Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13

[eastmen]

I actually mentioned Wii U in my post.


You said "it seems like its a good idea to have a market in which the 3 competitors can change postions each generation"

If Nintendo aren't the third competitor, who is?


I thought Xbox Series was doing well in the US?


Except Sony are not engaging in anti-competitive practices according to any legislation, only forum fanboy arguments. Of course, if you have specific evidence I have no doubt you would post it and bring it to the attention of regulators. Thereby ensuing Microsoft can compete in a fair environment.

The pc is the third competitor. What other high performance machine is there ?

The xbox series is newely launched we don't know how well it will do through the generation. The xbox one also sold well at the start too.

How do we know that Sony aren't engaging in any anti competitive practices ? Maybe we should find some lawyers and sue. Seems to be a thing now.

 

[Nesh]

The pc is the third competitor. What other high performance machine is there ?

The xbox series is newely launched we don't know how well it will do through the generation. The xbox one also sold well at the start too.

How do we know that Sony aren't engaging in any anti competitive practices ? Maybe we should find some lawyers and sue. Seems to be a thing now.

If Nintendo can do it so can MS. You know very well that XBOX One underperformed in sales because MS screwed up and not because of Sony.

The rest about "how do we know Sony isnt doing anti competitive practices" falls in the realm of conspiracy theory and assumption.

DSoup asked you for real evidence, not conspiracy theories, which you havent provided.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

The pc is the third competitor. What other high performance machine is there ?

PC's outsell consoles every year. Consoles are a distance second.

The xbox series is newely launched we don't know how well it will do through the generation. The xbox one also sold well at the start too.

Xbox One sales were never good, and were never worse than at launch which is what prompted Microsoft to unbundle Kinect. Microsoft had to reveal Xbox One sales in documentation submitted to the Brazilian regulator in their Activision acquisition. You are living in bizarro world mate, you are posting utter nonsense that contradicts Microsoft's own documentation.

How do we know that Sony aren't engaging in any anti competitive practices ?

How do we know that Microsoft aren't engaging in any anti competitive practices but are just terrible at it? WTF kind of logic is this.

 

[eastmen]

PC's outsell consoles every year. Consoles are a distance second.



Xbox One sales were never good, and were never worse than at launch which is what prompted Microsoft to unbundle Kinect. Microsoft had to reveal Xbox One sales in documentation submitted to the Brazilian regulator in their Activision acquisition. You are living in bizarro world mate, you are posting utter nonsense that contradicts Microsoft's own documentation.


How do we know that Microsoft aren't engaging in any anti competitive practices but are just terrible at it? WTF kind of logic is this.

no no High performance gaming machines. We need to be more specific . We need to configure and twist things to make evidence fit what we are saying

You sure about those sales numbers ? https://www.vgchartz.com/article/44...-one-launch-sales-comparison-through-week-23/ . You should take the time and read what others wrote You even highlighted it

The xbox one also sold well at the start too.

Maybe you are living in bizarro world ? I guess a half a million consoles is the difference between never good and were never worse than at launch vs doing well in your book ?


MS could be engaging in anti competitive practices for sure. But hey buying up studios , buying up exclusives , blocking access to games on competitors platforms. All sounds anti competitive to me.

 

[Caayn]

From a - questionable - anecdotal perspective, when visiting Europe I've seen way more PlayStation marketing than Xbox and I would be interested to hear from those who live outside the UK what the marketing situation is where they live.

Where I live, the Netherlands, the presence of Xbox is basically nonexistent. Even in physical stores they barely exist compared to PlayStation and Nintendo, some stores don't even have anything Xbox related on the shelves.

This is in stark contrast with the Xbox 360, Xbox was everywhere at that point in time. With the Xbox One they made some big mistakes, on top of the other issues that plagued the console, causing them to lose any presence they had won with the Xbox 360. Mistakes such as launching nearly a year after the PS4 (September 2014), bad localisation, barely any marketing, major features didn't work (HDMI pass through was straight up broken in 50Hz regions) the list goes on.

 

[Nesh]

no no High performance gaming machines. We need to be more specific . We need to configure and twist things to make evidence fit what we are saying

You sure about those sales numbers ? https://www.vgchartz.com/article/44...-one-launch-sales-comparison-through-week-23/ . You should take the time and read what others wrote You even highlighted it


Maybe you are living in bizarro world ? I guess a half a million consoles is the difference between never good and were never worse than at launch vs doing well in your book ?


