hawkma999 t1_j1kemwm wrote on December 25, 2022 at 1:58 AM

Reply to comment by acprocode in Microsoft will fight U.S. over $68.7-billion Activision Blizzard deal by Brook030

It's the people in charge and their strategies that matter, not a company name.

Phil inherited few first party gaming studios with poor leadership in them. And he's had a "hands off" approach with managing these devs, allowing them to do as they will.

Normally that would be seen as a good thing. But when the studios already have poor leadership in them, it doesn't really mean much.

Microsoft acquiring new first party studios is the only way to bolster their first party offering without compromising on their hands off approach.

Your point on the 360 vs PS3 bit is actually inaccurate. The 360 vs PS3 era was competive precisely because Microsoft and Sony had bought a lot of studios during the previous generation and both worked exclusivity deals with third party ones.

And again, you can't blanketly treat all larger entities the same. Unlike Activision, Microsoft must put out games people want to buy to bolster both the Xbox console and their subscription service. As the console makes a loss for the company and subscription services take a long time to make a meaningful profit. If it can even consistently sustain one as MS is pretty open about the fact that gamepass deals are all over the place.

Activision alone has no such dynamic and financial preassure.

acprocode t1_j1kftzh wrote on December 25, 2022 at 2:10 AM

>Your point on the 360 vs PS3 bit is actually inaccurate. The 360 vs PS3 era was competive precisely because Microsoft and Sony had bought a lot of studios during the previous generation and both worked exclusivity deals with third party ones.

Its actually not, weve seen with consolidation over the last 5-6 years now innovation has largely been stifled and there is signficantly less risk taking in the gaming industry due to the cost of making a gaming in 2020+ . This is why you see from acti-blizz that the most effective approach is just to make sequels, dlc's, expansions etc... on top of existing ip's. Back during the 360 vs Ps3 era's, companies were drastically more inclined to attempt to create new IP's because they weren't housed under a single entity. After blizzard merged with activision one could definitely argue that innovation went out the window in place of repeatable design patterns that had guaranteed profitability.

>Unlike Activition, Microsoft must put out games people want to buy to bolster both the Xbox console and their subscription service. As the console makes a loss for the company and subscription services take a long time to make a meaningful profit.

Theyve had more than half a decade to put out games that people want to buy and they couldnt do it even with all the studio's they have purchased. You can't blame the leadership when microsoft had more than half a decade to change it.

hawkma999 t1_j1kgjpl wrote on December 25, 2022 at 2:17 AM

Again, you're comparing consolidation of gaming companies under publishers to console manufacturer. MS actually has strong financial interests in getting out more variety of games that people want to buy. And gamepass makes this reason doubly so.

And if on thay half a decade comment you are referring only to the new studios they have acquired (Obsidian and Bethesda) then they have put out games that people want to buy, just not exclusive to Xbox. So I'm not sure what you're referring to here.