I think there is an argument (I have to guess someone would have already made it)
In order to create new studios you need people with a lot of creative skills and/or visionary gamers perspectives like Kojima, Gallagher, Fargo, Druckmann, Straley, Hennig, Barlog, Houser, Howard ecc, otherwise, what will you achieve with random people and some ideas at the top management? Who gives you the money to prove what you want to create? If it is so simple to create a new studio from zero with a new IP, why there are so few around? Look at Striking Distance Studios, who’s at the top? Glen Schofield, not a random creative director. You have to become a creative director. It’s extremely difficult to create a new studio today with this competition between directors, They’re all working for someone.
You mean those CMA complaints? Calm down, it was just meaningless phase 1. Even Microsoft thought it was meaningless because they offered no concession to CMA. Because they probably know that upon deep inspection in phase 2 those CMA argument won't hold much water.
Spot on! Xbox division would of went the way of Sega long ago without the parent companies huge finances. It's the very reason they shouldn't be allowed to use that money to buy 3rd party publishers. Use your money to buy some dev studios and create your own games and IP. This is usual MS form. Acting like they are the small dog. If you want to use the parent companies finances don't say your 5th.
So totally the opposite of MS who have plenty of studios and IP.
So now we want to put hard cap on amount of studios and IP's? Because somebody should tell regulators that Embracer has 127 internal studios and was buying clusterfuck of IP's for several years
Probably too subtle for regulators to notice, but his use of "if this is.." really exposes the true intentions here, and that the deal makes zero sense on paper - unless the plan, as is, is to damage PlayStation, rather than make a return and cover the cost of the deal".
It is basically genius investment because if Microsoft would have not spend it, those 80 billions would be eaten alive because of record inflation in the bank. Now those money will make sure, that Microsoft will make money in the future. They are buying a publisher with yearly revenue of 8 billion dollars and which has probably highest margins among big publishers. That's why M&A is such a common occurrence in last two years. If you have spare money (which Microsoft has), it is better to spend it then left it to rot in the bank.
.Nadella’s comment about “bringing competition by buying the biggest multiplatform game publishers and making them exclusives” comparing Sony’s acquisitions to what they are doing is so so well aligned to forums dwellers
Microsoft CEO Is Confident About Activision Deal Approval, Handling of Economy
Nadella says the company will be more ‘deliberate’ in hiring as it weathers downturnwww.bloomberg.com
.
Let me know when Embracer releases 127 games in a year or three?So now we want to put hard cap on amount of studios and IP's? Because somebody should tell regulators that Embracer has 127 internal studios and was buying clusterfuck of IP's for several years
Yes because cloud streaming of games/gaming is Google, Amazon and Nvidia's primary business? These companies would be fucked without the billions in profit every year.
You don’t need to « make the money back » when you convert cash (an asset) into a company purchase. It’s like saying an individual needs to make his money back after spending his savings to buy a house (the only loss would be if the house lost value or was purchased for more than market price).
It's really simple, it means that the games will be on Gamepass day one.
From reading this paragraph I'm pretty sure it would be Microsoft needing to sue, so it would be blocked by default, and in the UK competition issues raised in the media would be quite visible, and if parliament worried the courts might overrule something they needed blocked, then the House of Commons would/could just amend the law on behalf of the public to kill a legal challenge.
Didn't Sony have streaming first? Their offering wasn't compelling and didn't provide the value that Microsoft's does. That's the way competition supposed to work.
So let me get this straight.Let me know when Embracer releases 127 games in a year or three?
Also you forget Embracer is 3rd party duh.
It has no platform of it's own.
This is the exact reason you can't have an honest debate with MS corporate. They bring irrelevant arguments to the table.
Not sure what I find worse, the sheer amount of bad takes in this fairly short post, or that some people are actually upvoting it.
So you hate Gamepass for renting games when you prefer to buy them, but Hate companies buying devs when they prefer not to rent them?
Isn't what they are doing is buying physical vs renting on a much larger scale?
If you are anti subscription, and hate timed exclusives, it makes no sense to object to this as they are doing all things you preach.
There's no license or ownership buying timed exclusives.
It can be revoked at any time. It's better to own the disc, that way nobody can take it away
I fear that very thing, what will this lead to once this deal goes through (though I want to replay most of the past CODs via Gamepass)
I fear that very thing, what will this lead to once this deal goes through (though I want to replay most of the past CODs via Gamepass)
I said it on another post but for those of us who has been here awhile do you remember when those several few people kept saying once MS decides to tap into their warchest it would get ugly?
People laughed at them saying MS wouldn't just write massive checks for Xbox
Now people are saying its not fair MS has said warchest
yeah you didn't hear me mention Disney in here. No idea why the poster above you decided to lump them into this discussion
A 'monopoly' is defined by a technical market share test – any party that holds a market share exceeding 50% is deemed a monopoly.
Disney is currently sitting on a healthy 52% marketshare in the enterainment industry but lets not derail the thread and turn this into that kind of discussion.
Sure, I'd have no problem with that. Those three companies combined is not going to make them anything near market leader.
It would be a smart argument… if Apple wasn’t already making more gaming profit than Sony:
Throw in the rumor a couple of years ago Apple put together internal studies on feasibility of buying Sony and put the whole PS brand in their ecosystem
But that’s why it sorta kinda makes sense as a comparison;It would be a smart argument… if Apple wasn’t already making more gaming profit than Sony:
This is as of 2019, during the Apple vs Epic trial. And this is actual court documents that no one challenged so you can assume it’s correct.
Having it day one on gamepass is a pretty big value.
Because it is an important view for regulators to see that the deal only makes sense in a scenario where Microsoft extinguishes all competitors by methods beyond the "fair market competition" that regulators are charged with defending....
I don't know why people think, that shareholders of Microsoft will want that 80 billions back by 10 years. Because that's not how it works. Especially when Microsoft will make 80 billion in profits by the time this deal closes
..
He's right, in gaming revenue for public companies MS is top 4. Adding there private companies maybe there is some other one like Epic (due to Fortnite and specially UE) or Valve (due to Steam) above them.
I just wonder too if this impending deal will have much impact on this new COD sales wise.
I just wonder too if this impending deal will have much impact on this new COD sales wise.
Texted my nephew to see if he got nailed by Epic since he uses one of those newly banned cheating devices and he hasn't played yet
Then asked if he was going to buy the new COD since he has been playing the beta and he replies "Why would I it should be on Gamepass soon enough, will just play Warzone 2 until then".
