Microsoft buys Activision-Blizzard

McFly85 · 22-09-2023 11:31am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121142258#Comment_121142258

I can understand why Sony wouldn’t entertain it though. Why allow a competitor to leverage your install base for their primary subscription service that will no doubt eat into your sales?

For it to be even considered, the amount they would have to pay Sony would be astronomical, especially when you look at the projections to host some games on GP that came out in the leak.

awec · 22-09-2023 11:48am

Different argument now though.

Microsoft would happily make Game Pass available on any platform, they don't care about selling Xbox consoles. As a consumer, I could have a Game Pass subscription, play whatever games I want on whatever platform I want. This would absolutely save me a ton of money, and bring me a load of choice.

The reason this doesn't happen is Sony wouldn't make as much money as they do today from game sales.

I don't think you get to sit and claim this merger, or any previous merger, is anti-consumer, when you look at the approach Sony has taken to lock down their system to prevent alternative methods of obtaining games, and paying developers to not make games available elsewhere. For years Sony refused to even allow cross-play between different consoles. They didn't even allow PS4/PS5 cross play!

If you're going to make the anti-consumer argument, I think Sony are much worse at this, they have to be to protect their revenue.

FWIW, I have a PS5, I don't have an Xbox.

CatInABox · 22-09-2023 11:50am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121142318#Comment_121142318

In the lead up to the acquisition, Bethesda were in talks with Sony about making Starfield a timed PS exclusive. Developers are offering deals to Sony that they don't even consider offering to MS, and that's down to the massive difference in install base. It's a self-reinforcing imbalance, as these deals directly undermine any efforts from MS to make up the lost ground.

I don't know if this acquisition is good or not, but I do know that the current set up is both uncompetitive, and bad for consumers long term.

murpho999 · 22-09-2023 12:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121142228#Comment_121142228

Sony were negotiating with Bethesda to make Starfield exclusive to PlayStation and that would have severely restricted access to the game.

That's what drove MS to buy Bethesda and now it's available to more gamers.

Also, I know Gamepass is not free but if you're already a subscriber than you got Starfield at no extra costs and there's some major games coming donw the line and Lies of P added in the last week.

Recent price rise is moderate and nothing compared to the 30% PS have added to their program which still does not add new AAA games on release date.

sniper_samurai · 22-09-2023 12:11pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121141972#Comment_121141972

If you want a good look at Sony anti consumer tactics just look at what they have done in the anime market.

They have as good as a vertical monopoly in the English territories from production all the way through to wholesale distribution and sale.

They have a global monopoly on streaming between their Animax service in Asia and then purchasing Funimation (Americas, SA, UK &IE), Wakanim(Europe), Madman(Aus & NZ) and finally Crunchyroll.

Add to that they then bought the biggest Anime wholesaler and retailer in the US, Right Stuf, alongside the biggest local distributors in the UK, continental Europe and Australia.

McFly85 · 22-09-2023 12:11pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121142447#Comment_121142447

If Microsoft didn’t care about selling consoles they wouldn’t make them, and if they didn’t make them, they’d be far more likely to have Gamepass on PlayStation, as they wouldn’t be a direct competitor.

I think it’s ridiculous to claim that Sony are anti-consumer because they won’t allow their direct rival to sell their main product on their platform. It benefits MS far more than it benefits Sony.

Some of the stuff they’ve done around timed exclusivity is crap though definitely - but buying a huge publisher and their IP is far more anti-consumer imo.

FWIW I have a PS5 and a Series X but have recently cancelled my Gamepass sub.

murpho999 · 22-09-2023 12:13pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121142232#Comment_121142232

No, they have more choice to access the game with cloud gaming and/or PC.

How can it be ok for Sony to have exclusives but not MS?

As for Sony's sub service. Do new games go on it? WIll Spiderman 2 be on it like Starfield on Gamepass?

No, if you want to play Spiderman 2, you have to have a PlayStation and you have to buy the game.

murpho999 · 22-09-2023 12:14pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121142318#Comment_121142318

No, Sony wanted to make Starfield exclusive to Playstation and that's why MS acquired Bethesda.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/23/23771828/microsoft-betheda-acquisition-starfield-playstation-exclusive

awec · 22-09-2023 12:16pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121142542#Comment_121142542

I think you miss my point.

