Xbox Leaks (Microsoft aims to buy Nintendo & Valve, Game Pass needs 100 million by 2027/30 or Microsoft will exit Gaming, Seemingly came close to buying Sega)

[Ashande]

13 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

Just to be clear, I'm actually agreeing with you now about the lacking legal/moral integrity of Microsoft, and you still have a fucking problem with it?  I guess it's not good enough, not exactly the way you'd word it?  JFC.

 

Not that anyone will miss me but this is the last time I'm reading or posting in this thread.

 

 

You probably won’t read it, and c’est la vie on that count, but unless you misspoke, you claimed that you had gleaned from their history and e-mails that Microsoft is willing to toe the line morally and legally. I don’t see how that is “in agreement” about their “lacking moral/legal integrity.” If I am misunderstanding the post I quoted (and screenshotted, just for safety’s sake) in some fashion, then I apologize, but your phrasing implied that while they may not have legal or moral intent, they are behaving according to those strictures.

[Shikotei-kun]

Microsoft's thinking about exiting the gaming industry if they don't reach 400% their current GamePass subscription numbers?

Numbers that have -evidently- been stuck at 25 million for the majority of a year? Who came up with these "goals"?

 

Infinite growth doesn't exist. 1 billion sales of a game console? That's 14% of the world population. Not 14% of households, but the population. Even with 5-person household, that's 85% that need to have an Xbox. That's insane. Utterly unthinkable to have that large a market share.

 

Companies' general goals are to make money, and to continue to make money. The product is their method, their means, their ship to reach that goal.

With the way MS keeps throwing money around, I strongly wonder where it's coming from. Usually, with large companies, they want every division to be profitable. Subdivisions may be a money-sink (R&D, marketing), but the overall picture should generate cash.

MS's behavior is odd in that regard. Are they gunning for profit only after getting the monopoly? They've been taking cash income losses after each massive acquisition and subsequently threw said acquisition under the bus. So many bought up studios went dark or down in quality.

I can't imagine MS's game division being hugely profitable.

 

They had a massive 99% market share with Internet Explorer in the late '90s and early '00s (but only after killing Netscape). It's taken them years to release upgrades and updates, and even then they were miles behind the competition by then. Acid tests, support for CSS... MS's IE release history has shown that if they get on top, they'll stagnate until something comes along that threatens their position. And upgrades will trickle in slowly, and too weak to make a dent in the competition. Why do you think MS lost the browser wars?

 

Whatever MS has planned, it's nothing new. They'll continue to spend tons of cash to get what they want, crippling all in their way. Industry be damned, rules be damned (they'll pay the fine, so what?). These guys think in terms of winning or losing, not about consumers' well-being.

 

This is my opinion, but if MS actually leaves the gaming business, I won't mourn their departure. Sony might, given a competitor just exited...

[Rozalia1]

1 hour ago, Shikotei-kun said:

Microsoft's thinking about exiting the gaming industry if they don't reach 400% their current GamePass subscription numbers?

Numbers that have -evidently- been stuck at 25 million for the majority of a year? Who came up with these "goals"?

 

Infinite growth doesn't exist. 1 billion sales of a game console? That's 14% of the world population. Not 14% of households, but the population. Even with 5-person household, that's 85% that need to have an Xbox. That's insane. Utterly unthinkable to have that large a market share.

 

Companies' general goals are to make money, and to continue to make money. The product is their method, their means, their ship to reach that goal.

With the way MS keeps throwing money around, I strongly wonder where it's coming from. Usually, with large companies, they want every division to be profitable. Subdivisions may be a money-sink (R&D, marketing), but the overall picture should generate cash.

MS's behavior is odd in that regard. Are they gunning for profit only after getting the monopoly? They've been taking cash income losses after each massive acquisition and subsequently threw said acquisition under the bus. So many bought up studios went dark or down in quality.

I can't imagine MS's game division being hugely profitable.

