By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ryuu96 said:

Still barely have a clue what the f*cking Metaverse is, even when Satya explains it

Basickly social virtual worlds and AR tech that "adds" to the real world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gElfIo6uw4g

Stuff like 4:37 and 9:08.



Around the Network
Ryuu96 said:

Phil Spencer, Microsoft’s head of gaming, has already given informal assurances that it will not take Activision’s most popular game, Call of Duty, away from Sony’s PlayStation.

But Nadella suggested that Microsoft should not need to make any formal concessions to win regulatory approval for the deal, because it would still be too small to have an anti-competitive impact.

“At the end of the day, all the analysis here has to be done through a lens of: ‘what’s the category we’re talking about, and market structure?’” he said. “Even post this acquisition, we will be number three with sort of low-teens share [of the video games market] . . . We will be a bit player in what will be a highly fragmented place.

The Microsoft chief conceded that competition regulators were also likely to focus on the deal’s impact on the future development of the metaverse, rather than just on the current gaming market.

But he said Microsoft was committed to building open computing platforms that would make it possible for people to move freely between different companies’ virtual worlds. He added that if regulators try to impose rules to keep any metaverses open and connected, they should apply the same rules to all the tech companies.

“If that is what we want to define for every entrant, all I care about is having equal rules of the road for all participants,” he said. “So if that . . . comes through legislation or through regulation or regulatory enforcement, whatever form, we will be very open to it and engaging.”

Microsoft chief hails $75bn Activision deal as grand step into metaverse | Financial Times

I mean, I'm going to assume he's talking about the commitment to release the next few CoD games onto PlayStation? Big lost oppritunity to help boost Xbox hardware numbers if they keep it on PS consoles permanently. Which I know some will say they're doing it for gamepass (and whatever metaverse is even supposed to be) but getting more people to buy the hardware also leads to more people buying gamepass. 



Phil haters in shambles



Ryuu96 said:
Angelus said:

Phil haters in shambles

Best leader that Xbox has ever had and will go down as one of the best in the entire industry if he manages to turn Activision-Blizzard around from an IP and developer perspective.

Though I would already say he's one of the GOATs.

Remember all those posts that he was all talk lol



shikamaru317 said:
NobleTeam360 said:

I mean, I'm going to assume he's talking about the commitment to release the next few CoD games onto PlayStation? Big lost oppritunity to help boost Xbox hardware numbers if they keep it on PS consoles permanently. Which I know some will say they're doing it for gamepass (and whatever metaverse is even supposed to be) but getting more people to buy the hardware also leads to more people buying gamepass. 

If I was MS, I would give Playstation CoD 2022, CoD 2023, and CoD Warzone 2 to honor the existing contracts. After that, I would keep Warzone 2 (and eventually Warzone 3) on Playstation, but all standard Treyarch, Infinity Ward, and Sledgehammer CoD games after 2023 would be at least timed console exclusive to Xbox Series in order to drive hardware sales. Big mistake imo if they decide to leave the full series on Playstation.

As for other Activision/Blizzard series, I would allow Diablo 4 and Overwatch 2 on Playstation and Playstation+Switch respectively since they were already announced for those, but all future Diablo and Overwatch games after those would be exclusive to Xbox and PS, as would any other future Blizzard games like Starcraft 3. Same goes for any future Activision stuff like new Spyro, Crash, Guitar Hero, Prototype, Tony Hawks, etc games, I would make those exclusive to Xbox and PC.

Yeah I don't think you really mean that. Sometimes one letter makes all the difference.



Around the Network

I feel that microsoft/xbox thrives with sony being a strong competitor instead of a subsidiary of apple/amazon/google



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

The thing I’m most excited about the ActiBlizz acquisition is the potential of new AAA IP. I’m most interested in what Raven and Sledgehammer could do if taken of COD both studios are big in size and the IW engine is pretty good and scalable as proven with Warzone.



So Sony only have 10 billion left of that 18 that they put aside for strategic acquisitions. That won’t be enough to buy Capcom imo but they could always tap in more into their cash reserves if they deem it worthy enough.

At this point I don’t think that they are in line to buy a publisher unless they are after SEGA.

Last edited by EspadaGrim - on 03 February 2022

EspadaGrim said:

The thing I’m most excited about the ActiBlizz acquisition is the potential of new AAA IP. I’m most interested in what Raven and Sledgehammer could do if taken of COD both studios are big in size and the IW engine is pretty good and scalable as proven with Warzone.

I am not sure why anyone would believe MS is going to mess up how COD is made.  If we go by how MS had done things so far, the last thing they are probably going to do is mess with that money maker.  I highly doubt how COD is made will change at all since I am sure that they have multiple road maps on the delivery of that product.  No one at MS is going to mess with that golden goose.



kirby007 said:

I feel that microsoft/xbox thrives with sony being a strong competitor instead of a subsidiary of apple/amazon/google

I personally like the position that MS and Sony is at the moment.  I like Nintendo being the market leader. Nintendo just does what they want and care little what the other 2 are doing which has worked out great for them. I enjoy Sony always leading MS and MS playing 3rd.  My reasons are simple.  Sony works harder when they feel MS breathing down their neck.  MS works even harder when they are not the market leader.  Both companies really hit their strive when they play in this position.  If either Sony or MS lead to much from each other, they go totally south and you get all kind of crap that doesn't push for consumer happiness.  The way I see it, I never want MS to be dominate in the market and that goes for Sony as well.  I think as consumers we definitely reap a lot of benefits with this current dynamic.