Actually, they are
Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
I concede the point. Sorry I thought that was clear. The point was to make understanding that 69B worth of software was not being removed from Sony.
With a 10 year deal and following, nothing would be.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
It's about revenue collection. Making GamePass as widely available as possible allows Microsoft to widen the net for people willing to pay that subscription fee. That's one of the fundamentals of subscriptions services.
However the traditonal console economic model is about people buying your hardware because the revenue for selling everybody's games through your exclusive store is considerable and that's what drives the development of platform exclusives and platform-specific features, to differentiate and get as many people on your device as possible because every game they buy is free money. Lovely, lovely free money!
The subscription and traditional console models are not really reconcilable. If Microsoft were really intent with their games anywhere, strategy they would be release more than Minecraft and re-releases of old Bethesda games on PlayStation. It feels like they have not really given up on their traditional console model belief.
The 70B is being spent to bolster MS position via gaming.Like securing a few European titles and actually marketing in Europe. That'd probably solve the 80:20 split they are moaning about. I bet the ratio of European Marketing spend over the past 20 years PlayStation to Xbox is something very like that 80:20! MS just never really tried here. Original XBox was an English console. XB360 had limited regionalisation. Sony OTOH supported lots more languages etc. for all its PS's. They took Europe seriously from the beginning and won it over by investing and giving Europeans what they wanted, notably a console that provided content in their language, and continue to market here. It also factors in previous generations and not just the current one where they are competing better.
It is not 70B to bolster gaming.
You can’t change that quickly. They don’t even have a 3rd party store out yet, their cloud gaming is still in the early stages of infancy. They can only make moves when it’s the right time.It's about revenue collection. Making GamePass as widely available as possible allows Microsoft to widen the net for people willing to pay that subscription fee. That's one of the fundamentals of subscriptions services.
However the traditonal console economic model is about people buying your hardware because the revenue for selling everybody's games through your exclusive store is considerable and that's what drives the development of platform exclusives and platform-specific features, to differentiate and get as many people on your device as possible because every game they buy is free money. Lovely, lovely free money!
The subscription and traditional console models are not really reconcilable. If Microsoft were really intent with their games anywhere, strategy they would be release more than Minecraft and re-releases of old Bethesda games on PlayStation. It feels like they have not really given up on their traditional console model belief.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
What third party store? Why does Microsoft need a third party store?
Microsoft is looking to put a store on android and IOS.
Microsoft making Xbox mobile game store to challenge Apple's iPhone control | AppleInsider
Microsoft plans to fight both Apple and Google by building a mobile gaming store — but unless assorted governments mandate it, it won't appear in the App Store soon.
appleinsider.com
Of course, but if someone argues that they only want it for the mobile footprint, then they can give up rest of the bits. And if its IP and mobile, get the IP rights for mobile and let ABK keep PC/Console bits. I do not belive for a second this is feasible, but it was answer to the mobile bit you said.
Microsoft is looking to put a store on android and IOS.
Microsoft making Xbox mobile game store to challenge Apple's iPhone control | AppleInsider
Microsoft plans to fight both Apple and Google by building a mobile gaming store — but unless assorted governments mandate it, it won't appear in the App Store soon.
There is absolutely nothing stopping MS from releasing an MS Store/Xbox Store on Android right now. Amazon has been doing it for years.
And soon Apple will be required to open iOS to 3rd party stores.
I think it’s both requirements. With google play store the Amazon App Store is not present, you must manually download and sideload the Amazon store.
With IOS, you can’t side load, so any third party store must be downloadable from
The respective store, in this case the App Store.
MS and likely Amazon is looking to get onto the Play Store and App Store respectively.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I feel use I should put this on a hotkey today, but what does that have to do with what I posted?
Activision Reportedly Earns Higher Cut On Call Of Duty Revenue Generated On PlayStation Hardware - PlayStation Universe
The CMA has found that Sony takes a 'discounted margin' on Call of Duty sales across PlayStation formats.
www.psu.com
This is very interesting if true.
