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

[iroboto]

So the testimony of the trial or hearing is over?

Now the judge is deciding or is there a jury?

Judge is due to make an announcement this week.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Thats again an example of that contradiction. Since XBOX is NOT a console, then the whole argument of being "third" in the console space, needing exclusives doesnt hold, and is another backpedalling between arguments according to how they see fit.

There's no contradiction, at least from Microsoft's side. The FTC and Sony might want to paint it as a "console" thing, but it's not.

That doesn't mean that the Xbox console isn't still important, but Xbox is not just the Xbox console anymore. MS haven't been talking about the Xbox console, they've been talking about the Xbox business. Console, games and even accessories. Game Pass (Console and PC) is part of Xbox. Cloud streaming (any device that can stream Xbox games) is part of Xbox. Xbox games on other platforms is part of Xbox.

It's been many many years since Microsoft retired the Microsoft Game Studios branding and replaced it with ... Xbox Game Studios.

There's no contradiction here for Microsoft. Perhaps console warriors and the FTC might want to paint Xbox as just the console, but the Xbox Console is only part of Xbox.

Microsoft acquiring ABK is part of expanding Xbox onto mobile devices. Microsoft would like Xbox to exist everywhere. Microsoft's investors and thus Board of Directors would like Xbox to exist everywhere.

So, Xbox isn't just competing with PlayStation (and only some areas overlap with PlayStation), although that's the most obvious competition.

Keep in mind Corporation's business strategies and models change all the time. That's why it's so ludicrious that the CMA is so focused on a market segment (cloud streaming of games) WRT this acquisition when in 10 years Microsoft might not even care about cloud streaming or their approach to cloud streaming might change. Hell, for all we know Microsoft might decide to exist the console market or the PC market or mobile in the next 10 years even though all 3 of those are major focus points for Microsoft right now.

Always always keep in mind that any corporation on the planet can and will change business directions at any moment in time. I mean just a few years ago Sony were adamant in declaring that PlayStation exclusives would never appear on PC. Less than 10 years later, Sony exclusives are appearing on PC. Did they lie back then? No. They looked at the market and determined that it was no longer a good strategy to keep their games off of PC.

Same thing with Microsoft. A few years ago, having exclusive console content was important. 10+ years ago, Microsoft were adamant that Microsoft exclusives would never appear on PC ever again.

Things change. Especially in the business world where you are always chasing profits. If a business can't change their business strategies over time, that that business will die.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

So the testimony of the trial or hearing is over?

Now the judge is deciding or is there a jury?

The judge (no jury) has likely already made their judgement. They are now in the process of crafting their (forgot the word for it) explanation of their judgement in the case. This usually includes reasons (including but not limited to references to past cases that are similar, why the injunction was or was not granted, relevant laws, etc.). Those will be important if Microsoft or the FTC decide to appeal the verdict.

Regards,
SB

 

[Cyan]

There's no contradiction, at least from Microsoft's side. The FTC and Sony might want to paint it as a "console" thing, but it's not.

That doesn't mean that the Xbox console isn't still important, but Xbox is not just the Xbox console anymore. MS haven't been talking about the Xbox console, they've been talking about the Xbox business. Console, games and even accessories. Game Pass (Console and PC) is part of Xbox. Cloud streaming (any device that can stream Xbox games) is part of Xbox. Xbox games on other platforms is part of Xbox.

It's been many many years since Microsoft retired the Microsoft Game Studios branding and replaced it with ... Xbox Game Studios.

There's no contradiction here for Microsoft. Perhaps console warriors and the FTC might want to paint Xbox as just the console, but the Xbox Console is only part of Xbox.

Microsoft acquiring ABK is part of expanding Xbox onto mobile devices. Microsoft would like Xbox to exist everywhere. Microsoft's investors and thus Board of Directors would like Xbox to exist everywhere.

So, Xbox isn't just competing with PlayStation (and only some areas overlap with PlayStation), although that's the most obvious competition.