 

They had a massive 99% market share with Internet Explorer in the late '90s and early '00s (but only after killing Netscape). It's taken them years to release upgrades and updates, and even then they were miles behind the competition by then. Acid tests, support for CSS... MS's IE release history has shown that if they get on top, they'll stagnate until something comes along that threatens their position. And upgrades will trickle in slowly, and too weak to make a dent in the competition. Why do you think MS lost the browser wars?

 

Whatever MS has planned, it's nothing new. They'll continue to spend tons of cash to get what they want, crippling all in their way. Industry be damned, rules be damned (they'll pay the fine, so what?). These guys think in terms of winning or losing, not about consumers' well-being.

 

This is my opinion, but if MS actually leaves the gaming business, I won't mourn their departure. Sony might, given a competitor just exited...

 

I believe it is people not in the Xbox division who sets them. They likely looked at Netflix or whatever and put that sort of path as what Game Pass needs to do. Spencer likely knows it is a stupid figure, but he is doing what he can to try and reach it. He has converted Gold to Game Pass Core to inflate the numbers, and convinced his money mark boss to spend big on the buyouts. What they'll be hoping for is getting Activision for example will give 10-20 million more Game Pass users. Then you buy EA for another 10-20 million. So forth until you reach 100 million. Bethesda we know had 0 effect on Game Pass numbers, but they hope that such a thing is due to it being too niche, and not that their buyouts simply don't have the desired effect.

 

Before Game Pass the all in one box was the dream. Essentially the Xbox One was supposed to replace a large number of devices out there and be the all in one device. As such it would be mainstream and beyond a console, hence why we got the infamous TV TV TV. 100s of millions of people would be buying the Xbox One for its media features and the gaming would just be an extra feature they might not even ever use.

 

A story recently had to be taken down as they compared Xbox's numbers with that accounting against Sony/Nintendo. A problem showed up when many came away asking 'so Xbox makes more profit than PlayStation' and the person who had put the story up realised that obviously you can't compare these numbers (Xbox's are heavily cooked up). How I see it is like this. Xbox is profitable with Microsoft's accounting, a money pit with any normal accounting. What type of dish they're serving over there who can say, but I imagine they're doing things like discounting server/cloud costs entirely from the Xbox division and putting it under Windows/Azure instead. When you remove costs like that from the equation it becomes much easier to be profitable, but it is telling that even what they're doing Xbox apparently on still has single digit margins. Also yes, all this cash has been spent with the idea being that you'll be making fortunes down the line once the monopoly has been established.

 

It is baffling ain't it? Incompetence is the easiest thing to point to, but I do wonder if there is some interdepartmental infighting that contributes to it too. Not in an open way. Divisions in Microsoft often need other divisions to do something for them, and a shoddy job gets done. Incompetence? Or that other division trying to hurt the other? Considering the email and what Spencer has said in the past, it paints a picture that the rest of Microsoft isn't exactly all that enthused to help Xbox.

 

Not just that, they're also obsessed with Sony. That was what Peter Molyneux (a guy very much on their side) said about them, and plenty has shown that to be case. If Sony had been Apple/Google/Amazon then Microsoft would have retreated years/a decade ago.

 

I agree with this. While competition is good, once someone becomes a rogue actor then we start being better off without them around.

[fenrir54565]

1 hour ago, Rozalia1 said:

I believe it is people not in the Xbox division who sets them. They likely looked at Netflix or whatever and put that sort of path as what Game Pass needs to do. Spencer likely knows it is a stupid figure, but he is doing what he can to try and reach it. He has converted Gold to Game Pass Core to inflate the numbers, and convinced his money mark boss to spend big on the buyouts. What they'll be hoping for is getting Activision for example will give 10-20 million more Game Pass users. Then you buy EA for another 10-20 million. So forth until you reach 100 million. Bethesda we know had 0 effect on Game Pass numbers, but they hope that such a thing is due to it being too niche, and not that their buyouts simply don't have the desired effect.

