Microsoft Earnings Q4 2022

[peter42O]

But someone on Twitter, who has an account here IIRC, provided some postings showing MS took out a loan from Goldman-Sachs not too long ago, probably for the ABK acquisition. Even if that isn't true, essentially we're debating about the means one company has to make that type of acquisition vs another but at the end of the day, they can BOTH make the purchase. One would just have to do a few extra things, that's all.

As for the event there was a bidding war, well MS specifically waited until ABK's stock started deeply declining, and the bad press was circulating, before making the buy. They waited until the stock price was devalued enough to make the purchase as cheap as possible within the timeframe they were up for sale that was most opportune for Microsoft without any other serious bidders. So I'm willing to be $69 billion is the most MS were willing to pay for ABK.

As ridiculous as it may seem for several reasons, if Sony for some reason decided buying ABK fit their long-term gaming strategy, and got the case to buy them for more than $69 billion, even if that included loans and stocks as payments, there's a non-zero chance Microsoft would have decided the ABK purchase wasn't worth it, and not increase their bid. That's not also considering other things Sony could have leveraged, such as their ties into other entertainment spaces like film, television, animation, and music, presenting opportunities to make a film franchise out of COD hiring a talent like Denise Villanueva to make them (imagine something like a cross between Sicario and Blade Runner 2049), etc.

Which, in such a case, ABK could actually consider the lower offer even if Microsoft bid higher, though that would come down to what the board wanted, and I'll admit the chances of them taking that route would have been very, very slim.

Both can make the purchase but Sony would most likely have to take out a much bigger loan and the main difference is that Microsoft makes so much money that they can absorb losses and whatnot quickly while at the same time paying off any loans in a far shorter time period. Also, the loan may not even have anything to do with ABK and could be completely unrelated. Who knows.

I simply don't believe that Sony would make an acquisition that requires a lot of money upfront and post close as well as taking out a massive loan. Sony's entire company still relies and depends heavily on PlayStation. Sony learned a lot from the first half of the PlayStation 3 generation where they were close to bankruptcy and had to readjust a lot of stuff. Because of this, I just don't see Sony as a company taking any kind of massive risk especially if it's $10B+. I just don't see them doing it.

Can they do it? Sure but way too much risk for Sony as a company and I just don't see them making a big publisher purchase. Of course, the last part pretty much sums up every sale. Shareholders have to approve a sale and I don't think there's ever been a time where they accept less money for whatever reason.

I agree with the part about Microsoft waiting for ABK's stock and whatnot to decrease and them having a shit ton of internal issues. If anything, that's an excellent business move by Microsoft. After all, if a company is in trouble and you can acquire them for an amount that you're willing to pay, why wouldn't you?

Only issue with that is, this is the first time in probably ever where it's not a REAL clean slate, due to how digital everything is now with the ecosystems. Purchases from the PS4 or XBO carry forward to PS5 and Series X/S. PS5 and Series are BC with their previous consoles and virtually every generation of console of their product line. You can also trade in your old PS4 or XBO (or the Pro models) to get credit and money towards buying either of the new consoles!

This has in a lot of ways been the softest generational reset in the history of gaming, and I think if chip shortages weren't such a terrible problem earlier on this would've been made more clearly. However I think those same problems have incidentally helped this new gen act as more of a fuller reset than it otherwise would have, to the benefit of Microsoft and not so much to the benefit of Sony.

I mean clean slate to where both platforms start at ZERO sales and whatnot. Like sports, every team starts at a 0-0 record. Everything else I agree with and this is how it will be moving forward into future generations. For example, so many people bashed Smart Delivery but it is in fact brilliant because it's not just for this generation but for future generations as well. As long as Microsoft keeps everything interconnected and doesn't screw up anything, this will be a major positive that pays dividends for years and decades to come.

The chip shortages has impacted a lot of stuff but I look at Microsoft with the Series S and while it's not for me or something that I would have went ahead with personally but it was another brilliant business move because in the middle of a pandemic coming off a bad generation where your brand is "low", having a cheap $300 option is great for exactly what it is - a secondary console, a Game Pass console and perfect for families with kids who don't need a 4K HDR TV and Series X.

Microsoft can also get two Series S consoles manufactured for every one Series X console. And in regions that are not console based at all or 95% dominated by Sony, this was a brilliant move for all the reasons I stated above. It's also very similar to what Microsoft did with Xbox 360 launch and beyond which is where they had their best success console wise. I'm surprised that with 75-80% of Sony's software sales being digital that they don't push the PS5 Digital Edition much more especially since they would make much more money in the long run but since the specs are identical outside of the disc drive, the chip shortage is more of a negative for them than it is for Microsoft.

Yeah I don't think there's any disagreement that MS acquiring Zenimax works out a lot better than Google having done so, if we're talking about studio management and whatnot. Although that still doesn't give them leeway to just keep the status quo with Zenimax teams. Those studios, every single one, should see some real growth this gen and that will ultimately be up to how Microsoft manages them.

I agree. Microsoft has already started to expand their studios and outside of Bethesda Game Studios, it's the others that need a "hit". Arkane for example is great and so damn underrated but they haven't had that mainstream "hit" yet. I do think that Redfall is their best shot at making this happen thus far. Tango has two games in development so have to wait and see what they are. Tokyo bombed but it wasn't really their game. It was the lady's (don't know her name) game and then she abruptly left. Personally, I would have cancelled the game if I was them but it is what it is.

We'll see how they all do as the generation progresses.

E3 2018 already signaled things were turning for MS. However, there was little in terms of massive industry shakeups since the studios MS acquired at that time were all simply developers. None of them were massive developers, let alone publishers, and it's not like Sony and Nintendo hadn't made multiple studio purchases over the years prior to that.

I think where some feathers started getting ruffled, among the non-fanboys, was MS buying Zenimax while many were still waiting to see the results from the acquisitions they had purchased two years prior. And while we saw some results, like Bleeding Edge, they weren't very good. And so now two years after that, they announce yet another acquisition, several magnitudes larger than even Zenimax...but Xbox gamers had yet to see anything from those Zenimax teams before another announcement.

Yes, PS gamers did, but not Xbox. And arguably, Deatlhloop and Ghostwire were pretty much games from Zenimax pre-Microsoft acquiring them, as in, very little of the design of those games was done directly under Microsoft Xbox management. So for some people it's less about MS getting more aggressive than it is doing bigger & bigger purchases while having very few results to show from purchases they just previously made. It's part of the reason why for me, if they announced yet another publisher acquisition in the span of the next 3 years, I would personally be pretty strongly against it.

Not because I don't want MS to improve their gaming division; that's always a good thing. But because it will just seem greedy to me considering we still need to see how Starfield fully shapes up, how Everwild and Perfect Dark shape up, how RedFall shapes up, how Hellblade II and Fable shape up, The Outer Worlds II & Avowed, etc. All of these being games that normally should've been out by 2025, but some of which will probably be 2026 at this rate, and they were shown off all the way back in 2020 and even 2019. Meanwhile the only updates we have for many of them are mentions from insiders claiming they've played the game or gotten word on it, yet we never hear anything from the actual developers to officiate these things or set some real expectations.

That is honestly frustrating.

As an Xbox fan, I didn't look at the Bethesda acquisition as an issue just because their other studios acquired in 2018 didn't do anything yet which wasn't true anyway. Playground released FH 4 and these games have been 90+ since FH 3. Undead Labs released SOD 2 the month before the acquisition was announced. I don't see how anyone could expect anything from them in 2020. Compulsion Games was getting ready to release to We Happy Few which was meh. Ninja Theory had just ported Hellblade to Xbox and was overlooking the Switch port. Bleeding Edge was a dud but it was in development for a few years prior to Ninja Theory being acquired and if you're Microsoft, what can you do besides letting them release it and see how it goes? In no way, shape or form would or should they have cancelled that game because that would have set off some red flags if you're working at Ninja Theory and Microsoft just acquired you. Plus, that would be a bad look not just PR wise but to the other studios you acquired and for any future potential acquisitions.

Obsidian released TOW in late 2019. They did early access for Grounded in 2020 which amazingly, has blown up kinda. It's doing way better than anyone expected so they have a "hit" there. Granted, it's not for me or others but a hit is a hit. InXile released Wasteland 3 in summer 2020. It's only been two years since that release. Double Fine did release cross-gen multi-platform game Psychonauts 2 in 2021.

I understand the point of view you have where they haven't released anything under Microsoft fully and being against them acquiring another major publisher if that was to happen but like I have said in the past, I see this generation as a transitional generation for Microsoft. In my eyes and in all honesty, if you look at it objectively, you can see that what Microsoft is doing isn't for now or even this generation, it's for beyond. I believe that too many people in general are expecting way too much just because of the acquisitions they've made but they're not minor acquisitions that take a day or two to implement. They're going to take time and now that it looks like Unions will be involved in some aspects, that's not going to make anything go quicker because it's now, more people you have to meet, talk to, get to know and work with. And none of this includes the game development process and for the studios that are working from home, development will take even longer and because of the world situation, hiring people for the studios is also a far bigger pain in the ass than it used to be.

As an Xbox fan, yeah, im disappointed and let down for 2022 due to Microsoft not having any exclusives I care about but I am happy that Microsoft delayed Starfield and Redfall instead of rushing them out. In hindsight, they should have delayed Halo Infinite another year but what can you do? At some point, games do have to release. Can't hold them forever. But back to Starfield and Redfall, I do believe that if Microsoft has to delay a game, they will do so. They just won't delay it multiple times. I do believe Redfall is an early 2023 release with Forza Motorsport 8 being Spring 2023. While some believe that Starfield is the first half of 2023, I believe that Microsoft gives them a full year delay like Halo Infinite. Only difference is that there's no co-op/MP crap for them to worry about. I will say that while I want to see more of Starfield, im good with Redfall. I know what the game is and the premise. It's basically Borderlands with Vampires and more gameplay options like stealth. Okay. Sounds great to me.

I agree with the last paragraph, however, when Hellblade 2 was shown at TGA 2019, that was before Covid which hurt Ninja Theory to where they couldn't really do anything. They couldn't work in the studio and weren't setup for "working at home" which a lot of companies are still implementing which isn't easy, takes time and is expensive to do. Everwild is the only game announced that I have any issues or concerns about but at the same time, it's not a game I have any interest in personally so they could (and probably should) cancel it tomorrow and it wouldn't change anything for me.

As for the other games, they did announce a few too early but at the same time, I understand why they did and in a few instances, they had to because after last generation, you have to show people what to expect during this generation. It's definitely frustrating as an Xbox fan but at the same time, the majority of the games they've published have been rated 80+ with only Tokyo and As Dusk Falls being under an 80 so im happy that the quality is at a higher level compared to the same time frame with Xbox One. I'm happy that they're delaying games if they need to be delayed because I don't want them rushing out any game that isn't ready. Also, with post launch content for Halo Infinite being almost non-existent, I don't want to see the same thing happen to Redfall as im very much looking forward to the game as I will be playing it fully solo.

Just like I said in May when Starfield and Redfall were delayed, im not expecting anything for 2022 and like Microsoft, just have to ride it out and hope that 2023 is finally the year where everything starts clicking and falling into place.

All I'm saying is, we already have seen how MS may treat an acquisition this large by looking at Mojang; Mojang were even able to stipulate some of the terms of the buy including their multiplatform status!

If they can do that, and ABK is operating as a separate branch under Microsoft Gaming, what makes you think they can't negotiate/stipulate similar terms? That they haven't done so already? And again back to Minecraft, that IP has been doing better than ever and part of that is thanks to staying multiplatform. MS will want something very similar for COD and a few other ABK IP like Tony Hawk (if that ever comes back), Crash/Spyro, Overwatch etc., so it very likely doesn't make financial sense for them to cut PlayStation out of the loop with those...

...especially when they already expressed interest in bringing COD to the Switch x3. Anyway there's a lot I still have to reply to , but I'll have to do that tomorrow. Getting late here; looking forward to doing so for the rest tho dude

Was Mojang private or publicly traded pre-Microsoft acquisition? If they were private, that would be why they were able to negotiate their status like Bungie did. Normally, when a company is publicly traded, the shareholders get bought out, get their pay day and it's the acquiring company that takes over everything and makes the decisions because well, all those other people are gone.

I do see Microsoft keeping ABK like Bethesda as self publishing but with Microsoft still overseeing (or lack thereof, lol) everything.

I just don't see Microsoft keeping COD multi-platform once contracts are completed. Like Sony, Microsoft is just saying what benefits them now. Also, like you pointed out a few days ago, imagine playing COD on a streaming service or tablet and whatnot? Minecraft runs on all those mobile devices without any major issues and is the kind of game you need as many players as possible but more importantly, isn't a game that people would "jump ship" for in order to play it. COD is.

I see in June 2024 when Microsoft has their E3/Games Showcase/whatever it ends up being called event where they reveal COD 2024, announce it as being exclusive (ala Starfield in 2021) to Xbox/PC/Cloud while at the same time, announcing that they're ending Gold, rolling all the subscribers into GPU automatically and in turn, no longer having a paywall to play co-op/MP. You would still have to buy the game of course unless it's on Game Pass which in this case, it would be and you can play it through the $10 base subscription.

So think about it, COD being fully exclusive, Microsoft eliminates the online co-op/MP paywall and then for that Fall, imagine an Xbox Series X/S with COD on the box and it retails for $400/$200. Yeah, that would make Microsoft a shit ton of money because they would be bringing in new consumers into the eco-system that were never into Xbox and returning consumers that perhaps left after Xbox 360.

Keeping COD multi-platform in my mind does nothing to expand and increase the Xbox brand, platform, eco-system and most importantly, Game Pass.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Both can make the purchase but Sony would most likely have to take out a much bigger loan and the main difference is that Microsoft makes so much money that they can absorb losses and whatnot quickly while at the same time paying off any loans in a far shorter time period. Also, the loan may not even have anything to do with ABK and could be completely unrelated. Who knows.

I simply don't believe that Sony would make an acquisition that requires a lot of money upfront and post close as well as taking out a massive loan. Sony's entire company still relies and depends heavily on PlayStation. Sony learned a lot from the first half of the PlayStation 3 generation where they were close to bankruptcy and had to readjust a lot of stuff. Because of this, I just don't see Sony as a company taking any kind of massive risk especially if it's $10B+. I just don't see them doing it.

Well isn't that where a contradiction might come in? If PlayStation as a brand, as a division, is so important to Sony, why would they not invest big into it? Maybe $70 billion big is too much, but even $10 billion? They somewhat have already done that or will do so for PS5 over the course of the generation if you go between console production, R&D, software, 3P exclusivity and marketing contracts, marketing & advertising, etc.

I mean there are rumors they are looking into companies like Square-Enix, WB Games etc. Just two of those could be upwards $10 billion, I think though that's a realistic amount Sony could look at WRT acquisitions through the course of the generation. Me bringing up Sony going for an ABK was just more to illustrate a point. They COULD do it, but you're right, it would take longer for them to get that back and then some through entire company profits than Microsoft, same with paying off loans that large.

But also equally as important, I just don't think Sony have value for a company like ABK in their wheelhouse; not to say ABK isn't valuable, just that they probably don't (as a whole) bring enough to add to Sony's wheelhouse that would ever make them justify spending $70 billion on them.

Can they do it? Sure but way too much risk for Sony as a company and I just don't see them making a big publisher purchase. Of course, the last part pretty much sums up every sale. Shareholders have to approve a sale and I don't think there's ever been a time where they accept less money for whatever reason.

Good point. That's the condition of being a publicly-traded company after all.

I agree with the part about Microsoft waiting for ABK's stock and whatnot to decrease and them having a shit ton of internal issues. If anything, that's an excellent business move by Microsoft. After all, if a company is in trouble and you can acquire them for an amount that you're willing to pay, why wouldn't you?

It was smart for MS to do that, but it's also one of the points which was raised shortly after the acquisition announcement as a point of concern by investigating bodies. The idea that they may've waited for the value to drop, and not only that but perhaps influencing factors in the market that directly dropped the stock price, was and still might be a point of contention as deliberations over the acquisition carry on.

I mean clean slate to where both platforms start at ZERO sales and whatnot. Like sports, every team starts at a 0-0 record. Everything else I agree with and this is how it will be moving forward into future generations. For example, so many people bashed Smart Delivery but it is in fact brilliant because it's not just for this generation but for future generations as well. As long as Microsoft keeps everything interconnected and doesn't screw up anything, this will be a major positive that pays dividends for years and decades to come.

Yeah, agreed. The sports analogy doesn't completely work, but it still does in a significant way.

The chip shortages has impacted a lot of stuff but I look at Microsoft with the Series S and while it's not for me or something that I would have went ahead with personally but it was another brilliant business move because in the middle of a pandemic coming off a bad generation where your brand is "low", having a cheap $300 option is great for exactly what it is - a secondary console, a Game Pass console and perfect for families with kids who don't need a 4K HDR TV and Series X.

Well TBF, the Series S was a big gamble and it could still cause issues down the road depending on how marquee, technically-intensive Xbox 1P games leverage the Series systems (do they target Series X and "scale down" or target Series S and "scale up"?). It was also a gamble because the majority of the customers who tend to buy consoles cheaper in the gen...wait until a few years before doing so.

MS's idea for Series S was mainly off the fact that they felt component prices would not reduce enough over the gen to result in meaningful price drops, which means they are probably not expecting Series X to get any lower than $399 and (IMO) Series S any lower than $249, until perhaps maybe 2-3 years from now they are just better off replacing them with tiered hardware upgrades altogether in the same product family. And for sure, MS could not have accounted for the pandemic, or the (possibly) incoming recession; those are just wild unfortunate factors that might have helped out Series S.

But now, with that said, I think it does set something of a precedent going forward and I think Sony will mimic some form of that approach in the future. Actually, they arguably did it first with PS TV and PS4, though PS TV only allowed for Remote Play streaming of PS4 games. This is all also a reason I've been adamant on the idea of Sony redoing that approach: a new PS portable that can play all PS4 games on the go, maybe get some scaled-down ports of certain PS5 games, stream the rest of PS5 games via Remote Play, and provide an extension of PS4 on the market and an option for certain developers who'd like a more powerful portable while also knowing those games can be played on PS4s & PS5 systems.

That could basically be Sony's answer for a Series S-type device in their product line, and I think it'd be pretty successful as long as it's marketed right. It's not "really" a successor to PS Vita the way I'd envision it, more a (true) portable PS4, an extension of that. I know everyone wants to say "But Steam Deck already exists!". Well, yes it does, but it's still not an actual portable PS4, it falls short in some ways and it can't benefit from Sony's ecosystem the way an actual PlayStation device can.

Microsoft can also get two Series S consoles manufactured for every one Series X console. And in regions that are not console based at all or 95% dominated by Sony, this was a brilliant move for all the reasons I stated above. It's also very similar to what Microsoft did with Xbox 360 launch and beyond which is where they had their best success console wise. I'm surprised that with 75-80% of Sony's software sales being digital that they don't push the PS5 Digital Edition much more especially since they would make much more money in the long run but since the specs are identical outside of the disc drive, the chip shortage is more of a negative for them than it is for Microsoft.

Well, at least at launch the PS5 DE wasn't that much cheaper to manufacture than the Disc one, and they sold for a bigger loss. Also they probably projected the vast majority of demand was for the disc-based model.

However, they've made several changes to lower the BOM and might either have already, or are planning to, switch to 6nm among some other things, to reign in production costs even more. They already make a small profit off the disc-based models alone; they would obviously want to increase that profit margin and also make sure the DE can enable some similar profits off the hardware alone.

I agree. Microsoft has already started to expand their studios and outside of Bethesda Game Studios, it's the others that need a "hit". Arkane for example is great and so damn underrated but they haven't had that mainstream "hit" yet. I do think that Redfall is their best shot at making this happen thus far. Tango has two games in development so have to wait and see what they are. Tokyo bombed but it wasn't really their game. It was the lady's (don't know her name) game and then she abruptly left. Personally, I would have cancelled the game if I was them but it is what it is.

We'll see how they all do as the generation progresses.

Well, best of luck to their 1P teams because they are going to need it. IMO MS have too much on their plate, they took on too many new teams and not enough time stabilizing and fully building up the few they already had, but that's all basically in the past now. At the end of the day, they have to make sure these teams are set up well and curated in a way wherein they can go beyond their previous results.

As an Xbox fan, I didn't look at the Bethesda acquisition as an issue just because their other studios acquired in 2018 didn't do anything yet which wasn't true anyway. Playground released FH 4 and these games have been 90+ since FH 3. Undead Labs released SOD 2 the month before the acquisition was announced. I don't see how anyone could expect anything from them in 2020. Compulsion Games was getting ready to release to We Happy Few which was meh. Ninja Theory had just ported Hellblade to Xbox and was overlooking the Switch port. Bleeding Edge was a dud but it was in development for a few years prior to Ninja Theory being acquired and if you're Microsoft, what can you do besides letting them release it and see how it goes? In no way, shape or form would or should they have cancelled that game because that would have set off some red flags if you're working at Ninja Theory and Microsoft just acquired you. Plus, that would be a bad look not just PR wise but to the other studios you acquired and for any future potential acquisitions.

No, what they should've done with Bleeding Edge was help polish it and time its release as a cross-gen effort for XBO & Xbox Series's launch. There really wasn't a reason they couldn't of done this IMO. It would've given the game more time to polish, and gotten it more promotion. Maybe if they did that, the game would still be around.

There's another issue, too, and it's been with the rather hefty delays for certain games. I know all devs suffered from the impacts of COVID and the lockdowns, but it does say a lot that Sony teams such as GG and Insomniac were able to still bring out games in a timely fashion or without too big of delays.

I understand the point of view you have where they haven't released anything under Microsoft fully and being against them acquiring another major publisher if that was to happen but like I have said in the past, I see this generation as a transitional generation for Microsoft. In my eyes and in all honesty, if you look at it objectively, you can see that what Microsoft is doing isn't for now or even this generation, it's for beyond. I believe that too many people in general are expecting way too much just because of the acquisitions they've made but they're not minor acquisitions that take a day or two to implement. They're going to take time and now that it looks like Unions will be involved in some aspects, that's not going to make anything go quicker because it's now, more people you have to meet, talk to, get to know and work with. And none of this includes the game development process and for the studios that are working from home, development will take even longer and because of the world situation, hiring people for the studios is also a far bigger pain in the ass than it used to be.

As an Xbox fan, yeah, im disappointed and let down for 2022 due to Microsoft not having any exclusives I care about but I am happy that Microsoft delayed Starfield and Redfall instead of rushing them out. In hindsight, they should have delayed Halo Infinite another year but what can you do? At some point, games do have to release. Can't hold them forever. But back to Starfield and Redfall, I do believe that if Microsoft has to delay a game, they will do so. They just won't delay it multiple times. I do believe Redfall is an early 2023 release with Forza Motorsport 8 being Spring 2023. While some believe that Starfield is the first half of 2023, I believe that Microsoft gives them a full year delay like Halo Infinite. Only difference is that there's no co-op/MP crap for them to worry about. I will say that while I want to see more of Starfield, im good with Redfall. I know what the game is and the premise. It's basically Borderlands with Vampires and more gameplay options like stealth. Okay. Sounds great to me.

I agree with the last paragraph, however, when Hellblade 2 was shown at TGA 2019, that was before Covid which hurt Ninja Theory to where they couldn't really do anything. They couldn't work in the studio and weren't setup for "working at home" which a lot of companies are still implementing which isn't easy, takes time and is expensive to do. Everwild is the only game announced that I have any issues or concerns about but at the same time, it's not a game I have any interest in personally so they could (and probably should) cancel it tomorrow and it wouldn't change anything for me.

As for the other games, they did announce a few too early but at the same time, I understand why they did and in a few instances, they had to because after last generation, you have to show people what to expect during this generation. It's definitely frustrating as an Xbox fan but at the same time, the majority of the games they've published have been rated 80+ with only Tokyo and As Dusk Falls being under an 80 so im happy that the quality is at a higher level compared to the same time frame with Xbox One. I'm happy that they're delaying games if they need to be delayed because I don't want them rushing out any game that isn't ready. Also, with post launch content for Halo Infinite being almost non-existent, I don't want to see the same thing happen to Redfall as im very much looking forward to the game as I will be playing it fully solo.

Just like I said in May when Starfield and Redfall were delayed, im not expecting anything for 2022 and like Microsoft, just have to ride it out and hope that 2023 is finally the year where everything starts clicking and falling into place.

Was Mojang private or publicly traded pre-Microsoft acquisition? If they were private, that would be why they were able to negotiate their status like Bungie did. Normally, when a company is publicly traded, the shareholders get bought out, get their pay day and it's the acquiring company that takes over everything and makes the decisions because well, all those other people are gone.

I do see Microsoft keeping ABK like Bethesda as self publishing but with Microsoft still overseeing (or lack thereof, lol) everything.

I just don't see Microsoft keeping COD multi-platform once contracts are completed. Like Sony, Microsoft is just saying what benefits them now. Also, like you pointed out a few days ago, imagine playing COD on a streaming service or tablet and whatnot? Minecraft runs on all those mobile devices without any major issues and is the kind of game you need as many players as possible but more importantly, isn't a game that people would "jump ship" for in order to play it. COD is.

I see in June 2024 when Microsoft has their E3/Games Showcase/whatever it ends up being called event where they reveal COD 2024, announce it as being exclusive (ala Starfield in 2021) to Xbox/PC/Cloud while at the same time, announcing that they're ending Gold, rolling all the subscribers into GPU automatically and in turn, no longer having a paywall to play co-op/MP. You would still have to buy the game of course unless it's on Game Pass which in this case, it would be and you can play it through the $10 base subscription.

So think about it, COD being fully exclusive, Microsoft eliminates the online co-op/MP paywall and then for that Fall, imagine an Xbox Series X/S with COD on the box and it retails for $400/$200. Yeah, that would make Microsoft a shit ton of money because they would be bringing in new consumers into the eco-system that were never into Xbox and returning consumers that perhaps left after Xbox 360.

Keeping COD multi-platform in my mind does nothing to expand and increase the Xbox brand, platform, eco-system and most importantly, Game Pass.

Just keeping this here; I gotta edit this on Sunday x3

 

[peter42O]

Well isn't that where a contradiction might come in? If PlayStation as a brand, as a division, is so important to Sony, why would they not invest big into it? Maybe $70 billion big is too much, but even $10 billion? They somewhat have already done that or will do so for PS5 over the course of the generation if you go between console production, R&D, software, 3P exclusivity and marketing contracts, marketing & advertising, etc.

I mean there are rumors they are looking into companies like Square-Enix, WB Games etc. Just two of those could be upwards $10 billion, I think though that's a realistic amount Sony could look at WRT acquisitions through the course of the generation. Me bringing up Sony going for an ABK was just more to illustrate a point. They COULD do it, but you're right, it would take longer for them to get that back and then some through entire company profits than Microsoft, same with paying off loans that large.

But also equally as important, I just don't think Sony have value for a company like ABK in their wheelhouse; not to say ABK isn't valuable, just that they probably don't (as a whole) bring enough to add to Sony's wheelhouse that would ever make them justify spending $70 billion on them.

It's not just the acquisition cost, it's more about the cost post close. Would Sony keep all the employees? Would they keep the publishing arm? Would they keep the sales and marketing teams? Cost post close is my primary reason with the upfront cost being my secondary reason as to why I don't believe Sony acquires a publisher.

I agree in regards to ABK not being worth the price for Sony and their direction where as for Microsoft, I do see them as a good fit but behind Bethesda in the same regard.

Good point. That's the condition of being a publicly-traded company after all.

Thanks.

It was smart for MS to do that, but it's also one of the points which was raised shortly after the acquisition announcement as a point of concern by investigating bodies. The idea that they may've waited for the value to drop, and not only that but perhaps influencing factors in the market that directly dropped the stock price, was and still might be a point of contention as deliberations over the acquisition carry on.

I don't see the concern simply because Microsoft didn't inquire if ABK was for sale. Kotick went to them after Facebook because he was looking to get out of dodge. lol. Only reason the sale happened was because of all the legal shit. It's not Microsoft went in there and did a hostile takeover or some shit. I simply see this as a company fucking up and Microsoft taking advantage of their fuck up.

Yeah, agreed. The sports analogy doesn't completely work, but it still does in a significant way.

True. It's not a perfect analogy but I figured that you would understand my point of view especially if you're a sports fan.

Well TBF, the Series S was a big gamble and it could still cause issues down the road depending on how marquee, technically-intensive Xbox 1P games leverage the Series systems (do they target Series X and "scale down" or target Series S and "scale up"?). It was also a gamble because the majority of the customers who tend to buy consoles cheaper in the gen...wait until a few years before doing so.

MS's idea for Series S was mainly off the fact that they felt component prices would not reduce enough over the gen to result in meaningful price drops, which means they are probably not expecting Series X to get any lower than $399 and (IMO) Series S any lower than $249, until perhaps maybe 2-3 years from now they are just better off replacing them with tiered hardware upgrades altogether in the same product family. And for sure, MS could not have accounted for the pandemic, or the (possibly) incoming recession; those are just wild unfortunate factors that might have helped out Series S.

But now, with that said, I think it does set something of a precedent going forward and I think Sony will mimic some form of that approach in the future. Actually, they arguably did it first with PS TV and PS4, though PS TV only allowed for Remote Play streaming of PS4 games. This is all also a reason I've been adamant on the idea of Sony redoing that approach: a new PS portable that can play all PS4 games on the go, maybe get some scaled-down ports of certain PS5 games, stream the rest of PS5 games via Remote Play, and provide an extension of PS4 on the market and an option for certain developers who'd like a more powerful portable while also knowing those games can be played on PS4s & PS5 systems.

That could basically be Sony's answer for a Series S-type device in their product line, and I think it'd be pretty successful as long as it's marketed right. It's not "really" a successor to PS Vita the way I'd envision it, more a (true) portable PS4, an extension of that. I know everyone wants to say "But Steam Deck already exists!". Well, yes it does, but it's still not an actual portable PS4, it falls short in some ways and it can't benefit from Sony's ecosystem the way an actual PlayStation device can.

I agree with you here on almost everything. I will say that games that are current generation only, I assume they develop them on PC and then scale down to Series X and then Series S. If it's a cross-gen game which they're basically done with, I think they upscaled but at the same time, looking at Forza Horizon 5, it could be on a studio by studio basis.

Price wise and not including mid-gen, I can see Series X dropping to $400 and Series S dropping to $200 for Holiday 2024.

I disagree with Sony having their own handheld for three reasons - first, they would be oversaturating their own market. PS5/PSVR 2/PSP 2. I think asking consumers to support all three or two of them is asking too much in my opinion. Second reason is that unless Sony has their top tier studios (Naughty Dog, Insomniac, etc.) create games exclusively for it, I don't see the point or purpose to be honest. Third reason is due to cell phones. In all honesty, I don't see any benefit for Sony (or Microsoft) to do a handheld because of cell phones. Use what vast majority of consumers already own and use on a daily basis.

Well, at least at launch the PS5 DE wasn't that much cheaper to manufacture than the Disc one, and they sold for a bigger loss. Also they probably projected the vast majority of demand was for the disc-based model.

However, they've made several changes to lower the BOM and might either have already, or are planning to, switch to 6nm among some other things, to reign in production costs even more. They already make a small profit off the disc-based models alone; they would obviously want to increase that profit margin and also make sure the DE can enable some similar profits off the hardware alone.

Funny thing is that with Sony's first party games selling 80% digitally that you would think that they would push the Digital Edition which granted, they lose money on the sale but they'll get much more money put back into their eco-system since it would be all digital.

I wonder if the 6nm will be for a PS5 Slim model or a PS5 Pro model. I am expecting mid-gen consoles from both Microsoft and Sony.

Well, best of luck to their 1P teams because they are going to need it. IMO MS have too much on their plate, they took on too many new teams and not enough time stabilizing and fully building up the few they already had, but that's all basically in the past now. At the end of the day, they have to make sure these teams are set up well and curated in a way wherein they can go beyond their previous results.

I agree with you in regards to Microsoft not having everything setup but at the same time, studios setup or not, when you have an opportunity to acquire a massive major AAA publisher like ABK, you do it and worry about the other stuff later on. Besides, like I have said before, what Microsoft is doing isn't even for the current generation. It's for future generations and the best way to build for that is by making acquisitions now.

Personally, I have confidence in the majority of their studios. The few exceptions would be 343 which we already know about, Rare which I don't care about, The Initiative long term but im more confident with them having Crystal Dynamics develop Perfect Dark and to a lesser extent, Undead Labs with State of Decay 3. But other than them, I don't really have any concerns as of now.

No, what they should've done with Bleeding Edge was help polish it and time its release as a cross-gen effort for XBO & Xbox Series's launch. There really wasn't a reason they couldn't of done this IMO. It would've given the game more time to polish, and gotten it more promotion. Maybe if they did that, the game would still be around.

There's another issue, too, and it's been with the rather hefty delays for certain games. I know all devs suffered from the impacts of COVID and the lockdowns, but it does say a lot that Sony teams such as GG and Insomniac were able to still bring out games in a timely fashion or without too big of delays.

In general, I agree in regards to Bleeding Edge but personally, it wasn't for me so I don't have any issue with it being dead.

In fairness though, Sony's games were a lot further along and either had a lot of time since their last release or in the case of Miles Morales, more of an expansion turned into a separate game. I will say that HFW should have gotten a few more months though because I had more technical issues in that game than all 20 Sony published games that I completed during the PS4 generation and that includes Days Gone. Even when I started a replay of HFW a few weeks ago, when I went to start the game, I had a game app error that kicked me out to the home screen and this happened twice. I was like, wow, how is this even possible after last gen? smh lol

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

It's not just the acquisition cost, it's more about the cost post close. Would Sony keep all the employees? Would they keep the publishing arm? Would they keep the sales and marketing teams? Cost post close is my primary reason with the upfront cost being my secondary reason as to why I don't believe Sony acquires a publisher.

Again I think it depends on the size. The whole Sony/ABK thing was a thought experiment on my part; I don't think there's any real-world scenario where they would've considered buying them, and not just for the additional costs post-acquisition you mention.

It's normal that some stuff get trimmed after an acquisition, especially when retaining everything could cause bloat. IMO it's most crucial the actual development talent be kept more than anything, that's as important if not more important than the tech and IP you may get. It may sound mean, but if the publishing arm is small enough and its job can be filled by a current one, then it can go. Sales and marketing people? Same thing.

I'm not saying they aren't important. However, they're not the lifeblood of companies or the reason why a lot of these acquisitions in gaming are getting done in the first place. The BIG reasons are dev talent, IP, and tech.

I agree in regards to ABK not being worth the price for Sony and their direction where as for Microsoft, I do see them as a good fit but behind Bethesda in the same regard.

Thanks.

NP. I know we have some disagreements on this stuff but I think we also see some things the same way so it balances itself out

I don't see the concern simply because Microsoft didn't inquire if ABK was for sale. Kotick went to them after Facebook because he was looking to get out of dodge. lol. Only reason the sale happened was because of all the legal shit. It's not Microsoft went in there and did a hostile takeover or some shit. I simply see this as a company fucking up and Microsoft taking advantage of their fuck up.

That's basically what it is, yes. But I do think the public statements from some of these companies adversely affected ABK's stock price and exacerbated the problem.

They'd of still ended up in the same place, I just think it'd of been a little later down the road a few months. Maybe we'd be hearing of the acquisition now instead of back in January, y'know. That sort of thing.

True. It's not a perfect analogy but I figured that you would understand my point of view especially if you're a sports fan.

I'm not big into sports tbh

I agree with you here on almost everything. I will say that games that are current generation only, I assume they develop them on PC and then scale down to Series X and then Series S. If it's a cross-gen game which they're basically done with, I think they upscaled but at the same time, looking at Forza Horizon 5, it could be on a studio by studio basis.

Well technically speaking, all software development's on PC, the matter is more so if the PC dev environment is suited to the specifications of the console and what console spec the game is being targeted to perform at.

Nowadays the consoles are x86-based (x86-64 based, specifically), so PCs are pretty much the standard for software development and devs use SDK packages with API libraries provided by the platform holders, and MAY use devkits for certain parts of the development testing, otherwise they're just usually using pretty beefy PCs but make sure to compile and run the games at settings targeting a given console, then use the devkits to run the code on an actual console profile to check.

It's probably not that different in practice to the way it's always been done TBH; older consoles didn't have OSes so some form of a PC or microcomputer had to be used. Difference being, older games were either coded in assembly or C, and console devkits had compilers for compiling the code to run onto them. It's just really the OSes and microarchitectures which have changed (and the switch to higher-level languages). Although I'm just guessing on this; I haven't actually programmed a full game and I'm not in the industry in such a position.

Price wise and not including mid-gen, I can see Series X dropping to $400 and Series S dropping to $200 for Holiday 2024.

Guess we'll see. I think they could actually reach those prices on the regular, but maybe not until holiday 2025.

I disagree with Sony having their own handheld for three reasons - first, they would be oversaturating their own market. PS5/PSVR 2/PSP 2. I think asking consumers to support all three or two of them is asking too much in my opinion. Second reason is that unless Sony has their top tier studios (Naughty Dog, Insomniac, etc.) create games exclusively for it, I don't see the point or purpose to be honest. Third reason is due to cell phones. In all honesty, I don't see any benefit for Sony (or Microsoft) to do a handheld because of cell phones. Use what vast majority of consumers already own and use on a daily basis.

Again, I don't bring up a new Sony handheld as a "PSP 2", I think that boat has mostly sailed (plus PS Vita was already PSP 2 :/). My idea of a new Sony handheld is that it provides a fluid, flawless portability option in their ecosystem, it's a native extension for PS4 content and a mostly-streaming extension of PS5 content.

The benefit is that for Sony, they're able to control what goes into the spec, the build quality, and the OS experience. For people already in the ecosystem, it gives them another option with full user data with other devices already in the ecosystem, and PS+ benefits rolling over. For smaller developers, especially those in Asian regions like Japan, it could give a good, viable alternative to the aging Switch while also allowing games they make for it, 100% compatible with PS4 and PS5 consoles. And for even people outside the ecosystem like Nintendo fans, it helps put a bit more pressure on Nintendo to ensure Switch 2's specs aren't completely lagging behind it or Steam Deck, and that also benefits 3P developers globally.

Using cell phones as a reason a new Sony portable shouldn't exist doesn't make sense, because by that logic the same argument can be made against the Switch or Switch 2. Ultimately, it's about the games, the ecosystem, and the features. Sony can guarantee a much better experience on all three fronts by having control over the portability option themselves and that includes hardware-wise.

Funny thing is that with Sony's first party games selling 80% digitally that you would think that they would push the Digital Edition which granted, they lose money on the sale but they'll get much more money put back into their eco-system since it would be all digital.

In some way that makes sense, but also gotta keep in mind a sizable chunk of that 80% could be people who still prefer the physical option maybe for legacy PS4 games, or maybe even for Blu-Ray films or the chance that PS1 & PS2 discs can be used again. They may also buy 3P games physically, but Sony games digitally.

That may sound weird, but some people are like that.

I wonder if the 6nm will be for a PS5 Slim model or a PS5 Pro model. I am expecting mid-gen consoles from both Microsoft and Sony.

I agree with the idea that 6nm will likely be for a new PS5 Slim and maybe a more cost-effective version of Series X and S. However I'm still 50/50 on Pro-style midgen refreshes happening. If they do, it probably won't be until late 2024 or 2025, even.

I agree with you in regards to Microsoft not having everything setup but at the same time, studios setup or not, when you have an opportunity to acquire a massive major AAA publisher like ABK, you do it and worry about the other stuff later on. Besides, like I have said before, what Microsoft is doing isn't even for the current generation. It's for future generations and the best way to build for that is by making acquisitions now.

Hope you're right, because I'd hate to see ABK (or Zenimax for that matter) be squandered under MS's watch or barely evolve/grow as devs under their wing. That to me would be a worst outcome than devs under them getting shut down. I still say MS upper management at Xbox division needs some serious new blood. Will they get it? That's anyone's guess.

Personally, I have confidence in the majority of their studios. The few exceptions would be 343 which we already know about, Rare which I don't care about, The Initiative long term but im more confident with them having Crystal Dynamics develop Perfect Dark and to a lesser extent, Undead Labs with State of Decay 3. But other than them, I don't really have any concerns as of now.

The two that stand out there are 343i and Rare, because those are longtime 1P devs for MS. They will eventually have to do something to fix them up for the better, I'm still expecting some massive restructuring for them both, but particularly 343i. Rare they can be more lenient with because SoT has been pulling its own weight these days, can't say the same for Halo under 343i.

I think it's kind of embarrassing that Perfect Dark's future hinges more so on a 3P developer than a 1P group MS built from the ground-up, again it presents terrible optics for their leadership when it comes to studio management. If they can make PD work, that's great, but CD have more to prove these days than they did in the past. Ironically it feels like they've been creeping into a situation Core Design found themselves in during the 2000s, just hope Crystal Dynamics can avoid a similar fate (TBF they haven't produced anything broken like Angel of Darkness, but Avengers was a massive blow to their reputation).

In fairness though, Sony's games were a lot further along and either had a lot of time since their last release or in the case of Miles Morales, more of an expansion turned into a separate game. I will say that HFW should have gotten a few more months though because I had more technical issues in that game than all 20 Sony published games that I completed during the PS4 generation and that includes Days Gone. Even when I started a replay of HFW a few weeks ago, when I went to start the game, I had a game app error that kicked me out to the home screen and this happened twice. I was like, wow, how is this even possible after last gen? smh lol

I wonder if that error is specific to PS5? Because in the times I've fired up HFW I never had it crash and boot me out to the Home screen, but I'm using a base PS4 (for now).

Maybe it's true some of Sony's games were further along and that's why they've been able to weather the effects of COVID better, but it's not like a lot of them have had magnitudes more time than MS's teams. We can assume, for example, that Everwild started development at least back in late 2017, before SoT's release, albeit with a very small team perhaps. I don't know how big or complex that game's meant to be, but from 2018 to 2022 would be four years.

Conversely, HFW may've started dev back in early-mid 2016, so let's say it's had roughly a 6-year dev cycle (or just about). Yes that's more time than Everwild would've had, but it's also a very big game, probably bigger than what Everwild will end up being, and a more technically demanding game as well. Honestly speaking, would Everwild really need six years in development, for what kind of game it's likely to be? I don't think so. And, if it were on a typical dev timeline, we could expect the game in 2023 at latest and probably would have heard more about it this year.

 

[peter42O]

Again I think it depends on the size. The whole Sony/ABK thing was a thought experiment on my part; I don't think there's any real-world scenario where they would've considered buying them, and not just for the additional costs post-acquisition you mention.

It's normal that some stuff get trimmed after an acquisition, especially when retaining everything could cause bloat. IMO it's most crucial the actual development talent be kept more than anything, that's as important if not more important than the tech and IP you may get. It may sound mean, but if the publishing arm is small enough and its job can be filled by a current one, then it can go. Sales and marketing people? Same thing.

I'm not saying they aren't important. However, they're not the lifeblood of companies or the reason why a lot of these acquisitions in gaming are getting done in the first place. The BIG reasons are dev talent, IP, and tech.

I agree with everything you said. I simply believe that Microsoft keeps everything and everyone intact because it's probably easier to implement them into the company. At least, that would be my guess.

NP. I know we have some disagreements on this stuff but I think we also see some things the same way so it balances itself out

Agreed. I wouldn't want to agree on everything anyway with anyone because that would be boring.

That's basically what it is, yes. But I do think the public statements from some of these companies adversely affected ABK's stock price and exacerbated the problem.

They'd of still ended up in the same place, I just think it'd of been a little later down the road a few months. Maybe we'd be hearing of the acquisition now instead of back in January, y'know. That sort of thing.

Agreed. Was just a matter of a time until ABK was sold off once all the shit came out.

I'm not big into sports tbh

Hahaha. I'm mostly an NFL fan. I will watch NBA and MLB when playoffs start just to see who wins.

Well technically speaking, all software development's on PC, the matter is more so if the PC dev environment is suited to the specifications of the console and what console spec the game is being targeted to perform at.

Nowadays the consoles are x86-based (x86-64 based, specifically), so PCs are pretty much the standard for software development and devs use SDK packages with API libraries provided by the platform holders, and MAY use devkits for certain parts of the development testing, otherwise they're just usually using pretty beefy PCs but make sure to compile and run the games at settings targeting a given console, then use the devkits to run the code on an actual console profile to check.

It's probably not that different in practice to the way it's always been done TBH; older consoles didn't have OSes so some form of a PC or microcomputer had to be used. Difference being, older games were either coded in assembly or C, and console devkits had compilers for compiling the code to run onto them. It's just really the OSes and microarchitectures which have changed (and the switch to higher-level languages). Although I'm just guessing on this; I haven't actually programmed a full game and I'm not in the industry in such a position.

Yeah, I don't much in regards to PC stuff but I do know about the x86 architecture and the easy transition from last gen to this gen compared to 360/PS3 to XBO/PS4. I kind of figured that all the games were done on powerful PC's and then use the devkits to make sure the game runs without bricking the console. lol

On a side note - this is why I believe that Sony puts their exclusives on PC day one before the current generation ends. Not just for money and whatnot but because if they're already developing the games on a high end power PC, why not just do it all at the same time? I know that some this would hurt PlayStation consoles but I don't because I see it as two different consumer/user install bases. Someone like me would never ever switch to PC for various reasons so day one on PC doesn't affect me at all. Also, im not someone who puts consoles as being more important than the respective IP itself. Consoles all eventually die but an IP can literally last forever if the company retains the rights.

Guess we'll see. I think they could actually reach those prices on the regular, but maybe not until holiday 2025.

Reason why I say 2024 is because it's connected to what I believe Microsoft should and could do. First, I do believe COD will be fully exclusive to Xbox/PC/Cloud when it gets revealed in June 2024. Second, I believe that Microsoft rolls Gold subscribers into Game Pass Ultimate automatically because I can see July 1st, 2024 (which would start the new fiscal year for Microsoft) being where online co-op/multi-player is completely free. Just need to buy the game or play it via Game Pass. Unless of course, it's a free to play game then it wouldn't matter either way. Third, I can see Microsoft cutting the prices to $400/$200 that Fall/Holiday season and putting COD on the box. Both consoles easily fly off shelves in my opinion.

Basically, I see the above as a one two three punch combo for 2024. COD in my mind is the second biggest game/franchise/IP that can create a paradigm shift. Only one that is bigger is GTA. So having this kind of three punch combo would be extremely difficult to match let alone surpass.

Again, I don't bring up a new Sony handheld as a "PSP 2", I think that boat has mostly sailed (plus PS Vita was already PSP 2 :/). My idea of a new Sony handheld is that it provides a fluid, flawless portability option in their ecosystem, it's a native extension for PS4 content and a mostly-streaming extension of PS5 content.

The benefit is that for Sony, they're able to control what goes into the spec, the build quality, and the OS experience. For people already in the ecosystem, it gives them another option with full user data with other devices already in the ecosystem, and PS+ benefits rolling over. For smaller developers, especially those in Asian regions like Japan, it could give a good, viable alternative to the aging Switch while also allowing games they make for it, 100% compatible with PS4 and PS5 consoles. And for even people outside the ecosystem like Nintendo fans, it helps put a bit more pressure on Nintendo to ensure Switch 2's specs aren't completely lagging behind it or Steam Deck, and that also benefits 3P developers globally.

Using cell phones as a reason a new Sony portable shouldn't exist doesn't make sense, because by that logic the same argument can be made against the Switch or Switch 2. Ultimately, it's about the games, the ecosystem, and the features. Sony can guarantee a much better experience on all three fronts by having control over the portability option themselves and that includes hardware-wise.

I would agree with what you're saying but only if cell phones didn't exist. Switch though is different because it's a hybrid and last I checked, the percentage of those who play it as a handheld is actually small, under 20% or something like that. Also, Nintendo is like two generations give or take behind in tech so it's a different scenario and situation between the two.

How would the handheld receive the games? Is there an SD card like Switch or is it downloading/streaming only? Also, would there be exclusive games to Sony's handheld and if so, are there top tier studios developing them or are they the second and third tier studios? PSP was amazing but that was before cell phones became the norm.

I do agree that Sony could guarantee a much better experience by having their own hardware. I just see it as a waste of money, time and resources. I also see it as over-saturating their own market (PS5, PSVR2 and a handheld? That's asking consumers to buy too much in my opinion.) and they would be dependent on hoping that it sells enough to make it worth the investment and continued investment where as with cell phones, the user install base is already there - you just have to get them interested into trying the games/service.

This is where I believe a subscription service with streaming (which they basically have) also comes into play because people could just sign up for PlayStation Cloud or whatever they would call it, get games in the subscription service and grow the overall platform and eco-system.

For transparency though, I do want to say that personally, I have zero interest in mobile/handheld/portable gaming. I owned a 3DS for maybe a month a decade ago and the original Game Boy for a year or two (honestly, don't remember how long) 30 years ago. This "market" isn't for me. lol

With that said, I do see Microsoft's direction in this regard as brilliant because they know the devices are basically already out there. They just need to get people into it. This is why I can see Microsoft having a $5 Cloud only subscription service for Game Pass once they get it on TV's and whatnot. Why force consumers to buy a handheld which considering the tech could cost close or as much as the console itself when they already have the handheld sitting in their pocket?

In some way that makes sense, but also gotta keep in mind a sizable chunk of that 80% could be people who still prefer the physical option maybe for legacy PS4 games, or maybe even for Blu-Ray films or the chance that PS1 & PS2 discs can be used again. They may also buy 3P games physically, but Sony games digitally.

That may sound weird, but some people are like that.

I understand this but at the same time, I disagree simply because if you're a physical gamer (I like disc, digital and subscription) and want to play discs, why buy the Digital only console to begin with? I can see some people being desperate and just wanting one or they just weren't paying attention to what they were buying. Either way, I see this percentage as being very small. I could have gotten the PS5 Digital console sooner but I waited until I was able to get the Disc Edition.

I agree with the idea that 6nm will likely be for a new PS5 Slim and maybe a more cost-effective version of Series X and S. However I'm still 50/50 on Pro-style midgen refreshes happening. If they do, it probably won't be until late 2024 or 2025, even.

My guess if mid-gen happens is Holiday 2024. PS4 Pro released three years after the base PS4 and Xbox One X was four years after the base Xbox One. I believe the current generation goes eight years to November 2028 so my guess for mid-gen is well, in the middle of the generation. lol

I personally don't want mid-gen consoles but in all honesty, I am expecting them so im already prepared for them. I think Sony eliminates the variable speeds of the GPU/CPU and goes with fixed clocks, increases the GPU to 12TF and includes a 1TB SSD. I think Microsoft keeps the specs mostly the same but increases the GPU to 14TF as I don't see Microsoft ever losing the power narrative ever again as I don't believe that they want another Xbox One situation.

Hope you're right, because I'd hate to see ABK (or Zenimax for that matter) be squandered under MS's watch or barely evolve/grow as devs under their wing. That to me would be a worst outcome than devs under them getting shut down. I still say MS upper management at Xbox division needs some serious new blood. Will they get it? That's anyone's guess.

I agree with the first part. I want them all to excel. I don't believe that all of them will though. There will be two or three out of both ABK and Bethesda that just simply don't work out simply based on percentages. The more studios, the higher the percentage that things don't work out for every studio.

I like Spencer and can't bash him because if it wasn't for him convincing Nadella to keep Xbox and invest into it (which they've done far more than anyone including myself was expecting them to do), the Xbox gaming division would have been shut down.

Instead of new blood, I believe that Spencer and Booty simply should be more hands on and want updates/progress reports/etc. every 3 months during full production. I believe this would solve a lot of the issues. Because even if you add new blood but they're hands off, I don't believe that anything would change. I see it more as the direction and approach as opposed to the personnel.

Of course, I don't believe that every studio needs to be overseen. I put 343 Industries (no comment, we already know, lol), Rare (Everwild team only, Sea of Thieves team doesn't appear to have any issues and are very good when it comes to releasing new content on a consistent basis), The Initiative (even though is more post-launch of Perfect Dark as im much more confident in them now with Gallagher leading his former studio in Crystal Dynamics), Bethesda Game Studios (I think Howard is one of the industry's best but they rely too heavily on the same setup as previous games instead of evolving especially when it comes to visuals and polish) and Undead Labs (this studio definitely needs oversight in my opinion).

That's 5 studios out of 22 excluding ABK since Microsoft doesn't officially own them yet. The other 17 studios I see them as just starting projects just prior to being acquired or shortly thereafter and due to Covid and almost none of them being setup to work at home, put them behind schedule. Quick (lol) rundown -

1. Alpha Dog Studio

Strictly a mobile gaming studio.

2. Arkane

Two Studios. Arkane Lyon studio released Deathloop for PS5 last September and is working on the Xbox port for it's release this Fall. Arkane Austin is currently working on Redfall which is currently set for early 2023. No interest in Deathloop but really looking forward to Redfall.

3. Compulsion Games

They released We Happy Few in August 2018 and three expansions in 2019. Rumored to be currently working on a single player third person action adventure game. Small studio but they are bigger than they were and still ramping up. Not expecting to see their new game until 2023 with there being a slim chance at The Game Awards in December.

4. Double Fine

Released Psychonauts 2 in August 2021. Are already working on multiple projects.

5. Id Software

Released Doom Eternal in early 2020 and then released The Ancient Gods Part 1 and 2 in 2021. Currently working on a new project which has been heavily rumored to be a reboot of Quake.

6. InXile Entertainment

Released Wasteland 3 for Embracer Group via Deep Silver in August 2020. Released two expansions in 2021. Currently working on a rumored steampunk first person RPG and a second title that some have speculated could be Dune related. Looking forward to seeing the steampunk game and if their second project ends up being Dune, I will be looking forward to seeing that as well. I can see their steampunk game getting revealed in 2023 with a slim chance for The Game Awards in December.

7. Machine Games

Been over three years since their last release which was Wolfenstein Youngblood that turned out to be their worst game released thus far. Had been working on Wolfenstein 3 but that game has apparently been put on hold for Indiana Jones. The three previous Wolfenstein games were really good and it will be interesting to see how Indiana Jones turns out. I am hoping it's more Tomb Raider than Uncharted oriented. I can say that im looking forward to it but would prefer Wolfenstein 3 first so that series can be wrapped up.

8. Mojang

Currently working on Minecraft Legends. Released Minecraft Dungeons in May 2020. And of course, continue to work on Minecraft itself. No interest in this studio but will most likely always be the Minecraft studio and nothing else.

9. Ninja Theory

Released Bleeding Edge in March 2020. As we know, it's dead and buried. Currently working on Hellblade 2 which looks great and Project Mara which I have no interest in. I expect Hellblade 2 to be a visual showcase and surpass the first game in every way.

10. Obsidian Entertainment

Multiple studios. Grounded will be leaving game preview with the full release being in September. Been in game preview since July 2020. Game has been a big hit for Microsoft which no one including myself saw coming. The small 15 or so person team will continue to add to the game. Josh Sawyer's Pentiment releases this Fall. Not for me personally but I believe that it will be an 80 or so rated game. Avowed is their big game, a first person RPG set in the Pillars of Eternity universe. Still waiting to see gameplay but I am looking forward to it when the time comes. The Outer Worlds 2 is in early development but after the success of the first game in October 2019, a sequel was pretty much guaranteed. Obsidian in my eyes is similar to Insomniac. Always releasing great games in the 80 range but still waiting for that breakout hit. Insomniac became massive due to Spider Man. Will see what happens with Obsidian but their quality is high and consistent.

11. Playground Games

Released Forza Horizon 5 last November and their first expansion (Hot Wheels) several weeks ago. This studio is arguably Microsoft's best. Currently working on the Fable reboot which was shown in July 2020. Hoping to see gameplay in 2023. Will probably be a 2024 release if I had to guess. Hoping that Fable is to Playground what Horizon was to Guerrilla.

12. Roundhouse Studios

Currently support studio for Arkane Austin on Redfall but also working on a new game. I'm personally hoping that it's the Prey bounty hunter game that was cancelled years ago.

13. Tango Gameworks

Released Ghostwire Tokyo in March for PS5. Currently working on the Xbox port. Second game in development led by John Johanas who was the lead for The Evil Within 2. I personally feel that they should be making The Evil Within 3 especially since survival horror is hot right now but appears that they won't be going back to that franchise which is a shame.

14. The Coalition

Microsoft's best technical and visual studio. Currently working on Gears 6 but also working on a smaller game that is rumored to released before Gears 6. No worries with The Coalition.

15. Turn 10 Studios

Currently working on Forza Motorsport 8 which is currently set for a Spring 2023 release. I'm not a racing guy but I do believe this will be the standard for simulation racing as Turn 10 has held that crown for over a decade and I don't see them losing it to well, anyone.

16. World's Edge

This studio was formed solely for the Age of Empires franchise. Released Age of Empires IV last year for PC and currently working on the Xbox port.

17. ZeniMax Online Studios

Currently continuing support for The Elder Scrolls Online and working on a new IP using a new game engine. Expected to be an MMORPG but is unconfirmed as of now.

That's my overview of the 17 studios that I don't see any major issues with. The biggest issue would be that they're behind schedule but as long as the games end up being great when they get released and give me an excellent second half of the generation, I will be very happy. Will do an overview of ABK once the acquisition becomes finalized.

 

[peter42O]

The two that stand out there are 343i and Rare, because those are longtime 1P devs for MS. They will eventually have to do something to fix them up for the better, I'm still expecting some massive restructuring for them both, but particularly 343i. Rare they can be more lenient with because SoT has been pulling its own weight these days, can't say the same for Halo under 343i.

I think it's kind of embarrassing that Perfect Dark's future hinges more so on a 3P developer than a 1P group MS built from the ground-up, again it presents terrible optics for their leadership when it comes to studio management. If they can make PD work, that's great, but CD have more to prove these days than they did in the past. Ironically it feels like they've been creeping into a situation Core Design found themselves in during the 2000s, just hope Crystal Dynamics can avoid a similar fate (TBF they haven't produced anything broken like Angel of Darkness, but Avengers was a massive blow to their reputation).

I agree with 343 Industries. I believe that Bonnie Ross should be removed as studio head. Just too many mishaps with her in charge. I would put Staten as the studio head. I do believe that Microsoft should acquire Creative Assembly who have worked with 343 on Halo and could provide stable and long term support for the multi-player/live service aspects for Halo Infinite. Also believed to be working on a Battle Royale for Halo Infinite. Either way, Microsoft should acquire them once the ABK deal is finalized. Can't afford to lose them in my opinion.

I believe that they should switch game engines. Go from SlipSpace to Unreal Engine 5. Main reason being too many people get hired on a temporary basis and by the time they learn the SlipSpace engine, their contract expires. Going to Unreal Engine 5 would make the hiring process so much easier and in theory, more effective and efficient.

Of course, I don't see any of this happening. I think Microsoft and company just ride it out simply because in time, there will be other franchises that simply overtake Halo as being "the franchise" for Xbox.

Rare as I mentioned above has a great team for Sea of Thieves. Game is massive and they release quality content on a consistent basis. The second team which is for Everwild are a clusterfuck. Almost three years since announcement and nothing but two CGI trailers. Personally, I would cancel the game but that's just me. With so many studios, projects and teams for Xbox, Microsoft can give this project much more time to see if it progresses.

As for The Initiative, personally, they hired too many top tier people which made it a "too many chefs in the kitchen scenario". There's only one chef and that's Gallagher. I'm happy they got rid of a lot of people or that they just left. Works for me because I can easily see people clashing because they all thought they had final say and they didn't. Bringing in Crystal Dynamics was a damn good move because that's Gallagher's former studio and team so he knows probably like 99% of people there and they know they will be working for him. Also, Microsoft moving quickly to bring in Crystal Dynamics shows that in some cases, they won't sit around waiting. Hiring for all studios and companies has been a pain in the ass for the last three years so instead of doing that, why not get the studio that Gallagher led for years prior to joining Microsoft? This is such a perfect fit. My only major issue is that Microsoft didn't acquire Crystal Dynamics last September when this agreement was announced. I was hoping for Microsoft to acquire them, drop The Initiative name and have Gallagher lead the studio/team that's working on Perfect Dark. I know majority believe that Perfect Dark will be first person but I believe that it will be third person and that it should be. It's a reboot first and foremost, only existed because Nintendo couldn't renew the GoldenEye 007 license back in the day and with Hitman wrapping up, MGS being dead and Ubisoft taking who knows how long to actually progress and release the Splinter Cell Remake, I see this as the perfect opportunity to have an excellent third person stealth and gadget based adventure game.

As for Crystal Dynamics, I do favor them. I have liked them since the days of Slam N' Jam 95 (non-licensed basketball game on 3DO that was ported to Saturn and PlayStation). The Tomb Raider reboot in 2013 was great, Rise of the Tomb Raider was excellent and my 2016 goty. Shadow took a step back gameplay/combat wise but Eidos Montreal was the lead studio, not Crystal Dynamics. As for The Avengers, that's all on Square Enix in my opinion. The first few missions are excellent but the game completely falls apart once all the loot based garbage kicks in. Avengers should have been like Guardians of the Galaxy. A straight forward third person single player story driven game. Instead, it was a loot based RPG which didn't work at all.

Out of the 5 studios I listed above in regards to "concerns", The Initiative as of now is the least of them because I am confident in Gallagher and Crystal Dynamics. I'm also looking forward to the next Tomb Raider game. As long as Embracer keeps the budget high and stays out of their way, Crystal Dynamics should get back to what they were pre-Avengers.

I wonder if that error is specific to PS5? Because in the times I've fired up HFW I never had it crash and boot me out to the Home screen, but I'm using a base PS4 (for now).

Maybe it's true some of Sony's games were further along and that's why they've been able to weather the effects of COVID better, but it's not like a lot of them have had magnitudes more time than MS's teams. We can assume, for example, that Everwild started development at least back in late 2017, before SoT's release, albeit with a very small team perhaps. I don't know how big or complex that game's meant to be, but from 2018 to 2022 would be four years.

Conversely, HFW may've started dev back in early-mid 2016, so let's say it's had roughly a 6-year dev cycle (or just about). Yes that's more time than Everwild would've had, but it's also a very big game, probably bigger than what Everwild will end up being, and a more technically demanding game as well. Honestly speaking, would Everwild really need six years in development, for what kind of game it's likely to be? I don't think so. And, if it were on a typical dev timeline, we could expect the game in 2023 at latest and probably would have heard more about it this year.

I don't know if it's PS5 specific. I go to options/settings and adjust my stuff and when going to start a new game, that error popped up. Happened twice and I just said fuck it. I had a ton of issues with HFW. I had a few crashes throughout my original playthrough. I had one main quest where the button prompt never appears at the end of the quest and thus, couldn't continue. Had to load an earlier save, lost an hour of progress and did different things in order to change up how that main quest goes and thankfully, it worked. Had Aloy freeze in the animation when opening up a car door to get the loot in it. I even fast traveled and she was in the stuck animation when the game loaded me back into the world. It was so funny. Then I had a side quest where a machine literally went into the ground and I couldn't kill it and thus couldn't complete the side quest. Got past this on my third reload by throwing bombs and killing the enemies off quickly. HFW needed at least 3 more months for polishing and considering the behemoth that Elden Ring has become, delaying HFW would have been a better decision in my opinion.

I agree with everything you said about Everwild. From what I have seen reported, it seems that they have a concept but can't get it off the ground and struggle with how they want to progress. Don't know how true this is but I wouldn't be surprised if it's accurate. Rare does have two teams and Sea of Thieves has been a massive hit for them and Microsoft so Everwild being a potential clusterfuck doesn't hurt/impact as much as if Sea of Thieves would have bombed.

Now, I will say that the Everwild example is why I don't want Microsoft to stop acquiring publishers and/or development studios because when one studio is just fucking up completely for whatever reason, it just won't matter in the grand scheme of things due to the fact of how many studios, teams and projects/games that Microsoft has in development. If this was 5+ years ago, then Everwild being a possible clusterfuck would be a massive negative and huge issue but when you have so many other studios, teams and games in development, it can easily be absorbed. Also, it allows Microsoft to perhaps give that team at Rare more time to figure out how they want to proceed.

Let's say that for example, after the ABK acquisition goes through, that Microsoft has 50 studios (not including those with multiple teams/studios within) and 10 of them are a rare situation with Everwild. That's 20% of their studios and while that may look bad, if the other 80% is hitting, no one including myself is going to care about that 20% missing.

And none of the above includes Global Publishing which is third party exclusives like Contraband, the rumored MMORPG by IO Interactive or the rumored Monster Hunter type game from Certain Affinity.

I simply give Microsoft a lot of leeway this generation mainly because I went into this generation with the mindset that they have this entire generation to prove to me that they're worth having as a primary gaming console and that it would only be fair to do since I did the same with Sony last generation and trust me, until 2016 (was more 2017 but I'll say 2016) Sony had nothing but a few 7.0/10 games and a single 6.5/10 game pre-2016 for PS4. And most of all, outside of Naughty Dog, none of their studios ever gave me anything of interest until 2017.

Also, going into this generation, all I truly wanted was to see Microsoft take gaming seriously and invest into Xbox. It's safe to say that they have on both accounts. Even if I subtract ABK and Bethesda, they've still done more than ever before in their entire Xbox history by adding 7 studios and founding 1. This alone showed me that they were serious about investing into Xbox. Bethesda proved it and erased any doubts I could ever have about them not being serious or wanting to invest into Xbox.

As an Xbox fan, obviously, I have been disappointed overall but that's more due to the fact that Sony has hit for me with Miles, Ratchet, HFW for the most part and the upcoming GOWR where as last generation, neither side gave me anything at an 8/10 or higher level until 2016. If I go based on the same time frame for this generation, 2023 would be last generation's 2016 and if Microsoft hits for me next year, I truly can't complain especially after the Xbox One generation.

If they don't then we'll definitely be discussing it in a year from now.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I agree with everything you said. I simply believe that Microsoft keeps everything and everyone intact because it's probably easier to implement them into the company. At least, that would be my guess.

For Microsoft it probably is, they can cover the extra overhead and it's quicker versus deciding who has to go and what positions are redundant needing to be axed. It might contribute to some bloat, but they're the type of company that can bear such bloat so I guess it's fine.

Agreed. I wouldn't want to agree on everything anyway with anyone because that would be boring.

Amen to that.

Yeah, I don't much in regards to PC stuff but I do know about the x86 architecture and the easy transition from last gen to this gen compared to 360/PS3 to XBO/PS4. I kind of figured that all the games were done on powerful PC's and then use the devkits to make sure the game runs without bricking the console. lol

That's pretty much how it's likely done tbh, considering the devkits also usually have extra RAM to account for unoptimized assets and code and prevent the build from crashing.

On a side note - this is why I believe that Sony puts their exclusives on PC day one before the current generation ends. Not just for money and whatnot but because if they're already developing the games on a high end power PC, why not just do it all at the same time? I know that some this would hurt PlayStation consoles but I don't because I see it as two different consumer/user install bases. Someone like me would never ever switch to PC for various reasons so day one on PC doesn't affect me at all. Also, im not someone who puts consoles as being more important than the respective IP itself. Consoles all eventually die but an IP can literally last forever if the company retains the rights.

For me it's not even just down to matter of exclusivity; I think Day 1 on PC for all games can hurt the optimization process. Keep in mind, these games are getting bigger and more complex, more moving parts and more things that have to be accounted for. If you're developing for just a single platform primarily at the launch and for the first year or two, that gives you enough time not only to prioritize optimizations for that one version before it launches, but also prioritize any patches needed expediently, AND afford time for the other ports (such as to PC) to be highly optimized by the time they're ready to go. The fact you thoroughly exhaust the audience capacity on the side of the 1st platform before expanding out to the other is just a nice convenience mixed in.

Let's just think about HFW for a moment; it's no secret there were some bugs outside of normal for it at launch, and it also happened to be a cross-gen game, meaning PS4, PS4 Pro and PS5 versions all released simultaneously. It was also probably in the thick of its development during the worst part of the COVID lockdowns, too. Now imagine they had a PC version Day 1 back in February. I highly doubt the patches which came post-launch would have arrived as soon as they did, and I strongly think the game could've had even more bugs across all the versions if that approach was taken.

Reason why I say 2024 is because it's connected to what I believe Microsoft should and could do. First, I do believe COD will be fully exclusive to Xbox/PC/Cloud when it gets revealed in June 2024. Second, I believe that Microsoft rolls Gold subscribers into Game Pass Ultimate automatically because I can see July 1st, 2024 (which would start the new fiscal year for Microsoft) being where online co-op/multi-player is completely free. Just need to buy the game or play it via Game Pass. Unless of course, it's a free to play game then it wouldn't matter either way. Third, I can see Microsoft cutting the prices to $400/$200 that Fall/Holiday season and putting COD on the box. Both consoles easily fly off shelves in my opinion.

I dunno man; that's a LOT of money they're cutting out of their revenue stream in only a year. Like think of it this way: you're cutting out PlayStation (even tho Phil's already on record saying they'd like to bring COD to the Switch so I don't know how that works), you're cutting out potentially (big) amount of Xbox & PC sales due to putting it in GamePass Day 1, you're cutting out potential revenue from the consoles (whether MS makes money off console sales or not is probably up for debate), you're (basically) cutting out subscription revenue if you roll over Gold subs to GamePass at Gold rates too.

That's a LOT of money the console division is shaving off in the span of a year if they do everything suggested there; considering the money already having been spent on ABK, do you really think they'll be even more loss-leading in their financial approach with the brand so soon afterwards? I personally think they're going to introduce some cut-down version of GamePass or maybe an ad-supported model and roll Gold subs into that tier. They probably won't put the new CODs on GamePass Day 1, BUT I can see them doing a one-month early access release (think FH5) where maybe the game releases exclusively on Xbox a month ahead of PS5, and maybe then they bring it to GamePass Ultimate tier and out on other consoles after that month.

I think they add some perks in terms of DLC & MTX discounts for GamePass subs, similar to what they're doing with the Riot Games stuff on PC GamePass. They may do bundles that holiday season with the new COD included in Series S and X consoles but likely priced at $299 & $499, while non-bundled systems are $249 and $449. Even with that, they still move a ton of systems especially in the NA region where COD is strongest, and IMO it gives them a better means of maximizing their investments.

Basically, I see the above as a one two three punch combo for 2024. COD in my mind is the second biggest game/franchise/IP that can create a paradigm shift. Only one that is bigger is GTA. So having this kind of three punch combo would be extremely difficult to match let alone surpass.

I mean, that can happen, there is a decent chance for it. Such a move would definitely be big in NA territory for the brand. But I think Sony would simultaneously counterbalance that with growth in foreign markets, maybe a more serious push in Japan, and flexing a few 3P exclusives (timed or not).

So I guess that's a way of saying, such a move would definitely give Xbox a bump, but I don't think Sony just sits still and does nothing to try countering it, either. Considering that even with lead marketing on COD last gen, PS4 didn't necessarily blow/obliterate XBO out of the water in NA, and considering the IP could be on a bit of a slide these days, I honestly don't picture Xbox suddenly obliterating PlayStation in NA even with marketing rights and early access to betas. Part of my reason for that thought is, I don't think they remove the individual COD releases off PlayStation.

I would agree with what you're saying but only if cell phones didn't exist. Switch though is different because it's a hybrid and last I checked, the percentage of those who play it as a handheld is actually small, under 20% or something like that. Also, Nintendo is like two generations give or take behind in tech so it's a different scenario and situation between the two.

Technically speaking, it wouldn't take much to use a portable as a hybrid, either. Even with smartphones, you can cast the content to your screen and play your mobile games that way, so would that not make them pseudo-hybrids?

I think the # of people who use it as a handheld, that percentage changes depending on the market. There's no way it's only 20% in Japan, for example. And considering that maybe in certain markets it is that low, it doesn't take a lot for Sony to market a new handheld as such a hybrid-capable device. Just give it a dummy dock, slot the handheld on there via USB-C, put an HDMI port (maybe even an ethernet port) in the dock and you're good to go. All you'd need is a controller but what are the chances someone buying a new PlayStation portable meant to serve as a PS4/PS5 extension, doesn't already have a PS4 or PS5, or at least a Dualshock or DualSense?

How would the handheld receive the games? Is there an SD card like Switch or is it downloading/streaming only? Also, would there be exclusive games to Sony's handheld and if so, are there top tier studios developing them or are they the second and third tier studios? PSP was amazing but that was before cell phones became the norm.

Game delivery could simply be digital. Yes, use an SD card with high capacity, let users download games to it or copy games from their console to it through wifi, ethernet or USB. Software-wise, again it'd mainly serve as an extension for PS4 (native) and PS5 (mostly streaming), maybe with some new games built with it in mind from smaller teams or certain Japanese teams looking for an alternative to Switch, but knowing their games will also be perfectly playable on PS4s and PS5s.

It's not really meant to be its own platform the way PSP or PS Vita were. I'd say view it more like a peripheral providing some mobility functionality for the main devices in the PS4 and PS5, they're all in the same product ecosystem and whatnot.

I do agree that Sony could guarantee a much better experience by having their own hardware. I just see it as a waste of money, time and resources. I also see it as over-saturating their own market (PS5, PSVR2 and a handheld? That's asking consumers to buy too much in my opinion.) and they would be dependent on hoping that it sells enough to make it worth the investment and continued investment where as with cell phones, the user install base is already there - you just have to get them interested into trying the games/service.

Here's the kicker, tho. We're talking about an RDNA2-gen device spec'd to base PS4 performance exactly, no more and no less. It's being sold for a small profit margin (at least) at launch, they can position it as a somewhat more luxury peripheral in the PS product family. At $399 for example it'd bring in good profit on the hardware alone, offer advantages like PS+ and the entire PS4 library playable on the go in a way even devices like Steam Deck cannot provide, not to mention have a decent performance advantage over Steam Deck (outside of a couple of things like RAM capacity and maybe CPU speed, where maybe Steam Deck has an advantage).

It is, quite literally, just a portable extension of the PS4 and PS5, honestly. It's a semi-luxury peripheral for those who want to have a no-nonsense means of playing all their PS4 games on the go, some PS5 games natively on the go, others via streaming; for those who want to have a smaller second PS device in their home to play games on, one that takes up less space, just get the portable and use the dock. Then if you want to take things on the go, you can.

It's not something with the intent of pulling devs away from PS5, splitting resources on software development to make unique games for the portable. Now THAT would be a bad play.

...damn, welp I'll have to reply to the rest in the morning

 

[Darth Vader]

No need to be in denial. Xbox is above Nintendo in revenue, simple as.

What's Xbox's revenue? Because MS does not break up Xbox's revenue in their earnings releases, and Xbox is bundled with "more personal computing", something that includes the Surface, Windows OEM, amongst others.

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https://c.s-microsoft.com/en-us/CMSFiles/SlidesFY22Q4.pptx?version=070ad1a9-5b58-9554-efe7-3162f36099d8

FY22 Q3 - Press Releases - Investor Relations - Microsoft

www.microsoft.com

The only "source" of data for Xbox's is Daniel Ahmad, which provides no sources or methodology as to how he achieves that number.



So please, enlighten me, what Microsoft sources prove your theory?

 

[Bernd Lauert]

What's Xbox's revenue? Because MS does not break up Xbox's revenue in their earnings releases, and Xbox is bundled with "more personal computing", something that includes the Surface, Windows OEM, amongst others.

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https://c.s-microsoft.com/en-us/CMSFiles/SlidesFY22Q4.pptx?version=070ad1a9-5b58-9554-efe7-3162f36099d8

FY22 Q3 - Press Releases - Investor Relations - Microsoft

www.microsoft.com

The only "source" of data for Xbox's is Daniel Ahmad, which provides no sources or methodology as to how he achieves that number.



So please, enlighten me, what Microsoft sources prove your theory?

Easy maths are my source. Microsoft always reports the increase or decrease in revenue in percent for the gaming section alone. With that you can easily calculate the revenue for gaming.

 

[Darth Vader]

Easy maths are my source. Microsoft always reports the increase or decrease in revenue in percent for the gaming section alone. With that you can easily calculate the revenue for gaming.

So you have no source.

Cool.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Easy maths are my source. Microsoft always reports the increase or decrease in revenue in percent for the gaming section alone. With that you can easily calculate the revenue for gaming.

Think part of the issue is that gaming revenue doesn't necessarily pertain simply to Xbox as in the platform sales, revenue off the consoles (we don't really know the mix of S to X consoles contributing to sales), etc. It also factors in Gold, GamePass, Minecraft revenue across ALL available platforms, etc.

I think when @Dodkrake is talking Xbox revenue, he's specifically referring to the console. 1P software sales on the console devices. 3P revenue on the console devices. Sony and Nintendo are way more transparent on that note, and even though Sony now report revenue from sales on PC, they isolate those figures so it's easy to focus on just the console gaming side. Microsoft simply doesn't do this, let alone again they also have games like Minecraft on pretty much every device under the sun that get their revenue lumped into the gaming division's in reports with no isolated breakdowns.

So it's always forever an open question, as to what the Xbox ecosystem itself, just the sales of the consoles, peripherals for the consoles, 3P software on the consoles and 1P software on the console, is bringing in WRT revenue. Leave the ports to PC out of it, the revenue from PC out of it, the revenue from certain 1P games like Minecraft on non-MS platforms out of it. That at the very least would be nice, considering they don't break down revenue for simply Gold and GamePass, either (IIRC they do report subscription revenue but those two services aren't isolated in their reporting, so it's very hard to figure where GamePass is at in terms of revenue.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Think part of the issue is that gaming revenue doesn't necessarily pertain simply to Xbox as in the platform sales, revenue off the consoles (we don't really know the mix of S to X consoles contributing to sales), etc. It also factors in Gold, GamePass, Minecraft revenue across ALL available platforms, etc.

Same for Playstation. So I think it's comparable.

So you have no source.

Cool.

The source is Microsoft's quarterly/yearly earning reports. Not sure what your problem is lmao

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Same for Playstation. So I think it's comparable.

Lol wat? PS does break down their revenue among 1P revenue, 3P revenue, MTX/DLC sales, console sales (tho not sure if between Disc and Digital versions...not like there are that many Digital Editions out there), etc. Same with services revenue too, they reported PS+ and PS Now when they were separate services for example.

In any case...I'm seeing that MS and several retail partners in NA have an ongoing promotion for Series S. Seems you can get a free game (from a limited selection, one of the games is Elden Ring) alongside the system. Series S only.

If this were for Black Friday or the holiday season, I'd say it's a great deal. Fantastic deal, even, because the selection of games has a few choice cuts in there. However...it's literally barely middle of August. Summer's usually the slower part for console sales, so why is this promotion going at a seemingly random time of the year? My thought is, maybe there is a surplus of Series S units in the distribution pipeline just sitting around, not really selling at volumes they should, and they're pushing this promotion at this time to try clearing out current stock before refreshing the channels with more Series S units for the big shopping holiday season.

The interesting part (at least to me) is this is for North America, so I'm really curious if Series S sales are really slowing down by a notable degree in what is traditionally Xbox's strongest market. That could be potentially worrying, but I guess we'll have to see.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Lol wat? PS does break down their revenue among 1P revenue, 3P revenue, MTX/DLC sales, console sales (tho not sure if between Disc and Digital versions...not like there are that many Digital Editions out there), etc. Same with services revenue too, they reported PS+ and PS Now when they were separate services for example.

The context here was that revenue number information is coming from Zhuge, and he includes the entire revenue generated, no matter which segment.

In any case...I'm seeing that MS and several retail partners in NA have an ongoing promotion for Series S. Seems you can get a free game (from a limited selection, one of the games is Elden Ring) alongside the system. Series S only.

If this were for Black Friday or the holiday season, I'd say it's a great deal. Fantastic deal, even, because the selection of games has a few choice cuts in there. However...it's literally barely middle of August. Summer's usually the slower part for console sales, so why is this promotion going at a seemingly random time of the year? My thought is, maybe there is a surplus of Series S units in the distribution pipeline just sitting around, not really selling at volumes they should, and they're pushing this promotion at this time to try clearing out current stock before refreshing the channels with more Series S units for the big shopping holiday season.

The interesting part (at least to me) is this is for North America, so I'm really curious if Series S sales are really slowing down by a notable degree in what is traditionally Xbox's strongest market. That could be potentially worrying, but I guess we'll have to see.

The target audience for the Series S currently doesn't even really need a Series S. Considering that, the little console has sold very well. I personally always thought that $249 would be the sweet spot price for the S.

 

[peter42O]

For Microsoft it probably is, they can cover the extra overhead and it's quicker versus deciding who has to go and what positions are redundant needing to be axed. It might contribute to some bloat, but they're the type of company that can bear such bloat so I guess it's fine.

Exactly. If they keep everyone, they don't need to find and hire replacements which in general has been a pain in the ass the last three years.

Amen to that.

That's pretty much how it's likely done tbh, considering the devkits also usually have extra RAM to account for unoptimized assets and code and prevent the build from crashing.

Nice. I learned something new. I always wondered why devkits have more RAM than the actual consoles. Thanks.

For me it's not even just down to matter of exclusivity; I think Day 1 on PC for all games can hurt the optimization process. Keep in mind, these games are getting bigger and more complex, more moving parts and more things that have to be accounted for. If you're developing for just a single platform primarily at the launch and for the first year or two, that gives you enough time not only to prioritize optimizations for that one version before it launches, but also prioritize any patches needed expediently, AND afford time for the other ports (such as to PC) to be highly optimized by the time they're ready to go. The fact you thoroughly exhaust the audience capacity on the side of the 1st platform before expanding out to the other is just a nice convenience mixed in.

Let's just think about HFW for a moment; it's no secret there were some bugs outside of normal for it at launch, and it also happened to be a cross-gen game, meaning PS4, PS4 Pro and PS5 versions all released simultaneously. It was also probably in the thick of its development during the worst part of the COVID lockdowns, too. Now imagine they had a PC version Day 1 back in February. I highly doubt the patches which came post-launch would have arrived as soon as they did, and I strongly think the game could've had even more bugs across all the versions if that approach was taken.

If the games are cross-gen, I actually agree with your assessment due to there being too many versions but after GOWR, cross-gen should be dead so every game would just be PS5 and PC. There should also just be a small team that simply optimizes the PC port so it's good to go day one. I do believe that it's just a matter of time to where once the studios are equipped to handle the PC port day one, it will then happen.

I dunno man; that's a LOT of money they're cutting out of their revenue stream in only a year. Like think of it this way: you're cutting out PlayStation (even tho Phil's already on record saying they'd like to bring COD to the Switch so I don't know how that works), you're cutting out potentially (big) amount of Xbox & PC sales due to putting it in GamePass Day 1, you're cutting out potential revenue from the consoles (whether MS makes money off console sales or not is probably up for debate), you're (basically) cutting out subscription revenue if you roll over Gold subs to GamePass at Gold rates too.

That's a LOT of money the console division is shaving off in the span of a year if they do everything suggested there; considering the money already having been spent on ABK, do you really think they'll be even more loss-leading in their financial approach with the brand so soon afterwards? I personally think they're going to introduce some cut-down version of GamePass or maybe an ad-supported model and roll Gold subs into that tier. They probably won't put the new CODs on GamePass Day 1, BUT I can see them doing a one-month early access release (think FH5) where maybe the game releases exclusively on Xbox a month ahead of PS5, and maybe then they bring it to GamePass Ultimate tier and out on other consoles after that month.

I think they add some perks in terms of DLC & MTX discounts for GamePass subs, similar to what they're doing with the Riot Games stuff on PC GamePass. They may do bundles that holiday season with the new COD included in Series S and X consoles but likely priced at $299 & $499, while non-bundled systems are $249 and $449. Even with that, they still move a ton of systems especially in the NA region where COD is strongest, and IMO it gives them a better means of maximizing their investments.

Money wise, yes, it would be a shit ton of money they would be losing. However, as a company, Microsoft can easily absorb and second and even more importantly, it's not about 2024 or even this generation. It's about building for next generation. At this point in 2024, this generation would already be at the halfway point and you need to start building loyalty with consumers who look at everything done and are not just willing to stay with Xbox for the next generation but more importantly, want to stay with Xbox.

Even if the consoles don't get a price cut and Gold stays as is, Microsoft would still be losing money by not releasing the new COD game in 2024 on PlayStation which I do believe Microsoft will keep exclusive so at this point, why not just go all in, take all the losses up front but build a bigger user install base for the platform and eco-system?

My guess is that Microsoft loses money on both consoles. Pretty sure they'll have a chip revision by 2024 that makes them cheaper and to off-set the $100 price decrease. And even if they stayed at $500/$300, they could always do a November/December 2024 Holiday sale where for two months, both are $100 cheaper and then, in January they go back to the original prices. Gold revenue loss would depend on how many subscribers they would be losing but at the same time, they wouldn't really be losing anyone because they would still be subscribed to Ultimate. Vast majority would have to cancel and I don't think many would do that because by this time, their first party games should all be rolling, they have COD and who knows if and what other acquisitions they make by this time.

I think Game Pass stays as is for the current generation with only a $5/month tier for Cloud Streaming only which would mainly be for TV/mobile/tablets but also for those who still own an Xbox One and would want to stream Series X games on that device. I don't see Microsoft going into the tiered direction like Sony did because they simply added two tiers to PlayStation Plus where as Microsoft didn't add tiers to Gold. Instead, they created a separate subscription service - Game Pass. I do believe that next gen, they stay at $10 for the base but increase Ultimate to $20 but include perhaps a second account in the household and add all the DLC/expansions for every first party game into Ultimate. Microsoft also has a Family Plan coming later this year so I don't think they go overboard with all these different options. I think they try to keep it as streamlined and simple as possible.

As for COD, it WILL be on Game Pass day one. In 2018, Microsoft made it simple, EVERY first party game will be day and date on Game Pass. They can't start excluding titles because all that would do is hurt any momentum that they've built over the last few years. Also, as im sure you know, I do believe that COD will be exclusive to Xbox/PC/Cloud because while the 70% revenue from PlayStation is important, building your own platform and eco-system into something bigger is far more important. Also, eliminating the physical editions of COD for PlayStation would also off-set around half of that 70% when you factor in manufacturing, distribution, retailers and those who are manually doing the work for this version. Think of it as addition by subtraction.

I also believe that COD will be a platform starting in 2024. I don't see Microsoft staying with a yearly release which honestly, based on Microsoft's direction for several of their games and whatnot, just wouldn't make much sense. They can still sell you the game and people who only play COD or a few games a year would buy it over playing it on Game Pass. You also have collectors and those who simply just want to own the damn thing. Microsoft can simply release maps and content while having micro-transactions for that cosmetic shit that people for whatever reason love paying for. This will free up all those studios which are basically be wasted away on COD. I would keep this as a platform for the remainder of the generation. Then for next gen, a brand new COD in 2028 which would be current generation exclusive and be a platform for the entirety of next generation. At least this is what I believe they will do. Of course, remains to be seen but this is a golden once in a life time type opportunity and keeping everything the same thing would squander the opportunity. Changing stuff up, I believe will take advantage of the opportunity and as a platform, I believe that more people get invested because they don't have to see their progress or what they've bough waste away a year later. One other note, Microsoft would still be making money off older versions of COD on PlayStation as well as Warzone 2 which is cross-gen and multi-platform. Basically, Microsoft would be just fine in my opinion.

I mean, that can happen, there is a decent chance for it. Such a move would definitely be big in NA territory for the brand. But I think Sony would simultaneously counterbalance that with growth in foreign markets, maybe a more serious push in Japan, and flexing a few 3P exclusives (timed or not).

So I guess that's a way of saying, such a move would definitely give Xbox a bump, but I don't think Sony just sits still and does nothing to try countering it, either. Considering that even with lead marketing on COD last gen, PS4 didn't necessarily blow/obliterate XBO out of the water in NA, and considering the IP could be on a bit of a slide these days, I honestly don't picture Xbox suddenly obliterating PlayStation in NA even with marketing rights and early access to betas. Part of my reason for that thought is, I don't think they remove the individual COD releases off PlayStation.

The biggest market for Sony is Europe and it's thus far close between both companies. I don't see Sony running away with really any region this generation because things are simply different and even if Microsoft fucks up time and time again in regards to delaying games and whatnot, it won't matter that much because those who are casual gamers/fans of gaming will still see Microsoft as being a major player and not just sitting on their ass like they did with Xbox One. For Europe, I believe Microsoft cuts the 33m or so lead that Sony has in half. Granted, 16.5m difference is still big, however, when it was 33m the previous generation, doesn't look so good if you're Sony but looks great if you're Microsoft. Japan isn't a console market and hasn't been for generations. Sony had a slight increase from PS to PS2 but lost more than half of that increase with PS3, declined slightly with PS4. I don't see PS5 going past 10m in Japan. It's simply not a console market. Rest of the world, Microsoft just has to close the gap from last generation. They don't need to win or dominate. They just need to compete, close the gap and have massive momentum going into next generation in what I believe will be November 2028.

I don't believe that Sony does nothing but I do believe that regardless of what they do, the momentum will continue to shift because outside of the 10m or so hardcore nutjobs who'll stay loyal to death, everyone else especially those with kids and families will go with the better value proposition and the fact of being able to save so much money. PS4 is my #1 all time gaming console and I STILL switched to Xbox Series X this generation and my decision was made months before the Bethesda acquisition. Three of the reasons why were - 1) Game Pass. I know im getting first party game day one as well a third party game or two every year. - 2) No price increase for games/no costs for upgrading games. - 3) Refund policy. I have refunded several games in 18 months since owning my Series X including a few $60 games that just weren't worth the money. Granted, there is a limit on this which I did a few months ago until 2023 but knowing that I can take a chance here and there is huge.

It's also not just the addition of COD. It would also be the elimination of Gold which in all honesty, is long overdue especially since the free games fucking suck every month but I do understand why that is. It would also be in addition to well, you just buy the game once and you can play it across multiple devices. I also believe that once Microsoft gets COD exclusive, they cut the price down to $60 to match all their other first party titles.

PS4 beat out XBO by approximately 8m in NA give or take. Let's say XS beats out PS5 this generation by 8m. That would be a 16m turnaround. Overall, in general, it's all about Microsoft gaining ground and closing the gap which I do believe they will simply because despite the lack of any major AAA first party titles in 2022, they have so much to look forward to as an Xbox fan and gamer that a lot of people will feel the same way as I do and simply jump in.

Technically speaking, it wouldn't take much to use a portable as a hybrid, either. Even with smartphones, you can cast the content to your screen and play your mobile games that way, so would that not make them pseudo-hybrids?

I think the # of people who use it as a handheld, that percentage changes depending on the market. There's no way it's only 20% in Japan, for example. And considering that maybe in certain markets it is that low, it doesn't take a lot for Sony to market a new handheld as such a hybrid-capable device. Just give it a dummy dock, slot the handheld on there via USB-C, put an HDMI port (maybe even an ethernet port) in the dock and you're good to go. All you'd need is a controller but what are the chances someone buying a new PlayStation portable meant to serve as a PS4/PS5 extension, doesn't already have a PS4 or PS5, or at least a Dualshock or DualSense?

Japan wise, Switch has sold 25m there so let's just say it's actually 100%. That's still only 25% of the entire Switch user install base. I said 20% in general, not only Japan. I don't know the actual percentage but back in late 2017, it was listed as 30% by Nintendo but I think the number would decrease because most would want to play docked due to getting better visuals and performance. It also depends on the games. I do see 2D and Indie games being massive for handheld mode. But a Mario Odyssey or BOTW, I would think that major games, people would play docked.

I would agree with you 100% if cell phones didn't exist and since the tech in cell phones is getting better, I would think that it's the smarter play as opposed to wasting money, time and resources building the handheld. Also, didn't Sony just release that split controller for cell phones a few weeks ago or am I off on that?

We'll see what Sony does. I'm not a handheld guy so in all honesty, I would prefer Sony to stay away from a handheld and put those resources into the studios for PS5 game which is another issue, would the handheld have it's own exclusive games? This causes an issue because would the top tier studios like Naughty Dog really develop an amazing handheld game? This is also applies to PSVR 2. In all honesty, im very happy that Microsoft is staying away from doing their own VR and handhelds. I don't want to see them do either. Wouldn't mind them allowing Rift VR on Xbox but that's it.

Game delivery could simply be digital. Yes, use an SD card with high capacity, let users download games to it or copy games from their console to it through wifi, ethernet or USB. Software-wise, again it'd mainly serve as an extension for PS4 (native) and PS5 (mostly streaming), maybe with some new games built with it in mind from smaller teams or certain Japanese teams looking for an alternative to Switch, but knowing their games will also be perfectly playable on PS4s and PS5s.

It's not really meant to be its own platform the way PSP or PS Vita were. I'd say view it more like a peripheral providing some mobility functionality for the main devices in the PS4 and PS5, they're all in the same product ecosystem and whatnot.

Here's the kicker, tho. We're talking about an RDNA2-gen device spec'd to base PS4 performance exactly, no more and no less. It's being sold for a small profit margin (at least) at launch, they can position it as a somewhat more luxury peripheral in the PS product family. At $399 for example it'd bring in good profit on the hardware alone, offer advantages like PS+ and the entire PS4 library playable on the go in a way even devices like Steam Deck cannot provide, not to mention have a decent performance advantage over Steam Deck (outside of a couple of things like RAM capacity and maybe CPU speed, where maybe Steam Deck has an advantage).

It is, quite literally, just a portable extension of the PS4 and PS5, honestly. It's a semi-luxury peripheral for those who want to have a no-nonsense means of playing all their PS4 games on the go, some PS5 games natively on the go, others via streaming; for those who want to have a smaller second PS device in their home to play games on, one that takes up less space, just get the portable and use the dock. Then if you want to take things on the go, you can.

It's not something with the intent of pulling devs away from PS5, splitting resources on software development to make unique games for the portable. Now THAT would be a bad play.

So basically, a Sony handheld would be similar to Microsoft's setup using tablets and whatnot but with their own hardware for sale? Or am I misunderstanding?

...damn, welp I'll have to reply to the rest in the morning

Hahaha. Looking forward to reading your replies.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

This is where I believe a subscription service with streaming (which they basically have) also comes into play because people could just sign up for PlayStation Cloud or whatever they would call it, get games in the subscription service and grow the overall platform and eco-system.

Only if the ARPU is sufficient enough and there isn't a drop in revenue from game sales that the subscription ARPU can't cover. There are two ways to ensure that through ARPU: either a smaller body of subscribers who are paying more of the total normal sub cost, or a larger body of subscribers who might be using a lot of deals to get cheaper rates.

In either case, with enough of them you can potentially cover the drop of revenue from sales and still have overall revenue gains. The question is how much would Sony need to ensure that, because their sales targets, software budgets etc. and number of such big AAA productions differs greatly from Microsoft. They would have more needs to be satisfied.

For transparency though, I do want to say that personally, I have zero interest in mobile/handheld/portable gaming. I owned a 3DS for maybe a month a decade ago and the original Game Boy for a year or two (honestly, don't remember how long) 30 years ago. This "market" isn't for me. lol

Fair enough. But, it is a viable market for MANY others, and a lot of them use the Switch as a natural extension of those portables.

With that said, I do see Microsoft's direction in this regard as brilliant because they know the devices are basically already out there. They just need to get people into it. This is why I can see Microsoft having a $5 Cloud only subscription service for Game Pass once they get it on TV's and whatnot. Why force consumers to buy a handheld which considering the tech could cost close or as much as the console itself when they already have the handheld sitting in their pocket?

Right, for Microsoft maybe a handheld makes much less sense. They are already putting GamePass on TVs as apps, they're considering an Apple TV-style box (which, if they do, would pretty much ensure Series S doesn't drop below $249 IMO, they wouldn't want it to encroach on the price range of the even-smaller streaming-focused box), etc. They also are already pushing Xbox and GamePass compatibility on Steam Deck, so that's also a thing.

For Sony, those aren't factors, and them making a portable wouldn't be "forcing" anyone into buying one IMO. It's there as an option, nothing more and nothing less. It wouldn't have its own exclusive games, so software isn't being locked to just the portable which would drive the need for some to buy one which could be seen as "forcing", etc. I know how prominent smartphones are these days, but there are still many things a dedicated handheld can provide which a smartphone cannot.

Nintendo understands this which is why they still provide the Switch, which is a pseudo-handheld/portable (as a hybrid). I think Sony understands this, too, or at least I hope so.

I understand this but at the same time, I disagree simply because if you're a physical gamer (I like disc, digital and subscription) and want to play discs, why buy the Digital only console to begin with? I can see some people being desperate and just wanting one or they just weren't paying attention to what they were buying. Either way, I see this percentage as being very small. I could have gotten the PS5 Digital console sooner but I waited until I was able to get the Disc Edition.

So you're saying Digital-only people with Disc models were basically forced into them, while I'm more saying a good chunk of those people are probably not Digital-only, but Digital-leaning, and bought the Disc PS5s as a choice to have more options available to them? That sounds like it, anyway.

We don't have enough data to really conclude one way or the other, however we do know Sony were taking a loss on each Digital PS5 sold at launch. I get what you're saying about that, and Sony were really the first platform holder to fully push the "razors and razorblades" business model, but all companies have their limits. Microsoft has the size and revenue streams from other markets to sustain big losses on selling a high volume of hardware in the hopes of recouping the losses through subscription sales. Sony, who produces even larger volumes of consoles than MS, don't.

They simply couldn't justify in 2020, to do a 50/50 split of Disc and Digital PS5 models. For one they didn't necessarily know the demand for a Digital-only PS5 model, and secondly they took a notably bigger loss for each one sold. Even if they could recoup all those losses on peripherals, software & services in time (and they could), there's only but so much money companies are willing to lose over the short-term. In that regard, Microsoft is just able to play on a very different level than Sony and I think that should be kept in mind when looking at why the companies had such wildly different ratios for their two platform's respective SKUs at launch, tho I think if production costs for PS5 have gone down far enough by this point, Sony will push more Digital editions in the near future.

My guess if mid-gen happens is Holiday 2024. PS4 Pro released three years after the base PS4 and Xbox One X was four years after the base Xbox One. I believe the current generation goes eight years to November 2028 so my guess for mid-gen is well, in the middle of the generation. lol

I agree that 10th-gen probably won't start until at least Fall 2028, but mid-gen consoles by Holiday 2024 could still end up Holiday 2025. There were different factors for pushing mid-gen refreshes last gen than this one.

I personally don't want mid-gen consoles but in all honesty, I am expecting them so im already prepared for them. I think Sony eliminates the variable speeds of the GPU/CPU and goes with fixed clocks, increases the GPU to 12TF and includes a 1TB SSD. I think Microsoft keeps the specs mostly the same but increases the GPU to 14TF as I don't see Microsoft ever losing the power narrative ever again as I don't believe that they want another Xbox One situation.

If we're talking full-on mid-gen refreshes, I don't think perf would be as "low" as 14 TF. What you're describing sound more like adjustments for slim-edition systems, which is something I feel will definitely happen.

However, I don't see Sony changing the variable frequency set-up because it absolutely has its advantages. If the GPU or CPU can benefit from a bit of extra power, why lock out the ability to provide that within a fixed power budget by going with a fixed clock approach? They will probably up the SSD capacity however, and I hope Microsoft finally get some other partners onboard for those expansion cards so the prices aren't so outrageously outlandish.

I agree with the first part. I want them all to excel. I don't believe that all of them will though. There will be two or three out of both ABK and Bethesda that just simply don't work out simply based on percentages. The more studios, the higher the percentage that things don't work out for every studio.

I like Spencer and can't bash him because if it wasn't for him convincing Nadella to keep Xbox and invest into it (which they've done far more than anyone including myself was expecting them to do), the Xbox gaming division would have been shut down.

I'm sure Phil Spencer's a nice guy IRL, but when it comes to being the head of a major gaming platform brand, he could've done better. He could still be doing better, a lot better.

Doesn't mean other leaders like Jim Ryan or whoever runs Nintendo at that capacity are perfect, but they do both have way more consistent quality results and that's just a fact.

Instead of new blood, I believe that Spencer and Booty simply should be more hands on and want updates/progress reports/etc. every 3 months during full production. I believe this would solve a lot of the issues. Because even if you add new blood but they're hands off, I don't believe that anything would change. I see it more as the direction and approach as opposed to the personnel.

Agreed, they should be doing that, but you really have to wonder why they haven't figured to do that on their own, well before it got to the point people like you and I have to mention it in a topic. Like, that really has to make you think about it, right?

The way I see it, if we're already to that point, then I personally think maybe new blood is needed. Maybe you don't fire Spencer or Booty; again a company like MS can afford to retain redundancies in ways smaller companies may not. But they at least do need new blood to go alongside them, who are more cognizant of the things we're discussing here.

That way they're proactive and getting in front of these issues, and not being reactive trying to address the problems when it could potentially be too late.

 

[Darth Vader]

The source is Microsoft's quarterly/yearly earning reports. Not sure what your problem is lmao

Please point out where they provide the absolute values you mention.

You can't, because they aren't reported at all.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

The context here was that revenue number information is coming from Zhuge, and he includes the entire revenue generated, no matter which segment.

Not faulting Zhuge here, he does great work. My issue's with Microsoft, because they have the data right there to share at a finer level of granularity, yet choose not to.

Which makes them look funny when citing sources like VGChartz for sales, as if they're an official employee of MS or are some subsidiary with access to their numbers. We know that's not the case

The target audience for the Series S currently doesn't even really need a Series S. Considering that, the little console has sold very well. I personally always thought that $249 would be the sweet spot price for the S.

Uh, that might present some issues, then, IMO. And maybe if there is a slowing of Series S sales, the fact there's now the GamePass app on TV, xCloud on mobile devices and the such could be reasons as to why.

As long as they're still getting paying subscribers that way then it's maybe not so much a loss if any, I'm just finding it interesting they're doing these kind of Series S deals in the middle of August is all. Normally you see this stuff during the Fall shopping season.

 

[peter42O]

Only if the ARPU is sufficient enough and there isn't a drop in revenue from game sales that the subscription ARPU can't cover. There are two ways to ensure that through ARPU: either a smaller body of subscribers who are paying more of the total normal sub cost, or a larger body of subscribers who might be using a lot of deals to get cheaper rates.

In either case, with enough of them you can potentially cover the drop of revenue from sales and still have overall revenue gains. The question is how much would Sony need to ensure that, because their sales targets, software budgets etc. and number of such big AAA productions differs greatly from Microsoft. They would have more needs to be satisfied.

I agree completely. Sony's budgets are high and unlike Microsoft, they don't have the capital to make up any major losses and whatnot. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out over the years to come in regards to the direction Sony takes.

Fair enough. But, it is a viable market for MANY others, and a lot of them use the Switch as a natural extension of those portables.

I agree. The difference is that Nintendo is two generations behind tech wise, they rely on gimmicks and are more of a perfect fit in regards to a hybrid system than Sony or Microsoft.

Right, for Microsoft maybe a handheld makes much less sense. They are already putting GamePass on TVs as apps, they're considering an Apple TV-style box (which, if they do, would pretty much ensure Series S doesn't drop below $249 IMO, they wouldn't want it to encroach on the price range of the even-smaller streaming-focused box), etc. They also are already pushing Xbox and GamePass compatibility on Steam Deck, so that's also a thing.

For Sony, those aren't factors, and them making a portable wouldn't be "forcing" anyone into buying one IMO. It's there as an option, nothing more and nothing less. It wouldn't have its own exclusive games, so software isn't being locked to just the portable which would drive the need for some to buy one which could be seen as "forcing", etc. I know how prominent smartphones are these days, but there are still many things a dedicated handheld can provide which a smartphone cannot.

Nintendo understands this which is why they still provide the Switch, which is a pseudo-handheld/portable (as a hybrid). I think Sony understands this, too, or at least I hope so.

I agree that Sony and Microsoft have their own direction and whatnot but the "forcing" aspect is that if you want to play Sony's games on the go, you would need to buy their handheld in order to do so as opposed to just taking out your phone and just start playing.

So you're saying Digital-only people with Disc models were basically forced into them, while I'm more saying a good chunk of those people are probably not Digital-only, but Digital-leaning, and bought the Disc PS5s as a choice to have more options available to them? That sounds like it, anyway.

We don't have enough data to really conclude one way or the other, however we do know Sony were taking a loss on each Digital PS5 sold at launch. I get what you're saying about that, and Sony were really the first platform holder to fully push the "razors and razorblades" business model, but all companies have their limits. Microsoft has the size and revenue streams from other markets to sustain big losses on selling a high volume of hardware in the hopes of recouping the losses through subscription sales. Sony, who produces even larger volumes of consoles than MS, don't.

They simply couldn't justify in 2020, to do a 50/50 split of Disc and Digital PS5 models. For one they didn't necessarily know the demand for a Digital-only PS5 model, and secondly they took a notably bigger loss for each one sold. Even if they could recoup all those losses on peripherals, software & services in time (and they could), there's only but so much money companies are willing to lose over the short-term. In that regard, Microsoft is just able to play on a very different level than Sony and I think that should be kept in mind when looking at why the companies had such wildly different ratios for their two platform's respective SKUs at launch, tho I think if production costs for PS5 have gone down far enough by this point, Sony will push more Digital editions in the near future.

No, im saying that some people who preferred the Disc Edition got stuck with the Digital Edition because they couldn't find the Disc Edition.

Agree with the rest.

And your point about Microsoft being able to play on a very different level is why I say that Microsoft should eliminate Gold and all that other stuff I mentioned earlier. It's because they can afford to take risks and chances.

I agree that 10th-gen probably won't start until at least Fall 2028, but mid-gen consoles by Holiday 2024 could still end up Holiday 2025. There were different factors for pushing mid-gen refreshes last gen than this one.

I agree in regards to different factors but Holiday 2025, at that point, I would probably just go 6 years and release next gen consoles in Fall 2026 instead. But we'll see. I hope there aren't any mid-gen consoles but in all honesty, I am expecting them from both Sony and Microsoft.

If we're talking full-on mid-gen refreshes, I don't think perf would be as "low" as 14 TF. What you're describing sound more like adjustments for slim-edition systems, which is something I feel will definitely happen.

However, I don't see Sony changing the variable frequency set-up because it absolutely has its advantages. If the GPU or CPU can benefit from a bit of extra power, why lock out the ability to provide that within a fixed power budget by going with a fixed clock approach? They will probably up the SSD capacity however, and I hope Microsoft finally get some other partners onboard for those expansion cards so the prices aren't so outrageously outlandish.

Slim editions never see an increase in power or specs. It's mainly what's already available but smaller and more cost efficient for the company and consumer. And even if there are spec changes, it would be like Xbox One S where it added HDR and whatnot but was still minimal at best.

Here's a question for you...if a game is GPU bound and on the higher level, doesn't that force the developer to go with the lower end on the CPU and vice versa? Don't the variable speeds cause the developers to make a choice of basically one over the other? Not only that but the limited stuff I know about GPU's and CPU's is that I have never seen anyone say that overclocking the CPU or GPU for better performance was a good thing as it can burn out the unit. I've always seen "fixed" as just being the normal standard way of things because it's more balanced and efficient. Excluding PlayStation 5 of course, has there ever been a console that had variable speeds for the CPU/GPU? I don't remember ever seeing any console do that until PS5.

Looking it up, Xbox Series X has an AMD Zen 2 CPU at 3.8ghz. The GPU is a custom RDNA 2 at 1.8ghz. PlayStation 5 has an AMD Zen 2 CPU at 3.5ghz with the GPU being custom RDNA 2 at 2.2ghz. I know the speeds are fixed for XSX. The speeds I listed for PS5 is the maximum right? If a developer maxes out the GPU, then the CPU won't be at 3.5ghz due to it being variable. Is this accurate? Like if one is maxed out, doesn't that sacrifice the other so to speak?

Ignoring all of this, I think the CPU/GPU would be more powerful anyway and run at higher speeds in general which is why I think Sony eliminates the variable speeds because both are more powerful and thus, don't need to go with variables.

I put XSX at 14TF because I see both mid-gen consoles as a solid increase in power but not to where it's like, holy shit!!! lol

I agree in regards to the expansion cards for XS. I must admit that they look sweet and remind of the PS/PS2 memory cards. lol. Thankfully, im not even at half of my SSD capacity on either console so thankfully, I don't see myself ever needing a bigger SSD or a second one.

I'm sure Phil Spencer's a nice guy IRL, but when it comes to being the head of a major gaming platform brand, he could've done better. He could still be doing better, a lot better.

Doesn't mean other leaders like Jim Ryan or whoever runs Nintendo at that capacity are perfect, but they do both have way more consistent quality results and that's just a fact.

I agree that Phil could be doing better but overall, he's done better than everyone before him excluding Peter Moore and I have confidence that when this generation is all said and done, that he would have surpassed Moore or at the very least be considered equal/tied.

Sony/Nintendo have been far more consistent, however Nintendo had a horrible Wii U generation for 4 years and simply lucked out with the Switch being a hybrid. Sony had a bad 2/3rd's of the PS3 generation to where they were close to going bankrupt until they turned it around and it took PS4 taking off to get Sony out of the hole they were in with PS3.

So while both are far more consistent now, they haven't always been but here's the connecting part - Nintendo bombed with Wii U and found massive success with Switch. Sony threw away what they built with PS and PS2 to where they barely ended the generation in the second place even though most people would say that Xbox 360 was simply the better platform and console throughout the entire generation because Microsoft simply hit on every aspect. Only negative was the RROD but they fixed it by paying to replace all those consoles instead of telling consumers, oh well, you're out of luck.

Sony found success with PS4 not because of what they did as their first party output didn't excel until 2016 and even then, it was just Uncharted 4. It wasn't until 2018's God of War where everyone started praising their first party like they do now. but because of the fuck ups that Microsoft made. If Microsoft didn't make the mistakes they did, both PS4 and XBO would have been similar to 360/PS3. XBO even had the better exclusives for the first half of the generation. Microsoft basically shot themselves in the foot.

Fast forward to now, Microsoft is primed to bounce back after XBO just like Sony did after PS3 and Nintendo did after Wii U. Main difference is that with PS4, Sony lucked out completely. Microsoft fucked up big time and Nintendo didn't have a clue in 2012 so Sony basically didn't have to do anything except one thing - don't fuck up which they didn't. Now for this generation, Microsoft unlike Sony and to an extent Nintendo with Wii compared to PS3 at least, isn't going against one or both of their competitors in a "weakened" state.

Sony simply hit on everything with PS4 but at the same time, Nintendo didn't have a fucking clue a year earlier and Microsoft pissed away everything they built with 360 in one night. This time around, Sony hasn't really fucked up anything, at least nothing major or that would alter anything as of now and Nintendo is on a war path to probably having the best console of all time. There's no breaks here or advantages for Microsoft and Xbox compared to Sony back in 2013. And that like Sony being more consistent now is a fact.

With that all said and all things considered, for Xbox to still be alive, well and thriving is in of itself a massive success for Spencer especially when years after years, you're stuck behind people on the ladder who don't give a shit about Xbox or gaming in general.

This is why I don't go off on Spencer even at times when I get that moment of frustration and want to because the vast majority of gamers especially on the PlayStation side only look at the end results of PS4 and XBO as opposed to looking at how both got to where they ended up.

Agreed, they should be doing that, but you really have to wonder why they haven't figured to do that on their own, well before it got to the point people like you and I have to mention it in a topic. Like, that really has to make you think about it, right?

The way I see it, if we're already to that point, then I personally think maybe new blood is needed. Maybe you don't fire Spencer or Booty; again a company like MS can afford to retain redundancies in ways smaller companies may not. But they at least do need new blood to go alongside them, who are more cognizant of the things we're discussing here.

That way they're proactive and getting in front of these issues, and not being reactive trying to address the problems when it could potentially be too late.

Perhaps but at the same time, Microsoft was very hands-on last generation and it didn't work so they're doing the opposite now. Not every studio can be afforded a hands off approach. Some need that kick in the ass but if the vast majority of the studios are excelling while only a handful aren't, then it's more just on the studios aren't up to the task which in that regard, you may want to go hands on with them but what if it's an "all or none" situation? Meaning they either stay hands off for all or go hands on for all? In my mind, if I have a handful of studios that aren't up to par but all the rest are excelling with a hands off approach, I would choose to stay hands off.

I'm basically staying hands off because if 85% of my studios give or take is hitting and 15% aren't, in all honesty, I don't really need those studios that are part of the 15% to be hits for me. If anything, I would just consider them a bonus for anything good they give me.

Also, they wouldn't want to change company structure and whatnot because that can cause a ripple effect and more times than not, it usually turns out bad.

My personal feeling is that every studio is different and should be managed as such. Would I want updates and progress reports? Yes but if it's an Obsidian who rarely releases a bad game or The Coalition, im honestly going to be much more lenient because I know they've delivered for years and have no real major issues or worries with them.

If it's a 343 for example, I would make changes to this specific studio itself as opposed to changing everything for every studio and person. 343 is the biggest and main issue because of the franchise they handle and what it represents. If 343 was working on a no-name franchise or just other stuff, would anyone really care? Probably not.

So basically, I don't think that Spencer/Booty need anyone else. I do however think they need to make changes with 343. As for Rare, I would just cancel Everwild to be honest at this point and tell that team to do something new or just put them on Sea of Thieves and that's it. Problem solved. As for Undead Labs, in all honesty, I would give them leeway for State of Decay 3 and see how that plays out. If it's good, probably don't need to make any changes. If not, then I go from there. As for The Initiative, I would simply wait it out. Let them just do what they're doing with Crystal Dynamics and Perfect Dark. It's their first game as a founded studio and if the game is great, then I try to get Crystal for the sequel. If the game is bad honestly, I would probably shut down The Initiative because do I really need them at this point? Plus, Gallagher would then be available and I would put him in charge of 343 or at least try to convince him to take over that studio because I do see him as a massive upgrade over Bonnie Ross and n regards to Staten, I think he can accomplish more not being a studio head because he can then just concentrate on Halo Infinite itself.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Please point out where they provide the absolute values you mention.

You can't, because they aren't reported at all.

From the FY 2021 annual report (this is from July 2020 to June 2021):

"Gaming revenue increased $3.8 billion or 33% driven by growth in Xbox content and services and Xbox hardware."

Simple maths dictate that FY 2020 had around $11.7B in revenue und and FY 2021 has around $15.5B in revenue.

You can do the same thing for quarters.