Right. MS gobbling up publishers is "innovation". It would be interesting to see how many of the people/companies on that list directly or indirectly receive benefits from MS. I wouldn't be surprised if it's all of them.
Microsoft's acquisition of Activison Blizzard
- Thread starter Satoru
- Start date
Right. MS gobbling up publishers is "innovation". It would be interesting to see how many of the people/companies on that list directly or indirectly receive benefits from MS. I wouldn't be surprised if it's all of them.
No idea what a venture capital firm is , sounds like a bunch of rich arseholes to me , why are they opposing it I can't read it cause he's blocked me for calling him out as a shill
Surprise! They got rich off the acquisition and don't want to give back the money.
They describe it in paragraph two. In essence they are money-men who will help idea people form their own company in exchange for partial ownership (example: the "dragons" on Dragons Den are all venture capitalists.) They think this is bad because a lot of non-video game companies will form with the specific idea of later being brought out by a bigger, already established, company. For example, if you have an idea for an improved soda bottle you might pitch the idea to venture capitalists so that they can give you the money to buy bottling equipment and get off the ground, but the real idea is to sell your company to Coke two or three years later.
Which, in a round about way shows that they are playing into the anti-competitive elements of current market dynamics... if the big dogs buy out all potential future competitors, the market stagnates and is locked between a very small number of companies....potentially even just one (like Microsoft in PC OS's).
FTC vs MS trial is live btw. FTC lawyers are alot better but judges seem skeptical.
Sounds like Corley being such a yes mam for MS she overstepped her boundaries and these ftc lawyers are alot better at articulating the implications of the ABK Merger. Not sure how that will play with THESE judges.
Sounds like Corley being such a yes mam for MS she overstepped her boundaries and these ftc lawyers are alot better at articulating the implications of the ABK Merger. Not sure how that will play with THESE judges.
Last edited:
It's easy to noticed that MS stuff at all struggling with lack of quality a "little bit" (Redfall, Starfield, even Forza etc). It looks like they don't pay attention on them, and there's one thing that comes to my mind when I think about it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but MS mentioned that some games comes from their first party developers, will be designed in Unreal Engine 5. For example, next Halo game may work on that engine, and even more project in the future, so they can optimise development process and cut cost of the production. Meanwhile, Epic takes royalties (probably 5%) after game's revenue across 1 milion $.
So what happened if some games based on unreal engine comes to GamePass and never across this sale-point? Customers have access to the subcripition (and games) until they pay, so it's kinda renting. But in reality, sales on Xbox dropping down all the time. Is it the way how MS would save the money? They do their best to cut the production costs, because literally every game must be in GamePass library, so they don't care about quality itself.
(Forgive me my english).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but MS mentioned that some games comes from their first party developers, will be designed in Unreal Engine 5. For example, next Halo game may work on that engine, and even more project in the future, so they can optimise development process and cut cost of the production. Meanwhile, Epic takes royalties (probably 5%) after game's revenue across 1 milion $.
So what happened if some games based on unreal engine comes to GamePass and never across this sale-point? Customers have access to the subcripition (and games) until they pay, so it's kinda renting. But in reality, sales on Xbox dropping down all the time. Is it the way how MS would save the money? They do their best to cut the production costs, because literally every game must be in GamePass library, so they don't care about quality itself.
(Forgive me my english).
I think the harsh reality is the more you make these big purchases the less picky you have to become on what you can release and where you can release it
MS can afford to nit pick, thats the biggest issue their competition faces when ms buys whole pubs and still chose to compete with companies that used the pub ms just bought.
This is a misconception. Microsoft aren’t buying companies to long game starve out the competition, they need a ROI
Microsoft does mass layoffs and kills entire products lines every single year. They don’t do anything for some 4d chess move
Agreed with that. I believe that was the initial plan - short-term sacrifice of sales on other platforms in return for compelling people to their ecosystem - which would lead to long-term gains as some would stay and others would return for differing releases. There's no doubt the original plan with Cod was to go full exclusive after Sony's marketing deal was up, as well.
100%. Otherwise, why would Microsoft offer Sony only a three-year deal at first, which coincidentally had the same period (3 years) for which Sony had the marketing deal.
I’ve been saying that. They 100%wanted COD exclusive when they first announced their plans to acquire Activision
They probably figure that they’re better off leaving it multiplatform after all the drama but i wouldn’t count on it past 2033
Yep, I remember Phil lying about not wanting to take games away from gamers on other platforms. And then Jim setting the record straight about what was really happening behind the scenes.
Not sure if I trust the whole Xbox going third party narrative.
It's always tough to trust a scum company like Microsoft, but I think there is no narrative this time as they haven't said anything officially.
I believe they have just accepted their defeat and are now pivoting. It very much feels like the decision is between either laying off everyone, including Phil and co. or increasing revenue and profitability.
So Phil and co. decided to save their asses and become a third-party publisher.
If you think it was Phil’s choice, and not a directive from above his level, you give Phil too much credit.
Expect Phil to decide to spend more time with his family soon.
No, I'm saying the same. Satya would have offered two paths: layoffs or increase revenue and profitability.
Of course Phil didn't have the balls to stick to his beliefs, so he did what Satya/Board told him to.