if they do buy ea with ea sports and ea games being separated into two divisions it looks likely they want to sold. but with all there old games like mass effect legendary edition on sale for $1-$5 all the time, bioware gutted, there newer games being in development hell like dragon age dread wolf or mass effect 4, though considering how bad, boring and buggy andromeda and inquisition were as well as all there new games being the same, the sims and apex legends being free to play  i don't think they would get many subscribers from buying them. that would leave the Japanese companies but i don't think they want to sell or there government wouldn't allow them to be sold and ubisoft with the cloud streaming deal they can't buy it for 15 year and how interested tencent is in buying ubisoft they might no be allowed to buy them by China. if ubisofts cod killer xdefiant turns out to be better then cod they might not get them that many subscriber from cod either. although one thing is certain gaming would be a lot better place going forwards if microsoft went belly up big teach really needs to be broken up they have far too much power.

Edited September 22, 2023 by fenrir54565

[Rozalia1]

A whole bunch of Sega stuff has come out.

 

Buying Sega

 

Spoiler

 

You know, for years now Microsoft's agents have been talking about Microsoft buying Sega and how well they 'go together'. Clearly purposely to prime gamers for a buyout, so when it occurs there isn't outrage and instead people see it as a 'natural' thing to have occurred. Since these emails both Microsoft and Sega have done things that lend well to Microsoft buying them out so possibly we're going to hear news of this at some point next year... I certainly hope not, but it doesn't look great.

 

Victim List Target List

Spoiler

 

I believe this may have been leaked previously, or at least a redacted version, but worth seeing again. An interesting detail with this list is that Nintendo is not listed, but Valve is. This deal would imply that management sees Nintendo as being unwilling to ever sell (though if that changes then the buyout is already approved), but see Valve differently. Gabe Newell worked at Microsoft for 10 years and has always been friendly to Microsoft and often negative against the other console platforms. Before/as they launched he publicly backed Microsoft's Series S|X as being superior to PlayStation 5. Newell is considered to be someone who puts principle over money... but he is still a western business owner where that is much rarer, and so is hard to trust he can hold his ground if Microsoft actually makes of an offer of 35+ billion. At the same time Microsoft might not be putting an offer as they are unsure how Newell might react, possibly negatively to the point that he makes the matter public and admonishes them, which considering how many devoted fans Steam has would be catastrophic for Microsoft. As such Microsoft likely sees it as something to wait on, for Newell to die, so they can then make whoever is left in charge at Valve a massive offer. Something to also note is how Microsoft, of all companies, refers to Valve as stale, but still wants them which obviously shows they're simply after the platform and capturing the PC market.

 

Microsoft made Yakuza 7 Next Gen Timed Exclusive

Spoiler

 

Good to have confirmation. For those unaware Yakuza 7 released exclusively next gen on Xbox, but didn't on PlayStation. This was a very odd move as the base for the game is largely on PlayStation and PlayStation, unlike the Serie S|X is not known to have issues when it comes to putting out games. Especially in a case like this when the makers have been putting out PlayStation exclusives for ages.

 

Microsoft's agents went to work. 'Why would Microsoft pay to have such a short term exclusive?' was the main thrust, but there were others. Keep in mind that for the last number of years Microsoft has been attempting to astroturf a narrative that Microsoft doesn't pay for exclusives, only evil big bad Sony does. Admitting that you pettily did such a short term exclusive on next gen would heavily damage their gaslighting attempt, so we got astroturfed on the matter.

 

For those unaware and wondering why the word 'astroturfing', 'agents', and so forth come up so often. Microsoft is a company known to astroturf heavily. You'll see it on social media with accounts who'll at times post stuff that may as well be advertisements, but you can see it on forums too. There is a certain infamous forum which is infested with Microsoft astroturfers and they appear to have even wormed a few into the moderation. Microsoft's policy is to have 'evangelists' for their products, ideally people doing it of their own free will, but if that isn't happening then they'll just manufacture them. Microsoft more than even their haters know that their products are putrid and can't stand on their own, so they have to play dirty.

