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

[iroboto]

If you cannot take into consider about past behaviours, and you cannot predict the future, what evidence do you think these processes are predicted on?

However you are wrong about this, past behaviours are absolutely relavent which is why Microsoft past decisions about IP from acquisitions was questioned by the UK CMA, the EU regulator and now the FTC. Microsoft have acquired a lot of IP over the years and of that, only Minecraft has appeared on PlayStation.


That's really weird, because that's absolutely the opposite of what Microsoft said about this acquisition in their 2022 Annual Report:

"On January 18, 2022, we entered into a definitive agreement to acquire Activision Blizzard, Inc. (“Activision Blizzard”) for $95.00 per share in an all-cash transaction valued at $68.7 billion, inclusive of Activision Blizzard’s net cash. Activision Blizzard is a leader in game development and an interactive entertainment content publisher. The acquisition will accelerate the growth in our gaming business across mobile, PC, console, and cloud and will provide building blocks for the metaverse.

A few of these IPs are limited to PC, most are multiplatform but by all means present a list.


Minus $69bn dollars. Actvision-Blizzard net profit for 2022 was $1.513bn.


I don't think you have seen a financial breakdown before, but assets, equities and cash are all accounted very differently. I linked to Micorosft's last annual report, you should take a look at how the company actually account for things like this and how transfers of one accountable into another are reported.


Marketing isn't an assets, it's a cost. Please man, please stop providing your views on finances. It's painful. Again, iI refer you to Microsoft's Annual Report for how the company manages its accounts. If you think you the company are doing it wrong, you ought to reach out to them.


It's a generally accepted strategy to eat short term losses if there are larger profits in the long term. Is this what Microsoft think? I have no idea.

Ignore my last post. I read your post wrong and responded accordingly.

It’s inefficient for MS to engage in exclusivity practices because they would use it to gain market share. Sony and Nintendo are using it to keep their market share. And in the case of Sony they are trying to kick the remaining small amount of MS out of the market.

the ROI is likely negative for MS which is why they stopped doing this type of thing for big AAA titles last generation.

As for past behaviour; you can’t block them on the basis for not being successful is what I’m trying to say. It’s impossible to prove.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It’s inefficient for MS to engage in exclusivity practices because they would use it to gain market share. Sony and Nintendo are using it to keep their market share. And in the case of Sony they are trying to kick the remaining small amount of MS out of the market.

Marketing deals have been a mainstay of video games for decades, including when Nintendo and Sony had to recover from a previous rough console generation, so saying marketing deals have not been used successful to grow user base flies in the face of Switch succeeding Wii U and PS4 succeeding PS3.

the ROI is likely negative for MS which is why they stopped doing this type of thing for big AAA titles last generation.

In most markets, Microsoft have never actively marketed Xbox. Xbox marketing in many European countries is pretty much non-existent and that's the third largest market in video games behind North America and China. Sony spend a fortune on marketing PlayStation in Europe, so I struggle to accept that marketing deals didn't work for Xbox when their basic advertising for their entire platform has been non-existent outside of about four countries.

 

[see colon]

The critical question I have is how closely does the deal that MS offers compensate the 3rd party for any lost traditional sales, if there are any. It is known that some AAA publishers do not like the GamePass model and don't really want their games on it because they will lose money vs the traditional model , we know that, ironically, Activision believes this is the case and why their big games like new releases of COD never appear on there.

Activision is basically the only 3rd party publisher that completely avoided Gamepass. Ubisoft and EA games are included with Gamepass Ultimate, for example. Not everything is day one, but things end up there. There are a bunch of Embracer games on there, with Payday 3 launching day one.

Again, in the case of the more recently added Japanese games I believe Microsoft is offering a guarantee of income in exchange for putting the games on Xbox, much less Gamepass. So there isn't a potential loss of revenue, only a potential for gain. Time will tell if this is sustainable.

