Support NeoGAF

[Foilz]

What a load of bull. Phil is just doing his former company (Sony) a favor and trying to derail the MS/Act purchase. The Bethesda deal had a very small impact if any on stadia unless they were gonna try to aquire them but failed.
Maybe Phil's spouting this nonsense to try and get a job

 

[adamsapple]

Some people are just desperate and hoping this somehow stops the Activision acquisition. Even though realistically MS had nothing to do with Stadia's failure.

No, the Harrison quote in the OP has no links to verify it at all, besides If a single publisher being acquired was enough to convince google to drop Stadia, they never really had much interest in keeping the project going long term to begin with.

 

[Three]

He was talking about a cloud infrastructure where only Google and Amazon can rival MS's Azure. Once again, at the point of that interview, Stadia was barely a thing and Luna wasn't out, neither of those platforms were a factor in his quote, it was talking about the backbone structure to run a cloud based service.

You already made what you think he is referring to clear but what "cloud based service" do you think is being referred to there? He is specifically talking about cloud gaming services (content delivery and game streaming as clearly and unambiguously mentioned in the article). Amazon's Prime Gaming/Luna and Google's Stadia are how those two companies are trying to reach 7 billion gamers.

But you're really going down the hill that Stadia closing is primarily MS's fault, without any corroborating evidence, or even an actual quote from anyone saying as such, huh ?

Where did I mention anything about what I think is the primary reason for Stadia closing. I've only replied to you talking about your deflection that Phil himself said Google and Amazon cloud based services are its main competitors.

Which part of any of the articles implies that Stadia was enough of a competition for FTC to have hypothetically taken notice exactly, since we're talking about original quotes ?

Please highlight the specific portion you think shows that.

Wtf, what's this tangent about? You think the FTC would not take notice of a massive company like Google trying to enter cloud gaming because "it wasn't enough of a competition"? I don't even know what point you're trying to make anymore. The point was Phil Spencer himself considered Google and Amazon as its competition to cloud gaming. The FTC wouldn't need to work double overtime to show it was MS' competitor. I made no mention about whose fault it was that it closed so I'm not sure what is up with your strawman.

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

The case has not been made that Microsoft killed Stadia. Google launched a shitty product and the market didn't like it from the start.

No-one is making the case that Microsoft killed Stadia (or at least, no-one sensible). The case here is that acquisitions like Bethesda (or ABK or Bungie) are a) harmful to a healthy competitive industry and b) raise the barrier of entry into the industry by effectively requiring that new entrants acquire established successful studios in order to compete. Both factors contributed the Stadia’s downfall - I don’t think there’s anything contentious there.

When trillion-dollar corporations struggle and fail to compete in a market, that’s a hint that maybe there’s an artificial barrier in place constricting healthy competition. I would say the same thing applied to Microsoft’s attempts to enter the mobile phone market in the face of multiple established app store walled gardens.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

But you're really going down the hill that Stadia closing is primarily MS's fault, without any corroborating evidence, or even an actual quote from anyone saying as such, huh ?

Did I write the article? I was just commenting on what I read in the OP. If you think their quote is wrong contact them. Don't blame me.

This past Thursday, Google Stadia GM Phil Harrison did a Q&A with Stadia staff regarding the decision to shut down Stadia's game development teams. Kotaku has reported on some of Harrison's responses. While Harrison was said to be very coy regarding the reasons for the decision, one specific thing he mentioned was Microsoft's ongoing acquisition of ZeniMax Media, which includes Bethesda, id Software, MachineGames, and other subsidiaries.

It's written like it's fresh info from yesterday.

 

[adamsapple]

Did I write the article? I was just commenting on what I read in the OP. If you think their quote is wrong contact them. Don't blame me.

It's written like it's fresh info from yesterday.

I've already posted earlier using all the links and any sources that there's no actual quote, or even a direct mention, of Phil Harrison saying anything like that, or at least nothing that can be verified. Game Rant's article is a literal rant.

There's nothing wrong with changing an opinion after seeing more sources/evidence.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

You already made what you think he is referring to clear but what "cloud based service" do you think is being referred to there? He is specifically talking about cloud gaming services (content delivery and game streaming as clearly and unambiguously mentioned in the article). Amazon's Prime Gaming/Luna and Google's Stadia are how those two companies are trying to reach 7 billion gamers.


Where did I mention anything about what I think is the primary reason for Stadia closing. I've only replied to you talking about your deflection that Phil himself said Google and Amazon cloud based services are its main competitors.

Wtf, what's this tangent about? You think the FTC would not take notice of a massive company like Google trying to enter cloud gaming because "it wasn't enough of a competition"? I don't even know what point you're trying to make anymore. The point was Phil Spencer himself considered Google and Amazon as its competition to cloud gaming. The FTC wouldn't need to work double overtime to show it was MS' competitor. I made no mention about whose fault it was that it closed so I'm not sure what is up with your strawman.

 

[graywolf323]

What a load of bull. Phil is just doing his former company (Sony) a favor and trying to derail the MS/Act purchase. The Bethesda deal had a very small impact if any on stadia unless they were gonna try to aquire them but failed.
Maybe Phil's spouting this nonsense to try and get a job

people do realize that Phil Harrison has more recently worked for MS than Sony right?

