• 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.

Axios: Microsoft's Phil Spencer: Activision deal "well beyond anything I’ve ever done"

Snake29

Member
Id rather know that games are coming then not know.

It only makes people more likely to be disappointed. Sony always got a lot of criticism for announcing certain games early. This is something they don't do and this way it also remains a surprise. But you know very well that Sony has many more games in development. That they do not publish their list completely at the moment does not say anything, does it?

I wouldn't know why you would want to know what's coming in 6 years, and then try to build up hype, after which they only disappoint people because the games couldn't live up to it.
 

Sosokrates

Gold Member
It only makes people more likely to be disappointed. Sony always got a lot of criticism for announcing certain games early. This is something they don't do and this way it also remains a surprise. But you know very well that Sony has many more games in development. That they do not publish their list completely at the moment does not say anything, does it?

I wouldn't know why you would want to know what's coming in 6 years, and then try to build up hype, after which they only disappoint people because the games couldn't live up to it.

Yeah but Xbox's games arnt coming in 6yrs when they were announced.
 

kingfey

Banned
They will continue being direct competitors, but even after the Zenimax and Activision acquisitions will continue making less revenue than Sony. Specially considering Bethesda and Activision Blizzard games will drop their revenue due to many of their copies of new games being included in GP at launch instead of being sold at full price, and will drop even more if they decide to keep some big Zenimax/ABK game out of PS.

Their game subscriptions will become more similar to each other and will fight harder to see who gets what there. MS already invested hard on mobile with Minecraft, King and CoD Mobile, and Sony bought the dev that makes their only mobile game, but that generates over $1B/year and will continue buying big mobile stuff. I think MS will be more dominant on more neutral territories like PC and mobile where they area diluted between many other players while Sony will be more dominant on consoles (hardware sales, total game sales, exclusive sales, average metacritic or awards etc), game subscriptions and VR.
$68.7b changed the way we view this silly competition. Both at this point aren't competitors at all.
And as for subscription service, Sony wont be able to match that. The only they do it is day1. I dont see them ever doing that option. By the time Sony service is here, gamepass would take off.
One thing to keep in mind is that gamepass has those pc players, and xcloud. Sony will have a hard time competing with a service that offers these option.
 

RevGaming

Member
Uh? I never said sony games took 6 yrs.
So xbox games?

I don't think under 6 years is something to be proud of.

Sony needs to announce 2023 games. We got enough info from horizon and gt, so what the hell is next? Just god of war?
 
Last edited:

Sosokrates

Gold Member
So xbox games?

I don't think under 6 years is something to be proud of.

Sony needs to announce 2023 games. We got enough info from horizon and gt, so what the hell is next? Just god of war?
The only sony stuff we know about after 22 is Spiderman 2 and wolverine.
 

RevGaming

Member
Crazy that they're still not done with acquisitions if rumors are correct. Game Pass is going to be absolutely massive.
Did they say they're acquiring publishers/studios after this? They probably will after the deal is done and say straight up, we ain't done lol.
 

RevGaming

Member
The only sony stuff we know about after 22 is Spiderman 2 and wolverine.

The wolverine game is so far off man. I think that's 2025-2026 and they just announced it to sell ps5 on the promise alone.

It can't be Spiderman 2 alone. What about the second projects of the studios, Factions? I guess after GT7 we will know. I hope they don't stay silent for months or just make a state of play for God of War and Forspoken (which it should be delayed) and that's it for now.
 
Last edited:

recursive

Member
Well let's be honest: "just wait till next year!" was Xbox's go-to for an entire generation, so I think it's understandable for folks to be a little impatient. Starfield drops in November, which is shaping up nicely, but, if that's it for 2022 and 2023 is barren, I'd have to start questioning things. I shit-talk 343i for this reason: they had the biggest budget and longest development cycle in franchise history, and made the smallest most broken Halo ever. But, is that Microsoft's fault, or 343i's fault? It's hard to know for certain. We'll find out one way or the other, 32 developers firing it'll be easy to spot the patterns. For me, Microsoft haven't proven they can manage their developers to produce industry leading games in nearly a decade. Now with USD$77b in new investments, the pressure is on, and I'm curious to see if they actually can do it.
Starfield is shaping up nicely? What is starfield? Would love to see some gameplay and a deep dive into its specifics.
 

