Saying they won and they outlasted Kotick when he's leaving with 390m sounds pretty hollow.
Phil mentioned Hexen, Raven making Hexen 3 confirmed.
People have been clear about this for a long time - there was no situation or outcome in which Bobby Kotick was going to exit without a gargantuan payout and it has been that way for many years. I'm pretty sure if someone literally had him assassinated he would probably still get paid somehow.
I think at this point any scenario in which Kotick no longer retains influence over the company is a win
His contract includes a 9-figure payout in the event he dies.
- The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (2017, colorized)
Oh, good. We're back to talking about prominent corporate leaders in the industry being killed. Even if we're not encouraging it. Because I so missed those years.
Saying they won and they outlasted Kotick when he's leaving with 390m sounds pretty hollow.
Phil mentioned Hexen, Raven making Hexen 3 confirmed.
People have been clear about this for a long time - there was no situation or outcome in which Bobby Kotick was going to exit without a gargantuan payout and it has been that way for many years. I'm pretty sure if someone literally had him assassinated he would probably still get paid somehow.
I think at this point any scenario in which Kotick no longer retains influence over the company is a win
To borrow something I wrote on a non-video-game-focused forum:
I think that's being potentially overlooked. It should probably be self-evident that Microsoft didn't spend $69 billion US in its bid to acquire Activision-Blizzard(-King) so it could hit Kotick over the head and tie him up in a burlap sack, then hit the sack for...."cathartic reasons"? It seems pretty obvious they did it as for, at its broadest, a profit-seeking endeavor that they, a for-profit corporation, are used to. If you want the best comparison, aside from the obvious Bethesda acquisition (which was pretty choreographed, as Bethesda had already used Microsoft to enter the console space, and had been looking for a buyer in a more obvious way than Activision was), I'd point in the direction of the massive acquisitions made by Sony through the 1990s and onwards of Columbia, etc., resulting in the creation of Sony Pictures and Sony Music (of course, given how those worked out for Sony in the short and long term...Microsoft might not have a much cheerier time either).
As I understand it, during a corporate acquisition this big, it is effectively impossible to axe the leadership then and there (even if you wanted to), as they're needed at the bare minimum to keep the transition from becoming a total shitshow. Never mind Microsoft's reputation thirty years ago as a "hire and fire" firm (because I'm pretty sure the same reality held true--and the firings happened afterwards), that contributed to the cultural phenomenon of "People who want to assassinate Bill Gates and are writing books about it, weirdly enough." Insofar as Microsoft actually wants something for the mountain of money spent, they need a transition, and if they want a transition, they need the existing leadership (not to openly sabotage everything) until that is completed. This would not be exclusive to Microsoft either, they just happened to be the corporate behemoth in position to make the buy, and with the desire to do so (see Sony in the 1990s and 2000s again). So, Kotick presumably sees out that transition, and in the meantime has a new boss at Xbox, and at least one new boss at Microsoft (as oppose to none at all, or some fuzzy words about "shareholders"). Then he presumably gets the boot and his golden parachute? Unless he's somehow remains in his bosses good graces, and they don't have someone they'd want to replace him with (see "Microsoft of the 1990s"). It doesn't seem entirely likely, but we should allow for a variety of possibilities.
The alternative is that no on bought Activision. So Kotick, under no substantial pressure to prove some sort of undiscovered genius as a rich man who pays others to make video games, stayed on as CEO indefinitely, the same way most signs seemed to suggest he would, and continue to be paid a premium for it, even as his corporation crashed and burned. Then, presumably, he'd be forced out, after receiving his mandatory "golden parachute" and various other corporate accolades.
From the perspective of the burlap sack, that doesn't seem an improvement at all (in fact, I'd argue it's worse, considering Kotick seemed pretty damn secure in his position, because we live in a capitalist golden age and all). But since Activision wasn't going to be sucked into a black hole (and I'd say, in spite of everything, we probably shouldn't want that to happen either), this seems like the most obvious way to guarantee he has, in fact, a formal superior if not a very finite lifetime for his position. Is the acquisition itself a good thing? That's a a separate, broader question (I was one of those people saying, "Yeah, I don't care if this means you get a better X-Men movie, I still don't think Disney should own two-thirds of global media everywhere," and I already noted Sony's glorious media empire of yesteryear and how that all worked out...)
(I also think's getting widely overlooked that apparently Blizzard's own internal maleficence well-predates the Activision merger, which is something that pains me a little since at least in the 1990s I very much adored them, but forest for the trees and all.)
tl;dr--the end of history and our golden age of mature neoliberalism means that bad executives who are profitable keep their posts, and even mediocre ones can easily get massive bonuses, so even if Kotick is something to be shifted out of the way, he will enjoy the same. Microsoft did not spend seventy billion to get rid of him; no company would, and in fact, they need him (in a specific, limited way) to actually get what they paid for. And in return, he'll get a buttload of money when he leaves, as oppose to getting a buttload of money when he left...probably much later.