Probably thats how Sony acquired timed exclusivity in some content.
Inuhanyou
Veteran
If the Activision deal does go through in all the ways most favorable to MS, I wonder how that shakes out for competition in the wider sense.
Although PlayStation has more console sales, it's clear that Sony depends much more on third party sales than their first party. Those third parties of which Activision+Blizzard takes a significant chunk as a whole and MS would directly control by proxy.
At this point however game sales don't actually matter to MS how they do with Sony, Nintendo and Valve, as gamepass has become something they use to gauge wider success as they have said.
MS started with taking Bethesda off the wider market, and now Activision. And if their previous statements are to be believed, they don't plan to stop there either.
If MS does end up owning all these properties, I wonder what the harm is in pulling a Bungie in this instance, unless the point is to isolate Sony in the wider marketplace?
Doesn't sound so good. And, what does Sony do in response? I don't think even they know what they could do if this deal goes through to be honest with all of those studios that were creating games ceasing to exist on their platform all at once.
It's quite the question. Bethesda aquisition was already a big blow to their software lineup.
I guess they would be heavily pressured and spooked into buying up publishers themselves as well to make up the difference?
Not a good future for those who preferred a more open marketplace, atleast on console. PC players seem like they are feasting though from Sony and MSs back and forth, being considered a "neutral zone" and all that.
Although PlayStation has more console sales, it's clear that Sony depends much more on third party sales than their first party. Those third parties of which Activision+Blizzard takes a significant chunk as a whole and MS would directly control by proxy.
At this point however game sales don't actually matter to MS how they do with Sony, Nintendo and Valve, as gamepass has become something they use to gauge wider success as they have said.
MS started with taking Bethesda off the wider market, and now Activision. And if their previous statements are to be believed, they don't plan to stop there either.
If MS does end up owning all these properties, I wonder what the harm is in pulling a Bungie in this instance, unless the point is to isolate Sony in the wider marketplace?
Doesn't sound so good. And, what does Sony do in response? I don't think even they know what they could do if this deal goes through to be honest with all of those studios that were creating games ceasing to exist on their platform all at once.
It's quite the question. Bethesda aquisition was already a big blow to their software lineup.
I guess they would be heavily pressured and spooked into buying up publishers themselves as well to make up the difference?
Not a good future for those who preferred a more open marketplace, atleast on console. PC players seem like they are feasting though from Sony and MSs back and forth, being considered a "neutral zone" and all that.
Minecraft, Deathloop, Minecraft Dungeons, Doom Eternal, Elder Scrolls Online, Ghostwire Tokyo, Minecraft Legends, Skyrim Anniversary Edition, and Quake (the re-release) all have bespoke PS5 releases. Is that not enough? According to Wikipedia 2K and Activision have only published 6 PS5 games each.
OK, so we are discounting the category of availability if the delivery method doesn't meet the criteria of the "traditional console economic model". And of course it's about revenue collection. Business is the business of revenue collection. And Microsoft is a business, just like Sony. They also collect revenue.It's about revenue collection. Making GamePass as widely available as possible allows Microsoft to widen the net for people willing to pay that subscription fee. That's one of the fundamentals of subscriptions services.
However the traditonal console economic model is about people buying your hardware because the revenue for selling everybody's games through your exclusive store is considerable and that's what drives the development of platform exclusives and platform-specific features, to differentiate and get as many people on your device as possible because every game they buy is free money. Lovely, lovely free money!
The subscription and traditional console models are not really reconcilable. If Microsoft were really intent with their games anywhere, strategy they would be release more than Minecraft and re-releases of old Bethesda games on PlayStation. It feels like they have not really given up on their traditional console model belief.
A lot of these games were released pre-acquisition. Only Minecraft is the true exception.
Also the future is uncertain for Sony regarding how MS is planning to use these IPs.
The next Skyrim most likely is becoming an XBOX exclusive, making the "Skyrim Anniversary Edition" argument completely invalid for example.