Sosokrates

Gold Member
The wolverine game is so far off man. I think that's 2025-2026 and they just announced it to sell ps5 on the promise alone.

It can't be Spiderman 2 alone. What about the second projects of the studios, Factions? I guess after GT7 we will know. I hope they don't stay silent for months or just make a state of play for God of War and Forspoken (which it should be delayed) and that's it for now.

We are talking about what has been announced.
 

kingfey

Banned
They relied too much on the third parties + pivot to Kinect and later almost closed Xbox division.
Don seriously undermined xbox to the ground. Who ever was the CEO during OG did great job making this company alive. then this idiot comes in and wreaks every thing.
 

RevGaming

Member
I think they will stop when they have about 45 teams. So they can have 1 game every month.
Yeah. My prediction is about 40 for ms and 30 for sony. That Blizzard one could count like 10 studios tho lol.
We are talking about what has been announced.
Yeah I know, but they kind of let this emptyness after March besides gow. Spidey 2 could be delay too. I'm just saying, it is looking rather dry after gow.
 
Last edited:

coffinbirth

Member
Why aren’t you pushing Sony to include a HTML5 capable browser on the PS5 so you can play Bethesda games on your console via xCloud? On my Series X, I can stream GeForce Now and Stadia games.


Makes it clear this is all about console warring, since y’all never seem to push Sony to do the needful.
 

Sosokrates

Gold Member
Whats crazy is that Zenimax alone released 14 games on x1/ps4 last gen.

If they have similar output this gen, then that 14 xbox exclusives just from zenimax.
 

reksveks

Member
It's because we are talking about consoles. PS4 and X1 sold 120 million and 50 million respectively leaving us with a 170 million install base. That makes PS4 userbase 70% of all console gamers. It's just math.

Bethesda has a big userbase on PC just like CD Project enjoys. And yet CoD is almost non-existent on PC. PS sales and revenue from warzone is roughly 70%. in line, with the console split.
Where did you state that you or James were talking about console only?

Source that COD is non existent on PC? Just curious cause I have never seen this before

Are you ignoring switch players for a reason? Skyrim is on the switch.
I am not the one claiming anything so it's an irrelevant question to ask me.
 
Last edited:

SlimySnake

Member
Where did you state that you or James were talking about console only?

Source that COD is non existent on PC? Just curious cause I have never seen this before


I am not the one claiming anything so it's an irrelevant question to ask me.
I dont want to continue this nonsense. The games are being kept from releasing on a console where they were originally slated to release. Fewer gamers will play the game as a result of that acquisition. There is nothing more to discuss. We should be able to say simple factual stuff like this without getting into nonsensical arguments.
 

reksveks

Member
I dont want to continue this nonsense. The games are being kept from releasing on a console where they were originally slated to release. Fewer gamers will play the game as a result of that acquisition. There is nothing more to discuss. We should be able to say simple factual stuff like this without getting into nonsensical arguments.
You haven't stated a fact though as far as I can tell. Facts require evidences and you haven't provide that. You have stated an assumption at the moment. The only thing that you have stated is console hw splits, not player base splits for call of duty. Console hw splits says nothing about the number of players on pc.

I did not argue that less gamers weren't going to be able to play call of duty btw.

Factually we know the following for Activision-Blizzard (usd):

Console is 2.64Bn yearly rev
PC is 2.634Bn yearly rev
Mobile is 3.16Bn yearly rev
Other is 0.66Bn yearly rev

Activision is 3.48b yearly rev
Blizzard is 1.83bn yearly rev
King is 2.580bn yearly revenue

Source: https://investor.activision.com/financial-information/quarterly-results
 
Last edited:

SlimySnake

Member
You haven't stated a fact though as far as I can tell. Facts require evidences and you haven't provide that. You have stated an assumption at the moment. The only thing that you have stated is console hw splits, not player base splits for call of duty. Console hw splits says nothing about the number of players on pc.

I did not argue that less gamers weren't going to be able to play call of duty btw.
The games are being kept from releasing on a console where they were originally slated to release. Fewer gamers will play the game as a result of that acquisition.