It might be human nature. It's definitely the nature of this industry and...let's say hobbyist?....population. Going back to the days when we celebrated the ruggedly proactive mindset of, "Jack Thompson better keep his hands off my violent video games, because if he tries to take them away, I'll fucking kill him." Back when "we" considered that commendable behavior. :evil:
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Oh, good. We're back to talking about prominent corporate leaders in the industry being killed. Even if we're not encouraging it. Because I so missed those years.
I'm going to say it's more people commenting on the absurdity of his compensation than wishing him death.
This is an industry where people voted EA as worst company ever for releasing Mass Effect 3. And both Hugo Boss and Volkswagon were right there!
Rational thinking is extremely difficult at the best of times.
What's silly about that is comcast has more of a day to day direct fuckery on most gamers and yet EA still gets the hate, its just that groupthink hive mind of gamerdom
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
It might be human nature. It's definitely the nature of this industry and...let's say hobbyist?....population. Going back to the days when we celebrated the ruggedly proactive mindset of, "Jack Thompson better keep his hands off my violent video games, because if he tries to take them away, I'll fucking kill him." Back when "we" considered that commendable behavior. :evil:
Yeah I mean my point was more so that Kotick's financial security has been so deeply entrenched in his contract that there was no situation in which he wouldn't walk away with a massive windfall, which you also pointed out
I'm not really one to fantasize about the death of real life people, but I do hope he disappears into the deep anal fissures of history as soon as he possibly can once he is ousted - after all this is the same narcissistic piece of shit who will go out of his way to impersonate his Bush-era torture apologist HR manager (that he hired) in order to downplay allegations of workplace abuse, and then fire her after the fact when she takes the PR hit
This is an industry where people voted EA as worst company ever for releasing Mass Effect 3. And both Hugo Boss and Volkswagon were right there!
Rational thinking is extremely difficult at the best of times.
Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure at this point EA might be the only major publisher still standing that hasn't had workplace abuse allegations publicly aired, despite being the favored punching bag of the Gamers(tm) everywhere. Unless I completely forgot (and not that an absence of evidence = evidence of absence)
Depends on how you consider excessive crunch. EA was the original "this place is overworking it's employees to the point where it spawned the "EA Wives" moment of spouses complaining about how their SO's are never home.
+8
Options
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
Sure, that counts
A shame that it's also just the industry norm at this point so we kind of just have a baseline level of white noise about it. I suppose at this point it takes sexual abuse allegations to get the masses actually paying attention
So i have been attempting to get a series x for awhile in canada. i finally broke down since the only to get one seems to be applying for one with credit re:xbox all access..I make north of 120K per year; individual not household. Have minimal debt. Have never missed a payment on anything in my life and was rejected...What even?! guess i'll continue waiting for them to be in stock to buy outright at some point...
This is an industry where people voted EA as worst company ever for releasing Mass Effect 3. And both Hugo Boss and Volkswagon were right there!
Rational thinking is extremely difficult at the best of times.
They got voted worst two years in a row, 2012-13 and then again in 2018.
edit- "vote" is an incorrect word, no one voted. They were declared worst based on multiple data metrics; major news headlines, customer surveys, employee reviews and 24/7 Wall St. analytics.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
Finally started watching that Xbox documentary. I don't like the editing and it's a little too gushy about how cool Microsoft and Xbox are, but there's some interesting stuff in here.
Got the fifth episode where they get to Peter Moore leaving and Don Mattrick taking over and oh my fucking god, they actually got Don Mattrick to let them interview him for this? I'm genuinely curious how much of a fluff piece this is going to be given he was at the helm when Xbox lost all of the momentum the 360 built up.
Finally started watching that Xbox documentary. I don't like the editing and it's a little too gushy about how cool Microsoft and Xbox are, but there's some interesting stuff in here.
Got the fifth episode where they get to Peter Moore leaving and Don Mattrick taking over and oh my fucking god, they actually got Don Mattrick to let them interview him for this? I'm genuinely curious how much of a fluff piece this is going to be given he was at the helm when Xbox lost all of the momentum the 360 built up.
It reminded me of the old G4 mini docs about different iconic people in the games industry. I wouldn't have known about Gunpei Yokoi without those.
One possible benefit if COD goes exclusive is that it might free up space for a new multiplatform blockbuster to take its place, like how Modern Warfare stole the crown from Halo.
Might be time for a Titanfall 3, EA.
Undead Scottsman on
0
Options
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
Finally started watching that Xbox documentary. I don't like the editing and it's a little too gushy about how cool Microsoft and Xbox are, but there's some interesting stuff in here.
Got the fifth episode where they get to Peter Moore leaving and Don Mattrick taking over and oh my fucking god, they actually got Don Mattrick to let them interview him for this? I'm genuinely curious how much of a fluff piece this is going to be given he was at the helm when Xbox lost all of the momentum the 360 built up.
It's also pretty telling how profoundly and severely aged that Don Mattrick looks compared to his appearance during the days of the Xbox One lmao
As clumsy as it all was during that period I very much do not envy that dude and at the least it's actually really nice to actually hear the rationale behind the decision-making re: the meteoric rise of online services on the 360 vis-a-vis Netflix (which honestly is an understandable train of thought).