Keep in mind Corporation's business strategies and models change all the time. That's why it's so ludicrious that the CMA is so focused on a market segment (cloud streaming of games) WRT this acquisition when in 10 years Microsoft might not even care about cloud streaming or their approach to cloud streaming might change. Hell, for all we know Microsoft might decide to exist the console market or the PC market or mobile in the next 10 years even though all 3 of those are major focus points for Microsoft right now.

Always always keep in mind that any corporation on the planet can and will change business directions at any moment in time. I mean just a few years ago Sony were adamant in declaring that PlayStation exclusives would never appear on PC. Less than 10 years later, Sony exclusives are appearing on PC. Did they lie back then? No. They looked at the market and determined that it was no longer a good strategy to keep their games off of PC.

Same thing with Microsoft. A few years ago, having exclusive console content was important. 10+ years ago, Microsoft were adamant that Microsoft exclusives would never appear on PC ever again.

Things change. Especially in the business world where you are always chasing profits. If a business can't change their business strategies over time, that that business will die.

Regards,
SB

it seems so. The mobile market. CoD is unimportant for PS. This info comes from the FTC trial. 51% of CoD players are on mobile, 25% on PC, 16-17% on PS and 7-8% on Xbox

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/9219...aily-active-users-more-than-roblox/index.html

 

[Deleted member 11852]

OK, that's a long transcription of the whole thing. What specifically in there are you trying to point to.

The publicly-available records are a bit naff and Twitter's dumbfuckery is not helping link to specific tweets.

In the afternoon session on 29 June, the FTC lawyers was questioning Xbox CFO Tim Stuart about an email from 2021, sent shortly after the Zenimax acquisition had closed, from Phil Spencer to Tim Stuart, in which Phil Spencer stating Microsoft's intention to make all first party games from the studios acquired - and not just new IP - to be Xbox exclusive. This is well-quoted "Wow!" email from the Xbox's CFO.

Tim Stuart, Xbox CFO, admitted he was surprised because this would mean an obvious loss for titles currently making a profit released using Zenimax's cross-platform strategy.. It was also contrary to Microsoft evidence provided to several regulators for the Zenimax acquisition where Microsoft kept repeating "it didn't make commercial sense" to make games exclusive, and within weeks, Phil Spencer decided just that.

Later on in Phil Spencer's testimony an further email was disclosed where the following exchange between Xbox's CEO and CFO happened:

Tim Stuart (CFO): "Wish we could just come out and say we were talking it all exclusive at this point."
Phil Spencer (CEO): "We can't say that"

Phil Spencer had decided, but refused to acknowledge the exclusivity position, whilst publicly continuing to tell media that exclusivity would be decided to on a case by case basis. But that was not true. This was such an egregious position but Xbox's CFO was obviously shocked at the duplicity. Again.. the well covered "Wow!" email. And not the good kind of WoW with elves and goblins, but the bad kind.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

And just to put some context into the Tim Stuart / Phil Spencer exchange. Tim Stuart is Xbox's CFO. It's his job to ensure their business is profitable, including forecasting operational costs. The "Wow" follows the Zenimax acquisition where Microsoft had been assuring regulators and the press, that it "made no commercial sense" to make acquired IP exclusive.

Tim Stuart was likely forecasting long-term revenue based on selling games like Starfield on PC, Xbox and PlayStation. Then Phil Spencer just drops this massive pivot on Tim Stuart.

"All games going forward? Not just new IP, but ALL games going forward? Wow." is a statement by a man who had no idea that was coming. That wasn't the plan and it wasn't a discussion or conversation, this was just dropped on out of nowhere to Xbox's CFO. Just think about that.. That is how Xbox is managed in Microsoft.

 

[wco81]

How could they not say the games would be exclusive.

After the first few games released after the acquisition, it would be obvious their strategy was exclusivity.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

How could they not say the games would be exclusive.

After the first few games released after the acquisition, it would be obvious their strategy was exclusivity.

It's obvious, because it was still a case by case basis regardless of what any one person at Microsoft felt.

Referring back to @DSoup's post there's multiple ways to view it and there's no way to tell which is the correct one since we don't have access to the complete e-mail chain nor conversations that they've had with others.