Microsoft sell Xbox's to sell Game Pass. The goal is to increase the share of Game Pass, not make the money through console sales. This is why they would happily bring Game Pass to any other console, bringing Game Pass to PlayStation would obviously hurt the sale of Xbox's but that wouldn't be an issue.

Selling Game Pass on PS does benefit Microsoft more than Sony, but it also benefits the consumer a lot more. By definition, restricting this is anti-consumer, this is purely Sony trying to ensure PlayStation owners have to pay 70 quid for every single new game.

Sony have to be anti-consumer to protect their revenue, Microsoft have out-manoeuvred them by releasing a service that represents excellent value for consumers and being willing to make it platform-agnostic.

McFly85 · 22-09-2023 12:29pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121142559#Comment_121142559

It’s more than fine for MS to have exclusives. Nobody will expect Forza or Halo to show up on PlayStation.

But I would prefer that they make them rather than buying IP that had been available everywhere previously.

Spider-Man 2 will be available full price at launch, so yes, you’ll have to wait to play it cheaper, that’s not in dispute. I’ll buy it at some point when it goes on sale, which is a choice I have.

CatInABox · 22-09-2023 12:45pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121142634#Comment_121142634

Which is a valid point, I'd prefer homegrown games myself, but if MS started that right now, or even 5 years ago, Sony's continued dominance will only have grown by the time that it starts to show fruit. You can lament MS past behaviour on this (I certainly do), but you can't ignore the current environment. If MS want to survive, then they have to do their growth through acquisitions.

McFly85 · 22-09-2023 1:03pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121142700#Comment_121142700

I do think that a big reason that MS have struggled over the last decade is because they’re so services-focused, and haven’t really managed to produce new IP that is immediately associated with the brand.

They’ve had some good exclusives, definitely(the Ori games are fantastic), but they’re generally smaller releases.

Theyve relied heavily on sequels(Gears, Forza, Halo) and they’ve been few and far between.

What Sony have done really well in that time I think a create exclusives that are immediately associated with their brand. I think they’re all a bit too samey action adventure with RPG-lite mechanics for the most part, but they reviewed well and everyone knows that they’re PlayStation games. They have managed to keep a fairly good release schedule too.

I would love for MS to create new, interesting IP that people would immediately think of Xbox for, but honestly they don’t seem too bothered.

TheChrisD · 22-09-2023 1:36pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121142245#Comment_121142245

And also, they're available to more consumers now? Last I checked they would have been available on PC, Xbox and PlayStation but now its just PC and XBox, how is that more consumers?

The Game Pass subscribers who have access to the games, is far more than those who would've bought the games full price across all platforms.

CatInABox · 22-09-2023 1:39pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121142767#Comment_121142767

Aw yeah, MS hopped on the Live Service games a long time ago, seems like each one was greenlit in the hopes of having a long tail. Again, not something that I agree with. I find it quite funny that Sony are actually pivoting to this now, seems like so many of the choices lately are about building out their live service departments now, like the Bungie acquisition.

johnny_ultimate · 22-09-2023 1:43pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121142567#Comment_121142567

Tbh, if you think making Starfield exclusive is anti-consumer - which I wholly agree it is - I don’t see how you can realistically argue that *buying the entirety of Bethesda to make all their games exclusive* is somehow pro-consumer. It’s orders of magnitude more extreme.

murpho999 · 22-09-2023 2:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121142939#Comment_121142939

Because MS have made it available to more than one platform and subscribers to Gamepass do not have to pay extra for it.

That's the complet opposite of what would have happened if Sony had got their hands on the game.

I don't understand how you fail to see that Gamepass is a very good deal for consumers and way more advantageous than anything Playstation offers who ideally want consumers to pay full price to play games on their console that you must buy.

