee74]

Ah, this is where the Sony fans think that they grew their dev studios in a test tube, and nurtured them all through life; being there to kiss their skint knees, potty train them, see their first kiss etc etc

 

[Gavon West]

The difference is between buying fledgling studios and buying massive established publishers. That's a big difference. I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but we cannot factually say that buying ABK and buying Naughty Dog are the same. It's just not true.



Of course, ABK is first party now. You replied to a post saying it would be more impressive if MS did this with their own studios and IP. Obviously meaning prior to the ABK acquisition, but you said "they are". That's where the disagreement stems from.

I agree but the essential difference is just....cost. ND is just one developer/studio. Nowhere near the size of ABK. But ABK is just a collective of studios. Or, just a bunch of ND studios if you want..

The way I see it: ABK and Bethesda were actively seeking buyers. They actually WANTED to be purchased, right? Microsoft became that buyer because they could pay what both publishers were asking for. Nothing hostile. (forget what IPs they own) In essence just another acquisition business deal where both parties got what they wanted. Sure, in total they both come to damn near $100 billion in total but still just business nonetheless. Same with ND. They wanted a buyer. Sony stepped up. Each company has history with their respective buyers before purchase.

If nothing was hostile and it was just business as usual for these Kats, honestly, what's the difference there? Sony decided when it was the right time to purchase ND and Microsoft decided it was a good time to purchase ABK and Bethesda. I just don't see the contrast other than money.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

The #1 reason Microsoft bought ABK, Bethesda and other studios is because Xbox goes beyond just consoles. Xbox is no longer a console, it's the platform. Where Sony counts on console sales almost exclusively, console is just a part of the platform itself with Xbox. They Garner much more with software by allowing you to play on pretty much any device you want. There's a stark difference there.

And why Xbox is beyond console now? Why are they still loosing billions on selling their consoles at a loss? Sony count on the Playstation ecosystem to make money. By growing that ecosystem they allow for themselves and their partners to make money. Microsoft failed to do it to the same extent. Xbox is no longer only a console, yes. But we know that this is because of Microsoft ambitions and not just because it somehow happened. Do you think that Xbox is putting their games on Steam because they are nice or because they need to do so? When they have their own store? No, they failed to control that market like they failed to control the console market and had to adapt. But they still have ambitions regarding consoles. Starfield is one proof of that: they choose to not put that game on Playstation, even if it would according to their own calculations make them a lot of money. If Sony was in Xbox position they would have been dead as a console manufacturer. And Sega show us what happen in that case.

 

[Ozriel]

This is like controlling an award show and giving yourself the top award. Also lol @ spending 60+ billion so you can brag about being number 2, when the actual number 2 just did the work needed to get there.

Sir, this is a Windows Central article, not an Xbox blog post.

LMAO at people who think Actiblizz will release new IPs under Microsoft.

Better keep that ass on

Create a new universe with us

Blizzard is embarking on our next quest. We are going on a journey to a whole new universe, home to a brand-new survival game for PC and console. A place full of heroes we have yet to meet, stories yet to be told, and adventures yet to be lived. A vast realm of possibility, waiting to be explored.

news.blizzard.com

 

[Topher]

I agree but the essential difference is just....cost. ND is just one developer/studio. Nowhere near the size of ABK. But ABK is just a collective of studios. Or, just a bunch of ND studios if you want..

The way I see it: ABK and Bethesda were actively seeking buyers. They actually WANTED to be purchased, right? Microsoft became that buyer because they could pay what both publishers were asking for. Nothing hostile. (forget what IPs they own) In essence just another acquisition business deal where both parties got what they wanted. Sure, in total they both come to damn near $100 billion in total but still just business nonetheless. Same with ND. They wanted a buyer. Sony stepped up. Each company has history with their respective buyers before purchase.

If nothing was hostile and it was just business as usual for these Kats, honestly, what's the difference there? Sony decided when it was the right time to purchase ND and Microsoft decided it was a good time to purchase ABK and Bethesda. I just don't see the contrast other than money.

That's all fine, but it isn't in the context of what I was discussing which was the degree to which Sony built up the studios after acquisition versus buying a publisher that is fully mature and cranking out major games.

