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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Microsoft gives market share against PlayStation

DonFerrari on 28 February 2023
EpicRandy said:
DonFerrari said:

Considering Bungie purchase the size of the SQE Western wasn't big enough to make to much of a ripple, perhaps neither found value on it (I do like and think well administered it could do pretty well, Tencent/Embracer didn't see to make a good use of it yet, said they are going to release a lot of IPs but latest news aren't so good).

Yeah but the bungie acquisition was announced very soon after MS announced the ABK one, something like 2 weeks, so the deal was probably already set in stone and that was way before regulator stepped in.

Yes Sony deal with Bungie was already on the way, probably even before the announcement of Bethesda. What I mean is that considering the size of SQE West portion it likely wouldn't be a problem for either MS or Sony to buy them nor would it affect the regulators decision. Although for me it going to a third party was a better outcome.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
EpicRandy on 28 February 2023
DonFerrari said:
EpicRandy said:

Yeah but the bungie acquisition was announced very soon after MS announced the ABK one, something like 2 weeks, so the deal was probably already set in stone and that was way before regulator stepped in.

Yes Sony deal with Bungie was already on the way, probably even before the announcement of Bethesda. What I mean is that considering the size of SQE West portion it likely wouldn't be a problem for either MS or Sony to buy them nor would it affect the regulators decision. Although for me it going to a third party was a better outcome.

Agree, at least this studio is no longer in the hand of a player who's hellbent on NFT going forward, same for the Tomb Raider franchise. 

Last edited by EpicRandy - on 28 February 2023

Machiavellian on 28 February 2023

Oh, they will absolutely continue. I pointed that out. The issue is trying to make one corporate entity out to be better than another. No one is your friend in this business. Trying to "stick it" to one of them simply means your emotions are more invested than they should be and corporate cheerleading makes absolutely no sense when none of them are doing anything any different if the roles were reversed in favor of/against the other.

I totally agree that there are no benevolent companies here, MS, Sony and even Nintendo are vicious competitors, and they will always seek to protect their interests.  MS will paint their position as being picked on by the market leader.  The market leader will state that MS is trying to purchase their way to dominance.  Neither side is actually wrong and none of them is above using whatever tactic they believe will work best.

Even still, I believe that Sony could just be holding out for the best deal possible from MS, I would not be surprised if they ink a deal where Sony get 10 year agreement with parity and maybe discount for adding it to PS+.  I doubt MS would allow it to be on PS+ for free, that would be silly but 6 month deal or something like that could be in the cards.  Both companies are looking at their hand and believing each one has a strong position.  Who blinks first should be interesting.



Renamed on 28 February 2023
NobleTeam360 said:

Well, regulators (or it might just be the FTC?) have defined Xbox and PS as their own market. So it makes sense why they're only using Xbox+PS. Plus I'm pretty sure if they included Nintendo their market share numbers would dwindle to even lower percentages.

Can you provide links showing regulators (or even just the FTC) stating as such?

animeblend said:

Xbox is going through some growing pains. Every few years the worst performing company looks to pivot or shake up the market. Think Nintendo with Wii U, Sony with PS3.

Microsoft is a trillion dollar company. Not going anywhere. Nintendo has always been the most fragile of all. Nintendo is so small that if they have a bad product or a bad few years they could be purchased outright by Microsoft. The switch is their ONLY product now. Used to have 3 product lines simultaneously and now reduced to one

Microsoft has made several bloodthirsty and complimentary comments about Nintendo and tbh would be surprised if they lasted the next 10 years

They are actually the most solvent of the 3 in terms of just their gaming divisions. They have over $12 billion just in cash on hand. It would take a whole bad decade before they would be in a position for acquisition.



NobleTeam360 on 28 February 2023
Renamed said:
NobleTeam360 said:

Well, regulators (or it might just be the FTC?) have defined Xbox and PS as their own market. So it makes sense why they're only using Xbox+PS. Plus I'm pretty sure if they included Nintendo their market share numbers would dwindle to even lower percentages.

Can you provide links showing regulators (or even just the FTC) stating as such?

animeblend said:

Xbox is going through some growing pains. Every few years the worst performing company looks to pivot or shake up the market. Think Nintendo with Wii U, Sony with PS3.

Microsoft is a trillion dollar company. Not going anywhere. Nintendo has always been the most fragile of all. Nintendo is so small that if they have a bad product or a bad few years they could be purchased outright by Microsoft. The switch is their ONLY product now. Used to have 3 product lines simultaneously and now reduced to one

Microsoft has made several bloodthirsty and complimentary comments about Nintendo and tbh would be surprised if they lasted the next 10 years

They are actually the most solvent of the 3 in terms of just their gaming divisions. They have over $12 billion just in cash on hand. It would take a whole bad decade before they would be in a position for acquisition.

See page 2. 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/D09412MicrosoftActivisionAdministrativeComplaintPublicVersionFinal.pdf

Last edited by NobleTeam360 - on 28 February 2023

Around the Network
EpicRandy on 28 February 2023
Renamed said:
NobleTeam360 said:

Well, regulators (or it might just be the FTC?) have defined Xbox and PS as their own market. So it makes sense why they're only using Xbox+PS. Plus I'm pretty sure if they included Nintendo their market share numbers would dwindle to even lower percentages.

Can you provide links showing regulators (or even just the FTC) stating as such?

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/D09412MicrosoftActivisionAdministrativeComplaintPublicVersionFinal.pdf

"Other consoles lack the high performance of the Xbox Series X|S and PS5
consoles. For example, the Nintendo Switch, which is designed to allow portable, handheld use,
necessarily sacrifices computing power, which leaves it unable to play certain games that require
more advanced graphic processing. Retailing at $299.99, the Nintendo Switch is also less
expensive than the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 consoles, both priced at $499.99. While the
Xbox Series S had the same retail price at launch as the Nintendo Switch, the graphical and
processing capabilities of the Series S are much more aligned with the Xbox Series X and PS5
consoles. The Xbox Series S enables gamers to play the same video games as the Xbox Series X,
both of which offer more graphically advanced gameplay than on the Nintendo Switch."

So they are trying to say that Nintendo is not an actor of the same market who's able to distinguish themselves but look at the situation like Nintendo is a Monopoly alone in it's market and Xbox and PlayStation are a duopoly.



Renamed on 28 February 2023
EpicRandy said:
Renamed said:

Can you provide links showing regulators (or even just the FTC) stating as such?

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/D09412MicrosoftActivisionAdministrativeComplaintPublicVersionFinal.pdf

"Other consoles lack the high performance of the Xbox Series X|S and PS5
consoles. For example, the Nintendo Switch, which is designed to allow portable, handheld use,
necessarily sacrifices computing power, which leaves it unable to play certain games that require
more advanced graphic processing. Retailing at $299.99, the Nintendo Switch is also less
expensive than the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 consoles, both priced at $499.99. While the
Xbox Series S had the same retail price at launch as the Nintendo Switch, the graphical and
processing capabilities of the Series S are much more aligned with the Xbox Series X and PS5
consoles. The Xbox Series S enables gamers to play the same video games as the Xbox Series X,
both of which offer more graphically advanced gameplay than on the Nintendo Switch."

So they are trying to say that Nintendo is not an actor of the same market who's able to distinguish themselves but look at the situation like Nintendo is a Monopoly alone in it's market and Xbox and PlayStation are a duopoly.

Well, that's a rather odd series of statements from the FTC.  The computational capabilities are not what determine market competition (the crux of this whole thing).  There are hundreds of games the Switch shares with both MS and Sony consoles which includes games from MS themselves. To say nothing of the 10 year deal MS has with Nintendo to bring the perennial graphic powerhouse Call of Duty to Nintendo consoles. Which leads me to another point.  Consoles are cyclical.  The FTC isn't considering that game console manufacturers are not stagnant product makers. Unless they are looking though the lens of either newer Nintendo consoles never again being capable of running any Activision Blizzard products or this deal lasting only 2-3 years (ending before Nintendo's next flagship product), they have failed to grasp the nature of the console market.

Finally, we better hope they aren't looking at Nintendo like a monopoly.



chakkra on 28 February 2023
CGI-Quality said:
chakkra said:

I mean, we could argue for days about what they "need" to do (or what we want them to do) but the real question is actually what will they do?

You make it sound like they will just say "Oh, so we can't buy Activision? no problem, let's just go on a hiring spree and start a bunch of projects from zero, no rush" and somehow I just don't see that happening.

So, let me ask you, what do you think they will do when this gets blocked?

For starters, it most likely won't get blocked.  

Second, I didn't say what they will do (you nor I can say that with any % of absolute certainty). I said what they should do. 

Finally, even if this deal fails [it won't], they would most likely spend that money on other acquisitions. The writing is on the wall, literally. I'm telling you that wanting said acquisitions to continue cheers for industry consolidation. If that's what you want, go with it, but Microsoft won't be doing these in a vacuum. 

Err.. I actually said that I would like for this deal to get blocked.

The reasons why I would like for this to get blocked?

1) I don't think Activision is worth $70b and I think that GamePass gamers could be getting a lot more for that amount of money.

2) The whole media (and Sony fans) are acting like getting this deal blocked would be a victory, and I would like to see their reaction when they finally realize that this deal going thru might very well be the best case scenario for Sony (and Playstation gamers).



chakkra on 28 February 2023
Kyuu said:
chakkra said:

I mean, there's always the other option: MS could use those $70b to outbid Sony on every single exclusivity deal that is out there. I mean, let's be real, the only reason Playstation is getting FFXVI and FFVIIRE as exclusives (which, btw, make up half of the Playstation's games for the near future) is because MS never made a better offer to SE; don't ever think for a second that Square Enix (or any other publisher) would reject a good offer.  I mean, I suppose you wouldn't have a problem with that since apparently we have already established that paying for exclusivity doesn't count as "buying their way into victory" and is a sign that "they don't suck at what they do".


To be honest with you, I actually want this deal to get blocked; just to see MS going full force on this alternative (which we have already established that it is fair play, right?).

MS would have to pay a whole lot more than Sony if they want to make similar deals. A lot more for a small reward. We've seen that with Shadow of the Tomb Raider and other examples (Which was what likely led MS to stop aggressively securing big exclusives. They paid a $100 million for a single year Tomb Raider exclusivity lol). Japanese publishers in particular would not take MS's money for a short term benefit that could risk the IP's strength. Not to mention Xbox marketing isn't great.

Sony aren't "buying their way to victory", as A) the majority of the few high profile exclusives they secured started caming out late in the PS4 generation, and B) all exclusives pale in comparison to their own bigger 1st party titles. Playstation's exclusives are mostly unpaid. Those which are paid still aren't nearly as big as Sony's own titles. On the other hand... Minecraft, CoD, WoW, and TES are several tiers above the level of Microsoft's older IP's.

Yes, I'm fully aware that Microsoft would have to pay a lot more than Sony to get the same games, but I shouldn't have to remind you that we're talking about $70b here. And Japanese publishers have already taken Microsoft's money in the past, multiple times at that. 

Now, since you seem so convinced that they will not go all-in on the 3rd party exclusives route, let me ask you, what do you really think they will do once this deal gets blocked?



Kyuu on 01 March 2023
chakkra said:
Kyuu said:

MS would have to pay a whole lot more than Sony if they want to make similar deals. A lot more for a small reward. We've seen that with Shadow of the Tomb Raider and other examples (Which was what likely led MS to stop aggressively securing big exclusives. They paid a $100 million for a single year Tomb Raider exclusivity lol). Japanese publishers in particular would not take MS's money for a short term benefit that could risk the IP's strength. Not to mention Xbox marketing isn't great.

Sony aren't "buying their way to victory", as A) the majority of the few high profile exclusives they secured started caming out late in the PS4 generation, and B) all exclusives pale in comparison to their own bigger 1st party titles. Playstation's exclusives are mostly unpaid. Those which are paid still aren't nearly as big as Sony's own titles. On the other hand... Minecraft, CoD, WoW, and TES are several tiers above the level of Microsoft's older IP's.

Yes, I'm fully aware that Microsoft would have to pay a lot more than Sony to get the same games, but I shouldn't have to remind you that we're talking about $70b here. And Japanese publishers have already taken Microsoft's money in the past, multiple times at that. 

Now, since you seem so convinced that they will not go all-in on the 3rd party exclusives route, let me ask you, what do you really think they will do once this deal gets blocked?

If the deal is completely blocked (doubtful) I think they'd continue grabbing other developers and maybe smaller publishers, and fund/moneyhat small/mid-sized games. I don't think they find much value in paying billions for a few system selling exclusives. If a single year of Tomb Raider exclusivity cost them a $100 million back in 2014~, a similar deal today for GTA6 would cost them well over a billion dollars, and full exclusivity would cost several billions. It's probably just not worth it. And no matter how much MS offers, Sony will try to offer just enough to keep it multplatform. Playstation's market position and the proposition of keeping the game multiplat (massive install base and a huge potential for further growth) may help them outweigh Microsoft's hypothetical moneyhatting.


There just isn't nearly as much value in securing ultra expensive exclusives as owning and controlling massive publishers/developers with dozens of IP's, an infinite number of games, and 100% the revenue/profit streams. So I just don't see Microsoft going that way. For timed exclusives, most non-Xbox gamers would wait for the PS5/Switch 2 versions or get them on PC. For full exclusives, it would be too expensive and the publishers risks losing countless fans/buyers. At worst, I can see MS moneyhatting popular-ish games (Sony style) but they're probably not going after the crazy big stuff that can actually damage Sony (CoD, GTA, FIFA etc). Perhaps the crazy bastards at ABK would support Xbox exclusivity just to spite Sony... which I'm all for because it would hurt the popularity of CoD and force Sony to work harder and promote alternatives.