Thats a fact. It doesnt require evidence. Just a functioning brain.
 

yurinka

Member
$68.7b changed the way we view this silly competition. Both at this point aren't competitors at all.
And as for subscription service, Sony wont be able to match that. The only they do it is day1. I dont see them ever doing that option. By the time Sony service is here, gamepass would take off.
One thing to keep in mind is that gamepass has those pc players, and xcloud. Sony will have a hard time competing with a service that offers these option.
This acquisititon didn't change a shit in the areas where they compete directly:
  • Sony continues as the second biggest gaming company and first console platform holder in revenue
  • Sony gaming business continues being profitable and MS gaming business will be way more unprofitable
  • Sony continues owning the biggest platform/store and userbase (111 MAU) for AAA games
  • Sony game subs coninue having over twice more subs, revenue and profit (well, unlike MS they have profit) than MS
  • CoD only generated about 1% of Sony's game division, so even if it would leave they wouldn't notice it
  • Sony continues getting more big console exclusives per year
  • Sony continues on top of MS in all these areas and more where they compete directly, it's MS who has to keep buying like crazy (seems they can't do it by themselves, so they buy companies and almost give away for free their games to get attention) to improve and be able compete against Sony, not the opposite
The main change is that MS already was leading but got stronger in two markets where they don't compete directly since they are more neutral territory because they don't control it and have a very small marketshare: PC and mobile
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
Thats a fact. It doesnt require evidence. Just a functioning brain.
Okay, now show me the evidence that 70% of cod players are on PS and that PC players are non-existent.

Also show me where you stated that you were talking about just console players.

Again didn't argue that less players weren't going to be able to play COD but you clearly aren't reading my posts completely.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Gold Member
We arent talking about the money. But what that publisher had.

Man you coulda just linked to their wikipedia page instead of copy pasting the whole thing, lol.

This acquisititon didn't change a shit:
  • Sony continues as the second biggest gaming company and first console platform holder in revenue
  • Sony gaming business continues being profitable and MS gaming business will be way more unprofitable
  • Sony continues owning the biggest platform/store and userbase (111 MAU) for AAA games
  • Sony game subs coninue having over twice more subs, revenue and profit (well, unlike MS they have profit) than MS
  • CoD only generated about 1% of Sony's game division, so even if it would leave they wouldn't notice it
  • Sony continues getting more big console exclusives per year
  • Sony continues on top of MS in all these areas and more where they compete directly, it's MS who has to keep buying like crazy (seems they can't do it by themselves, so they buy companies and almost give away for free their games to get attention) to improve and be able compete against Sony, not the opposite


My dude, the acquisition hasn't even finalized yet.

Of course it hasn't changed shit yet.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
Why aren’t you pushing Sony to include a HTML5 capable browser on the PS5 so you can play Bethesda games on your console via xCloud?
Why when they can be played natively? All Zenimax games are available on PS5 including their next one, that btw is timed console exclusive.

My dude, the acquisition hasn't even finalized yet.

Of course it hasn't changed shit yet.
True, we still didn't see the effects. If it's true that Sony had a marketing deal with the next 3 CoD games, and it's the same marketing deal they signed for RE Village, then MS would have bought CoD and these games won't be able to be on Gamepass during the first 15 or 16 months after launch.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
CoD only generated about 1% of Sony's game division, so even if it would leave they wouldn't notice it

Sorry if i have asked this before but how are you getting to this number? 1% would indicate 250M per year and we know that activision generates 2.64BN on console sales so trying to figure out the reason for the difference

Sony as far as I know seems to count all 100% of their digital revenue within their financial earning report and then only their 30% for physical game sales
 

Swift_Star

Gold Member
Why aren’t you pushing Sony to include a HTML5 capable browser on the PS5 so you can play Bethesda games on your console via xCloud? On my Series X, I can stream GeForce Now and Stadia games.


Makes it clear this is all about console warring, since y’all never seem to push Sony to do the needful.
We don’t have to push Sony to do anything lmao I don’t work for them. What is this take?
 

adamsapple

Gold Member
Why when they can be played natively? All Zenimax games are available on PS5 including their next one, that btw is timed console exclusive.


It's also going to be the last new Zenimax game on the PS5. Let's note that as well.



True, we still didn't see the effects. If it's true that Sony had a marketing deal with the next 3 CoD games, and it's the same marketing deal they signed for RE Village, then MS would have bought CoD and these games won't be able to be on Gamepass during the first 15 or 16 months after launch.