 

[ZehDon]

It’s almost as if the CMA’s concern that current or future competition could be stifled has some grounds.

Laughable post.

Stadia's business model was a single revenue stream: everyone else makes the games for their platform, Google does basically nothing, and then Google get's to make largely free money off of all of the games they didn't make. Their launch was a laughable affair. Not too many developers saw the benefit to giving Google their money, and even fewer customers did. In terms of competition, Stadia was already the bottom of the barrel, with jokes about Google killing it abound from day one. On Live tried this same model and failed. Gaikai tried this same model and failed. Stadia failed because it offered virtually nothing to warrant all of its concessions, and Google launched it half-arsed. If not having Fallout 4 was enough to kill their platform, they never had a chance of said platform competing to begin with.

 

[Chukhopops]

Look at the absolute stupidity Trup1aya posted on this topic on Reset:



Before you type BS, learn that Geforce Now can be signed up to for FREE; you don't need to pay for an account.

Secondly, if they were able to reach 20 million users without buying a developer, why does Microsoft need to buy two massive publishers to maybe reach 50 million GamePass subs?

Oh, is it because you have to pay for GamePass? Like how you had to PAY for Stadia? Would that suggest, then, that for paid services you maybe HAVE to buy developers and/or publishers? And if that is the case, Google's claim of MS's aggressive buy of publishers like Zenimax/Bethesda basically pushing them out of the market, has some validity?

But I get it, dude. We know how you play this game, so you'll never look at the flaws of your own arguments.

You’re saying that a service like GeForce Now, where you play your own games and the service is just the streaming tech, is less dependent on having exclusive games than a platform which offers content as part of the subscription?

Have you considered emailing the Nobel Prize committee about this incredible discovery?

Stadia failed primarily because it had barely any games, and any game it didn’t offer is equally a factor into its failure. Not proposing Bethesda games is as much of a factor as not offering Call of Duty, FIFA or Mario Kart.

 

[phil_t98]

That’s some wierd flex , did they have any deals with theses company’s? We’re there tons of there games on the system?

What studios made games for stadia exclusively?

 

[jigglet]

How does Harrison keep getting employed.

 

[JackMcGunns]

Celebrating less competition?...the FTC wants to have a chat with you.

Celebrating that a stream-only platform is going away, yes. Offer both or GTFOH

 

[Topher]

No, the Harrison quote in the OP has no links to verify it at all, besides If a single publisher being acquired was enough to convince google to drop Stadia, they never really had much interest in keeping the project going long term to begin with.

Is it more or less mind boggling than the deflection of trying to put Stadia closing down on Microsoft ?

Oh, funny story on that. The Kotaku article that the OP's article is quoting says this:



The hyperlinked piece there with the "reported at that time" has absolutely no mention of Bethesda at all.

Google Stadia Shuts Down Internal Studios, Changing Business Focus

Google Stadia, the late 2019 streaming platform that promised to revolutionize gaming by letting users stream games without needing to own a powerful PC or console, is altering course, getting out of the game-making business and will now offer its platform directly to game publishers alongside...

kotaku.com

That's not the Kotaku article that mentioned Bethesda. This is:

"In his Thursday Q&A with staff, he pointed specifically to Microsoft’s buying spree and planned acquisition of Bethesda Software later this year as one of the factors that had made Google decide to close the book on original game development. Google’s parent company, Alphabet, is a nearly trillion-dollar company and roughly on par with Microsoft when it comes to revenue and profit, according to a 2020 survey by Forbes."

Stadia Leadership Praised Development Studios For 'Great Progress' Just One Week Before Laying Them All Off

Developers at Google’s recently formed game studios were shocked February 1 when they were notified that the studios would be shut down, according to four sources with knowledge of what transpired. Just the week prior, Google Stadia vice president and general manager Phil Harrison sent an email...

kotaku.com

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Celebrating that a stream-only platform is going away, yes. Offer both or GTFOH

Less choices= bad.

 

[Topher]

How does Harrison keep getting employed.

From the comments section of the Kotaku article I linked above.

"Look at Phil Harrison’s history:

-Worked at Sony for the horrible PS3 launch

-Worked at Microsoft for the horrible Xbox One launch

-Now working at Google for the horrible Stadia launch

Seriously, why are people still hiring him for jobs like this?"

 

[Cyberpunkd]

That's not the Kotaku article that mentioned Bethesda. This is:

"In his Thursday Q&A with staff, he pointed specifically to Microsoft’s buying spree and planned acquisition of Bethesda Software later this year as one of the factors that had made Google decide to close the book on original game development. Google’s parent company, Alphabet, is a nearly trillion-dollar company and roughly on par with Microsoft when it comes to revenue and profit, according to a 2020 survey by Forbes."

Stadia Leadership Praised Development Studios For 'Great Progress' Just One Week Before Laying Them All Off

Developers at Google’s recently formed game studios were shocked February 1 when they were notified that the studios would be shut down, according to four sources with knowledge of what transpired. Just the week prior, Google Stadia vice president and general manager Phil Harrison sent an email...

kotaku.com

I guess this is when Google management realised how much money they would need to put to be considered competitive in the industry. I can imagine it was quite shocking.