I agree with your overall point of view, but this right here is a bit of a stretch. Crash Bandicoot was a top tier game, a flagship title for the PSX, commercially and critically acclaimed.
Naughty Dog knew how to make a great game before they were bought by Sony. Your comparison makes it sound like they developed Bubsy 3D.

Fair point.

 

[Calverz]

Someone cant read a thread title

 

[Gavon West]

Yeah, no. Publishers are the ones funding the games and they own the IP rights. They literally are not a "collective", they are HUGE multi-billion publicly traded corporations with technology and a lot of other assets. They are the ones responsible for keeping up the stock price and calling the shots.

Publishers compete with each other with sales and marketing, studios are there to develop the best games they can with the resources they have.

In the past, Zenimax had to make sure that the new Doom games could thrive when the gamers saw it as a dated legacy franchise. Even Microsoft had to make sure that Halo would be able to compete with the new CoD as a solid console FPS.

But those times are over, since all of these publishers are under the same fucking corporate umbrella to pad out the software portfolio.

Fair enough. Still, the purchase/buyer agreement came to a fruitful conclusion for both companies in the case(s) of ABK, Zenimax and Microsoft. Both companies were looking for buyers, Microsoft stepped to the plate and bought both. If people want to argue buyers thats one thing. But there's genuinely nothing else to warrant any ill-will towards one company buying another. the transaction is still pretty simple in and of itself. Regardless if its Sony and ND or Microsoft and ABK/Bethesda. Thats my only point here.

 

[Dirk Benedict]

Sir, this is a Windows Central article, not an Xbox blog post.



Better keep that ass on

Create a new universe with us

Blizzard is embarking on our next quest. We are going on a journey to a whole new universe, home to a brand-new survival game for PC and console. A place full of heroes we have yet to meet, stories yet to be told, and adventures yet to be lived. A vast realm of possibility, waiting to be explored.

news.blizzard.com

It's hard to tell the difference.

 

[Pop]

Spend another 100 Billion...

 

[Gavon West]

That's all fine, but it isn't in the context of what I was discussing which was the degree to which Sony built up the studios after acquisition versus buying a publisher that is fully mature and cranking out major games.



Fair point.

KaiserBecks is basically getting what I'm saying here. These developers were making games before Sony or Microsoft came around. Sony didnt help ND or Insomniac become who they were as they were already making great games before they were acquired. Hence why the business relationship and acquisitions even took place. If Insomniac or ND weren't already great developers before their acquisitions, they buyouts wouldve never taken place.

 

[jroc74]

Ah, this is where the Sony fans think that they grew their dev studios in a test tube, and nurtured them all through life; being there to kiss their skint knees, potty train them, see their first kiss etc etc

No, this is where Xbox fans think buying single studios over the years is the same as buying a collection of studios in a single transaction that were also part of a huge publisher.

Every studio Sony acquired was by definition independent. Cannot say the same for the Bethesda and ABK acquisitions.

Bungie is the only difference since they were also publishers. But its still one studio.

....we even saw where with recent layoffs, financial misses someone said Bungie would be in worse shape if Sony didnt acquire them....

They are not the same, no matter how much some want it to be.

 

[NonPhixion]

Someone cant read a thread title

You’re right. If this meme was correct it would be tencent 1st, Xbox, Sony. The dumbfuck celebrating would still be Jez Corden tho.

 

[FrankWza]

This is the Max Scherzer, World Series champion of the Texas Rangers, of boasts

 

[Gavon West]

And why Xbox is beyond console now? Why are they still loosing billions on selling their consoles at a loss? Sony count on the Playstation ecosystem to make money. By growing that ecosystem they allow for themselves and their partners to make money. Microsoft failed to do it to the same extent. Xbox is no longer only a console, yes. But we know that this is because of Microsoft ambitions and not just because it somehow happened. Do you think that Xbox is putting their games on Steam because they are nice or because they need to do so? When they have their own store? No, they failed to control that market like they failed to control the console market and had to adapt. But they still have ambitions regarding consoles. Starfield is one proof of that: they choose to not put that game on Playstation, even if it would according to their own calculations make them a lot of money. If Sony was in Xbox position they would have been dead as a console manufacturer. And Sega show us what happen in that case.