And now I think you are twisting my words, I was comparing and contrasting strategies employed by Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft respectively in how they attempted to undo their own self inflicted market failures, not assigning fault or blaming anyone.

I mean no offense, but I'm using the same criteria you and others have applied to different players in the console market when comparing their attempts to succeed. I'm not blaming anyone either, but it isn't Microsoft's fault that Sony has fumbled in music, TVs and memory stick business and can't afford to buy Activision any more than it is Sony's fault that Microsoft has been bungling Xbox. Rooting for Microsoft to not try to fix their deficiencies (in this case having more content) is rooting for them to fail. And I don't see why any consumer would want a market controlled solely by Sony and Nintendo.

Furthermore...why did MS leave it so long to secure talent and exclusives, if that's what it takes? Let's say Sony only crawled their way back because they because they bought 6 studios over 5 years (studios which weren't making games for other platforms). If that's what it'd take to compete, why weren't MS doing that too? After buying Rare, why was there zero expansion or dealing until 2018??

With Xbox One, Microsoft tried to rely on 3rd party exclusive deals. Games like Dead Rising 3, Ryse, Titanfall, and Rise of the Tomb Raider. The problem was that PS4 outsold Xbox One so quickly, that for Microsoft to make it financially responsible for a publisher to skip Playstation 4, a platform that outsold them 2:1 or more, would require them to compensate for the potential lost sales on the dominants platform. Sony had a similar issue with PS3, but I would say with the added advantages of not being outsold 2:1, and having a country full of developers who, for one reason or another, preferred to make games for a Japanese console. But buying studios and securing content is exactly how they achieved that.

If you look at an example from that era, Rise of the Tomb Raider, that was a big game for Microsoft to get as an exclusive. It's a well known franchise and the second game after a successful reboot. IIRC it launched on PC and Xbox, but the early sales were something like 3:1 in PCs favor, because of Xbox's install base. It was a 1 year exclusive, and when it came out on PS4 I think it took a few months to beat Xbox sales from that year. You would have to compensate someone handsomely to motivate them to make a game exclusive to a platform like that. The flipside for Sony is, if you pay for an exclusive you only need to pay them for the sales they wouldn't get on Xbox One, which is way more affordable. Microsoft just reached the point that it made more sense to buy the farm instead of paying a former for the milk.

 

[iroboto]

Marketing deals have been a mainstay of video games for decades, including when Nintendo and Sony had to recover from a previous rough console generation, so saying marketing deals have not been used successful to grow user base flies in the face of Switch succeeding Wii U and PS4 succeeding PS3.


In most markets, Microsoft have never actively marketed Xbox. Xbox marketing in many European countries is pretty much non-existent and that's the third largest market in video games behind North America and China. Sony spend a fortune on marketing PlayStation in Europe, so I struggle to accept that marketing deals didn't work for Xbox when their basic advertising for their entire platform has been non-existent outside of about four countries.

marketing only counts if people want to buy your stuff. When you enter an area with pure Sony dominance marketing harder isn’t going to get you the win. You have to be able to offer a product that Sony has no answer for that people want. Then you can start marketing.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You can’t block business on the basis of what people have done in the past. Their past is not relevant, it’s only what they do today and what their position is today.

I'm not talking blocking; only truth. Regulation will do what it does based on its rules and I'm not arguing that it should be blocked because MS ballsed up. What I want is an honest story, without blame being passed where it isn't due. Ever since this began, we've heard a lot about Sony's dodgy dealings, without evidence, and without any prior talk about - exclusive content was typical for all console companies going back to the 70s. I'd just like the record set straight one way or another. Which, again, won't happen, but those arguing in favour of MS's position need a stronger argument to convince me because, as I've spelled out, I'm seeing a company that had every opportunity to meet their rivals head on, and even demonstrated capacity to do that, and there's nothing that the others have done that MS couldn't also have done.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

marketing only counts if people want to buy your stuff. When you enter an area with pure Sony dominance marketing harder isn’t going to get you the win. You have to be able to offer a product that Sony has no answer for that people want. Then you can start marketing.