Even if people decided it was misguided
+1
Options
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
edited January 2022
Microsoft would be extremely shortsighted to cut the Playstation user base out of COD or Overwatch 2. There's just too much money they'd be missing out on.
Now, exclusive new games, I could see. Like an Xbox-only 'StarCraft Ghost' or some other potential big new exclusive IP. I mean, new IPs or rejuvenation of older IPs put Sony firmly on top last gen (Horizon, Tsushima, God of War, Ratchet and Clank, Spider-Man). They've built a brand around the Single Player System Seller. No reason Microsoft can't do the same and have something to crow about alongside Gamepass.
So I guess what I'm saying is where's my big budget revival of Blinx, Microsoft?
Microsoft would be extremely shortsighted to cut the Playstation user base out of COD or Overwatch 2. There's just too much money they'd be missing out on.
People said the same thing about Bethesda titles. I really don't feel like Microsoft dropped $69 billion on it's Xbox division to sell playstation games.
+5
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
Microsoft would be extremely shortsighted to cut the Playstation user base out of COD or Overwatch 2. There's just too much money they'd be missing out on.
People said the same thing about Bethesda titles. I really don't feel like Microsoft dropped $69 billion on it's Xbox division to sell playstation games.
Yeah, you don't drop that kind of dosh without planning to leverage it against rivals.
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
I guess? Bethesda games don't really pull in the kind of money COD games do though. COD alone in simply selling MTX to everyone could fund this purchase lol. Cutting out 60% of the playerbase doesn't seem like a wise investment.
I guess? Bethesda games don't really pull in the kind of money COD games do though. COD alone in simply selling MTX to everyone could fund this purchase lol. Cutting out 60% of the playerbase doesn't seem like a wise investment.
...because having CoD as an exclusive means they'll likely gain a bigger chunk of the playerbase as the people who only play CoD have to migrate to an MS platform. Plus it's another piece of leverage to get Gamepass onto Playstation.
Undead Scottsman on
0
Options
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
I guess? Bethesda games don't really pull in the kind of money COD games do though. COD alone in simply selling MTX to everyone could fund this purchase lol. Cutting out 60% of the playerbase doesn't seem like a wise investment.
...because having CoD as an exclusive means they'll likely gain a bigger chunk of the playerbase as the people who only play CoD have to migrate to an MS platform. Plus it's another piece of leverage to get Gamepass onto Playstation.
Except it'll universally be viewed as a "dick move" by both people who play attention and casual COD players, which is not the branding that Spencer is trying to craft right now.
I guess? Bethesda games don't really pull in the kind of money COD games do though. COD alone in simply selling MTX to everyone could fund this purchase lol. Cutting out 60% of the playerbase doesn't seem like a wise investment.
60%? Probably not.
Activision announced in recent earnings that “Call of Duty” currently has 111 million monthly active users. Most of these players were on computers — Activision Chief Operating Officer Daniel Alegre said during an earnings call that the PC “Call of Duty” player base is now ten times larger than third quarter last year.
From this article. Two years old now, but given the state of things I have to imagine that number has only improved.
edit- Actually I guess the article is only a little over a year old.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
Fucking people just argued with me that COD fanbase is mostly on the PS side in the PS thread. I'm not going to go in there and look up the numbers or articles.
I guess? Bethesda games don't really pull in the kind of money COD games do though. COD alone in simply selling MTX to everyone could fund this purchase lol. Cutting out 60% of the playerbase doesn't seem like a wise investment.
...because having CoD as an exclusive means they'll likely gain a bigger chunk of the playerbase as the people who only play CoD have to migrate to an MS platform. Plus it's another piece of leverage to get Gamepass onto Playstation.
Charge Sony to have the games on your system. Get 80% of the MTX profits. Plus then you could look generous to allow it on the Sony systems. Win win win for Microsoft.
Of all things COD, Warzone is the one thing I'd bank on staying on the Playstation for sure. New single player games dropping only on xbox and pc I can believe although I've already said I'd think it's a money printer like minecraft and may stay multi platform.
This is part of a 10 - 20 year plan to make Game Pass the world's most ubiquitous source of video games, they don't care about CoD sales.
What? This is absurd. Of course they care about how much money the game brings in lol.
Gamepass is Xbox's big focus. They want it on everything. Seriously everything, they were even in talks (as of last summer) with TV manufacturers to get the Xbox Experience to come standard on new smart TVs.
Withholding the Activision-Blizzard library from their competitor until Sony gives in on allowing Gamepass on Playstations is a very obvious move. Any amount of money they may lose out on in the short term would be worth it as they are still going to be making ridiculous piles of cash.