Arkane Studios released Deathloop on the PS5, Redfall wont be.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
No, you misunderstand me. Let me take a second pass. The modern (digital) traditional console model economy is predicated on revenue driven from selling all games through your digital store. Games like GTA V and Skyrim are cash cows because as the console manufacturer you're taking no risk on developing and publishing the game, but every sale of the game brings your 30% of the sale price, plus for games like GTA V and Fortnite you're also skimming whatever DLC/content IAP are made. For this model to pay out massively, you want the maximum number of people using your platform and buying through your store and this is one of the drivers for platform exclusive games.
Repeating subscription revenue is what lots of people are currently chasing, because having predictable income month-in, month-out helps stabilise one-off revenue streams that can vary, quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year. This is predicted on the belief that few people subscribe from services although you have to ignore several Netflix subscriber crashes for that to make sense. In this model (GamePass, xCloud), you want to reach as many people as possible because you're not expecting to make sales, only subscription revenue sponsor so you don't care as much where people play, you're grabbing the subscription revenue anyway.
Sony's PlayStation Has 70% Of The Global Console Market Share, Compared To Xbox's 30%, Claims Microsoft - PlayStation Universe
According to Microsoft, Sony's PlayStation enjoys 70% of the global console market share, while Xbox sits well behind at 30%.
www.psu.com
Anyone seeing the irony in MS's percentage claim?
No Nintendo. Apparently that would have changed the percentages to a less tragic image for MS.
Secondly, it shows the contradicting arguments between people in support of MS's acquisition vs MS's own arguments.
Where? Remember how many claimed Nintendo IS a direct competitor to Sony, against Sony's argument that Nintendo is a different proposition as a lower performance console, with MS trying to make them like Nintendo.
MS doesnt even consider Nintendo a competitor in the market when it wants to convince the regulators that Sony owns the market.
Nintendo has been selling quite impressively and almost reached PS4 number's. Either MS has to account Nintendo in the console market which does well, which changes the narrative about Sony's super dominance
Or they simply don't which is in support that Nintendo is a different proposal just like Sony claimed.
Either way MS is shooting their own foot in their arguments because they admit indirectly that they do not need acquisitions to succeed (because Switch is outperforming the XBOX too so Sony isnt the problem) or that they are indeed putting themselves in a position where they can potentially cut a direct competitor from being able to access the content which makes them a direct competitor in the first place, thus making XBOX do what Sonydon't like Nintendon't.
Last edited:
Sony's PlayStation Has 70% Of The Global Console Market Share, Compared To Xbox's 30%, Claims Microsoft - PlayStation Universe
According to Microsoft, Sony's PlayStation enjoys 70% of the global console market share, while Xbox sits well behind at 30%.www.psu.com
Anyone seeing the irony in MS's percentage claim?
No Nintendo. Apparently that would have changed the percentages to a less tragic image for MS.
Secondly, it shows the contradicting arguments between people in support of MS's acquisition vs MS's own arguments.
Where? Remember how many claimed Nintendo IS a direct competitor to Sony, against Sony's argument that Nintendo is a different proposition as a lower performance console, with MS trying to make them like Nintendo.
MS doesnt even consider Nintendo a competitor in the market when it wants to convince the regulators that Sony owns the market.
Nintendo has been selling quite impressively and almost reached PS4 number's. Either MS has to account Nintendo in the console market which does well, which changes the narrative about Sony's super dominance
Or they simply don't which is in support that Nintendo is a different proposal just like Sony claimed.
Either way MS is shooting their own foot in their arguments because they admit indirectly that they do not need acquisitions to succeed (because Switch is outperforming the XBOX too so Sony isnt the problem) or that they are indeed putting themselves in a position where they can potentially cut a direct competitor from being able to access the content which makes them a direct competitor in the first place, thus making XBOX do what Sonydon't like Nintendon't.
They show Sony vs Msft percentage because nintendo is not opposing the deal.
Similar threads