MS could be engaging in anti competitive practices for sure. But hey buying up studios , buying up exclusives , blocking access to games on competitors platforms. All sounds anti competitive to me.

I think you dont know how to read graphs properly

 

[Deleted member 11852]

no no High performance gaming machines. We need to be more specific . We need to configure and twist things to make evidence fit what we are saying

That's an impressive Sméagol/Gollum impression for sure, but you brought up the point about three competitors so why don't you be clear about what you mean in terms of the PC aspect? I thought you were talking about Nintendo, precious. Nobody is twisting anything, your post lack any clarity.

You sure about those sales numbers ? https://www.vgchartz.com/article/44...-one-launch-sales-comparison-through-week-23/ . You should take the time and read what others wrote You even highlighted it

I trust Microsoft's own documentation more than I trust vgchartz, which I thought was a banned source on these forums. I highlighted the part of your sentence I was responding to.

Taking the vgchartz numbers at face value, these show the Xbox Series doing well in North America. Which is good right?

Maybe you are living in bizarro world ? I guess a half a million consoles is the difference between never good and were never worse than at launch vs doing well in your book ?

Microsoft literally used poor Xbox One sales as an argument in their document as they cannot compete with Sony. Microsoft felt the sales were below expectations. This came from their own internal documents released to the courts. Again, they removed Kinect six months after launch to bring the price down because sales were lower than they expected. Why is this even something that needs debating? Microsoft reported console sales until 2016. In April 2014 Microsoft sold 5m consoles [Xbox.com], Sony had sold 7m consoles (SIE.com).

Five months in, 2m down in sales. A month alter, Kinect was gone. But sure.. Microsoft were happy with Xbox One sales.

MS could be engaging in anti competitive practices for sure. But hey buying up studios , buying up exclusives , blocking access to games on competitors platforms. All sounds anti competitive to me.

Because you don't understand the law. Your tentpole seems to be your ignorance of the law.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Where I live, the Netherlands, the presence of Xbox is basically nonexistent. Even in physical stores they barely exist compared to PlayStation and Nintendo, some stores don't even have anything Xbox related on the shelves.

This is in stark contrast with the Xbox 360, Xbox was everywhere at that point in time.

This is also my experience of Amsterdam and Utrecht, along with other European cities. It feels like Microsoft just aren't even trying in some countries yet low sales are attributed to PlayStation brand loyalty and anti-competitive practices. Even the web ads that get served - and I get a fair amount of Xbox stuff here in the UK - when travelling they don't appear.

Coca-Cola and Apple spend so much money on advertising and marketing because it works.

 

[eastmen]

That's an impressive Sméagol/Gollum impression for sure, but you brought up the point about three competitors so why don't you be clear about what you mean in terms of the PC aspect? I thought you were talking about Nintendo, precious. Nobody is twisting anything, your post lack any clarity.


I trust Microsoft's own documentation more than I trust vgchartz, which I thought was a banned source on these forums. I highlighted the part of your sentence I was responding to.

Taking the vgchartz numbers at face value, these show the Xbox Series doing well in North America. Which is good right?


Microsoft literally used poor Xbox One sales as an argument in their document as they cannot compete with Sony. Microsoft felt the sales were below expectations. This came from their own internal documents released to the courts. Again, they removed Kinect six months after launch to bring the price down because sales were lower than they expected. Why is this even something that needs debating? Microsoft reported console sales until 2016. In April 2014 Microsoft sold 5m consoles [Xbox.com], Sony had sold 7m consoles (SIE.com).

Five months in, 2m down in sales. A month alter, Kinect was gone. But sure.. Microsoft were happy with Xbox One sales.


Because you don't understand the law. Your tentpole seems to be your ignorance of the law.

I'm just playing the game. Isn't that what it is ? change things or miss hear things to make it fit your


Looking at your articles none of them state that the xbox series sales are much higher compared to the xbox one nor do any refute my claims. I do not know if vgachartz is banned or not nor would I really know why they would be. Removing connect from being added in doesn't mean that the series sold better than the one. It just means Ms needed to compete with sonys lower price.