If your at a point where marketing can't get people to buy your stuff, your stuff surely has no value and you pull out of the market? It's only recently we'd got companies big enough that they can keep buying and buying to try and gain a position they can't win by out-competing. If things are that bad, why bother? Well, MS are saying that themselves.

However, what actually does it cost?...

The flipside for Sony is, if you pay for an exclusive you only need to pay them for the sales they wouldn't get on Xbox One, which is way more affordable. Microsoft just reached the point that it made more sense to buy the farm instead of paying a former for the milk.

My problem here is we've no numbers. What actually does it cost for Sony and MS? Because that expense, something we're saying MS should have been spending over the past 15 years, is by my estimation well less than $70 billion. MS could have spent, I dunno, $15 billion, $20 billion, to be at a point where they are going toe-to-toe with Sony and running a very profitable console business. That looks like a better investment if ABK is about console gaming. But it's not, it's about making money elsewhere, which is where the value comes from $70B for ABK. Which is fine, but then the narrative shouldn't be about competing with an entrenched Sony.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

marketing only counts if people want to buy your stuff. When you enter an area with pure Sony dominance marketing harder isn’t going to get you the win.

If people are adamant about not wanting or needing a product, it's doubtful that marketing would sway them. But for people who are interesting in a type of product, marketing works. Companies like Apple, Coca-Cola, Nike, Samsung, and McDonalds, don't spend fortunes on relentless marketing because their vaults are already full-up with money. It's because ti works.

You want the idea of your product in people's minds, you want to keep reminding them of it, so if they cannot afford it, they are motivated to save for it. If you're looking to buy a console in Spain or Italy, because gaming is a pastime that appeals to you, or if you're buying it as a gift, which console are you going to buy? The console that is marketed literally everywhere, or the console that isn't? One you may not even have heard of.

There are literally countries in Europe where Microsoft don't support Xbox. No Xbox in Iceland, Luxembourg and Malta? Are you f***ing kidding me. Every 5* hotel I've stayed at in Dubai had a PlayStation. Microsoft don't even list Dubai as country that isn't supported despite it having one of the biggest growing gaming industries in the Middle East. PlayStation is entrenched there now.

I think it come up during the EU investigation, but Xbox is sold in less than a half of the countries that PlayStation is supported in. This is why Microsoft cannot compete in marketing. Failure one is not even selling their console in a whole bunch of countries and failure two is half-assed marketing when they do.

I suspect this is the deal breaker. As a publisher you lean on Microsoft to help market then realise that compared to Sony you're probably getting a tiny fraction of the exposure simply because Xbox isn't where your customers are.

 

[iroboto]

I'm not talking blocking; only truth. Regulation will do what it does based on its rules and I'm not arguing that it should be blocked because MS ballsed up. What I want is an honest story, without blame being passed where it isn't due. Ever since this began, we've heard a lot about Sony's dodgy dealings, without evidence, and without any prior talk about - exclusive content was typical for all console companies going back to the 70s. I'd just like the record set straight one way or another. Which, again, won't happen, but those arguing in favour of MS's position need a stronger argument to convince me because, as I've spelled out, I'm seeing a company that had every opportunity to meet their rivals head on, and even demonstrated capacity to do that, and there's nothing that the others have done that MS couldn't also have done.

What is there to really say though? New entrants among the most hated in the world enters the console market and fails to make significant headway into an entrenched market where the remaining leaders 1 has complete domination of mobile and the other has full access to the supply of all games coming from all countries and during a time that you could win the war on the merit of technology.

MS tried to win in various methods and provide more value in different ways, some successful and some not, and the unfortunate thing is that they made a series of poor decisions about hardware (in particular Kinect and it’s evolution) during a time where everyone locked in their digital libraries. Even more so the gaming crowd took offence to going with digital during their announcement.

