Me reading such posts from REE:Another one:
What delicious and delusional copium over at REE.
yisus. Phil Spencer is so fucking annoying.
Historically Xbox has always bought its studios/titles, so it is natural for them to just acquire. Culturally they struggle to create their own stuff.
What an unoriginal thing to say, especially if you actually read what you replied to above:
Yep. The competition line is so flawed from so many angles. For one thing, they always talk about how they want to bring these games to more gamers. So is it about competition or everyone in the market holding hands to sing about sharing and caring? Because if its the latter, there is no need for Microsoft to buy ABK and sign 10 year asterisk deals, and every reason for them not to do what they're doing with Hi-Fi Rush, Redfall, and Starfield. Hell, there's every reason to have all of their first parties put their games on Nintendo and PlayStation consoles right now.
this why Phil gets so much shit.
this why Phil gets so much shit.
like divestment from CoD. But of course; another lie.
Emphasis mine.The Times asked Spencer what would happen to Xbox should such an important acquisition be blocked by regulators, to which he responded that the gaming business was not dependent on its completion.
“This is an important acquisition for us. It’s not some linchpin to the long term — Xbox will exist if this deal doesn’t go through,” he said.
Much of regulators’ concerns around the Activision Blizzard deal have focused on how it could allegedly reduce PlayStation’s ability to compete given that it would see Microsoft gain ownership of the Call of Duty series, which Sony has called “irreplaceable”.
Spencer said that he was baffled why regulators were seemingly protecting the console firm, which it claimed in a press conference last week controls a 70 percent mark share in the console business.
Microsoft recently said it had offered Sony a 10-year, legally enforceable contract to make each new Call of Duty game available on PlayStation the same day it comes to Xbox.
“Competition is us trying to get stronger,” Spencer told The Times. “I don’t have great rationale for … how better competition in consoles is somehow hurtful for consumers.
“Because to me, having us, Sony, and Nintendo doing well in the console market — all of us with strengths and uniqueness and content and capabilities — gives consumers more choice.
“I’d hate to see consoles go to where phones are where there are only two manufacturers. And, right now, we have three good competitors.”
Activision Blizzard employees staged a walkout on Tuesday
In addition to regulatory concerns around competition in the console market, potential influence on the cloud gaming market is also being explored. Given the complexity of the investigations, Spencer said he feels sympathy for regulators.
“Most of the time in my career at Xbox as I’ve met with government regulators, there’s been a real lack of knowledge about the games industry,” he said.
“I’ve appreciated spending time with them and in certain cases helping to educate. I think for a lot of the regulators, this is the first time they’ve looked at this industry.”
that screenshot. and is not that they were not interested in CoD. is that CoD is not as critical. therefore they could've leave CoD out of the deal because Mobile(King-Candy Crush-) is actually the PRIMARY reason for the deal = Another lie from Phil
OK, take two courtesy of VGC.
https://www.videogameschronicle.com...-even-if-activision-blizzard-deal-is-blocked/
Emphasis mine.
If other parts of the deal are critical to the expansion of Xbox then they should be willing to divest less critical pieces of the deal in order to obtain it. Their stance that they are not willing to divest only shows that what they said was critical and what is actually critical to them does not match up. They tried to bluff and when called on it just ignored their previous statements.
Yeah, people don’t understand there are Blizzard games that are worth it. Diablo 4 will be huge.
Interviewer: "You’re buying the Candy Crush company. People think about it as Call of Duty or whatever, but you’re buying Candy Crush."
ChorizoPicozo
said is right. The primary reason of the deal, at least according to Phil Spencer, is King (which, by the way, the CMA has already allowed them to buy.)
CMA: ok, divest CoD then?Interviewer: "You’re buying the Candy Crush company. People think about it as Call of Duty or whatever, but you’re buying Candy Crush."
Phil Spencer: "Absolutely. In addition, the number that’s not in the Candy Crush/King number is Call of Duty: Mobile and Diablo mobile, which are big franchises that exist in that Activision and Blizzard bucket that are also major players on phones. Yes, the idea that Activision is all about Call of Duty on console is a construct that might get created by our console competitor and maybe some players out there." (Source)
So, what
oh, just like Phil's own words then.
But what would you say is the primary part of the deal after reading that quote by Phil? Candy Crush/King or Call of Duty/Activision?
They peaked with microsoft encarta.