Dude, the only ones still making this mole hill of consoles into a mountain is console warriors. You keep sticking to this console ave when it literally does not apply to one of the Big 3 manufacturers. Sony depends on console sales. Microsoft sees consoles as just a piece of the platform. their making just as much money (on track to make more) than Sony without having to depend on consoles exclusively. Thats the point. How is it that Microsoft is about to "leapfrog Sony" in revenue when they dont sell even half of what Sony does in consoles?

Using consoles at this stage in the game comes off as still using "consoles sold" as some metric of success. its actually archaic in this day and age. Its not what it once was. The game has changed.

 

[Neofire]

This article is the blueprint on how to be a shill.......

 

[Vlodril]

This article actually makes some sense in terms of the mobile market, a lot of people seem to be missing what it's saying.

If they do launch a mobile store akin to the Apple store or Google play store and move all this stuff over, that's a pretty big increase in revenues for many of it's IP's. In addition, if that was drawing the kind of customers expected, they can draw in 3rd party companies as well and make more off of that as well.

They can't entice people to use their store on an almost total monopoly (windows) you think they will do so in a completely other system by sideloading their store?

 

[twilo99]

Dude, the only ones still making this mole hill of consoles into a mountain is console warriors. You keep sticking to this console ave when it literally does not apply to one of the Big 3 manufacturers. Sony depends on console sales. Microsoft sees consoles as just a piece of the platform. their making just as much money (on track to make more) than Sony without having to depend on consoles exclusively. Thats the point. How is it that Microsoft is about to "leapfrog Sony" in revenue when they dont sell even half of what Sony does in consoles?

Using consoles at this stage in the game comes off as still using "consoles sold" as some metric of success. its actually archaic in this day and age. Its not what it once was. The game has changed.

Its just a really expensive and roundabout way of competing with Sony and Nintendo, but considering how established those two are in terms of mind share and market share, I really don't know how else they could do it in a reasonable amount of time.

Most of this strategy might be very much dependent on mobile and what happens there...

 

[twilo99]

They can't entice people to use their store on an almost total monopoly (windows) you think they will do so in a completely other system by sideloading their store?

Windows is an open platform, there is no need to use the MS store, although I personally use it because I don't have to worry about manually updating apps anymore. The Appstore on iOS is extremely successful because its the only way to get 3rd party software, but if Microsoft closed off windows the way Apple keeps iOS, despite having an enormous user base, regulators would go crazy.

 

[FrankWza]

I really don't know how else they could do it in a reasonable amount of time.

22 years out of the 29 and 4 console generations since Playstation was launched was too tough?

 

[BigLee74]

No, this is where Xbox fans think buying single studios over the years is the same as buying a collection of studios in a single transaction that were also part of a huge publisher.

Every studio Sony acquired was by definition independent. Cannot say the same for the Bethesda and ABK acquisitions.

Bungie is the only difference since they were also publishers. But its still one studio.

....we even saw where with recent layoffs, financial misses someone said Bungie would be in worse shape if Sony didnt acquire them....

They are not the same, no matter how much some want it to be.

I don’t think Xbox fans give a flying fuck to be honest. Studios have been bought and games are a-coming.

 

[Ar¢tos]

And why Xbox is beyond console now? Why are they still loosing billions on selling their consoles at a loss? Sony count on the Playstation ecosystem to make money. By growing that ecosystem they allow for themselves and their partners to make money. Microsoft failed to do it to the same extent. Xbox is no longer only a console, yes. But we know that this is because of Microsoft ambitions and not just because it somehow happened. Do you think that Xbox is putting their games on Steam because they are nice or because they need to do so? When they have their own store? No, they failed to control that market like they failed to control the console market and had to adapt. But they still have ambitions regarding consoles. Starfield is one proof of that: they choose to not put that game on Playstation, even if it would according to their own calculations make them a lot of money. If Sony was in Xbox position they would have been dead as a console manufacturer. And Sega show us what happen in that case.

Get on with the times.
Every Playstation, Switch and PC is now part of the Xbox eco system.
XBOX Is an ever-growing unstoppable force that will obliterate the competition by dissolving every boundary and eventually reality itself.
You will be Xbox, every living thing will be Xbox.

