| LurkerJ said:
But don't you think it's hypocritical to say that SONY can make their Bethesda-like evergreen IPs from scratch to counter act the acquisition, yet in the same breath, say that MS will have to wait decades to make it happen? |
This does not seems to refer to what you have quoted so I'm a bit confused here. My quote was about creating and building studios not IPs. Studios takes time to build and grow and it's true for every actor. MS is making a $70B investment here if they were to do the same investment by only growing organically it would take many years to materialize (more than likely 10-15years+) and the same would be true for Sony or Nintendo.
| LurkerJ said:
The "you can't wake up one day and say, let me build a game studio" has always been my biggest pet peeve with MS, they just don't innovate and don't add nearly as much as they should, to the tech industry, giving their endless pockets and dominance. It's almost always "wait and copy or buy what works" approach. Microsoft didn't retreat from being a consumer company, consumers have rejected them as one due to lack of innovation and investments in original ideas and content. Reactionary products is all we get from MS. You like your iPod? here is your Zoom, you like your iPad? here is Windows 8. You like your arm-based Mac mini? we have one too. Not enough? Surface EarPods are here for you too. Even when they succeed, like they have with Teams, it's because they copied Slack and Zoom and used Office dominance to make it the default standard, the fact that they had Skype sitting on corner altering buying it for billions of dollars didn't matter. It's not just they lack innovation on the hardware front, but also on the software front. Even when it comes to the latest consoles, you have SONY trying new things with the Dual sense, with the SSD, and with VR. When SONY looks an innovative consumer company against you, you clearly have a problem. Just to put out there, I don't view SONY as an innovative company either. |
I'll just say I disagree here. All big tech have done their fare share of copying others but don't see how this relates to the topic.
| LurkerJ said:
I mean, you're going what MS has repeatedly said in the past about future acquisitions just to prove you're right. You start by saying "LOGIC TELLS ME". But non of this is logical at all. I never said this deal should be blocked because MS may do another one in the future, they've already done that and said they would do again, your opinion on why it's not going to happen flies in the face of MS publicly stated intents, and flies in the face of how positive reinforcement works. |
Never said MS would be done with acquisition afterward just don't believe any would be on the same scale. and my logic is:
- MS is doing this acquisition because of GamePass.
- The number of studios MS would gain out of the transaction will significantly rise their production capacity (36 studios many with more than 1 team and Xbox games studios doing many 2nd party deals (probably 50+ projects in parallel))
- Considering development time MS may expect 8-10+ AAA/year
- There's a point where you will hit diminishing returns on your investment for service like GamePass
- The point where most literally don't need any more reason to subscribe
- The point where you can already churn out AAA on a regular basis
- The point were you already cover all types
I don't think it is illogical to think MS cannot expect linear or near-linear growth out of GamePass from another $70B investment so will more than likely resort to smaller and more targeted acquisition. How is this not logical?
"your opinion on why it's not going to happen flies in the face of MS publicly stated intents" can you quote MS saying they would do another $70B deal in the future?
| LurkerJ said:
I hope you have had a good holiday. In my defence, you also have said things like "as bad as the FTC arguments are, yours are even worse" when my argument is completely derived from MS publicly stated intent to consolidate more of the gaming business, in return, you are asking me to take what you think is going to happen more seriously, which is... odd, ain't it? |
I didn't, here's the actual quote :"But if I'm wrong, well Microsoft may try I guess, but this deal cannot be blocked because MS may do another in the future, that's not a valid argument. As bad as the FTC arguments are, even them ain't arguing as such."
So I was not targeting you but the argument that is along the lines of "This deal should be blocked because MS might do another one" which is not a legally valid argument.
Also my argument is not at odds with MS publicly stated intent.
- Do MS stated they want to do more acquisition -> yes.
- Do MS stated they want to do other acquisitions of the same scale of ABK-> no, not to my knowledge.
- Can MS do another acquisition on the scale of ABK -> yes.
- Would it make sense -> Maybe but more likely not.
- is it relevant to the ABK acquisition -> Not at all.