All Sony is trying yo do is push Xbox off a cliff, and with the amount of market share they own this isn’t hard to do, they just need to convince shareholders that Xbox is a waste of time and cut it.

And all Xbox is trying to do is stay in the game given their position, and the recent acquisitions are a sign and a strategic movethat they will fight to stay in the game and Sony will have to continue competing.

Of course Sony is pissed. They are a literal step from having a console monopoly, and would have likely secured it if they secured Starfield as exclusive. And MS pulled this move out of their ass to buy Bethseda and move a step further to buy ABK and that limits the amount of damage Sony can continue to press on MS shareholders. Noe big names are associated with MS, they can begin marketing and pushing forward even if the games are multiplatform. At least it doesn’t look like a completely Sony dominated playing field.

 

[iroboto]

If people are adamant about not wanting or needing a product, it's doubtful that marketing would sway them. But for people who are interesting in a type of product, marketing works. Companies like Apple, Coca-Cola, Nike, Samsung, and McDonalds, don't spend fortunes on relentless marketing because their vaults are already full-up with money. It's because ti works.

You want the idea of your product in people's minds, you want to keep reminding them of it, so if they cannot afford it, they are motivated to save for it. If you're looking to buy a console in Spain or Italy, because gaming is a pastime that appeals to you, or if you're buying it as a gift, which console are you going to buy? The console that is marketed literally everywhere, or the console that isn't? One you may not even have heard of.

There are literally countries in Europe where Microsoft don't support Xbox. No Xbox in Iceland, Luxembourg and Malta? Are you f***ing kidding me. Every 5* hotel I've stayed at in Dubai had a PlayStation. Microsoft don't even list Dubai as country that isn't supported despite it having one of the biggest growing gaming industries in the Middle East. PlayStation is entrenched there now.

I think it come up during the EU investigation, but Xbox is sold in less than a half of the countries that PlayStation is supported in. This is why Microsoft cannot compete in marketing. Failure one is not even selling their console in a whole bunch of countries and failure two is half-assed marketing when they do.

I suspect this is the deal breaker. As a publisher you lean on Microsoft to help market then realise that compared to Sony you're probably getting a tiny fraction of the exposure simply because Xbox isn't where your customers are.

Yea. I didn’t want to get into distribution challenges. But those are obvious issues for MS when compared to Sony.

Coca-cola has an easier time getting soda to parts of Africa than humanitarian water. So much so that they leverage cokes distribution if I remember correctly.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Of course Sony is pissed.

You describe corporations like they emotionally stunted angry children. This isn't how Japanese business works. Nor most American or Europe business. Emotionally charged people make poor leaders.

Yea. I didn’t want to get into distribution challenges. But those are obvious issues for MS when compared to Sony.

Why not get into these "challenges"? They're relevant. I'm not sure what the challenge is, if Nintendo can do it then Microsoft sure as hell should be able too.

Until Microsoft are selling and supporting customers in as many countries as Nintendo and Sony, why would they expect the same commercial success? That's utterly stupid.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

MS tried to win in various methods and provide more value in different ways, some successful and some not, and the unfortunate thing is that they made a series of poor decisions about hardware (in particular Kinect and it’s evolution) during a time where everyone locked in their digital libraries. Even more so the gaming crowd took offence to going with digital during their announcement.

But really not very hard in some cases. That's the point. Those outside of NA probably aren't aware of the difference, and are imagining a world that's like things in the US but where no-one is biting on XB. That's not the case. MS half-heartedly waved their console in front of a few people and left it at that. They didn't invest enough in Europe to secure content. The "boo-hoo EU doesn't like us" story is one of their making.

