• 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 and Activision Blizzard: The FTC could approve the acquisition in August

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lognor

Banned
They've already stated elder scrolls 6 will be pc and xbox only
I don't know what will happen regarding Elder Scrolls. I could see it going either way. Skyrim was MASSIVE. Would Microsoft really limit its sales potential? I don't know.

I'm just glad I have an Xbox so I don't have to worry about it. I will be able to play ES6, Starfield, COD, etc day one without worry. If I had a PS5 I might be concerned. The same goes with Destiny. If I was a Destiny fan I might be somewhat concerned going forward if I only owned an Xbox. Bungie said they'll continue to develop for Xbox, but things change and Sony does own them.

But as it stands now, ES6 will not be on PS. COD will. But again, things change and I could see the opposite becoming true.
 

yurinka

Member
We actually don't have doocuments submitted to FTC. We have some ABK related SEC or something. But the main point about Minecraft has always been - upon the acquisition Minecraft was already available on all other platforms and later I think Switch version came (don't remember when mobile version happened).

I fully expect either Warzone F2P to come to Switch or COD Mobile. COD has too many F2P entries.
All Minecraft games and DLCs released after the MS acquisition like Minecraft Story Mode, Minecraft Dungeons or Minecraft Legends are full multiplatform since day one. None of itt was MS exclusive. Same goes with all games and dlcs released by Zenimax since they were acquired.

We have the SEC filing documents because they are public. In these legally binding documents they use Minecraft as example to say to their regulators, investors and market analysts that their stuff will continue to be in the platforms where it already is. The MS CEO said that CoD and their main franquishes not only will continue to be released on PS after any existing deal, but that they will even bring CoD to Switch (not sure but I'd bet he mentioned that will do it via cloud).

My guess is that COD will stay on PS, forever, and Diablo, possibly Crash. But new IPs will be exclusive to Xbox and PC, like that new survival game they talked about awhile back.
I think this is the most likely scenario: all IPs that already are on PS will continue gettting its future games and DLCs on PS. New IPs instead will be mostly (at least timed) console exclusive.

Potential is far greater than raw statistics.
The factual data of the 'raw statistics" doesn't show anytthing that leads to think that MS has potential to become the market leader of gaming, or market leader in any gaming market. So even less to have something close to a monopoly.

In gaming they are the 3rd, in consoles they are the third and in game subs their main competitor more than double them and does it with a more profitable strategy.
 
Last edited:

sainraja

Member
Sony has done it more recently than Microsoft, so it makes more sense to cite Sony as an example of savvy marketing. Why would I go back well over a decade ago when there are more recent examples there?

It’s OK to admit you misread the context of my post, hence your ‘let’s not pretend’ comment.
I mean, sure, if doing that will allow us to move past this silly back and forth. I think you could have made the same point with saying: 'They can make Xbox more appealing by offering timed DLC, early betas and Game Pass day one'. But alright, perhaps, I did misjudge you — if the need to make a comparison was that necessary.
 
Last edited:

sainraja

Member
The factual data of the 'raw statistics" doesn't show anytthing that leads to think that MS has potential to become the market leader of gaming, or market leader in any gaming market. So even less to have something close to a monopoly.

In gaming they are the 3rd, in consoles they are the third and in game subs their main competitor more than double them and does it with a more profitable strategy.
That can easily change. If their motive was to gain marketshare or control, acquiring Activision could have been highlighted as a possible move they could make to get there. I am not saying that is or isn't going to happen but you can't just rule it out.
 

M16

Member
I don't know what will happen regarding Elder Scrolls. I could see it going either way. Skyrim was MASSIVE. Would Microsoft really limit its sales potential? I don't know.
its all about subs and services, not sales anymore. thats why satya nadella opened the warchest for gaming.
the activision deal is no different, even though the titles will not be fully exclusive. the initial plan was most likely to keep these titles exclusive, but the president of MS, Brad Smith, called up Phil in the middle of the night and told him they had to keep these titles multiplatform to get the deal past regulators. But again, the big picture is gamepass, and it will be exclusive for a sub service on gamepass.
 