Or put it this way. Before the buyout Xbox wasn't really making money off Activision-Blizzard game sales outside of whatever the normal licensing/MTX agreements are. Now that they own them they will be making money off those game sales. Not selling on Playstation is still a net gain for Xbox.
edit- Or even more simply: Not selling on Playstation is leaving money on the table. No arguments here on that, but Xbox is still walking away with most of the money on the table.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
0
Options
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
edited January 2022
Except for the PR fallout. Deprive a significant chunk of the userbase of a game and they'll... play another game. Take away the single player COD, and someone will fill the void. Kill off Warzone on Playstation, and they'll be annoying the casuals, who don't think about the business or the reasons why, but just know "hey, Microsoft took my game away".
Which seems to run counter to Phil Spencer's quest to brand Microsoft and the Game Pass as 'gaming made easy and convenient'. Taking things away makes shit complicated. That's a move you do at the run-up or start of a console generation, before people have made the purchase, not 3 years (as 2023 is the date of the finalization) in.
edit- Or even more simply: Not selling on Playstation is leaving money on the table. No arguments here on that, but Xbox is still walking away with most of the money on the table.
If by "money on the table", you mean "nearly the GDP of a small nation, annually". That is a lot of money to say "no" to.
In order to shake things up after playing a bunch of shooters in a row, I reached for my backlog and played through Oxenfree after years of just having the icon sitting there, downloaded. https://youtu.be/NAhrOoNR4ng
It's an adventure game with horror as the theme, feels a little bit Stephen King, a little bit Stranger Things. 5 teens who have just about graduated high school head to Edwards Island to party on a beach they're not really supposed to be on (a senior tradition). That night, at the suggestion of her friend Ren and new step-brother Jonas, your playable character, Alex, tunes into a mysterious radio signal to see if she can hear a mysterious, creepy sound that's supposed to be audible from a certain cave. This... turns out to be ill advised and quickly the group is assaulted by a horde of ghostly specters, moments of broken/repeated time, and more. The gameplay is very much in line with Telltale, but with a much more unique visual style (akin to a 2D game like Limbo without all the reflex based platforming and constant deaths). As you explore the island, whoever you're traveling with will constantly talk about what's going on, their hopes and fears, events you recently experienced with them, etc. You can respond in a variety of ways that have a lot more depth generally than Nice Response, Mean Response, Non-committal response like a lot of games default to. There are a couple of splitting routes that involve doing the same content in different ways and there are meaningful choices to make that influence how the story ends up, with some caveats. At some point after launch, the devs also added new ending content that can only take place on a 2nd run through the game, but since I played it this late in the game, I experienced it as a normal part of playing the game instead of as a free DLC add on. The game's atmosphere is very well done imo, the theme of haunted radio signals is extremely creepy if you take your time and allow it to sink in. I cleared it three different times to try out different outcomes and earn achievements, I'll say the different routes are interesting but under cooked. For example, silence is an option, and the characters DO react to you being weirdly silent... but not often. And there aren't like, secret scenes that play out if you're being completely silent. Amusingly, I waited SO long, the sequel to this game is actually just about to come out. If it goes up on Gamepass, I will be very happy to give it a shot.
Plot discussion
-So an extremely important plot point is that Alex's brother, Michael, tragically drowned a few months or so before the start of the game. And at one point, his ex-girlfriend Clarissa directly blames Alex for what happened, and depending on your responses, you get a LITTLE bit of info. But not, imo, enough info. Is the assertion that Alex was responsible in some way AT ALL accurate, or is it just survivor's guilt? I... really want to know more about what happened, if they're going to bring it up over and over.
-Speaking of Michael, since the game involves time travel, you actually get to talk to him and meet him and... damn these scenes are heart breakers. I've seen a lot of scenes of this type, but rarely ones done SO WELL. You can feel the love radiating between Alex and Michael, sibling love of this kind is sadly very rare to see in games. Probably my favorite part of the entire game, when these bits happen. My one complaint is that you make a choice of how to advise him, to say "go out in the world and follow your dreams" or "stay here at home, it's not safe." If you do the former, he dies as before, if you do the latter, he lives. This is... a really strange and possibly unintentional moral? "If you leave your small town you will LITERALLY die"??? I have NEVER seen a piece of fiction go in that direction earnestly, it feels kind of insane. So much of the game has nuance, why couldn't there be a choice to have him leave but avoid the key incident that killed him?
-This might be a necessity due to budget, but it seems like, on a first playthrough, that there could theoretically be routes for each friend, that they would be the one following you for most of the game. This is not the case at all. There is ONE time where you can pick a partner for a sequence (that partner cannot be Michael's ex-girlfriend Clarissa), otherwise, you WILL be teamed up with Jonas. And Jonas is a good character and the relationship that Alex and he form is rather well done. I'm just sort of disappointed there weren't more chances to bond with (or fight with) the rest of the cast.
-Speaking of fighting with people, there is an achievement based on being a dick to everyone. I got this... but I think they should have written in WAY more mean content. Like, Clarissa is antagonistic to begin with and there should really be way more opportunities to bite back. In a certain scene, it would have been EXTREMELY appropriate if you could slap or even punch her in the face, frankly. Jonas also rolls with the punches far too often, I would have appreciated if his accepting attitude towards Alex would curdle and become less positive if you're persistently being MEAN to him. The positive side to this is that Alex's responses do come off as coming from the same person, when you take a certain rather unethical route in the story, you can actually hear Alex's doubts and second thoughts about going in this direction.