I mean the majority of what you are saying is just not needed for the discussion. No one said MS was happy or not with the xbox one sales. I only stated that the xbox one was selling well at the start too and then that changed . Considering we are only two years into this generation we don't know if the same will be said for the xbox series family or not. But we do know looking at sources that the series is not much higher than the one sales launch aligned.


I understand the law just fine. Don't get upset when someone calls something out that you don't like. In the USA you can sue anyone for anything the courts can then decide if the case should go forward or not. Guess we will see next time sony trys to buy a company that the USA has to approve of. Then we can all sue each other

 

[Nesh]

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I'm just playing the game. Isn't that what it is ? change things or miss hear things to make it fit your

Perhaps that is why I am frustrated at the lack of coherent arguments in this thread. If people are just posting bollocks for the sake of it, that's where I am going wrong.

Looking at your articles none of them state that the xbox series sales are much higher compared to the xbox one nor do any refute my claims.

They don't, nor did I make this claim. It is the vgchartz article you posted that shows Xbox Series outselling Xbox One - despite the manufacturing woes impacting both Microsoft and Sony this generation

I only stated that the xbox one was selling well at the start too and then that changed . Considering we are only two years into this generation we don't know if the same will be said for the xbox series family or not.

Microsoft's own documents, submitted to the Brazilian court as evidence, used the argument that Xbox One sold poorly. Maybe you were happy with Xbox One sales but your opinion doesn't mean anything. Nor does mine. Microsoft's opinion however, is important.

I understand the law just fine. Don't get upset when someone calls something out that you don't like. In the USA you can sue anyone for anything the courts can then decide if the case should go forward or not.

Your sentence demonstrates that you don't understand the law. If you sue somebody in the US it is a civil matter and goes to court unless it is determined frivolous, which are some fairly low bar checks intended to weed out bad faith claims, i.e. lawsuits, motions or appeals that are intended to harass, delay or embarrass the opposition. A good example being most of Trust Administration lawsuits about voter fraud because the lawsuits included zero evidence.

Whilst I completely agree it is a shitty thing to do, paying publishers (and publishers accepting) to not release games on Game Pass, or at all on your platform is not against the law. If it were, not only would Sony be breaking the law but each publisher would be complicit in this as well, including Activision-Blizzard because of Call of Duty content.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Final Fantasy is still appearing on XBOX platforms though. Just the 7 remake didnt appear.

All of the 7 remakes (3 games in the series won't be appearing on Xbox unless Sony releases them from that contractual agreement) as well as the most popular FF game ever released. FFXIV.

Why are Square-Enix willing to take money to keep their games off platforms? Why did Activision limit content to PlayStation platforms? There is more than one party in all of these deals. Just say no and release your games to wider audience.

Money obviously. Many of the shops doing this are in a tough spot. Taking exclusivity money helps to stave off the company potentially needing to sell itself off.

Bethesda was in the same boat when they signed away exclusivity (timed in this case) on many of their titles to Sony. But at the end even with that their board wasn't seeing a profitable future for the company and thus started to shop the publishing house around in hopes of finding a buyer.

So, while we can all pretend like many of these studios (but not all) are agreeing to exclusivity deals purely because they want to, in many cases it's a do or die situation. Now the death of the company may not be in the immediate future, but the board, CFO and CEO are likely looking at the balance sheets trying to figure out a way to keep the company afloat.

Square-Enix in particular has been in a rough spot. In one of the interviews with Yoshi P back when FFXIV 2.0 was released and immediately saw huge fan take up, he revealed that Sony were internally talking about trying to find a buyer for the company because things were getting dire there. FFXIV managed to be successful enough to keep the company going, but even that wasn't enough by itself to prevent Square-Enix from needing to eventually divest itself of some of the studios they'd acquired because they could no longer afford to fund development at those studios and were in danger of being unable to fund development on their existing Japanese IPs.

Hell, they flirted with exclusivity of titles for Xbox (Tomb Raider needed outside funding in order to be completed) but internet outrage saw the end of that and thus they now only deal in exclusivity deals with Sony because the internet doesn't get outraged by that for whatever reasons. Sure Tomb Raider was a multiplatform IP, but then so is Final Fantasy.

