Yep. I saved it, but haven’t had a chance to read it yet. I was mainly looking for raw data though - not “processed” information. A quick skim did not reveal many specific numbers in the doc, though they may be buried in footnotes and the like. I’ll take a harder look later.
1 Like
3 Likes
But they do have numbers there - including market share and so on.
1 Like
I’m not sure what you’re implying, but the chip shortage is not ending in 2023 and it doesn’t matter how many PS5s have been sold; PS5 sales are irrelevent to Microsoft’s long game, as evidenced by TES6 and/or the revenue Game Pass will bring in when it blows up, which is what MS is investing in.
Too many people elsewhere are saying things like “of course CoD stays multiplat, they’ll lose too much money otherwise” which couldn’t be further from the truth and isn’t the main reason for the blogpost. Making CoD release every two years loses more money than anything and that’s seemingly where we are [thankfully] headed.
Warzone leaving PS is a different story, though, as that is microtransaction central and F2P. I’m pretty sure regardless of anyone’s stance, it’s common sense to think Warzone will always be available everywhere.
Right. I see the ranges for market share. But market share is a processed number (you have to define the size of the market in order to compute market share).
I also only see the ranges, not any point estimates.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a fascinating read - it just does not appear to have the specific info I needed.
But no worries, I’ve got workable numbers now - I’ll just have to use the old “author’s estimate” line to justify them. Ha.
1 Like
Worth noting how often the EU references past deals involving Activision specifically too. It comes up a LOT even in that Zenimax document. Both their merging with Blizzard as well as King get noted several times.
I’d advise ppl to presume the only exclusives at all will be new IP that aren’t GaaS stuff. And honestly, that might not be a whole lot. Even if we presumed there are literally 0 exclusives, the benefits for us as Xbox fans is enormous. Instead of some folks clinging desperately to the notion of CoD et al being exclusive, focus should be on the other tangible benefits even without that, of which there are numerous.
2 Likes
This.
If I’m Phil Spencer and thinking how to leverage mega IP over the next 10 years to get on top of the game industry then the last thing I’m thinking is to cut the franchise fanbases in half.
Instead, I’m thinking I want to keep my mega franchises as big as possible, and even grow them. Every fan gained, no matter the device, is a potential Game Pass subscriber as game streaming takes its foothold. Why lose them to console wars? Consoles are on the way to niche device status. Why does anyone want to win that war when the game streaming and subscription model is clearly the future, which will be decided by who has the largest game franchises.
1 Like
Haha, you’d advise?
Thanks for the free consulation
1 Like
Free? Your invoice is in the mail…I expect to be paid in bitcoin and NFT’s.
Plus, imagine being disappointed at the prospect of all ABK games going forward day 1 on GP, with GPU perks and probably some exclusive betas or whatnot. Then there’s the BC catalogue that will be coming upon the deal closing. Then consider the tech stack Xbox will be able to leverage with the CoD teams’ engines, the IP’s ripe for modern audiences, the devs being able to take their time making games in a supportive environment, their games almost certainly running better than ever on Xbox, and all that extra revenue Xbox now will get every year that isn’t tied to CoD but rather to the broader Xbox platform and 1P output.
Nobody should be disappointed here one bit. A month ago if you had said we were gonna be getting all those things I just mentioned, Xbox fans would be flipping out in joy and rightfully so.
2 Likes
CoD unequivocally multiplatform.
New IP likely to be exclusive, excluding GAAS.
After a quick reading of the concluding points in the report, I feel it is likely that any unannounced games (excluding GAAS) within existing IP can be exclusive as well imo. So, that could include Crash Bandicoot and Spyro.
Broadly speaking, Brad Smith did not specify ‘other popular titles’ because most likely MS are continuously evaluating what those are based on the market perception and sales as they prepare for regulatory review.
EDIT: Even before reading this report, my thoughts basically mirror what Rand and Jez has said in their latest podcast.
