MS President Brad Smith: In Europe, PlayStation has 80% Marketshare, Xbox has 20%. Globally it’s 70/30

[EN250]

Nah, the MS president stated some facts. PS outperforms Xbox revenue wise:

• 2.33:1 worldwide
• 4:1 in Europe
• 24:1 in Japan

It would be nice to close this gap a bit, having a better direct competition would engage Sony to do it better.

Just make them sign that CoD will remain on PS not only 10 years, but as long as CoD and PS remain relevant, and extend it to (some time after release) PS+ and PS Cloud gaming. The regulators, Sony and MS would be happy with this.

Ok, imagine if the deal goes through and nothing changes or stays mostly the same? Next gen regulators should have to put up with the same bs when MS "decides" that needs to compete by buying T2 Interactive, because they're too TRILLION DOLLAR weak to fight against evil Sony who gets all the marketshare for themselves?

Why we don't go back in time 2 gens ago, did MS buy any giant publisher to compete with Sony, or was able to do it with mostly exclusivity deals and games? I think they should be able to compete with what they have atm, which is more than what they had 2 gens ago, if they're failing it's not someone else fault

Also, regulators are evaluating this for the simple fact that they know how MS plays the game, regulators are looking at how MS is all in with the cloud stuff, and the problem there is, that MS is betting on the cloud because they're the biggest player with their Azure business, they want to supply every customer with the HW and stomp the competition to also supply every customer with the software as well

Trillion dollar company subsidizes for how many years necessary their GP business leaving the competition with no way to compete at the same level, they can't do it now obviously because they lack any meaninful and popular franchises, leaving aside Halo that came out, Forza and Starfield, they don't have much else, that's why it was a lie from the start that AV wasn't the reason for the buy and they only wanted King

But seeing how they have NVidia in the pocket now, money talks and the deal will go through

 

[KiryuRealty]

Ok, imagine if the deal goes through and nothing changes or stays mostly the same? Next gen regulators should have to put up with the same bs when MS "decides" that needs to compete by buying T2 Interactive, because they're too TRILLION DOLLAR weak to fight against evil Sony who gets all the marketshare for themselves?

Why we don't back in time 2 gens ago, did MS buy any giant publisher to compete with Sony, or was able to do it with mostly exclusivity deals and games? I think they should be able to compete with what they have atm, which is more than what they had 2 gens ago, if they're failing it's not someone else fault

Also, regulators are evaluating this for the simple fact that they know how MS plays the game, regulators are looking at how MS is all in with the cloud stuff, and the problem there is, that MS is betting on the cloud because they're the biggest player with their Azure business, they want to supply every customer with the HW and stomp the competition to also supply every sustomer wirh the software as well

Trillion dollar company subsides for how many years necessary their GP business leaving the competition with no way to compete at the same level, they can't do it now obviously because they lack any meaninful and popular franchises, leaving aside Halo that came out, Forza and Starfield, they don't have much else, that's why it was a lie from the start that AV wasn't the reason for the buy and they only wanted King

But seeing how they have NVidia on the pocket now, money talks and the deal will go through

NVidia and the other console makers have no real impact on this situation. They’re just pawns for MS’ desperate attempts to trick the regulators.

 

[Yurinka]

Ok, imagine if the deal goes through and nothing changes or stays mostly the same? Next gen regulators should have to put up with the same bs when MS "decides" that needs to compete by buying T2 Interactive, because they're too TRILLION DOLLAR weak to fight against evil Sony who gets all the marketshare for themselves?

Why we don't back in time 2 gens ago, did MS buy any giant publisher to compete with Sony, or was able to do it with mostly exclusivity deals and games? I think they should be able to compete with what they have atm, which is more than what they had 2 gens ago, if they're failing it's not someone else fault

Also, regulators are evaluating this for the simple fact that they know how MS plays the game, regulators are looking at how MS is all in with the cloud stuff, and the problem there is, that MS is betting on the cloud because they're the biggest player with their Azure business, they want to supply every customer with the HW and stomp the competition to also supply every sustomer wirh the software as well

Trillion dollar company subsides for how many years necessary their GP business leaving the competition with no way to compete at the same level, they can't do it now obviously because they lack any meaninful and popular franchises, leaving aside Halo that came out, Forza and Starfield, they don't have much else, that's why it was a lie from the start that AV wasn't the reason for the buy and they only wanted King

But seeing how they have NVidia on the pocket now, money talks and the deal will go through

Independently if they end completing or not this acquisition, if later they go to acquire Take 2 they'll have less issues with regulators, because Take 2 is much smaller so has even less impact in the market than Activision Blizzard King.

