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

[Deleted member 11852]

But are those really Xbox exclusives? All games are coming to PC on day one. It's not like I have to wait sometime between 1 to 10 years and be on MSFT mercy to have the ability to play it on another platform (PC). And with xcloud stream, i don't even have to own Xbox or gaming pc i can play it on tv, tablet whetever. So how is that exactly fewer gamers? I still wait for Dark souls remaster on PC as I don't own ps5. Is there any service that allows me to play this game without having ps5?

They are console exclusives and absolute exclusive for everybody who is in the situation where they can only finance one box to play games on. If you don't release games on one box that is irrefutably a smaller number of accessible customers. Streaming is an option for some. My person experience when streaming both PlayStation and Xbox games is poor. Sony, Microsoft, Nvidia and Google have struggled to convince gamers that streaming is an appealing model. If they had, streaming would be massive. It's not.

Though I agree with you, that MS will not be granted any sympathy given their company size. The reality is, with their funds, they should have been able to do better than this. Something is greatly wrong in terms of their directions/management for their first party. Delays upon delays, and just often swings and misses.

Microsoft's biggest competitor is Microsoft in that they cannot seem to keep a strategy for more than a generation, even when they have a successful one (360), they tossed it out for the more expensive, lower-performance feature set that was Xbox One. I am not optimistic about the long-term financial viability of Game Pass unless Microsoft and GamePass is literally the only option. I worry that studios like Bethesda will be forced to crank out smaller, less-ambitious games faster rather than when they are ready.

Sort of. I mean, Sony had a rough start, launched a year late but they ended up outselling 360 that generation anyway. That means they sold more units in a shorter amount of time than Microsoft, while the common consensus (I think anyway) is that Microsoft offered the superior games device.

Microsoft launched Xbox in 2005, PlayStation launched PS3 in some places in 2006 and 2007 in others, including Europe. Microsoft not only had a launch timing advantage, they had cracking games like Oblivion, Halo and Gears in their launch window. It took until around 2010/11 for PS3 to begin selling well, this is the sales situation in the USA and I assure you that the PS3 neither appealed nor sold better in other territories:

There is no unfair Sony brand loyalty advantage, the seventh console generation demonstrated that people were not going to blindly buy PlayStation consoles. Microsoft's slip-ups that generation were RRoD (unfortunate) and their belief in Kinect as something being important to gamers.

When Microsoft put out a good, affordable console that had good games, tens of millions of people bought it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And as another take, what you're also saying is MS can't compete by offering a product and service people want and so should be allowed to gain a competitive advantage by taking content away from platforms? Like, it'd be okay if Ouya failed to sell and so, acquired by Meta, they buy EA and make all EA games exclusive to Ouya so where no-one would buy it because of its innate value as a gaming platform, they will because it's the only place they can play EA Sports etc?

Ouya's argument - we can't compete. No-one is buying our console. They all just buy PS or XB. We need a USP and for that, we're going to grab a publisher and own all their content

Once again, your blind Sony fanboyism means you're interpreting reality through your Sony-goggles and missing the point. MS can present the right product at the right price with great marketing and services, but Sony has a content advantage by being a larger publisher with more studios. Part of that was their fortuitous history from Japan in the 90s and 00s securing a stronger Japanese developer presence. This has established the Sony brand as the premiere 'place to play games' because they had it all for two iconic generations.

Taking your ridiculous Ouya example, Ouya come into the market without any reason to be bought over the other options because of the library - that's really what matters, the game selection. If you can play XYZ on PlayStation or XBox, why get an Ouya? If you are to offer exactly the same games, then you need to compete on other factors like price, but console hardware is already produced at a minimum and the only way to go cheap is to go inferior. Given Ouya can't compete on library versus the output of Sony, nor on price because of the economics of the business, the only way they could enter the market as a viable player is to secure content. One way, the 'traditional' way you keep banging on about, would be to accumulate the odd studio here and there and sign deals with 2nd parties, but long term that's unlikely to break into the established players. The only other way is to play a quick catch-up on the content production by securing a chunk of the talent. So now it's Ouya's exclusives on a decent console well priced with good services and great marketing versus Sony exclusives on a decent console well priced with good services and great marketing. It's a fair fight.