Last edited:
It's the USD$70 billion dollar acquisition of a publicly traded company - the largest in the history of Microsoft. When that much money trades hands openly, it makes sense various Government agencies are going to take notice.
It's the largest aquisition in U.S history. Probably bigger than most European countries too considering how America has the largest concentration of wealth of any country along with the most powerful economy.
 

yurinka

Member
That can easily change. If their motive was to gain marketshare or control, acquiring Activision could have been highlighted as a possible move they could make to get there. I am not saying that is or isn't going to happen but you can't just rule it out.
No, this can't easily change. PS is in a long term growtth of multiple years improving revenue and profit not because of adding on top revenue from other publishers, but by improving their work in every area: they have been increasing the amount of consoles sold, the average number of games sold per console, the average percent of consoles who have plus, the amount of 1st party blockbusters released, their reviews and and amount of awards, their efforts in vr, game subs, cloud gaming, pc, mobile, movies etc keep increasing and their related metrics as a result keep increasing in all areas feeding back their main console business, resulting on the SIE revenue, profits and revenue share increasing, and they reinvest this money on investing more in everything -like growing their internal teams- and they grow more and so on, the wheel keeps spinning and they keep improving.

In several areas they've been growing for years and they keep increasing their investment on them so seems that in the near future will continue growing there.

MS instead sees they can't compete with Sony and Nintendo and try to do someting like them changing it a bit: game subs, cross-buy, cross-save, cloud gaming, bc and then not being able to make new blockbuter IPs and their own ones don't age very well they buy other popular IPs and teams that made them, even if many key talent who created them isn't there or doesn't seem to be capable or to have time to create new IP, etc. Isn't enough and buy more and so on. Activision (now MS) is the biggest 3rd party in PlayStation, but the Activision sales represent a tiny percent of the revenue, or even the game sales of PS, so the impact will be minimum specially when its main games (CoD) will continue on PS.

At least until now the acquisititon of Zenimax didn't change anything and didn't mean a big jump for Xbox or GP so the Activision one won't be much higher. They spent almost a hundred billions in acquisitions and moneyhatting games to be day one on GP and even with big $1 deals they aren't taking over gaming.

PS instead has a healthy environment that keeps self feeding to grow in many areas and cover perfectly most niches via 1st and 3rd party. Their excluives keep improving and they keep releasing top performing new IPs that keep their catalog fresh and appealing. They don't have the need of buying IPs and names, they instead hire talentt to develop more their IPs and talent who is capable to create new ones. I see why PS keeps becomin more and more successful, and also why MS seems somewhat stuck.

What are they going to do after Activision? To buy EA and Take 2? They are smaller than Activision, won't change much either. I think MS needs to stop focusing on acquiring and instead on improving the management of their teams and their staff to release a good number of top tier blockbusters every year, including a decent amountt of top tier new IPs. This may eventually happen but we'll have been thinking "it will happen in a year or two from now" and never happens.
 

Fess

Member
New IPs instead will be mostly (at least timed) console exclusive.
I haven’t heard anything about timed exclusives, that’ll be a bonus if it happens, I think they’ll be full exclusives. But they won’t rip away any old IP from Playstation gamers, seems like they made a promise to Sony about that and I think they’ll keep it, unless they’re pissed off or something.
 

yurinka

Member
I haven’t heard anything about timed exclusives, that’ll be a bonus if it happens, I think they’ll be full exclusives. But they won’t rip away any old IP from Playstation gamers, seems like they made a promise to Sony about that and I think they’ll keep it, unless they’re pissed off or something.
The Xbox Chief of Finantials Operations mentioned it when said their focus with Bethesda wasn't to turn their franchises exclusive, but that instead they wanted them to be 'first on or best on' their platforms. Meaning a focus on multiplatform or timed console exclusives over exclusivity.

For Activision as of now they only insisted on that they'll keep -at least their main existing franchises- multi, never talked about exclusivity or timed exclusivity. But who knows if that was their plan for Bethesda maybe they end doing the same for Activision, at least for their potential future new IPs.
 