I think you may have missed the data from the MS president, PS makes several times the revenue than Xbox: a 2.33:1 distance worldwide, 4:1 in Europe and 24:1 in Japan. Things almost didn't change in the last generation, and if it did was in favor of Sony, who has twice the subscribers than MS. And Sony does that without needing to burn all these millions, so they are also more profitable. And btw they have most cloud gaming patents, so MS has to pay them for using them.

GP and Azure aren't doing a shit and won't stomp anybody. If something, they'll stomp the MS gaming division who is the one not able to compete. Sony and Nintendo are the ones dominating Xbox, not the opposite.

P.S.: Azure has nothing to do with the success of game subs and cloud gaming. Azure doesn't offer anything special or better compared to their competition, and they are far from being market leaders. And cloud gaming is and will continue being a tiny portion of the whole gaming market for at least a decade or two due to things that Azure or MS can't solve.

 

[Deleted member 417]

GP and Azure aren't doing a shit and won't stomp anybody. If something, they'll stomp the MS gaming division who is the one not able to compete. Sony and Nintendo are the ones dominating Xbox, not the opposite.

P.S.: Azure has nothing to do with the success of game subs and cloud gaming. Azure doesn't offer anything special or better compared to their competition, and they are far from being market leaders. And cloud gaming is and will continue being a tiny portion of the whole gaming market for at least a decade or two due to things that Azure or MS can't solve.

You can't be this short sighted?

I isn't about cloud gaming or how good azure is vs aws (amazon have no skin in the console game). It is about microsoft owning the delivery system for major games and forcing their competitors to pay more than Microsoft.

 

[Gods&Monsters]

And Sony does that without needing to burn all these millions, so they are also more profitable. And btw they have most cloud gaming patents, so MS has to pay them for using them.

I remember that Sony got a lot of patents when they bought Gakai so I always wondered about that. Does it mean that Amazon, Google and MS are paying Sony for all the cloud stuff?

How much are they making?

 

[Entropi]

The gap is larger than I thought. Maybe MS needs to buy EA, Ubisoft, and Rockstar to compete.

 

[Gediminas]

The gap is larger than I thought. Maybe MS needs to buy EA, Ubisoft, and Rockstar to compete.

first they need start with Nintendo, i know, the horrid story of 2000s buyout, by why not the second time? second time is a charm?

 

[Yurinka]

I remember that Sony got a lot of patents when they bought Gakai so I always wondered about that. Does it mean that Amazon, Google and MS are paying Sony for all the cloud stuff?

How much are they making?

Sony bought the patents from Gaikai and Onlive, and kept filling more as Sony. As I remember a year or two again filled one regarding 5G specific cloud gaming optimizations.

I have no idea of the amount of money that Sony is making with cloud gaming or with the patents. But considering that recently they doubled down on cloud gaming with the recent PS Plus revamp and planning to bring it again to mobile soon, I assume they are happy with it.

Even if knowing that it's a technology and market maybe with potential, but still on its infancy and still making its baby steps.

 

[EN250]

Independently if they end completing or not this acquisition, if later they go to acquire Take 2 they'll have less issues with regulators, because Take 2 is much smaller so has even less impact in the market than Activision Blizzard King.

I think you may have missed the data from the MS president, PS makes several times the revenue than Xbox: a 2.33:1 distance worldwide, 4:1 in Europe and 24:1 in Japan. Things almost didn't change in the last generation, and if it did was in favor of Sony, who has twice the subscribers than MS. And Sony does that without needing to burn all these millions, so they are also more profitable. And btw they have most cloud gaming patents, so MS has to pay them for using them.

GP and Azure aren't doing a shit and won't stomp anybody. If something, they'll stomp the MS gaming division who is the one not able to compete. Sony and Nintendo are the ones dominating Xbox, not the opposite.

P.S.: Azure has nothing to do with the success of game subs and cloud gaming. Azure doesn't offer anything special or better compared to their competition, and they are far from being market leaders. And cloud gaming is and will continue being a tiny portion of the whole gaming market for at least a decade or two due to things that Azure or MS can't solve.

Amazon is not in the game business at the same level of MS, their Luna cloud streaming is non existent and they supply their servers for others in the game industry, MS does own its own servers, does gaming as well as one of established big 3 (Sony, Nintendo, MS), getting bigger in the cloud business could mean they get to dictate how gaming works for their own benefit while crushing the competition because there is no way the other players get to do the same

Like gamepass rn, everyone says it's ok, no one needs to buy those games, if the developers get the money, you don't need to worry about it, but no one asks what can happen if somehow GP becomes the de facto thing, who's gonna dictate the prices to the customers and how much money devs will get the moment they're dependent of the service and not the other way around

Also I really Love how I was all sarcastic about them buying T2 to be able to "compete" and your response was: "it would be easier tho"

Like, sure man, want to add EA Games, Embracer, WB and Bamco while you're at it? Everything in the name of fair competition to help MS, because there is no way the idea of actually making an effort to get good games with the many developers + Bethesda they bought already, is really possible, right?

Nah, they need all the help they can buy, I mean, they can get, doesn't matter if people who have been playing on PS systems get royally screwed whenever MS decides that all those multiplayer games (like Bethesda games, remeber?), become exclusives to help GP or whatever...

 

[AshHunter216]

Independently if they end completing or not this acquisition, if later they go to acquire Take 2 they'll have less issues with regulators, because Take 2 is much smaller so has even less impact in the market than Activision Blizzard King.

I think you may have missed the data from the MS president, PS makes several times the revenue than Xbox: a 2.33:1 distance worldwide, 4:1 in Europe and 24:1 in Japan. Things almost didn't change in the last generation, and if it did was in favor of Sony, who has twice the subscribers than MS. And Sony does that without needing to burn all these millions, so they are also more profitable. And btw they have most cloud gaming patents, so MS has to pay them for using them.

GP and Azure aren't doing a shit and won't stomp anybody. If something, they'll stomp the MS gaming division who is the one not able to compete. Sony and Nintendo are the ones dominating Xbox, not the opposite.

P.S.: Azure has nothing to do with the success of game subs and cloud gaming. Azure doesn't offer anything special or better compared to their competition, and they are far from being market leaders. And cloud gaming is and will continue being a tiny portion of the whole gaming market for at least a decade or two due to things that Azure or MS can't solve.

I think GTA and NBA 2K would be as big of a sticking point with regulators as COD has been, though there's less risk of NBA 2K being made exclusive due to the NBA likely removing their license if they tried that, same reason why MLB the show is multiplat now. GTA on the other hand would have a huge effect on the market if someone made it exclusive and the possibility may annoy regulators.

 

[Yurinka]

I think GTA and NBA 2K would be as big of a sticking point with regulators as COD has been, though there's less risk of NBA 2K being made exclusive due to the NBA likely removing their license if they tried that, same reason why MLB the show is multiplat now. GTA on the other hand would have a huge effect on the market if someone made it exclusive and the possibility may annoy regulators.

Take 2 makes around half of the yearly revenue of Activision Blizzard. Regulators are struggling to prove CoD exclusivity would affect Sony, because it only represents a tiny portion of its revenue and it's only played by a small percentage of its players. So in case of Take 2, I doubt they would even care.

Regarding NBA 2K and MLB, they are only very popular in USA. Basically the rest of the countries don't care about them. Well, NBA2K is also popular in EU but way less than in USA.

 

[AshHunter216]

Take 2 makes around half of the yearly revenue of Activision Blizzard. Regulators are struggling to prove CoD exclusivity would affect Sony, because it only represents a tiny portion of its revenue and it's only played by a small percentage of its players. So in case of Take 2, I doubt they would even care.

Regarding NBA 2K and MLB, they are only very popular in USA. Basically the rest of the countries don't care about them. Well, NBA2K is also popular in EU but way less than in USA.

Those games all do massive numbers in the sales charts and would definitely make a huge difference in the market were they to go exclusive, assuming the owner manages them semi competently. Anyone who thinks otherwise are falling for MS PR offensive a bit too much.

 

[Yurinka]

Those games all do massive numbers in the sales charts and would definitely make a huge difference in the market were they to go exclusive, assuming the owner manages them semi competently. Anyone who thinks otherwise are falling for MS PR offensive a bit too much.

Around 90% of the PlayStation users don't buy -at least on PS- the yearly CoD games, the lifetime sales of each one of these games on PS is around 10% of the PS MAU. And in a survey that the CMA did to PS CoD users only a small portion of this around 10% would leave PS if CoD gets console exclusive. So its impact would be almost none considering PlayStation numbers are growing in all areas (so would compensate that loss in a year or two) and that Sony now owns Bungie (who is working on more new IPs, which I assume won't be soccer games or walking simulators) and is working on additional multiple shooters with many ex-Bungie/ex-CoD/ex-Apex Legends/ex-Rainbow Six Siege/ex-Bioshock Infinite/ex-Overwatch etc. that I assume will help reduce the amount of shoter fans who may leave if CoD becomes exclusive.

GTAV and RDR2 are exceptions that sell like crazy, to a level that no other games sell other than Minecraft and maybe a handlful more. But These games aren't released every year, their sales are spread across many, many years. Their yearly sales are smaller than the CoD ones and it's hard to predict if sequels would sell at that level, plus Sony has tons of big selling open world games on their console, including many 1st party ones.

The NBA2K and specially MLB sales are way way smaller, so their impact as exclusive wouldn't be noticiable.

 

[Deleted member 417]

Around 90% of the PlayStation users don't buy -at least on PS- the yearly CoD games, the lifetime sales of each one of these games on PS is around 10% of the PS MAU. And in a survey that the CMA did to PS CoD users only a small portion of this around 10% would leave PS if CoD gets console exclusive. So its impact would be almost none considering PlayStation numbers are growing in all areas (so would compensate that loss in a year or two) and that Sony now owns Bungie (who is working on more new IPs, which I assume won't be soccer games or walking simulators) and is working on additional multiple shooters with many ex-Bungie/ex-CoD/ex-Apex Legends/ex-Rainbow Six Siege/ex-Bioshock Infinite/ex-Overwatch etc. that I assume will help reduce the amount of shoter fans who may leave if CoD becomes exclusive.

GTAV and RDR2 are exceptions that sell like crazy, to a level that no other games sell other than Minecraft and maybe a handlful more. But These games aren't released every year, their sales are spread across many, many years. Their yearly sales are smaller than the CoD ones and it's hard to predict if sequels would sell at that level, plus Sony has tons of big selling open world games on their console, including many 1st party ones.

The NBA2K and specially MLB sales are way way smaller, so their impact as exclusive wouldn't be noticiable.

Are you avoiding the AWS vs Azure aspect of these deals on purpose? Are you not allowed/paid to discuss them at all?

Your posts do a lot of ducking and dodging around the very basic concept that Microsoft own Azure servers and would host all online content for every studio they own. Those game being 3rd party is completely irrelevant if MS own the means of distribution.

It doesn't matter if GTA, RDR, CoD, Battlefield etc sell 99% of their units on PS5, if 100% of the content is controlled by Microsoft.

 

[Alabtrosmyster]

Sony bought the patents from Gaikai and Onlive, and kept filling more as Sony. As I remember a year or two again filled one regarding 5G specific cloud gaming optimizations.

I have no idea of the amount of money that Sony is making with cloud gaming or with the patents. But considering that recently they doubled down on cloud gaming with the recent PS Plus revamp and planning to bring it again to mobile soon, I assume they are happy with it.

Even if knowing that it's a technology and market maybe with potential, but still on its infancy and still making its baby steps.

I think that they are keeping up with this in part because if it was to become relevant they want to be prepared.

 

[Yurinka]

I think that they are keeping up with this in part because if it was to become relevant they want to be prepared.

Yes, I assume the idea of being the pioneers, innovators and trend setters is something that in short terms means a lot of R&D costs, but if they keep slowly increasing their catalog -the biggest cloud gaming catalog- and userbase, plus also keep improving and innovating the related tech, if some day in the future the cloud gaming becomes relevant they'll be there as market leaders with the biggest userbase, the biggest catalog and the best related technology.

 

[Yurinka]

Are you avoiding the AWS vs Azure aspect of these deals on purpose?

Yes, because we're talking about gaming business and how buying and potentiallly making console exclusive some multiplatform game IPs could negatively affect PS. And in this topic AWS vs Azure is as relevant as MS Office vs Google Docs: totally irrelevant.

Are you not allowed/paid to discuss them at all?

Dumb, childish and embarassing personal attacks like this one shows you are angry because you can't counter my arguments, so you try attacking me instead. I suggest you to stick to the topic instead of doing this because it only does make you look bad.

Your posts do a lot of ducking and dodging around the very basic concept that Microsoft own Azure servers and would host all online content for every studio they own. Those game being 3rd party is completely irrelevant if MS own the means of distribution.

It doesn't matter if GTA, RDR, CoD, Battlefield etc sell 99% of their units on PS5, if 100% of the content is controlled by Microsoft.

Who fucking cares if they use their own or other servers or not? Server costs are a tiny cost compared to the hundreds of millions that costs each one of these games.

And the server hardware, maintenance, electricity and internet/bandwith bills etc. still has to be paid and are most of the server costs, so owning them only slightly reduce the server cost, which already is a small portion of the gaming division costs and investments.

This is nothing compared to your direct competitor in gaming more than doubling you in worldwide market share, install base and game subs.

And well, Sony also has their own servers using PS3s, PS4s or PS5s hardware in server racks for their PS cloud gaming, so what? Who cares? It doesn't have any effect in the gaming market.

 

[Deleted member 417]

Yes, because we're talking about gaming business and how buying and potentiallly making console exclusive some multiplatform game IPs could negatively affect PS. And in this topic AWS vs Azure is as relevant as MS Office vs Google Docs: totally irrelevant.

Absolutely relevant but if you can't understand the deeper strategy other than regurgitating 'CoD on PS5 is fine!', then that's your problem.

Dumb, childish and embarassing personal attacks like this one shows you are angry because you can't counter my arguments, so you try attacking me instead. I suggest you to stick to the topic instead of doing this because it only does make you look bad.

It wasn't an attack, a genuine question. You have VIP in your tag, if you work with or for Microsoft I can understand you wanting to talk about it.

Who fucking cares if they use their own or other servers or not? Server costs are a tiny cost compared to the hundreds of millions that costs each one of these games.

Now who's angry?

And the server hardware, maintenance, electricity and internet/bandwith bills etc. still has to be paid and are most of the server costs, so owning them only slightly reduce the server cost, which already is a small portion of the gaming division costs and investments.

This is nothing compared to your direct competitor in gaming more than doubling you in worldwide market share, install base and game subs.

How do you think games and content get on PS+, Nintendo or xbox? The cloud fairies? All of that has to be hosted on servers and in the world of the current internet you have two players; Azure and AWS. Microsoft and Amazon. Microsoft and Phil Spencer have already said that Sony isn't their competition, Amazon is. How could Amazon be competition if they aren't in the gaming space unless Microsoft is referring to servers? How can you disagree with or argue against Microsoft's own words?

Think, man.

And well, Sony also has their own servers using PS3s, PS4s or PS5s hardware in server racks for their PS cloud gaming, so what? Who cares? It doesn't have any effect in the gaming market.

And who hosts all of that? Amazon. All ABK data is hosted by Amazon but there is no way that will be the case is MS buy ABK. Over 400 million users migrate from AWS to Azure over night.

Now, CoD, WoW, Overwatch, Diablo and the rest are all distributed by Microsoft who do have a claim in the industry, unlike Amazon. There is nothing, absolutely nothing stopping Microsoft from charging Sony or Nintendo extortionate rates to access CoD multiplayer - now hosted by Microsoft. Microsoft could bring all ABK games to Xbox for free. Not for £15 a month, not for a one off price, for free. There is also nothing stopping Microsoft from charging Sony £1,000,000 per user to access CoD content via Azure servers.

Think about that. A new Xbox console launches and it offers ABK and Bethesda games for free, no subscription required, no money paid. On the other side of the fence is Sony, who have access to ABK games and Bethesda games at £70 each and, due to Microsoft's price increase, Playstation owners have to pay £100 a year per game to play online. Which console would 95% of people choose to play on?

Azure vs AWS has everything to do with this topic because it is the only strategy Microsoft are interested in. Getting console warriors to publicly slap-fight on the internet is a distraction. CoD going exclusive is a distraction. Every game Microsoft own can and will go 3rd party because it benefits them more than keeping them exclusive.

 

[Darth Vader]

Azure vs AWS has everything to do with this topic because it is the only strategy Microsoft are interested in. Getting console warriors to publicly slap-fight on the internet is a distraction. CoD going exclusive is a distraction. Every game Microsoft own can and will go 3rd party because it benefits them more than keeping them exclusive.

I don't think it's the only, but when the CMA even says that cloud gaming is part of the problem...

 

[Deleted member 417]

Don’t waste any more time arguing with Yurinka. He says so much dumb shit that you’re far better off putting him on ignore than trying to refute his posts.

I'll give everyone a chance. I'll see how he replies and go from there. I don't generally put people on ignore, I just don't respond to them, much like adamsapple. I appreciate the heads up though.

I don't think it's the only, but when the CMA even says that cloud gaming is part of the problem...

Maybe there are other angles I don't see, but for me, the deepest strategy is Microsoft owning the distribution. I even think that the "we won't seperate CoD" is a slight smoke screen.