By limiting the size of MS's game output, you are dooming them to a weaker library position which is the only area they can compete. But let's be honest - this has always been about you wanting Sony to keep their position out front and nothing to do with the fairness of this acquisition.

 

[mr magoo]

Am I drunk or Shifty is arguing with himself?

 

[PSman1700]

Am I drunk or Shifty is arguing with himself?

Calling himself for sony fanboyism. Scary .

 

[Nesh]

Once again, your blind Sony fanboyism means you're interpreting reality through your Sony-goggles and missing the point. MS can present the right product at the right price with great marketing and services, but Sony has a content advantage by being a larger publisher with more studios. Part of that was their fortuitous history from Japan in the 90s and 00s securing a stronger Japanese developer presence. This has established the Sony brand as the premiere 'place to play games' because they had it all for two iconic generations.

Taking your ridiculous Ouya example, Ouya come into the market without any reason to be bought over the other options because of the library - that's really what matters, the game selection. If you can play XYZ on PlayStation or XBox, why get an Ouya? If you are to offer exactly the same games, then you need to compete on other factors like price, but console hardware is already produced at a minimum and the only way to go cheap is to go inferior. Given Ouya can't compete on library versus the output of Sony, nor on price because of the economics of the business, the only way they could enter the market as a viable player is to secure content. One way, the 'traditional' way you keep banging on about, would be to accumulate the odd studio here and there and sign deals with 2nd parties, but long term that's unlikely to break into the established players. The only other way is to play a quick catch-up on the content production by securing a chunk of the talent. So now it's Ouya's exclusives on a decent console well priced with good services and great marketing versus Sony exclusives on a decent console well priced with good services and great marketing. It's a fair fight.

By limiting the size of MS's game output, you are dooming them to a weaker library position which is the only area they can compete. But let's be honest - this has always been about you wanting Sony to keep their position out front and nothing to do with the fairness of this acquisition.

I am fucking confused. Also whoever this "Shifty" is literally has issues
His line of thought is just childish compared to the Shifty I knew.
Did someone get into his account or is he having a double personality? WTF

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Am I drunk or Shifty is arguing with himself?

Shhh. I want to see where this goes!

 

[iroboto]

Shhh. I want to see where this goes!

LOL. Totally feel his pain of the result of replying too early to another message while
Still replying your current reply.

 

[BRiT]

Shhh. I want to see where this goes!

It's like one of those nature documentaries...

 

[iroboto]

Okay, let's say you're right and there is a Sony brand advantage (earned that over two generations of giving gamers what they want...)

There has to be brand goodwill and we can’t ignore it. Xbox, Nintendo have this as well. Without brand loyalty these companies would be buried after these midtakes. A whole generation of RROD, followed
By TV, Kinect, a weaker system, at a more
Expensive price point and thry did not spend anytime building exclusives. They still survived going into next generation. That’s brand loyalty, the latter half was filled with changes to survive, brand loyalty kept them in the game. Much like it kept Sony in the game but the bounce back was enormous.

The major differences between Sonys brand advantage and MS is that MS is concentrated purely in US and UK. sonys
Brand is everywhere else in the world and they compete hand in hand in US and UK.

I’m not saying that’s not a can’t compete excuse though. Just calling market strength and brand loyalty as it is. MS can’t break into these other markets like Sony has using traditional console sales, I don’t think that will ever happen.

* Their method to break into those markets is to get there with xcloud.
* But xcloud requires games on gamepass.
* Gamepass titles need a better library
* So they want industry leader content on it forever that costs too much to buy annually on game pass
* So they buy it up to put on xcloud.

Sony has smartly realized this, so they have marketing agreements to block certain 3p games on gamepass.
One of the major hints here is that in their requests for concessions I think that came up. But they would rather a world that never goes to subscription gaming and cloud streaming. So better to block. If they don’t get the block they will still get the game and on PS+ which means they will be also able to put COD on streaming and match MS offering.

 

[chris1515]

There has to be brand goodwill and we can’t ignore it. Xbox, Nintendo have this as well. Without brand loyalty these companies would be buried after these midtakes. A whole generation of RROD, followed
By TV, Kinect, a weaker system, at a more
Expensive price point and thry did not spend anytime building exclusives. They still survived going into next generation. That’s brand loyalty, the latter half was filled with changes to survive, brand loyalty kept them in the game. Much like it kept Sony in the game but the bounce back was enormous.

The major differences between Sonys brand advantage and MS is that MS is concentrated purely in US and UK. sonys
Brand is everywhere else in the world and they compete hand in hand in US and UK.

I’m not saying that’s not a can’t compete excuse though. Just calling market strength and brand loyalty as it is. MS can’t break into these other markets like Sony has using traditional console sales, I don’t think that will ever happen.

* Their method to break into those markets is to get there with xcloud.
* But xcloud requires games on gamepass.
* Gamepass titles need a better library
* So they want industry leader content on it forever that costs too much to buy annually on game pass
* So they buy it up to put on xcloud.

Sony has smartly realized this, so they have marketing agreements to block certain 3p games on gamepass.
One of the major hints here is that in their requests for concessions I think that came up. But they would rather a world that never goes to subscription gaming and cloud streaming. So better to block. If they don’t get the block they will still get the game and on PS+ which means they will be also able to put COD on streaming and match MS offering.

They don't need COD to compete, they need to release game. I agree with Christopher Dring prevision fo success of Starfield for example. As an analyst he have access to some indicator of the interest generated by the game and it looks like it is very high. The day people understand people buy consoles for games maybe MS will better manage it first party studio. They have more studio than Sony without ABK...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1603759330397929473

https://twitter.com/x/status/1603761067057979393

https://twitter.com/x/status/1603777604842037257

 

[Deleted member 11852]

The major differences between Sonys brand advantage and MS is that MS is concentrated purely in US and UK. sonys
Brand is everywhere else in the world and they compete hand in hand in US and UK.

TIL nobody outside of the UK and US has heard of Microsoft, nor used their products. Despite MSDOS, Windows and Office being the three of the most prolific pieces of software used on the planet.

You know that Sony really downplayed their core brand when launching PlayStation launched, they pushed 'PlayStation'. Just go back and look at all the marketing and adverts. You might find 'Sony' in the small print but that's about it.

 

[see colon]

It took until around 2010/11 for PS3 to begin selling well, this is the sales situation in the USA and I assure you that the PS3 neither appealed nor sold better in other territories:

PS3 outsold Xbox 360 globally, though. It launched a year after 360 and was replaced by it's successor the same year as 360. Therefore it sold more units in a shorter period of time. PS3 absolutely sold better than 360 in other territories. North America and I think 1 of the South American markets were the only one I can remember Sony losing that generation.

Nintendo Switch outsells PS3 and Xbox 360 — and the Wii could be next

The Nintendo Switch has now sold more than 89 million units

www.tomsguide.com

The PS3, during its entire functional lifetime (2005-2016), sold 87.4 million, while the Xbox 360 (2005-2016) sold 84 million.

 

[iroboto]

TIL nobody outside of the UK and US has heard of Microsoft, nor used their products. Despite MSDOS, Windows and Office being the three of the most prolific pieces of software used on the planet.

You know that Sony really downplayed their core brand when launching PlayStation launched, they pushed 'PlayStation'. Just go back and look at all the marketing and adverts. You might find 'Sony' in the small print but that's about it.

Ha! Yea I should have been more specific.
I’m referring to the Xbox brand. MS as a brand has in general negative goodwill with most people due to their previous actions and the way Gates and Balmer ran the company. I think Xbox might be their strongest consumer brand that actually has fanboys. But outside of NA and UK, it’s (Xbox) quite weak.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Microsoft launched Xbox in 2005, PlayStation launched PS3 in some places in 2006 and 2007 in others, including Europe. Microsoft not only had a launch timing advantage, they had cracking games like Oblivion, Halo and Gears in their launch window. It took until around 2010/11 for PS3 to begin selling well, this is the sales situation in the USA and I assure you that the PS3 neither appealed nor sold better in other territories:

There is no unfair Sony brand loyalty advantage, the seventh console generation demonstrated that people were not going to blindly buy PlayStation consoles. Microsoft's slip-ups that generation were RRoD (unfortunate) and their belief in Kinect as something being important to gamers.

When Microsoft put out a good, affordable console that had good games, tens of millions of people bought it.

I don't know whether I'd label brand loyalty unfair or fair but it's reasonable to conclude that brand loyalty plays a part.

MS had a lot more advantages than Sony did during the PS3/X360 era. And that only allowed them to compete and it still meant that they didn't sell as well as PS3 both in terms of units sold per unit time and in absolute terms. Brand loyalty to PlayStation was able to overcome multiple large advantages that the X360 had during this generation.

Iroboto's point is that MS needs multiple large advantages to even compete with PlayStation on something approaching an even playing field, but they still don't give MS a competitive advantage despite doing almost everything better than Sony did during the PS3/X360 generation.

PS4/XBO generation reversed everything with PS4 now having most of the advantages that MS had during the PS3/X360 generation. That allowed them to not just compete but to dominate. Brand loyalty to Xbox wasn't able to allow MS to compete well but at least it meant that they still had some gamers buying their console despite their inept messaging at the start of the generation and significant hardware disadvantage.

Basically that points to there being some level of brand loyalty to each platform with PlayStation having a larger base that is loyal to the brand than Xbox does.

Just like exclusives, launching early, hardware level, hardware quality, OS quality, OS features, product quality, advertising spend, backwards compatibility, etc. are all factors that help shape the competitive landscape, brand loyalty is another factor that, IMO, must be considered.

Now, I'm not saying I fully agree with Iroboto or not, but he's asserting that the brand loyalty disparity between PlayStation and Xbox is enough to negate almost all other factors that are in Xbox's favor.

Having strong brand loyalty for a product line does not mean that all consumers are loyal to your brand. It means that some consumers are like my wife. She will not even consider any other phone than an iPhone, it doesn't matter if a competitor's phone has better features, better hardware, more apps, better battery life, etc. It's iPhone or nothing. I know that 10 years from now regardless of the quality of the iPhone that's what she will be buying. Me on the other hand while I like the iPhone I'd have no problems switching to another brand and thus I always compare different brands before making a phone purchase.

Hell just look at Ford versus Chevy in the US for some seriously major brand loyalty wars. Ford enjoys so much brand loyalty for their trucks versus how much there is for Chevy trucks that Ford absolutely dominates the field even when Chevy (or any other truck maker) releases a clearly superior truck. OTOH - Chevy enjoys a significant brand loyalty advantage for sports cars which Ford has difficulty competing with.

I mean, this is all Business 101 for any Business Major. It's why companies are so keen to build their brand image in hopes of it boosting brand loyalty.

Before someone points to this generation as being an outlier with MS competing well, keep in mind that Sony has had a significant major disadvantage that they haven't yet been able to overcome, production capacity of PS5s.

Regards,
SB

 

[Nesh]

I don't know whether I'd label brand loyalty unfair or fair but it's reasonable to conclude that brand loyalty plays a part.

MS had a lot more advantages than Sony did during the PS3/X360 era. And that only allowed them to compete and it still meant that they didn't sell as well as PS3 both in terms of units sold per unit time and in absolute terms. Brand loyalty to PlayStation was able to overcome multiple large advantages that the X360 had during this generation.