 

[twilo99]

Eh.....call it whatever you want, but the point is not all acquisitions are equal.

Of course not.. Sony was very efficient in that regard

 

[Gavon West]

Its just a really expensive and roundabout way of competing with Sony and Nintendo, but considering how established those two are in terms of mind share and market share, I really don't know how else they could do it in a reasonable amount of time.

Most of this strategy might be very much dependent on mobile and what happens there...

Phil said as much. The play is REALLY mobile. And with them about to have their own mobile app/store out in the wild, consoles will be an even less dependent avenue - for Microsoft, at least. Consoles are important to Microsoft for the sole purpose of choice for their customers. They want to provide the option of consoles for those who want it. Not because they depend on console sales. Sony's main goal for consoles is to increase their bottom line. Its precisely why Sony is trying to copy Microsoft by putting their games on PC. REVENUE MATTERS, HEAVY! What the OPs post is stating, is that Microsoft's goal is working: not only can they equal Sony's revenue without depending on consoles, they can increase it and then some.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

Dude, the only ones still making this mole hill of consoles into a mountain is console warriors. You keep sticking to this console ave when it literally does not apply to one of the Big 3 manufacturers. Sony depends on console sales. Microsoft sees consoles as just a piece of the platform. their making just as much money (on track to make more) than Sony without having to depend on consoles exclusively. Thats the point. How is it that Microsoft is about to "leapfrog Sony" in revenue when they dont sell even half of what Sony does in consoles?

Using consoles at this stage in the game comes off as still using "consoles sold" as some metric of success. its actually archaic in this day and age. Its not what it once was. The game has changed.

Not entirely untrue, but I would say more console users than consoles warriors. How is Microsoft leaping beyond Sony in revenue? Because they brough that revenue coming from ABK, that's how. And you refused to confront my questions head on. If the game have changed, why had Starfield been taken off Playstation? Because they still care about consoles. Why only one of the 3 manufacturers changed when two of them continue in a very profitable way? Because they had to. I like playing games. I like playing those games on a console, even if I do have a good PC. There is a lot of people like me, I think. And Sony and Nintendo found a way to answer our needs with good consoles ecosystems. Once again, Microsoft failed to do it to the same extent. Maybe in the future Gamepass or one of their competitors will be the way to play games. But now it is not yet the case. We will see if the game had changed or not.

Get on with the times.
Every Playstation, Switch and PC is now part of the Xbox eco system.
XBOX Is an ever-growing unstoppable force that will obliterate the competition by dissolving every boundary and eventually reality itself.
You will be Xbox, every living thing will be Xbox.

 

[BootsLoader]

After the news about Xbox One selling more that Xbox Series, I’m sure that Microsoft Xbox division is in the best position to knock out Sony who is selling 3 times more than them and has a track of better game since the end of PS3 era.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I agree but the essential difference is just....cost. ND is just one developer/studio. Nowhere near the size of ABK. But ABK is just a collective of studios. Or, just a bunch of ND studios if you want..

The way I see it: ABK and Bethesda were actively seeking buyers. They actually WANTED to be purchased, right? Microsoft became that buyer because they could pay what both publishers were asking for. Nothing hostile. (forget what IPs they own) In essence just another acquisition business deal where both parties got what they wanted. Sure, in total they both come to damn near $100 billion in total but still just business nonetheless. Same with ND. They wanted a buyer. Sony stepped up. Each company has history with their respective buyers before purchase.

If nothing was hostile and it was just business as usual for these Kats, honestly, what's the difference there? Sony decided when it was the right time to purchase ND and Microsoft decided it was a good time to purchase ABK and Bethesda. I just don't see the contrast other than money.

No, it doesn't just come down to cost.

Sony works within the constraints of their gaming division. They have multiple internal studios, they grow those, generate earnings from their console platform, and work with independent third parties such as Naughty Dog to make successful games. With a long working relationship, they then decide they want to own a studio like Naughty Dog and use the proceeds from their gaming division to purchase said studio. It's a fairly organic relationship. The ability for Sony to purchase a Naughty Dog is enabled through their gaming division alone.

