• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ozriel

M$FT
Here's my pessimistic take. Presuming this one goes through, which it most likely will, with all these studios Microsoft will have a much stronger market position for sure, but the whole thing still seems to be based on a flawed business plan imo.

All the content in the world isn't going to fix the elephant in the room. The sub/Gamepass model, as is currently exists, is not going to bear the fruit they expect and will not support the huge development army they now own. At least not in it's current form. We have already seen the growth of these services in the more traditional console space slow/stagnate capping out at about half of the hardware sold.

The 'huge development army' makes games that will sell at retail on Xbox and on Steam...easily enough to cover development costs for well received AAA games.
Take Forza Horizon 5, for example. It's sold millions at retail, even aside Gamepass revenue.

The weird thing with posts like this is that it breaks down logically. If you're forecasting Gamepass growth slowdown or stagnation, doesn't that translate to a relatively rosy retail picture?

Sure they can steal some of Sony's market, but to reach the types of numbers they want it's obvious they will have to fully uncouple their platforms success from the x-box hardware and drastically change the type of content they are providing.

Huh? They've already uncoupled their content from Xbox hardware years ago. You can play Xbox games on PC, and stream via xCloud. No Console needed, and significant growth opportunity.


Of cource they have to be thinking going full in on cloud/mobile but I just don't see how that works out for them. It's fantasy that their is some huge untapped pool of players that want to play console style games on mobile. And Android and Apple and Free-to play are already well established in that space providing the type of content mobile players want.

Cloud isn't just a play for mobile, though. You can stream on laptops, Chromebooks, tablets, TVs, monitors etc. Target is for people to play console games - xbox games - without hardware, anywhere they go. Why compare to Android or iOS mobile games?


So what's the plan? Buy an army of established console developers to make games for your service based platform that will eventually need mobile content to grow/work.

They don't need mobile content to grow or work. Where did you get that idea from?

I can tell you one thing, I wouldn't want to be one of these studios being acquired. It's like making a deal with the devil. When Gamepass growth targets aren't hit Microsoft will eventually pivot fully into the mobile direction to reach their growth goals (which has to be their goal). On that day these devs could very quickly find themselves making mobile gatcha bullshit or just plan culled. At some point Microsoft are going to want a return on their investments and when that day comes, and it is coming, all these traditional console game studios they just bought could find themselves making whatever the new corporate version of Avatar Shoes is or just plane disbanded.

If Gamepass growth targets aren't met, Microsoft will do what everyone has been doing for decades - simply sell games in stores and digital storefronts.

"People who don't subscribe to GamePass won't buy Starfield or Fable" is a weird assumption indeed.

At some point Microsoft are going to want a return on their investments

They'll be getting that day one if the Activision acquisition goes through.
 

Ozriel

M$FT
The answer lies within Xbox, why couldn’t they regularly release great games?

The simple answer is that games take time to make, and you require the devs to make those games.
But you've never wanted to hear that.

It IS Microsoft's fault that they crippled their first party setup in the Xbox One days. Down to just 5 or 6 first party studios and limited funding for much of the previous gen. They're set up now to compete more effectively, so we should start seeing a turnaround in the mid term.
 
Last edited:

Ozriel

M$FT
They’ve had 22 years brother.

Not exactly 22 years, is it? They were at their most effective in the Xbox 360 era when they caught up with the previous market leader, then they pretty much lost their way in the past decade with the Xbox One.

They've been building back up since 2018 or so with increased first party investment. We're yet to fully see what the outcome of this would be with respect to games, but that seems relatively imminent.

EDIT: and there's your usual emoji. As I said earlier, you certainly don't want to hear it :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
Last edited:
It’s unfortunate for you because your initial rebuttal didn’t even take in to account the full sentence.
When MS releases games they tend to get good reviews and they make games I enjoy. Nothing about that is unfortunate for me. 'Great games' are subjective.
Over a 22 year period, Xbox haven’t made people trust that they will regularly make great games. This isn’t Sony’s fault or Nintendo’s. It’s Microsoft’s. Letting Bungie go so they could hang on to Halo’s corpse, not capitalising on their partnership with Epic post Gears. Studio closures, and even today; announcing games 4 years in advance that go through multiple reboots and lead changes. The answer lies within Xbox, why couldn’t they regularly release great games? If your answer is ‘cos Sony’ then you should think it through.
MS entered a far more hostile industry than Sony and Nintendo did so it was never going to be an easy road. This is especially true when they had numerous different leaderships with vastly different visions.

