Was used games the most profitable segment for gamers ? I don't know about that. As an ex game stop employee at multiple levels of the company I can say that used games was a loosing racket for the end user. It was super profitable for game stop.
Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
Was used games the most profitable segment for gamers ? I don't know about that. As an ex game stop employee at multiple levels of the company I can say that used games was a loosing racket for the end user. It was super profitable for game stop.
It's a bit early I think to compared Microsoft's handling of Minecraft to Sony's handling of Destiny. Since Microsoft purchased Mojang in 2014 they've released or licensed 2 Telltale games, Dungeons, and arcade game, Minecraft Earth, a bunch of books, toys and collectables and have Minecraft Legends announced for multiple platforms. All the while, they've released Minecraft on new platforms like Switch, 3DS, and WiiU while supporting the Java and Bedrock codebases, the educational and Chinese variants, and updating some of the legacy versions to bedrock (pocket edition, PS4 and Xbox versions got updated).
Since buying Bungie, Sony has released DLC for destiny 2 and announced DLC for destiny 2.
Obviously there is a time discrepancy, and there is the potential for Destiny to get the support from Sony that Minecraft has received from Microsoft. But as it stands right now I don't think the resume of support can really be compared.
Yeah, when neither console offered backwards compatibility it made it much easier to switch during the Xbox One/PS4 Gen. Many consumers jumped in during the 360 gen, and it was easy for them to simply jump out. It's like both sides declared a do-over. It is a shame in the case of Microsoft. They might have been able to retain more of their userbase if BC was there at launch.
It would have been suicidal for Mojang if MS decided to limit Mojang's business and growth potential. There was less to gain by eliminating support if any and a lot more to lose. As I said Minecraft is a unique product of its own.
As MS stated they need to purchase studios to expand exclusive content. Minecraft isnt one of those IPs. Minecraft is unique stand out brand on its own which reminds me of Angry Birds.
perhaps , we will have to see what ultimately happens when MS is done with its strategy of building up internal studios by making new ones and buying new ones.
To me sony seems to make single player 3rd person action games that people enjoy that get between 70 into the 90s meta critic . Now they are trying to expand out from that by making some of those titles online multiplayer stuff like the last of us and the rumored horizon online multiplayer game
MS seems to have already diversified their offers and now have a slew of ip that offer different experiances. They just need to have more to execute on them all properly. There is window of time that MS can exploit if they are able too where there is a bunch for everyone and could pull some people away
Now? This isnt now. Its been happening for ages. I supposed you havent owned a Playstation since the 360.
Sony is trying to get back to the potential of GaS. And they missed opportunities and lost IPs that were there ages ago after they sold SOE. IPs such as DC Universe.
TLOU1, and the Uncharted games did have online multiplayer since PS3. So did Killzone 2, 3 and Shadowfall. And I am sure there are more I cant rememember.
GT Sport and 7 arent offering multiplayer as an extra. It is part of the game's meat. They have created an online competitive community and created a powerful E-Sport presence from it.
Demon's Souls was proposed by and developed by Sony's Japan Studio which also have a srong online component that was carried over to the Dark Souls games.
Ghost of Tsushima added an online Co-Op component
DriveClub was trying to create an online racing community. The Little Big Planet also focused on establising an online community of co-op and user content creation.
And lets not forget Sony's effort to build an online Playstation community with Home.
You listed a whole lot of what Sony gave up on there. Perhaps they should have kept on with a lot of those old titles and they wouldn't have had to buy new developers ?
I dont register. What does buying new developers have to do with the fact that online was always a notable focus with Sony?
A lot of their main and traditional franshises from older studios still invest in online multiplayer. Failed efforts are abandoned and successful ones continue like every business.
Oh its just lovely Irony.
Look you listed a whole lot of what is in the past. The fact remains that what I said is true you just want to try and spin it.
Nothing in this quote is wrong. You can go back as far as you want but it doesn't change the current state of Sony and its been that way for most of the ps4 era too. Sony is trying to plug the holes in their boat , the reason that the holes aren't as obvious vs Ms's is that Sony has big flashy titles coming out often enough and has a bunch of third party support they enjoy becasue of their postion in the market. This is going to start to become a problem if MS can execute on the studios and IP they have and will have in the future. If sony itself can't execute on a wider range of game types they will find themselves in trouble.
It's simple really if 80 or 90% of titles are 3rd party and I like W/CRPGs if MS is the one putting out the exclusives then I will be more likely to buy an xbox. If sony only keeps putting out GT and MS has forza and horizon and I'm a racing fan than I will be more likely to buy an xbox. The list goes on. It's why Sony is trying to diversify themselves. Adding co-op to a game isn't going to move the needle if its still the same genre 90% of sonys games are in.
Sony provides high quality single player experiences doesnt invalidate the fact that online has also been part of the package they have been offering. They have experimented multiple times with different genres and types of games within their own studios. Some succeeded, some failed.