-There's a series of late game collectibles that explain a bit more of the location's backstory. Appreciated, but they don't... do anything. I think it would have been appropriate if certain good ending paths were available based on getting all of these.
-New Game +'s new dialogue and additional horror stings are very good BUT they really should have enabled a chapter select or fast run button. I also think a button to announce the player's decision to be silent would have been good, the silent playthrough is kind of tedious without one, you kind of need a book or something on the side when the gang all wants to chat but you are going to REFUSE to engage with them.
-Speaking of dialogue, the game purposely has your responses fade out rather quickly (if you want to read them all) and a lot of times answering will involve talking over someone else. I think this was WAY overtuned. They wanted the dialogue to be more naturalistic and realistic perhaps, but instead slow readers are going to be PUNISHED for taking a second to think, it's very inaccessible as a design choice. For a compromise, I'd like to see "slower dialogue" or "dialogue pause" as optional things you can select, the game really does not benefit from this in the way they might have thought it would.
If you like Telltale games or Walking sims or the style description I mentioned earlier but never played this, definitely give it a shot. If you need puzzles or action to keep you interested, this one will not do it for you, though.
Next up, Guardians of the Galaxy (the Square-Enix one).
This is part of a 10 - 20 year plan to make Game Pass the world's most ubiquitous source of video games, they don't care about CoD sales.
What? This is absurd. Of course they care about how much money the game brings in lol.
The reality is that it doesn't matter what position you take. Either X doesn't care about unit sales they care about subscription fees. Or X wants to increase unit sales by limiting overall support. The counter argument is to be tailored to whatever specific position you might care to take so that you'll always be foolish to suggest anything else.
Except for the PR fallout. Deprive a significant chunk of the userbase of a game and they'll... play another game. Take away the single player COD, and someone will fill the void. Kill off Warzone on Playstation, and they'll be annoying the casuals, who don't think about the business or the reasons why, but just know "hey, Microsoft took my game away".
Which seems to run counter to Phil Spencer's quest to brand Microsoft and the Game Pass as 'gaming made easy and convenient'. Taking things away makes shit complicated. That's a move you do at the run-up or start of a console generation, before people have made the purchase, not 3 years (as 2023 is the date of the finalization) in.
edit- Or even more simply: Not selling on Playstation is leaving money on the table. No arguments here on that, but Xbox is still walking away with most of the money on the table.
If by "money on the table", you mean "nearly the GDP of a small nation, annually". That is a lot of money to say "no" to.
PR backlash I don't think matters over much. Look at how hated EA is, like all the time, and they are still making obscene piles of cash. More and more each year.
Or Activision-Blizzard. I mean even with all the truly, legitimately awful shit going on over there people were still giving them money.
On top of all that the only people (for the most part) who will be pissed will be people who only own a PS5. They'll either suffer with it or buy an Xbox or a PC. In the latter two cases Microsoft wins.
What choice will Sony have? Go without what would be arguably near a third of all games on their system or capitulate and let Microsoft put Gamepass on their future consoles while taking a cut from that and a cut from Activision-Blizzard game/mtx sales.
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
I think it was an entirely fair business practice by Sony, but in my recollection the total result of Sony’s effort to lock up games to their console was a running joke that goes “Xbox has no games” so I’m not sure why it’s necessarily true that future exclusivity announcements will result in PR disasters. I don’t recall much protesting about ES6 being exclusive, either.
+6
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
edited January 2022
I'm confident Microsoft will honor any Activision/Sony deals that are already set.
Microsoft didn't buy a studio, they bought one of the Big Three. Something I honestly thought would be impossible until the day the news broke.
You don't make an acquisition like that to just have it passively generate income (as fantastic as that income may be), you make an acquisition like that for a Power Play.
Microsoft's purchase of Activision-Blizzard was a goddamn message and I sincerely doubt Microsoft and Sony aren't already talking behind closed doors.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
+4
Options
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
edited January 2022
The reason EA and Activision get financially forgiven for their monstrosities is they put out games. That's what casual don't-read-stories-about-crimes gamers buy, every time they release, unless something disgusting happens with the game itself. Madden releases and sells, every year. COD releases and sells, every year. The games are money-making distractions from stories about worker abuse and studio killing.
But what if COD stopped coming out for a significant chunk of console owners? If you remove the games, you remove the distractions. That's the only "sin" casual (and a large number of in-the-know) gamers recognize: games not coming out or being removed. That's what they notice.
Microsoft will make more money letting certain franchises stay multiplatform. Keep the players happy no matter their platform of choice. Make the big guaranteed money by not playing silly console warz.
CoD is an annual thing that will generate a noticeable vacuum if it's made Xbox exclusive and/or ceases to be annual, such that it's not guaranteed that Microsoft will change either of those things. Bethesda games, on the other hand, are few and far between, so them being exclusive going forward escapes the "you're taking something away from me" feeling taking CoD away does.