They have made plenty of mistakes but now we are sitting here on the verge of them acquiring even more studios to support their platform. Which means even more games, so this is nothing like Sega no matter how many Xbox detractors demand they abandon console gaming too. I'm looking forward to seeing what Activision will bring to Xbox and will be enjoying all the new games going into Game pass. I'm looking forward not backwards.
 

ToadMan

Member
Yeah, about that LOL

I wonder what Sony is really going to do when MS takes CoD away from PS

If the CMA is accurate, there is “no plausible scenario” MS take COD from PS without major losses.

Which begs the question, if they can fatally wound MS as a whole by rendering this acquisition a massive loss, why wouldn’t Sony simply cancel COD on PS the day the acquisition is approved, and see MS disappear from gaming?

Yeah, the CMA analysis doesn’t quite add up… They seem to have fallen for the idea that platforms sell content, rather than content selling platforms.

Anyway, post acquisition, MS gaming revenues are nearly 50% from mobile and about 40% third party based on ABK content being merged in.

Post acquisition MS gaming is a largely third party publisher leaving us with just 2 first parties of note in this corner of the hobby.

Hopefully the custom hardware space MS vacates will be taken up by a company able to compete with Sony and Nintendo more effectively.
 
Asking for remedies in the case of a $2 trillion global conglomerate buying arguably the largest single 3P publisher in console gaming, when that same $2 trillion company has a history of violating behavioral remedies and not paying the fines, and already being investigated for antitrust by the U.S government at the turn of the century that only didn't go further because of a settlement out of court, is the very least regulators should do.
Nobody is asking for remedies "just because you are big". Not even close. That's not how laws work.
 

mrmustard

Banned
If this thing goes throuh, could MS make COD a let's say 3 month timed launch exclusive for the new Xbox since Sony didn't sign the deal?
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
as a European it is not reassuring news, not even new
The DMA and the general principles of the DMU are generally more on the behavioural side. I do think the EU have made a couple of decisions that are a bit weird re transparency though.

If this thing goes throuh, could MS make COD a let's say 3 month timed launch exclusive for the new Xbox since Sony didn't sign the deal?
Legally it's a possibility. I don't think in reality it is one which is likely.
 

reksveks

Member
Which begs the question, if they can fatally wound MS as a whole by rendering this acquisition a massive loss, why wouldn’t Sony simply cancel COD on PS the day the acquisition is approved, and see MS disappear from gaming?
1) They would need to find a legal excuse to do so, both parties probably have contractual agreements to each other. Microsoft/ABK would definitely sue the MO.
2) Not sure if we would have the figures to see the impact but it would definitely harm the profitability of playstation.

What is happening with the EC? They were supposed to be boring, efficient, monopoly-busting technocrats.
They are looking to hire one of MS economists including the one who was writing about the deal with ABK. Obviously this is going to happen post the EC decision but it may impact any future acquisitions.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
And when has anyone claimed this was your issue,
I am putting the question to you. I am an Xbox customer, Xbox have mismanaged themselves for 22 years, why should I have to accept that? It is not my issue.

or that it was Sony and Nintendo's fault that MS released fewer first party games?
Look at how DarkMage619 DarkMage619 is framing the conversation, not me. Microsoft’s woes are entirely their own doing.

When MS releases games they tend to get good reviews and they make games I enjoy. Nothing about that is unfortunate for me. 'Great games' are subjective.
You really do struggle to read. I will just state again that regularity is not subjective.

In fact I’d also suggest that you post more about your experiences and thoughts on the games you like because you don’t do it often, if at all.

MS entered a far more hostile industry than Sony and Nintendo did so it was never going to be an easy road.
Not true.

This is especially true when they had numerous different leaderships with vastly different visions.
No one’s fault but their own.
 

Lasha

Member
If the CMA is accurate, there is “no plausible scenario” MS take COD from PS without major losses.