I mean you, yourself brought exampes like TLOUS because you had no idea that the original game had Online Multiplayer. Uncharted 4 also had Online Multiplayer. They always tried to expand with successes and failures. You just weren't aware of it.
In regards o racing games, MS is producing Forza Motorsport and Forza Horizon since the 360. Sony besides GT, they made atempts with Motorstorm, Wipeout, and DriveClub.
Diversification and need for Studio purchase is mostly a MS problem. Where Sony was investing with blockbaster games as well as riskier experimental games within their own Studios, MS has realised that their own output was inadequate, hence why they are the ones making the biggest purchases of 3rd parties in gaming history.
Actually it is more likely that Sony might be in trouble because their own small studios risk with new and experimental titles, whereas MS purchases big studios known for having a backround of proven successful output with blockbaster AAA titles and thats how they gain exclusives. It is a matter of competing resources from this point and nothing else, which Sony just doesn't have as much compared to MS. Especially with Zenimax and ABK under MS's hood. These studios are big and stand by themselves, and can be self funded on top of MS funding. Whereas the source of funding for PS Studios comes primarily from Playstation and whatever extra Sony can invest with their available liquidity.
I dont think there will be any contest really.
Last edited:
Is this not true for Destiny? Time will tell if Sony has the intention to release it on more platforms now that they own it, or will they keep it on Xbox, Playstation and PC forever.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Heck, MS entered into a legally binding agreement to acquire Activision-Blizzard then entered into a legally binding agreement with Nintento to release COD on Nintendo's consoles. All of this is assuming regulatory approval, but if approval goes through MS are legally bound to release COD on Nintendo's consoles for at least the next 10 years.
So, Destiny on Nintendo consoles when?
Regards,
SB
Well yes. I said this isnt much different from Destiny in my previous posts.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Nintendo and Sony's business models are profitable - with most of each company's profits coming from software sales and services according to their financial reports (60-70% on average each reporting period).
Just two months ago Phil Spencer clarified GamePass is running at 10-15% of Xbox's profit, with no prospect of growing larger in "we don’t have this future where I think 50–70 percent of our revenue comes from subscriptions" which is a reference to how GamePass stacks to conventional sales and services profitability.
If PlayStation or Nintendo adopted a GamePass-like subscription service, PlayStation would easily be Sony's least profitable division. 10-15% is not enough to both fuel future investment and or endure unpredictable or unfavourable market shifts. Will U would have killed Nintendo. Making a new console is risky. GameCube failed, Wii U failed, PS3 failed, PS Vita failed, Dreamcast failed. If your 5-7 years profitability is so low you cannot develop any resilience - not unless you massively cut investment in first and second party games.
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.
Wii outsold PS3 and X360 and if Switch hasn't outsold PS4 yet (and PS5 inevitably) I'm sure it will, despite having launched four years after PS4, i.e. it's sold faster than PS4 and PS5..
The consensus here seems to be that Microsoft do well in a few markets where they have market presence, but don't everywhere else which also seems to be where they have little market presence. What can the problem possibly be?? /s
If only Microsoft could market their devices in more markets like Nintendo and Sony do.Wii outsold PS3 and X360 and if Switch hasn't outsold PS4 yet (and PS5 inevitably) I'm sure it will, despite having launched four years after PS4, i.e. it's sold faster than PS4 and PS5..
The consensus here seems to be that Microsoft do well in a few markets where they have market presence, but don't everywhere else which also seems to be where they have little market presence. What can the problem possibly be?? /s
did you forget about the wii u ?
Also is it now coinvent to add in nintendo ? Are they a high performance console ?
Even in the US and Europe MS does not sell as well as sony does.
If you want to know what the problem is then maybe its anti competitive practices by sony?
Thats actually following MS's and some of people's logic in this thread.
If there is no such thing as low performance consoles and Nintendo consoles are equally if not more mature than XBOX and Playstation and Nintendo can sell that much despite Sony's supposed "anti competitive" practices then MS has no excuse and it has nothing to do with Sony. Its a sign of MS's incompetence.
I mean....if everyone expect Sony to be a Nintendo in case MS takes over by buying out large multiplatform studios, so can MS without needing to buy big studios.
This is an indication of the self contradicting arguments that try to be favor of MS's anti competitive practices actually
Last edited:
But you excluded the wii u. Remember their less than 14m selling console. How many consoles have sony released that sold less than 14m ?
When has Sony ever been in the postions that MS or Nintendo has been in ? Their poorest performing console still sold more than any of MS's and the majority of Nintendos. The two Nintendo consoles that did as well still didn't do as well as the majority of sony consoles. The wii shipped about 100m units and the switch is at a 120m . Those are normal generations for Sony
Nintendo's incompetence back in the day. What do you have to say about Nintendo's competence now?
edit: Oh Vita sold around as much as Wii U. Since there is no difference
between gaming devices according to some, there you have it
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
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.
Similar threads