Why do folks keep using CoD as a shorthand for the Activision Blizzard sale. CoD is just one IP, the studio has so much more to offer.

MS didn't just buy Call of Duty, they bought a metric shit ton of IP.
 
Last edited:

Swift_Star

Gold Member
It's also going to be the last new Zenimax game on the PS5. Let's note that as well.





Why do folks keep using CoD as a shorthand for the Activision Blizzard sale. CoD is just one IP, the studio has so much more to offer.

MS didn't just buy Call of Duty, they bought a metric shit ton of IP.
Most are dormant and people don’t remember them. They bought CoD. That’s it.
 

yurinka

Member
Sorry if i have asked this before but how are you getting to this number? 1% would indicate 250M per year and we know that activision generates 2.64BN on console sales so trying to figure out the reason for the difference

Sony as far as I know seems to count all 100% of their digital revenue within their financial earning report and then only their 30% for physical game sales
According to ABK, CoD generates 3B/year and 1B+/year from CoD Mobile. Assuming -just personal rough estimation, that more or less matches a CitiBank estimation- that half of the Xbox+PC+PS units sold are from PS, then CoD would make slightly under $1B on PS and Sony gets a 30% of it. Remove from there transaction costs, taxes, refunds or chargebacks. CitiBank estimated Sony generates every year $80M-$260M from the CoD series. Going for the higher side and to get a rounding number, if we assume it makes $250M then it would be a 1% of the $25B/year that Sony's gaming division makes.

Sony makes an additional over $1B/year in revenue from a mobile game but it isn't under Sony's gaming division, so isn't counted in the $25B.
 

kingfey

Banned
Sony continues as the second biggest gaming company and first console platform holder in revenue
New Gen, new revenue. They will lose out all xbox one/ps4 software sales, once next games drop.

Sony gaming business continues being profitable and MS gaming business will be way more unprofitable
MS is a trillion dollar company unlike Sony. They reached that level, because they know how to make profits. They do make profits from their gaming division.

Sony continues owning the biggest platform/store and userbase (111 MAU) for AAA games
That is steam. It has the most userbase, due to being a software store. They pretty much get Users for free, without spending anything.
Sony biggest platform is about to be closed down in 1-2 years from now. Once next gen starts, they lose that position to switch.

Sony game subs coninue having over twice more subs, revenue and profit (well, unlike MS they have profit) than MS
Again, they are about to lost tons of ps+ users, once next gen starts rolling around. They will have to make alot ps5 to get those users back. Unlike MS, which PC users, who can cover lost xbox one users. Not to mention, they have xbox live gold revenue. add those 2, and you pretty much get good profits.

ps. Xbox live gold is most profitable service. The games they giveaway is too much crap, and they keep those money.

CoD only generated about 1% of Sony's game division, so even if it would leave they wouldn't notice it

This revenue will also go to MS

Sony continues getting more big console exclusives per year
Look at xbox new games chart. Bethesda, their own games, plus activision now. That is tons big console exclusives.

Still Sony makes bangers though. This time, they said they are working on GAAS. I dont know how that will impact their 1st party output sp games.

Sony continues on top of MS in all these areas and more where they compete directly, it's MS who has to keep buying like crazy (seems they can't do it by themselves, so they buy companies and almost give away for free their games to get attention) to improve and be able compete against Sony, not the opposite
Sony had a tower generator called ps4. That tower will close down soon. 1-2 years is the maximum limit for this tower. Once cross-game ends, they will lose those income.

The main change is that MS already was leading but got stronger in two markets where they don't compete directly since they are more neutral territory because they don't control it and have a very small marketshare: PC and mobile
These sectors bring money to MS, and add it to the xbox revenue.

Here is the new revenue, once activision and Xbox deal is done.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
It's also going to be the last new Zenimax game on the PS5. Let's note that as well.
They never said that, in fact they said the opposite. That they were going to keep supporting the communities they had where they already were, that their strategy wasn't to remove games from other platforms, thatt their strategy was "FIRST or better on Xbox" etc.

Why do folks keep using CoD as a shorthand for the Activision Blizzard sale. CoD is just one IP, the studio has so much more to offer.
Because Sony doesn't care about PC only IPs or mobile only IPs. On console they have basically all their Activision teams working only on CoD.
 