Even Sony paying for perpetual exclusivity on some titles hasn't been enough to keep Square-Enix from needing to let go of studios that they could no longer fund development at.

Basically, in many cases, selling exclusivity is a step or two before a company sells itself. In either case, financials dictate that their titles will likely become exclusive in one way (exclusivity agreements) or another (being purchased by another company). The end result to consumers and the competitive landscape is fairly similar.

At least with Microsoft's acquisitions, there's still hope of multiplatform releases depending on the type of game it is. We'll see if Sony will follow suit and not only allow Bungie to continue to release on Xbox but to do like MS and also have them release titles on Nintendo consoles.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Xbox One sales were never good, and were never worse than at launch...

Actually, XBO was outselling X360 for the first 39 months. So, for a bit more than 3 years. I'd say that technically qualifies as outselling the X360 "at launch". Now that doesn't discount that Kinect was unbundled due to XBO not meeting Microsoft's pre-launch expectations, bad press, or that it was substantially behind PS4.

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/271185/xbox-one-vs-xbox-360vgchartz-gap-chartsnovember-2017-update/

Brand loyalty rearing its head to keep sales going regardless of how bad the press is, how badly the product is marketed, how badly the product is priced or how much worse the product offering is than the competition... As I mentioned in a previous post, Brand loyalty can never be dismissed in discussions of sales of products no matter how good (X360, PS4) or how bad (PS3, XBO).

[edit] Edited with the correct worldwide chart. Originally, I had the US sales charts.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Money obviously. Many of the shops doing this are in a tough spot. Taking exclusivity money helps to stave off the company potentially needing to sell itself off.

Bethesda was in the same boat when they signed away exclusivity (timed in this case) on many of their titles to Sony. But at the end even with that their board wasn't seeing a profitable future for the company and thus started to shop the publishing house around in hopes of finding a buyer.

So it sounds like some of the deals are an opportune and advantageous financial respite for some publishers/developers. Indeed rather than being bad for the industry, you're argument more supports it necessary to some in the industry to survive?

Actually, XBO was outselling X360 for the first 60 weeks. So, for about 15 months or 1.25 years. I'd say that technically qualifies as "at launch". Although it obviously went on to sell far worse as the generation went on.

Xbox 360 has a slower launch rollout than Xbox One. It launched first in the US and Canada, then select European countries, then Japan and much later in other countries. You may recall it was also - somewhat infamously - launched just 69 days after production began and Microsoft struggled to keep it in stock. Microsoft did get the consoles launched in 36 countries in the first year, even if most people could' actually buy one. So it's not a great high bar in that respect.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

So it sounds like some of the deals are an opportune and advantageous financial respite for some publishers/developers. Indeed rather than being bad for the industry, you're argument more supports it necessary to some in the industry to survive?

My argument is that for some companies it isn't an option, it's a necessity to avoid going bankrupt. It's effectively the same as selling your company to another company in order to avoid bankruptcy. IE - countering the point that all companies can choose not to accept an offer of exclusivity.

Obviously some companies do it purely to increase profits (like the COD deals), but anytime you see a lengthy timed exclusivity deal (like 1 year or in perpetuity) for the entire game and not just DLC, then it's an indication of financial instability and the company is choose which option they are going to go with [1] exclusivity of game or [2] selling the company. Both choices have similar results WRT the consumer (bad) and the competitive landscape (giving a potential advantage to whoever scores the exclusivity deal or acquires the company as it removes consumer choice)

Does an exclusivity deal keep that company out from 100% control of another company? Yeah. Does it place them at least somewhat under the control of another company? Yeah, that other company now controls when and where your title can release. Not so bad if it's a contracted deal to produce an IP owed by the other company (like say Bloodborne or Blue Dragon), it's certainly not great when it's another company controlling the release of an IP that you actually own (like say Tomb Raider or Final Fantasy).

Does an exclusivity deal keep all titles from said company from being available to all consumer? No. Does it keep some titles from said company from being available to all consumers and thus constraining and restricting consumer choice? Yes.

So exclusivity deals are basically ceding some control over your own company to another company versus ceding all control over your own company to another company. It's slightly better, but it's still not good.