0
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
...I reached for my backlog and played through Oxenfree after years of just having the icon sitting there, downloaded...
@shoeboxjeddy Yeah Oxenfree really is VERY good isn't it? I played it around the time it came out and really loved it. :heartbeat:
'Afterparty' (two friends trying to escape hell) by the same dev is really good too, my only complaint was it being too short, I think it was about half the length of Oxenfree on my first play-through.
The tone is very different though, it's very much more about the comedic tragedy of their situation at times.
The reason EA and Activision get financially forgiven for their monstrosities is they put out games. That's what casual don't-read-stories-about-crimes gamers buy, every time they release, unless something disgusting happens with the game itself. Madden releases and sells, every year. COD releases and sells, every year. The games are money-making distractions from stories about worker abuse and studio killing.
But what if COD stopped coming out for a significant chunk of console owners? If you remove the games, you remove the distractions. That's the only "sin" casual (and a large number of in-the-know) gamers recognize: games not coming out or being removed. That's what they notice.
Microsoft will make more money letting certain franchises stay multiplatform. Keep the players happy no matter their platform of choice. Make the big guaranteed money by not playing silly console warz.
Sony fans are not Microsoft's customers. Them being upset won't impact Microsoft's business as Xbox and PC players (and maybe people who own Smart TVs?) will still buy the games and have fun.
Microsoft wouldn't be losing any income on it because it wasn't income they had in the first place. Any and all sales Activision-Blizzard makes sans Sony is still a net gain for Microsoft now.
Mobile and Ancillary (including non-platform-specific game-related revenues such as standalone sales of toys and accessories): 40%
Other Sources: 7%
Console section is a tiny bit less than PC, but console is split between Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo (and I dunno what else). Point is, the amount of revenue they earn from Sony or Microsoft, for that matter, is tiny compared to PC or anything else.
edit- The amount of revenue Microsoft will lose not selling Activision-Blizzard games on Sony consoles would be a ballparked 8-10%. That is nothing to Microsoft, but pretty significant to Sony.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
Posts
His contract includes a 9-figure payout in the event he dies.
- The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (2017, colorized)
To borrow something I wrote on a non-video-game-focused forum:
tl;dr--the end of history and our golden age of mature neoliberalism means that bad executives who are profitable keep their posts, and even mediocre ones can easily get massive bonuses, so even if Kotick is something to be shifted out of the way, he will enjoy the same. Microsoft did not spend seventy billion to get rid of him; no company would, and in fact, they need him (in a specific, limited way) to actually get what they paid for. And in return, he'll get a buttload of money when he leaves, as oppose to getting a buttload of money when he left...probably much later.
Rational thinking is extremely difficult at the best of times.
What's silly about that is comcast has more of a day to day direct fuckery on most gamers and yet EA still gets the hate, its just that groupthink hive mind of gamerdom
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah I mean my point was more so that Kotick's financial security has been so deeply entrenched in his contract that there was no situation in which he wouldn't walk away with a massive windfall, which you also pointed out
I'm not really one to fantasize about the death of real life people, but I do hope he disappears into the deep anal fissures of history as soon as he possibly can once he is ousted - after all this is the same narcissistic piece of shit who will go out of his way to impersonate his Bush-era torture apologist HR manager (that he hired) in order to downplay allegations of workplace abuse, and then fire her after the fact when she takes the PR hit
Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure at this point EA might be the only major publisher still standing that hasn't had workplace abuse allegations publicly aired, despite being the favored punching bag of the Gamers(tm) everywhere. Unless I completely forgot (and not that an absence of evidence = evidence of absence)
A shame that it's also just the industry norm at this point so we kind of just have a baseline level of white noise about it. I suppose at this point it takes sexual abuse allegations to get the masses actually paying attention
They got voted worst two years in a row, 2012-13 and then again in 2018.
edit- "vote" is an incorrect word, no one voted. They were declared worst based on multiple data metrics; major news headlines, customer surveys, employee reviews and 24/7 Wall St. analytics.
Got the fifth episode where they get to Peter Moore leaving and Don Mattrick taking over and oh my fucking god, they actually got Don Mattrick to let them interview him for this? I'm genuinely curious how much of a fluff piece this is going to be given he was at the helm when Xbox lost all of the momentum the 360 built up.
It reminded me of the old G4 mini docs about different iconic people in the games industry. I wouldn't have known about Gunpei Yokoi without those.
Might be time for a Titanfall 3, EA.
It's also pretty telling how profoundly and severely aged that Don Mattrick looks compared to his appearance during the days of the Xbox One lmao
As clumsy as it all was during that period I very much do not envy that dude and at the least it's actually really nice to actually hear the rationale behind the decision-making re: the meteoric rise of online services on the 360 vis-a-vis Netflix (which honestly is an understandable train of thought).
Even if people decided it was misguided
Now, exclusive new games, I could see. Like an Xbox-only 'StarCraft Ghost' or some other potential big new exclusive IP. I mean, new IPs or rejuvenation of older IPs put Sony firmly on top last gen (Horizon, Tsushima, God of War, Ratchet and Clank, Spider-Man). They've built a brand around the Single Player System Seller. No reason Microsoft can't do the same and have something to crow about alongside Gamepass.
