Doesn't matter if they would do it or not. They have the money available. Foster studios, make partnerships. If Apple, Sony and Nintendo can do it, why can't MS?
Microsoft's acquisition of Activison Blizzard
- Thread starter Darth Vader
- Start date
You post is very clever and can be used to every Xbox generation.
So why they didn't change ever after 20 years?
Why do you keep giving Xbox one more chance? Again giving MS "this entrie generation to see how it all plays out".
MS don't want to lern and adapt to what the gaming market wants... they want to dominated it the easy way... buying their place without giving option for competition.
At least 20 years ago MS tried to release some games... today not even that anymore.
They just don't care about gaming.
Do I wan't Xbox to die? Sure, but if Hitler was alive I would also want him to die. Am I wrong?
Xbox has sucked for 20 years enough is enough.
P
peter42O
Guest
It doesn't seem like that here at times because I read that more times than not.
They are building up the studios they own. They're doubling up the staff at Tango Gameworks based on Hi Fi Rush. Just because they're trying to acquire ABK (or whoever) doesn't mean that the building up studios is put on hold or something. They all take time to build up. Not like it can happen overnight.
I have like 10 reasons why I bought an Xbox and favor Game Pass. Everyone is different. What appeals to me may not appeal to you and vice versa.
What do you mean by partnerships though? I DON'T want Microsoft to pay for timed exclusivity for anything. I want them to stop doing that shit because it's a waste of money in my opinion. Also, they tried working with studios last generation and even accepted NOT owning the IP (Ryse, Quantum Break, etc.) and that didn't work out at all which is why Microsoft wants to OWN IP and I don't blame them. I would do exactly the same thing as would everyone else because why would you want to be reliant and dependent on these other companies for sequels, extra content, etc. when you can do it all yourself instead due to owning the IP?
It's valid for every generation because the leadership and CEO of Microsoft wasn't the same person. Everything changed with every generation. Look at 360 with Moore. Was great. Mattrick comes in, releases fucking Kinect and builds Xbox One completely around it which blew up in their face and he left before the console even launched.
I switched from PlayStation 4 to Xbox Series X as my primary gaming console. I went from NES/SNES to PS/PS2 to 360 to PS4 to XSX as my primary gaming console. I have always owned more than one console for every generation. The difference is that I only care about my primary. Whatever the secondary or tertiary consoles are doesn't matter all that much to me because they're always an exclusives only console so whatever is there, is there. Point being is as my primary gaming console this generation, Microsoft has this entire generation for me to either stay with them as my primary generation or I switch back to PlayStation which I did after 360.
I understand the point in regards to trying to dominate via buying but what exactly in gaming have they ever dominated? They've been 3rd every time. They're last on PC. They don't exist in mobile. So regardless of buying, they're nowhere near dominating anything and personally, I don't believe that they ever will because everything they do is interconnected so if you want to play Xbox games, you don't need a console, you can play on PC or mobile.
They don't care about gaming but have spent $80B in the last 5 years on their gaming division in order to build it up. Microsoft has released games this generation. Just because you or other don't like them or they're not for you doesn't mean that they didn't release games. They have. I don't care about Forza or Flight Sim and others but they still count.
One business is to make and sell or rent to users (and optionally play them in cloud gaming) videogames. The other business is offering to other corporations server space in their MS cloud and related services. Two very different business.
We don't know how many MAU does Xbox cloud gaming has. GP should have 25-26M, a small portion of that should be GPU users and a small portion of that should be Xbox cloud gaming users. Pretty likely there are only a few, maybe a handful million Xbox cloud gaming MAU.
For the scale of Google Cloud or AWS this is nothing. And same goes for the future of cloud gaming, they are desperate spending almost $100B on gaming acquisitions because they aren't capable to compete against their direct competitors, who dominate them.
In this particular case, their direct competitor basically innovated becoming the first console maker on investing on cloud gaming, got all the cloud gaming patents, started the multigame subscripstions before them, built a bigger cloud gaming catalog, a bigger lineup of exclusives, got twice the subscribers that MS has and did it with a way more profitable business model for game subs/cloud gaming (not putting day one games there).
MS came later to make their own copy of these game subs and this cloud gaming, and has to make big acquisitions spending dozens of billions on acquisitions and almost give away super expensive AAA projects because aren't capable to build themselves a 1st party lineup as appealing as the Sony and MS one. And even doing that they can't compete at the same level.
No, it's a perfect equivalence, it's as nonsensical as your comparision.
MS has 60% of the cloud gaming market in UK, we don't know it's worldwide market share. We know that Sony has twice the game subbers than them.
Having the 20% of the cloud server market and being top 2 isn't
relevant at all with their gaming/game subs/cloud gaming business. It can be seen knowing that Sony has more market share than MS+ABK combined and twice the game subs than MS without being in the cloud server market.
The acquisition has been blocked, so it won't happen. Unless MS has some way to appeal it in the court (not sure if possible) and wins the case.
Having AB would help MS in cloud gaming a bit, or not. Becasuse it's a tiny, irrelevant market and will continue to be so in the future. And their direct competitor, where AB games are only a tiny portion of the games sold and rented there, makes way more money than them from game subs and have a way bigger amount of subscribers.
It's a nonsensical comparision, like yours. To make tvs doesn't benefit Sony in gaming and viceversa, in the same way that having server cloud services doesn't benefit MS in gaming/cloud gaming and viceversa.
TV, server clouds and gaming are separate business with basically no interconnection between them. And doesn't matter to have slightly cheaper tvs/server cloud because first they still have to pay most of their costs, second what they provide to the other business is a very tiny portion of their business, third what the other business provides/saves to gaming is to save a tiny portion of their total work/costs and could be perfectly made with other brands.
No, they are not.
Xbox Cloud gaming doesn't have 100M users at all. GP has around 25M, a portion of them are GPU users and a portion of the GPU users are Xbox Cloud gaming users and a portion of them are MAU. We don't know which are these portions, but pretty likely Xbox cloud gaming has only a handful million MAU being generous.
MS doesn't dominate anything. They estimake a 60-70% cloud gaming market share for UK, not worldwide. Worldwide Sony has twice the game subs (game subs market is only 7-9% of the total gaming revenue), but we don't know the numbers for the tiny cloud gaming market (a small portion of the game subs market, so a tiny portion of the total gaming revenue).
This is data for the UK, which is the market that the CMA regulates and protects.The CMA has that data. Here, I'll help you if you have difficulties finding page 4 in the article above.
According to Newzoo, the UK generated in 2022 gaming consumer spending $5.5B (excluding hardware, b2b, gambling, taxes), which is almost a 3% of the $184.4B worldwide revenue. So it's a too small sample to consider it a reference for the global numbers, specially considering UK traditionally has been one of the few more pro-Xbox countries than the average.
Yes, I talk about worldwide because UK is only a tiny portion of the global revenue/total market. I know CMA only regulates/considers their own market and its numbers instead of the global ones, see my reply just above.
Your personal opinion is not market trends, it's an irrelevant personal opinion, like mine.
And no, as far as I know there is no serious market analysis that expects exponential growth for cloud gaming. And wouldn't make sense because there are external reasons that blocks it. And on top of that, if we look at the market trend (their performace in the previous years) its growth hasn't been exponential and there isn't any recent or future super important change that woud skyrocket them.
There isn't even an expected exponential growth even for the game subs (where cloud gaming is only a portion of them). Here's the most recent analysis I remember (optimistic but realistic because follows the trend of the previous years), where game subs are only expected to grow a 12% CAGR during the next 5 years, generating $17.9B in 2028. This is still under 10% of the current yearly total gaming revenue ($184.4B), which traditionally grows every year so in 2028 will be way higher.
This other market analysis, is older and more optimistic but still somewhat realistic. It says game subs generated $17.16 billion in 2021 and that will have a 2022 to 2031 12.9% CAGR, meaning they expect them to have the game subs generating $55.94B by 2031.
And well, there are many more in a similar fashion. Many estimating that game subs were a 7-9% of the total market and that in some years will grow to 15-16%.
As far as I know the only one that expects an unrealistic exponential growth for cloud gaming is maybe this one that having estimated $1.4B in 2021, they forecasted $2.4B for 2022 and $8.2B for 2028:
The explanation of why they went too aparently optimistic and unrealistic, to the point that it doesn't match their own forecasts for the gaming market revenue. The explanation is that in this graph they are also counting other things such as business to business solutions for gamedev studios / corporations, not final consumers/gamers, as you can see here in other slide of their research:
Ampere also had this other controversial market research, where claimed that GP was the market leader of game subs in the NA+EU market with a 60% market share, (but it was because for some reason they didn't include PS Plus in the related chart).
According to Ampere (not the first time they are controversial), the game subs revenue generated around $3.5B in the western markets instead of the $1.4B worldwide claimed by Newzoo (even incuded there B2B and other stuff) and from that they made this crazy chart with their forecast:
It's Ampere, so it's hard to take them seriously, but even they mention there "Download distribution dominance is clearly illustrated by Ampere’s consumer research which asks Xbox Game Pass Ultimate users how they access their games (see chart). Most usage is download-focused. As such, bucketing hybrid services such as Xbox Game Pass Ultimate and PlayStation Now into a cloud gaming market sizing is misleading and over-estimates the impact of this distribution technology in the near-term."
Cloud gaming isn't a nascent market, as I explained it's an over two decades old market that didn't have any important innovation in decades other than minor ones like tweaks to their codecs or gamepads to reduce a bit latency.
It's a small market that can't scale to go mainstream due to several constrains that the related companies can't address such as the laws of physics, related bandwidth and electricity costs, good internet connection quailty/prices/data caps/wifi and cable standards, and many more.
The market share of the one who buys and the one acquired for that market (gaming) is relevant.
In the same way that it's relevant how the acquired company impacts in the main gaming business (console market) of the direct competitor of the acquirer. Specially if you also want to estimate the potential impact that the acquisition on a very small subset of this market (cloud gaming market inside game sub market inside console gaming market).
MS is not a worldwide leader in any gaming market. They have an 'estimated (estimated by who knows who, but let's hope it's real) 60-70% cloud gaming market share' in UK, that's all. And the cloud gaming market is tiny and irrelevant, not nascent.
Maybe not to Teslas and bananas, but it's like saying that gamedevs listen music and since Sony has a good position in the music market it gives them an advantage on the gamedev market. It's something stupid and nonsensical.
Avoid insulting who disagrees with you, it only makes you look pathetic and embarassing.
Last edited:
Thats a lot of text, i know some of you are butthurt by this result, but have some decency and self awarenessOne business is to make and sell or rent to users (and optionally play them in cloud gaming) videogames. The other business is offering to other corporations server space in their MS cloud and related services. Two very different business.
We don't know how many MAU does Xbox cloud gaming has. GP should have 25-26M, a small portion of that should be GPU users and a small portion of that should be Xbox cloud gaming users. Pretty likely there are only a few, maybe a handful million Xbox cloud gaming MAU.
For the scale of Google Cloud or AWS this is nothing. And same goes for the future of cloud gaming, they are desperate spending almost $100B on gaming acquisitions because they aren't capable to compete against their direct competitors, who dominate them.
In this particular case, their direct competitor basically innovated becoming the first console maker on investing on cloud gaming, got all the cloud gaming patents, started the multigame subscripstions before them, built a bigger cloud gaming catalog, a bigger lineup of exclusives, got twice the subscribers that MS has and did it with a way more profitable business model for game subs/cloud gaming (not putting day one games there).
MS came later to make their own copy of these game subs and this cloud gaming, and has to make big acquisitions spending dozens of billions on acquisitions and almost give away super expensive AAA projects because aren't capable to build themselves a 1st party lineup as appealing as the Sony and MS one. And even doing that they can't compete at the same level.
No, it's a perfect equivalence, it's as nonsensical as your comparision.
MS has 60% of the cloud gaming market in UK, we don't know it's worldwide market share. We know that Sony has twice the game subbers than them.
Having the 20% of the cloud server market and being top 2 isn't
relevant at all with their gaming/game subs/cloud gaming business. It can be seen knowing that Sony has more market share than MS+ABK combined and twice the game subs than MS without being in the cloud server market.
The acquisition has been blocked, so it won't happen. Unless MS has some way to appeal it in the court (not sure if possible) and wins the case.
Having AB would help MS in cloud gaming a bit, or not. Becasuse it's a tiny, irrelevant market and will continue to be so in the future. And their direct competitor, where AB games are only a tiny portion of the games sold and rented there, makes way more money than them from game subs and have a way bigger amount of subscribers.
It's a nonsensical comparision, like yours. To make tvs doesn't benefit Sony in gaming and viceversa, in the same way that having server cloud services doesn't benefit MS in gaming/cloud gaming and viceversa.
TV, server clouds and gaming are separate business with basically no interconnection between them. And doesn't matter to have slightly cheaper tvs/server cloud because first they still have to pay most of their costs, second what they provide to the other business is a very tiny portion of their business, third what the other business provides/saves to gaming is to save a tiny portion of their total work/costs and could be perfectly made with other brands.
No, they are not.
Xbox Cloud gaming doesn't have 100M users at all. GP has around 25M, a portion of them are GPU users and a portion of the GPU users are Xbox Cloud gaming users and a portion of them are MAU. We don't know which are these portions, but pretty likely Xbox cloud gaming has only a handful million MAU being generous.
MS doesn't dominate anything. They estimake a 60-70% cloud gaming market share for UK, not worldwide. Worldwide Sony has twice the game subs (game subs market is only 7-9% of the total gaming revenue), but we don't know the numbers for the tiny cloud gaming market (a small portion of the game subs market, so a tiny portion of the total gaming revenue).
This is data for the UK, which is the market that the CMA regulates and protects.
According to Newzoo, the UK generated in 2022 gaming consumer spending $5.5B (excluding hardware, b2b, gambling, taxes), which is almost a 3% of the $184.4B worldwide revenue. So it's a too small sample to consider it a reference for the global numbers, specially considering UK traditionally has been one of the few more pro-Xbox countries than the average.
Yes, I talk about worldwide because UK is only a tiny portion of the global revenue/total market. I know CMA only regulates/considers their own market and its numbers instead of the global ones, see my reply just above.
Your personal opinion is not market trends, it's an irrelevant personal opinion, like mine.
And no, as far as I know there is no serious market analysis that expects exponential growth for cloud gaming. And wouldn't make sense because there are external reasons that blocks it. And on top of that, if we look at the market trend (their performace in the previous years) its growth hasn't been exponential and there isn't any recent or future super important change that woud skyrocket them.
There isn't even an expected exponential growth even for the game subs (where cloud gaming is only a portion of them). Here's the most recent analysis I remember (optimistic but realistic because follows the trend of the previous years), where game subs are only expected to grow a 12% CAGR during the next 5 years, generating $17.9B in 2028. This is still under 10% of the current yearly total gaming revenue ($184.4B), which traditionally grows every year so in 2028 will be way higher.
This other market analysis, is older and more optimistic but still somewhat realistic. It says game subs generated $17.16 billion in 2021 and that will have a 2022 to 2031 12.9% CAGR, meaning they expect them to have the game subs generating $55.94B by 2031.
And well, there are many more in a similar fashion. Many estimating that game subs were a 7-9% of the total market and that in some years will grow to 15-16%.
As far as I know the only one that expects an unrealistic exponential growth for cloud gaming is maybe this one that having estimated $1.4B in 2021, they forecasted $2.4B for 2022 and $8.2B for 2028:
The explanation of why they went too aparently optimistic and unrealistic, to the point that it doesn't match their own forecasts for the gaming market revenue. The explanation is that in this graph they are also counting other things such as business to business solutions for gamedev studios / corporations, not final consumers/gamers, as you can see here in other slide of their research:
Ampere also had this other controversial market research, where claimed that GP was the market leader of game subs in the NA+EU market with a 60% market share, (but it was because for some reason they didn't include PS Plus in the related chart).
According to Ampere (not the first time they are controversial), the game subs revenue generated around $3.5B in the western markets instead of the $1.4B worldwide claimed by Newzoo (even incuded there B2B and other stuff) and from that they made this crazy chart with their forecast:
It's Ampere, so it's hard to take them seriously, but even they mention there "Download distribution dominance is clearly illustrated by Ampere’s consumer research which asks Xbox Game Pass Ultimate users how they access their games (see chart). Most usage is download-focused. As such, bucketing hybrid services such as Xbox Game Pass Ultimate and PlayStation Now into a cloud gaming market sizing is misleading and over-estimates the impact of this distribution technology in the near-term."
Cloud gaming isn't a nascent market, as I explained it's an over two decades old market that didn't have any important innovation in decades other than minor ones like tweaks to their codecs or gamepads to reduce a bit latency.
It's a small market that can't scale to go mainstream due to several constrains that the related companies can't address such as the laws of physics, related bandwidth and electricity costs, good internet connection quailty/prices/data caps/wifi and cable standards, and many more.
The market share of the one who buys and the one acquired for that market (gaming) is relevant.
In the same way that it's relevant how the acquired company impacts in the main gaming business (console market) of the direct competitor of the acquirer. Specially if you also want to estimate the potential impact that the acquisition on a very small subset of this market (cloud gaming market inside game sub market inside console gaming market).
MS is not a worldwide leader in any gaming market. They have an 'estimated (estimated by who knows who, but let's hope it's real) 60-70% cloud gaming market share' in UK, that's all. And the cloud gaming market is tiny and irrelevant, not nascent.
Maybe not to Teslas and bananas, but it's like saying that gamedevs listen music and since Sony has a good position in the music market it gives them an advantage on the gamedev market. It's something stupid and nonsensical.
Avoid insulting and crying, it only makes you look pathetic and embarassing.
Let us take a moment to thank Google for failing with Stadia, because if they had succeeded, MS would've bought ABK.
Thanks, Google!
Thanks, Google!
I don't want Microsoft to die, but I do want them to stop trying to actively fuck me and my gaming experiences.
As @TubzGaming said, focus on building their studios up from the ground.
I hate the fact that their philosophy seems to be for a better use of words " To rob Peter to pay Paul" as in taking away a beloved franchise from a group of gamers only to say "look how awesome we are guys." as they give said games to their base.
I hope you can see that.
Last edited:
Dude its for fun. At least for me. Yea its no different. But i see people so much invested in toys and plastic box its nuts (mostly xbox fans and online personas).
But that is why they are in 3rd (and probaly even lower if it has others players)... because they don't care and invest in games.
You can't have a platform and release a game each few years... that doesn't works.
And maybe you are having a revisionist history here because Kinect was what hold and make 360 reach over 84 million units sold.
After Kinect 360 had a boom in sales... so 2010, 2011 and 2012 was really something odd in terms of sales for a 6 year console.
If not Kinect then 360 should have stopped at around 60 million and PS3 confortable passing it after 2010.
You guys blame Kinect but it was what made 360 reach where it was.
2011: 55m 360 / 10m Kinects
2012: 66m 360 / 18m Kinects
Do you understand when you look at NPD data (the strongest 360 region) you see that?
Kinect was the reason 360 shined.
Xbox One? You blame Dom Mattrick and Kinect but in fact it was already the same Xbox team that you see today... and the issue with Xbox One was not Kinect... it was being underpowered compared to PS4 but costing $100 more.
If Xbox One had a hardware similar to PS4 and costing $399 it should do way better than what it id.
And to be fair it did better than Series is doing.
You guys keep blaming the wrong reasons with revisionist histories.
Games is what MS needs and they fail to delivery every single generation... where generation you keep asking why MS stopped to release games
The difference is that now in Series case they are not even trying anymore.
I don't want Xbox die... I want MS to continue to doing that "competition" to rest of my life