Iroboto's point is that MS needs multiple large advantages to even compete with PlayStation on something approaching an even playing field, but they still don't give MS a competitive advantage despite doing almost everything better than Sony did during the PS3/X360 generation.

PS4/XBO generation reversed everything with PS4 now having most of the advantages that MS had during the PS3/X360 generation. That allowed them to not just compete but to dominate. Brand loyalty to Xbox wasn't able to allow MS to compete well but at least it meant that they still had some gamers buying their console despite their inept messaging at the start of the generation and significant hardware disadvantage.

Basically that points to there being some level of brand loyalty to each platform with PlayStation having a larger base that is loyal to the brand than Xbox does.

Just like exclusives, launching early, hardware level, hardware quality, OS quality, OS features, product quality, advertising spend, backwards compatibility, etc. are all factors that help shape the competitive landscape, brand loyalty is another factor that, IMO, must be considered.

Now, I'm not saying I fully agree with Iroboto or not, but he's asserting that the brand loyalty disparity between PlayStation and Xbox is enough to negate almost all other factors that are in Xbox's favor.

Having strong brand loyalty for a product line does not mean that all consumers are loyal to your brand. It means that some consumers are like my wife. She will not even consider any other phone than an iPhone, it doesn't matter if a competitor's phone has better features, better hardware, more apps, better battery life, etc. It's iPhone or nothing. I know that 10 years from now regardless of the quality of the iPhone that's what she will be buying. Me on the other hand while I like the iPhone I'd have no problems switching to another brand and thus I always compare different brands before making a phone purchase.

Hell just look at Ford versus Chevy in the US for some seriously major brand loyalty wars. Ford enjoys so much brand loyalty for their trucks versus how much there is for Chevy trucks that Ford absolutely dominates the field even when Chevy (or any other truck maker) releases a clearly superior truck. OTOH - Chevy enjoys a significant brand loyalty advantage for sports cars which Ford has difficulty competing with.

I mean, this is all Business 101 for any Business Major. It's why companies are so keen to build their brand image in hopes of it boosting brand loyalty.

Before someone points to this generation as being an outlier with MS competing well, keep in mind that Sony has had a significant major disadvantage that they haven't yet been able to overcome, production capacity of PS5s.

Regards,
SB

Most of the advantages the XBOX had were matched by PS3 later. The PS3 had advantages MS didnt have any interest in offering and RROD had a huge effect. Plus the PS3 was building a better library of games.

MS competes just fine. MS couldnt compete well with XBOX One simply because they screwed up big time, and they diluted two of their most famous franchises, Halo and Gears which were originally top hardware sellers.

Whenever MS cant "compete" is due to their incompetence and not because of blind brand loyalty.


Edit: Sony's brand loyalty mostly contributed in people trusting the PS3 was going to deliver. And thats exactly what you were getting from "loyal" fans and Sony aimed to meet their expectations and delivered in spades with games. The whole faith in the brand is that they were feeling that they were guaranteed all their favorite franchises from PS2 and more. Without games you are fucked no matter the brand.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

PS3 outsold Xbox 360 globally, though. It launched a year after 360 and was replaced by it's successor the same year as 360. Therefore it sold more units in a shorter period of time. PS3 absolutely sold better than 360 in other territories.

PS3 outsold 360 globally eventually and marginally. Annual sales of PS3's gradually increased over time whereas 360's annual sales didn't grow in the same way.

Ha! Yea I should have been more specific. I’m referring to the Xbox brand. MS as a brand has in general negative goodwill with most people due to their previous actions and the way Gates and Balmer ran the company. I think Xbox might be their strongest consumer brand that actually has fanboys. But outside of NA and UK, it’s (Xbox) quite weak.

What is this statement based on? Is there some polling that supports this because I feel this is a sentiment is more a case of posited theory that: 360 sells less than PS3 = sony brand loyalty.

