Of course. Everyone knows what revenue is. But it isn't meaningless. Also, Activision's profits aren't that hard to find.
I d say we will talk again about this matter at the next generation launch. These IPs I m very certain will be next gen exclusive immediately after this generation. And they will be going hard with a plethora of popular IPs to shift the adoption from PS to XBOX.I'm not sure it'll ever happen for COD. The backlash from COD being made exclusive will make the disagreements about MS making Bethesda titles exclusive seem like a tiny match next to a forest fire.
It could happen, but I think it's more likely that they'll keep COD multiplatform much like Minecraft. It's a way to not have most gamers turn sour on MS and keeps at least some goodwill in the face of MS potentially making other IPs exclusive.
Also, that's 100's of millions (possibly billions) of USD a year they'd be throwing away if they made it exclusive.
Regards,
SB
Unfortunately shareholders generally only really care about the minutiae if the corporation is losing money, flirting with the possibility of losing money (small profits relative to revenue) or alternately making money or losing money depending on the year.
If the corporation is consistently making money hand over fist year after year and shareholders are getting good value for their shares, then they often only care about the broad strokes of a corporation's strategy and trust the company to handle the minutiae.
As long as MS continues to make bucketloads of profit year after year, shareholders are unlikely to start pestering them to release more information.
And as a result, MS will continue to use profitable divisions to hide the losses generated by unprofitable ventures ... when possible. Sometimes, it's not possible.
Regards,
SB
Microsoft already has competitive dividends.A $70b acquisition isn't going to pass without comment because it is Microsoft's largest acquisition ever and almost three times what they paid for LinkedIn, which was generally considered to be a poor investment which has increasingly been referred to as "a new franchise" in reports. Investors will absolutely expect to see a return on $70b. You know what you could do with $70b spare cash? Dividends.
The last payout, in December, was $0.62 per share. The share price is $300+ so this is amongst the lowest dividends in tech.
This was poor phrasing on my part, I meant that revenue is meaningless without profitability (or losses) for context. I know that Activision-Blizzard is profitable.
So it should be really easy to provide numbers on how profitable it is. I mean it's not like loads of companies have conflated their success over the years, citing revenue and downplaying actual profits whilst eating through investors margins. That would never happen.
It's a simple question. How much profit has Call of Duty made? It's fine if you can't answer is, just move on.
What's the breakdown in terms of production costs, marketing and the cost of keeping the servers running? I know that latter is a significant cost and this has only become viable by frequently releasing new games (which does not always help as you often need to keep old servers running during the 12-24 month user base transition) and flooding the game with micro-transactions.
This isn't how costs work. It costs Microsoft to run Azure and when they use resources they cannot sell/hire, that is potential lost revenue. There is a literal cost to everything. Vertical integration always comes with a disproportionate cost when you companies themselves use their own facilities at below market cost. Running severs is preterit much the biggest cost in tech.
I thought trying to use it without crashing or freezing, or causing Outlook to quit was the game? It's like Gremlins, don't input in Teams after midnight, don't try to connect with more than 10 people simultaneously.Teams is a Microsoft Gaming brand?
I am sure that game passes and loot boxes cover those costs completely and generates extra bucks. Does cod even have dedicated servers now or is it still p2p? And how do you know how expensive it is without even knowing capacity it’s BS. You are trying very hard but the truth is cod is very successful franchise that generates shit loads of profit.
I reckon it would be a limited. A lot of effort is spread across all platforms, Microsoft might save on some programming effort for PlayStation and Switch, but those folks in isolation will still need art, audio and game designers where there probably isn't a great deal of platform specificity. But some savings would exist for sure.