 

Side note. Spencer stating that he loves talk of Xbox launching as a Sega console in Japan is hilariously pathetic. Imagine being happy about the idea of your brand being so terrible that you have to dress up in the corpse of a previous console maker to look better.

 

Capcom

 

Capcom have responded to talk of Microsoft buying them out: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2023-09-25/capcom-targets-smartphone-gamers

 

Quote

Q: I think there have been many M&A talks in the game industry. There was once a time we were a target, but rather than acquiring an outside company, we prefer organic growth. It is important to train and develop human resources in-house in order to carry out growth strategies. I also believe we can utilize external partners, but we have no intention of acquiring companies.

A: I would gracefully decline the offer because I believe it would be better if we were equal partners.

 

Capcom while on the market is considered to be owned by the Tsujimoto family who are involved in the running of Capcom, and do not want to sell the company. Many in the west have remarked that 'money talks' and a large enough offer would change that, but that is western culture speaking. It might be hard to grasp but there are people, especially in a place like Japan (happens in the west too) who view principle/legacy/honour as more important than money. Others have stated that even if the family can't be bought off, then Microsoft can just hostile takeover which... no. To begin with that would completely destroy Microsoft's PR efforts and would likely cause an active campaign to completely remove Microsoft from gaming. Secondly, especially with this being Japan, you would see an exodus of talent at Capcom who'd refuse to work for Microsoft. The valuable IPs that Capcom has would also become instantly worthless due to fan backlash.

 

None of this is even mentioning the government, who'll know that letting Microsoft get a company like Capcom is essentially giving Microsoft permission to buy every single other notable game maker bar Sony/Nintendo out afterwards.

---

 

It really displeases me to have to talk about all these acquisitions. I put no trust in western gaming to withstand Microsoft's aggressions and am grateful that Japanese gaming seemingly being able to hold Microsoft off. I thankfully can if need be commit to just Japanese games, but for someone else who largely plays Western games this is all a very scary possible future. If Microsoft succeeds in getting Activision then PlayStation gamers need to abandon such games on any (including PlayStation) platform they release on. Making Microsoft pay for their buyouts is one of the ways to possibly halt them. 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Rozalia1
Forgot to comment in the Buying Sega section

[majob]

The list has been posted before but it's still good to revisit it as a reminder that Microsoft has long term plans and goals for this industry and none of them are good.  I sincerely hope they never touch Nexon because Dungeon Fighter Online is my favorite MMO and I'd hate to give it up simply because MS owned it

[Property_Damage]

Would Nintendo ever sell out?  I dont know, Nintendo single handedly saved video games from the drastic video game crash in the 1980’s with an over-saturated market, seemingly everyone who had an LLC tried to make a video game console in the 1980’s, then there was the infamous Atari situation where they mass produced and rushed out a movie licensed video game (E.T.) way before it was finished and everyone was growing tired of the pump and dump of shitty consoles and shitty games

theres literally hundreds of different gaming consoles that came out during the 1980’s

not like the few that we know of today

[RedHouse987]

Even if Nintendo agreed to a buyout (which they won't), the Japanese government would block it.

[fenrir54565]

fucking microsoft i rally hope that they don't succeed in there monopoly plan if they do it will be a very dark day for gaming. as for sega didn't they come out a few months ago and say that they won't interested in being acquired by microsoft

Edited September 26, 2023 by fenrir54565

[Zephrese]