There's nothing organic about what Microsoft is largely doing. They are failing to such a degree that they need to go ask Naddy Warbucks for a massive injection of capital from their Microsoft Office or Windows division to allow the Xbox division to go acquire a $70B company. None of this happens within the ecosystem of Xbox. All of it is enabled by the parent company with other divisions that are successful.

 

[Edmund]

I remember getting my first boner as a kid when I watched a Shania Twain mtv. She was so hot.

 

[CitizenKratos]

When you subtract the cost of ABK from revenue, Xbox has many years to pass PlayStation. Although even after that detail it would still be a pretty contrived way to determine who is ahead.

 

[Edmund]

Sony bought out Insomniac Games in 2019, Housemarque in 2021, Guerilla Games in 2005, Bluepoint Games in 2021, Nixxes in 2021, Sucker Punch in 2011, Naughty Dog in 2001, none of those studios were founded by Sony. My point being is give it a few years and people will adjust to the idea that Bethesda games and Acti-Blizz games are MS first party games too.

Not really comparable. Guerilla, Sucker Punch, and Naughty Dog was fledgling studios when Sony acquired them and they were built up into the studios they are today. Housemarque is of the same vein. Nixxes and Bluepoint don't have any IP. Bungie is a better comparison than those other studios.

WHAT ABOUT PSYGNOSIS????!!!!

 

[Gavon West]

Not entirely untrue, but I would say more console users than consoles warriors. How is Microsoft leaping beyond Sony in revenue? Because they brough that revenue coming from ABK, that's how. And you refused to confront my questions head on. If the game have changed, why had Starfield been taken off Playstation? Because they still care about consoles. Why only one of the 3 manufacturers changed when two of them continue in a very profitable way? Because they had to. I like playing games. I like playing those games on a console, even if I do have a good PC. There is a lot of people like me, I think. And Sony and Nintendo found a way to answer our needs with good consoles ecosystems. Once again, Microsoft failed to do it to the same extent. Maybe in the future Gamepass or one of their competitors will be the way to play games. But now it is not yet the case. We will see if the game had changed or not.

This is wrong.

They couldnt afford for Starfield (a brand new IP from Bethesda) to go Sony exclusive because this wouldnt benefit the brand in any sense of the word. From Gamepass to consoles to their cloud initiative, etc. You gravitate to consoles because, again, you think its the ONLY metric for success. It just isnt. Not anymore.

Microsoft figured out long ago that they couldnt compete for console sales with Sony and Nintendo as both companies made consoles their bread and butter over the span of decades. Both companies have mastered the traditional business method when it comes to consoles.

So, they figured out how to compete on an entirely different path with software and more importantly, Gamepass. software is Microsoft's bread and butter. Since then, they've been increasing their revenue with their own business model - a page out of their own playbook. They were never gonna beat Sony or Nintendo at their own game. Now, you see them growing Gamepass, buying developers and publishers to feed the same machine. What's happening now is their revenue is increasing. By adding ABK (mobile) to the game with so many billion dollar IPs, the revenue is about to skyrocket - even past Sony for top revenue in the gaming business. When ABK and Bethesda were acquired, they weren't simply buying publishers, they were cementing their own business model as viable and profitable, even moreso than their closest competitor. GaaS games have ALWAYS been on the menu for Xbox, as well. This new business mode Microsoft has introduced is the "gaming landscape" thats changed people, are talking about. In essence, The traditional business model (console sales) isnt completely obsolete, but, its definitely on its way out. Its just not sustainable with the increasing costs and time to make games.

Sony has been learning this. Again, this is why they are now offering their own games on PC. Their trying to grow their own brand from depending exclusively on consoles as that business model just isnt sustainable anymore. You hear developers talking about how it just isnt sustainable to depend on simply single player games. GaaS HAS TO become a part of the equation as well.

So, yes. the game has changed, exponentially. And though many may not agree, Sony is behind in it. Still a great steward in this industry but, they need to get busy. and I say that as someone who prefers Xbox but still want Sony in the game for years to come.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

So far for this year's numbers, they've been a big miss. So some people are clearly dropping off

It gets worse here on out.

 

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

The thread over on the other forum has already been closed in record time, so I wonder how many more pages this one will last until the same thing happens.