MS had a lot more advantages than Sony did during the PS3/X360 era. And that only allowed them to compete and it still meant that they didn't sell as well as PS3 both in terms of units sold per unit time and in absolute terms. Brand loyalty to PlayStation was able to overcome multiple large advantages that the X360 had during this generation.

Microsoft came out of the gate swinging in the seventh generation swinging but I think that made several missteps whereas Sony more of less fell flat on its face out of the gate, picked itself up and got stronger and stronger. In the same period that Microsoft were denying RRoD failures and making Kinect, Sony cost-reduced PS3, improved the SDKs and dev tools, unlocked performance and knocked out critically-acclaimed exclusives on PS3 like Motorstorm, MGS IV, Little Big Planet, Uncharted trilogy, inFamous, The Last of Us, Ratchet & Clank, loads of JRPGs, the Resistance trilogy, Yakuza, Gran Turismo, God of War plus lots of smaller titles like Journey.

Iroboto's point is that MS needs multiple large advantages to even compete with PlayStation on something approaching an even playing field, but they still don't give MS a competitive advantage despite doing almost everything better than Sony did during the PS3/X360 generation.

I travel a lot in continental Europe and rarely see Xbox marketed. PlayStation is everywhere: on TV, in magazines, on billboards, on the side of taxis, buses and trains, on the side of buildings and at sporting events. Sony obviously spend a lot of money and Microsoft seemingly do not. It takes a lot of effort, work and money to put a brand into people's heads. Sony probably pay around $100m/year to sponsor the Champion's League in Europe and that reaches a lot of people of all ages.

In the UK and US, Microsoft do seem to make an effort in terms of marketing. I'd be really interested to know what Microsoft's marketing budgets are for France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands compared to the UK. Because I think the answer will explain a lot.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What is this statement based on? Is there some polling that supports this because I feel this is a sentiment is more a case of posited theory that: 360 sells less than PS3 = sony brand loyalty.

Yes, that's it. There is no data which can be used to determine the impact of loyalty and no way to measure it. Closest you'll get is brand rankings - I've seen these rate both PS and XB higher.

Another important consideration for the PS360 comparison, which company made the most money that generation? As businesses, that was their intent. If MS made more money (or rather lost less) than Sony, they won the generation from that POV. Sony's extra sales may not have come from brand loyalty and simply came from recklessly outspending. Hence the reason MS wasn't the best selling might not be because of mindless loyalty but an unwillingness of MS to spend as much as Sony to secure market-share. That'll be revealed in the financials with both companies clearly identifying their expenditure over the years of that generation...

But people are going to pick datapoints to satisfy their existing world-view. Which might well come down to the psychology of nationalism/patriotism for some peeps. Loyalty to nation is a very well recorded phenomenon that, if brand loyalty is to be considered an influence, should be recognised as a stronger influence, especially with the US having far and away the strongest national pride in its citizens. I'd argue culture to back American economy has far more influence on people's idea that this merger is good or bad than brand loyalty (and not other decision-making factors) sways people to buy PS over XB.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But people are going to pick datapoints to satisfy their existing world-view. Which might well come down to the psychology of nationalism/patriotism for some peeps.

Nice move to try and dismiss the whole debate as sociological as you know it's pretty obvious you've lost credibility with everything you post. You literally highlight the impact of Sony brand loyalty.

Loyalty to nation is a very well recorded phenomenon that, if brand loyalty is to be considered an influence, should be recognised as a stronger influence, especially with the US having far and away the strongest national pride in its citizens.

Yeah, so why the hell weren't patriotic US citizens buying the US console then? If they're all that patriotic that they can't argue rationally over whether this merger is a good idea or not, surely they'd be 'irrationally' buying the US console? But even with the 'pro American' mentality you're pushing, MS can't sell more American consoles to the American People than Sony.

 

[BRiT]

Shhh. No one disturb em...

Spoiler

 

[Malo]

uhhh why is Shifty calling out himself?