McFly85 · 22-09-2023 2:21pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121142578#Comment_121142578

I understand they want to increase Game Pass subs, I just think that it's a stretch to say it's anti-consumer for their direct competitor to not help them do so. Generally, for any sort of cooperation to happen between competitors, it needs to be shown to be mutually beneficial which this wouldn't be. It's strictly anti-consumer I suppose, in the sense that having exclusives at all is anti-consumer.

Generally, I wonder if the idea of a subscription service as a primary source of income is realistic. Currently, Game Pass represents 15% of MS content and services revenue, so they still make most of their money through selling games. How much more content can they add through acquisitions and development over the next few years while still keeping the costs down? Be interesting to see what that figure is in 5 years time.

murpho999 · 22-09-2023 2:41pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121143170#Comment_121143170

Did you see the leaks this week? Xbox are making more profits than PS and on lower revenues. That's definitely Gamepass driven.

Exclamation Marc · 22-09-2023 3:32pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121142915#Comment_121142915

How is a game that is only available to those with an Xbox Game Pass or PC more available than if it was on Xbox Game Pass, PC and PlayStation....

murpho999 · 22-09-2023 4:01pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121143540#Comment_121143540

Because if Xbox didn't have it then it would have been a Sony exclusive and then only available on PlayStation which really limits it.

johnny_ultimate · 22-09-2023 7:54pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121143160#Comment_121143160

You keep turning this into a ‘but Sony!’ argument. I am more than happy to criticise Sony and their various **** shenanigans too. I just also think Microsoft is up to a load of old corporate bullshit too. They’re both corporations who cannot and should not be trusted to do anything that isn’t in their own interest first and foremost. There’s a lot of stuff Microsoft does I appreciate - their backwards compatibility approach, their funding of smaller projects like Psychonauts 2, Hi-Fi Rush etc… I also do not want them to keep buying up studios and publishers.

I have to push back at this idea that GamePass is simply pro-consumer, unconditionally. Actually, corporate subscription services come with a load of very real caveats. The lack of ownership is the biggest one, where you’re consistently pumping money into a service but immediately lose access once you stop paying or the game is pulled from the service. That’s unambiguously a lot worse than owning something outright, even if the cost of entry is cheaper! You’re locked into a recurring monthly subscription, whereas if you buy a game it’s yours, and your library is a lot more secure (not *entirely* secure, but a lot more secure than a subscription service). There are games I paid a fiver or tenner for on Steam, Xbox etc ten years ago I can play whenever I want. There are games I played on GamePass just over a year ago that are no longer accessible, but I’m still paying for GamePass.

There are also limits on the types and number of projects a streaming service can sustain and fund, and the projects being selected are curated not by users or artists but by a corporation. Streaming’s here to stay and I’ve no objection to that, but it needs to exist alongside a traditional full-price model (especially a healthy and diverse indie and ‘AA’ industry).

We’re seeing the negative side of the subscription economy play out big time in film/TV streaming at the moment, where content is disappearing, creatives are being underpaid (compared to the traditional TV model) and subscription fees are being constantly hiked. Netflix - actually still the best of the services as far as their own library concerned is - was the deal of the decade when it arrived. Now it’s a very expensive monthly bill, not even allowing for the competition. Meanwhile Disney, Warner / HBO etc are actively pulling content from their services or rapidly decreasing the volume of production. I can’t help but keep this in mind when looking at where gaming is going, even if I think it’s here to stay and has undeniable benefits.

I have no question GamePass is a good deal right now - I have a subscription and use it! There’s hopefully a few more years left when it will be a good deal. But it’s less of a good deal than it was a year ago - prices have gone up, and the intro offers are less enticing (and Sony has also hiked prices to quite a grim degree). And it might well be less of a good deal again in one, two, three years. And no, platform restrictions are not pro-consumer in any way - if Microsoft truly believed that, they’d release Starfield across the board at retail with or without GamePass. Sure, it’d be great if Sony put GamePass on PlayStation - it’d also be great if Microsoft released Bethesda games on Playstation anyway. One company acting selfishly does not excuse the other for acting the same way.

