M$ is a 2.5 trilion dollar company that can't manage game studios because it's not one of their core competencies. They prop up their failed xbox gaming division with enterprise sales and cloud computing. I honestly don't think M$ even cares about xbox as a console; it's just a vehicle for cloud gaming, subscriptions, and a way to ensure developers also develop for PC/Windows.

M$ is looking long term. They can afford to bleed money for another 5 to 10 years, as long as they buy brands/studios with influence; they'll try to condition the next generation of kids to accept subscriptions and live-service games. It's the worst of worlds; a regular gaming company would be forced to innovate, restructure, or sell itself--xbox can just fail and instead of improving internally, they have unlimited non-xbox money to spend.

I also think xbox, even failing, is just a marketing vehicle for M$. They want to influence kids and teens into associating M$ with cool things. They've failed to produce any games (yet) to compete with Sony this generation, so their last ditch effort is to just buy a studio with mindshare. You'll never hear a straight answer as to how much money xbox is losing, because they probably hide it behind some cloud/services or marketing account.

There is one way I'd be okay with M$ buying Activision Blizzard: they need to spin off the xbox brand into it's own company and let it stand on its own. Then, we'll see if the company is really viable as its own entity or if its just a money-losing strategic brand for M$.

[–] Kinglink@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

You've nailed it.

But I do love how you start with the big problem: Microsoft has not bought studio and enhanced them as studios or companies. Look at what Rare has become.

I don't trust Microsoft owning companies, but I don't think them buying Activision would be a good thing for anyone but Microsoft. Ultimately Microsoft is only interested in Microsoft and the people supporting the merger to get Activision on Game Pass will turn around and whine when they increase the price after the merger is clear. Everyone on that side is self serving as fuck.

[–] Arremer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It baffles the mind most comments I see from people all over is that they would love for M$ to take over ActiBlizzKing. Because of your arguments, and more, which are on point, I think this is a really bad idea.

[–] ozymandias117@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Back in the day, it was reported Microsoft had paid game stores like GameStop to put the Sega Dreamcast in the back of the store, so I wouldn’t be surprised

[–] Narishma@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That makes no sense. Microsoft was a Sega partner during the Dreamcast era and didn't enter the console market until after Sega had quit.

[–] ozymandias117@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It would make sense - Microsoft used the Xbox to push DirectX over OpenGL, and that is how stores were laid out at the time. It's just been enough years I can't verify whether it was a rumor or actually happened

[–] Narishma@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That still makes no sense since the Dreamcast supported DirectX and not OpenGL.

[–] BaroqueInMind@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Aw damn Microsoft, you can't compete and the government is blocking you from buying up all the competition? Playing a tiny violin right now.

[–] trickstyle48@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As much as I don't like exclusives it primarily drives competition between companies, be it via hardware or software, if Microsoft go about buying all these companies and then exclusivity is gone then what's to stop them from going back to a Don Mattrick generation?

[–] The_Vampire@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Does it drive competition? I would say it does the opposite. It encourages buying multiple consoles so you can play the games you like (if they happen to be split between consoles). If you buy both consoles, that's no longer competition.

I don't disagree that buying the entire block is bad, but not having access to the block and making your own that doesn't necessarily compete isn't great either. One's a monopoly, but the other is just two monopolies. Microsoft has had pretty crappy exclusives recently, but I'm sure if they started pumping out games as good as Sony you would find people would start having two consoles rather than switch over, at least those that could afford it.

[–] hydroel@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's twice in the same thread you're stating that customers are generally going to buy an Xbox Series X and a PS5. How much does a console even cost nowadays, $500? 550? I doubt a lot of people would willing to spend (or could even afford) $1000, when most of the library overlaps. When confronted with buying a new console, customers will look at the differences between the various options, and pretty much the only differences between an XBSX and a PS5 are the exclusives.

[–] The_Vampire@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

You're not wrong, but anyone with the budget to buy both will (and even some without the budget, unfortunately) when there's enough exclusives. You state that 'most of the library overlaps', but that's my point. When enough of the library doesn't, when enough games are exclusive, suddenly you have two gaming consoles that don't compete.

For instance, take the Nintendo Switch. While attempts have been made to port over games to the console, its hardware is a limiting factor and the Switch has many exclusives. There's no shortage of people who own a Switch and a PS5.

[–] simple@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm sure Sony and Nintendo would love to get rid of exclusives too but can't because of other companies. That's what's called competition.

[–] The_Vampire@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exclusives are the opposite of competition, though. It's why streaming platforms are so crappy, because if you want to watch what you like it's probably split between 2+ platforms and you have to pay for multiple. If you want to play the games you like, ultimately that's probably asking you either own multiple consoles or just be very patient and have a PC.

Also, not sure about Nintendo, the literal god of exclusives.

[–] simple@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exclusives are the opposite of competition, though.

Maybe from your point of view, but exclusives move consoles. If someone's deciding between a PS5 and an Xbox Series X it's likely the exclusives that will make them choose one or the other. Part of the reason Xbox is far behind is because they just don't have many good exclusives.

[–] czech@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, anticompetitive behavior is profitable for trillion dollar companies and bad for consumers. You sound like a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" when you commiserate with corporations screwing people for profit.