It could refer to Microsoft planning to try the all exclusive route (case 5) and not wanting to tell the public. We can already see certain people believe that's the case.

It could refer to one faction within Microsoft wanting to take it fully exclusive but another faction doesn't want it to go full exclusive. We have hints of this with other e-mails implying that they are having a tough time convincing the board of directors that it (case 5) is the correct move. So, they'll try it out withough officially announcing that is what they are going to try to do. IE - let's try it and if it works that's what we'll do going forward, if it doesn't work out then no harm done. IE - it's still case to case, but we'll just decide exclusivity for each case internally to this department until we decide case 5 is a good move or not. If it isn't then we stop pushing it and we'll no longer default to exclusivity on each case.

It's always easy to pass judgement on something if it's potentially taken out of context. That's why it helps to read the full testimony where it gives some context to that particular e-mail and what they were thinking at that particular time.

Basically they want to do case 5, but can't say they are because there's still opposition within Microsoft against going case 5. So Bethesda ends up being a test case to see whether case 5 is viable or not. IE - "We can't say that." because it's not necessarily how Microsoft wants to handle it even if potentially that's what they want to do within Xbox.

Alternatively the CFO wants to do it that way but Spencer doesn't. However, the CFO outranks him so he'll have to go with that test case for now. Again, "We can't say that." indicating his push back against it.

And as we're seeing (via testimony from the FTC case), it seems that case 5 isn't working out and MS is likely to start abandoning that position WRT Bethesda titles going forward. It's probably not yet at case 1 (all titles multiplatform) but somewhere in case 2-3 of some mix of exclusives with some mix of multiplatform.

These regulatory fights are likely adding more weight towards multiplatform of some sort (Case 2-3 even if it not 1). Because mobile is currently more important to Microsoft as a target expansion market, they'd be more willing to go fully multiplatform (for smaller acquisitions like the Bethesda one, ABK was never ever going to be fully exclusive because the financials absolutely do not work for that large of an acquisition) if it would avoid future impediments to acquisitions.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It's always easy to pass judgement on something if it's potentially taken out of context.

I want to pick up on this. Multiple Microsoft's executives, including Phil Spencer, had the opportunity to provide testimony and provide context on this exchange. Only Tim Stuart provided substantial evidence, hence the coverage. Despite the exchange being provided as written evidence that was disclosed, Phil Spencer claimed not to remember this. Equally, he did not deny having made these statements.

There really isn't any context if you say one thing, but privately decide to do something else. You can chose not to provide clarity but even after Phil Spencer had decided that exclusivity would be Microsoft's strategy for newly acquired first party studios, Mr Spencer and Microsoft's marketing team were still claiming not to want console exclusivity and providing assurance that release decisions would be made on a per title decision. That was still happening in 2022, a year after Phil Spencer had initiated this policy change which he claimed he couldn't remember but nonetheless ensured was implemented.

That's not a situation lacking context, that's lying. Actually, that's more than lying, that's just bullshit.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Referring back to @DSoup's post there's multiple ways to view it and there's no way to tell which is the correct one since we don't have access to the complete e-mail chain nor conversations that they've had with others.
...

Yes. The principle issue here though isn't what disagreements happened in MS, but that Xbox were intending a completely different strategy to the one they presented regulators. 'Microsoft' said to the regulators they'd release games on consoles on a case-by-case basis "taking into account player demand and sentiment, Microsoft’s strategic and financial goals, and the willingness of third-party gaming hardware providers to run Microsoft games and services."

eg. One would expect Elder Scrolls to have high "player demand and sentiment" on PS5, and so get a port.

But after making those claims, 'Microsoft' wanted to ignore that and go blanket exclusive. Now 'Microsoft' here can mean different people at different times, and perhaps the left hand was talking to the regulators while the right hand was drawing up alternative plans. But it paints a picture of outward dishonesty, claiming one thing in public while planning something very different. Short of contractual obligations, the expectation would have to be that if MS have room to wiggle out of vague offerings, they will, or certainly might. It 'not making financial sense to withdraw ABK titles' isn't any sort of guarantee they won't. Just needs the CFO to change their mind and let Spencer get his way. I think the integrity of the deals being struck need assignment to specific individuals within the company. Who is it precisely at MS stating games will be made available on a case-by-case basis, and who is actually responsible for executing on that?