SlimySnake

Member
Okay, now show me the evidence that 70% of cod players are on PS and that PC players are non-existent.

Also show me where you stated that you were talking about just console players.
Pass. No point in arguing with people who seem to think removing cod from the biggest console userbase is not considered removing access to players.

Just google cod vanguard sales, warzone splits and pc steam charts for cod games before they went to battle.net. all of this stuff has been posted on gaf and im not inclined to google them for you. if you are questioning my figures, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

Not that it matters anyway. the PS4 has the biggest cod userbase and removing cod from playstation is removing access to players. Plain and simple. You want to nitpick and waste your time. be my guest. Google is that way.
 

adamsapple

Gold Member
They never said that, in fact they said the opposite. That they were going to keep supporting the communities they had where they already were, that their strategy wasn't to remove games from other platforms, thatt their strategy was "FIRST or better on Xbox" etc.

I said last *new* game on PS5.

Redfall, Starfield, TES VI aren't coming to PS5. And those are the only games we know are confirmed in development, there's naturally going to be more from other Zenimax studios.
 
Last edited:

SlimySnake

Member
Here is the new revenue, once activision and Xbox deal is done.
Exactly what I posted earlier.

If only the people interviewing Satya Nadella would have the common sense to ask him how Xbox would be third in this scenario.


The media is basically a PR platform for execs nowadays.
 

reksveks

Member
No point in arguing with people who seem to think removing cod from the biggest console userbase is not considered removing access to players.
Again you clearly aren't reading my comments correctly.

Just google cod vanguard sales, warzone splits and pc steam charts for cod games before they went to battle.net. all of this stuff has been posted on gaf and im not inclined to google them for you. if you are questioning my figures, the onus is on you to provide evidence.
The stupidest argument that I have read on NeoGAF. 'We can make assumptions' and the onus is on others to disapprove it.

Btw are you referring to the UK physical sales numbers for vanguard which was 70:30 when just physical but ended up 57:43 when they accounted for digital sales.
 

reksveks

Member
If only the people interviewing Satya Nadella would have the common sense to ask him how Xbox would be third in this scenario.
There is a duplicate of revenue here btw so ZhugeEX's is indicative instead of being accurate. Not enough data to be accurate.

Microsoft is counting the 100% of digital sales and Activision is counting their digital split (close to 70%). Microsoft is also counting their physical royalty whilst Activision is counting 100% of that number.
 

SlimySnake

Member
'We can make assumptions' and the onus is on others to disapprove it.
How can you say that i was referring to the UK sales numbers which you clearly found when you googled it and still call it an assumption? Clearly it was a fact that you found the moment you googled it. I had no idea it didnt count digital. But do keep looking. You will find the warzone splits and the steam userbase for cod games too.

None of those are assumptions.
 

reksveks

Member
How can you say that i was referring to the UK sales numbers which you clearly found when you googled it and still call it an assumption? Clearly it was a fact that you found the moment you googled it. I had no idea it didnt count digital. But do keep looking. You will find the warzone splits and the steam userbase for cod games too.

None of those are assumptions.
I only Googled it now to get the source to post it here. Trying to share my browser history but can't upload an image (also tried to upload ubisoft platform split before but that failed)

Also I didn't say that you were referring to that number, I was asking if you were. You really need to read a bit more closely. You could have been referring to some other number.

Again the onus isn't on people to disprove your 'facts', it's for you to prove it.
 

yurinka

Member
New Gen, new revenue. They will lose out all xbox one/ps4 software sales, once next games drop.
No, the userbase is there (111 MAU for PS).

MS is a trillion dollar company unlike Sony. They reached that level, because they know how to make profits. They do make profits from their gaming division.
Xbox has been historically a money sink for MS to the point they stopped sharing most of their metrics because they must not be really proud of them. And the money of the rest of thte corporattion didn't help them to outperform Sony in 20 years. Even adding the ABK numbers will be under Sony.

Sony biggest platform is about to be closed down in 1-2 years from now. Once next gen starts, they lose that position to switch.
Notice the difference between 111M consoles sold and 111M MAU. In 'consoles sold' many of the players may have stopped playing years ago. In 'MAU' the players have been playing during the last month, meaning they're active so can continue buying games, dlc and so on.

ps. Xbox live gold is most profitable service.
You have no idea of how profitable it is, starting because you don't know its size and pretty likely must be small since has been replaced/'merged' into by GPU.