Which begs the question, if they can fatally wound MS as a whole by rendering this acquisition a massive loss, why wouldn’t Sony simply cancel COD on PS the day the acquisition is approved, and see MS disappear from gaming?

Yeah, the CMA analysis doesn’t quite add up… They seem to have fallen for the idea that platforms sell content, rather than content selling platforms.

Anyway, post acquisition, MS gaming revenues are nearly 50% from mobile and about 40% third party based on ABK content being merged in.

Post acquisition MS gaming is a largely third party publisher leaving us with just 2 first parties of note in this corner of the hobby.

Hopefully the custom hardware space MS vacates will be taken up by a company able to compete with Sony and Nintendo more effectively.

Microsoft would still exist if Sony tried to block COD. Sony would inflict reputational and financial losses on itself for uncertain gain. The impact of losing access to CoD is why Sony is fighting the acquisition so hard.

I think first and third party are going to become dated terms. Xbox and PS are primarily third party consoles in terms of software sales and user engagement. Content is the future as computing costs decline and hardware becomes commodified. Nintendo will probably be the last holdout as a pure first party.
 

Sony

Nintendo
At this point with all these stories about MS' Game Studio management, I'd think that owning Activision would actually be a liability for them. Microsoft is sitting on dev studio's and IP's that in theory should result in a steady stream of high quality games, but unfortunately it's just not clicking. And this saddens me because I feel like my whole 'gaming prime', I'm waiting on a quality MS first party.
 

Sony

Nintendo
Which begs the question, if they can fatally wound MS as a whole by rendering this acquisition a massive loss, why wouldn’t Sony simply cancel COD on PS the day the acquisition is approved, and see MS disappear from gaming?

Are you serious? We've been through this circus for more than a year now, and to but it bluntly, this is a really dumb take.

That's the reason why market authorities exist. If blocking COD from PS by market leader Sony will lead to SLC or foreclosure of Xbox, then the market authorities won't allow Sony from blocking it.
 
Last edited:

Chukhopops

Member
Which begs the question, if they can fatally wound MS as a whole by rendering this acquisition a massive loss, why wouldn’t Sony simply cancel COD on PS the day the acquisition is approved, and see MS disappear from gaming?
At the very least Sony has to honor the marketing contracts they have with Activision and which afaik run until 2026 (might be wrong about the exact duration).

Then it would be a gigantic self own as they would lose the sales from CoD, some revenue from PS+ Essential (since CoD is the most played game there) and just send some free customers to MS. I really don’t see why they would do that.
I am an Xbox customer, Xbox have mismanaged themselves for 22 years, why should I have to accept that? It is not my issue.
There’s no way anyone can take this level of hyperbole seriously.

I always love reading the « you should be mad at MS, why aren’t you mad? » argument though.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
There’s no way anyone can take this level of hyperbole seriously.
Explain how that is hyperbole please? Outside of a 3-4 year window during the 360 era when Bungie and Epic Games set the world alight, what have they done? Moon and Playground made their other 2 world class games in the past 2 decades, they’ve acquired one of them.

I always love reading the « you should be mad at MS, why aren’t you mad? » argument though.
Again, I know reading is hard, but I’m not asking why people aren’t mad. I’m asking why I should feel anything but apathy towards the current Xbox brand.
 
They are looking to hire one of MS economists including the one who was writing about the deal with ABK. Obviously this is going to happen post the EC decision but it may impact any future acquisitions.
How it started: "Big tech bad, CMA will block it, FTC is suing, EC has concerns"
How it is going: "CMA did 180 and MS attends meeting with PM; EC is hiring former MS's economist; FTC is being grilled by the congress"
Which begs the question, if they can fatally wound MS as a whole by rendering this acquisition a massive loss, why wouldn’t Sony simply cancel COD on PS the day the acquisition is approved, and see MS disappear from gaming?
Fatally wound? lol
 

Varteras

Gold Member
If the CMA is accurate, there is “no plausible scenario” MS take COD from PS without major losses.

Which begs the question, if they can fatally wound MS as a whole by rendering this acquisition a massive loss, why wouldn’t Sony simply cancel COD on PS the day the acquisition is approved, and see MS disappear from gaming?

