Thread: Microsoft's Activision Blizzard Acquisition News Thread (Update: Cleared by the European Commission)
- Status
- Platforms
Probably so but thing is I think the other two corporations are worse. nintendos monopolized the market at times but not like these two can. With Nintendo it's only one industry but the other two monopolize several And can effortlessly wipe away any potential competitirs in the console space.
DonDonDonPata
Bridge Burn Man
Nintendo makes products at price-points that other competitors don't wanna mess with. Sony and Microsoft can release $200 handhelds and $300 consoles if they want.
Also Nintendo has a habit of expanding the market and going after undesirable customers e.g. the Wii and DS direction, as well as their longstanding family focus. Nothing is preventing Sony or Microsoft from capturing these customers. It's very easy to blame "nostalgia" but I'll be honest, my four kids have each grown up with countless non-Nintendo systems and games available, yet they gravitate toward Ninty stuff. Not exclusively, but it's enough of a pattern for me to dismiss the notion of "nostalgia goggles" being the only thing that props up this brand.
You fuckers just wait. Dreamcast II is coming. Then we can have a real console war
Only if Microsoft go by the route of extortion - and also cut their nose off to spite their face - so, the cost/value ratio of endorsing Microsoft going the route you keep proposing is utterly ludicrous. Which would just deliver all the UK trade Microsoft choose to give up, and hand it over to their competitors. There is no angle to look at that proposal and say that it makes any sense for Microsoft to do - unless they are 100% driven by childish petulance. Hardly a reasonable stance.
It's a cute hypothetical, but it doesn't really stand up to a single sanity-check.
Last edited:
When Nintendo were #1 they were absolute dicks. It's not uncommon that whoever leads acts like dicks. And again I think you're bringing up an irrelevant point about them being big in other spaces. While true that Microsoft can provide a common platform through DirectX, and that pedigree provides credibility to encourage developers to distribute on their platform, I don't see how that can create a monopoly, and I see little from Sony that would do so. I think you're barking up the wrong tree really.
- Platforms
IMO mega corps are bad for businesses. I mean Both done some good but the bad outweighs it by a large margin to me.
I agree an api alone won't create a monopoly and directx isn't as good as vulkans performance. But thing is windows is the most popular os for many reasons.
maybe it's more so the blatant refusal entertainment companies have to produce content that gets a pg rating. That's what Disney did for a long time and why their so renowned Was because they made good movies for everyone to view.
idk been said for 20 years at this point a it's a big x factor. I wouldn't x out the possibility though they still make Arcade units after the Dreamcast and Apparently almost released a successor to it found through the Naomi 2 cab.
Last edited:
Phil_t98
Member
- Platforms
Have you answers my question how much a game like god of war makes off 19 million sales?
I have clearly explained that you need to provide costs properly. And I have explained why.
You've ignored me asking for this.
You've quoted me asking for this, and then ignored the question in your own quote.
I've asked a third time and, for the third time you've refused to provide the required detail and have, once again responded by asking a new question.
If you are unwilling and/or unable to provide the necessary information then you cannot get an answer. But it is you consistently refusing to provide the necessary information that is acting as the blocker.
I have been exceedingly polite and civil whilst you've been giving me the runaround.
Do not mistake civility for stupidity.
You still haven't answered my outstanding three questions. All borne of your own arguments.
If you fail to provide answers, persue more "I won't answer you, but I expect you to answer me" schtick, try more evasions, apply obfuscations or attempt any of a catalogue of very tired and very obvious ploys then you will be telling me that you cannot substantiate your own arguments, that you are not honest enough to engage in good faith, and you severely underestimate other people.
Now, I have been civil, polite and transparent.
Please, and for the fourth time, provide an answer to my three outstanding questions.
Thanks.
Edit: Oh, my bad, there are actually three outstanding questions, all borne of your own arguments. Here's a convenient reminder of the other one:
Last edited:
I agree that I think we're both looking at the same picture, but where you see a duck, I see a rabbit.
Anyone pointing to money hatting, either in 7th, 8th or current gen, and believing the practice can sway a significant sales margin, is a bloody idiot.
But it does help. Sales are made, and the practice has existed for over 3 decades for a reason. At it's best it's created awesome 2nd party games (platform held IP titles made by an outside studio), like the Capcom made Zeldas.
Conversely, we've seen the absence of those deals spur platform holders to great success.
Nintendo losing third party support in 6th gen led to the wildly successful and creative 'blue ocean' strategy of the Wii, and the 360 doing the same to PS3 led to the creation of PS+ and Playstation finally taking first party output seriously enough to stand side by side, both in terms of quality and sales, with Nintendo.
The truth is there is no single thing any platform holder can do to be successful or more desirable than their competitors. It's a complex combination of factors that can see a system do everything right, but still get outsold by another that does one thing perfectly, even if only for the market at that specific moment in time.
The real problem I see Xbox having isn't anything to do with Playstation or Nintendo.
It's purely a rod they made for their own back. They're still stuck in that silly mindset of 'dominating the living room' they entered into gaming with 20 years ago, as evidenced by Phil Spencer's comments rhe other day about Starfield not making people 'sell their PS5's'.
They're like that guy who goes from failed business venture to failed business venture, never putting in the hard graft needed to build up a sustainable business, always looking for that perfect get rich quick scheme that doesn't truly exist.
The reality is coming third of three doesn't matter if you're all selling within 20% of whoever came first, as was the case with the 360. Switch selling 125m doesn't make PS4 selling 118 million any less phenomenal last gen either.
Gaming is a massive market that can and does comfortably support multiple good products. Time and again we've seen market leaders rise and fall and rise again, with no clear one winning move or sheer force of momentum and brand strength to coast on.
For all Playstation and Nintendo's current strength, their next systems could be another Vita and WiiU, just as easily as they could be the next PS2 and DS.
A system sells on it's own merits, not it's competitors, and the truth is Xbox have just not been up to snuff for about 15 years now.
Playstation is definitely relying too heavily on 3rd parties these days, I fully admit that.
But that's a detriment to the PS5, that makes the platform less unique and will, I would bet money on, harm them in the coming years and will likely be even worse for the PS6, but that's not what is stopping people buying an Xbox.
At the end of the day, we have a strong, competitive market right now, and while it's far from problem free, the issue preventing XSS/X from selling is because it's being badly mismanaged and not offering the customers what they want, while Playstation and Nintendo are.
gameragodzilla
Member
I agree it'll hurt Microsoft, but I'm pointing out that it'll hurt the UK government as well, so it's a case of mutually assured destruction and one that can be leveraged for negotiations. It may be "childish", but that type of playing hardball has gotten many deals passed over the years, and I imagine with the EU commission approving, they'd have even more leverage to work with.
Certainly I don't think corporations wouldn't be both ballsy and assholeish enough to attempt it.
If Microsoft had no competition then this would be true.
Nikana
I'm A Power Ranger 'Til The End
I really wouldn't call Xbox not up to snuff, but more that they can't find their identity. Maybe that's the same thing? I think their products are good but confusing to customers. Do they want to be the most powerful, or do they want to be the center of the living room? They can strive for both, but selling that to consumers is going to be tough. The OG Xbox, at least from what I remember, as I was much younger at the time, had the identity of the newcomer making deals and promising the best-looking and best-playing versions of many games. And for the most part, I think they nailed it. There were various games and versions of games that simply looked and played better on the Xbox. (for me it was Battlefront 2. It looked and played significantly better) It was a hungry team out there making deals and breaking into the market.
I truly believe Microsoft got super lucky with the 360 in terms of finding its identity. That box was sold as the "social media" box before Facebook was super popular. People love to harp on the Xbox One and its TV TV TV presentation, but people forget the 360 was sold as something other than a game console as well. Granted, the social aspect of the box centered around playing games with friends, so maybe that's not a fair comparison. However, the point is that Microsoft has always had a confused identity about what the Xbox is.
If anything, that's a company-wise Microsoft problem, as every few years they seem to have this desire to change shit for the sake of changing it. The One X, I believe, was their best product by far in the history of the Xbox. Clear vision. Clear message. Yo, this thing plays games, and they are going to look fucking legit at 4K. 1st or 3rd party
Series X/S was a chance for them to change their identity, and I really think they tried. However, they let it get away from them and got distracted by various things. The Gamepass piece was obviously their big push, and it was successful for the most part in terms of establishing an identity. The Series S is a weird story that I think makes sense on paper when you look at the market, but it spits in the face of the Series X. I fully believe Microsoft figured that out as well; they just couldn't figure out when and how to unveil the thing. I don't like the idea of it, but I think it's a strong product. But it's confusing for the Xbox narrative.
To bring this full circle, I look at the money-hating debate that goes back and forth as a pointless debate as there's no real evidence to support that it would fix their issues simply because it "worked" in the past. The market has changed. Everything Microsoft and Phil Spencer say I believe for the most part. He talks out of the side of his mouth constantly, but that's because he has to be constantly changing the narrative about what Xbox is. He can say it's not about how many consoles we sold but how many players we have since we have Gamepass, which is a true statement. Another true statement is that great games won't be enough to solve their problems. Both can be true and are true based on the history of the Xbox. However, it makes the product look confused, which is what people are seeing now.
gameragodzilla
Member
Microsoft does have a massive dominance in the business and computer OS sector, so it would be massively disruptive to the UK economy. So this isn't a case of a child throwing a temper tantrum at an adult, which would be useless. Both parties wield a lot of power here. Granted, I fully expect all these negotiations to occur behind the scenes so we'll never actually see them occur, but I'd be very surprised if the CMA doesn't reverse their decision soon after maybe extracting some concessions.
Disruption and Mutually Assured Destruction are not even close to being the same things.
Further, given that Microsoft provide tech products and tech services then real-world geography counts for less and less.
Plenty of time to migrate to AWS before the notice period on your Azure contract reaches it's end. Especially with all the help Amazon will be offering.
The only one this plan hurts is Microsoft, and it will be a hurt of their own creation, their own hubris and with the entire world watching.
Further, given that Microsoft provide tech products and tech services then real-world geography counts for less and less.
Plenty of time to migrate to AWS before the notice period on your Azure contract reaches it's end. Especially with all the help Amazon will be offering.
The only one this plan hurts is Microsoft, and it will be a hurt of their own creation, their own hubris and with the entire world watching.
Bolivar
Member
- Platforms
I think they went hard into TV TV TV because Netflix was a pretty colorful feather in the 360s hat that came up a lot in fanboy wars when the PS3 didn't have it. But by that E3 when they announced ESPN was coming without a lot of games, it started to wear pretty thin. The real problem with the Xbox One reveal was that the only games they had to go with it were FIFA and CoD. Even though Shadow Fall wasn't a great game, the sequence they showed at the PS4 reveal was an insane visual set piece and the first part of Sony winning mindshare that generation.
It's not that Series X is confused between being the most powerful console and also a versatile media box, it's content. Phil saying they can't outconsole Sony/Nintendo with great games was an inexcusable white flag, because without exclusives, all the other initiatives in the world can only add up to their box being a nonstarter. Moneyhatting timed exclusives and DLC isn't a lodestar, but it's one component of having an attractive ecosystem.
Imagine if Phil took that money from the Activision deal and gave 70 of the world's best game directors $1 billion to make a game. Actually we know the answer to that - we'd be in the same position in 2028, 2032, and 2038: "next year is going to be insane for Xbox!"
It's not that Series X is confused between being the most powerful console and also a versatile media box, it's content. Phil saying they can't outconsole Sony/Nintendo with great games was an inexcusable white flag, because without exclusives, all the other initiatives in the world can only add up to their box being a nonstarter. Moneyhatting timed exclusives and DLC isn't a lodestar, but it's one component of having an attractive ecosystem.
Imagine if Phil took that money from the Activision deal and gave 70 of the world's best game directors $1 billion to make a game. Actually we know the answer to that - we'd be in the same position in 2028, 2032, and 2038: "next year is going to be insane for Xbox!"
CAPTAIN RAINCOAT
Member
- Platforms
will also hurt sony ...its a fuck around and you find out sort of arrangemnt
There is a fair chance that the cma will be the only one standing at the end with their dick in their hand and they are not really going to have a leg to stand on
Nicktendo
Switch Master
Xbox Might Offer "Timed Slices" Of Games Or Games With Ads
Microsoft's Sarah Bond discussed new business models the company is looking at beyond Xbox Game Pass.
www.gamespot.com
Why would Sony force Microsoft to do this?
Phil_t98
Member
- Platforms
The_Mike
Member
- Platforms
OmegaSupreme
Member
I have linked to the instance of each question being asked, so you can easily remind yourself of all the relevant context that relates to it.
Outstanding Question 1:
Post #1294 of this thread:
ME:
How does Hogwarts unit sales for PS and XB fare then?
And how do those figures / ratio contrast with a popular multiplatform game that didn't get a deal?
Outstanding Question 2:
Post #1326 of this thread:
ME:
What do you think will be the outcome if, say, an online gaming service chose to reduce its subscription costs by 50%?
YOU:
more people subbing to it?
ME:
OK. Anything else?
Outstanding Question 3:
Post #1339 of this thread:
You had asked how much had been "made off" the sales of God of War:
You:
as I said earlier god of war cost £80 million to make and sold 19.5 million copies. work out the maths on how much they made off the game
Me:
I'm sure this isn't news to you, but revenue is not profit.
So, in order for anyone to even get close to starting to "work out the maths on how much they made off this game", you will first need to provide:
Marketing costs
Manufacturing costs
Distribution costs
Retailer margins
Legal costs
I look forward to your direct, and substantive answers to these outstanding questions (with answers to 1 and 3 being verifiable) - all of them borne from arguments you have put forward.
Post #1369 of this thread has some significant further context for you in relation to this ongoing exchange.
Thanks.
Last edited:
It looks like one or two people today are eager to derail and go straight to puerile unsolicited ad hominems.
Perhaps they will show good-faith engagement and address the on-topic questions I've asked in response to the arguments presented in this thread. With verifiable detail, of course.
(The questions are two-posts above this one, in case there was any confusion).
Thanks!
Perhaps they will show good-faith engagement and address the on-topic questions I've asked in response to the arguments presented in this thread. With verifiable detail, of course.
(The questions are two-posts above this one, in case there was any confusion).
Thanks!
Phil_t98
Member
- Platforms
So
Question 1
Are you saying that a game that has extra content on one platform than another isn't an incentive to buy a console or that game on specific console?
It certainly helps in my view.
Go back
To the days of the of the 369 and how it sold more on 360
Because of extra content first
Question 2
You tell me the answer to that if you seem to know?
What we do know is Microsoft is going big and when we say big we mean 70 billion to put quality game sim their service
Question 3
You trying to say a game that sole 19,5 million cooies isn't profitable?
- Platforms
So, ongoing evasiveness, no substantive answers and no verifiable details. Just further runaround, deflections and more questions.
It is not up to me to make your arguments for you. That's on you.
If you refuse to substantiate your arguments when they come under such mild scrutiny then your arguments don't deserve to be given any merit.
I will still reward you the benefit of the doubt, having asked my questions and repeatedly requested answers 5 times now, should you decide to give direct and substantive answers.
Until that time, I refer you to post 1369 of this thread, the full transparency that was offered, so that you can understand how your refusal to engage in good-faith behaviour and unsubstantiated arguments containing holes that you refuse to fill are perceived.
Phil_t98
Member
- Platforms
That's deflection. As I've already said, it's not on me to substantiate your arguments for you.
You haven't provided the required information on which to make a determination on profitability. Your argument is stillborn until you substantiate it.
I've helped you out by providing a shortlist of the types of costs you need to detail - with verifiable data. It's up to you to provide that information.
Last edited:
Don't bait people. Trying to make people rage to get banned isn't on.
- Platforms
It felt like he was trying to provoke some sort of angry retort that's the only reason why I responded like that
Nicktendo
Switch Master
It just seemed like you were only adding ad hominem to an argument that has an actual purpose, which is what you accused Schro of doing.
- Platforms
I agree it was unneccessary And hypocritical. I have a tendency to not think before I say something
cheers brother
Don't worry about it, I'm more guilty of it than anyone else here. It's cool you admitted it when it was pointed out, it's more than I might have done in the past.
- Status