Why do people take what CEO's and executives say at face value? Jim Ryan, Phil Spencer, etc, don't give two shits about the fanbase. They care about revenue, profits and their own bottom line, in the form of performance prizes, stock valuation, etc.
I agree and none of them truly care. I only favor Spencer because he's a gamer and I do believe that he wants their games to be of a higher quality which is why he's delayed games. Starfield for example, I thought had no chance on being delayed but if they need more time, give them more time. But I do agree which is why I only care about what's best for me personally which in all honesty is how everyone should look at it. Do and favor what's best for yourselves.
"Trying to create a monopoly" and "creating a monopoly" are distinct concepts. And you can create a quasi monopoly while having some low level competition. If most of the "beloved / mainstream" franchises belong to a single platform holder, you're effectively monopolising a portion of the market. Would you argue that Microsoft has a monopoly of personal computer software, even though macOS and Linux distros exist? I wouldn't, because macOS is gated behind extortionate prices and Linux is just not for the common folk.
I understand what you're saying but it will take a lot more than acquiring a few AAA publishers in order to have a monopoly in any facet. You mention that if most "beloved/mainstream" franchises belong to a single platform holder, it becomes sort of a monopoly but what franchises? COD is by far the biggest. The Elder Scrolls hasn't had a new main line game in over a decade and TES VI is at least 3+ years away while Fallout has been on the decline even though Fallout 76 seems to have had a resurgence lately. And this along with The Elder Scrolls Online are both on PlayStation and will continue to be supported until if/when they die out. So while I understand what you're saying, Microsoft isn't anywhere close to getting to this point and I don't believe that they ever will. Gaming is simply bigger than any one game or platform.
As for the PC software stuff, I can't say either way because im not a PC guy. I don't follow any of this stuff so could Microsoft be considered a monopoly in this aspect? Possibly but others would know better than me.
I want to be really blunt - This is a really shitty argument. First of all, not all people are for moneyhats, for example, so you're creating a false generalisation. I've been always against moneyhats because they just take away from gamers on other platforms for no reason other than trying to gate content to one platform holder. Secondly, you cannot be serious when you try to equate having a handful of exclusive games from third parties, or buying some small studios, with acquiring two of the biggest publishers in the gaming industry.
The stock market argument is just asinine, because I can also say that the only way Microsoft has to actually compete in the gaming space with a much smaller company revenue wise is to buy the biggest publishers and the most profitable IP. It's not Sony's fault that Microsoft cannot produce valuable and desirable IP.
Personally, im not a fan of timed console exclusives because I just don't see the point regardless of who does it. And if anything, I would prefer the game to be fully exclusive instead because the development studio would only have to focus on the one platform it is exclusive to which should at least on paper lead to a better game. Most ports usually end up falling flat because the time is past for that particular game so I would much rather see games be fully exclusive if a deal is going to be made. I do like it when Sony or Microsoft pick up games from external developers and make them exclusive since they're funding and publishing the games like Microsoft with Avalanche Studios for Contraband as an example. Without Microsoft, I don't believe this game gets made and is something they've wanted to do for over a decade and can now do so.
I do equate it simply because Sony is paying to keep games off the other platform yet they don't own any of them whatsoever where as Microsoft will own what they're acquiring and can do what they want with them. Also, it took about two years to get the Bethesda deal done. If Microsoft didn't acquire Bethesda, they were going to shut down studios starting with Arkane followed by Tango Gameworks and Machine Games which coincidentally are the studios that I like within Bethesda so as someone who likes those three studios, if I had to choose between Bethesda staying as they were but shutting these studios down or Microsoft acquiring them and keeping them all in tact, then obviously, im going with Microsoft. Not only that but Zenimax was looking to sell.
This is my biggest issue with people complaining is acting as if Microsoft just went to Zenimax and ABK and said, we're buying you fuckers out and that's it when obviously, that's not what happened at all. One company looked to sell for years and finally did while the other in ABK went to Microsoft because Kotick wanted a massive payday on his way out. It's not Microsoft's fault that Kotick and others did fucked up shit to where their stocks fell and their value fell to where Kotick could simply try to wait it all out, be potentially removed by shareholders or to sell it all off to a company that has the money and capital to acquire them. Microsoft simply took advantage of the situation which Kotick and others caused themselves. It's not like Microsoft caused any of their shit. ABK did, Kotick specifically.
If Sony was a trillion dollar company, Kotick would have went to them first and if anything, would have played both Sony and Microsoft against each other to raise the bidding prices. He did what a smart businessman would do if you're looking to sell - you go to the richest company, not the poorest and see if they're interested. Funny thing is that Microsoft acquiring ABK isn't even for COD which is a bonus. It's mainly for King and their mobile division which Microsoft has been trying to crack for years and hasn't been able to. Even if COD didn't exist or was just an average money making game, Microsoft would still have went after ABK because of King and their mobile division which is far more important to them than COD or any console game for that matter. If anything, COD is far more important to Sony than it is Microsoft.
