You'd think that would be a logical thing to do but with Xbox, you never know. Might give him another award just for screwing up the brand.
Xbox and PlayStation quarterly report comparison. PlayStation gaming revenue up +61%, Xbox gaming revenue down -4%
- Thread starter Unchained
- Start date
D
Deleted member 417
Guest
I just dont think they really have any one else. Theyve spent almost 10 years building up his insane, undeserved, cult of personality of "Aw shucks good guy Phil understands gamers." Him leaving would be an ominous sign with the brand and division. Theyre clearly setting Sarah Bond to be his successor but I think she will be there to downsize the division honestly. Especially after this week.I'm gonna ask again, how does Phil still have a job?
He must have some dirt on all the MS higher-ups.
Oh that's an interesting point that made me remember something. This could be completely wrong but I remember reading that MS had a hard time finding someone to lead Xbox as most executives saw it as a failure. Enter Phil.
The fact that Sony is succeeding in moving to a Nintendo-like model where their first party is extemelty relevant is very good, so they don't stay hostage to trash like CoD.
Is it just me or is the radio silence from sony about destiny 2 lightfall kind of deafening? Seems like after a major release for your big GAAS game you'd at least mention it. I feel like it did kind of come out and go away real quick. I will say what when i played it, what i didn play of it, i was immediatly turned off the androgynous character you immediately meet and his um, huge bulge. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was a big turn off for people and I don’t think it’s coincidence bungie let some narrative writers go recently.
Look, we all know you struggle with basic concepts, but MS has a monopoly on business software and operating systems, and has been convicted of anti-competitive acts in multiple jurisdictions, multiple times.And some people are worried about a supposed MS monopoly
The existence of Xbox is itself a monopolistic act, as they fund the massive losses it has posted with money from their other lines of business, and Xbox was created to extend MS’ monopoly into the living room.
Try to act like you have a clue now and then, please.
Last edited:
Imagine being so fucking dishonest that you try and spin this out as a joke. Let's make this very simple for your pea brain.And some people are worried about a supposed MS monopoly
- Company A sells like shit but is rich, Company B sells like hotcakes but is not as rich
- They both compete in the same market and have the same suppliers
- Company A starts acquiring some suppliers and grows their revenue / profits
- Company B gets starved of suppliers and has to self source, which takes time
- Meanwhile company A acquires even more suppliers
- Company B can't compete and either folds or turns into a supplier themselves
I know you're too stupid to understand the above, but let's make matters even simpler: There's two main high end console manufacturers. One is rich, the other has the actual product people want. If the rich one starves the other one of third party content, they basically create a monopoly in a market sector (high end consoles) without actually trying to compete.
A fucking 5 year old with microcephaly could understand the concept above.
Edit - This comment was inspired by @KiryuRealty
Thanatos from Restera said:And some people are worried about a supposed MS monopoly
"Microsoft kind of screwed itself by owning the whole value chain for game streaming.
Games are developed from Microsoft teams, Published by Microsoft, put on Microsoft's Cloud Gaming platform running off Microsoft's Azure tech, and playable on many platforms, including Microsoft's own Windows."
We all know that Azure and Xbox's cloud offerings have nothing to do with one another. Nada. Our resident analyst has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Stop insulting, because I don't care, doesn't affect me, it only makes you look bad and may get you potentially banned because it's ok to disagree but not to insult.
Going back to topic: Company A has a market share of around 8%, so it's a fantasy to consider they have market power to do any monopolistic action, specially when their direct competitor B has almost 15% of market share.
And more because the concern comes from the potential exclusivity of a game that 90%+ of the users of B don't buy. And B btw has way more big exclusives than A on their common/direct competition/main market of A and B, and also way more mulltiplatform games that are in B but not in A and viceversa. So B has way more suppliers than A, and a wants to acquire one of them, one that represents around 4% of the total gaming market share (a good chunk of that revenue coming from a submarket where B almost isn't present, mobile).
They have to go to the marketshare in a country that represents around 3% of the gaming market of a subsegment of a subsegment (where B has twice the global userbase) of that submarket, that must represent less than 1% of the total gaming market and that almost for sure will continue being a tiny portion of the gaming market for at least minimum a decade or two if it ever ends being big.
A is very rich but in over two decades has been dominated by B in every area where they directly compete as main players. So this is why A is desperate for attention and tries to acquire suppliers (3P publishers and devs) and almost gives away their products, because themselves they don't know how to compete against A.
Even after the acquisition and if A wouldn't make console exclusive the acquired games to avoid the revenue they make in the B market, B would continue having a worldwide bigger market share than A in gaming and all its areas/submarkets where they directly compete as main players, in many of which A would continue being the last one in the race. B would continue having way more suppliers and big exclusives than A.
So it would continue being a fantasy to consider that A has or may potentially have a monopoly even after the acquisition. But yes, I give the CMA that A may have bigger market share in that submarket of a submarket that may represent less than 1% of the gaming market for their country that only represents around 3% of the global gaming revenue, and that A dark tactics suck so they deserve their acquisition be blocked for being assholes, but not for having any monopoly.
Last edited:
