Microsoft is trying to acquire Activision Blizzard (UPDATE: CMA says NO!).

[Lorfarius]

25 minutes ago, Stanley said:

I forget what their original targets were, but they weren’t anywhere near them. 

 

This from Forbes, probably why Phil was talking about hitting the limit on consoles:

 

FY2022 – 72.88% target, 28.07% actual

FY2021 – 47.79% target, 37.48% actual

FY2020 – 71% target, 85.75% actual

 

Edit:

 

But there’s really no indication that Game Pass’s wild growth should continue this far into its lifespan. Phil Spencer recognizes the obvious here in a quote he gave during a WSJ Tech show:

“I’ve seen growth slow down, mainly because at some point you’ve reached everybody on console that wants to subscribe.”

 

Forbes article

[JPL]

15 minutes ago, Lorfarius said:

 

This from Forbes, probably why Phil was talking about hitting the limit on consoles:

 

FY2022 – 72.88% target, 28.07% actual

FY2021 – 47.79% target, 37.48% actual

FY2020 – 71% target, 85.75% actual

 

Edit:

 

But there’s really no indication that Game Pass’s wild growth should continue this far into its lifespan. Phil Spencer recognizes the obvious here in a quote he gave during a WSJ Tech show:

“I’ve seen growth slow down, mainly because at some point you’ve reached everybody on console that wants to subscribe.”

 

Forbes article

I said this before, although not sure if it was in this topic, but their main drawback is the lack of tentpole games to pin their offer on. They desperately need to get some AAA games out there. Yes, I know it's that old cliché, but in the general public's eyes, who are their main target, all these lovely indie and off-beat games we get on Gamepass mean absolutely fuck all. They want the big cinematic story games, as Sony have demonstrated.

 

They need a Last of Us, Spider-man, God of War, Horizon, etc. I suppose Call of Duty might help them a bit, but they need a roster of them that they can drop on the service every 6 months or so. However many billion they're trying to buy Activision for seems absolutely ludicrous to me, but I'm no market analyst. Personally I'd rather they invest in smaller, more talented devs and fulfil on their years and years of broken promises.

[Gabe]

Part of the problem is that Ms have never had proper event single-layer cinematic games. Even something like Gears wasn't the kind of narrative-led experience that Sony has a large stable of. Buying Activision doesn't change that either, and there's no indication they have anything even on the distant horizon that would compete in that particular space.

[LaveDisco]

There once was a farmer, and he had a field full of fantastic sheep. But he was a forgetful farmer, and forgot to feed them, and clean them, and his sheep dogs bark too much and too often, and so the sheep became timid, dirty, weak, slow and scared, and , as a result, did very little. It took a long time for his sheep to have wool long enough to shear, and the years rolled on.

 

The farmer knew he needed to solve the problem, so he looked at the farm next door. That farmer, had fantastic array of sheep that were producing lots of wool.

 

'I know' thought the farmer, 'if I buy those sheep, my problems will be solved!'

[deerokus]

20 minutes ago, Gabe said:

Part of the problem is that Ms have never had proper event single-layer cinematic games. Even something like Gears wasn't the kind of narrative-led experience that Sony has a large stable of. Buying Activision doesn't change that either, and there's no indication they have anything even on the distant horizon that would compete in that particular space.

 

I'm not sure it is a problem. Thing is Sony have that style of game perfected pretty much. If you want that then you get it on ps.

 

[JPL]

7 minutes ago, deerokus said:

 

I'm not sure it is a problem. Thing is Sony have that style of game perfected pretty much. If you want that then you get it on ps.

 

How does buying those kind of games on PlayStation help MicroSoft?

[Kevvy Metal]

Remember when Microsoft lured over fucking Final Fantasy dad Hironobu Sakaguchi to start a new studio (Mistwalker) and make RPG's published by Microsoft Game Studios which resulted in the OK Blue Dragon followed by the absolutely excellent Lost Odyssey? ...but instead of supporting the studio to greater things they discarded them like a used johnny -after serving the purpose of coaxing in the weebs to the Xbox bosom- as they shifted strategy to the Wii crowd with the Kinect?    

 

LOL

[RubberJohnny]

58 minutes ago, Gabe said:

Part of the problem is that Ms have never had proper event single-layer cinematic games. Even something like Gears wasn't the kind of narrative-led experience that Sony has a large stable of. Buying Activision doesn't change that either, and there's no indication they have anything even on the distant horizon that would compete in that particular space.

 

I dunno, I've seen increasing backlash towards many of the tropes of that style of game, from characters that won't shut up and solve everything for you, to the standardisation of videogame UI's to the point where everything has a three-branch skill tree and character standing in the inventory void for the loot system. You've got to remember that this is a template that was laid down in 2013, so is a bit long in the tooth now - the thing that it was reacting against, endless action franchise blockbusters doing hollow setpieces without a quiet moment or any reason to make you care - is itself so old to be a distant memory.

 

Given games are taking 6 to 8 years, I think devs would be better placed to try and find the next popular template that's a reaction against the current one, else you find yourself in the position of going "Battle Royales are still really popular, 2029 will be a great time to launch a new one!"

[Stanley]

1 hour ago, Gabe said:

Part of the problem is that Ms have never had proper event single-layer cinematic games. Even something like Gears wasn't the kind of narrative-led experience that Sony has a large stable of. Buying Activision doesn't change that either, and there's no indication they have anything even on the distant horizon that would compete in that particular space.

I think their problem is that they don’t market their games well enough. That’s what all this comes down to. Sony have always been good at affiliating themselves with publishers and striking good marketing deals. 
 

They have great games so why aren’t they marketing the likes of A Plague Tale better, or Pentiment, or any number of them. 
 

To be fair I’ve seen a bit of adverts using already for Redfall so maybe they will pick things up, but that’s what they need IMO. They don’t have the same marketing savvy that PlayStation has always had. 

[thesnwmn]

6 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

 

I dunno, I've seen increasing backlash towards many of the tropes of that style of game, from characters that won't shut up and solve everything for you, to the standardisation of videogame UI's to the point where everything has a three-branch skill tree and character standing in the inventory void for the loot system. You've got to remember that this is a template that was laid down in 2013, so is a bit long in the tooth now - the thing that it was reacting against, endless action franchise blockbusters doing hollow setpieces without a quiet moment or any reason to make you care - is itself so old to be a distant memory.

 

Given games are taking 6 to 8 years, I think devs would be better placed to try and find the next popular template that's a reaction against the current one, else you find yourself in the position of going "Battle Royales are still really popular, 2029 will be a great time to launch a new one!"

 

Long in the tooth for whom? I think you have to realise that these criticisms from certain segments of gamers online can be quite out of touch with reality.

 

I'm not saying we won't see an evolution. MS chasing what's hot now is now the right solution but it's clearly in their benefit to cover a range of bases. They don't really do that right now. It's not just the big cinematic action blockbusters they're missing but a very wide range of genres and game styles.

[Lorfarius]

Might have been better off buying EA.

[deerokus]

43 minutes ago, JPL said:

How does buying those kind of games on PlayStation help MicroSoft?

It doesn't. But just because Sony make them doesn't mean everyone else has to. Nintendo don't make that sort of game either and it doesn't hurt them.

 

I'd be so fucking depressed if MS started copying that style of game.

 

[JPL]

3 minutes ago, deerokus said:

It doesn't. But just because Sony make them doesn't mean everyone else has to. Nintendo don't make that sort of game either and it doesn't hurt them.

 

Ok. It was just an observation that I think would help them gain more customers.

[LaveDisco]

3 minutes ago, deerokus said:

It doesn't. But just because Sony make them doesn't mean everyone else has to. Nintendo don't make that sort of game either and it doesn't hurt them.

 

 

The deep single player, polished adventure experience is something that both Sony and Nintendo do brilliantly at. 

Zelda, Mario they give a user a deep experience. MS struggle to bring that. They focus on multiplayer, and single player grindy games.

[Uncle Mike]

From all reports, Sony are planning to drive themselves into a GaaS furrow just as the active gaming customer base is sick to the back teeth of battle passes and monetisation and so on. If I were running their games wing and looking at how Suicide Squad just got received, I'd be a little worried given the noises they've been making about pivoting into live service games. I think MS could do just fine bringing out good games, not necessarily chasing the Sony template. And if they want to do that, isn't that what Ninja Theory is for?

[Stanley]

20 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

From all reports, Sony are planning to drive themselves into a GaaS furrow just as the active gaming customer base is sick to the back teeth of battle passes and monetisation and so on. If I were running their games wing and looking at how Suicide Squad just got received, I'd be a little worried given the noises they've been making about pivoting into live service games. I think MS could do just fine bringing out good games, not necessarily chasing the Sony template. And if they want to do that, isn't that what Ninja Theory is for?

Yeah when you actually look at MS studios they are not lacking in pedigree. 

[Kevvy Metal]

19 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

From all reports, Sony are planning to drive themselves into a GaaS furrow just as the active gaming customer base is sick to the back teeth of battle passes and monetisation and so on. If I were running their games wing and looking at how Suicide Squad just got received, I'd be a little worried given the noises they've been making about pivoting into live service games. I think MS could do just fine bringing out good games, not necessarily chasing the Sony template. And if they want to do that, isn't that what Ninja Theory is for?

 

The appeal of the Sony AAA roaster has been -I feel- that they're big tentpole blockbusters that have avoided that monitisation pull. You usually buy the game and that's it, to the point that I think they're often loss-leaders. You get the impression that even with a high entrance point price tag, most games are actually quite slim with their profit margins, and use various IAP methods to make the bulk of their money, but the Sony big titles avoid this.  

[David Kenny]

I think a lot of the talk around Sony's domination of the narrative-adventure-AAA-game genre massively glosses over the fact that many of Sony's best exclusives don't adhere to that format at all, but it also glosses over the fact that they aren't successful because they adhere to that formula. They're successful because they're really good games.

 

The area where MS have fallen down isn't in delivering games exactly like The Last of Us or Bloodborne (or even Astrobot) it's that so many of their exclusives turn out to be really average. Although with Chained Echoes and Hi-Fi Rush recently I think there are signs of improvement in this area.

[Kevvy Metal]

6 minutes ago, David Kenny said:

I think a lot of the talk around Sony's domination of the narrative-adventure-AAA-game genre massively glosses over the fact that many of Sony's best exclusives don't adhere to that format at all, but it also glosses over the fact that they aren't successful because they adhere to that formula. They're successful because they're really good games.

 

The area where MS have fallen down isn't in delivering games exactly like The Last of Us or Bloodborne (or even Astrobot) it's that so many of their exclusives turn out to be really average. Although with Chained Echoes and Hi-Fi Rush recently I think there are signs of improvement in this area.

 

Yes exactly! 

...althought Chained Echoes is actually on everything and published by Deck13 Spotlight.

 

Hi-i Rush is properly great though, but seen as the Bethesda aquisition wasn't that long ago, and the game has probably been in development for a good few years, they likely just hit DELETE on the Repo for their PlayStation version 

 

...but Microsoft don't want to take away games from other platforms! ...of course!

[David Kenny]

16 minutes ago, Kevvy Metal said:

 

Yes exactly! 

...althought Chained Echoes is actually on everything and published by Deck13 Spotlight.

 

Hi-i Rush is properly great though, but seen as the Bethesda aquisition wasn't that long ago, and the game has probably been in development for a good few years, they likely just hit DELETE on the Repo for their PlayStation version 

 

...but Microsoft don't want to take away games from other platforms! ...of course!

I don't know where I got the idea it was exclusive. Maybe just the fact that it was on Gamepass so quickly. 

 

Anyway it's a great example of the service delivering really good new content.

[Flanders]

In the past page we’ve had ‘people are fed up with single player blockbusters that have skill trees’ and ‘people are fed up of live service games’ - all we need is someone to pop up with ‘no one plays Call of Duty anymore’ to complete today’s RLLMUK Out of Touch Bingo. 

[Clipper]

Well someone has posted complaining about RLLMUK being out of touch so that is another tick on the bingo card.

[Giddas]

1 hour ago, Clipper said:

Well someone has posted complaining about RLLMUK being out of touch so that is another tick on the bingo card.

 

observation != complaining

[deerokus]

3 hours ago, LaveDisco said:

 

The deep single player, polished adventure experience is something that both Sony and Nintendo do brilliantly at. 

Zelda, Mario they give a user a deep experience. MS struggle to bring that. They focus on multiplayer, and single player grindy games.

Zelda and Mario are not cinematic dad games like Sony makes. That's what we were talking about.

[El Spatula]

That's bingo.

[Gabe]

5 hours ago, thesnwmn said:

 

Long in the tooth for whom? I think you have to realise that these criticisms from certain segments of gamers online can be quite out of touch with reality.

 

I'm not saying we won't see an evolution. MS chasing what's hot now is now the right solution but it's clearly in their benefit to cover a range of bases. They don't really do that right now. It's not just the big cinematic action blockbusters they're missing but a very wide range of genres and game styles.

 

? 

[Isaac]

14 hours ago, Flanders said:

In the past page we’ve had ‘people are fed up with single player blockbusters that have skill trees’ and ‘people are fed up of live service games’ - all we need is someone to pop up with ‘no one plays Call of Duty anymore’ to complete today’s RLLMUK Out of Touch Bingo. 

 

People aren't fed up of live service games but the market is saturated and you have to be extremely compelling, have a top tier marketing campaign, and get extremely lucky to even compete.

 

See all the live service games that recently got shut down before their first anniversary. Many were from major studios and were fun to play.

[thesnwmn]

The live service thing is much like the MMO one in the late 00s and early 10s.

 

Those jumping into building them after there are already some well established successes don't seem to understand that the reason they want to is the reason they will fail almost regardless of their game's quality.

 

The long term commitment and spending from a captivated audience is what their pre-existing peers have. And those players aren't dropping that properly for the next thing. They might dabble for a week or two on launch but their investment is elsewhere.

 

Live service isn't going anywhere, same as MMOs didn't. We just probably have most of the big hitters already. They will truck along making massive money.

 

Publishers without one have to search for their big thing. Thinking you can get in on that business is a fools errand (for most - there is always the odd exception).

[Petrousgyre]

16 hours ago, deerokus said:

Zelda and Mario are not cinematic dad games like Sony makes. That's what we were talking about.

Bit of a weary cliche which applies to two of Sony’s games, even if you accept this reductive categorisation it doesn’t stop them being good to great action adventure games in the same broad category as something like Zelda.

 

David Kenny’s point is spot on, just make some decent games Microsoft. Their failure has nothing to do with what genre of games they make, or how they’re marketed - it’s due to the fact that they haven’t produced much of interest in over a decade now. 

[Broker]

On 01/03/2023 at 07:39, Stanley said:

it would challenge MS faith in Xbox though, so it would shake things up a bit. 

Wouldn’t the parent company being willing to invest 70 billion to expand a division indicate quite a lot of faith in them?