Going back to Bethesda for a minute, Google was in the bidding. Imagine if they would have won and acquired Bethesda. Do you believe that would be better or worse than what it currently is? Imagine Bethesda games being fully exclusive to Stadia where you can only stream their games and have to buy them all. UGH. Plus, as much as Sony and Microsoft may not give a shit about gaming and gamers outside of the money they make, they still care far more than Google ever could or would. I won't speak for anyone else but out of A) Going bankrupt or shutting down studios, B) Going to Google or C) Going to Microsoft, im obviously going with C every time.
Funny thing is that after Microsoft, my next choice would be Sony. Only reason why I prefer Microsoft is simple - because I know I can play every game for a $10 monthly rental which includes games that I would never ever purchase to begin with but for a $10 monthly rental, sure, I'll give a game I have interest in a shot.
I agree with you in regards to the last part about Microsoft not being able to create desirable IP's and that it's not Sony's fault. But at the same time, I just find it hilarious that despite 25+ years of dominance that people think Sony is in trouble or that it's not fair. They'll be just fine. And life is not fair. But if you're a massive company that has the opportunity to acquire a Bethesda or an ABK, why wouldn't you? Because it would look bad to people who don't know their ass from their elbow? Nah. Come on. If the roles were reversed and it was Sony, do you truly believe that they would pass on acquiring ABK? Hell no. Why would they? In fact, either company passing would be a dumb ass decision in which the CEO should probably be replaced at that point because why are you passing up this massive opportunity that is falling into your lap?
Can you say that since 2020, Microsoft has simply been in the right place at the right time with the right situation falling into their lap? Absolutely but that's what separates billion dollar companies and trillion dollar companies. Knowing when to pass on something and when not to. Not passing on ABK is the right decision for Microsoft on so many levels.
I simply see it as Microsoft taking advantage of the situations which by the way, ABK and Bethesda caused upon themselves to begin with. Not only that but one aspect people don't realize at all or rarely mention is the fact that keeping your money in a bank right now isn't gaining you much if anything so for a company like Microsoft, it makes much more financial sense to spend that money on something that will give you more money and profits down the line. In other words, sacrifice the short term for the long term which is what the intelligent companies do because it's not about today, it's about tomorrow.
Personally, ABK does nothing for me. Outside of Diablo IV, they're literally of no interest to me. I would have easily preferred WB, Ubisoft and EA in that order because they have far more games that I want to play. However, if im looking at this as a businessman or someone who works within Microsoft, acquiring ABK is an easy decision to make. Hell, King alone makes it an easy decision to make.
You keep mentioning crying, but as with others, you miss the big picture. I'll spell it out below:
Market
Consolidation
Is
Not
Good
For
Customers
Personally, I disagree to an extent. I see so many development studios or publishers out there that fucking suck and wouldn't miss them at all. Granted, im speaking just for me but in general, market consolidation not being good for consumers mainly depends on what's being consolidated. Look at Embracer Group. They're acquiring MORE than Microsoft. Haven't heard a peep from anyone and I get that it's because they're a third party publisher and not a platform holder. However, what if down the line, Embracer decided to start up a subscription service to get access to their games? Shit can change real quick. But the other reason is that what they're acquiring, no seems to give a fuck about. lmao.
I want some development studios to be acquired and a few more publishers because I want others to step up and they won't until there's a spot for them to fill. I'm not worried or concerned at all about market consolidation because the market itself is fucking massive and would take a lot more than two publishers or ever five for that matter to make that much of a difference than what it is now. If anything, this is being overblown by people because like I said, there's literally hundreds of publishers and thousands of development studios worldwide. Acquiring a few to several isn't to change or alter really anything.
Look at Bethesda. No one even misses them anymore. People moved on and they still have a shit ton of games to play from various development studios and publishers. The only way I would ever see this becoming anywhere close to an issue would be is if Microsoft acquired everyone which they're not going to do. Microsoft only acquired Bethesda because they were looking to sell and are far better fit for Microsoft than Sony and they only acquired ABK because of the clusterfuck that company became due to Kotick and his as well as others doing fucked up shit. Even if all that within ABK happens but never becomes public, ABK would still be as is and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Sure it would. Microsoft's track record of acquisitions leading to more games cannot be understated. I'm being ironic, by the way, if that wasn't clear. And Activision has way more IP than COD and releases way more games than just COD.
Between 2020 and 2022, ABK published 8 games on PS4. This also applies to XBO and current gen. 5 of them are all COD related. lol. There was Tony Hawk 1 & 2 collection as well as Crash 4. Granted, there's rumors of Toys For Bob working on some kind of Crash related game but they're also working on COD as a support studio. Vicarious Visions got renamed to Blizzard Albany and are a support studio for Blizzard's games.
There's other studios that barely do anything besides COD or help Blizzard. The number one reason why im happy that Microsoft acquired ABK is because I want to see COD become a platform with Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Games working on it. And that's it. This would free up Treyarch, Toys For Bob, Beenox, High Moon Studios and others. The only studios besides the two I listed that I would perhaps keep on COD would be Raven Software as they seem to make games based on all these old licenses which as far as I know Microsoft wouldn't own.
I know they have way more IP and future wise under Microsoft, im hoping they bring some of them back instead of just being 90% all on COD and that's it. The way they currently are, I know im never getting anything that I want. With Microsoft, there's at least a 50/50 chance.
Stop with the straw man, please. I'm trying to have a good faith argument and you keep misrepresenting what I said. A monopoly leads to lower quality at higher prices, that's a fact. The hardware gaming industry is not a monopoly, but an oligopoly, however we've been fortunate enough that one company has disrupted the market due to their previous strategy failing - Nintendo. On the other hand, you have one company trying to acquire big portions of said market to disrupt it in a different way - monopolise it.
Apologies. I agree with the monopoly leading to lower quality at higher prices but as long as Sony and Nintendo exist, I don't see this happening and I also don't see Microsoft acquiring everyone or some shit like that. I believe that they will acquire one more AAA publisher and a few more development studios to fill gaps for genres they may not have. And I do believe that the AAA publisher they acquire will be EA in 2024/2025 because they do want to sell but want one hell of an offer.
I don't believe that Microsoft is looking to acquire big portions to disrupt anything. It's simply more of well, this fell into your lap for you to acquire so why wouldn't you? Because some people may get upset? Nah. There's simply a lot of people in the PlayStation community who quite honestly are spoiled and feel like they're entitled to anything and everything no matter what and that's simply not the reality of the situation and is one they need to accept and move on from.
He didn't. But if you want, I can make the argument that market consolidation leads to fewer games overall. How? Simple, you will want to close redundant / non-profitable studios whose IP does not bring enough revenue. Alternatively, you may get the same games, but fewer AAA or AA quality games.
If you don't understand how acquiring the biggest and most profitable publishers in the industry, with the most well known IP, then there's no further discussion to be had, because you're either being obtuse or I'm not able to better explain myself.
I understand what you're saying but there is one major aspect that you're not figuring into the equation. And that's Game Pass. Microsoft wants more studios, games and genres for their subscription service and when you look at say something like Pentiment from Obsidian, if Microsoft didn't own them, I don't see this game happening whatsoever because it's most likely going to bomb sales wise but with Game Pass and Microsoft being a $2 trillion dollar company, they can take risks and chances where vast majority of AAA publishers play it safe.
I don't believe that Microsoft looks at every studio in regards to "they all need to be profitable". I don't believe they see it this way at all. I believe they simply put it as a whole. So if for example, Compulsion's next game loses them money but Sea of Thieves or Grounded or Minecraft continue to make them a lot of money to where that loss doesn't impact anything, they won't shut down Compulsion because they don't need to.
Especially when you factor in the ABK acquisition. Forget Activision and Blizzard for the moment. Just look at King. King will make Microsoft so much fucking money that it's insane. Microsoft is going to use studios like King or Mojang and games like Candy Crush and Minecraft to make them the shit ton of revenue while allowing all the other studios to have more leeway to do what they want game creation wise. There's certain genres that I have zero interest in and whatnot but I don't want to see Microsoft just do one or two genres repeatedly and that's it. Even if the games aren't for me, I do want more variety which in all honesty, they must have for their Game Pass subscription service.
In my mind, Game Pass is what will allow Microsoft to keep all their studios, take risks and do things that other AAA publishers won't. Plus, even if the gaming division were to lose money which with King and others, I honestly don't see happening any time soon if ever, it wouldn't matter because they have the war chest of Microsoft to back them up if/when needed.
Until if/when it actually happens, I simply don't believe that just because Microsoft acquires a few AAA publishers that the entire gaming industry or this or that will somehow someway all of a sudden collapse because of what they're doing. If anything, I believe that gaming will be bigger and better because Microsoft is trying to reach consumers beyond just the console which is good because more people will get to play their games.
I just think that in general, people are becoming concerned or worried due to what Microsoft has done the last few years but yet, there's no actual valid proof or facts as to what they're currently doing is going to turn out bad for the gaming industry. Is there a chance that could happen? Sure but there's also the chance that it goes the other way and makes gaming become bigger and better.
As of right now, everyone just has to wait and see how it all plays out.
What a joke
Yeah true