Xbox 360 has a slower launch rollout than Xbox One. It launched first in the US and Canada, then select European countries, then Japan and much later in other countries. You may recall it was also - somewhat infamously - launched just 69 days after production began and Microsoft struggled to keep it in stock. Microsoft did get the consoles launched in 36 countries in the first year, even if most people could' actually buy one. So it's not a great high bar in that respect.

Not contending that it was good, not good, great, not great, or anything else. I was just pointing out that XBO outsold the X360 for greater than 3 years (Launch included) which is counter to you contending that XBO never outsold X360. BTW - I had to edit the post since I originally erroneously used the US sales chart instead of the WW sales chart.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I was just pointing out that XBO outsold the X360 for greater than 3 years (Launch included) which is counter to you contending that XBO never outsold X360.

I never said this.

I said was Xbox Ones were not good - and that is me repeating what Microsoft stated in their evidence to the Brazilian regulator.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I never said this.

I said was Xbox Ones were not good - and that is me repeating what Microsoft stated in their evidence to the Brazilian regulator.

Ah, gotcha. That was my bad for misinterpreting what you said then.

Regards,
SB

 

[Cardassian Bob]

We'll see if Sony will follow suit and not only allow Bungie to continue to release on Xbox but to do like MS and also have them release titles on Nintendo consoles.

That's up to Bungie.

SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT TO ACQUIRE LEADING INDEPENDENT VIDEOGAME DEVELOPER, BUNGIE

<p>- PlayStation and Bungie Continue Focus on Growing the Gaming Community, while Bungie Remains Multi-platform - SAN MATEO, Calif., January 31, 2022 – Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC...</p>

www.sony.com

Bungie will continue to operate independently, maintaining the ability to self-publish and reach players wherever they choose to play.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

That's up to Bungie.

SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT TO ACQUIRE LEADING INDEPENDENT VIDEOGAME DEVELOPER, BUNGIE

<p>- PlayStation and Bungie Continue Focus on Growing the Gaming Community, while Bungie Remains Multi-platform - SAN MATEO, Calif., January 31, 2022 – Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC...</p>

www.sony.com

Sure, now is there a legally binding contract that allows them unfettered and unrestricted freedom? Or is it just assurances and Sony can change their mind at any time?

Could they actually release Destiny on Nintendo consoles if they wanted or would Sony veto that if Bungie expressed a desire to release it on Nintendo consoles? Likewise, could and would Sony potentially veto continued releases on Xbox in the future if Bungie were to continue to release all new games on Xbox? And if they did, would Bungie even be allowed to say anything about it?

We have a history of MS allowing Mojang to release on multiple platforms and to even allow them to release on new platforms that they'd never released a game on. Same goes for allow other developers to release their IP on other platforms.

Right now we just have Sony and Bungie saying that Bungie can release where they wish, but only the future can tell if Sony will follow through with that. For Bungie's sake, I hope that's the case since Destiny as it is now is a community focused game. If it were to get restricted in any way, it's likely that it might become a dead IP.

Regards,
SB

 

[Nesh]

Sure, now is there a legally binding contract that allows them unfettered and unrestricted freedom? Or is it just assurances and Sony can change their mind at any time?

Could they actually release Destiny on Nintendo consoles if they wanted or would Sony veto that if Bungie expressed a desire to release it on Nintendo consoles? Likewise, could and would Sony potentially veto continued releases on Xbox in the future if Bungie were to continue to release all new games on Xbox? And if they did, would Bungie even be allowed to say anything about it?

We have a history of MS allowing Mojang to release on multiple platforms and to even allow them to release on new platforms that they'd never released a game on. Same goes for allow other developers to release their IP on other platforms.

Right now we just have Sony and Bungie saying that Bungie can release where they wish, but only the future can tell if Sony will follow through with that. For Bungie's sake, I hope that's the case since Destiny as it is now is a community focused game. If it were to get restricted in any way, it's likely that it might become a dead IP.

Regards,
SB

Independent means independent and multiplatform means releasing multiplatform. Its up to Bungie. If Bungie decides to make an exclusive game it is up to them. The rest about Sony vetoing etc etc is nothing but wild unsubstantiated guesses. If Sony can veto at any point, it means they are not independent. There is nothing else that can be discussed on this constructively beyond what has been announced.