Yeah I thought I read that pretty recently too.
Ah I think it is difficult to measure their MAU as their whole USP is that the games are DRM free so you donât need to use their GOG Galaxy Launcher. That said I have seen a few game launches where itâs been mentioned in forums that they have more active users than Steam (I assume on Galaxy).
That said itâs still one of the biggest digital stores on PC so Xbox buying Battle.net and then another one will raise some eyebrows for sure.
I wasnât aware it was a money loser, however if I remember correctly Epic Game Store recently lost over 300 million trying to compete with Steam too.
1 Like
Nothing awkward there. Microsoft is there to earn money while breaking into Apple and Google ecosystem. But at the same time they want to get this 30% cut themselves. It is all theatrics and lobbying basically as Microsoft openly sided with Epic in the goal to remove Apple/Google over their own stores (like it happened with Windows where Microsoft cannot control it anymore).
Though on a long enough timeline, with the success of Game Pass they might drop 30% as they will rely on Game Pass only for the most part. But it will take around 10 years I guess.
And thatâs why I have been saying for weeks that âkeeping the games available in the future, so people will enjoy there gamesâ will mean not removing them from the store. You canât enjoy something that has been released.
Iâd say it is quite awkward to frame their push to crack open competing ecosystems while not applying the same argument to their own ecosystem. I understand why they donât and that there is a fundamental distinction between phones that are essentially a requirement of modern living vs a gaming console as an entertainment appliance (I explained that to many here in the old Apple vs. EPIC threads since EPICâs core argument was being muddled in discussion on the topic). That doesnât make it less awkward imho, even if it has some merit.
Wrt âkeeping the games availableâ, sure, but that also is not the extent of all that was said on the matter.
Well, there is a reason why other tech giants are discontent with Microsoft. Microsoft is deliberately pushing âgeneral consuming devicesâ angle.
I mean essentially Apple and Google are in the same position as Microsoft was in 90s. Except there are two of giants there.
Except it was. People just run with their own understainding what âbeing available meansâ. But thatâs it from me on this topic today 
None of this actually matters, we know what the studios are/can do and now they have a more stable budget and longer dev time. Theyâve all proven themselves time and time again.
10 Likes
Iâm going to just keep quoting Brad Smith anytime you make that claim, so folks can see for themselves:
"We also recognize that regulators may well have other important questions as they review our acquisition of Activision Blizzard. Weâre committed to addressing every potential question, and we want to address publicly at the outset two such questions here.
First, some commentators have asked whether we will continue to make popular content like Activisionâs Call of Duty available on competing platforms like Sonyâs PlayStation. The obvious concern is that Microsoft could make this title available exclusively on the Xbox console, undermining opportunities for Sony PlayStation users.
To be clear, Microsoft will continue to make Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard titles available on PlayStation through the term of any existing agreement with Activision. And we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love. We are also interested in taking similar steps to support Nintendoâs successful platform. We believe this is the right thing for the industry, for gamers and for our business."
Fun Fact too for anyone who wasnât aware already: Brad Smith (MSâs president and the blogâs author, as well as the point man on the lobbying effort) was one of MSâs chief lawyers back in the 90âs when things played outâŚdifferentlyâŚfor MSâs fortunes. Suffice it to say, he has learned from those experiences personally. 
It is interesting to think about what role the open apps approach for MS could play in their vision for a Metaverse too.
To be clear, Microsoft will continue to make Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard titles available on PlayStation through the term of any existing agreement with Activision. And we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future
They literally wonât remove them from the store. Just like they did with Bethesda. They literally did not commit to release them in the future. Keeping them available != Continue to release them in the future.
They never used the world âreleaseâ, not even once. Thatâs why I stated that people ran with their definition of âavailableâ.
Iâll trust Brad Smith on this one. Feel welcome to DM me if you wanna discuss it further.
No, you are trusting into your opinion and not Brad Smithâs (just like you use worst case scenarios as facts). Like I said before âpeople ran with their defintiion of what available meantâ.
Letâs just not discuss it anymore. As we are running in circles.
P.S. I wonât quote the messages related to this in that topic anymore.
Thereâs a reason I quoted the entire section of Bradâs comments and not just single sentences. Context is important. People can read it and see for themselves.
1 Like
The big thing I agree on with Nick is this whole thing is a big play on cracking open app stores, they want Apple and Google to open up not just for games but all their other software stuff. Gonna be ridiculous MS having content on all platforms but these other platform holders wonât allow certain games and services on theirs.
Apple and Google could be in shit for not allowing Game Pass / xCloud on their stores while having competing services, that should literally be anti trust/monopoly concerns. MS apparently met all the new requirements for the Apple App Store where they had to put each game in the store but then Apple just blocked it anyway.
2 Likes
Microsoft isnât stupid. They donât speak in certainty. There has been one commital and that is they wonât remove games. Other than that what they have said has plenty of wiggle room.
Absolutely no one here knows and itâs getting pretty old that 2 or 3 people keep acting like they have Microsofts plans in front of them 
I wish we could move past this debate and talk about the exciting things to come or progression of the deal.
I canât believe itâs been nearly 5 weeks and we are still talking about exclusivity
5 Likes
Why? itâs kind of important to some of us.
Some of us feel that if EVERYTHING is multiplat, $70 BILLION dollars and tying up your M&A pipeline for possibly 18 months isnât worth it to get some old CoD games onto GamePass, since itâll be at least 2024 before any brand new CoDs could launch Day 1.
The promise of actual exclusive games down the line from legacy IP made by great teams freed from the shackles of CoD is much more exciting. But if everything is just gonna be on PS5 and Switch for new games, some of us are like ânot worth itâ.
I PERSONALLY donât think that Day 1 on GamePass is enough for a high profile multiplat like a Diablo or CoD if itâs multiplat. Thatâs just me.
Because not a single one us can change it and dwelling on a scenario which might not even happen is just a waste of time.
Following the acquisition it was interesting to discuss some potential scenarios but thatâs all they are, nobody here can be sure how it will all pan out.
3 Likes
I think youâre looking extremely short term. In 2024 when streaming/gaming subscription services are all the rage⌠which is going to attract people? The one with Call of Duty or the one without?
6 Likes
Even this is thinking in the short term. In 202x when Game Pass subs have exploded and Microsoft raises the price while simultaneously making XBL free (like all those rumors from big-name folk have purported; where there is smoke there is fire), which one is going to attract people? The one with free online and CoD on an amazing subscription or the one where CoD is $70, potentially has less features and you need to pay to play online?
Not to mention Sony needs to continue renewing the contract after 2024 as Smith has said, so not only do we have PlayStation gamers spending money to make Xbox better, but Sony themselves doing it, too.
Itâs a win for Microsoft no matter what. I do still think that CoD will be limited on PS5 in some fashion after it changes release cycle, though, and that the majority of XBK games will not release where Game Pass doesnât exist.
Why do you go to the other extreme? Where is the statement that says everything will be multiplatform?
You need to calm down with the extreme âconcernâ takes 
4 Likes