I swear that I say this in the nicest way possible (as there really isn't any way to skirt around or sugarcoat it), but anyone that still thinks Microsoft should continue having a role in the gaming industry for "competition's sake" after all of the recent leaks and the things that've been done or shown even beforehand over the last several months to a year or more - or that thinks that these emails being from a measly three years ago somehow makes them "irrelevant" when we're still seeing the exact same behavior being demonstrated by Microsoft to this very day, and it takes several years for plans like those to even go into effect in the first place - is either completely ignorant and needs to seriously do more thorough investigation and improve their critical thinking skills, or is purposefully acting like a dunce. Sorry, but not sorry. Microsoft is, at this point in time, a greater threat to the industry than it is worth keeping around. This isn't a Microsoft vs. Sony thing either (despite how much people on both sides try to present it as such), although I'd rather let Sony have their dominance for the time being if it means the threat of Microsoft is no more. Especially because it's not only ignorant to think Sony's current dominance will last perpetually regardless - or that they'll continue to ignore Nintendo's current success and vice verse just because the latter has largely done its own thing for the last several years -, but also to legitimately believe that Microsoft was of much meaningful competition to Sony in recent years anyway to make any real difference for the latter and their current complacency if the former were to leave the industry behind beyond the threat their fantasized monopoly poses (let alone believe that Microsoft will be capable of becoming meaningful competition given their years long and still ongoing mishandling of their own - and now Bethesda's - IPs). I do not think that Microsoft will reach their goals, however, as these goals are clearly very self-destructive, illogical, reek of desperation, and are largely not realistic in the slightest. But they most certainly will drag down many other companies in their pursuit of market domination and the impossible they hope to achieve if they're allowed to continue their vendetta. It's simply not a risk worth taking whatsoever. Taking their "side" - or playing devil's advocate for them (even if not necessarily with the intention of defending them outright, if at all) - is to give them more power and more room to continue on this little crusade of theirs and we will all - whether we be shills for them or not - feel the consequences of their pursuits regardless if they actually fully get their way or not. This isn't up for debate any further, imo, beyond those blinded by sheer ignorance or deliberately choosing to be obtuse.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Zephrese

[Boorish]

<deleted>

Edited January 31 by Deleted User

[JPtheNeurotic]

As much as I dislike how Microsoft has done things I feel like conversations around them often get hyperbolic .

 

I have more thoughts on the matter but I don’t know if I have tje energy to touch upon them all . 

[MidnightDragon]

Apparently MS also almost killed Fallout 76, but the PlayStation Now numbers changed their minds...

 

https://www.levelup.com/en/news/756273/Xbox-almost-shut-down-Fallout-76-had-to-take-it-to-a-PlayStation-service-to-save-it

 

That wouldn't have been so tragic.  

[JPtheNeurotic]

3 minutes ago, MidnightDragon said:

Apparently MS also almost killed Fallout 76, but the PlayStation Now numbers changed their minds...

 

https://www.levelup.com/en/news/756273/Xbox-almost-shut-down-Fallout-76-had-to-take-it-to-a-PlayStation-service-to-save-it

 

That wouldn't have been so tragic.  

Ok that’s hilarious . Imagine your competitor saving one of your games lmao 

[RadiantFlamberge]

I wouldn't lose sleep over them taking Zynga, Playrix, or Netmarble. Mobile games, IDGAF.

 

Nintendo would likely abandon consoles and become a 3rd party before they'd sell out. Chances of them going 3rd party are slightly above zero, barring a Dreamcast like failure... and the Switch is doing well. Nintendo's only true flop was Wii U.  I imagine they've learned from Sega's mistakes and Switch 2 is just a matter of time. Good for Sega if they turn down Microsoft. Hopefully Microsoft will hear a lot more NO.

 

Valve is more about Steam than their own games now. Let's not have Steam get absorbed into the Xbox App (ugh, the horror). Gabe needs to just say NO if they come calling.

 

Looking over that target list disgusts me. Microsoft is just plain ruthless.

[Kristen Danielle]

2 hours ago, RadiantFlamberge said:

Microsoft is just plain ruthless.

It's run by Bill Gates. What do you expect? lol

[El Duderino]

Rumour has it that Microsoft also wants to buy Samsung, BMW, Japan, and the moon. 😅

I usually don't comment on stuff like that since I have always been multiplatform. But Spencer's view on Nintendo is borderline braindead. It is safe to say that Nintendo would be way more expensive than ABK. And their cash-on-hand pretty much halved due to this acquisition. Plus, they would never get this one approved. Buying up a direct competitor? Not even the corruptest of regulators would give a thumbs up for that; let alone the FTC or our blokes in the EU.

I once liked Phil Spencer. But apparently he's just another corporate twatwaffle.

 

3 hours ago, Kristen Danielle said:

It's run by Bill Gates. What do you expect? lol

Bill Gates stepped down in 2006. 😑

Edited September 26, 2023 by Beyondthegrave07
Removed griefing

[Kristen Danielle]

27 minutes ago, El Duderino said:

Rumour has it that Microsoft also wants to buy Samsung, BMW, Japan, and the moon. 😅

I usually don't comment on stuff like that since I have always been multiplatform. But Spencer's view on Nintendo is borderline braindead. It is safe to say that Nintendo would be way more expensive than ABK. And their cash-on-hand pretty much halved due to this acquisition. Plus, they would never get this one approved. Buying up a direct competitor? Not even the corruptest of regulators would give a thumbs up for that; let alone the FTC or our blokes in the EU.

I once liked Phil Spencer. But apparently he's just another corporate twatwaffle.

 

Bill Gates stepped down in 2006. A five-second Wikipedia research was all I needed to find that information. Apparently too much for Genration TikTok.😑

I love how you just assume I'm an idiot teenybopper because I worded what I was thinking incorrectly. I'm an 80s baby. My point was, when Microsoft gets richer, so does he. Stepping down as CEO and Chairman of a company does not equal selling one's shares in it. Those shares are why he's the 5th richest man in the world. If you like him, that's your prerogative. I think he's a corrupt jackass, which is my prerogative.

[cy1999aek_maik]

What you said about the sega astroturfing makes a lot of sense. I remember seeing all these xbox accounts pushing for a sega acquisition and thinking I must've missed something because I have no clue how sega and xbox go well together or how they'd fit in xbox's portfolio. Other than feeding the gamepass beast of course. Sonic has no association with xbox, yakuza was associated with PS and persona was PS exclusive for a while. 

[majob]

6 hours ago, JPtheNeurotic said:

As much as I dislike how Microsoft has done things I feel like conversations around them often get hyperbolic .

 

I have more thoughts on the matter but I don’t know if I have tje energy to touch upon them all . 

It's fair to feel this way but history has shown that MS when given an inch, takes a mile. As many have said before almost all companies fantasize about a monopoly but MS has the financial and legal means to do so. They didn't become a trillion dollar company by following the rules. No other company has faced the legal repercussions for what they've done as a business the way MS has and they got away with even that.

Edited September 26, 2023 by majob

[Ashande]

2 hours ago, cy1999aek_maik said:

What you said about the sega astroturfing makes a lot of sense. I remember seeing all these xbox accounts pushing for a sega acquisition and thinking I must've missed something because I have no clue how sega and xbox go well together or how they'd fit in xbox's portfolio. Other than feeding the gamepass beast of course. Sonic has no association with xbox, yakuza was associated with PS and persona was PS exclusive for a while. 

 

There are some among the “old guard” who feel there’s a bit of link between Sega and Microsoft due to a certain perception of the Xbox being the “Dreamcast 2” they never got. It seems to be rooted in how a small number of Sega franchises either got a last hurrah or a port to Xbox early on, or were exclusive to Xbox (Panzer Dragoon, Crazy Taxi, Shenmue and Otogi; there may be others that I can’t recall off the top of my head.)

 

Now, I think that has less to do with Xbox being a “successor” or clear partner to Sega, and more to do with “hey, we have these games in development and still have bills to pay, and we’re currently in an antagonistic relationship with Sony and Nintendo, so… might as well do something with them?” The fact that Sega relatively quickly became far more cosmopolitan and would go on to be known for things that are primarily Sony-associated (like Yakuza or Persona) or almost exclusively multiplatform (Sonic) with (again, so far as I recall, correct if necessary) only Otogi being locked to Xbox and largely forgotten about is generally ignored by people with this mindset.

[Rozalia1]

7 hours ago, JPtheNeurotic said:

As much as I dislike how Microsoft has done things I feel like conversations around them often get hyperbolic .

 

I have more thoughts on the matter but I don’t know if I have tje energy to touch upon them all . 

 

I'm with @Zephrese on this. While you may feel your view is the rational one, it is actually irrational. Giving Microsoft a chance when they first entered the market? Rational, maybe they'll handle it differently, which they mostly did even if it was out of fear due to almost being broken up. Giving Microsoft a chance when they bought up those smaller companies? Well, Nintendo and Sony have a top tier 1st party while Microsoft had destroyed much of their own, so they needed to restore it, something done much quicker with buyouts (though obviously the quality is lesser). Heck, you could even stretch it as far as Bethesda if you absolutely had to. Once you get into ABK and then further into buying out other major companies? No. Claiming that Microsoft wishes to buy out the industry is the rational and correct statement to make. There is simply no longer any defence that can be levied against that statement anymore.

 

46 minutes ago, majob said:

It's fair to feel this way but history has shown that MS when given an inch, takes a mile. As many have said before almost all companies fantasize about a monopoly but MS has the financial and legal means to do so. They didn't become a trillion dollar company by following the rules. No other company has faced the legal repercussions for what they've done as a business the way MS has and they got away with even that.

 

Exactly. Sony/Nintendo certainly would not mind having a monopoly, but they don't drive towards nor have the means of establishing one in the way Microsoft is trying to. In fact, such a tactic would be completely alien to Nintendo. Hiroshi Yamauchi's view when Sony managed to break Nintendo's dominance was that things would fall back into place soon enough when people realised that all the companies (third parties) that had flocked to Sony's side were worthless, and quality was with Nintendo. Today, while they'd never be so direct/rude about it, that is still in effect. People buy Nintendo's console when it gets no price cuts, they buy their games when they are evergreen, all because people trust Nintendo's great quality. Microsoft can buyout as many companies as they want and they'll never get the level of respect that Nintendo gets.

 

Sony meanwhile was different to Nintendo initially. Their way was to be friendly with third parties and get them on side, but when Microsoft came in and flashed cash to get exclusives (timed exclusives that Microsoft agents talk about to malign Sony? Microsoft started that whole affair) they realised that you can't trust third parties to carry your platform as they can be bought away from you, and so they got to work building a powerful 1st party to be more like Nintendo. Microsoft who looked ascendant quickly got arrogant and hurt themselves with the Xbox One which then allowed Sony to recover with third parties. Now we have Microsoft saying forget timed exclusives, they'll just buyout every notable third party and beat Sony down that way. As such Sony has been forced to become even further like Nintendo, hence why we've gotten those 'Live Service' games being made. People forget that Live Service isn't a genre, and can be all sorts of things. They also forget that if you have say a Live Service Shooter and people are playing that, then they're not playing another Live Service Shooter like you know, Call of Duty. The aim with those games seems to be to address a point Sony's 1st party is weak in and neutralise the effectiveness of Microsoft's buyouts against PlayStation.

 

Now yes, some remark that Sony emulating Nintendo when they run into trouble is embarrassing or whatever, but I don't see it that way. To start with there is nothing to be embarrassed about when you do what the best do. Second, what is really embarrassing is that Microsoft no matter how many times they are shown up don't realise that Nintendo is there to emulate. They always have to think they know better, like how Spencer thinks he knows better than Nintendo does because they don't want to be bought out by a pathetic tasteless company like Microsoft.

 

3 hours ago, El Duderino said:

Rumour has it that Microsoft also wants to buy Samsung, BMW, Japan, and the moon. 😅

I usually don't comment on stuff like that since I have always been multiplatform. But Spencer's view on Nintendo is borderline braindead. It is safe to say that Nintendo would be way more expensive than ABK. And their cash-on-hand pretty much halved due to this acquisition. Plus, they would never get this one approved. Buying up a direct competitor? Not even the corruptest of regulators would give a thumbs up for that; let alone the FTC or our blokes in the EU.

I once liked Phil Spencer. But apparently he's just another corporate twatwaffle.

