Sony has overtaken Tencent as the top grossing gaming company

[Yurinka]

Info copy pasted from a zedinen post in other forum:

Source:

Sony

Sony exchange rates

Tencent 4Q2022 (Tencent exchange rate)

Tencent 1Q2023 (Tencent exchange rate)

Tencent 2Q023 (Tencent exchange rate)

Tencent 3Q2023 (Tencent exchange rate)


MIcrosoft 10-Q

Microsoft (Jul-Sep) 22

Microsoft (Oct-Dec) 22

Microsoft (Jan-Mar) 23

Microsoft FY23

Microsoft (Jul-Sep) 22

Notes from Yurinka (this part isn't copy pasted):

Please notice that the Sony numbers only include SIE, don't include the gaming business from other Sony divisions (Aniplex, Lasengle, Netflix Games, etc).

Jim Ryan leaves SIE being not only the most successful CEO in gaming history. Not only console gaming.

Not sure if these are there are ABK numbers of the most recent quarters, but adding ABK on top of MS would look like this:

MS would make now maybe around $22B/year when adding ABK, so would continue behind Sony (the new leader) and Tencent. This Q3 with Spider-Man 2 and without stock issues Sony very likely will make even bigger numbers than last year so pretty likely will end doing >30B/year.

 

[Johnic]

Surprising. Tencent is huge.

 

[ksdixon]

Surprising. Tencent is huge.

My thoughts exactly

 

[Box]

Even after 80 billion dollars on Activision they are still cucked by Sony

 

[Airbus]

No matter how big they are as primarily console and pc gamers tencent have zero influence on my daily gaming life

 

[nongkris]

Foolish not to add their Aniplex revenue but healthy numbers for all.

 

[historia]

I honestly don't care about this shit but still funny to see all the green rats pre-mature "celebration" get shattered again.

Lul

 

[Jim Ryan]

No need to be complacent. They need to expand the console base.

Eliminate competition and take the fight against pc. Push back in Japan against mobile gaming.

Quality must prevail over all else.

God bless the virtuous cycle.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

You must be salivating at this news if it means nonchalantly thinking it justifies Microsoft buying up yet more publishers .

(Slight) kidding aside, there are some factors you have to look at as to the revenue increases. For starters, a lot of that revenue is NOT SIE's revenue, it's that from 3P software sales. So if next year 3P have a rough time, that revenue would take a drop, simple as that. Also of what revenue is from SIE, only a tiny fraction is from PC software sales, most of which are from Destiny 2 B2P and DLC/MTX. So PC can't even be attributed to as a major part of that revenue growth.

Then there's the larger macro factors of the market, like new game prices being $10 more than last gen, increases in Premium/Deluxe sales of games by enthusiasts, increases in peripheral purchases...those are things which benefit many companies but particularly benefit SIE/Sony thanks to PlayStation's popularity.

Just mentioning this because undoubtedly, some people will try using these fiscal results to say Microsoft still needs to "compete" by acquiring yet more publishers, when they should really be asking themselves these questions:

1: Why can't Microsoft grow the viability of their current IP and product line organically to increase 1P revenue with what they already have?​

​

2: Why don't these people ask Nintendo to "compete", since they are now 3rd in revenue for the platform holders, with Microsoft having only surpassed them through acquisitions of major publishers?​

​

3: At what point does the management load of buying big publishers with thousands of employees each, become too much for a gaming division that already struggles with management issues, and creates a pipeline collapse?​

​

4: Doesn't Microsoft's gaming management need to be fully hands-on with integrating/improving Zenimax, inXile, Compulsion, The Initiative etc. alongside integrating & reforming ABK workplace culture & management, thus leaving no room for buying yet another publisher for at least a good 4-5 years?​

​

5: Wouldn't Microsoft shareholders & investors want to see some actual growth and results from spending ~ $80 billion in gaming acquisitions, before seeing the company leapfrog into spending yet MORE money on acquisitions? Consistent results that would need at least 4-5 years to show stability and positive momentum?​

​

6: Wouldn't regulators take into question why a $2.5 trillion Big Tech corporation need to spend almost the market cap equivalent of their competitors in order to "compete", and then spend MORE money to "compete" after having just purchased one of the largest 3P publishers in the entire industry?​

​

These are the questions that need to be regularly asked by all parties. They show the biggest obstacles towards more market consolidation by Microsoft and, there's virtually nothing they can do to provide answers that favor them buying anything beyond a small handful of dev studios (for example, Creative Assembly) for a good half-decade if not longer.

 

[KnittedKnight]

The PS2 install base was within reach this gen, if not for better policies. With Xbox declining, it should be the goal, the new natural, and PlayStation's average, and leadership should be judged on meeting this average. It has taken way too long to get back on track - two generations (12-13 yrs) in fact. Beyond Xbox, PC should be the main competitive target, and the original target had the PS2 base not collapsed due to PS leadership stupidity and MS's opportunistic entrance and positioning with Xbox, in part to prevent this very focus on PC. I would argue PC should be PlayStation's main competitve target today, not for next-gen but today. There are millions of gamers with taste and content palete cross-over on PC, much more than even Nintendo. The only defining difference for those consumers is hardware choice - which is the point and the goal - that is, to get those consumers to switch hardware choice.

The little game and con Microsoft has been playing with the Xbox trojan horse to divide and conquer by dividing Sony's attention, effectively splitting competitive resources which instead of focusing on PC after the PS2, had Sony refocus on console with Xbox, well... that strategy, after 12-13 yrs is melting away - not without a last hurrah of course: ABK/Bethesda. It's all about fucking Windows and it will always be about Windows. PC sold = Windows sale more or less. The equation is that simple. You go against PC as a gaming platform, as a hardware choice, you go after MS, its wallet - hence, Xbox, as a fighting reaction.

The console base will have to grow at PC's expense, no two ifs or buts about it - it's the nature of things, which makes current SIE PC policies not only short sighted but also strategically self-defeating, moronically stupid, and the leadership behind them useful idiots for the competition, in a political sense, treasonous to PlayStation, as a brand and ecosystem that rests on PlayStation hardware. It's not a matter of "opinion".

 

[Yurinka]

For starters, a lot of that revenue is NOT SIE's revenue, it's that from 3P software sales.

Part of it is SIE's revenue generated via 3P sales, yes. Same as in the cases of Tencent and MS.

So if next year 3P have a rough time

PS always have been the console with the biggest 3P support, and being the market leader that won't change. As we can see from the already announced 3P 2024 games.

Just mentioning this because undoubtedly, some people will try using these fiscal results to say Microsoft still needs to "compete" by acquiring yet more publishers, when they should really be asking themselves these questions:

1: Why can't Microsoft grow the viability of their current IP and product line organically to increase 1P revenue with what they already have?​

It's something they should do, but apparently they don't have competent enough people to achieve it. So hirings and acquisitions may help with this.

2: Why don't these people ask Nintendo to "compete", since they are now 3rd in revenue for the platform holders, with Microsoft having only surpassed them through acquisitions of major publishers?​

Nintendo are perfectly happy as they are having the portable market for themselves, selling overpriced consoles and games a gazillion million units and getting great profits. Part of this success is the lack of competition and using cheaper components. If they had to sell very expensive consoles and games at a way lower profit margin and compete in tech against Sony and MS, plus also fight for 3P support Nintendo would be less successful than they have been with Switch.

3: At what point does the management load of buying big publishers with thousands of employees each, become too much for a gaming division that already struggles with management issues, and creates a pipeline collapse?​

It's very difficult to manage large teams, and I assume must be even more difficult to manage multiple of them and merge them. I think MS already collapsed, and I don't see a bright future for them.

I think it's easier to grow already existing teams and acquire smaller teams, more manageable and easier to integrate and merge into a different culture as Sony does.

4: Doesn't Microsoft's gaming management need to be fully hands-on with integrating/improving Zenimax, inXile, Compulsion, The Initiative etc. alongside integrating & reforming ABK workplace culture & management, thus leaving no room for buying yet another publisher for at least a good 4-5 years?​

Yes, I think this is a very complicated thing that takes years and that they should take a lot of efforts into it. I think it would be better for them to pause on the acquisitions side and take a few years to make sure all teams are properly integrated, coordinated and learnd and support each other to take full advantage of the knowledge, skills, tech and experience from each other.

But I wouldn't bet on MS doing this properly looking at the previous experiences.

5: Wouldn't Microsoft shareholders & investors want to see some actual growth and results from spending ~ $80 billion in gaming acquisitions, before seeing the company leapfrog into spending yet MORE money on acquisitions? Consistent results that would need at least 4-5 years to show stability and positive momentum?​

I think that at some point shareholders should tell them to stop investing on acquisitions (they already spent almost $100B on that) and to restructure their business to recoup these investments and turn their gaming business into a profitable one.

6: Wouldn't regulators take into question why a $2.5 trillion Big Tech corporation need to spend almost the market cap equivalent of their competitors in order to "compete", and then spend MORE money to "compete" after having just purchased one of the largest 3P publishers in the entire industry?​

​

These are the questions that need to be regularly asked by all parties. They show the biggest obstacles towards more market consolidation by Microsoft and, there's virtually nothing they can do to provide answers that favor them buying anything beyond a small handful of dev studios (for example, Creative Assembly) for a good half-decade if not longer.​

Regulators don't care about the revenue of a corporation or amount of money spent on acquisitions.

What they do is making sure that companies don't make monopolistic actions on their region for a specific market. Something that by definition can only be made by someone with enough market power to do so, owning all or almost all the market and doing something that would block the abilities of other to compete.

MS is the 3rd in gaming and in consoles and doesn't even has a 15% market share on any of them. They spent $70B on acquiring the biggest company they could, which barely gives them 4% market share and still keep them as 3rd in both markets. Any other acquisition would change even less the market.

It would more sense for a regulator to raise concerns seeing Sony making a big acquisition being the top 1 company in both gaming and consoles and outperforming their direct competitor by 8:2 or 9:1 in their market. But Sony doesn't even own 15% of market share in gaming, and pretty likely a big company they could acquire would give them only maybe 1% or 2% of extra market share, so pretty likely would accept it if focused on let's say mobile or PC, some area outside where they specially dominate MS (as is consoles).