Microsoft buys Activision-Blizzard

murpho999

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498445#Comment_118498445

The same argument about exclusivity was said about the Bethesda deal and people said they won't make games like Starfield, Fallout or Elder Scrolls exclusive to Xbox as they'd miss out on so much revenue but they have.

You could argue the same with Sony in that they're missing out on revenues by restricting Last of Us, Spiderman, God of War etc but they clearly don't feel they are and that it shifts consoles.

In MS's case they're in this for the long haul now and they have unlimited funds and the long term goal is to have more people on the Xbox platform, not just consoles, and making big games exclusive will achieve that.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498672#Comment_118498672

Forza 7 was removed from the MS store entirely because licensing ran out. It wasn't just Game Pass.

On CNBC just now, Sony shares have slid 12% amid fears they have a monumental challenge competiting in light of the deal.

Retr0gamer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498638#Comment_118498638

I'm not saying that is happening. I'm speculating about a future where that can happen and as far as I can see it it's very likely.

murpho999

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498730#Comment_118498730

It may well be challenged, which is not unusual but chances of success are very slim.

After all before this deal MS were the third largest gaming company in the world behind Ten Cent and Sony and that's where they will stay after this deal.

Vicxas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498730#Comment_118498730

They're still second, behind Tencent. The acquisition only puts Microsoft third. Think about that. All that, for third.

Mitch Connor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498689#Comment_118498689

Yes, but the money side of the arguement is 10times higher in this instance, plus the likely much higher dev costs involved too. The arguement is surely not a one size fits all argument - so i think the 70billion starting price plus the running costs of the various studios has to be taken into account, and I don't see GamePass subs increasing to a level that would have the math making any sort of sense.

Mitch Connor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498691#Comment_118498691

I said it was removed from the Store too, and supplied a link explaining exactly what happened with it.

fact is it was removed (and retro mentioned licence being a reason for removal) so it was pertinent to the conversation.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498754#Comment_118498754

Thats as of now based off combined revenues and I think they are only 3 billion behind Sony, which is chump change.

That will also change when COD etc will either be exclusive on game pass or as good as free versus €80 on Playststion. I've no doubt they will the exclusivity route. I mean the aim is to be bigger than Sony after all.

But you are dead right, it shows just how far behind Xbox was. And even after this I would argue we still need to see some new original blockbuster IPs on xbox, which I'm sure are in development but probably years away or even a console generation away.

murpho999

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498772#Comment_118498772

It will make sense when a GamePass app starts coming to more platforms such as Smart TVs and even Playstation ( I would not rule that out) and the subscriptions will sky rocket. It's not just about consoles.

They've just confrmed they now have 25 million subs. Let's say that earns €12 a month. This delivers €300m a month or €3.6bn a year.

I think in 5 -10 years time they could easily have 100m subs which will deliver €18bn per year. Serious money and that excludes other revenue streams.My numbers are guess work and maybe on the conservative side.

They can easily afford to keep Cod Exclusive to achieve their long term goals.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498776#Comment_118498776

All Forza games are removed after a period of time. There is no conspiracy here.

McFly85

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498638#Comment_118498638

It's anti-competitive because it restricts consumer choice. Consumers are always better off when there's a healthy market for companies to compete in. Would gamepass even exist if it wasn't for Sony? They started the idea of a subscription service with PS+ which MS then came up with GwG and evolved into Gamepass. Without competition there would have been no incentive for it. From a business point of view I also think it's anti-competitive as the funds used to buy these publishers comes from a completely different area of the business, which unevens the playing field further.

Gamepass currently represents great value, definitely. But the more publishers and IP they can buy and the greater the market share they get then the less they have to worry about providing value to the customer. We're not there yet, we might never get there, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility to think that in the long term it will be worse for consumers.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498776#Comment_118498776

Ah, so you did.

awec

I really don't get where this sudden concern about a lack of competition is coming from. There will still be competition. Sony still has ALL of it's exclusives, the same exclusives that have been shoved down Xbox's throat for years now. They can still create new IP. They can still develop new studios, according to this thread they're excellent at this as their growth has apparently been entirely organic without buying up studios.

I am betting that most of the big Activision titles will still be available on Playstation at the exact same price as they are today. Consumers will still have the exact same choice as they had this time last week, you will still be able to pay 80 quid for the new COD on Playstation.

The big difference is that your mate with an Xbox will be getting it for free with their subscription.

Mitch Connor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498807#Comment_118498807

But that revenue from GamePass has to be paying for SO MUCH, so i still don't see where the math is going.