Last edited:

DenchDeckard

Moderated wildly
The only way this goes dirty imo is if Microsoft or Sony play dirty with their acquisitions that said they were going to be multiplatform after the purchase.

Microsoft made it clear that games like COD would remain multi platform and bungie said they wanted to be fully autonomous and release their games everywhere. So if either company goes exclusive I expect the other to go back on their comments and cite some " but you said...." and then the pettiness begins and shit starts going full console exclusive and PC.
 
In gaming they are the 3rd, in consoles they are the third and in game subs their main competitor more than double them and does it with a more profitable strategy.
You should stop spreading misinformation. They are second among the big three console makers, not third. And no, PS doesn't have more than double the subscribers, not even close. And we don't know if PS is more profitable.
 

Fess

Member
The Xbox Chief of Finantials Operations mentioned it when said their focus with Bethesda wasn't to turn their franchises exclusive, but that instead they wanted them to be 'first on or best on' their platforms. Meaning a focus on multiplatform or timed console exclusives over exclusivity.
That sounds like it’s from an old interview before the acquisition was done. Do you have the quote/article?

Once the deal was finalized Phil Spencer didn’t dodge that the reason they did the Bethesda acquisition was to get exclusive games to Xbox and Gamepass. Came after the Starfield exclusivity announcement last year. I guess Doom exclusivity is still up in the air, no mention of that IP, or Wolfenstein, might depend on contracts I guess.
 

Goalus

Member
No, this can't easily change. PS is in a long term growtth of multiple years improving revenue and profit not because of adding on top revenue from other publishers, but by improving their work in every area: they have been increasing the amount of consoles sold, the average number of games sold per console, the average percent of consoles who have plus, the amount of 1st party blockbusters released, their reviews and and amount of awards, their efforts in vr, game subs, cloud gaming, pc, mobile, movies etc keep increasing and their related metrics as a result keep increasing in all areas feeding back their main console business, resulting on the SIE revenue, profits and revenue share increasing, and they reinvest this money on investing more in everything -like growing their internal teams- and they grow more and so on, the wheel keeps spinning and they keep improving.

In several areas they've been growing for years and they keep increasing their investment on them so seems that in the near future will continue growing there.

MS instead sees they can't compete with Sony and Nintendo and try to do someting like them changing it a bit: game subs, cross-buy, cross-save, cloud gaming, bc and then not being able to make new blockbuter IPs and their own ones don't age very well they buy other popular IPs and teams that made them, even if many key talent who created them isn't there or doesn't seem to be capable or to have time to create new IP, etc. Isn't enough and buy more and so on. Activision (now MS) is the biggest 3rd party in PlayStation, but the Activision sales represent a tiny percent of the revenue, or even the game sales of PS, so the impact will be minimum specially when its main games (CoD) will continue on PS.

At least until now the acquisititon of Zenimax didn't change anything and didn't mean a big jump for Xbox or GP so the Activision one won't be much higher. They spent almost a hundred billions in acquisitions and moneyhatting games to be day one on GP and even with big $1 deals they aren't taking over gaming.

PS instead has a healthy environment that keeps self feeding to grow in many areas and cover perfectly most niches via 1st and 3rd party. Their excluives keep improving and they keep releasing top performing new IPs that keep their catalog fresh and appealing. They don't have the need of buying IPs and names, they instead hire talentt to develop more their IPs and talent who is capable to create new ones. I see why PS keeps becomin more and more successful, and also why MS seems somewhat stuck.

What are they going to do after Activision? To buy EA and Take 2? They are smaller than Activision, won't change much either. I think MS needs to stop focusing on acquiring and instead on improving the management of their teams and their staff to release a good number of top tier blockbusters every year, including a decent amountt of top tier new IPs. This may eventually happen but we'll have been thinking "it will happen in a year or two from now" and never happens.
Spoken like someone who doesn't know anything but Playstation, topped off with a healthy dose of wishful thinking.
 

Ozriel

M$FT
No, this can't easily change. PS is in a long term growtth of multiple years improving revenue and profit not because of adding on top revenue from other publishers, but by improving their work in every area: they have been increasing the amount of consoles sold, the average number of games sold per console, the average percent of consoles who have plus, the amount of 1st party blockbusters released, their reviews and and amount of awards, their efforts in vr, game subs, cloud gaming, pc, mobile, movies etc keep increasing and their related metrics as a result keep increasing in all areas feeding back their main console business, resulting on the SIE revenue, profits and revenue share increasing, and they reinvest this money on investing more in everything -like growing their internal teams- and they grow more and so on, the wheel keeps spinning and they keep improving.

In several areas they've been growing for years and they keep increasing their investment on them so seems that in the near future will continue growing there.

MS instead sees they can't compete with Sony and Nintendo and try to do someting like them changing it a bit: game subs, cross-buy, cross-save, cloud gaming, bc and then not being able to make new blockbuter IPs and their own ones don't age very well they buy other popular IPs and teams that made them, even if many key talent who created them isn't there or doesn't seem to be capable or to have time to create new IP, etc. Isn't enough and buy more and so on. Activision (now MS) is the biggest 3rd party in PlayStation, but the Activision sales represent a tiny percent of the revenue, or even the game sales of PS, so the impact will be minimum specially when its main games (CoD) will continue on PS.

At least until now the acquisititon of Zenimax didn't change anything and didn't mean a big jump for Xbox or GP so the Activision one won't be much higher. They spent almost a hundred billions in acquisitions and moneyhatting games to be day one on GP and even with big $1 deals they aren't taking over gaming.

PS instead has a healthy environment that keeps self feeding to grow in many areas and cover perfectly most niches via 1st and 3rd party. Their excluives keep improving and they keep releasing top performing new IPs that keep their catalog fresh and appealing. They don't have the need of buying IPs and names, they instead hire talentt to develop more their IPs and talent who is capable to create new ones. I see why PS keeps becomin more and more successful, and also why MS seems somewhat stuck.

What are they going to do after Activision? To buy EA and Take 2? They are smaller than Activision, won't change much either. I think MS needs to stop focusing on acquiring and instead on improving the management of their teams and their staff to release a good number of top tier blockbusters every year, including a decent amountt of top tier new IPs. This may eventually happen but we'll have been thinking "it will happen in a year or two from now" and never happens.

This reads like console warrior fanfiction. Nearly every paragraph is either flat out wrong or filled with misinformation.

I particularly found the “Zenimax acquisition didn’t lead to a jump in GP subscribers so Activision will not” section to be particularly hilarious. Well done!

After seeing your posts in the Final Fantasy and Forspoken threads …and with the Haven and Bungie acquisitions just closing days ago, it’s hard to read your griping about ‘moneyhatting’ and ‘IP acquisition’ with a straight face.
 
All Minecraft games and DLCs released after the MS acquisition like Minecraft Story Mode, Minecraft Dungeons or Minecraft Legends are full multiplatform since day one. None of itt was MS exclusive. Same goes with all games and dlcs released by Zenimax since they were acquired.

We have the SEC filing documents because they are public. In these legally binding documents they use Minecraft as example to say to their regulators, investors and market analysts that their stuff will continue to be in the platforms where it already is. The MS CEO said that CoD and their main franquishes not only will continue to be released on PS after any existing deal, but that they will even bring CoD to Switch (not sure but I'd bet he mentioned that will do it via cloud).


I think this is the most likely scenario: all IPs that already are on PS will continue gettting its future games and DLCs on PS. New IPs instead will be mostly (at least timed) console exclusive.


The factual data of the 'raw statistics" doesn't show anytthing that leads to think that MS has potential to become the market leader of gaming, or market leader in any gaming market. So even less to have something close to a monopoly.

In gaming they are the 3rd, in consoles they are the third and in game subs their main competitor more than double them and does it with a more profitable strategy.
To think this acquisition isn't going to change anything is probably the most naive thing you've ever posted.
 

Goalus

Member
Especially when we already know both Starfield and Redfall are Xbox console exclusives.
This stuck out in particular:
MS instead sees they can't compete with Sony and Nintendo and try to do someting like them changing it a bit: game subs, cross-buy, cross-save, cloud gaming, bc and then not being able to make new blockbuter IPs and their own ones don't age very well
While in reality MS are leading the way in almost every department, with Sony having no choice but to follow suit. MS's blockbuster IPs are much more long-living than Sony's too when looking at Steam concurrent user numbers, which do not even include Minecraft.
 

oldergamer

Member
lol. I guess you can tell yourself whatever you want. I mean, really?

Both corporations pull the same type of thing. To say one is better or worse than the other by doing it is stupid and silly.
Im not specifically claiming one is is better then the other but lets be honest about the situation. Ps3 was a pain to code for and it was a factor in many exclusive games or addons appearing on xbox.

Anyway sony had been paying or preventing games reaching xbox since the ps2 days. Its also how they killed sega.
 

yurinka

Member
To think this acquisition isn't going to change anything is probably the most naive thing you've ever posted.
There is absolutely zero chances of any regulator remotely affecting this acquisition. They have a tiny market share and are far from becoming market leaders. They are 3rd.

Regulators would only act if they would be a market leader with a huge market share, almost a monopoly. And all market data says it isn't the case at all.

This reads like console warrior fanfiction. Nearly every paragraph is either flat out wrong or filled with misinformation.
Nah, what I said there is backed by factual market data, reports and statements from these companies.

During recent years Sony has been growing in basically all areas and in several cases breaking gaming history records for any console maker or if not achieving their own personal historical record. In Resetera there was a guy listing every record when detailing the data in any quarter/fiscal year report publicly shown by Sony. And they are also investing more than ever in many areas and are increasing their investment pretty much everywhere, even recently released related graphs.

You have the relatted sec filins on Activision's page. Here's the one where they use Minecraft as example of their will to don't remove games from rival consoles. Here's the MS CEO saying CoD will contitnue on PS and will even be released on Switch.

MS 'innovations' like game subs, cloud gaming, cross-buy, cross-save were implemented by Sony before and even patented them is a fact. MS being the 3rd both in gaming (revenue) and consoles (active users/sales announcements/revenue coming from them) too. Blockbuster MS IPs not being in sales rankings or being as well reviewed as many years before too (with a handful exceptions like the very well reviewed Forza and FlightSim). Activision being the top (console) 3rd party too. Activision -or particularly CoD- being a very small percentage of Sony gaming revenue or game sales/games revenue too.

The Zenimax acquisititon not having any important impact on Sony metrics or GP experiencing a big jump since they added their games (and still being GP pretty far from PS+ subs) too. To don't have any market data leading to think is taking over gaming after spending that almost $100B too.

Sony's performance having a multi year growth including in basically their gaming areas too. Many Sony blockbuster IPs/studios performing better than always in sales/reviews/award than they did before, including new IPs like GoT or Horizon too.

XGP was 25m subscribers
How much was Sony's GSN subscribers

Making it bold cause a certain dumb twitter personality blocked me from correcting his maths/graphs.
The most recent public data we had was ~25M for GP and ~50M for PS Plus. As I remember the most recent number before merging them they were 47M+ PS Plus and 3M+ PS Now, both were in a multi year growing pattern and now the percent of consoles with Plus is higher than before and -this is a personal guess- the merge and improvements with the new PS+ will help it grow faster than before.

While in reality MS are leading the way in almost every department, with Sony having no choice but to follow suit. MS's blockbuster IPs are much more long-living than Sony's too when looking at Steam concurrent user numbers, which do not even include Minecraft.
Please show me any data backing that.

GoW PC, a 4 years old port, has better Steam numbers at its point -or at least when I checked it a handful months after launch- than most relatively recent paid MS games (specially SP ones as I remember).
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
The most recent public data we had was ~25M for GP and ~50M for PS Plus. As I remember the most recent number before merging them they were 47M+ PS Plus and 3M+ PS Now, both were in a multi year growing pattern and now the percent of consoles with Plus is higher than before and -this is a personal guess- the merge and improvements
Game pass is also growing but let's ignore that like we are going to ignore the PS growth but its another topic..

It was over 25m for GP
When Ryan mentioned the new subscription service; the last data was was 48m for plus and 3.2m for now, but there was a 75% overlap effectively so only 800k users who didn't have ps plus. That means the total was 48.8m. Source for the 50m?

25m * 2 > 48.8m

We could talk about whether we should include some additional numbers for Live Gold.
 

yurinka

Member
Game pass is also growing but let's ignore that like we are going to ignore the PS growth but its another topic..

It was over 25m for GP
When Ryan mentioned the new subscription service; the last data was was 48m for plus and 3.2m for now, but there was a 75% overlap effectively so only 800k users who didn't have ps plus. That means the total was 48.8m. Source for the 50m?

25m * 2 > 48.8m

We could talk about whether we should include some additional numbers for Live Gold.
Yes, in the long term Gamepass is growing but was pretty stagnant during almost a year before they got the Halo Infinite+Forza bump, and I think since that data (January?) we don't have numbers.

I said ~50M, which for most people fits with 48.8M. And as around the double of ~25M.

The only Gold numbers shared by MS are the ones included inside these ~25M GP subs because Gold is part of GPU and there's the Gold to GPU $1 upgrade. Ask MS why they don't share the amount of active (non GPU) Gold subs. I don't have this data.
 
Last edited:

Goalus

Member
Please show me any data backing that.

GoW PC, a 4 years old port, has better Steam numbers at its point -or at least when I checked it a handful months after launch- than most relatively recent paid MS games (specially SP ones as I remember).
https://store.steampowered.com/search/?os=win&filter=globaltopsellers&ignore_preferences=1

Compare God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn, Days Gone against Sea of Thieves, Forza Horizon 5, Age of Empires 4, Grounded, Flight Simulator, Age of Empires 2, Halo MCC.

In particular, compare Sea of Thieves (which has been on Steam for 2 years) against God of War (on Steam for 6 months). SoT ranks higher than GoW despite being so "old", and this is happening every day.

Sony's games are non-existant in the concurrent users chart. Sea of Thieves has 200k reviews. Horizon Zero Dawn which launched at the same time has 60k reviews.
 
Last edited:
https://store.steampowered.com/search/?os=win&filter=globaltopsellers&ignore_preferences=1

Compare God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn, Days Gone against Sea of Thieves, Forza Horizon 5, Age of Empires 4, Grounded, Flight Simulator, Age of Empires 2, Halo MCC.

In particular, compare Sea of Thieves (which has been on Steam for 2 years) against God of War (on Steam for 6 months). SoT ranks higher than GoW despite being so "old", and this is happening every day.

Sony's games are non-existant in the concurrent users chart. Sea of Thieves has 200k reviews. Horizon Zero Dawn which launched at the same time has 60k reviews.

What's the point in comparing GaaS to one and done single player games? Obviously the former by nature is going to have a longer lifespan
 
Last edited:

Hezekiah

Banned
This stuck out in particular:

While in reality MS are leading the way in almost every department, with Sony having no choice but to follow suit. MS's blockbuster IPs are much more long-living than Sony's too when looking at Steam concurrent user numbers, which do not even include Minecraft.
Especially Halo Infinite 😂😂😂
 

Hezekiah

Banned
None of Sony's games show up in the concurrent users list, while some MS games do on a regular basis, while Sony is getting demolished by MS in the global topsellers list.
Now you're moving onto something else, after I specifically mentioned Halo Infinite, and you started rambling about some other shit.

Here, let me help you.
 

Hezekiah

Banned
Halo Infinite is still getting content updates, hence we do not know yet how long-lived it might be. Concurrent users seem to fluctuate when games receive updates.
You talk about concurrent users and how strong Microsoft's IPs are in this regard (and then compare live service titles to single-player ones 💩), and their biggest IP (which only came out recently mind), has been dropping like flies regardless of how much you to attempt to damage control or move goalposts.

For several months now it's been taking a nosedive. But I'm sure you are praying for a miracle 😁
 

Goalus

Member
You talk about concurrent users and how strong Microsoft's IPs are in this regard (and then compare live service titles to single-player ones 💩), and their biggest IP (which only came out recently mind), has been dropping like flies regardless of how much you to attempt to damage control or move goalposts.

For several months now it's been taking a nosedive. But I'm sure you are praying for a miracle 😁
Their biggest IP is obviously Sea of Thieves.
Next to Forza Horizon.
 

Hezekiah

Banned
Their biggest IP is obviously Sea of Thieves.
Next to Forza Horizon.
😂😂😂

When you found out it had fallen outside Steam's top 100 😁

wkmxjRW.gif
 

Goalus

Member
😂😂😂

When you found out it had fallen outside Steam's top 100 😁

wkmxjRW.gif
I can't help but assume that this is your face after looking at the Steam global topsellers and finding out how much staying power the MS IPs have. Your posts are dripping with salt and reek of the desparation to find something negative in MS's evidently strong performance. Adding your inflated usage of laugh emojis (while almost getting angry) permits the only conclusion that this a projection of your own insecure inner self. You kind of exposed yourself here.
 
Last edited:
The only Gold numbers shared by MS are the ones included inside these ~25M GP subs because Gold is part of GPU and there's the Gold to GPU $1 upgrade. Ask MS why they don't share the amount of active (non GPU) Gold subs. I don't have this data.
If you don't have the data, you can't make definitive claims. There's also an estimate from the reputable firm Ampere, which puts Gold at 16m. So the total with GP would be 41m.
 

Kagey K

Banned
I can't help but assume that this is your face after looking at the Steam global topsellers and finding out how much staying power the MS IPs have. Your posts are dripping with salt and reek of the desparation to find something negative in MS's evidently strong performance. Adding your inflated usage of laugh emojis (while almost getting angry) permits the only conclusion that this a projection of your own insecure inner self. You kind of exposed yourself here.
It's funny to see. Nothing but facts, but they get mad at them when they don't suit thier narrative.

Sony games burn bright quick, but fizzle out just as fast because they do nothing to keep you coming back. (Sonething Jim is looking to fix with Bungie)
If you don't have the data, you can't make definitive claims. There's also an estimate from the reputable firm Ampere, which puts Gold at 16m. So the total with GP would be 41m.
Gold numbers always get excluded from these comparisons.
 

DGrayson

Mod Team and Bat Team
Staff Member
Its ridiculous the amount of shit on this page alone in this thread. Who gives a fuck about the sales numbers or steam numbers other than to have a friendly discussion between people who like video games.

How did Sony get brought into this?

Go back to posting about the acquisition and FTC related stuff please or bans will ensue.
 

yurinka

Member
If you don't have the data, you can't make definitive claims. There's also an estimate from the reputable firm Ampere, which puts Gold at 16m. So the total with GP would be 41m.
It's your opinion to call them reputable. I assume you mention this:

It's their estimation, they didn't specify if these 16M include the ones in GPU or not, and in that estimation didn't get the Sony numbers right even if they are public, so I assume their Gold numbers aren't less accurate since they don't have historical Gold public data to make projections.

In that same talk they "forgot" to include PS Plus, the oldest game subscription in consoles and the one with a biggest spent market share in this graph:

image.png
 
It's your opinion to call them reputable. I assume you mention this:

It's their estimation, they didn't specify if these 16M include the ones in GPU or not, and in that estimation didn't get the Sony numbers right even if they are public, so I assume their Gold numbers aren't less accurate since they don't have historical Gold public data to make projections.

In that same talk they "forgot" to include PS Plus, the oldest game subscription in consoles and the one with a biggest spent market share in this graph:

image.png

They didn't forget to include PS Plus, it just doesn't belong in that graph. Just like Gold.
 

reksveks

Member
Think the mod was pretty clear about what this thread was about.

Last day for the CMA to get feedback for their investigation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom