I would agree if ABK Ips were suddenly Xbox exclusive like for the Bethesda merger but in the ABK case, we can safely say CoD is not leaving at least for 10 years and I believe it will still go Minecraft route afterward. Diablo 4 is already announced on PS5 and it have a 10years+ cycle between title so hardly any impact there for Sony. Same for Overwatch. Spyro and Crash have been historically associated with PS so doubt MS will make a new entry and not release it on PS but even then the strength of those franchise is only a shadow of what they were. Other huge IP include is Guitar hero but it have lost most of it's power and the nature of the game still make a great case for it being multiplat. Nothing in the King parts impact Sony whatsoever. And in all case Sony could deal with MS to mitigate almost all remaining issue to which MS would probably need to accept.

So I hardly see any real drawbacks for Sony except those I listed in my prior post. But in the end that's just speaking as if Xbox get to invest $69B otherwise if the deal fails, Sony is probably betting that it wont and that failure would sufficiently temper Xbox ambition.

Well that's depends on if you think this deals succeed or fail. But MS already stated they want 4AAA per annum and with 23 studio you might think it's possible but some are not AAA capable and other are for GaaS. So they'll have a hard time reaching this goal and resort to use heavily contractual development through Xbox Publishing studios like they are doing now which is more costly then in house dev. Now that was the goal a few years ago but it might just be 6+ AAA/year now and as a GP user I'd support such goal. 

At one point though they'll reach a limit with GamePass. The point were having more studios and pumping more AAA/year will change almost nothing since almost anybody will already have enough reason to be subscribed and so new acquisition and expansion would reach massive diminishing returns but we're far from this point. Netflix seems to have somewhat reach a plateau at 220m user but for Service like GamePass it's anybody guess 100M, 150m, 200m??.

I may also answer your questions with another : If MS believe GamePass can be the next juggernaut in gaming wouldn't they be foul not to act decisively and swiftly?

I’ll believe they’re doing more when the results suggest it. Why do they need more studios right now? Where are the products from the studios they bought? I get that games take time, first hand, but everyone else is bound by that same principle and are killing it in 1st party content. Microsoft is not new to the game. As a buyer of their products, I’d like to see them do better. 2023 promises that, so they’re moving in the right direction.

The only real reason COD will be multiplat is because regulatory agencies got involved and Sony cried. MS indicated Bethesda games would keep releasing but then changed their wording after the deal was approved. The other IPs from ABK will be exclusive you can be sure.

The only real reason COD will be multiplat is because regulatory agencies got involved and Sony cried. MS indicated Bethesda games would keep releasing but then changed their wording after the deal was approved. The other IPs from ABK will be exclusive you can be sure.

Would not say they have no say but yes I should have said MS not investors, Investors may have no direct say over MS way to spend but MS does over Xbox and I do not believe that if this deal fails the money return directly in Xbox pocket but in MS's one, which Xbox will then need to fight to secure back.
What I described in my previous post is only under the hypothesis that Xbox does secure it.

This deal isn't about Xbox but MS as a business.  Meaning that acquisition on this scale is a company wide decision that does not pull that money from the Xbox division but a totally different pool.  So no, if this deal does not go through it does not mean that money just sits there for Phil to grab.  It goes back to MS pool of cash they set aside for acquisitions, it could be something in gaming or something totally non gaming related.

Every action MS take will end up impacting Sony but yeah if you look only short term they won't be significant.

Not really.  Nothing MS has done so far even purchasing Bethesda, putting Starfield and Redfall exclusive or Even making GP a great gaming service has really slowed Sony down one bit.  What I am talking about is significant impact that will make all of Sony execs flinch.  Even this deal landing doesn't really effect Sony in the short term and MS going on a buying spree isn't going to penetrate Sony market lead unless Sony does something really stupid.  Currently I do not see that happening.

Completely agree though MS recent decision (2018+) have set foundation to increase their market share

If we are talking Xbox vs PlayStation yeah, but it is GamePass that now gave MS new confidence in the Xbox division and not the Xbox hardware itself. If you use MAU instead then MS have a shot to best Sony mid to long term.

They always had to option to spent $69B but they did not until now and that's because now they have faith in GamePass and they choose to take the acquisition route but you have to take into consideration other available investment option if this route is somehow blocked. 

Yes but that's exactly what they are doing their, carve out is called GamePass and there's nothing like a good $69B shakeup be it by acquisition or other mean 😉.

Anyway none of the above actually contradict my previous post as Sony dominance does not need to end for them to be more impacted by MS reaction to the deal failing than it would be with it succeeding.

I agree on this point, I just believe that GP is a long term plan for success not in the short.  When I say long term, I am see probably 2 more generations before it really bear fruit.

I believe they need more studios so that they can have at least one AAA per quarter every year.  If we think about development time to market 3 to five years for AAA content sometimes even more.  In order for GP to reach a growth where it can continue to fun big games, it must pump out high quality content to retain subs and increase the sub base.

I hear a lot of gamers talk about GP will bring down the quality of games but that really does not work for a subscription service.  When quality drops so do the subs.  When quality drops, you cannot expand your sub base.  In order to reach a sub amount where GP prints money, MS must improve GP to around 150 million subs.  Quality sustained content on a timely fashion I believe is the only way to achieve this goal and the content has to be varied to attract a diverse gaming group.

To start I would point that they hadn't increased number of internal teams on their existing studios to any relevant amount, plus had a big number of firing of existing employees, some working on gaming for Microsoft for over 10 years.

Second that there is a lot of countries that it is possible to build studios from scratch that they didn't go to.

I dunno why so many try to put the purchase of ABK as a matter of hiring personnel. MS intent is buying IPs and in second or third priority the expertise of the team. Just see that after MS said CoD isn't relevant now they say the purchase wouldn't work without CoD.

And yes of course ABK isn't an investment from Xbox.

Probably because there isn't a lot of talent out their to do so.  You hire to fill holes in projects and development.  You do not just hire a bunch of people and do not have anything for them to do.  We already seen the result of that with all the layoffs.

No one said that MS could not build new studios but tell me who will run it.  How long will it take for them to get to market with a game, how talented is the pool of people you will need to man the studio.  How many heads will you need to get the project to completion.  What is the risk that even if you get all that done, that they are able to produce a high quality AAA project.  There is one thing about saying MS could build new studio, there is something totally different about getting it done within a reasonable amount of time without being a huge risk compared to just purchasing an already established studio.

The purchase of ABK fills a lot of roles, not just buying IP because without developers to bring those IP to market, it means nothing.  I do not remember MS saying that COD is not relevant, where you did you get that statement.  As for purchasing ABK being the be all for MS, I agree its not.  It was something that landed in their lap and they among a very small list of companies actually have the resources to buy ABK.  If the deal does not go through, just means they continue what they were already doing.  May mean things go slower who knows.

Of course investors have a say on how MS uses the money, first being very obvious on if investors disagree and decide to desinvest/sell that impacts shareprice and not to forget obligation of leadership is returning value to shareholders. The second one is that major investors have positions in the board and discussion and must approve purchases of this size as far as I know.

Err.. you said a lot of things

• FFXVI is half of their games for the near future (you do not know what is coming out)
• The only reason Playstation is getting FFXVI and FFVIIRE as exclusives is because MS never made a better offer to SE (A. that's Microsoft's problem, and B. if it were that simple, they certainly would have tried)

Could also be that Square knows where the majority of those sales will come from and FFXVI being exclusive to Xbox is a massive risk when they don't have the units sold that Sony does (particularly in EU/JP where it is currently a slaughter). 

So, you want the deal to get blocked so they can take $70B and go on an exclusive buying spree (my error for seeing that as more pub purchases). Why wouldn't you prefer they take that money and invest in their own studios? This is what I was getting at. That should be the first line of defense and they already have plenty of studios. Why do you think Nintendo and Sony have the brand power and recognition worldwide that they do? No doubt the latter makes more exclusive deals than the former (who made many against SEGA during its 80s/90s reign), but they are no longer mainly recognized for 3rd party properties (Devil May Cry, FF, Metal Gear, Tekken, etc). That's how you nurture a brand. 3rd party deals will always happen — that's the nature of the business. But, you need to come correct with your own hand or risk being left behind and that is the situation they are in.

Game Pass can only do so much, and since a 30+% decline this early in a gen is not good, I'd prefer they stepped their game up with many of their own properties.