First party titles on Xbox are going to have taken a huge hit on base revenue in comparison to previous sales - I would assume this, I don't have figures to back it up - but I can't imagine they are actually selling more (or a high proportion) Forza than previous entries.

From those, admittidly large, GP numbers they need to fund all the various studios in the same way they would have been funded by sales - while also (maybe) trying to claw back some of the 78billion they have spent on Bethesda and AB, and whatever they have paid to third parties for titles on GP.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498846#Comment_118498846

I don't think we'll ever reach the point where it's just one company. Microsoft aren't the only company with deep pockets and with the potential revenue Games as a Service presents, there will always be multiple companies making a play for it.

murpho999

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498846#Comment_118498846

Well you really are clutching at straws.

Anyhow GwG still exists and is a separate model and concept to Game Pass. PS+ os different concept to Game Pass.

So you think Gamepass only exits due to Sony? What about Playstation only existing because of Sega or Nintendo in the 90s. It's a strange argument

Also, Sony are now developing their own version of Gamepass due to what Xbox have done and fear of the traction they have gained.

So you are right about competition creating more consumer choice, as soon gamers will be able to choose which subscription choice they prefer.

I'm convinced the the subscription model is a better deal for gamers than having to pay €70 for each game. I don't see how PS's approach on pricing and exclusivity can be deemed anything but anti-consumer.

Also, your comment about funding is laughable as Sony is a huge conglomerate selling millions of products and you dont' think their headoffice has funded Playstation activities from other parts of the business.

Mitch Connor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498828#Comment_118498828

I'm not saying it is a conspiracy - just that the removal of first party games from GP has happened, for the reasons it has happened (and in the case used as an example anyone who already owned the game was still able to download/play it). In a conversation about the possibility of games leaving GP and having no possibility to play again it is a valid example to be discussed.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498942#Comment_118498942

It's not that relevant. Even if GP never existed, Forza still gets removed.

If Forza was released on PS, it would also be removed. If it was released on Nintendo, it would also be removed.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498920#Comment_118498920

You underestimate how much money is made from subscription services.

johnny_ultimate

Just on the Forza point, people who own Forza Horizon 3 digitally (myself included) can still download and play the game. However, that doesn't apply to Game Pass players, which is a shame - the lack of any sort of ownership is an issue right across subscription services in all mediums, as the individual is very much reliant on rights remaining with the service provider.

But also important to say MS definitely isn't alone here - delisted games are a big problem with digital storefronts in general (see Sony and Drive Club, to pick one other of several unfortunate examples), just a tad worse again with subscription services.

murpho999

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498920#Comment_118498920

Game Pass generates revenue through subs, and that gamers also spend money within the model as they play more games than normal and therefore but more games and ancilliaries.

Also, development costs will come down as studios share tech and knowledge.

MS have clearly done their maths (who in Ireland says the "math") and they know what they are at. They are clearly confident it will work. They didn't become one of the world's largest companies through bad calculations.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498984#Comment_118498984

It's not massively dissimilar to free to play models, just without the reliance on huge volumes of micro transactions.

Look at EA for example. EA would love if every single one of their customers signed up to EA Play or EA Play Pro instead of buying games individually. It would be better for them.

recyclops

I am almost certain ( not 100% but nearly there) that MS have far better economists crunching the numbers than we can even consider. To say its not sustainable or the maths doesnt add up is bizarre. They know what and why they are making these purchases. I am sure they have a fairly robust plan for what is achievable at 10%, 20%, 30% + success rate of the plan and thats why this is happening.

They dont really care for the same BS little fan wars that console owners do, all they want is subscribers to gamepass and the real answer is kids, look at how big epic is due to fortnite initially and what they have gone on to since. If the kids can only play COD on gamepass then gamepass wins for now, MS just need to make sure they have the next big fad.

Penn

Gamepass can't be making a profit currently, not to offset or fund the recent purchases. 25m Gamepass players worldwide, say an average of 15 quid per month, 12 months a year is 4.5bn quid per year. Even accounting for money earned from those games through mtxs, dlcs, battlepasses etc, the cost of putting so many games on Gamepass, it's almost certainly running at a loss currently. But they have the Microsoft money behind them to cover it, and the long term goal is to have Gamepass on as many devices as possible and more subscriptions, so it'll eventually profit.

zom

"You underestimate how much money is made from subscription services."

People complain they cant afford houses and at the same time they dont realise how subscription based internet businesses rocketed their revenues in last few years.

"Surely if you pay 10 bucks a month is not big deal" thinking - and suddenly we have billions spent in no time...

TitianGerm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498981#Comment_118498981

It doesn't apply to Game Pass because you don't own the game. As far as I'm aware Forza is the only first party game that gets removed and that's because they sign a 5-10 year license with the car manufacturers and once that's up then they can't sell that game anymore.

Can you still buy Gran Turismo 6 on PS3 digitally? I think the more recent one is only out 4 or 5 years so probably no licensing issues yet.

Anyway, you'll get notice that a game is to be removed in X amount of days. If you want to own the game and continue to play then you can buy it at a discount.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498846#Comment_118498846

I don't agree Sony competition lead to GP. This came from Nadella and his Cloud first business model. Xbox had to shift to Cloud first or be shut down. All internally without any credit going to Sony.

Turns out as always, gaming is the forefront of technology and this was not only an easy conversion but really was going there anyway.

This is going to be the same when GP is old news and we're all talking about the Metaverse. It's already started in gaming. My kids first concert was a Marshmellow concert in Fortnite. So it's very easy for a company like Microsoft to put gaming at the forefront of their cloud business. 70 bill, absolutely worth it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498981#Comment_118498981

To be fair, Microsoft tend to give a decent discount to games leaving Game Pass so that you can own them outright.

Mitch Connor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498954#Comment_118498954

Fine. Ignore the topic of the conversation that was being had and the point that had been made of only third party titles being removed and the initial comment being fear of games being removed from GP for licensing reasons and not playable in any way anymore.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499141#Comment_118499141

But your point ignores that you can just buy the game if you want permanent access.

Retr0gamer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498914#Comment_118498914

Again, other than the now gutted Japan studio and Santa Monica, all of Sony's studios have been acquisitions of third parties.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499141#Comment_118499141

But everyone knows Forza gets removed 3 or 4 years after release.

If you are a Game Pass customer and you think you'll want to play a 3 or 4 year old Forza game you are free to buy it at any point, for a discount, and you'll then be guaranteed access to it even after it's removed.

This is true for any game. If you want to completely own it you can do so, and at a discounted price.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499156#Comment_118499156

Yes that's my point Retr0gamer. 😉

I was being tongue in cheek.

murpho999

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499060#Comment_118499060

Phil Spencer already confirmed last year that Game Pass as it was then is already making a profit.

https://gamingintel.com/phil-spencer-xbox-game-pass-business-model/#

So these numbers and profits are just going to grow in the future.

I'm amazed that many people here think that Xbox/Microsoft don't know hat they are doing or would pursue a loss making model.

Retr0gamer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499060#Comment_118499060

Gamepass's plans I'm sure is not just to be playable on Xbox and PC. MS will be looking to extend it to mobile and set top boxes, anything that can stream really.

Even more importantly than profit though is share price and even if they don't make a profit streaming services are a big thing and will send share prices through the roof. It's also why metaverse is being mentioned so much. It has jack **** to do with metaverse but the execs are saying to get the dumb dumb investors on board and send the stock up more. I'm just waiting for a NFT announcement.

Mitch Connor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498970#Comment_118498970

Yes, as I said in the intial comment, big money.

From that big money they have to fund the original MS studios. The purchased Bethesda studios. the purchased AB studios. and potentially look to claw back the 78billion they have just spent. Netflix had sub revenues of 7.5 billion, with a profit of 1.4 billion in 2021. Do you think MS will be quick to match or even beat those numbers? Even matching those profits you are talking 50 years to break even on the purchases. Maybe they will outstrip Netflix, and also the reality is AB seemed to be hugely profitable themselves - so even a huge dent in their revenues (through not selling on PS) will still keep them hugely profitable and more than self-sustaining as an entire entity. They seem to have had costs of 3 billion or so vs revenue of about 9billion, CoD and Overwatch aren't making huge dents on those numbers themselves I suppose.

Even if they have no intention of breaking even on the purchases I have to imagine the sheer numbers involved now have to force at least a conversation on exclusiveity for the most popular multi-player titles under their ownership.

Mitch Connor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499155#Comment_118499155

No it doesn't.

I SAID EXACTLY THAT.

I was not arguing that games are disappearing from GP and being rendered unplayable.

I was actually arguing against that point - by stating that even while first party titles had left GP (for reasons stated) they were still playable (and downloadable) by people who already owned them. And I had also already said that even first party titles on GP can be purchased through the store, same as third party titles.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499197#Comment_118499197

Do I think Microsoft will be quick to match or beat Netflix's 1.4 billion profit? Is that what you're asking me?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499208#Comment_118499208

Ok. That sentence was a lot to unpack. Maybe use commas, sentence breaks, etc.

Mitch Connor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499173#Comment_118499173

I am sceptical of that info from Phil.

GP itself might be profitable on paper - but you would also have to take into account the status of the various first party studios. If they start making loses because the payments they get from GP in lieu of titles sold are less than it costs to run the studio, then simply saying GP is profitable is missing a large part of the conversation. I'd be very interested to know the full outlook of MS Gaming in this respect, cause you can't just take GP on its own.

Mitch Connor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499217#Comment_118499217

I think your reading skills need more attention than my sentence structure.

johnny_ultimate

Mod note: Keep it civil please.

Mitch Connor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499214#Comment_118499214

Not MS, no. GamePass.

GamePass is the main driver of this conversation - when talking about games being exclusive on Xbox, where GP is going to be a huge chunk of the revenue stream for any games.

It could certainly be the case that MS don't care at all about profits in the gaming space and the 78billion (and growing) costs will be made up by other parts of the business. In which case, fine, make everything exclusive. But if MS gaming, or the individual studios are to remain or become profitable, I don't see GamePass revenues being able to hold that up mostly on its own.

Dravokivich

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499141#Comment_118499141

When you are using an "XXXX as a service" model, you accept items are going to be in and out of the library. It's the same as DVD/Blu rays against Netflix/Prime/ AN media streamer. You've the option to own it, by purchasing it. But when leasing it, you can't claim that ownership.

Mickeroo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499177#Comment_118499177

It's already on mobile officially. You can play it on any android based set top box if you sideload but yeah only a matter of time before it's on those officially too.

Mitch Connor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499270#Comment_118499270

I've said no different.

The original point of the conversation: Poster says it is inevitable that games will leave GP (for licence reasons) and not be playable in any fashion

Second point of the conversation: Second Poster says only third party titles leave GP and are purchasable elsewhere.

Third point of the conversation: I say first party titles have left GP (for licence reasons) but these games were still playable by people who owned them - so the fear a game would leave GP and be unplayable (for everyone) is as yet unfounded. I also made the point that titles on GP can also still be purchased.

The reasons for Forza leaving do not counter any point I made. The knowledge that Forza would leave and will leave in the future does not counter any point I have made.

quokula

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498383#Comment_118498383

It's not the same though is it.

Naughty Dog had a prior history on 16 bit and Amiga, but their first real success was Crash Bandicoot which might never have seen the light of day if Sony didn't support and publish it. They worked exclusively with Sony for the best part of a decade after that, before being brought in as an internal studio.

Psygnosis were purchased by Sony before the first Playstation even launched - they had to start somewhere. Psygnosis had been around for a fair few years releasing games for the Amiga primarily, with Lemmings being the only really well known one but Psygnosis only published that and the developers at DMA design remained independent and weren't part of the acquisition. All of Psygnosis biggest brands, from Wipeout to Colony Wars, were created under the wing of Sony.

Insomniac worked exclusively with Sony for the vast majority of their 20+ year existence. Their biggest successes were Spiderman, Spyro the Dragon and Ratchet & Clank, all of which were released thanks to support and publishing from Sony, all of which got support for sequels, and in the case of Spiderman was an IP Sony owned and entrusted Insomniac with. By the time Sony acquired them in 2019 they had a huge catalog of Sony published Playstation games under their belt, along with one or two multiplatform games which didn't do well and one Xbox exclusive, Sunset Overdrive which was moderately successful but never received support for a sequel from MS.

Bend Studio have never released a game for a console other than Playstation, and only had a few fairly small time games under their belt before their first major success in Syphon filter which, to continue the running trend from Naughty Dog and Insomniac, was published by Sony and developed with their support, before Sony went on to later acquire the studio.

Activision Blizzar and Bethesda are publishers who have been making games for decades across multiple platforms and have never had any specific partnership with Microsoft or worked in conjunction with Microsoft to create a franchise with them. Microsoft have bought them in order to remove their games from competing platforms.

Surely you can see the difference? The studios you mentioned all built their most major brands with help from Sony. The games they made, from Crash to Ratchet to Wipeout, all might never have existed in the first place without Sony's support and funding. Microsoft on the other hand are just paying to get existing third party games that they had nothing to do with taken off other platforms.

Are we really going for a Nintendo/Sony = good, Microsoft = bad argument?

These are corporations. All have and would abuse market power.