 

Bill Gates stepped down in 2006. A five-second Wikipedia research was all I needed to find that information. Apparently too much for Genration TikTok.😑

 

The regulators when trying to block the ABK deal have already put forward the argument that Nintendo is a separate market (Low Performance Console market), so Microsoft themselves would cite that. They'll promise a low performance console for the next 10 years and state that they'll guarantee that said low performance console unlike the Switch will get ports for basically everything bar the few third parties who'll not play ball, so they'll be 'bringing more games to gamers'. Nintendo also keep prices high, something that Microsoft will bring down so gamers will save money. If that is still not enough then they'll bring in PC and even Mobile as what low performance consoles are competing against and obviously them getting Nintendo wouldn't give them a monopoly when you include those into the equation. The EU is as corrupt as they come (especially with the changed system). The FTC may as well not exist. The CMA has been seemingly successfully cowed. The rest aren't even worth mentioning.

 

To be fair, it may as well be Bill Gates in there. The ideology of not making great products and simply buying out the competition that started with Bill Gates is still alive and kicking at Microsoft, a culture that they refuse to diverge from. Same with the whole contractor business. Everyone knows that Xbox's heavy usage of them harms their game development, but it is Microsoft dogma so they do it anyway. 

 

2 hours ago, cy1999aek_maik said:

What you said about the sega astroturfing makes a lot of sense. I remember seeing all these xbox accounts pushing for a sega acquisition and thinking I must've missed something because I have no clue how sega and xbox go well together or how they'd fit in xbox's portfolio. Other than feeding the gamepass beast of course. Sonic has no association with xbox, yakuza was associated with PS and persona was PS exclusive for a while. 

 

Some nonsense about how Xbox was Sega's successor in the console market and Microsoft paid for some timed exclusives back in the day. The timing of these emails was when that started to really be a thing and I don't think it is a coincidence. Would also explain why Microsoft is so specifically doing all these Game Pass deals with Sega, as they want to put it in people's minds that Sega is with Xbox and that them selling to Microsoft is simply a natural next step in their relationship. Not a tasteless buyout, but an organic development.

[blue_blur_98]

Thankfully, SEGA isn't interested in being bought out by Microsoft or Sony, and would rather stay independent. We shouldn't have to worry about Microsoft stealing these games from the people that'd actually play them.

 

Microsoft buying out SEGA would just straight up be a bad idea - SEGA's titles historically sell better on PlayStation and Nintendo consoles as opposed to Xbox.

[El Duderino]

1 hour ago, Rozalia1 said:

The regulators when trying to block the ABK deal have already put forward the argument that Nintendo is a separate market (Low Performance Console market), so Microsoft themselves would cite that.

It's quite possible that this is accurate, but it's worth noting that Nintendo's intellectual properties hold significantly higher value compared to anything owned by ABK. To put it into perspective, just Mario alone is the top-selling gaming franchise worldwide. Pokémon, however, is the highest-grossing media franchise by far.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_media_franchises
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_game_franchises

Edited September 26, 2023 by El Duderino

[JPtheNeurotic]

3 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

I'm with @Zephrese on this. While you may feel your view is the rational one, it is actually irrational. Giving Microsoft a chance when they first entered the market? Rational, maybe they'll handle it differently, which they mostly did even if it was out of fear due to almost being broken up. Giving Microsoft a chance when they bought up those smaller companies? Well, Nintendo and Sony have a top tier 1st party while Microsoft had destroyed much of their own, so they needed to restore it, something done much quicker with buyouts (though obviously the quality is lesser). Heck, you could even stretch it as far as Bethesda if you absolutely had to. Once you get into ABK and then further into buying out other major companies? No. Claiming that Microsoft wishes to buy out the industry is the rational and correct statement to make. There is simply no longer any defence that can be levied against that statement anymore

There’s no argument that can be made to me that it’s ok to lose a massive pillar Iin the gaming industry . 
 

Unless you are gonna tell me that people who game on Xbox and use windows are supporting an evil corporation who will destroy the game industry but that would be ridiculous .

 

so what abiit them in this call to arms for Microsoft to leave ?