All Sony is trying yo do is push Xbox off a cliff,

What's this story now? What is Sony changing from making deals to trying to push MS off a cliff? I mean, they'll be very happy to have no competitors, sure, but how much are they actively trying to accelerate MS's demise? Have they led MS to the cliff edge and are about to nudge them in the back, or did they watch MS wander to the cliff edge themselves and are now viewing from a distance willing MS to fall? Without records on the deals, I don't know that anyone knows this. But actually, MS has enoguh cash to resist being pushed, if they choose.

Yea. I didn’t want to get into distribution challenges. But those are obvious issues for MS when compared to Sony.

If only they'd had about $70B to invest in expanding distribution channels, securing localised content, and marketing based on regional offices. MS has been pocketing cash to accumulate this $70B - they could have and should have been investing it on growing their business, if they were serious, no? Why weren't they spending more and doing more so instead of $70 billion cash to buy ABK in 2023 with &7.5B a year revenue, they now had a 40% share of the console business generating $20B revenue a year for them?

 

[stu11]

If Microsoft want to better in more countries, they need to start off localizing their games for the language spoken.

Gamers around the world are upset about the Microsoft's apparent failure to deliver on its commitment to localize games for a wider audience around the world. Gamers who speak Korean and Arabic are petitioning to have Starfield localized for their benefit. There are over 300 million people who speak Arabic worldwide, and just shy of 80 million Korean speakers. With around 65 million and 35 million gamers respectively who speak these languages natively, it seems like Microsoft has dropped the ball especially considering the fact that it offers full Xbox support in Korea and Saudi Arabia. There are also several million Arabic speakers in the European region.

Korea has a huge number of gamers, I guess they'll either have to play it in English or hope someone makes a language mod for it. Kind of a smack in the face for the '3 billion gamers' that MS wants to reach.

What did Uncle Phil have to say?

"Unfortunately, we can't localize every game to every market, but we're always analyzing market opportunities and getting feedback on individual games"

Well I guess people will say that I can't buy an Xbox if the games I am playing don't have language options for my language.

Does MS like the feeling of shooting themselves in the foot?

 

[iroboto]

You describe corporations like they emotionally stunted angry children. This isn't how Japanese business works. Nor most American or Europe business. Emotionally charged people make poor leaders.


Why not get into these "challenges"? They're relevant. I'm not sure what the challenge is, if Nintendo can do it then Microsoft sure as hell should be able too.

Until Microsoft are selling and supporting customers in as many countries as Nintendo and Sony, why would they expect the same commercial success? That's utterly stupid.

Why would a primarily software and cloud company get into mass distribution of consumer electronics.

To me it sounds like they are pissed. Didn’t you see Jim’s response to Activision: They just are blocking them because they want to, not because they are worried about losing COD.

 

[iroboto]

But really not very hard in some cases. That's the point. Those outside of NA probably aren't aware of the difference, and are imagining a world that's like things in the US but where no-one is biting on XB. That's not the case. MS half-heartedly waved their console in front of a few people and left it at that. They didn't invest enough in Europe to secure content. The "boo-hoo EU doesn't like us" story is one of their making.

What's this story now? What is Sony changing from making deals to trying to push MS off a cliff? I mean, they'll be very happy to have no competitors, sure, but how much are they actively trying to accelerate MS's demise? Have they led MS to the cliff edge and are about to nudge them in the back, or did they watch MS wander to the cliff edge themselves and are now viewing from a distance willing MS to fall? Without records on the deals, I don't know that anyone knows this. But actually, MS has enoguh cash to resist being pushed, if they choose.

Xbox has been half hearted been a console until console actually aligned with corporate strategy. You guys make it seem like Bill Gates wanted to become #1 in the console space at all costs from the get go, and it wasn't. By the time Xbox launched, Sony had dominated the market with PS2. Sony had a reason at this point to continue to make this a primary driver of revenue. Bill Gates was only worried about Sony replacing computing at home and making Windows irrelevant, that's why Xbox was invented in the first place.