2 Likes
Yes to all of that. Microsoft is on its way to being on top of the new gaming landscape. They have a real shot at being the new market leader and reap all the market influencing benefits that come with that position. Yes, it will take a few more years to materialize, but it’s happening. And by playing fair today, not going back on their word with the FTC, they can gobble up more publishers a devs to further cement their position.
Why is that not enough? Why compromise that trajectory to win a war over plastic boxes that is on its way to obsolescence inside the next 10-15 years?
Generally speaking not really. They already did this by making Warzone next gen only and future cods next gen only. Exclusivity would increase the number of gamepass subscribers which increases the number of Xcloud users which furthers a much larger userbase.
I’d also suggest that a $70 CoD on PS5 vs. Free with gamepass everywhere else (even your phone) is looking like a diminishing market.
Probably part of their plan.
Well if you reason the console market is less relevant, would you be ok with Microsoft porting CoD to Luna and Stadia as well? Because that would negatively impact gamepass and Xbox too.
There would be. Warcraft/Starcraft is PC only so you are maintaining the status quo by not releasing on Playstation. They’ll only be on Xbox if they’re able…and they certainly should be.
There is a transition to streaming services that will take many years to play out. For this generation, PlayStation and Nintendo consoles simply will have greater reach worldwide. Why not take advantage of that reach? Get all of those games to have Xbox logins, like Minecraft does today, and tempt them with Game Pass over the years as stewing gets better and more accessible?
Why take huge franchises away from PlayStation, leaving more oxygen in its absence for something else to take its place?
Console wars at this stage make no sense. The sooner people can get over the fact that Xbox will NEVER win that game no matter what then the sooner they’ll look beyond it and see a much bigger opportunity where Xbox has a ton of advantages to be #1 in the industry.
As for Luna and Stadia, those are game streaming competitors plus they hardly have a user base to take advantage of.
Because Switch isnt capable of running these games so its install base is worthless and PS5 version is $70…literally the least desirable version of the product.
Yeah…if Microsoft wanted MAU this deal adds about 400 million which when combined with Xbox Network and Minecraft is in the 500-600 million area.
But they should port Spyro for 2 million more?
I think you over estimate Sonys ability to replicate most of ABs franchises. Im still waiting on the Halo killer.
This is not console warring, its simple supply and demand. The less exclusives Xbox has the slower the uptake for gamepass will be.
1 Like
I wouldn’t consider Spyro a mega IP. I was talking about keeping the big franchises as big as possible over the coming years by making them accessible. When consoles are on the way out, and streaming services have taken their foothold, then those communities won’t give a shit about consoles and will just transition to Game Pass on any device.
Sony has 10 GaaS in development. There’s a good chance at least one of them makes it big and I’d say there’s more than a fair chance at 2-3 of them doing well enough to let Sony Spartacus further off the ground.
That’s really only because you are focused on Xbox sales driving the adoption of Game Pass, not the other way around. It’s the case for 2021 and 2022, will gradually transition away from that.
1 Like
If they want to keep their install bases…keep making them for PS4 and Xbox One forever. Of course that isnt going to happen so regardless, they are choosing to lose 180 million consoles in exchange for 50m.
If these consoles dont matter in the long run, then whats the harm in the games being Xbox exclusive?
One game might replace Overwatch, what about CoD, Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, warcraft and diablo?
And if Sony needs exclusive content for Spartacus…why shouldnt Xbox?
Negative. Im saying limiting the platforms to PC and Xbox and only those platorms drives demand due to scarce availability.
If Microsoft announce all AB games will also launch on Playstation or Switch well thats fewer people in your ecosystem because you gave them good reason to be. You just directed them to two platforms that dont have gamepass.
And as Sydle suggest if its all about subscriptions for the future, pretty dumb to do that.
PS5 is on track to sell way more than 50 million.
The consoles do matter right now and for the next few years. I mentioned that it will take years for streaming to become adopted by mass consumers, so in the meantime why not take advantage of the reach and influence of rival consoles? If you’re going to be selective about my argument I’ll just put you on ignore.