 

[Topher]

I guess this is when Google management realised how much money they would need to put to be considered competitive in the industry. I can imagine it was quite shocking.

Agreed. Suddenly realizing that your platform would need first party games and first party games cost a lot of money is something a corporation the size of Google shouldn't be suddenly realizing.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Agreed. Suddenly realizing that your platform would need first party games and first party games cost a lot of money is something a corporation the size of Google shouldn't be suddenly realizing.

I think nobody before considered how badly Microsoft wanted to push Xbox. If buying Bethesda factored into Google’s decision I guess they all hyper ventilated when ABK price was announced.

 

[CatLady]

Look at the absolute stupidity Trup1aya posted on this topic on Reset:



Before you type BS, learn that Geforce Now can be signed up to for FREE; you don't need to pay for an account.

Secondly, if they were able to reach 20 million users without buying a developer, why does Microsoft need to buy two massive publishers to maybe reach 50 million GamePass subs?

Oh, is it because you have to pay for GamePass? Like how you had to PAY for Stadia? Would that suggest, then, that for paid services you maybe HAVE to buy developers and/or publishers? And if that is the case, Google's claim of MS's aggressive buy of publishers like Zenimax/Bethesda basically pushing them out of the market, has some validity?

But I get it, dude. We know how you play this game, so you'll never look at the flaws of your own arguments.

Why do you keep bringing posts from Retard era over here and rebutting them on GAF? It's just weird

 

[CatLady]

From the comments section of the Kotaku article I linked above.

"Look at Phil Harrison’s history:

-Worked at Sony for the horrible PS3 launch

-Worked at Microsoft for the horrible Xbox One launch

-Now working at Google for the horrible Stadia launch

Seriously, why are people still hiring him for jobs like this?"

What a great track record. Seems like he is the kiss of death to anything he's involved in.

 

[Topher]

What a great track record. Seems like he is the kiss of death to anything he's involved in.

And that doesn't even include his brief time at........Atari.

 

[adamsapple]

That's not the Kotaku article that mentioned Bethesda. This is:

"In his Thursday Q&A with staff, he pointed specifically to Microsoft’s buying spree and planned acquisition of Bethesda Software later this year as one of the factors that had made Google decide to close the book on original game development. Google’s parent company, Alphabet, is a nearly trillion-dollar company and roughly on par with Microsoft when it comes to revenue and profit, according to a 2020 survey by Forbes."

Stadia Leadership Praised Development Studios For 'Great Progress' Just One Week Before Laying Them All Off

Developers at Google’s recently formed game studios were shocked February 1 when they were notified that the studios would be shut down, according to four sources with knowledge of what transpired. Just the week prior, Google Stadia vice president and general manager Phil Harrison sent an email...

kotaku.com

Ok but even that is specific to 'original game development', whatever that means in that context.

And this is around the same time frame they're reportedly rejecting Kojima's ideas for exclusive games for Stadia.

Citing this as one of the primary reasons Stadia is dead is still a very very far reach.

 

[phil_t98]

Even less with MS acquisitions. Is so unfair and inadequate.

then Sony should give freedom back to the studios they bought in recent years just to even out the fairness lol

 

[Topher]

Ok but even that is specific to 'original game development', whatever that means in that context.

And this is around the same time frame they're reportedly rejecting Kojima's ideas for exclusive games for Stadia.

Citing this as one of the primary reasons Stadia is dead is still a very very far reach.

"Original game development" is referring to first party games. I agree with you though. Harrison's reasoning doesn't make any sense. If a publisher gets bought and no longer makes games for your platform then making your own games is more important than before. Closing studios as a result is stupid. Frankly, that just seems like a bullshit line Harrison was telling the people he was about to fire.

The question is will regulators see through that bullshit as well.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

then Sony should give freedom back to the studios they bought in recent years just to even out the fairness lol

They already did.

 

[DeepEnigma]

This meme makes no sense.

 

[DarkMage619]

No-one is making the case that Microsoft killed Stadia (or at least, no-one sensible). The case here is that acquisitions like Bethesda (or ABK or Bungie) are a) harmful to a healthy competitive industry and b) raise the barrier of entry into the industry by effectively requiring that new entrants acquire established successful studios in order to compete. Both factors contributed the Stadia’s downfall - I don’t think there’s anything contentious there.

When trillion-dollar corporations struggle and fail to compete in a market, that’s a hint that maybe there’s an artificial barrier in place constricting healthy competition. I would say the same thing applied to Microsoft’s attempts to enter the mobile phone market in the face of multiple established app store walled gardens.

MS has been in the industry for 20+ years and is still in 3rd place. It has nothing to do with the acquisitions made. The industry is far bigger than Activision and money alone does not guarantee success. The barrier is that people in an ecosystem tend to not want to leave it once they have bought into it. That's true for multiple industries.

Stadia failed because it had a horrible business model. The lesson here is that a) it's difficult to enter old established markets no matter how much money your company has b) if you DO decide to enter a established market you have better made sure you have a sound business plan to succeed. MS invested far more money than what Alphabet was willing to pay.