So I guess what I'm saying is where's my big budget revival of Blinx, Microsoft?
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
People said the same thing about Bethesda titles. I really don't feel like Microsoft dropped $69 billion on it's Xbox division to sell playstation games.
Yeah, you don't drop that kind of dosh without planning to leverage it against rivals.
...because having CoD as an exclusive means they'll likely gain a bigger chunk of the playerbase as the people who only play CoD have to migrate to an MS platform. Plus it's another piece of leverage to get Gamepass onto Playstation.
Except it'll universally be viewed as a "dick move" by both people who play attention and casual COD players, which is not the branding that Spencer is trying to craft right now.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
60%? Probably not.
From this article. Two years old now, but given the state of things I have to imagine that number has only improved.
edit- Actually I guess the article is only a little over a year old.
Charge Sony to have the games on your system. Get 80% of the MTX profits. Plus then you could look generous to allow it on the Sony systems. Win win win for Microsoft.
What? This is absurd. Of course they care about how much money the game brings in lol.
Gamepass is Xbox's big focus. They want it on everything. Seriously everything, they were even in talks (as of last summer) with TV manufacturers to get the Xbox Experience to come standard on new smart TVs.
Withholding the Activision-Blizzard library from their competitor until Sony gives in on allowing Gamepass on Playstations is a very obvious move. Any amount of money they may lose out on in the short term would be worth it as they are still going to be making ridiculous piles of cash.
Or put it this way. Before the buyout Xbox wasn't really making money off Activision-Blizzard game sales outside of whatever the normal licensing/MTX agreements are. Now that they own them they will be making money off those game sales. Not selling on Playstation is still a net gain for Xbox.
edit- Or even more simply: Not selling on Playstation is leaving money on the table. No arguments here on that, but Xbox is still walking away with most of the money on the table.
Which seems to run counter to Phil Spencer's quest to brand Microsoft and the Game Pass as 'gaming made easy and convenient'. Taking things away makes shit complicated. That's a move you do at the run-up or start of a console generation, before people have made the purchase, not 3 years (as 2023 is the date of the finalization) in.
If by "money on the table", you mean "nearly the GDP of a small nation, annually". That is a lot of money to say "no" to.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
It's an adventure game with horror as the theme, feels a little bit Stephen King, a little bit Stranger Things. 5 teens who have just about graduated high school head to Edwards Island to party on a beach they're not really supposed to be on (a senior tradition). That night, at the suggestion of her friend Ren and new step-brother Jonas, your playable character, Alex, tunes into a mysterious radio signal to see if she can hear a mysterious, creepy sound that's supposed to be audible from a certain cave. This... turns out to be ill advised and quickly the group is assaulted by a horde of ghostly specters, moments of broken/repeated time, and more. The gameplay is very much in line with Telltale, but with a much more unique visual style (akin to a 2D game like Limbo without all the reflex based platforming and constant deaths). As you explore the island, whoever you're traveling with will constantly talk about what's going on, their hopes and fears, events you recently experienced with them, etc. You can respond in a variety of ways that have a lot more depth generally than Nice Response, Mean Response, Non-committal response like a lot of games default to. There are a couple of splitting routes that involve doing the same content in different ways and there are meaningful choices to make that influence how the story ends up, with some caveats. At some point after launch, the devs also added new ending content that can only take place on a 2nd run through the game, but since I played it this late in the game, I experienced it as a normal part of playing the game instead of as a free DLC add on. The game's atmosphere is very well done imo, the theme of haunted radio signals is extremely creepy if you take your time and allow it to sink in. I cleared it three different times to try out different outcomes and earn achievements, I'll say the different routes are interesting but under cooked. For example, silence is an option, and the characters DO react to you being weirdly silent... but not often. And there aren't like, secret scenes that play out if you're being completely silent. Amusingly, I waited SO long, the sequel to this game is actually just about to come out. If it goes up on Gamepass, I will be very happy to give it a shot.
Plot discussion
-Speaking of Michael, since the game involves time travel, you actually get to talk to him and meet him and... damn these scenes are heart breakers. I've seen a lot of scenes of this type, but rarely ones done SO WELL. You can feel the love radiating between Alex and Michael, sibling love of this kind is sadly very rare to see in games. Probably my favorite part of the entire game, when these bits happen. My one complaint is that you make a choice of how to advise him, to say "go out in the world and follow your dreams" or "stay here at home, it's not safe." If you do the former, he dies as before, if you do the latter, he lives. This is... a really strange and possibly unintentional moral? "If you leave your small town you will LITERALLY die"??? I have NEVER seen a piece of fiction go in that direction earnestly, it feels kind of insane. So much of the game has nuance, why couldn't there be a choice to have him leave but avoid the key incident that killed him?
-This might be a necessity due to budget, but it seems like, on a first playthrough, that there could theoretically be routes for each friend, that they would be the one following you for most of the game. This is not the case at all. There is ONE time where you can pick a partner for a sequence (that partner cannot be Michael's ex-girlfriend Clarissa), otherwise, you WILL be teamed up with Jonas. And Jonas is a good character and the relationship that Alex and he form is rather well done. I'm just sort of disappointed there weren't more chances to bond with (or fight with) the rest of the cast.
-Speaking of fighting with people, there is an achievement based on being a dick to everyone. I got this... but I think they should have written in WAY more mean content. Like, Clarissa is antagonistic to begin with and there should really be way more opportunities to bite back. In a certain scene, it would have been EXTREMELY appropriate if you could slap or even punch her in the face, frankly. Jonas also rolls with the punches far too often, I would have appreciated if his accepting attitude towards Alex would curdle and become less positive if you're persistently being MEAN to him. The positive side to this is that Alex's responses do come off as coming from the same person, when you take a certain rather unethical route in the story, you can actually hear Alex's doubts and second thoughts about going in this direction.
-There's a series of late game collectibles that explain a bit more of the location's backstory. Appreciated, but they don't... do anything. I think it would have been appropriate if certain good ending paths were available based on getting all of these.
-New Game +'s new dialogue and additional horror stings are very good BUT they really should have enabled a chapter select or fast run button. I also think a button to announce the player's decision to be silent would have been good, the silent playthrough is kind of tedious without one, you kind of need a book or something on the side when the gang all wants to chat but you are going to REFUSE to engage with them.
-Speaking of dialogue, the game purposely has your responses fade out rather quickly (if you want to read them all) and a lot of times answering will involve talking over someone else. I think this was WAY overtuned. They wanted the dialogue to be more naturalistic and realistic perhaps, but instead slow readers are going to be PUNISHED for taking a second to think, it's very inaccessible as a design choice. For a compromise, I'd like to see "slower dialogue" or "dialogue pause" as optional things you can select, the game really does not benefit from this in the way they might have thought it would.
If you like Telltale games or Walking sims or the style description I mentioned earlier but never played this, definitely give it a shot. If you need puzzles or action to keep you interested, this one will not do it for you, though.
Next up, Guardians of the Galaxy (the Square-Enix one).
The reality is that it doesn't matter what position you take. Either X doesn't care about unit sales they care about subscription fees. Or X wants to increase unit sales by limiting overall support. The counter argument is to be tailored to whatever specific position you might care to take so that you'll always be foolish to suggest anything else.
Forget it Jake, it's Gamertown.
PR backlash I don't think matters over much. Look at how hated EA is, like all the time, and they are still making obscene piles of cash. More and more each year.
Or Activision-Blizzard. I mean even with all the truly, legitimately awful shit going on over there people were still giving them money.
On top of all that the only people (for the most part) who will be pissed will be people who only own a PS5. They'll either suffer with it or buy an Xbox or a PC. In the latter two cases Microsoft wins.
What choice will Sony have? Go without what would be arguably near a third of all games on their system or capitulate and let Microsoft put Gamepass on their future consoles while taking a cut from that and a cut from Activision-Blizzard game/mtx sales.
PlayStation they do not, why help out the competition, Sony loses that revenue as well.
Microsoft’s gaming revenue is only 10% of their total. It’s small potato’s for them.
Microsoft didn't buy a studio, they bought one of the Big Three. Something I honestly thought would be impossible until the day the news broke.
You don't make an acquisition like that to just have it passively generate income (as fantastic as that income may be), you make an acquisition like that for a Power Play.
Microsoft's purchase of Activision-Blizzard was a goddamn message and I sincerely doubt Microsoft and Sony aren't already talking behind closed doors.
But what if COD stopped coming out for a significant chunk of console owners? If you remove the games, you remove the distractions. That's the only "sin" casual (and a large number of in-the-know) gamers recognize: games not coming out or being removed. That's what they notice.
Microsoft will make more money letting certain franchises stay multiplatform. Keep the players happy no matter their platform of choice. Make the big guaranteed money by not playing silly console warz.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
'Afterparty' (two friends trying to escape hell) by the same dev is really good too, my only complaint was it being too short, I think it was about half the length of Oxenfree on my first play-through.
The tone is very different though, it's very much more about the comedic tragedy of their situation at times.
Sony fans are not Microsoft's customers. Them being upset won't impact Microsoft's business as Xbox and PC players (and maybe people who own Smart TVs?) will still buy the games and have fun.
Microsoft wouldn't be losing any income on it because it wasn't income they had in the first place. Any and all sales Activision-Blizzard makes sans Sony is still a net gain for Microsoft now.
Activision-Blizzard revenue split as per third quarter of 2021.
Console section is a tiny bit less than PC, but console is split between Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo (and I dunno what else). Point is, the amount of revenue they earn from Sony or Microsoft, for that matter, is tiny compared to PC or anything else.
edit- The amount of revenue Microsoft will lose not selling Activision-Blizzard games on Sony consoles would be a ballparked 8-10%. That is nothing to Microsoft, but pretty significant to Sony.