And from that point in history all the way until Satya, most shareholders and even departments in MS had no idea what the future for Xbox would be in terms of corporate alignment, it had nearly none. Except that it was the only positive sentiment they were receiving from fans. So they kept it around. Under a great deal of many different types of leadership it lead to now. And _now_ they are investing heavily in gaming because it aligns with their strategy of sub services and cloud. And now, are penalizing them for being unsure if they should have invested 70B into Xbox over the last 20 years. Because that's all I'm reading from you guys.

If only they'd had about $70B to invest in expanding distribution channels, securing localised content, and marketing based on regional offices. MS has been pocketing cash to accumulate this $70B - they could have and should have been investing it on growing their business, if they were serious, no? Why weren't they spending more and doing more so instead of $70 billion cash to buy ABK in 2023 with &7.5B a year revenue, they now had a 40% share of the console business generating $20B revenue a year for them?

Hind sight is always going to be 20/20. It was always an uphill climb against Sony who was already the dominant console by the time Xbox released, and it would be dream material to assume that this money invested would have resulted in 40% market share generating 20B revenue for them.

All of you know significantly less as to why the decisions were made at MS were the decisions made. They may appear boneheaded decisions if you are looking to win in the long term, but as far as MS needed Xbox to serve its original goal, to stave off Sony from entering the personal computing space, that was pretty much resolved at the end of PS3 when they gave up. They didn't need to continue with Xbox, and they looked for new reasons for its existence. And now they have one. They have an aligned plan with funding and you guys don't like it and your biggest rebuttal is that they should have done this years ago when they first formed it. That's all I'm seeing here.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

To me it sounds like they are pissed. Didn’t you see Jim’s response to Activision: They just are blocking them because they want to, not because they are worried about losing COD.

Well yeah. Sony don't want to lose valuable games, so yeah, they are trying to block this; not only this but making a stand against massive acquisitions which they know they can't compete with. If the console business devovled to a buying competition, Sony loses. I guess their strategy for resisting was weaponising COD which 1) sucks but 2) is how legal and business works, isn't it? It stopped being about the truth eons ago, and now it's about making a convincing argument. This is why MS and Sony are both spinning daft, uncorroborated narratives. It'd be better if all were truthful but Lawyers (and PR) will be Lawyers (and PR).

 

[AzBat]

Phil has stated that this deal is worth to them way more $69B. He also said the console market is flat & there's no more growth. This deal is not about growing their console market share. He admitted they lost the console war & are in 3rd place. This deal is all about the mobile market. That market is larger & primed for growth.

Btw, this talk about other countries & Xbox's lack of presence there has no bearing on Microsoft's case here in the U.S. with the FTC. This is boring conversation & simply only being used because the usual stooges here are not from the USA. Boring anti-Xbox & anti-USA rhetoric that still dominates the discussion here in the B3D forums. Never change B3D. Back to lurk mode. Adios!

 

[iroboto]

Well yeah. Sony don't want to lose valuable games, so yeah, they are trying to block this; not only this but making a stand against massive acquisitions which they know they can't compete with. If the console business devovled to a buying competition, Sony loses. I guess their strategy for resisting was weaponising COD which 1) sucks but 2) is how legal and business works, isn't it? It stopped being about the truth eons ago, and now it's about making a convincing argument. This is why MS and Sony are both spinning daft, uncorroborated narratives. It'd be better if all were truthful but Lawyers (and PR) will be Lawyers (and PR).

For sure, even ignoring competing over market share in the console space; MS sees growth in both mobile and cloud, and it wants to move these IPs into those spaces and generate even more revenue and the only way to accomplish that (quickly) is to own these IPs.

MS doesn't own the platforms for mobiles and are building up cloud, so how else do they profit from these spaces if not to own the IPs to be sold on these platforms.

If the console business devovled to a buying competition, Sony loses.

But it won't. Because MS can't get their boxes out there, and likely at this point in time, have given up entirely on wanting to do so.

The major markets that Xbox sells their consoles in, are largely, unsurprisingly, close Allies to the US, with stronger existing distributions and supplier chains for them there.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

All of you know significantly less as to why the decisions were made at MS were the decisions made. They may appear boneheaded decisions if you are looking to win in the long term, but as far as MS needed Xbox to serve its original goal, to stave off Sony from entering the personal computing space, that was pretty much resolved at the end of PS3 when they gave up. They didn't need to continue with Xbox, and they looked for new reasons for its existence. And now they have one.

Hang on! I don't disagree with your sentiments here - we're guessing. However, the issues being raised are the counters to claims being levied against Sony. Yeah, we don't know what MS was doing, or the decision making. We also don't know what Sony are doing, or what it costs them, nor what it would (have) cost for MS to compete. Without that knowledge, we can no more say MS should have tried a bit harder than say they faced an impossible situation and any money thrown would have been wasted.

Btw, this talk about other countries & Xbox's lack of presence there has no bearing on Microsoft's case here in the U.S. with the FTC. This is boring conversation & simply only being used because the usual stooges here are not from the USA. Boring anti-Xbox & anti-USA rhetoric that still dominates the discussion here in the B3D forums. Never change B3D. Back to lurk mode. Adios!

Actually it's talk about international deal making by the console companies and the impact that has had on the industry, spawned from Tweets of Spencer's testimony in court...

Spencer talking about how Sony tries to "block Xbox's survival" in the market.

Spencer pivots to ZeniMax, said Sony paid to get Deathloop and Ghostwire exclusive and heard Starfield might go that way, too. Incentivized securing ZeniMax content (buying them)

Some of us want to know what scale those moves from Sony are (including if they are unfair!), and what MS does to counter, if anything. If MS don't care, why were they incentivized to secure ZeniMax? Wouldn't the argument be, as you say, "we honestly don't care what happens in the console space; we want ZeniMax to grow Mobile income"? What exactly was the deal Sony came up with? What deals were MS trying and failing, or not, and how are costs affected by their market position? This is 100% about the industry of exclusive content and not console warring.

If Spencer had said what was tweeted about deals to exclude content, the past few pages of discussion wouldn't have happened.

 

[iroboto]

Hang on! I don't disagree with your sentiments here - we're guessing. However, the issues being raised are the counters to claims being levied against Sony. Yeah, we don't know what MS was doing, or the decision making. We also don't know what Sony are doing, or what it costs them, nor what it would (have) cost for MS to compete. Without that knowledge, we can no more say MS should have tried a bit harder than say they faced an impossible situation and any money thrown would have been wasted.

I agree with this. But it ignores the most important part of argument, MS didn’t want to spend 70B on Xbox years ago. What they were already spending on Xbox was enough to get shareholders to want to cut it.

Someone or together they came up with some idea of the potential revenue stream that aligned with the rest of MS such that they want to spend 70B on Xbox now.

I don’t see it any differently than Sony buying Gaikai and doing nothing with it, and then suddenly 5 years or less from now they are investing many billions into it.

MS paved enough way to survive in the gaming space. But they didn’t really know what to do with it or where they wanted to go with it. They do today and now they want to invest heavily to compete for a larger pie of the future of gaming.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm happy to accept that viewpoint. As a result though, contrary to some stories, Sony have not been actively resisting or blocking MS beyond normal funding of titles - MS just weren't willing to spend what needed to be spent to compete effectively because they had no particular interest in it. Now their values have changed, which has little to do with Sony even. MS just ran with a 'console underdog' story as their strategy for appeasing regulators particularly in Europe, whereas Sony went with a 'we can't repel firepower of that magnitude' sob-story. Reality seems more MS is happy to hand Sony the console market on a plate while it chases far better revenues from other markets including mobile and cloud...although that latter, if accepted, then lends credence to the CMA's reservations. And Sony aren't really concerned with any particular move other than a massive fish swallowing up great swathes of market that could potentially affect their business.