It took years in the space for MS to find some real success and they did it but charting their own path and NOT following the established competitors. They also found that success BEFORE making huge studio acquisitions in an environment where multi-platform titles where being blocked by other better selling companies. MS has not made the industry less competitive at all. It wasn't super competitive when they entered. PS2 sales vs everything else tells that story quite well.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

You’re saying that a service like GeForce Now, where you play your own games and the service is just the streaming tech, is less dependent on having exclusive games than a platform which offers content as part of the subscription?

Have you considered emailing the Nobel Prize committee about this incredible discovery?

Don't look at me; look at the post I was quoting. They're the ones who tried using GeForce Now's subscriber count to insinuate Google should've tried harder with Stadia, even though as you just pointed out, they are completely different business models.

Stadia failed primarily because it had barely any games, and any game it didn’t offer is equally a factor into its failure. Not proposing Bethesda games is as much of a factor as not offering Call of Duty, FIFA or Mario Kart.

Not disagreeing here; those absolutely played a part. I was just ripping into a braindead post from Era making a false equivalency between GeForce Now and Google Stadia. Of course Stadia should've had its own 1P content or exclusives; even services like Apple Arcade have been doing that. Google could've taken a similar approach, but chose not to, and it hurt them.

But if MS acquiring Zenimax, attempting to acquire ABK and already talking about acquiring other big publishers also factored into scaring Google out of the market, that is something to regulators absolutely worth considering. Both things can be true at the same time.

I think nobody before considered how badly Microsoft wanted to push Xbox. If buying Bethesda factored into Google’s decision I guess they all hyper ventilated when ABK price was announced.

This isn't really about Xbox IMO; Xbox is just the hanger-on that gets some benefits along the way. This is about Microsoft as a corporation wanting a new main pillar in terms of revenue: gaming. Xbox is just one part of that gaming strategy. I also personally think they want a new client base for Azure cloud, and gaming represents a blue ocean for them in order to get long-term Azure clientele. Just look at the partnership with Sega; that's 100% about Azure cloud (much to my disappointment).

MS have always cared about Xbox before, and they pushed it very hard with OG Xbox and especially 360. I don't get the weird sentiment that they only started caring about the division when Phil Spencer took over, that is factually false.

Why do you keep bringing posts from Retard era over here and rebutting them on GAF? It's just weird

Because there are some truly idiotic takes over there that the mods & admins enable, probably want to take hold in terms of narrative, and you can't have a real debate over there without running the risk of being banned over BS.

So taking those posts and tearing them apart elsewhere from time to time is fun for me.

 

[MaulerX]

Ha ha ha!!! This is so ridiculous.


You know what killed Stadia??

1 - Making you pay a subscription fee just to unlock 4K. And on top of that...

2 - ...Making you pay full price for a streaming only version of a game.


Stadia was Dead On Arrival with that atrocious business model.

 

[reksveks]

This is about Microsoft as a corporation wanting a new main pillar in terms of revenue: gaming. Xbox is just one part of that gaming strategy. I also personally think they want a new client base for Azure cloud, and gaming represents a blue ocean for them in order to get long-term Azure clientele. Just look at the partnership with Sega; that's 100% about Azure cloud (much to my disappointment).

I do wish that MS gave more info about the azure side, the doubling of azure customers in Asian was kinda lame without more details. Yeah, they are pushing for game development and streaming via azure pretty hard through xcloud and the ue integration etc. Google is going to find it hard for their white labelled solution if they still require porting.

MS have always cared about Xbox before, and they pushed it very hard with OG Xbox and especially 360. I don't get the weird sentiment that they only started caring about the division when Phil Spencer took over, that is factually false.

I do think Ballmer got maybe rightfully distracted by Windows Phone and it led to decreased focus on xbox.

 

[Three]

"Original game development" is referring to first party games. I agree with you though. Harrison's reasoning doesn't make any sense. If a publisher gets bought and no longer makes games for your platform then making your own games is more important than before. Closing studios as a result is stupid. Frankly, that just seems like a bullshit line Harrison was telling the people he was about to fire.

The question is will regulators see through that bullshit as well.

Stadia Games and Entertainment was mainly a publishing arm, akin to SIE, with dev support to port other studios games to their non-windows based cloud platform. It wasn't really a standalone studio making games, it relied on third party devs.

I suspect his excuse was that the aquisition killed the future parnership prospects they may have been in talks with, not to mention Jade left and joined Sony too.

They left the game publisher making/funding business when they killed SGE and decided to concentrate on Stadia and the tech only, hoping third parties would provide multiplatform games. It was the first sign of a retreat.

 

[93xfan]

It’s almost as if the CMA’s concern that current or future competition could be stifled has some grounds.

Was Stadia ever really competition?

 

[phil_t98]

They already did.

to produce xbox games

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I do wish that MS gave more info about the azure side, the doubling of azure customers in Asian was kinda lame without more details. Yeah, they are pushing for game development and streaming via azure pretty hard through xcloud and the ue integration etc. Google is going to find it hard for their white labelled solution if they still require porting.