This revenue will also go to MS
No, if they would stop releasing CoD on PS and Sony loses 250M then it means MS loses 750M. Most of the PS CoD players would continue on PS buying other games instead. MS would be the one who would lose more money by removing CoD from PS, this is why Phil Spenced said they want to keep CoD on PS and why Activision and Microsoft said to their investors and regulators in a legal document where they explained their plans that would continue supporting the ABK IPs on the other non-MS consoles, as MS did with Minecraft (that is, to continue release all future console games, dlcs and updates of the IP on PS and Switch).


This time, they said they are working on GAAS. I dont know how that will impact their 1st party output sp games.
Around a third of their games under development would be GaaS.

Out of these 10 games, one would be GT7, three more the Firewalk/Haven/Deaviation games and two or three would be Bungie new IPs. Another one game that originally was going to be the TLOU2 MP game mode. These are the confirmed ones. The other ones may be the Guerrilla game with the Rainbow Six Siege director, a Firesprite one and a Sony London one if it isn't the same game. All the other ones, around 2/3 of the 'over 25 ones they had under development' before Bungie (if we assume they are released before 2027) wouldn't be GaaS.

Way less than MS, who now has Minecraft, Halo Infinite, Fallout 76, Elder Scrolls Online, Sea of Thieves, Killer Instinct, WoW, Overwatch, CoD Warzone and many more plus the next Forza Motorsport. I assume the next ones to move to GaaS will be Doom and Gears.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
Remove from there transaction costs, taxes, refunds or chargebacks. CitiBank estimated Sony generates every year $80M-$260M from the CoD series. Going for the higher side and to get a rounding number, if we assume it makes $250M then it would be a 1% of the $25B/year that Sony's gaming division makes.
So that's profits instead of revenue.

Aka ~250m in profit vs 25bn in revenue. (last year their OI was closer to 3bn).

That's my understanding of their reporting.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
I said last *new* game on PS5.

Redfall, Starfield, TES VI aren't coming to PS5. And those are the only games we know are confirmed in development, there's naturally going to be more from other Zenimax studios.
Yes, they say said that when talking about their plan for the future Bethesda games. As an example who said their strategy for the Bethesda games will be 'first or better on Xbox' was the Xbox Chief of Finantials Operations, someone who I assume knows what they will do with their money. We'll see if a year or so after release they are released on PS or not, because these, or some of these may be games to be released "first" on Xbox.

And we'll have to see if Elder Scrolls VI isn't released day one on PS.

So that's profits instead of revenue.

Aka ~250m in profit vs 25bn in revenue. (last year their OI was closer to 3bn).

That's my understanding of their reporting.
No, for Sony these are both revenues, money that Sony gets. There may be related costs there like server costs, marketing deal costs, etc. substracted from that and then the result would be profits. But yes, basically is $250M/year of profit since the server costs are already covered by PS Plus subs and the marketing deal is counted separatedly.
 
Last edited:

RevGaming

Member
No, the userbase is there (111 MAU for PS).


Xbox has been historically a money sink for MS to the point they stopped sharing most of their metrics because they must not be really proud of them. And the money of the rest of thte corporattion didn't help them to outperform Sony in 20 years. Even adding the ABK numbers will be under Sony.


Notice the difference between 111M consoles sold and 111M MAU. In 'consoles sold' many of the players may have stopped playing years ago. In 'MAU' the players have been playing during the last month, meaning they're active so can continue buying games, dlc and so on.


You have no idea of how profitable it is, starting because you don't know its size and pretty likely must be small since has been replaced/'merged' into by GPU.


No, if they would stop releasing CoD on PS and Sony loses 250M then it means MS loses 750M. Most of the PS CoD players would continue on PS buying other games instead. MS would be the one who would lose more money by removing CoD from PS, this is why Phil Spenced said they want to keep CoD on PS and why Activision and Microsoft said to their investors and regulators in a legal document where they explained their plans that would continue supporting the ABK IPs on the other non-MS consoles, as MS did with Minecraft (that is, to continue release all future console games, dlcs and updates of the IP on PS and Switch).