 

[stu11]

It's obvious, because it was still a case by case basis regardless of what any one person at Microsoft felt.

Referring back to @DSoup's post there's multiple ways to view it and there's no way to tell which is the correct one since we don't have access to the complete e-mail chain nor conversations that they've had with others.

It could refer to Microsoft planning to try the all exclusive route (case 5) and not wanting to tell the public. We can already see certain people believe that's the case.

It could refer to one faction within Microsoft wanting to take it fully exclusive but another faction doesn't want it to go full exclusive. We have hints of this with other e-mails implying that they are having a tough time convincing the board of directors that it (case 5) is the correct move. So, they'll try it out withough officially announcing that is what they are going to try to do. IE - let's try it and if it works that's what we'll do going forward, if it doesn't work out then no harm done. IE - it's still case to case, but we'll just decide exclusivity for each case internally to this department until we decide case 5 is a good move or not. If it isn't then we stop pushing it and we'll no longer default to exclusivity on each case.

It's always easy to pass judgement on something if it's potentially taken out of context. That's why it helps to read the full testimony where it gives some context to that particular e-mail and what they were thinking at that particular time.

Basically they want to do case 5, but can't say they are because there's still opposition within Microsoft against going case 5. So Bethesda ends up being a test case to see whether case 5 is viable or not. IE - "We can't say that." because it's not necessarily how Microsoft wants to handle it even if potentially that's what they want to do within Xbox.

Alternatively the CFO wants to do it that way but Spencer doesn't. However, the CFO outranks him so he'll have to go with that test case for now. Again, "We can't say that." indicating his push back against it.

And as we're seeing (via testimony from the FTC case), it seems that case 5 isn't working out and MS is likely to start abandoning that position WRT Bethesda titles going forward. It's probably not yet at case 1 (all titles multiplatform) but somewhere in case 2-3 of some mix of exclusives with some mix of multiplatform.

These regulatory fights are likely adding more weight towards multiplatform of some sort (Case 2-3 even if it not 1). Because mobile is currently more important to Microsoft as a target expansion market, they'd be more willing to go fully multiplatform (for smaller acquisitions like the Bethesda one, ABK was never ever going to be fully exclusive because the financials absolutely do not work for that large of an acquisition) if it would avoid future impediments to acquisitions.

Regards,
SB

The CFO in question is Tim Stuart, who is only the CFO of the Xbox division. With Phil Spencer being effectively the CEO of the Xbox division Spencer outranks Stuart, so when Spencer said:

"We can't say that"

it would seem to indicate that Spencer did not want the fact that he has decided to make all of Bethesda's games exclusive being public knowledge and preferring to keep up the public pretense of them being on a "case by case basis". Spencer is the man who makes that decision.

Spencer answers to the Microsoft board of directors and they are probably the only people that could overrule his decision.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So clear back-pedalling then, at best. Deliberate deceit during the hearings at worst, claiming a 'case by case' basis when none was every intended. Just use that description the lessen the apparent impact of the merger.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

So clear back-pedalling then, at best. Deliberate deceit during the hearings at worst, claiming a 'case by case' basis when none was every intended. Just use that description the lessen the apparent impact of the merger.

Hearings like these, and Epic vs Apple & Google, which also dragged in Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony, are rare opportunities to get a glimpse into how these massive companies operate. Usually it's about costs and economics, but this one has exposed how lacking in both honesty and strategy Microsoft is with regards to Xbox.

For me, it's the lack of clear strategy, combined with Xbox's CEO just deciding on exclusivity without any kind of conversion with other key Xbox executives, like the CFO, that surprise me. I've worked in a lot of large organisations across aerospace and defence industries and Government, and nowhere would one person just pivot on a product strategy without a much larger conversation with other senior people, as well as everybody who can provide an insight on the possible impact to all of the stakeholders.

It looks likePhil Spencer woke up one day and whilst eating his cheerios just decided on a new strategy, then told the CFO about it when he got to work that day. WTaF. Who does that? For folks who can't understand why Microsoft aren't more successful? Probably this.

 

[function]

For me, it's the lack of clear strategy, combined with Xbox's CEO just deciding on exclusivity without any kind of conversion with other key Xbox executives, like the CFO, that surprise me. I've worked in a lot of large organisations across aerospace and defence industries and Government, and nowhere would one person just pivot on a product strategy without a much larger conversation with other senior people, as well as everybody who can provide an insight on the possible impact to all of the stakeholders.

It looks likePhil Spencer woke up one day and whilst eating his cheerios just decided on a new strategy, then told the CFO about it when he got to work that day. WTaF. Who does that? For folks who can't understand why Microsoft aren't more successful? Probably this.

Some companies seem to prefer a bold plan to a good one. A massively simplified version of how things maybe possibly went with MS and consoles:

MS jumped in with the OG Xbox, and it was a disaster for them but a great product for core gamers, and so they attracted millions. So a bold idea, but poorly planned out one, but at least they gained some traction.

They course corrected with the 360, and despite massive initial issues (bold, aggressive plan to launch early and lol RRoD) then tuned it into an amazing and profitable gaming device. Then the success of Kinect made them decide to target a bold new strategy - Kinectification - and they took their eye off the core gamer and began the process of destroying or failing to manage their previously important first party or exclusive software streams.

With Xbox one they decided they already had core gamers, or that maybe they didn't need them, and they'd take on the bold strategy of being the number one place to ...... watch TV and be surveilled in your own living room. Sure, their gamer base would be paying more for a weaker console that had features they didn't care about, and they couldn't share games, and they'd have to always be online so a device they didn't want or need could always watch and listen to them. A bold move indeed. An incredibly fucking stupid one, but certainly bold, and no doubt one that got execs wet due to its boldness.

They course corrected, and managed to regain some momentum and sell 50+ million consoles by focusing on gamers and delivering really nice consoles with good game support. But that wasn't bold enough.

MS wanted to be in cloud gaming, and they wanted to be bold about it. So bold that they once again sacrificed part of their core gaming business of consoles for core gamers so they could build up their cloud infrastructure, boldly. They once again sacrificed momentum in their console business (physical units for userbase and software deals), so they could divert funds into cloud gaming.

Cloud domination wasn't happening fast enough of course, and so MS needed to be bold. Lets buy Zenimax. Not bold enough. Let's buy Activision. That's bold! No plan on how to get past regulators. My god, you know what would be bold? Exclusivity! ...maybe??

Oh shit, turns out they should have had a plan.

Meanwhile, Sony have an incredibly strong core console gaming business and probably a shrink and a Pro model on the way, and they are working towards using that incredibly strong core console gaming business to work their way into cloud gaming when they can.

I wish MS would focus on the core gaming business and build outwards instead of trying to boldly shortcut to conquer some grand new mega billions venture at the cost of the console business once a generation.

Yeah, a bit hyperbolic, but on the other hand "TV TV TV SPORTS XBOX GO HOME".

 

[eastmen]

So clear back-pedalling then, at best. Deliberate deceit during the hearings at worst, claiming a 'case by case' basis when none was every intended. Just use that description the lessen the apparent impact of the merger.

The problem with this is that its false. MS did approach Zenimax games with a case by case basis. They took the games that were already under contract to release on other platforms and released them on those platforms. They then took games that didn't have contracts for other platforms and released them on xbox platforms and steam only. The problem is that MS never spoke of any time lines with regards to how long the case by case basis would be on going.

You are always going to have a side that thinks it should be forever and that Elder Scrolls 15 should come to a playstation platform in 2123. That of course isn't how it works because again MS gave no time frame for how long it would be a case by case basis.

If the regulators wanted it to continue further they would have put in a time frame for how long they wanted it. Of course the other elephant in the room is that MS continues releasing Zenimax games on multiple platforms and MS hasn't made any game exclusive to their platform because all of their games release on steam. We also know that there isn't an issue with Ms doing this because the CMA/EU/FTC would all be pointing to them not upholding their promises to the Regulators as a reason to block activision but the other regulators have come out saying the opposite.

 

[Nesh]

it seems so. The mobile market. CoD is unimportant for PS. This info comes from the FTC trial. 51% of CoD players are on mobile, 25% on PC, 16-17% on PS and 7-8% on Xbox

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/9219...aily-active-users-more-than-roblox/index.html

How do you interpet unimportant for PS? The percentage may seem small but it corresponds to a huge number of players and significantly larger revenue.
Moblile gaming in general may have grown bigger than consoles and PCs combined in terms of player, since everyone owns a phone. It doesnt mean that the PC and Console market are insignificant.
Your interpretation of the percentage is what you get either from not being proficient with reading numbers or from creative statistics.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You are always going to have a side that thinks it should be forever and that Elder Scrolls 15 should come to a playstation platform in 2123. That of course isn't how it works because again MS gave no time frame for how long it would be a case by case basis.

MS didn't give a time frame - they gave a reason. An economic reason that it wouldn't make financial sense to take big titles and make them exclusive. They explained the economic reasons to consider taking a title cross-platform and how 'dumb' it would be to turn their nose up at hundreds of millions of dollars of PS revenues. The same reason they are giving for maintaining ABK multiplatform...

As for 'honouring' it, they did no such thing. They didn't decide to release T:GW on a 'cases-by-case basis' but they were contractually obligated. Once all pre-existing obligations were satisfied, they changed to 'never on PS', not 'case-by-case, some titles yes, other's no'.

Of course the other elephant in the room is that MS continues releasing Zenimax games on multiple platforms

Continued. Past tense, they've stopped now. And only for games they already had in development and contracted to release.

And yes, MS played the regulators, you're right. They should have put in actual limits. MS gave themselves the wriggle room by saying:

“For future ZeniMax games, Microsoft intends to make these games available
for purchase on PC and, where the games are designed as native mobile games, on mobile
devices running both iOS and Android. Future decisions on whether to distribute ZeniMax games
for other consoles will be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account player demand and
sentiment, Microsoft’s strategic and financial goals, and the willingness of third-party gaming
hardware providers to run Microsoft games and services.​

The implication in court was a case-by-case consideration how much of an income hit they'd like to take on taking big multiplatform IP off a major platform, that for something as big as ES they'd want the money from PS more than they'd want the exclusivity. That's also what the CFO was expecting given the email exchange. But Phil's consideration of "Microsoft’s strategic and financial goals" actually includes taking big multiplatform IPs and making them XB exclusive, without any regard for the loss of income that was presented as a primary reason to maintain multiplatform releases.

We also know that there isn't an issue with Ms doing this because the CMA/EU/FTC would all be pointing to them not upholding their promises to the Regulators

Looking at the past actions, there's no evidence MS are not operating on a case-by-case basis. There's only Hi-Fi Rush, Redfall, and Starfield. It could be that Indiana Jones and ES6 comes out on PS...only now we know that's not happening. And we have an email conversation that states that was never going to happen.

Did all the regulators see this email exchange when making their decisions? Or are they still operating on good faith based just on what's seen so far and what MS told them in the hearings?

 

[iroboto]

Continued. Past tense, they've stopped now.

They haven’t stopped anything; that’s sort of the issue of the last 3 pages of discussion. Intent or discussion to make exclusive doesn’t make it so until announcement.

They also said they wanted Minecraft exclusive. They didn’t.

Decisions are changing all the time and the development of games have a long runway. The majority of titles they refer to when they say the above, are often, MP or GasS titles that live and die on the active community.

Until we know what the next Elder Scrolls is, it’s pretty much both an exclusive or not depending on what they want to do with it.

That’s not wiggle room, that’s the nature of the business, they can’t commit to a project that can be restarted repeatedly, they can’t commit to knowing what to do with Elder Scrolls until perhaps after they see how all the other titles plays out, no one wants to commit to skull and bones. Because that’s precisely what happens when you make an early commitment to a government entity, the game is stuck in repeated development hell and looks like shit, should have been cancelled ages ago.

Phil Spencer reports to CSuite and they should have evidence of that email of discussion from Phil to them. Matt reports to Phil The smoking gun that everyone is pointing at is:

During Xbox CFO Tim Stuart's time on the witness stand, the FTC called attention to a chat conversation from November 2021 between Stuart and Xbox's Matt Booty. The two were messaging about a recent monthly business review meeting between Xbox and ZeniMax, where Spencer apparently made the call to make all ZeniMax games exclusive going forward, not just new IP“

Nothing here is solidified. It’s literally Matt saying, “damn Tim came out of that meeting and Phil saying he’s going exclusive.” “Really?” Wow I’m expecting some finalized shit from Spencer on this. Okay let me ask him.

And if they did commit to that, why weren’t the FTC finding the recalculated financials? Where’s the finalized email of strategy change from Phil to CSuite explaining everything go forward?

When Phil Spencer tells Stuart that they cannot say that all their games are going exclusive; that means Phil has not yet committed to shutting the door. He doesn’t yet know the answer and even as much as he wants to make it all exclusive, even after this trial, he won’t commit to make it so that he has wiggle room to release a multiplatform if he needs to.

You are right from one perspective to view this as a lie, he fully remains intent to make it all exclusive, but until that action is taken, he’s not committed to it. You can threaten board pieces in chess, and most people can see the danger, but that move can go another direction entirely, it’s not until you let go of that piece is the move committed.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Nothing here is solidified. It’s literally Matt saying, “damn Tim came out of that meeting and Phil saying he’s going exclusive.” “Really?” Wow I’m expecting some finalized shit from Spencer on this. Okay let me ask him.

In his testimony Phil Spencer confirmed the situation.

And if they did commit to that, why weren’t the FTC finding the recalculated financials? Where’s the finalized email of strategy change from Phil to CSuite explaining everything go forward?

There is no way the court would force Microsoft to release non-published financial forecasts. If that was disclosed it would have been in the part of the trial that was in closed session.

Unless you work for Microsoft PR, I cannot understand why you are trying to put a positive spin on this. It doesn't matter what your platform of choice, the disclosures makes Phil Spencer personally, and Xbox management wider, look bad.

 

[iroboto]

In his testimony Phil Spencer confirmed the situation.


There is no way the court would force Microsoft to release non-published financial forecasts. If that was disclosed it would have been in the part of the trial that was in closed session.

Unless you work for Microsoft PR, I cannot understand why you are trying to put a positive spin on this. It doesn't matter what your platform of choice, the disclosures makes Phil Spencer personally, and Xbox management wider, look bad.

It’s not a positive spin. It’s me providing discussion that does not run parallel to this narrative that has been created here. It’s bullshit you call me MS PR for even providing a bit of push back just because I’ve been holding my keyboard for the last 4 pages.

You were given insight into the inner workings of a business. It has nothing to do with morality. People are pissed about a betrayal that hasn’t occurred yet. The businesses best practice is to just keep their mouths shut publicly because it provides flexibility into what they want to do if they need to do it. And the court would have access to those documents in a closed viewing and it would be a simple case then and yet no other regulator found that to be true even the CMA!

The current mode: they had internal plans to not make every title exclusive
Future mode: they have plans to make all their IPs exclusive.

At least we know this to be truth.

When discussing the future mode, that they will not commit to it, so the present mode still stands.

A lie is when everything is already exclusive and they you it’s not. They have both intent and position to betray their words, but they haven’t yet.

to me it’s clear they won’t unless it makes sense to, even if it’s what they want to do. The second half is still being figured out, I have major doubts all decisions about their plans if cloud fails.

In the same set of emails they talked about closing up Xbox and switching it for mobile, none of you jumping on that. You’re just cherry picking what you want to believe they will commit to and won’t. Business decisions are always in a state of flux. Dont be so naive. I’ve just had my commissions plans changed on me every quarter for the last 3 quarters. Ain’t no one wants to sign up for that nor is it intended; yet that is what happens when SVB goes down and banks close up shop and suddenly the funding models change.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673836118129688578