That's basically why I mentioned gaming companies, and referenced the Sega Azure partnership. Pretty easy to put two and two together. Most Asian businesses outside of games probably have their own cloud solutions at this point, or are probably tied into Amazon in some way.

Asian, specifically Japanese, game developers/publishers would probably be a lot easier for them to get as Azure clients, I figure.

I do think Ballmer got maybe rightfully distracted by Windows Phone and it led to decreased focus on xbox.

Maybe; I don't remember exactly when Ballmer was in charge, I'm guessing the 2000s? I checked the Wiki and it says he became CEO in 2006. So, if MS did get distracted by Windows Phone (and Xbox by Kinect), which did happen, it wasn't until a few years later.

That's why I usually say the 360 started losing its focus with core gamers in 2010, after the Kinect released.

 

[Topher]

Stadia Games and Entertainment was mainly a publishing arm, akin to SIE, with dev support to port other studios games to their non-windows based cloud platform. It wasn't really a standalone studio making games, it relied on third party devs.

I suspect his excuse was that the aquisition killed the future parnership prospects they may have been in talks with, not to mention Jade left and joined Sony too.

They left the game publisher making/funding business when they killed SGE and decided to concentrate on Stadia and the tech only, hoping third parties would provide multiplatform games. It was the first sign of a retreat.

Yeah, but it is just weird that Harrison would bring up Bethesda when addressing the employees he was laying off. Jade left at the same time Harrison announced that they were shutting down their internal dev teams.

 

[reksveks]

Stadia Games and Entertainment was mainly a publishing arm, akin to SIE, with dev support to port other studios games to their non-windows based cloud platform. It wasn't really a standalone studio making games, it relied on third party devs.

Think they wanted to do both, first party development and having third party partnership but then baulked at it otherwise jade's team would have been pointless.

 

[Three]

Think they wanted to do both, first party development and having third party partnership but then baulked at it otherwise jade's team would have been pointless.

Yeah, like SIE when they entered the market. They mainly wanted to rely on hiring third party studios to publish SGE games but they failed miserably at it. Even the first studio they bought Typhoon Studios left and became independent again.

 

[Fess]

You know what killed Stadia??

1 - Making you pay a subscription fee just to unlock 4K. And on top of that...

2 - ...Making you pay full price for a streaming only version of a game.


Stadia was Dead On Arrival with that atrocious business model.

This is accurate.
Techwise it’s still the best streaming service. Worked perfect at my location.
Businesswise it was awful.
Plus they boasted about how cloud gaming would be ahead of native gaming since they could use several Stadia instances to increase the power far beyond what you could have in a single PC, then they never did anything with that, and no hardware upgrades either.

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

MS has been in the industry for 20+ years and is still in 3rd place. It has nothing to do with the acquisitions made. The industry is far bigger than Activision and money alone does not guarantee success. The barrier is that people in an ecosystem tend to not want to leave it once they have bought into it. That's true for multiple industries.

Stadia failed because it had a horrible business model. The lesson here is that a) it's difficult to enter old established markets no matter how much money your company has b) if you DO decide to enter a established market you have better made sure you have a sound business plan to succeed. MS invested far more money than what Alphabet was willing to pay.

It took years in the space for MS to find some real success and they did it but charting their own path and NOT following the established competitors. They also found that success BEFORE making huge studio acquisitions in an environment where multi-platform titles where being blocked by other better selling companies. MS has not made the industry less competitive at all. It wasn't super competitive when they entered. PS2 sales vs everything else tells that story quite well.

MS sold 24 millio Xboxes, 86 million 360s, and ~50 million Ones.
Sony went from 150 million to 87 to 115 across the same generations.
Nintendo went from 20 million GameCubes to 100 million Wiis, to the WiiU, to the Switch.

Clearly, consumers are quite willing to shift loyalties in this industry.

The barrier to entry is, in large part, the cost of games development. When MS entered the industry, high-end budgets were in the single-digit millions, with some notable exceptions pushing into tens of millions, and development time was on the order of.a year or two. You spent less and you recouped your cost relatively quickly. These days, high end budgets run well into the hundreds of millions, and can take a decade to pay off - if they ever do. That is much harder to justify with a new game dev company - entrants into the industry need to buy up a proven studio that can justify that kind of outlay.

Now I’m not saying MS buying Bethesda was THE reason that Stadia folded - you’re right, their business model was shit and anyone can see that. I’m not even saying that it was necessarily a significant contributing factor. I don’t know and I’m not going to pretend that I do. But it’s not difficulty to see how it could be A factor, nor that it’s indicative of an issue within the industry that could well be exacerbated by this recent spate of acquisitions.

 

[DarkMage619]

MS sold 24 millio Xboxes, 86 million 360s, and ~50 million Ones.
Sony went from 150 million to 87 to 115 across the same generations.
Nintendo went from 20 million GameCubes to 100 million Wiis, to the WiiU, to the Switch.

Clearly, consumers are quite willing to shift loyalties in this industry.

The barrier to entry is, in large part, the cost of games development. When MS entered the industry, high-end budgets were in the single-digit millions, with some notable exceptions pushing into tens of millions, and development time was on the order of.a year or two. You spent less and you recouped your cost relatively quickly. These days, high end budgets run well into the hundreds of millions, and can take a decade to pay off - if they ever do. That is much harder to justify with a new game dev company - entrants into the industry need to buy up a proven studio that can justify that kind of outlay.

Now I’m not saying MS buying Bethesda was THE reason that Stadia folded - you’re right, their business model was shit and anyone can see that. I’m not even saying that it was necessarily a significant contributing factor. I don’t know and I’m not going to pretend that I do. But it’s not difficulty to see how it could be A factor, nor that it’s indicative of an issue within the industry that could well be exacerbated by this recent spate of acquisitions.

I haven't really seen a significant shift in support of systems. The sales change a little generation to generation but the three major console makes are more or less in the same place they've been since the early 2000s.

I hear you about the costs of game development. MS hasn't really been the one complaining about that though. I think a developer has a much better chance of recouping their costs if they make titles that have longevity like multi-player games, games MS has been focusing on.

The one important thing is that you need to have internal studios making content as well as third-party relationships. Stadia didn't really have a first party and bailed at the idea of paying for it. Entry into video game platforms is expensive. New studios and talent enter the market all the time a company must be prepared to take all that venture will entail.

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

I haven't really seen a significant shift in support of systems. The sales change a little generation to generation but the three major console makes are more or less in the same place they've been since the early 2000s.

I hear you about the costs of game development. MS hasn't really been the one complaining about that though. I think a developer has a much better chance of recouping their costs if they make titles that have longevity like multi-player games, games MS has been focusing on.

The one important thing is that you need to have internal studios making content as well as third-party relationships. Stadia didn't really have a first party and bailed at the idea of paying for it. Entry into video game platforms is expensive. New studios and talent enter the market all the time a company must be prepared to take all that venture will entail.

No significant shift? MS more than tripled their sales moving from Xbox to 360, then nearly halved them moving into the One. With numbers like that, you cannot blame their second place on brand loyalty. Yes, it is absolutely a thing, but not to the point that it will lock out a determined new entrant. Hell, with the numbers going from N64 to Gamesube to Wii, you have 70-80 million people picking up a Wii who have never owned a Nintendo console before in their lives. That may be influenced by brand recognition, but it’s not a result of brand loyalty.

But yes, Stadia dropped the ball everywhere they possibly could. Multiple balls. Repeatedly.

It is worth noting, however, that Stadia’s lack of users affected them more than their lack of games. Ignoring everything I just said about acquisitions, MS isn’t actually buying studios for their games. Sony is doing that - they buy studios, for the most part, that are already closely aligned with the PS ecosystem (with Bungie being an obvious anomaly in that regard), because they want studios who can make successful games and bring in consistent profit. That’s where Sony’ makes a huge chunk of their cash after all. This is not so for MS - they are buying troubled studios with huge numbers of loyal customers. Mojang, while not “troubled,” allowed MS to tie tens of millions of gamers to MS services. Bethesda games have very loyal followings, many of whom have accounts that can be folded into Xbox Live - 20 million for ESO alone, all of whom will soon need a Live account regardless of which platform they play on ABK, of course, is huge in this regard, with Battle.net and COD both tying tens of millions of players to MS services. Stadia had nothing through could tie those kinds of numbers to their service, and did not have the brand recognition to justify the purchases that MS can afford, knowing that they are likely to recoup that cost one way or another run the long run.

So, yes, today, whether you want to bring in IPs or users, purchasing a studio is becoming more and more of a necessity. Internal development is essential, sure, but it is no longer enough, and every studio/publisher that gets bought out makes that entry more and more difficult to achieve.

 

[DForce]

lol.

Some of the people who are saying this isn't true are also the ones who believed Sony monyhatting games like Tomb Raider for the Sega Saturn was one of the main reasons why Sega went out of the console business.

 

[DarkMage619]

No significant shift? MS more than tripled their sales moving from Xbox to 360, then nearly halved them moving into the One. With numbers like that, you cannot blame their second place on brand loyalty. Yes, it is absolutely a thing, but not to the point that it will lock out a determined new entrant. Hell, with the numbers going from N64 to Gamesube to Wii, you have 70-80 million people picking up a Wii who have never owned a Nintendo console before in their lives. That may be influenced by brand recognition, but it’s not a result of brand loyalty.

But yes, Stadia dropped the ball everywhere they possibly could. Multiple balls. Repeatedly.

It is worth noting, however, that Stadia’s lack of users affected them more than their lack of games. Ignoring everything I just said about acquisitions, MS isn’t actually buying studios for their games. Sony is doing that - they buy studios, for the most part, that are already closely aligned with the PS ecosystem (with Bungie being an obvious anomaly in that regard), because they want studios who can make successful games and bring in consistent profit. That’s where Sony’ makes a huge chunk of their cash after all. This is not so for MS - they are buying troubled studios with huge numbers of loyal customers. Mojang, while not “troubled,” allowed MS to tie tens of millions of gamers to MS services. Bethesda games have very loyal followings, many of whom have accounts that can be folded into Xbox Live - 20 million for ESO alone, all of whom will soon need a Live account regardless of which platform they play on ABK, of course, is huge in this regard, with Battle.net and COD both tying tens of millions of players to MS services. Stadia had nothing through could tie those kinds of numbers to their service, and did not have the brand recognition to justify the purchases that MS can afford, knowing that they are likely to recoup that cost one way or another run the long run.

So, yes, today, whether you want to bring in IPs or users, purchasing a studio is becoming more and more of a necessity. Internal development is essential, sure, but it is no longer enough, and every studio/publisher that gets bought out makes that entry more and more difficult to achieve.

So let's take your point about customer shift. What publishers did MS acquire get those customers? What studios did they close to lose them the next generation? It's pretty clear that your market strategy has everything to do with your success in this industry and in any for that matter. It's also obvious you'll need good capital to get started that isn't an anomaly here.

Google refused to compete.
As you've stated correctly they dropped the ball with Stadia. When PS3 had issues Sony dropped the ball. When Xbox had issues MS dropped the ball. None of that had anything to do with which studios were making 3rd party games or which ones were purchased. MS almost dropped out too and it wasn't because other companies bought too many studios. MS had to increase their investment. That's what happens in a mature market with entrenched competition.

Stadia had a lack of users because they had a horrible business model. It had nothing to do with Sony or MS. There are literally thousands of developers out there and pretty much every company except Nintendo had to go out and acquire content to support their platforms.

I think it's nonsense to say MS isn't buying studios for games. Games are the reason they have customers in this space. Games are required for Game pass. I also reject the notion of only buying studios closely aligned with the purchasing company. Both Sony and MS have bought studios they've had long relationships with and short ones. It is purely business and the companies are acquiring content and talent they want to support their platforms nothing more.

There is nothing MS is doing that is out of the ordinary except for the price they are paying for some of them. Many thought the price for Bungie was too high and MS actually passed on buying them. I guess they aren't just buying up everything willy nilly.

MS is making the investment to insure a long term guaranteed content pipeline vs. a short term one which other platforms use. It is still quite important to note that despite their past investments they still aren't anywhere close to a monopoly and its their competitors that have raised prices of both games and consoles which is actually hurting customers. It is not MS fault that major cash is required to really gain a foothold in video games on the level of Tencent, Sony and Nintendo.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I haven't really seen a significant shift in support of systems. The sales change a little generation to generation but the three major console makes are more or less in the same place they've been since the early 2000s.

That's because of competition. Competition, playing into previous successes and building on top of them, etc. It's not like the marketshare and mindshare of brands needed to change drastically gen over gen. That in itself isn't a requirement for competition.

I hear you about the costs of game development. MS hasn't really been the one complaining about that though. I think a developer has a much better chance of recouping their costs if they make titles that have longevity like multi-player games, games MS has been focusing on.

Microsoft doesn't complain about it because they are barely making any big AAA games. Not just that, but if they were wiling to make more of such games, with the funds they pull in as a corporation it wouldn't be as big a problem for them as is for, say, Sony.

That said, I would say for Sony that's an issue they themselves would have to improve and arbitrarily asking for Microsoft to not suddenly fund those games, makes no sense, for those thinking that would be the solution. Maybe there are some corporate partnership co-funding programs companies like Sony could start up, like portioned investments from other companies into a game's development in return for a small cut of sales revenue of that title over a period or certain volume of total lifetime sales.

But that's up to companies like Sony, Square-Enix, Ubisoft etc. to decide upon.

 

[OuterLimits]

Some posts in this thread are amusing.

When Google announced Stadia, 99% of us on here laughed and said it wouldn't survive long. Not surprisingly, the trash product they released and barely even supported quickly failed.

Now we see multiple posts saying "See Sony has a very valid point about the Microsoft acquisitions of 3rd party publishers. Poor Google Stadia (that we have all mocked for a couple years) just couldn't compete with that"

Let's pretend that instead of buying Bethesda last year, Microsoft had decided to bail on gaming completely. Google Stadia would still be a complete failure and be shutting down their lousy product today. There just isn't a big interest from gamers for solely cloud based gaming.

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

So let's take your point about customer shift. What publishers did MS acquire get those customers? What studios did they close to lose them the next generation? It's pretty clear that your market strategy has everything to do with your success in this industry and in any for that matter. It's also obvious you'll need good capital to get started that isn't an anomaly here.

Buying publishers and dev gains customers. I feel like that's obvious to the point of absurdity and really doesn't require further analysis. It's also not the only way to gain or lose customers - also obvious. It is possible for more than one thing to affect market share. MS gained market share with Halo, for instance, which they obtained by buying Bungie. Obvious, right? They spent a shitload on developing that IP and even more on marketing it. They lost marketshare because of Don Mattrick's idiotic decisions around pricing and Kinect.

Google refused to compete.

As you've stated correctly they dropped the ball with Stadia. When PS3 had issues Sony dropped the ball. When Xbox had issues MS dropped the ball. None of that had anything to do with which studios were making 3rd party games or which ones were purchased. MS almost dropped out too and it wasn't because other companies bought too many studios. MS had to increase their investment. That's what happens in a mature market with entrenched competition.

Again, yes, multiple factors played a part. No argument here.

Stadia had a lack of users because they had a horrible business model. It had nothing to do with Sony or MS. There are literally thousands of developers out there and pretty much every company except Nintendo had to go out and acquire content to support their platforms.

Oh, come on now. Stadia's failure had nothing to do with MS or Sony? You really believe that? Do you think that Sony as market leader made zero decisions in response to Stadia, or that the decisions they made were completely ineffective? Do you think that MS identified (apparently) Stadia as their biggest competitive threat and then made marketing and develop decisions that completely ignored that threat?

I don't think you do.

I think it's nonsense to say MS isn't buying studios for games. Games are the reason they have customers in this space. Games are required for Game pass. I also reject the notion of only buying studios closely aligned with the purchasing company. Both Sony and MS have bought studios they've had long relationships with and short ones. It is purely business and the companies are acquiring content and talent they want to support their platforms nothing more.

There is nothing MS is doing that is out of the ordinary except for the price they are paying for some of them. Many thought the price for Bungie was too high and MS actually passed on buying them. I guess they aren't just buying up everything willy nilly.

MS is making the investment to insure a long term guaranteed content pipeline vs. a short term one which other platforms use. It is still quite important to note that despite their past investments they still aren't anywhere close to a monopoly and its their competitors that have raised prices of both games and consoles which is actually hurting customers. It is not MS fault that major cash is required to really gain a foothold in video games on the level of Tencent, Sony and Nintendo.

Well, yes, of course MS is buying for studios for their games, but I don't think that the profitability of the IP itself is their primary incentive. They want users to subscribe to Gamepass, and they want games that will keep users engaged with that platform for a (relatively) minimal cost. They have purchased studios with IPs that they can leverage long-term - they want Elder Scrolls that people will play across multiple generations of hardware with minimal development, or COD that can be shifted from annual updates to seasonal content drops, or Halo as a long-term GaaS, or Diablo with its endless replayability. Or Obsidian and InExile for their CRPGS which, like Elder Scrolls, tends to offer long-term engagement. Or Minecraft, with its obvious long-term appeal. All of these, of course, are ripe for microtransactions. This is very different to the bulk of Sony's purchases to date, where they are looking to make money from up-front game purchases that are memorable but "finishable". Compare MS's purchases to Sony's: Insomniac, Housemarque, Bluepoint, Sucker Punch. They are (or have been) less interested in long-term engagement that will drive subscriptions and more interested in short-term high-quality engagement that will drive an ongoing series of full-price purchases. Different strategies. And yes, of course, you can find examples that lean the other way - Bungie for Sony, Ninja Theory for Xbox - but these are the exception and trend (and the reasons for it) seems pretty clear to me.

 

[nominedomine]

I love this passion I'm seeing from Xbox fans in this thread and how offended they are by people who are against the acquisition. Seems like not having to buy CoD for $70 is a life long dream for some people here.

 

[JackMcGunns]

Less choices= bad.

Bad choices = Bad. The real choice is you getting to pick whether you want to play a PlayStation or Xbox game on the cloud or local, with Stadia you were missing that choice. Imagine if you get stuck having to play your favorite franchise on a mobile device because the platform purchased exclusive rights to it, now you have no choice but to play Grand Theft Auto 6 on an iPhone with touch controls, yay artificial choices!

 

[DarkMage619]

That's because of competition. Competition, playing into previous successes and building on top of them, etc. It's not like the marketshare and mindshare of brands needed to change drastically gen over gen. That in itself isn't a requirement for competition.

Which again proves that entrenched companies in a mature market is hard to break in to. Most of the time the market remains static and it takes a major move to change the status quo.
Google didn't make any major moves and dropped out. It had nothing to do with MS at all.

Microsoft doesn't complain about it because they are barely making any big AAA games. Not just that, but if they were wiling to make more of such games, with the funds they pull in as a corporation it wouldn't be as big a problem for them as is for, say, Sony.

We'll just agree to disagree agree. I think Starfield, Perfect Dark Zero, Fable, Redfall, Forza(Motorsport & Horizon), Gears and Halo are all examples of AAA development on Xbox. To say they are 'barely' making AAA games seems pretty laughable.

Well, yes, of course MS is buying for studios for their games, but I don't think that the profitability of the IP itself is their primary incentive. They want users to subscribe to Gamepass, and they want games that will keep users engaged with that platform for a (relatively) minimal cost.

Well I won't argue that Sony and MS are doing things differently with regard to business model with MS focused more of their sub service and Sony focused more on single day one purchases. The studios MS has acquired have a wide variety of genres and game types and it is not accurate to claim most are any particular type.

You mentioned Ninja Theory but there is also Doublefine, Obsidian, Inexile, and Compulsion Games. They have all made single player games and are very similar to Sony purchases. That is what is necessary to have a successful subscription service. Variety. You can't rely on GaaS exclusively or single player titles either.

I did notice you didn't mention Sony is trying to move to more GaaS titles and will soon be pushing moremicro transactions themselves. Probably like GT7 had. It sounds to me that MS was on to something or else Sony would have continued to happily ignore whatever MS was doing. It's good to see Sony trying to get more game variety and I've never been opposed to GaaS so I'm looking forward to seeing what they do.