Around a third of their games under development would be GaaS.

Out of these 10 games, one would be GT7, three more the Firewalk/Haven/Deaviation games and two or three would be Bungie new IPs. Another one game that originally was going to be the TLOU2 MP game mode. These are the confirmed ones. The other ones may be the Guerrilla game with the Rainbow Six Siege director, a Firesprite one and a Sony London one if it isn't the same game. All the other ones, around 2/3 of the 'over 25 ones they had under development' before Bungie (if we assume they are released before 2027) wouldn't be GaaS.

Way less than MS, who now has Minecraft, Halo Infinite, Fallout 76, Elder Scrolls Online, Sea of Thieves, Killer Instinct, WoW, Overwatch, CoD Warzone and many more plus the next Forza Motorsport. I assume the next ones to move to GaaS will be Doom and Gears.
Doom as GaaS? What the actual ...

Imma be real pissed how they ruin my favorite fps so far
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
No, the userbase is there (111 MAU for PS).
Those wont do nothing for ps5. Rememer, devs need to make games for ps4. If everyone is making games for ps5, then there would be not enough people using ps4. This is same for xbox.

Xbox has been historically a money sink for MS to the point they stopped sharing most of their metrics because they must not be really proud of them. And the money of the rest of thte corporattion didn't help them to outperform Sony in 20 years. Even adding the ABK numbers will be under Sony.
That is complete false. MS would have shutdown Xbox during xbox one, if that was true.

Again, here is Xbox+activision revenue.

Notice the difference between 111M consoles sold and 111M MAU. In 'consoles sold' many of the players may have stopped playing years ago. In 'MAU' the players have been playing during the last month, meaning they're active so can continue buying games, dlc and so on.
Monthly active users or as MAU is just PSN user account. It doesnt dictate console numbers. I have 2 psn accounts. I only log in to 1 these days.
For these users, they usually focus on 1 account. I can see a family sharing 1 hardware though.

You have no idea of how profitable it is, starting because you don't know its size and pretty likely must be small since has been replaced/'merged' into by GPU.
In American Money, Ps+ at 48m users get $2.8b. For gamepass, with 8$, since you guys are hell bent on the 1$, its $2.4b. We dont have Xox live gold. Lets say there are 20m people paying for xbox live gold. That $1.2b. Total of $3.6b.

But these numbers are useless. Both brand operate globally. It wont have these numbers exactly.

According to Phil, gamepass is sustainable. It covers its cost of games. That means, it doesnt lose money.

No, if they would stop releasing CoD on PS and Sony loses 250M then it means MS loses 750M. Most of the PS CoD players would continue on PS buying other games instead. MS would be the one who would lose more money by removing CoD from PS, this is why Phil Spenced said they want to keep CoD on PS and why Activision and Microsoft said to their investors and regulators in a legal document where they explained their plans that would continue supporting the ABK IPs on the other non-MS consoles, as MS did with Minecraft (that is, to continue release all future console games, dlcs and updates of the IP on PS and Switch).
There is steam users. MS would make a bank on that store, thus covering PS loses, not to mention Gamepass future increased subs will cover that too. COD players on playstation would migrate to xbox, or steam. If they go to xbox, that means xbox will get money from these users.

MS would not keep COD on playstation. they will honor existing contractual agreement. After that, its exclusive to Xbox. These type of statement have to be said legally, as they dont own activision yet.

Around a third of their games under development would be GaaS.

Out of these 10 games, one would be GT7, three more the Firewalk/Haven/Deaviation games and two or three would be Bungie new IPs. Another one game that originally was going to be the TLOU2 MP game mode. These are the confirmed ones.

Way less than MS, who now has Minecraft, Halo Infinite, Fallout 76, Elder Scrolls Online, Sea of Thieves, Killer Instinct, WoW, Overwatch, CoD Warzone and many more plus the next Forza Motorsport. I assume the next ones to move to GaaS will be Doom and Gears.
They will have to be careful, since half of those GAAS could fail, during the launch year. 70% of studio will focus on SP games, while the rest is doing GAAS.

SOT, ESO and FO76 were kinda dead during launch year. Devs worked hard, and now they are succesful. If they can survive those first 2 years, then they have a good GAAS. Even FF14 suffered from this issues.
 
Top Bottom