Sony paying for FF16 exclusivity is bad, and exclusive DLC deals or whatever is also bad. All that **** is bad, and should be actively and relentlessly criticised. Just one of the companies has bigger pockets and is doing things on a grander scale - with eyes towards more to come. This idea that Microsoft is some benevolent entity here to solely bless is something I do not buy for a single second, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with what Sony is or is not doing :)

TheRona · 22-09-2023 8:11pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121144523#Comment_121144523

To be fair, I didn't read everything you put there, but games being on Game Pass does not mean that they're not able to be bought like any other game. You're also told when it's about to leave Game Pass, and you're offered the chance to buy it at 20% off.

Certain games will always be available, but a lot of 3rd party games are only available for a limited amount of time to promote them.

SuperBowserWorld · 22-09-2023 8:13pm

MS just don't have the love or art for video games and it shows.

Nintendo really get what makes a fun video game without giving into groupthink. They could have easily leaned into the whole Mario Movie illumination direction, after the success of the Mario movie with their upcoming games, but they didn't. Hopefully they ... never do. The seem to know that games are not movies. Other companies have lost the plot in that respect. This guy is still working on games for Nintendo. He worked on the original Super Mario Bros and is working on Super Mario Wonder, nearly 40 years later. These guys are teaching the next game developers. People stay in Nintendo a long time. People in other companies contract and jump around ... there is no passing down of art or knowledge ... anyway ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takashi_Tezuka

johnny_ultimate · 22-09-2023 8:32pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121144563#Comment_121144563

Of course, and that’s great! And to be fair MS usually have a discount when games are expiring from the library. That’s all smart and sensible. I pay for subscription services and will continue to. But the reality is that there are drawbacks to an ongoing subscription, such as lack of ownership, rising prices and expiring content (third party and even occasionally first party), that can not be filed under the ‘pro-consumer’ category, even if there are other aspects that can.

Exclamation Marc · 22-09-2023 9:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121143672#Comment_121143672

So it's bad and anti-consumer if Sony do it... But it's ok if Microsoft do it because it's stopping Sony doing it?

I don't think you get it, neither companies should be up to it.

EltonJohn69 · 23-09-2023 9:43am

Microsoft are the bad guys. They killed Netscape. They will kill again.

24-09-2023 11:37am

I've really enjoyed Game Pass as a service. It represents tremendous value and I have played games that I probably wouldn't have heard of, let alone tried. This is especially true of indie titles.

So as a consumer, I prefer this to the Sony model of charging 70-80 per game.

In an ideal world there would be one subscription service with games from all developers on it, that you could play on any device. That would be the consumer's dream, surely.

I see people are making the argument that Microsoft will keep raising the price of GP. But this has an upper limit. For me, it's currently at the limit of what I'd be willing to pay, which is 15 p/m. If it goes beyond this I'll probably unsubscribe.

Netflix screwed around with their pricing and customers and now they're dying on their feet, something I predicted would happen on here a while back now in a similar discussion.

Supply and demand actually works, apparently.

TitianGerm · 24-09-2023 12:14pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121150033#Comment_121150033

Why are you paying 15 per month when you can get two years for about 120?

24-09-2023 12:41pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121150150#Comment_121150150

How do I do that?

McFly85 · 24-09-2023 12:43pm

Gamepass is great if it coincides with games you would purchase anyway, like I’m sure Starfield was for many.

While I had it though, my favourite thing was finding out an interesting Indy title was there day 1. Unpacking, Signalis, Streets of Rage 4, TMNT, Windjammers 2 - being able to play games not on my radar that ended up being a great surprise.

But the big difference I think, when it comes to comparing streaming services, is that games can be far more time consuming. I’m currently playing Baldurs Gate 3 and have Phantom Liberty too, so it’s likely I wouldn’t go near GP for the rest of the year, so I cancelled it. Netflix can encourage you to keep your subscription because it’s unlikely that there’ll be something on another service that will have your attention for months on end.

Im sure I’ll re subscribe in the future to try Starfield, but I don’t think it’ll be a subscription I’ll keep, and I certainly wouldn’t spend €120 straight up to have it for a couple of years.

Microsoft buys Activision-Blizzard

Comments