Sony COULD do that, but regulators might step in and prevent it. It wouldn't be a very financially wise decision for them anyhow. That would be a very large sudden loss in revenue and could very well lead to the same consequences Sony claimed to fear in their battle over it.

The far more likely scenario is that Sony continues to bolster its live service capabilities and offerings. In addition, Sony will try to make deals with any companies creating anything remotely in competition with Call of Duty to heavily market those games and possibly get some kind of exclusive perks or availability. They will probably take every opportunity to reduce CoD's presence while losing as little revenue as possible.
 
Here's my pessimistic take. Presuming this one goes through, which it most likely will, with all these studios Microsoft will have a much stronger market position for sure, but the whole thing still seems to be based on a flawed business plan imo.

All the content in the world isn't going to fix the elephant in the room. The sub/Gamepass model, as is currently exists, is not going to bear the fruit they expect and will not support the huge development army they now own. At least not in it's current form. We have already seen the growth of these services in the more traditional console space slow/stagnate capping out at about half of the hardware sold.

Sure they can steal some of Sony's market, but to reach the types of numbers they want it's obvious they will have to fully uncouple their platforms success from the x-box hardware and drastically change the type of content they are providing.

Of cource they have to be thinking going full in on cloud/mobile but I just don't see how that works out for them. It's fantasy that their is some huge untapped pool of players that want to play console style games on mobile. And Android and Apple and Free-to play are already well established in that space providing the type of content mobile players want.

So what's the plan? Buy an army of established console developers to make games for your service based platform that will eventually need mobile content to grow/work.

I can tell you one thing, I wouldn't want to be one of these studios being acquired. It's like making a deal with the devil. When Gamepass growth targets aren't hit Microsoft will eventually pivot fully into the mobile direction to reach their growth goals (which has to be their goal). On that day these devs could very quickly find themselves making mobile gatcha bullshit or just plan culled. At some point Microsoft are going to want a return on their investments and when that day comes, and it is coming, all these traditional console game studios they just bought could find themselves making whatever the new corporate version of Avatar Shoes is or just plane disbanded.

people keep focusing on Game Pass like is the root of the problem (is not).

there are rumors about the shortages of Xbox consoles due to the hardware going to the data centers for XCloud = this illustrates the actual root of the problem:

As i said before, we can talk about business models, strategies and all that shit....at the end of the day Content is King.

xbox is an entertainment division MS is not an entertainment company, they dont know shit about this industry

i have heard the mobile card being used time and time again..."mobile is bigger than consoles". long story short:

1 console gamer is 10x more valuable than 1 mobile gamer.

and as you said; the expectations of experiences is different from mobile/consoles and even PC.

what MS/Xbox have in front of them is an atonement task. in paper their "vision/strategy/master plan" makes sense and seems "perfect".....but they are like the rich kid that gets the job because of daddy....and now they are about to get sucker punched by reality.
 

Chukhopops

Member
Explain how that is hyperbole please? Outside of a 3-4 year window during the 360 era when Bungie and Epic Games set the world alight, what have they done? Moon and Playground made their other 2 world class games in the past 2 decades, they’ve acquired one of them.


Again, I know reading is hard, but I’m not asking why people aren’t mad. I’m asking why I should feel anything but apathy towards the current Xbox brand.
You can feel apathy if you want to, I’m not trying to change your feelings or opinions. I’m saying not everybody thinks the same, otherwise why would people buy Xbox consoles? Even the XBO sold around 50 million and that was considered the weakest generation from MS.

I’ve spent more time last generation playing XBO than any other console between Titanfall, Gears 5, H5 and FH 2/3/4. That made the purchase of the big ugly VCR, and later the much better looking 1X completely worth it in my opinion. Then you add stuff like Sunset Overdrive, MCC, Wasteland 3, State of Decay 2, all of which were just excellent overall.

I don’t have an issue with people disliking the brand or games, but obviously not everyone will have the same opinion otherwise Xbox wouldn’t even exist today.
 

POKEYCLYDE

Member
Here's my pessimistic take. Presuming this one goes through, which it most likely will, with all these studios Microsoft will have a much stronger market position for sure, but the whole thing still seems to be based on a flawed business plan imo.

All the content in the world isn't going to fix the elephant in the room. The sub/Gamepass model, as is currently exists, is not going to bear the fruit they expect and will not support the huge development army they now own. At least not in it's current form. We have already seen the growth of these services in the more traditional console space slow/stagnate capping out at about half of the hardware sold.
There are 2 things here to dissect. Microsoft's expectations and can current Gamepass support their studios as it stands now?

Microsoft says Gamepass is currently profitable. Meaning support/development costs are covered. Unless you have a different definition of support?

I think you're confusing their lofty "Reach 3 billion gamers" goal with their shorter term expectations.

Sure they can steal some of Sony's market, but to reach the types of numbers they want it's obvious they will have to fully uncouple their platforms success from the x-box hardware and drastically change the type of content they are providing.
Console gaming will always be around and will expand. There will always be a want/need for the content that they're currently offering.

Again, I think you're looking at their lofty "3 billion gamers" goal as something that they're racing toward, when they're not. It's definitely pessimistic to think they are going to pivot to an all mobile/cloud future.

Of cource they have to be thinking going full in on cloud/mobile but I just don't see how that works out for them. It's fantasy that their is some huge untapped pool of players that want to play console style games on mobile. And Android and Apple and Free-to play are already well established in that space providing the type of content mobile players want.
You don't have to forsake one market to capture another.

So what's the plan? Buy an army of established console developers to make games for your service based platform that will eventually need mobile content to grow/work.

I can tell you one thing, I wouldn't want to be one of these studios being acquired. It's like making a deal with the devil. When Gamepass growth targets aren't hit Microsoft will eventually pivot fully into the mobile direction to reach their growth goals (which has to be their goal). On that day these devs could very quickly find themselves making mobile gatcha bullshit or just plan culled. At some point Microsoft are going to want a return on their investments and when that day comes, and it is coming, all these traditional console game studios they just bought could find themselves making whatever the new corporate version of Avatar Shoes is or just plane disbanded.
Super pessimistic.

My guess would be they'll want to expand Gamepass with a mobile/cloud only tier. Grab an audience unwilling to drop $500+ on a console but would pay $5-10 a month for a host of games. No pivot to mobile games over console games needed.

Gain enough subscribers that their yearly revenue/profit is in the tens of billions, a greater ROI than one would gain from B2P sales. I think this is a realistic goal within the next 10-15 years.

To pivot their console developers to mobile developers they'd have to risk whatever profit they'd be making at the time of such a move. Forsake the console audience they've built to hopefully grab a larger mobile audience. Extremely unlikely. Rather, they'd probably hire/acquire mobile studios to work with their IP (something Nintendo does).
 

feynoob

Member
Explain how that is hyperbole please? Outside of a 3-4 year window during the 360 era when Bungie and Epic Games set the world alight, what have they done? Moon and Playground made their other 2 world class games in the past 2 decades, they’ve acquired one of them.
The real question should be, why haven't they started buying actual competent studios during that week.

MS needed diversity content studios. Instead they relied heavily on 3rd parties to do their. All their issues could have been fixed by having the right studios, instead of bunch of small devs.
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
There are 2 things here to dissect. Microsoft's expectations and can current Gamepass support their studios as it stands now?

Microsoft says Gamepass is currently profitable. Meaning support/development costs are covered. Unless you have a different definition of support?

I think you're confusing their lofty "Reach 3 billion gamers" goal with their shorter term expectations.
I've mentioned this before. People disregarded it. I know it will be disregarded once more, but ...

Microsoft never said, "Game Pass is profitable." Phil was talking about a very different thing, and it was a very long-winded answer, and online publications like Windows Central and The Verge just ran with it and wrote headings like "Game Pass is Profitable, says Phil Spencer" when he never actually said it.

He only said "it is profitable" (not Game Pass is profitable), and the "it" referred to the subscription services role in the overall revenue of the Xbox division being limited only to 10-15% of the total revenue because a bigger revenue share would cannibalize game sales even more and that wouldn't be profitable for Xbox.

Mlvq60O.jpg


If you read the second paragraph, you will see it. The "it" refers to Xbox content and services revenue -- not Game Pass.
 
Last edited:

POKEYCLYDE

Member
If the CMA is accurate, there is “no plausible scenario” MS take COD from PS without major losses.

Which begs the question, if they can fatally wound MS as a whole by rendering this acquisition a massive loss, why wouldn’t Sony simply cancel COD on PS the day the acquisition is approved, and see MS disappear from gaming?
Owning Activision doesn't suddenly become a liability if CoD can't be sold on Playstation. CoD would still be profitable, just not as much.

The "losses" refers to revenue lost from not selling on Playstation.

Losing possible revenue is not equal to a net loss. Microsoft hasn't stated that making CoD exclusive would result in their ruin, just that they wouldn't make as much money.
 

reksveks

Member
If you read the second paragraph, you will see it. The "it" refers to Xbox content and services revenue -- not Game Pass.
The quote was "I think it will stay in the 10-15% range and it's profitable for us" from the WSJ tech live interview.

It being Gamepass.

My personal thoughts is gamepass can be a loss leader for the real money, store transactions similar to Prime.

P.s. 'for us' is an interesting phrase for sure but they weren't talking about the content and service revenue.
 
Last edited:

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
The quote was "I think it will stay in the 10-15% range and it's profitable for us" from the WSJ tech live interview.

It being Gamepass.

My personal thoughts is gamepass can be a loss leader for the real money, store transactions similar to Prime.

P.s. 'for us' is an interesting phrase for sure but they weren't talking about the content and service revenue.
If we add a few lines before that quote, we'll see that it was actually about Game Pass potentially cannibalizing game sales. Phil said that they don't foresee Game Pass to be 50, 60, or 70% of Xbox's total revenue (so it doesn't cannibalize as much) and the fact that it is and will stay in the 10 to 15% range, that is profitable for us.

"Game Pass is an overall part of our content and service Revenue; it's probably 15 percent; I don't think it gets bigger than that. I think the overall Revenue grows so 15 percent of a bigger number is a bigger number, but we don't have this future where I think 50, 60, 70 percent of our Revenue comes from subscriptions."

"We have the option of a subscription which we love as a choice but not to the extent not trying to kind of uh cannibalize the other businesses we see it as just a customer choice, and I think it will stay in that 10 to 15 percent of our overall revenue, and it's profitable for us."
-- Phil Spencer
 

reksveks

Member
If we add a few lines before that quote, we'll see that it was actually about Game Pass potentially cannibalizing game sales. Phil said that they don't foresee Game Pass to be 50, 60, or 70% of Xbox's total revenue (so it doesn't cannibalize as much) and the fact that it is and will stay in the 10 to 15% range, that is profitable for us.
"Game Pass is an overall part of our content and service Revenue; it's probably 15 percent; I don't think it gets bigger than that. I think the overall Revenue grows so 15 percent of a bigger number is a bigger number, but we don't have this future where I think 50, 60, 70 percent of our Revenue comes from subscriptions."

"We have the option of a subscription which we love as a choice but not to the extent not trying to kind of uh cannibalize the other businesses we see it as just a customer choice, and"
-- Phil Spencer
The 'it' is still clearly referring to Gamepass though. It's not changing within "I think it will stay in that 10 to 15 percent of our overall revenue, and it's profitable for us."
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
Owning Activision doesn't suddenly become a liability if CoD can't be sold on Playstation. CoD would still be profitable, just not as much.

The "losses" refers to revenue lost from not selling on Playstation.

Losing possible revenue is not equal to a net loss. Microsoft hasn't stated that making CoD exclusive would result in their ruin, just that they wouldn't make as much money.
They specifically mentioned $X billion in loss over 5 years if COD isn't sold on PlayStation -- not just $X reduction in profit or revenue. It is straight up loss.
 
1 console gamer is 10x more valuable than 1 mobile gamer.

Receipts on that one mate? I doubt your ratio is correct for your claim but on raw turnover it doesn't seem correct.

Mobile revenues are something like 65% of global games gross figures. Source

  • The largest segment is Mobile Games with a market volume of US$286.50bn in 2023.
  • The average revenue per user (ARPU) in the Video Games market is projected to amount to US$142.50 in 2023.
 
Last edited:

POKEYCLYDE

Member
Mlvq60O.jpg


If you read the second paragraph, you will see it. The "it" refers to Xbox content and services revenue -- not Game Pass.
Context is important, while I fully believe Microsoft is guilty of weasel words and answering questions in such a way that can be interpreted multiple ways... don't think this is that.
The quote was "I think it will stay in the 10-15% range and it's profitable for us" from the WSJ tech live interview.

It being Gamepass.

My personal thoughts is gamepass can be a loss leader for the real money, store transactions similar to Prime.
Exactly.

My thoughts, Gamepass started out as a loss leader. The side effect being higher store transactions. But the goal I think, has been and will always be to gain enough subscribers to make higher, recurring and consistent profits.
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
The 'it' is still clearly referring to Gamepass though. It's not changing within "I think it will stay in that 10 to 15 percent of our overall revenue, and it's profitable for us."
Agreed to disagree here then.

He is very clearly talking about Game Pass's cannibalization of other revenues (game sales) and the fact it's 10-15% of total revenue (and 85% of revenue isn't cannibalized) is profitable for us.

Otherwise, why would he even mention the 10 to 15% of revenue, and why they don't see it becoming 50, 60, or 70% of the total revenue (because that would not be profitable because of high level of cannibalization).
 

feynoob

Member
Agreed to disagree here then.

He is very clearly talking about Game Pass's cannibalization of other revenues (game sales) and the fact it's 10-15% of total revenue (and 85% of revenue isn't cannibalized) is profitable for us.

Otherwise, why would he even mention the 10 to 15% of revenue, and why they don't see it becoming 50, 60, or 70% of the total revenue (because that would not be profitable because of high level of cannibalization).
Because those revenue includes MS overall gaming business.

Gamepass won't be 50%, because it will need to generate more than 6-9b to hit that number.
 
Last edited:

POKEYCLYDE

Member
They specifically mentioned $X billion in loss over 5 years if COD isn't sold on PlayStation -- not just $X reduction in profit or revenue. It is straight up loss.
They're comparing one scenarios profits to another. If scenario A offers $2billion in profits, and scenario B offers $500million in profits. And I choose scenario B, I'm losing $1.5billion in possible profits.

That's the loss.
 
Yeah, about that LOL

I wonder what Sony is really going to do when MS takes CoD away from PS
Lol, nah I don’t think they’ll take COD away.
I think they’ll gladly take all the money they get from PlayStation players.

I guess the weird thing would be that Sony would be paying Microsoft for the marketing of the game, at least until current contract on marketing expires.
 

reksveks

Member
Agreed to disagree here then.

He is very clearly talking about Game Pass's cannibalization of other revenues (game sales) and the fact it's 10-15% of total revenue (and 85% of revenue isn't cannibalized) is profitable for us.

Otherwise, why would he even mention the 10 to 15% of revenue, and why they don't see it becoming 50, 60, or 70% of the total revenue (because that would not be profitable because of high level of cannibalization).
I think we may be talking slightly passed each other.

Gamepass can be profitable now at 10-15% and not at 50-60%, those are two separate things.

GamePass at 50-60% of total software revenue would need to figure some way to cover the real money in MTX's and I am not sure that's going to happen. Would have to do some forecasting on this.
 

Three

Member
Are you serious? We've been through this circus for more than a year now, and to but it bluntly, this is a really dumb take.

That's the reason why market authorities exist. If blocking COD from PS by market leader Sony will lead to SLC or foreclosure of Xbox, then the market authorities won't allow Sony from blocking it.
They can block whatever game they like. Just look at Cyberpunks removal. It's their store and they can choose what they sell on it. Regulators can't really say anything legally but the act itself would be really questionable.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
I think we may be talking slightly passed each other.

Gamepass can be profitable now at 10-15% and not at 50-60%, those are two separate things.

GamePass at 50-60% of total software revenue would need to figure some way to cover the real money in MTX's and I am not sure that's going to happen. Would have to do some forecasting on this.
The revenue percentage that gamepass has is meaningless in trying to find if it's profitable. Most of the rest of the revenue is going to be hardware and mtxs. Very little of it game sales. I suspect even right now GP revenue is above premium game sales on xbox.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom