I'm personally kind of salty about this acquisition because so far it seems like Activision doesn't have any plans to do anything with Crash or Spyro. Those are really the only franchises from Activision that I'm super passionate about. If they do end up doing something with them, I really hope they stay on PlayStation. Nothing against Xbox, I just personally don't see the point of owning an Xbox as it stands because anything that's on Xbox can be played on my PC, but for Crash and Spyro I'd really like a physical copy on a PlayStation or Nintendo console that I own.

Yep, pretty much said that in my opinion on the OP.  MS is a large corporation so everything they do in the entertainment sector will not always be direct advantages to Xbox users.  Indirectly yes, it will benefit because it strengthen MS position in gaming.  Allows them to add Bethedsa and Acti/Blizz games into their catalog of games, allow all those games, IP and back catalog to be available to Xbox console, PC and cloud users on GP.  Allows all of those games day one available for Xbox users.  It's not like there isn't a list of advantages that Xbox users cannot take advantage of its that the total scope of these purchases is not just for Xbox users.  MS scope and direction is bigger than just the console space which is very evident by their positioning of GP.  GP is the driving force for these purchases not the Xbox console.

Like how XB One TV and Kinect helped XB owners?

At least AB is core gaming related, you have to give them that, but it's not being marketed as it usually would. Some of it is becoming exclusive, and it's all mixed in with a brand new type of service. While it wasn't an immediate failure like XB One was at launch, Game Pass is also a far larger move and requires a much larger audience to make it a success. It might eventually become worth it, but to say it's definitely worth it now is being awfully generous. If it doesn't work out in the end, what then for XB owners? Is a seemingly worthy advantage now still and advantage if it were to lead to a disadvantage later?

You do know business make investment.  As the term goes, if you are scared, go to church.  Xbox was an investment just like GP.  I am not sure I understand your position.  Everything these companies there are some form of risk.  

Bethedsa and Blizz/Acti are strong investments no matter where GP is today or 10 years from today because those companies are profitable and have successful products.  So what exactly is your opinion because I am kind of confused.  Are you saying Xbox owners need to fear that GP could fail and what?  What exactly is it that Xbox owners need to fear.

If you're scared, go to church, said the company who accidentally, yet knowingly, dropped a billion dollars and didn't bother to pick it up.

That MS seems to be straying from XB owners.

With XB One it was the console will become an interactive TV media box, plus it'll also still play some games.

Now it's an XB console is only partially necessary because Game Pass isn't everywhere yet.

In the near future it'll be you don't even need an XB console at all.

The final step is no longer making XB hardware, and this step could come with or without Game Pass becoming successful.

Hmm, I do not believe you understand the term if you are scared go to church with your reply.  Meaning if you can drop a billion on a failed project can keep going, its highly doubtful you are scared.  Scared companies never risk anything, so they never get above the pack.

So how exactly is MS straying from Xbox owners?

Would you say Sony purchasing Crunchyroll, Sony straying from Playstation owners.  It's not like MS as a company is just made of the gaming division.

Who cares about Xbox one, that was another head of Xbox initiative so why are you talking about a project headed by another person who does not run anything at MS anymore.  Talk about the current person in charge and their goal.

Doesn't matter if GP isn't everywhere yet.  Companies do not make investment thinking things will suddenly become successful overnight.  Companies make investment to build on where they are and expand for future growth. GP is a service that differentiate MS gaming division from their immediate and future rivals and it's a service that they can pour a lot of investment in because they have the software and hardware to back it up including the money to make it work.  This would be no different than how Amazon became big or even Netflix since they were running in the red for a while before they built their service to the point where they make billions.  

Who knows, you might not need an Xbox console in the future, but I am sure MS will still continue to produce one just like they still produce mobile phones, laptops and other devices because it serves to help keep consumers invested in their eco system.

The key is that you have absolutely nothing to base your opinion.  My opinion is based on the current head of Xbox which from the moment Phil has taken over, he has made it his duty to make sure the Xbox hardware is competitive on all fronts.  There has been no evidence that his vision has change and really there is no reason why it should.  MS want to serve games no matter what hardware you own just like they want you to run their OS and service on anything you own but they also would love for you to use their hardware because it locks you into their ecosystem. None of this would change if GP is a success, instead MS as a business isn't putting everything on just the console being a success because at the end of the day, it's the games that are what we sign up for not the piece of plastic.

If a company like XB, through MS, can drop billions and not care, then they aren't scared, because it's not a risk to them, since that's just a drop in the bucket for them. Someone like MS doesn't, go to church, because there's no reason to be scared themselves, as well as they're people of science no doubt. A lack of fear is also unhealthy and dangrous.

Sony Pictures bought Cruchyroll I believe, and it was going to be used to boost streaming. Since that didn't really work out, Sony has taken a new approach since. Which is just another example of why I'm skeptical about Game Passes future and it's value to XB owners.

Phil Spencer is or was pretty big on backwards compatibility, and that was a big deal for XB owners was it not, so isn't the past important, or do those old games and consoles not matter?

Does MS make Kinect anymore? I thought that was a big deal that they poured a ton of money into after being somewhat successful on the 360?

Phil changes his mind all the time. Backwards compatibility was a future direction for XB under Phil, until it wasn't, and stopped. He was all about power, moving on from XB One with XB One X, only to launch the Series S.

That piece of plastic is the hardware that XB owners use to play their games. If they don't care about it, I don't understand the fuss about XB One X and XB Series X, being the most powerful hardware ever. It sure seems to be important and mean a lot to XB owners.

Nobody said that MS dropped a billion and did not care, instead I stated they are willing to take risk because they are willing to reap rewards.  Business is about managing risk.  A billion dollars to one company can be back breaking but to a company like MS, Apple, Google not so much.  This is why your framing of this does not make sense.  Are you applying the same amount of risk from one company to another but not understanding their business.  So if you are in business you have to take risk if you want to rise above the pack, you either believe in your product or you don't. The difference between success or failure is the willingness to do whatever it takes to make your product a success.  

Kinect is a add on and it was part of another head of Xbox direction which was the first thing that was dropped by the new head of Xbox because guess what? He decided that the direction of the Xbox system needs to concentrate on what sells the system which is the main console.  Actually, I believe that Phil was the first to understand taking Kinect out of the sell of the main system and going back to selling it as an add on was the right move.  Next was to build a true next gen console which was the Xbox one X.

Interesting that you mention Kinect but miss another comparison which is the Move controller and camera from Sony and motion controls from Nintendo. The whole industry pretty much moved away from motion gaming probably because the tech isn't ready.  Now Sony big bet is VR, MS is also in this space with AR and VR but they are not going consumer probably because they are not at the same level to be competitive which is a smart move.  Concentrate on what you are good on first.

The Xbox is a great case in point.  MS spent a lot of money to enter the market.  Xbox was a very good console.  The 360 had it faults with the red ring, but they stuck with it.  Xbox one cost MS a lot because the direction and focus was off, Xbox one X righted the ship, Xbox series X continued that approach.  Every moment and push throughout the lifecycle of the Xbox was risk.  Some paid off, some did not but what has not changed is that MS still believe in the product.

So my point still stands, if you are scared, go work for someone else instead of running a business.

You did not get the point on Crunchyroll.  Meaning, Sony is a business that can do multiple things in the entertainment industry, but they are not all going to benefit the gaming division.  So, making statements that MS doing things that does not promote Xbox all the time misses the point that MS is a company that does multiple things outside of just gaming.  Some will be direct advantage which is actually GP.  Its a service that has direct advantage to Xbox gamers and also direct advantage to MS as a business because it crosses over to their PC, mobile including their subscriptions, cloud services and Azure servers.

Your point on backwards compatibility is incorrect. MS has not stopped backwards compatibility, they stated they have reached the end of backwards compatibility compared to what they can do due to licensing older games from Xbox, 360 and Xbox one.  As we have seen they have made Bethesda games back compat and I am sure they will do the same with Blizz/Acti games as well if the deal goes through.  You might want to review this point more in detail because it appears you are missing a lot of data on the subject.

Let me ask you want drives the sale of these pieces of hardware, is it the games or the hardware.  Do you purchase the hardware with no intention of playing games.  Is it just a media device to watch Netflix or is it a vehicle for playing the games you want.  If you could play all PS, Nintendo and MS games on a PC would you purchase a PC or the console.  When I hear about people talking about exclusives all the time, I would say its the games that sell the hardware.

Nobody said that MS dropped a billion and did not care, instead I stated they are willing to take risk because they are willing to reap rewards.  Business is about managing risk.  A billion dollars to one company can be back breaking but to a company like MS, Apple, Google not so much.  This is why your framing of this does not make sense.  Are you applying the same amount of risk from one company to another but not understanding their business.  So if you are in business you have to take risk if you want to rise above the pack, you either believe in your product or you don't. The difference between success or failure is the willingness to do whatever it takes to make your product a success. 

MS is willing to spend tens of billions on XB because they can make that back with other MS products like Windows in no time. MS doesn't have to worry at all about potentially wasting money. They might make money from it, but if they don't, it's not a big deal for them.

Kinect is a add on and it was part of another head of Xbox direction which was the first thing that was dropped by the new head of Xbox because guess what? He decided that the direction of the Xbox system needs to concentrate on what sells the system which is the main console.  Actually, I believe that Phil was the first to understand taking Kinect out of the sell of the main system and going back to selling it as an add on was the right move.  Next was to build a true next gen console which was the Xbox one X.

You said at the end of your post that games sell the ecosystem, yet here you say Phil believes it's the console. Which is it? Was Phil wrong?

Why didn't Phil build up XB Studios or buy up all these companies earlier if that's what was most important and would draw gamers into XB?

Interesting that you mention Kinect but miss another comparison which is the Move controller and camera from Sony and motion controls from Nintendo. The whole industry pretty much moved away from motion gaming probably because the tech isn't ready.  Now Sony big bet is VR, MS is also in this space with AR and VR but they are not going consumer probably because they are not at the same level to be competitive which is a smart move.  Concentrate on what you are good on first.

You also said old tech doesn't mean anything prior, and Move is old tech, so why bring it up, unless it does mean something?

The Xbox is a great case in point.  MS spent a lot of money to enter the market.  Xbox was a very good console.  The 360 had it faults with the red ring, but they stuck with it.  Xbox one cost MS a lot because the direction and focus was off, Xbox one X righted the ship, Xbox series X continued that approach.  Every moment and push throughout the lifecycle of the Xbox was risk.  Some paid off, some did not but what has not changed is that MS still believe in the product.

MS didn't start XB because they wanted to take a big risk on gaming. They were already into gaming, and a few employees wanted to expand, and Gates was worried about PS taking computing from the office to the living room. It was extremely calculated. MS weren't risking with XB, they were protecting themselves.

So my point still stands, if you are scared, go work for someone else instead of running a business.

You said go to church. Now it's go work for someone else? Why would anyone leave MS when they have limitless money and don't have to worry?

Your point still doesn't make sense.

You did not get the point on Crunchyroll.  Meaning, Sony is a business that can do multiple things in the entertainment industry, but they are not all going to benefit the gaming division.  So, making statements that MS doing things that does not promote Xbox all the time misses the point that MS is a company that does multiple things outside of just gaming.  Some will be direct advantage which is actually GP.  Its a service that has direct advantage to Xbox gamers and also direct advantage to MS as a business because it crosses over to their PC, mobile including their subscriptions, cloud services and Azure servers.

So Game Pass wasn't made for XB owners at all? Phil handling Game Pass and the Activision Blizzard purchase has nothing to do with XB? 

Your point was PS bought Crunchyroll and was straying from PS owners like XB, but PS didn't buy Cruchyroll, Sony Pictures did for streaming, not PS.

Your point on backwards compatibility is incorrect. MS has not stopped backwards compatibility, they stated they have reached the end of backwards compatibility compared to what they can do due to licensing older games from Xbox, 360 and Xbox one.  As we have seen they have made Bethesda games back compat and I am sure they will do the same with Blizz/Acti games as well if the deal goes through.  You might want to review this point more in detail because it appears you are missing a lot of data on the subject.

Many article headlines state otherwise. MS adding a few back compat games here and there just because they own those games now is expected. What about all the other games that XB owners love and want? As soon as things get a little tough when it comes to rights and money, MS doesn't want to further pursue back compat all of the sudden? I thought it was very important?

Let me ask you want drives the sale of these pieces of hardware, is it the games or the hardware.  Do you purchase the hardware with no intention of playing games.  Is it just a media device to watch Netflix or is it a vehicle for playing the games you want.  If you could play all PS, Nintendo and MS games on a PC would you purchase a PC or the console.  When I hear about people talking about exclusives all the time, I would say its the games that sell the hardware.

You answer first since you don't seem sure yourself. You make it clear that Phil is the new leadership and is making the right moves. You said above that Phil focused on the console since it's what sells the ecosystem. You say here that it's the games that sell the ecosystem. So is it the console or the games? Is Phil right or are you?

@ConservagameR
What an extremely annoying response. You add nothing to the discussion and respond to everything as a question that was already answered. Just because it's not the answer you want or understand, doesn't make it incorrect.