Technically yes, however we know that isn’t always the case.
Look at how Disney now owns nearly every big media franchise in the world, in a short span of time they have become one of the biggest streaming services.
Sony now also own the majority of Anime services.
I’m not saying I want a company to have a monopoly on the market, nor should they.
What I meant by this is literally that they need to stay competitive. If their competitors keep investing then they also need to invest at the same pace or their current investments will ultimately depreciate.
Eventually they (or their competitors) may be blocked by regulators and that is ultimately their job.
Because it would be laughable from them due to having Google App Store. And their decision not to compete due to Zenimax is their own decision because I don’t think anybody would believe them that it was too costly for them to compete.
I think they will try to provide Stadia to other streaming platforms. Like Steam Deck, their platform is tied to Linux so they might see some adoption for smaller third parties (as Microsoft relies on XCloud for theirs). Granted Steam Deck runs Proton so it does not require native ports.
Yes, but I believe regulators reached out to them about the ABK deal anyway. I forget if their feedback was redacted though or if they just made a non-statement.
I agree it’d be hypocritical, but that doesn’t change the fact they made a fuss about the last, much smaller acquisition from one of their main competitors (in general, as mentioned before their gaming service is near dead).
Unless they’re worried about getting into more trouble for speaking up to regulators about MS’s acquisition, I don’t see why they wouldn’t comment.
I think we agree, perhaps just not on what the tipping point is. To me, Xbox’s investment has far outpaced their competitors (and it needed to, since they were coming from behind) and a purchase like EA would be so impactful to other subscription services that it’d only go through with enough concessions that they might as well not go through with it (like making games available to other subscription services).
I am curious what others would consider a tipping point.
Another large platform holder, Valve, Epic, Nintendo, Sony, WBD (whole thing) or Netflix. Slight chance they could get away with WBD or Netflix, but I’d still consider those two tipping points.
I don’t think Google is doing any internal game development, Niantic is independent (spun off from Google) and they closed down all of their other first party gaming studios. Do they at least fund exclusive games like Apple does with Apple Arcade?
I don’t consider passive income from owning a closed general platform/ecosystem as heavy involvement in the market.
The tipping point would be a great conversational topic, I may even ask it in this week’s podcast.
I think something like that is always difficult to judge, you may be 100% correct that they have already outpaced their competitors, however I doubt we will know until the ABK deal is done and their games have been in Gamepass for a few years.
The revenue estimates (which put them at 2nd/3rd) obviously don’t take into account things like attracting new subscribers or new console sales etc, however I’m not sure they will be able to surpass Tencent’s annual revenue even with ABK.
WBD or Netflix would definitely be an interesting one.
Technically as Microsoft don’t have their own Movie/TV streaming service I can see them pushing that through the regulators, however the wider impact it would have is astronomical.
All of a sudden all those subscribers are also potential GamePass users (which is potentially a clear tipping point).
Sony and Nintendo aside, I don’t think WBD or Netflix would be a tipping point at all. Granted after Netflix they might be in trouble to acquire other big streaming service but microsoft has 0 presence in the streaming market.
Pretty sure there is no fixed definition for at what level of grouping you define a market. Gaming is a market, mobile gaming is a market, subscription gaming services are a market.
I’m not trying to hear folks talk about an anime market (which are cartoons, which are TV Shows/Movies) and tell me that the market can’t be looked at at lower levels in gaming.
The higher up you go, the less fidelity you get. It benefits Microsoft (and you guys) to look at the gaming market because it makes their piece look smaller and less impactful. I am choosing to subdivided it by similar products/services that are competing for the same customers. You guys will have to excuse me if I don’t think Google Play Pass is competing with Game Pass for customers.
This is not a new concept. Hoeg even warned early on that regulators could consider the market in various ways, including subscription services.
Should Xbox try and acquire Pearl Abyss after acquiring Activision/Blizzard? Am asking because the studio is rather competent with Microsoft`s Azure Tech and the relationship between both the studio and Xbox has been quite positive. I would not be anymore surprised if it happens. I would say the same for Pocket Pair, but i do not have any information regarding that specific studio.
In gaming today with all the lines blurring between where you can play your games and on what devices, how is a mobile developer truly different from a console developer? Where is the line? Will that line exist in the next 5 years, how about 10?
With those lines blurred, can a mobile platform holder really be distinguished from a console platform holder? Can a service platform holder be distinguished from either of those?
To me, it seems we have rapidly accelerated towards nearly indistinguishable. I’d point to handhelds as a category that has essentially disappeared when talking about markets. That pretty much has folded into console or mobile at this point.
So in the end you divided the market yourself to fit your argument regarding the publishers. All the existing gaming publishers are the small fish in the pond of the bigger gaming market.
