I can understand why you feel that way. Microsoft already owns a pretty big chunk of the market, so I can see why people think the big acquisitions are probably over.
I just struggle to see Microsoft sitting on the sidelines while companies like Savvy, Tencent and potentially other companies like Meta continue buying up more and more of the industry. Even with everything Microsoft already owns, I’m not convinced they have enough to just sit back and be comfortable if the industry becomes even more consolidated and game streaming becomes a much bigger part of the market.
I don’t think another massive publisher acquisition is necessarily happening anytime soon, but I do think more agressive M&A from Microsoft is pretty likely eventually, even if it’s smaller publishers or companies e.g. SEGA rather than another Activision-sized deal.
I agree, Xbox has (or at least had, we’ll see how Asha Sharma does) absolutely trash management. I was genuinely one of those people saying that if Microsoft was smart, they’d demote Phil to being the face of the brand and beg Bobby Kotick to take over.
But I think that’s a separate question from whether Microsoft actually wants to acquire more. Whether Microsoft even has “enough” IP is debatable, especially if the industry keeps consolidating. They can get better at using what they already own while also deciding that more acquisitions make sense in the long run. I don’t really see those two things as conflicting.
Another update: I have began the formal write up process, it is progressing a little slower than I had hoped but I would rather take my time rather than rush it. I will update this post just like how I updated the quoted post over time so you guys can see the progress with the formal write up
Introduction-Complete
Bandai Namco-Complete
Capcom- In Progess
CD Projekt-Not Started
Coffee Stain Group AB-Not Started
Com2uS Holdings-Not Started
Cygames-Not Started
DeNa-Not Started
Discord-Not Started
Electronic Arts-Not Started
Embracer Group (post Fellowship spin off)-Not Started
Epic Games-Not Started
Fellowship Entertainment (the Embracer spin off)-Not Started
No. I don’t see Microsoft acquiring another publisher unless they’re on the verge of filing for bankruptcy (ZeniMax) or are having so much legal trouble (ABK) that they need to sell.
I can see studio acquisitions though if they make sense and align with what Asha and company want to do but even this, I see as slim to none.
I personally believe that Xbox will be getting far worse before it ever gets better and I don’t see Asha lasting more than two/three years.
I don’t really see any evidence that ZeniMax was on the verge of bankruptcy. If anything, they looked like a company positioning itself to be acquired, with the early announcements of Starfield and The Elder Scrolls VI and the big push into live service. They were also privately owned, so if they genuinely needed cash there were other options, like going public.
As for Activision, I don’t think the lawsuits forced them to sell either. If that logic held up, Ubisoft would’ve been acquired by now. Microsoft simply took advantage of Activision’s lower share price after the lawsuits and the delays to Overwatch 2 and Diablo IV. Ironically, Activision was still performing extremely well financially, so they weren’t exactly under huge pressure to sell. Microsoft just offered such a strong premium that the board was always likely to accept.
We also know Microsoft has looked at plenty of other gaming M&A opportunities outside of those two deals—Square Enix, SEGA, Paradox, WB Games, Valve, Nintendo and Bungie have all appeared in various reports or internal documents over the years. So it’s not like ZeniMax and Activision were the only companies Microsoft ever considered.
I could obviously be wrong, but I struggle to see Microsoft just sitting on its laurels if it genuinely sees gaming as a core part of its future. They’ve spent close to $100 billion on gaming acquisitions already, while companies like Tencent and Savvy continue investing heavily. Savvy is literally in the process of buying EA, so consolidation clearly hasn’t stopped. I don’t think Microsoft makes another big move until after this reset, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it eventually does.
That said, I don’t think Microsoft jumps straight into another Activision-sized acquisition. If they do more M&A, I think it’s far more likely to be smaller or mid-sized deals—probably sub-$10 billion—while Xbox goes through its reset and proves the current strategy is working.
The only exception I could potentially see is something like Take-Two, and even then I think it would be less about expanding Xbox’s portfolio and more of a defensive move to stop another major player from acquiring one of the biggest publishers left. Whether that ever happens is another question entirely, but I think that’s the sort of scenario it would take before Microsoft considered another mega acquisition.
Asha Sharma has also talked about M&A remaining an important part of Xbox’s strategy. She said:
“Our team will deliberately resort to mergers and acquisitions to accelerate growth where organic development is going too slowly.”
And also:
“Going forward, we’ll evolve and rebuild our stack and look at capabilities across all of Xbox and potential M&A to help us win in hardware, PC, mobile and streaming.”
As for Asha herself, I think we just have to wait and see. It’ll probably take 2–3 years before we can really judge her. But I do think she’s already done something Phil struggled with—she’s openly acknowledged that Xbox has problems and that some of its studios haven’t been delivering. The honeymoon period had to end eventually because the output and consistency from a lot of Xbox’s studios just wasn’t good enough.
ZeniMax was close to shutting down Tango Gameworks, Machine Games and both Arkane studios according to Schreier back then. The company was very close to filing for bankruptcy which is why they were accepting exclusivity deals for Ghostwire Tokyo and Deathloop despite never really doing that before. They were also looking to sell the company and Microsoft outbid Google, Electronic Arts and Sony. I think there was a 5th company but I don’t remember for sure. They were never going to go public because when that happens, your company tends to lose it’s entire identity and focuses on only revenue and profit. See Microsoft and all other publicly traded companies as perfect examples.
The difference is that Kotick wanted to sell. He went to Meta/Facebook first and they declined. He then went to Phil who went to Nadella and well, here we are. With Ubisoft, Yves and family don’t want to sell. There’s a difference. You can’t buy a company if the company isn’t willing to sell. The low share price and legal issues made it all happen. If the legal issues never happened, Kotick would still be running ABK and they would still be their own company as opposed to being owned by Microsoft.
Microsoft looked at every company and im sure Sony and other companies do the same. Even if you never make an offer and the opportunity never arises, you’re still going to do your research and look into every company. Microsoft was very close to acquiring Capcom in 2016 or 2017 but Resident Evil VII: Biohazard hit and well, they’ve been on fire since. Microsoft was also very close to acquiring Square Enix in 2021 but ABK was available so obviously Microsoft went after ABK even though I personally would have preferred Square Enix by far.
I don’t see Microsoft acquiring anything until they get Xbox to the profitable margins that they want it to be at which in all honesty, I don’t see happening. There’s a reason why Asha excluded ABK and Game Pass which is why their profit margin was only 3%. If they included ABK and Game Pass, their profit margin would be around 10% but at that point, they wouldn’t be able to try to justify all the horrible layoffs and studios divested.
Microsoft needs to get back all the hundreds of billions of dollars that Nadella spent on AI. Everything that Microsoft is doing with Xbox and in general revolves around this. It’s literally nothing else.
Take Two Interactive has a market cap of about $45B U.S. It would cost $60B give or take to acquire them. That’s not happening. As long as Zelnick is running TTI and doesn’t do anything stupid, TTI won’t be sold.
Like I said above, I don’t see Microsoft acquiring anyone in regards to Xbox. And even more so, why would any independent company sell to them after the last three years? I would tell them to fuck off.
I know the quotes Asha said and in all honesty, I don’t give two shits what she says. It’s all corporate bullshit. She’s an AI executive who was brought in out of nowhere by Nadella who’s obsessed with AI. I don’t see her lasting more than a few years.
Her goals of being #1 in gaming by 2030 is one of the most delusional quotes any executive has ever said. She’s completely out of mind and has no clue as to what she’s doing not that it matters since it’s Nadella running the show and Asha is going to do what Nadella tells her to do.
Her goal of having 1B daily users across all of Microsoft’s products is even more delusional. Sorry but Asha will end up giving Mattrick a run for his money as to the worse leader of Xbox was. My money is actually on Asha being worse once it’s all said and done.
I disagree with the part of Asha openly acknowledging Xbox having issues because she’s excluded the two biggest revenue/profit segments of Xbox with ABK and Game Pass when she said that 3% profit margin is too low for Xbox. If ABK/Game Pass were included, they profit margin would be around 10% if not higher which is why she excluded them in the first place.
Xbox and the studios aren’t perfect, never have been and never will be but for people to believe that they’ve somehow been horrible or some shit is bullshit and complete delusion. Too many people want to believe that every game is going to set the world on fire when in reality, only the big major IP’s nowadays do anything and even they don’t do what they once did.
As an Xbox fan since Xbox 360 (even though I have owned every console in every generation multiple times), the output from Microsoft’s published games this generation has been great overall. It’s completely blown away the previous three generations combined. At least for me anyway because they never had anything. It was literally Halo/Forza Motorsport and then Halo/Gears/Forza (both of them) and that’s it.
Sorry but you have to give me a LOT more than that and this generation, they have. They also did something which isn’t easy to do - make me a fan of studios/games/IP’s that I either A) never played or B) did play but didn’t care about until this generation.
Their studios weren’t/aren’t perfect but for me personally, the vast majority of them delivered for me which in some cases, they were irrelevant prior to this generation.
The only negatives in my opinion were 1) not having Obsidian develop Fallout New Vegas 2 after they legally acquired Bethesda in March 2021. Instead of announcing and going with The Outer Worlds 2 at the 2021 Xbox Games Showcase, they should have went with Fallout New Vegas 2.
And 2) not having Tango Gameworks work on The Evil Within 3. Survival horror is huge and while it’s 75% all Resident Evil, you can still make a great game and profit with a TEW 3.
Excluding Redfall, the quality output and consistency was there. Through Forza Horizon 6, all their new published games this generation have an overall rating of 80.5 on Open Critic. They’re literally tied with “GOD” (aka Sony to many) who also have an 80.5 overall rating on Open Critic.
The main difference is that unlike Sony, Nintendo and other companies, Microsoft isn’t favored or get their ass kissed every day by gaming media. If they did, it would be a completely different story.
I’ve actually looked into this a fair bit. Unfortunately, because ZeniMax was privately owned, we don’t have access to the group’s full financial statements. However, its European operations did file financial reports, and while they obviously don’t tell the whole story, they paint a picture of a business that was growing rather than one on the verge of bankruptcy.
From what I’ve seen, turnover and profitability were both increasing. More importantly, those filings don’t appear to raise any going concern issues. If the company genuinely believed it was close to insolvency, that’s the sort of thing directors are generally expected to disclose. Instead, the filings suggest the opposite.
So while ZeniMax may well have decided that selling the company was the best option, I don’t think there’s strong evidence that bankruptcy was the only realistic alternative.
As for the point about ZeniMax never wanting to go public because it would make the company focus on profits… I don’t really buy that.
ZeniMax was always a commercial business. It wasn’t making games for the fun of it—it existed to make money, just like every other major publisher.
And even if we assume the owners didn’t want to take the company public because of increased financial pressure, selling to Microsoft, Sony, EA or another large corporation doesn’t avoid that outcome. Any company spending billions of dollars on an acquisition is going to expect financial returns.
If anything, selling the company arguably gives the original owners less control over its future than remaining independent or becoming publicly traded. So I don’t really see how that argument explains why going public was supposedly never an option.
I don’t think the timeline in Activision’s own merger filing really supports the idea that Bobby Kotick was shopping Activision around before Microsoft came knocking.
According to the filing, it was actually Phil Spencer who first raised the possibility of a strategic discussion with Activision:
“On November 19, 2021… Mr. Spencer raised that Microsoft was interested in discussing strategic opportunities between Activision Blizzard and Microsoft…”
So based on Activision’s own filing, Microsoft initiated the conversation, not Activision.
Obviously, once Microsoft showed interest, Activision had a fiduciary duty to maximise shareholder value, so it makes complete sense that they would explore their options and negotiate the best deal possible. That’s exactly what you’d expect any public company to do.
I also don’t think it’s quite right to say “Kotick wanted to sell” as though he alone made the decision. He was hugely influential, but he couldn’t unilaterally sell Activision. Ultimately, the board had to approve the deal and the shareholders had to vote on it.
The same applies to Ubisoft. Yves Guillemot has a lot of influence, but he can’t simply decide to sell the company on his own. If Ubisoft were ever acquired, that decision would ultimately rest with the board and shareholders as well.
Personally, I think Ubisoft looks more likely to pursue further strategic partnerships in the near term, especially with Tencent. Whether that eventually leads to a full acquisition, a breakup, or Ubisoft remaining independent, we’ll have to wait and see. My guess is the company looks very different in 5–10 years, but that’s obviously just speculation.
I agree. I’d be surprised if every major company wasn’t constantly evaluating the market and asking questions like, “What if we bought this company?”, “Could we acquire them?” or “Would this fit our long-term strategy?”
That’s just what big businesses do, especially companies as large as Microsoft. They generally prefer putting capital to work rather than letting it sit idle. Phil was clearly very aggressive with M&A, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Asha is too, although the focus of any future acquisitions may be different.
I think the difference is that we know Microsoft wasn’t just evaluating companies—they were actively pursuing a number of them. Thanks to the FTC leaks, we have internal documents showing Microsoft discussing companies like Nintendo, SEGA, Square Enix, Valve, WB Games, Paradox and others. We can speculate that Tencent, Savvy, Amazon, Google, Meta, Apple, Netflix, Disney and even Sony do the same thing, but we don’t have the same level of evidence publicly available.
As for Microsoft being close to buying Square Enix or Capcom, I’d need a source for those claims. I know Microsoft internally discussed acquiring Square Enix around 2019, largely because of its strength in Japan and mobile, but I don’t remember seeing evidence that they actually approached them with an offer.
The same goes for Capcom. I remember plenty of rumours back then, just like there were rumours Microsoft was buying Valve, EA and PUBG Corp. Rumours can sometimes turn out to be true, but they can also be completely wrong, so I’d want to see a reliable source before treating those claims as fact.
I don’t think Microsoft bought Activision expecting to make its money back overnight. I think what Microsoft wants is a roadmap that shows how these investments—and potentially future ones—grow Microsoft’s long-term position in gaming and eventually generate a return, even if that takes 20–30 years.
That’s a pretty normal question for any business to ask: “We’ve invested nearly $100 billion into this division. When do we expect to see meaningful returns?”
The difference is that not every division gets treated the same. AI is probably getting more patience because Microsoft, along with most of big tech, believes it could become one of the company’s biggest businesses over the next few decades. Gaming may not get the luxury of 20–30 years to prove itself, and I don’t necessarily think that’s Microsoft being cruel—I think it’s just how they prioritise capital.
As for Microsoft not buying anything else until Xbox hits its internal targets, I don’t completely disagree. I just think there’s a distinction between another Activision-sized acquisition and a smaller deal.
Personally, I think something small to mid-sized—say up to around $10 billion—is still possible if Microsoft feels pressure from continued industry consolidation, especially if the reset starts showing positive results. What I don’t expect is another mega acquisition until Xbox is consistently hitting its internal targets and proving the strategy is working.
I also don’t agree that Microsoft has frozen gaming M&A because of AI. AI is obviously a huge priority, but gaming is also one of the very few areas where Microsoft has committed nearly $100 billion purely on acquisitions, and it did so over a relatively short period of time.
To me, that suggests Microsoft still sees gaming as a long-term growth market. It would be strange to suddenly abandon M&A altogether after making one of the biggest investments in the company’s history. The pace and size of future acquisitions may change, but I don’t think the strategy itself has necessarily disappeared.
I’m not saying Microsoft is going to buy Take-Two tomorrow. My point is that if another major player—say Tencent—started seriously exploring a Take-Two acquisition, I think Microsoft’s board would at least consider whether it should respond.
Realistically, I think Take-Two would be more of a company on Microsoft’s watch list than one it’s actively pursuing. They’d keep an eye on it rather than spending years trying to acquire it.
Where I disagree is the idea that no company would ever sell to Microsoft again.
At the end of the day, companies don’t get acquired because they’re fans of the buyer—they get acquired because the board and shareholders believe it’s the best financial outcome. If Microsoft came along with a significant premium, the board would have a fiduciary duty to seriously consider that offer, regardless of what people think about Xbox’s strategy.
I actually don’t think the 1 billion users target is as crazy as it sounds. If Xbox continues pushing into mobile, PC, cloud and other Microsoft services, it’s at least plausible over a long enough timeframe. Whether they achieve it is another question, but I don’t think it’s completely delusional.
As for Asha, we’ll just have to wait and see. Personally, I think Phil was the worst Xbox leader they’ve had. I’d probably rank them Pete Moore > Don Mattrick > Phil Spencer. It would be pretty funny if Asha somehow turned out to be even worse and continued the trend. I still think Microsoft should’ve seriously considered someone with Bobby Kotick’s business track record, controversy aside.
On the Activision/Game Pass point, I’m not convinced that was even Asha’s decision. That sort of financial reporting is more likely to come from Satya and the wider Microsoft leadership. Going against your CEO’s direction isn’t exactly a great career move.
As for the games, that’s probably where we’ll just disagree. Personally, I think both Xbox and PlayStation have been pretty underwhelming this generation. It feels like a bit of a filler generation outside of a handful of standout releases.
Out of curiosity though, if Game Pass disappeared tomorrow but Microsoft’s output stayed exactly the same, would you actually buy those games? If the first-party lineup is genuinely as strong as you think it is, I’d assume the answer would be yes.
What I posted was from Schreier, not me back in 2020. Their business wasn’t growing, their business was declining. If it was growing, why would they sell? That makes no sense.
It’s already been confirmed that Kotick went to Meta/Facebook to see if they were interested in acquiring ABK. They declined. Kotick then went to Phil and Microsoft and well, here we are. Kotick was never actually “shopping” ABK because very few companies would have the capital to make such a purchase especially in cash like Microsoft did.
Also, the acquisition took approximately three months to get done between ABK and Microsoft which is very fast, meaning Kotick wanted to sell it all off as quickly as possible.
Yves has the majority of shares in Ubisoft and his family still has controlling interest. Until that changes, it’s up to him if he wants to sell or not. I don’t see him selling to anyone and instead will cut deals like he did with Tencent which greatly benefits him and Ubisoft.
Jez basically confirmed both over the years. I’m sure there’s others as well. It’s just that the companies themselves never admitted to any of it. Capcom was doing horrible until RE 7 and MH World hit a year later. If those two games bombed, Microsoft would have acquired them because there’s no other trillion dollar company that’s going to outbid Microsoft especially when they’re not in gaming.
Square Enix was said to be the company that Microsoft was going to acquire before ABK fell in their lap. This is why the Square Enix support wavered for a few years. They wanted to sell and Microsoft passed on them for ABK. It took Sarah Bond and Phil to make multiple repeated trips to Japan to repair that relationship.
There’s multiple rumors about the above from multiple people but the companies themselves have never said it and never will.
The issues stem from #1, Microsoft wasn’t looking into Xbox at all because they didn’t and still don’t fucking care about it. If they could sell it all off to say Apple or another trillion dollar company, I believe that they would because again, they don’t care about gaming and now, the people who knew about gaming are gone and been replaced by corporate suits which is only going to make everything worse.
#2, it was the ABK acquisition that led to Microsoft looking into Xbox and Nadella/Hood/Stuart making Phil and company port games to Sony/Nintendo platforms. People gotta realize that unless the person running the division/brand IS also the person leading the company, they’re always going to do what they’re told.
#3, wanting a return is fine but Microsoft is unrealistic in regards to when they see and get returns. XBOX is the 5th platform in gaming. It just fucking is. So to expect massive returns right away or for studios to hit 30% profit margin which is fucking insane to say the least is absurd and shows that they don’t fucking care and are just greedy money hungry mother fuckers. It’s that simple.
#4, Microsoft is NEVER patient. They expect to see results overnight which again, isn’t realistic. This is why I don’t see Asha lasting more than 2-3 years. Nadella is going to want massive results and he’s simply not going to get what he wants.
#5, Xbox has been massively profitable for a long time but Nadella and Hood always want more and they believe that they can achieve this by somehow copying Sony/Nintendo or whoever but they can’t and they won’t. Like I said before, it’s going to get a shit ton worse before it ever gets better.
I would suggest people enjoy the games that they’re getting in 2026 and 2027 because come 2028, I would be shocked if we’re getting more than 2 games a year including COD which is annual.
I said independent company like a Double Fine for example. I don’t believe the vast majority of them would sell to Microsoft because there’s no guarantee that you’ll last 5 years so why would you sell to them?
As for TTI, I don’t see any company sniffing around so in all honesty, this doesn’t matter. As long as Zelnick is there, nothing is changing in regards to owns and runs TTI.
Dude, Phil literally made the Xbox the most successful and profitable that it’s EVER been. Like, WTF man? So many people have a hard on of hatred for Phil yet can never acknowledge or admit the fact that it was MATTRICK to put Phil and Xbox in the fucking situation that they’ve been in for the last 13 years and news flash, it’s never going to change regardless of who’s running Xbox.
I have Peter Moore first and Phil Spencer second. The main difference is that Balmer gave Moore free reign to do whatever he wanted. Phil didn’t really get that. He got some leeway and whatnot but once they acquired ABK, that ended.
I will forever see Mattrick as the reason as to why Xbox is literally in 5th place which will never ever change in my opinion. He fucked up everything. He set everything back. His entire Xbox One reveal was a fucking disaster. All Digital / Always Online / TV TV TV. Like, my fucking God, what a shit show that was.
Granted, gaming being all digital and always online is pretty much what is now present day but they were too fucking early plus while 360 may have dominated in certain ways, even back then, the gaming industry and media heavily favored Sony and Nintendo so for Microsoft to literally have the biggest fuck up in gaming history in my opinion and to lose by far the one generation that Microsoft couldn’t afford to lose in Xbox One because like Phil said, that is where everyone started building their digital libraries and while Sony is going to be all digital come 2028, at the time, the one company who needed to succeed because they wanted to be all digital was Microsoft.
Since then, it’s been nothing but constant pivoting and mixed messaging over and over and over again. You’ve seen it the last month since the showcase ended. Asha and company did well for a few months and that was it. It’s all been all downhill since the showcase ended and it’s not going to get better.
Look at Asha and her insane comments. Okay, you agree with the 1B users per day. I don’t see that happening. Then look at Matthew Ball. He says every platform needs exclusive content but at the same time says that all live service games will be multi-platform and single player case by case. I don’t want to even get started with Booty because he should have been gone years ago but that’s just my own personal opinion.
Phil went with Game Pass in 2017 and day one games in March 2018 because their games weren’t selling. Once you get past the first three Halo games and Gears 2, they barely sold their games. They simply didn’t fucking sell which is why he went with Game Pass. Plus Nadella is subscription focused and not only do I prefer subscriptions as a consumer but in general, subscription blows away the old business model because you know the revenue that you’re getting on a monthly basis and as long as you’re not over-spending like a nutjob, you’ll make profit like Game Pass did in their fiscal year.
Selling games the old way only works for the big established IP’s as well as the studios that people heavily favor like CDPR and From Software. The majority of games released BOMB. And like Jesse has said numerous time, free to play is a far bigger detriment to game sales than a subscription service would ever be because you’re still paying for the subscription service where as with free to play, you don’t have to pay anything.
There’s a reason why the biggest games in the industry are literally mobile - because they’re free to play and younger generations are not spending hundreds/thousands of dollars on gaming. They’re just not.
Phil got a lot of studios and im sorry but I will say this straight out - FUCK AAA gaming and fuck those who ONLY want AAA gaming. Fuck off because these people are the reason why the gaming industry sucks, why everything is so mother fucking expensive and why every studio pushes graphics and needing those nose hairs in place as opposed to actually making the game play great.
While im not big on Indies because their art style is rarely for me, I love AA gaming and getting so many great AA games from Microsoft this generation has been awesome. With their only AAA approach, fuck that shit…one, maybe two games a year and COD. What a shit show. I feel like im going to back to Xbox One which literally gave me only 6 games in 7 years. UGH.
But hey, to each their own.
I don’t disagree but that’s the problem. I don’t see Asha as nothing more than Nadella’s errand girl. At least Phil had control and power for Xbox until ABK became legally finalized. As for COD, what Microsoft should have done was not include it in the first place which would have been better than what it is because I can’t bitch about losing COD from Game Pass if I never had it to begin with. And I don’t blame Phil for this, I blame Nadella because months earlier in 2024, he made them go multi-platform which is what he’s always wanted. So he should have made that call but he didn’t. He somehow thought that subscriptions would massively increase. I don’t know why anyone would think that. COD outside of the campaign isn’t a subscription game. It’s a game that you’ll buy because if that’s all you play, it’s cheaper to just buy the damn thing.
In all honesty, gaming wise, Microsoft has given me their best generation by far. It’s not even close. I never played Halo pre-Infinite until August 2024. Infinite which I completed at launch was the reason why I went back and eventually played through them all. First Gears game I completed was Gears 4. Played through 1-3 before Gears 5 released which was last generation.
I’m not someone that wants 90+ rated games because I see majority of them as highly overrated. I prefer 70’s and 80’s on Open Critic because for me, they tend to do more with less and are more impressive because of it. Some of my best games ever are in the 70’s and 80’s. Hell, one of my best and favorites in Mad Max is like a 68 or some shit. Game for me is a 9.0/10. Loved that game. Wish they would upgrade it for current generation though.
I have completed 13 Microsoft published games this generation. 1 game was a 6.0/10 (Redfall) for me. 1 game was a 7.0/10 (Hellblade 2). 4 games were an 8.0/10. 4 games were an 8.5/10. 1 game was a 9.0/10 (Doom TDA) and 2 games were a 9.5/10 (Halo Infinite campaign only and Starfield). Both were my respective game of the year and Starfield as of now is still my game of the generation.
The main positive for me this generation with Xbox wasn’t just the fact that I got great games from them, it made me a fan of studios and IP’s. Infinite made me a fan of 343 and Halo to where I went back and played through them all two years ago for the first time ever. Starfield made me a fan of Bethesda Game Studios. South of Midnight made me a fan of Compulsion. Wasn’t really a big Doom fan, beat 2016 (8.0/10 for me) but dropped eternal quickly but loved The Dark Ages. The varied combat and gameplay is what makes the game awesome.
Microsoft gave me what is my 3rd best beat em up of all time in Towerborne. Love that game to where I actually bought it at launch for $30. Avowed made me a huge fan of Obsidian who’s fucking underrated as fuck. Still have to play through TOW 2 though. I liked Ninja Gaiden 4 and Indiana Jones. Loved Hi Fi Rush. what a great freaking game and something different instead of the same shit all the time.
I have Clockwork which should make me a fan of InXile. State of Decay 3 should win me back as I loved the original SOD but dropped SOD 2 after about 15 hours or so. Gears E-Day looks awesome and The Coalition is probably the main studio that I have liked for over a decade.
So for me, Microsoft has been freaking awesome and yes, I want AA games, I want new IP’s and different genres. I don’t want the same fucking game over and over again but with a different skin. If I wanted that, I would have stayed on PlayStation 5 as my primary gaming console.
As for Sony, no real complaints mainly because they’re secondary so I don’t care as much for my secondary or tertiary platforms like I do my primary. Sony published game wise is 10 completions. 1 game was a 6 or a 7 which was Lost Soul Aside. I think. I originally gave it an 8 but then lowered it a few days later after thinking about the game more. I gave 1 game an 8 which was Rise of the Ronin. 7 games were a 9.0/10 for me. 1 game was a 9.5/10 (GOW Ragnarok) and my current 2022 game of the year but if I ever play Cyberpunk and complete it, that may change since the current generation upgrade was released in early 2022. Either way, Ragnarok wouldn’t be any lower than a 9 so it doesn’t matter much.
Depends on the game. Rundown -
Gears Tactics (no)
Halo Infinite (yes)
Hi Fi Rush (50/50, probably because it was $30 but I played it, dropped it, went back to it from the beginning and loved it which has happened before in general)
Redfall (also 50/50, wanted to play a game with Vampires but the game is literally my lowest ranked game of the generation, even Saints Row 2022 is a slot higher…probably would have waited for a sale to be honest)
Starfield (actually did buy the premium $100 edition but it was my true first ever BGS game and I wanted to go all in and at the time, I would sub to GP for a month, complete the game and then cancel)
COD MW 3 (yes, the first published game under Microsoft post acquisition…bought mainly because I wanted to see if it was bad like so many people were saying and it isn’t. The campaign was an 8.0/10 for me. I enjoyed it. Not worth $70 though but very few games are in my opinion)
Hellblade 2 (no)
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 (yes, campaign only)
Indiana Jones (no because it’s more of an immersive sim and I didn’t like the combat/gameplay even though everything else is great)
Avowed (probably yes because I really loved this game)
South of Midnight (no)
Doom: The Dark Ages (50/50, played through the first five chapters just looking to beat the story but it then “clicked” for me. I restarted and 100% completed the game so this one is tough to say because if it wasn’t on Game Pass, I don’t know if I would have spent $70 on the game especially after dropping Eternal and not being a big fan of 2016)
Ninja Gaiden 4 (no)
The Outer Worlds 2 (probably yes due to loving Avowed)
Towerborne (yes…already mentioned that I bought it when it had it’s full release a few months ago. Played over 50 hours in Game Preview…it’s my 3rd best beat em up of all time so that’s why…if it was just another beat em up, I would have had my fill with the Game Preview version)
Basically, 7 yes, 5 no and 3 50/50. Less than 50% of them I would have purchased day one. A few notes though -
The Outer Worlds 2 is backlogged (as are other games in general) due to me buying and playing Arc Raiders. Bought the $60 deluxe edition because I loved the Server Slam open beta/demo. I have about 1000 hours in this game total and about 700 hours on the surface doing runs. This game has honestly changed how I look at games. I don’t see the majority of games being worth what they’re asking for. I just fucking don’t. Arc Raiders has given me so many amazing gameplay moments and value that it’s insane. Also, no two runs have even been the same. There’s always something new or fresh im discovering. And I don’t engage in PvP unless someone attacks me first. But the PvE experience is freaking awesome.
This generation is already set and done. I don’t make changes within the same generation so for example, if/when Microsoft removes their games from being day one on Game Pass, I will no longer have Xbox as my primary gaming console once Helix or whatever it ends up being called gets released. I will not reward Microsoft with more money. They can go fuck themselves where they breathe.
A small example is COD MW 4. I’m not buying this game even though the campaign looks great. I’m not rewarding Microsoft with more fucking money after spending thousands this generation within their Xbox platform and eco-system after taking away COD from being day one in GPU. It doesn’t matter if leadership changes or people leave/come in because at the end of the day, it’s still under Microsoft as a company and since March 2018, they said EVERY published game would be in Game Pass day one. Price increases never bothered me because I knew before the generation even started that it wasn’t staying $10/month. Like, no fucking way. But to remove games is a no no for me. I will wait until MW 4 gets added into GPU. I don’t care if it’s 6 months or 6 years later. I will wait it out or I simply won’t play the game.
I’m someone that switched to Xbox from PS4 due to a combination of the following - Microsoft’s published games being day one on Game Pass, their studio acquisitions since E3 2018 and the different genres and IP’s that I was going to be getting had me super hyped and excited!! Add in third party day one games which started slow but has since ramped up was an added bonus because in a lot of these case, the game was never going to be purchased anyway mainly due to the fact that I knew that I wasn’t going to beat them or the genre wasn’t for me but what the hell, I’ll give it a shot. I also don’t care about ownership or collections. I also prefer subscriptions over other options because I don’t care about collections or ownership. I just want to play through the game and then move on to my next new game.
I’m subbed to GPU through July 2028 and I have already decided that im not buying a next generation Xbox or PlayStation until 2030 at the earliest and that’s IF I don’t decide to just go to PC and Steam instead. If it wasn’t for the fact that I need a Steam account in good standing (deleted mine this past January before I became interested in the Steam Machine), I would have already bought the $1500 model.
In general, my gaming habits you could say are starting to change but I won’t fully embrace the changes im making until next generation. I always start “fresh” with every generation. It’s literally a clean slate. I always go with the platform that benefits me the most, saves me money and gives me what I want.
The way it’s looking as of now, Microsoft and Sony aren’t going to give me what I want or what benefits me so me going to PC in 2030 is very likely because at least with Valve and Steam, im not worried about their security, or them ripping me off or laying off thousands of people or cancelling games or shutting down studios because well, they don’t have any. At least not new anyway.
I can get all my games there for cheaper than consoles and for Microsoft, if this decision is made, any game I buy from them via Steam will be when they go on sale for $20 maximum. Not spending a penny because why would I?
As for Sony in case you’re wondering, they give me an average of two games a year so if I have to sacrifice their games because they want to be fucking stupid and pull away from PC even though I see them running back within 5 years, that’s up to them. I’ll save my money. And their platform/eco-system offers me honestly nothing of value or substance.
Third party game wise, I have the following that I have completed via Game Pass -
A Plague Tale Requiem (yes)
Like a Dragon Gaiden: The Man Who Erased His Name (no)
Flintlock: The Siege of Dawn (no)
Clair Obscur’s Expedition 33 (no even though this was my 2025 goty, im not a turn based guy so if not for being day one on GPU, highly unlikely that I would have bought and played this game)
Beast of Reincarnation (no)
A Plague Tale Resonance (yes)
Dune: Awakening (no)
Stranger Than Heaven (no)
The Expanse: Osiris Reborn (probably yes but not certain yet)
Outriders is the only 3rd party day one GP game that I bought at launch. Loved the demo and at the time, I was subbing for a month, complete the game and then turn off recurring billing.
One other note is Ubisoft+. Since this was added to Xbox as an option, I have played and completed Assassin’s Creed Mirage, Avatar, Star Wars Outlaws and Assassin’s Creed Shadows for under $80 total including the first expansion for Outlaws. I’m a massive Ubisoft guy but I highly doubt that I would have bought any of these games until the ultimate edition was half price or lower.
Only purchased game is Black Flag Resynced because the original is as of now my all time favorite AC game and was the game that made me a fan of AC.
No offence, but I literally presented financial filings that show the business was growing. To me, primary financial documents carry more weight than media reporting, even if the reporting comes from someone with a strong track record like Schreier.
I’m also happy to read what Schreier wrote, but could you link the source? I’ve tried to back up my own claims with evidence, so I’d appreciate seeing the source for his as well.
As for why a growing company would sell, there are loads of reasons.
For one, $7.5 billion is an enormous amount of money. King is a good example—they were still growing when Activision acquired them for around $5.9 billion, and they were privately owned as well.
There are plenty of other reasons too. Owners might want to retire, cash out while the business is highly valued, or simply believe the acquisition offer is better than the long-term upside of staying independent. Markus “Notch” Persson selling Mojang is another good example of that.
So I completely accept that ZeniMax wanted to sell. I just don’t think “they wanted to sell” automatically means “they were on the verge of bankruptcy.” Those are two very different claims, and I’d want to see evidence for the latter.
Can I see the source you’re referring to? Because at the moment you’re asking me to believe a report over Activision’s own disclosure to shareholders.
The merger filing explicitly states that Phil Spencer raised the possibility of discussing strategic opportunities with Activision. Unless there’s evidence that filing is inaccurate, I’m inclined to give it more weight than second-hand reporting.
It would also be an incredibly risky thing for Activision’s board to misrepresent in an SEC filing. If shareholders discovered the company had knowingly made false statements about the acquisition process, they’d be opening themselves up to serious legal consequences, potentially including shareholder lawsuits, regulatory action and, in extreme cases involving securities fraud, even the risk of jail time. I just don’t see why they’d take that risk.
As for the deal moving quickly, I completely agree—it moved remarkably fast for a transaction of that size. I just don’t think that automatically proves Activision was desperate to sell. To me, it’s more likely Microsoft wanted to move quickly before Activision’s share price recovered or another credible bidder emerged.
I agree the Guillemot family has a huge amount of influence over Ubisoft, and the Tencent deal clearly strengthened that position.
That said, it’s worth remembering they don’t own a majority of Ubisoft. The Guillemot family owns roughly a 14.5% stake, which is definitely significant and makes them the largest shareholder, but it’s a long way from owning over 50% of the company.
You could actually see those cracks during Vivendi’s attempted hostile takeover. If the Guillemots truly had complete control over Ubisoft’s future, Vivendi would’ve never gotten as close as it did. Instead, Ubisoft had to spend years fighting it off before Vivendi eventually exited.
So while Yves’ opinion obviously carries a huge amount of weight, I don’t think it’s as simple as “he doesn’t want to sell, therefore Ubisoft can never be acquired.” Boards still have fiduciary duties, shareholders have a say, and circumstances can change. The Tencent deal, in my view, was more about protecting Ubisoft’s independence than proving a sale could never happen.
I’d take Jez’s claims with a bit of caution. He’s definitely broken accurate stories over the years, but he’s also been wrong before. More recently he was pretty confident Gears: E-Day would stay exclusive, and before that he dismissed the rumours about Xbox games going to PlayStation. So while he has good sources, he’s not infallible. I’d still like to see the source you’re referring to.
As for Square Enix, ironically I actually think it would’ve been a great acquisition for Microsoft. That said, I struggle to believe they were close to buying them based on the FTC leaks.
Those leaks exposed a huge amount of Microsoft’s internal M&A thinking, including companies like Nintendo, SEGA, Valve, Paradox and others, yet Square Enix wasn’t even listed as one of Microsoft’s core acquisition targets in the 2021 strategy documents. I suppose it’s possible there were discussions that never leaked, but it would be odd if something as significant as Microsoft being close to acquiring Square Enix never surfaced while so much other material did.
At the end of the day though, rumours aren’t facts. They’re interesting to discuss, but unless there’s solid evidence, I think they should be treated as speculation rather than confirmation.
If that was really the case, Microsoft probably would’ve shut Xbox down during the Xbox One generation, which we know was reportedly discussed internally. Instead, they doubled down and invested nearly $100 billion into gaming acquisitions. Obviously gaming isn’t Microsoft’s main priority—Windows, Office, Azure and now AI all rank above it—but I struggle to see how you can say they don’t care about gaming after that level of investment. To me, that feels more like an emotional argument than one based on their actions.
Well… yeah. I don’t really blame Microsoft for taking a much closer look at Xbox after the Activision acquisition. Gaming became one of Microsoft’s biggest businesses overnight. If you spend nearly $70 billion on a single acquisition, I’d expect the board to start paying much closer attention to how that division is performing.
I think this is another area where we’re just looking at it differently. Microsoft isn’t a charity. Spending close to $100 billion on gaming and then eventually expecting stronger returns isn’t unreasonable. You can argue about whether their targets are realistic, but expecting a roadmap to meaningful returns after a decade of investment seems pretty normal for a public company.
I actually think Microsoft has been very patient. Xbox struggled for most of the last decade, yet Microsoft kept funding acquisitions, expanding studios and backing the division. Most underperforming business units don’t get that kind of runway before the parent company starts demanding better results.
I don’t really agree that Microsoft is trying to copy Sony or Nintendo. If anything, they’ve gone in a completely different direction with Game Pass, cloud gaming, PC releases and now a broader multiplatform strategy. You could even argue that moving away from the traditional console model is part of what got them into this position in the first place.
I actually disagree. If anything, I think Microsoft’s handling of studios like Ninja Theory, Compulsion, Double Fine and Undead Labs makes them a more attractive buyer to independent studios, not less.
When Microsoft decided those studios no longer fit its strategy, it did something that’s actually pretty uncommon in the industry. Rather than simply shutting all of them down, it sold two and allowed two to return to independence. That’s a much better outcome than what we usually see, where studios are simply closed altogether. Just look at examples like Japan Studio or London Studio under Sony.
As for Take-Two, Strauss Zelnick has actually echoed the point I was making. Public companies have legal and fiduciary duties to consider serious acquisition offers. He said:
“We’re a public company and all public companies are potentially available and if someone shows up with a meaningful cash offer at a meaningful premium, every public company has to engage.”
So while Zelnick may prefer Take-Two to remain independent, he can’t simply say, “I don’t want to sell,” if a serious offer comes along. The board has a duty to evaluate what’s in the best interests of shareholders.
I don’t think it’s fair to put most of the blame on Don Mattrick. A lot of those controversial Xbox One decisions came from Microsoft’s wider strategy at the time. Sony was reportedly planning a very similar approach with DRM and the camera—you can even see the PlayStation Camera during the PS4 reveal—but because they announced after Microsoft, they saw the backlash and changed course. Mattrick definitely deserves criticism for how the Xbox One reveal was handled, but I think the board deserves a lot of the blame too. That said, I completely agree Phil inherited a difficult position.
On the mixed messaging… are we really going to pretend Phil didn’t do exactly the same thing? Closing Tango Gameworks and then immediately saying Xbox wanted more AA games, constantly changing its stance on exclusivity, mixed messaging around Game Pass and multiplatform releases… Xbox’s communication problems didn’t start with Asha. If anything, I think she’s been more transparent about the issues, even if the messaging still isn’t where it needs to be. The current uncertainty around exclusivity is a perfect example.
I actually agree with you on Booty though. Personally, I think the whole leadership team needed refreshing. Booty, Phil and even Aaron Greenberg. Xbox’s marketing and messaging have been poor for years.
As for the subscription model, I understand why consumers like it—I do too. But the reality is that it hasn’t reached the scale Microsoft expected. The FTC documents showed Microsoft’s own long-term subscriber targets were significantly higher than where Game Pass actually ended up. Whether that’s because of the business model or execution is another debate, but it’s hard to argue it met Microsoft’s original expectations.
I actually think putting Call of Duty on Game Pass was Microsoft’s last big gamble to reignite Xbox’s momentum.
Around that time, Xbox Series console sales were reportedly falling behind even the Xbox One at comparable points in the generation. To me, CoD on Game Pass looked like a Hail Mary play to drive subscriptions, hardware sales and engagement before committing fully to the broader multiplatform strategy.
Obviously that’s my interpretation rather than something Microsoft has confirmed, but the timing lines up pretty well.
Well, at this point we’re just debating personal taste, and there isn’t really a right or wrong answer with that.
If Xbox’s output this generation has been your favourite, then fair enough. For me, both Xbox and PlayStation have been pretty underwhelming overall, even though I’ve enjoyed games from both.
My criticism has never really been about whether people liked the games. It’s been about the management side of Xbox—long development cycles, inconsistent output, projects being rebooted or cancelled, studios taking years to release games, and the overall direction of the brand. That’s where I think Xbox has struggled the most.
That’s fair, and honestly I appreciate you actually answering the question because a lot of people dodge it.
Interestingly though, I think your answer kind of supports one of my points. For you, Game Pass clearly added a huge amount of value because it got you to try games you otherwise wouldn’t have bought, and that’s exactly what the service is designed to do.
Where we differ is what happens if Day 1 goes away. You wouldn’t suddenly start buying everything—you’d wait for sales, wait for Game Pass or move to another platform entirely. That’s a perfectly valid consumer decision.
I think that’s exactly why Microsoft has such a difficult balancing act. They need to figure out whether keeping Day 1 drives enough subscriptions to justify the opportunity cost, or whether changing the model increases overall profitability despite losing some subscribers. None of us have the internal numbers to answer that with certainty, which is why I think it’s an interesting debate rather than a settled fact.
At the end of the day, we’re both speculating based on the information we have.
There’s like 5 articles right from the top. Shareholders don’t need to know anything because nothing came out of it. Kotick went to Meta/Facebook and they said no. That was it.
Okay but at the same time, it was known that Arkane, Machine Games and Tango Gameworks were all doing poorly because their games didn’t sell and were in danger of being shut down. Fallout 76 was a disaster and took years to get to where it’s at now. I don’t have a source or anything. It was all around when Microsoft announced they were acquiring Bethesda. It was from Schreier who I don’t like but in fairness, he’s rarely wrong.
Even at under 15%, they would still have to agree to sell which I just don’t see them doing because they would have done it already.
Again, no other sources. I’m sure there were rumors and whatnot back then. All I know is that it was around the middle of last generation before RE 7 and MHW hit.
As for Square Enix, they were heavily rumored to being acquired by Microsoft in 2021 but Microsoft bailed when they had the opportunity to acquire ABK. I personally would have preferred Square Enix over ABK but at the same time, I understand why they decided to go with ABK over SE.
They could be rumors but then again, there’s always plenty of rumors surrounding Xbox (usually bad) that everyone always seems to believe 100% so what’s really the difference?
True but if not for Spencer convincing Nadella to go all in with Xbox, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Agreed.
Main reason I disagree is because like all of these companies, they expect way too much way too soon and then bitch when it doesn’t happen. And it’s like, it’s on the companies for having unrealistic expectations. If they made their expectations more realistic, maybe they would have been more satisfied.
Let me rephrase what I said…Microsoft isn’t patient when Nadella makes a decision. He goes all in with Microsoft and Game Pass and while you could look at 8 years as being patient, I don’t because for the last few years of last generation, it was all about building for this generation which didn’t start until November 2020. So it’s not 6 years and in between all of this, he decided to make all the games multi-platform in early 2024 which is what he’s wanted all along and even said so during the ABK acquisition and now, 2 years later, pivots again, kinda, sorta, etc. It’s a circus at this point. They should have stayed the course for the rest of the generation by still selling hardware and having exclusives like they did and if it didn’t work, then you change it when next generation starts but they pivot way too much in such a short period of time that in all honesty, why would anyone even want to be an Xbox fan at this point? You don’t know what you’re getting because you don’t know what their direction is because they don’t even know.
I was set knowing exactly what they were doing and the direction. Since Asha took over, it’s the complete opposite. Who the fuck knows what they’re doing. With Sony, I know what they’re doing. With Nintendo, I know what they’re doing. With Microsoft, it’s a crap shoot.
Not really Nintendo, more Sony. Focusing on just big AAA titles isn’t going to do for Xbox what they believe it’s going to do and when it doesn’t, they’ll pivot yet again.
They did go in a different direction starting in 2018 and in my opinion, it’s an excellent direction because you’re expanding beyond the box which all of them have an expiration date and is becoming less relevant with every passing generation. The traditional console model didn’t work even during Xbox 360. Their games barely sold. No one gave a shit. Going back to that now which I do believe that they will once Helix releases, they will do far worse, guaranteed because people like me aren’t going to reward them with more money.
I’ll give you the last part. I’m happy the studios still exist and can live on but at the same time, it was short lived and I just don’t see many studios wanting to sell to Microsoft especially when they have no clear vision or direction and can pivot on a moment’s notice.
What public companies say and actually do are two very different things. I personally don’t see anyone going after TTI and even if someone did, I don’t think Zelnick would seriously entertain the offer because everyone there including him are pretty much set. No reason to sell until he’s ready to retire and then sell and then cash out.
Mattrick was the one who pushed Kinect. He was on love in that shit like Nadella is in love with AI. It’s ridiculous. Sony was going to have the Camera with PS4 but unlike Kinect, it wasn’t connected to the hardware. It was going to be packed in but it wasn’t required. Then, he kept going on and on and on about TV this and TV that Like, WTF?
Worse part was that Microsoft’s E3 2013 blows away Sony’s. It’s not even close and I say this as someone who jumped ship from Xbox 360 to PS4 because of their horrible decisions.
Phil took over Xbox in a horrible spot. Everyone hated Microsoft. Everyone hated Xbox. He barely had any studios or games outside of Halo/Gears/Forza. Most of the Xbox One exclusives were contracts with 2nd parties which I have never been a fan of. You need to have studios and keep all that shit internal because you can control it all.
Can’t control what Crytek or Insomniac was going to do with Ryse or Sunset Overdrive for example. In my mind, Xbox will forever be 5th overall and 3rd when it comes to console gaming. I don’t see anyone ever turning this around. The time is simply past and when I see what Asha/Booty/Ball say, I have ZERO confidence in any of them.
Pretty certain that it was Booty and Greenberg that celebrated Hi Fi Rush and having more AA games to only see Microsoft sell off Tango. Phil wasn’t perfect and I never said he was but compared to Mattrick before him who put the brand in such a state that im sorry, there’s just no way anyone is going to resurrect it so to speak.
Microsoft has had mixed messaging and communication issues since 2013. Phil was part of some of that but at the same time, it was always people above him like Nadella and Amy Hood who don’t care and unless Phil was the CEO of Microsoft (not just Xbox), he was never ever going to win. He was destined to fail because of everything that happened before him and everything that happened around him.
Asha didn’t start the communication issues and I didn’t say she did but she’s definitely continuing the trend of it all. Like, it NEVER EVER fucking ends. Is she really transparent though? If anything, she’s really not. She’s just giving PR speak like everyone else has done.
Side note - one main reason why I liked Phil was because of his interview with Kinda Funny after Redfall released. No executive has ever been more open, up front and honest than he was that day. I respected him even more because he said exactly what everyone already knew and that’s the fact that even with a 10/10 Starfield, it would change nothing.
Back to Asha, she mentioned 3% profit margin but she never mentioned what it would be if it included ABK and Game Pass. It’s because she knows that what she and Nadella want to do would have an even harder time getting people on board because they make a lot of revenue and profit. And at 3%, im sorry but that’s pretty fucking good for the 5th platform in gaming.
Now, all of them have no clear vision or direction as usual. It’s the same shit as two years ago. Same shit, different Xbox CEO. *shrugs*
I agree with Booty and Greenberg. Obviously disagree with Phil because when you change who’s running everything, everything changes and I just don’t see how any of it is going to benefit me as an Xbox consumer or Xbox consumers in general. I believe that Microsoft is going to fuck us over even more by the time Helix releases.
I loved the direction of Phil letting the studios actually “create” because that’s what they do. Games like Pentiment, Kiln and Keeper aren’t for me whatsoever but seeing them was great because it shows that the studios have creativity, innovation and originality in them which in all honesty, as a whole is SEVERELY LACKING in this industry outside of Indies.
Their expectations of 100m by 2030 was it? Or whatever it was is 100% unrealistic. In my mind, they set all of these unrealistic expectations that they know won’t be met so they can fuck it all up because that’s what they all tend to do because none of them are going to get hurt from any of it.
Even I said back then that COD wasn’t going to do anything for Game Pass or hardware because it’s not exclusive. Those on PC or PlayStation aren’t buying an Xbox for COD when they don’t have to.
COD shouldn’t have been included at all but it was and as a $4T dollar company, im sorry but they should take the hit instead of always wanting every penny known to man.
The increase to $20 was fine. Sure, people weren’t happy but at $15/month, Ultimate had to get an increase and things needed to be adjusted because since 2023 through 2026, they’ve added 25 new releases. That’s an average of 6+ Microsoft published games a year. That’s insane especially when you look back at pre-2023 when they had next to nothing for almost a decade.
The increase to $30 which I put 100% on Nadella and Hood ended any chance Game Pass had at growth. I don’t see it going past 40m because why would it? Microsoft has fucked up everything when it comes to Xbox. Even great stuff, they fuck up because for them, it’s never enough.
Yeah, it’s all personal taste. I will say that the main difference is that I have gotten so much from Microsoft this generation and to think, only had 2 games (Gears Tactics and Halo Infinite) from launch through 2022. Since then though, they’ve been on fire for me and is the only reason why I didn’t leave Xbox two years ago or now. Too many games that I want to play. Also, compared to the 6 games I had for the entirety of last generation, this generation has been like a dream. lol
Sony wise, they’ve given me less this generation than I had last generation which was 20 published games but in fairness, I could easily eliminate at least 5 from PS4 and nothing of value would have been lost. This generation, the quantity has been less but their quality is pretty much equal to PS4 for me personally. Gaming wise, outside of Housemarque making roguelikes, I don’t really have any major issues.
I don’t disagree with the last part but at the same time, people don’t actually go through all the studios and whatnot. They just see their last game was in 2018 and it’s been 8 years but they don’t research why that is.
Going back to E3 2018, I wasn’t expecting anything from Ninja Theory, Compulsion, Playground Games (outside of Forza Horizon), Undead Labs or The Initiative until 2023 at the earliest and even then, I wouldn’t be surprised if it took another few years.
I knew most of the studios had just released a game or were getting ready to do so to end the Xbox One generation so I knew it was going to be a long time. I said back in 2020, the first half of the generation would belong to Sony game wise but second half will belong to Microsoft. Since 2023, Microsoft has been on fire with their games output. 6+ games a year is insane. Never thought I would see or get that after the Xbox One generation.
You’re welcome. I don’t dodge questions especially one that only pertains to me and my gaming habits and whatnot. Some games just aren’t easy to answer completely because like with Avowed, I only played South Park: Stick of Truth which had more to do with being published by Ubisoft which is my favorite company even though they’re a disaster majority of the time and I don’t know if I would have purchased Avowed because I would have been unsure. Game Pass though allows me to try out so many games that I wouldn’t try out let alone buy because not worth the risk of losing that money especially since im all digital and have been for a while.
Agree with the 2nd paragraph.
With the 3rd paragraph, it’s because Microsoft got me back after losing me with their Xbox One reveal despite me being a huge Xbox 360 guy. Microsoft won me back and I was actually confident in them with Xbox Series and Phil’s direction and approach. The hardware, the studios, the games, the IP’s, Game Pass, free cloud saves, ability to use my Xbox One model 1708 controller which is my all time favorite and best controller, etc. and this was BEFORE they announced that they were acquiring Bethesda. Man, I was so happy that day because at that time, I thought for sure that I would get a new Evil Within game, Dishonored and others. Man, I was so fucking hyped!! lol
But now, after spending thousands of dollars on Xbox literally this generation, for them to possibly remove their published games day one from Game Pass would be a huge slap in my face and show me that my money isn’t important to them. Well, fine by me. I will keep my money then.
Yeah, Microsoft has tough decisions ahead but don’t they always? lol
I personally believe that they should go in a value proposition direction next generation with Game Pass as the lead incentive. Put the games everywhere but on Xbox, you get so much while saving so much money and if everything is as expensive as it’s heavily rumored to be come next generation, saving a lot of money is going to be vital for the vast majority of people, myself included.
Agreed. It’s all speculation at this point but I will say that I know my luck when it comes to gaming and even when it’s going good, it never lasts for long. lol
I would trust the SEC filing over anonymous reporting.
Where I think the confusion might be coming from is that, according to Activision’s proxy statement, after Microsoft expressed interest, Activision contacted a number of other potential buyers as part of its fiduciary duty to evaluate alternatives. If Meta was one of those companies, that wouldn’t contradict the SEC filing at all—it would simply mean they were approached after Microsoft had already put its interest on the table.
That’s why I’m asking for a source. Activision’s own SEC filing states that Microsoft initiated discussions. If there’s credible evidence showing the opposite, I’d genuinely like to see it because that would directly contradict Activision’s legal disclosure to its shareholders. Given the legal implications of those filings, I’d need very strong evidence before concluding the filing was inaccurate.
I agree Schreier has a good, but not perfect, track record, and I’m not dismissing his reporting. But when I’ve gone to the effort of digging up ZeniMax Europe’s historical financial reports, I think it’s fair for me to ask for a source on the specific claims you’re making.
I also won’t deny that some individual ZeniMax studios may have been at risk of closure. But that’s a very different claim from saying ZeniMax itself was close to bankruptcy.
One suggests certain parts of the business were underperforming. The other suggests the company as a whole was in serious financial distress. Based on the financial reports I’ve seen, I haven’t found evidence supporting that second claim.
That’s not really how it works with a publicly traded company.
The Guillemot family owns roughly 14.55% of Ubisoft. That’s a very significant stake and gives them a lot of influence, but it isn’t majority control. They can’t unilaterally decide whether Ubisoft is sold or not.
We’ve already seen that with Vivendi’s attempted hostile takeover. If the Guillemots had majority control, that situation never would’ve become a serious concern in the first place.
Could the Guillemots oppose a sale? Absolutely. Could they influence the outcome? Definitely. But if a credible bidder came in with a substantial premium, the board would still have a fiduciary duty to evaluate it, and ultimately shareholders—not just the Guillemot family—would decide the outcome.
As for why Ubisoft hasn’t been acquired yet, I don’t deny there are major benefits to buying them—their catalogue of IP is one of the strongest in the industry. But there are also significant risks. Ubisoft is an incredibly bloated organisation, and slimming it down would be a huge undertaking. On top of that, it’s a French company, so any restructuring has to comply with French labour laws, which generally make large-scale layoffs and reorganisations more complex and expensive than in many other countries. I think that’s one of the biggest reasons potential buyers have been cautious. Ubisoft isn’t just an acquisition—it’s a very challenging turnaround project.
I don’t disagree that there were rumours—I remember plenty of them too. My point is simply that rumours aren’t evidence.
The difference is that I’m trying to separate rumours from what we can actually verify. If Microsoft publicly filed documents, if internal FTC documents leaked, or if a company disclosed something in an SEC filing, I’ll give those far more weight than internet rumours, regardless of whether they support or contradict Xbox.
For example, I don’t dismiss rumours that are negative about Microsoft either—I wait until there’s credible evidence to support them. That’s the same standard I’m applying here.
It’s entirely possible Microsoft evaluated Capcom or Square Enix. In fact, I’d be surprised if they hadn’t. Large companies constantly evaluate acquisition opportunities.
Based on my own research for the acquisition write-up I’m currently working on, I actually think Square Enix is one of Microsoft’s more overlooked targets. I wouldn’t say it’s the single most likely acquisition, but I’d definitely put it in my top three potential targets if Microsoft continues pursuing publisher M&A after this reset. That’s my own analysis though, not something I’d present as fact.
What I’m pushing back on is the claim that Microsoft was close to acquiring them. That’s a much stronger claim, and I haven’t seen evidence that reaches that bar. If evidence comes out one day, I’ll happily change my view, but until then I think it’s more accurate to call it speculation than fact.
I actually agree with that. If Phil hadn’t convinced Nadella to double down on Xbox, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion.
My point is more that, once Microsoft committed, it committed in a massive way. Companies that don’t care about a division don’t spend nearly $100 billion on M&A.
You can absolutely argue Microsoft has made poor decisions since then, or that it expects returns too quickly, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say Microsoft doesn’t care about gaming. If anything, I’d argue it cares so much now that it’s demanding far better returns on the investment than Xbox was delivering under Phil.
I actually agree with that to an extent. I think a lot of large corporations do set unrealistic expectations, especially for newer markets or long-term investments.
Where we differ is on whether Microsoft’s expectations are unreasonable in this case. Xbox had roughly a decade under Phil’s leadership before Microsoft really stepped in, and during that time Microsoft invested close to $100 billion into gaming acquisitions. At some point, it’s reasonable for the board to ask, “What’s the roadmap for getting a return on this investment?”
Maybe Microsoft would’ve been more flexible if it hadn’t spent nearly $100 billion on gaming M&A in the space of roughly five years while also signalling that it wanted to continue acquiring companies. It’s one of those situations where you can’t really have your cake and eat it too. If you’re asking shareholders to back one of the biggest acquisition sprees in gaming history, they’re eventually going to expect those investments to generate meaningful returns.
Whether Microsoft’s targets are too aggressive is a fair debate, but I don’t think expecting stronger financial performance after that level of investment is inherently unreasonable. Every public company eventually has to answer that question to its shareholders.
I actually agree with part of that. I think Xbox’s communication and messaging has been dirt poor for years. The constant pivots—from “everything is exclusive,” to “some games are multiplatform,” to “case-by-case”—have hurt consumer confidence because people genuinely don’t know what Xbox’s long-term strategy is.
Where I disagree is that this proves Microsoft was impatient. I’d argue Microsoft was patient for the better part of a decade. They funded Xbox through the Xbox One era, greenlit studio acquisitions in 2018, bought ZeniMax in 2020 and Activision Blizzard in 2023, and continued investing despite Xbox struggling in hardware and subscriptions.
I also think it’s worth remembering that Satya has always been Phil’s boss, and now he’s Asha’s boss. If Satya had wanted Xbox to go fully multiplatform years earlier, he had the authority to make that happen. Xbox wasn’t an independent company operating outside Microsoft’s control.
Ironically, I think the Activision Blizzard acquisition is what likely caused Microsoft leadership to become much more directly involved. Before ABK, Xbox was a relatively small part of Microsoft’s overall business. After spending nearly $70 billion on a single acquisition—and close to $100 billion on gaming M&A overall—it makes sense that Satya, Amy Hood and the board would start paying much closer attention to the division and take a more active role in shaping its strategy.
To me, the multiplatform pivot wasn’t because Microsoft suddenly became impatient overnight—it was because, after years of investment and nearly $100 billion spent on gaming M&A, the existing strategy wasn’t delivering the results they wanted. Whether that pivot was the right decision is a separate debate, but I don’t think it’s fair to say Microsoft didn’t give Xbox time.
Where I do agree is that they probably should’ve committed to one strategy for the remainder of the generation instead of constantly changing direction. Regardless of whether you support exclusives or a multiplatform approach, consistency matters, and Xbox simply hasn’t provided it. That’s done a lot of damage to consumer trust.
I don’t completely agree, but I don’t completely disagree either.
I think Microsoft’s management this generation has been poor, but I also think the pendulum can swing too far in the opposite direction. Focusing almost exclusively on AAA blockbusters creates its own problems because you have to account for rising development budgets and increasingly long dev cycles. Personally, I think there’s a middle ground where Xbox can deliver a healthy mix of AAA, AA and smaller titles. Hopefully they get there, but in the short term I think the current approach is probably the smarter move.
I also disagree with the idea that the traditional model never worked. The Xbox 360 was Xbox’s most successful and most fondly remembered generation. You can absolutely argue that another strategy might be more effective going forward, but saying the traditional model never worked feels too harsh. Halo 3 alone is one of the most iconic console launches in gaming history, and the 360 era proved Xbox could compete when it consistently delivered compelling exclusives.
I think that’s a fair concern, and I do think Microsoft’s shifting strategy over the last few years has made it a less attractive buyer than it was in, say, 2021.
Where I disagree is the idea that independent studios would simply refuse to sell because of that. In reality, acquisitions are usually driven by financial considerations as much as strategic ones. If Microsoft offers a significant premium, long-term funding, access to better technology and a degree of creative autonomy, that’s going to be attractive to some studios regardless of whether Xbox’s strategy is perfectly clear.
There’s also the reality of how risky remaining independent can be. Development costs continue to rise, funding is becoming harder to secure, and one commercial failure can put an otherwise excellent studio in serious financial trouble. For some teams, being acquired by a large company isn’t just a payday—it’s long-term security for their employees and projects.
Ultimately, every studio is different. Some will value independence above everything else, while others will see the stability and financial backing of a larger company as the better option. I don’t think Microsoft’s recent strategy automatically takes them off the table as a buyer.
I think you’re conflating what someone might personally want with what they’re legally expected to do.
Whether Zelnick wants to sell is almost irrelevant. As CEO, his fiduciary duty is to act in the best interests of Take-Two and its shareholders, not simply his own preference. If a credible buyer came along with a substantial premium, the board would have a duty to seriously evaluate the offer.
Zelnick has even said as much himself:
“We’re a public company and all public companies are potentially available and if someone shows up with a meaningful cash offer at a meaningful premium, every public company has to engage.”
That doesn’t mean Take-Two would sell. It just means the idea that they could simply say “we don’t feel like it” isn’t really how publicly traded companies operate.
Personally, I don’t think anyone is actively pursuing Take-Two right now either. My point has always been that if a major bidder—whether Microsoft, Tencent, Savvy or someone else—ever showed genuine interest with a compelling offer, I fully expect the board would evaluate it. That’s exactly what you’d expect from a public company.
sorry not responding to the entire thing right now, honestly its a bit tiring, might do the other half later
Regarding all the ABK/Capcom/SE stuff, I simply believe the rumors because they make sense at that time but who knows, they could be complete bullshit and while Jason isn’t perfect, I don’t see people mentioning him if he didn’t say it, post it or allude to it.
I disagree in regards to Microsoft actually caring about Xbox or gaming. I believe that they only care about getting back the money they spent as quickly as possible. I don’t believe for a minute that any of the executives actually give a shit about gaming, Xbox or consumers.
And demanding far better returns for the 5th place platform isn’t exactly going to make anything better. At the end of the day, if they truly care and want Xbox to thrive, they’re going to have to take massive monetary losses in order to achieve that but they’re not going to do that and thus, they won’t succeed regardless of whatever vision they have.
70% if not more of that $100B was spent on a single acquisition so it’s not like they were truly investing into Xbox like many people want to believe. Honestly, they went the cheap route with every acquisition with Bethesda being the most expensive at $7.5B. And since COD is fully multi-platform as opposed to being console exclusive to Xbox, how are they ever going to get back that money? The answer is that they won’t.
I disagree with Phil having nearly a decade. First, he didn’t get any true power until late 2017 when he convinced Nadella to go all in with Xbox and Game Pass so from the start of 2018 through 2025, it was more like 8 years as opposed to a decade and even then, he was a decade behind when he took over Xbox. The brand was so behind and fucked over due to Mattrick in 2013, I honestly don’t care who you put there instead of Spencer, the end result would still be the same.
So while 8 years may seem like a lot of time, it’s not when your brand is a decade behind thanks to the previous guy running Xbox in Mattrick.
I also disagree with them expecting stronger financial performance because they’re not realistic. They think they’re the best or #1 or will be by 2030. They’re all delusional. If you’re the 5th place platform, your expectations should be of a 5th place platform. Not 1st/2nd/3rd or 4th.
They also excluded ABK and GP from that 3% profit margin. Gee, I wonder why. It’s because if included, they’re closer to 10% which for a 5th place platform, it’s fucking amazing. Hell, even 3% is really fucking good when you think about and go over Xbox since the Xbox One reveal in 2013. If anything, they’re doing far better than they should be doing.
Agree with the first paragraph.
Disagree with the second paragraph. Mattrick did greenlight a bunch of games for the first few years of Xbox One but Microsoft cut funding due to Terry Myerson not giving a shit which is why 2017 had next to nothing and was arguably worse than 2022. The acquisitions in June 2018 and November 2018 as well as Double Fine in June 2019 and Bethesda in Fall 2020 (legally finalized in March 2021) wasn’t for Xbox One. It was for Xbox Series and beyond which this part is good because it shows that they were thinking long term but they never stay with the mentality. Once things go poorly, they pivot. In general, how patient are they really? Phil Spencer and Sarah Bond were the only two people that truly had a vision and were patient enough to want to see it through. But Nadella, Hood and Microsoft itself, not so much if at all.
Nadella could have made Phil go multi-platform sooner but I believe that it was due to the ABK acquisition and spending $70B excluding all the legal fees and whatnot that made this happen in early 2024. I believe Phil was the one person who fought against it because he’s been there for like 30 years or whatever it was, he knew the damage it would do to the Xbox brand which has been one of the most damaged brands I have ever seen.
I agree 100% with corporate getting more involved due to the ABK acquisition.
For the multi-platform pivot, I disagree with you 100% because the ABK deal had just gone through. In all honesty, what the fuck were they expecting THREE MONTHS LATER? Come on man. It takes Microsoft fucking years just to implement the company into their own shit. Corporate didn’t give the ABK acquisition a chance at all and more than that, why would they expect Xbox to grow or anything when their second biggest IP in Call of Duty was staying multi-platform?
I agree with the last paragraph. Think about it. They have a direction to kick off Xbox Series. Game Pass and console exclusivity. 3 years and 3 months later, they pivot to being multi-platform, 2 years after that, they’re pivoting again. THREE different directions in less than 6 years. Why would anyone who’s not an actual Xbox fan/consumer give an actual fuck at this point? It’s a shit show, a circus and a disaster all rolled into one.
With the first paragraph, I think Microsoft had a great mix of AAA/AA/Indie games from their internal studios and second party studios like Towerborne and Flight Simulator, etc. The only major negative I had with Phil was not having Obsidian work on Fallout New Vegas 2 or a Fallout spin off of some sort once they acquired Bethesda but at the same time, I can understand not wanting to strain or potentially ruin a 30 year friendship with Todd Howard especially in an industry where trust and respect is minimal at best. Not having Tango work on The Evil Within 3 with John Johanas as the lead and studio head is beyond me. Letting Everwild go on for years and Perfect Dark were disasters in the making. Too indecisive in my opinion.
To me, Microsoft is throwing everything they can at the wall and trying to see what sticks as opposed to having a clear vision and direction and staying with it for at least an entire generation which they haven’t done since Xbox 360.
When I say the old traditional model never worked for Microsoft, I mean strictly in the sense of their published game sales. Halo 3 sold 10m+. Gears 2 was at 6.75m. Everything else was under that for Xbox 360. They barely sold. You would think that they would sell a hell of lot better especially Gears since it was a bro shooter at the time and Xbox was known as the shooter box.
Their sales after Halo 3 kept decreasing, the Xbox One games did next to nothing which is why they went with Game Pass but the constant changing of direction is never going to allow any business model that they do a chance at success because how can it when those on the outside look at it all as a “WTF are they doing?”.
Fun fact: As for Halo 3 being an iconic launch at the time, I don’t disagree but as someone who played the game for the very first time two years ago, my goodness, it was an 8.0/10 at best for me and I hated the Gravemind aspect. Horrible in my opinion. lol
Hahaha. No problem man. We’ve both typed out a LOT. lol
In all honesty, I think we both have said and gotten across what we’ve wanted to.
And correct me if im wrong but I think that you feel like Microsoft and the leadership now can turn it all around given time where as I simply believe that their time for ever becoming better than 5th is simply past.
Do you have any proof that Don was the one personally pushing all of that? Because you often defend Phil from criticism over the move to multiplatform by arguing that Satya and the board forced his hand. I could just as easily argue Phil had already been moving in that direction for years with PC ports and games like Ori and Cuphead coming to competing platforms.
My point is simply that I don’t think it’s fair to defend Phil by shifting blame to Satya and the board, but then dismiss the same argument when it’s applied to Don. Either executive leadership has autonomy, or the board has significant influence over major strategic decisions. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.
As for an Xbox revival, I actually think it’s plausible, but I think it depends far more on Microsoft’s board than whoever happens to be running Xbox. They’ll ultimately decide what the long-term strategy is.
Personally, I don’t think Game Pass, becoming a hybrid PC, or looking pro consumer is what saves Xbox. Those things help, but I don’t think they’re enough on their own.
If Xbox is going to make a meaningful comeback in the console space, I think it comes down to four things: having genuine tentpole exclusives (The Elder Scrolls VI is the obvious one), signficiantly improving marketing for the new console, remaining willing to use Microsoft’s financial strength where appropriate—whether that’s acquisitions, strategic partnerships or third-party deals—and launching with a meaningful price advantage over the PS6.
Based on the messaging right now, I honestly get the impression Microsoft is still debating internally how far it wants to go with exclusivity. My guess is that The Elder Scrolls VI will be treated as the final major test for Xbox console exclusivity. If a game of that magnitude can’t meaningfully move Xbox hardware, then I don’t think anything will—short of Microsoft somehow pulling off something completely unprecedented, like securing the next Rockstar title after GTA VI as a console exclusive, which I think is incredibly unlikely.
I think we’re just going to disagree on Phil.
Yes, he inherited an absolute mess after the Xbox One reveal, and I’ll happily give him credit for convincing Microsoft to invest heavily in gaming. Without that, Xbox may genuinely not exist today.
Where we differ is that I think at some point you have to judge a leader on what they did with the resources they were given, not just the situation they inherited. Phil had over a decade in charge, nearly $100 billion in gaming acquisitions, dozens of new studios and Microsoft’s full backing. That’s an incredible amount of time and resources.
I also think this is a good example of what I meant previously. When it comes to Phil, you’re happy to shift some of the blame onto Satya and Amy Hood because they were ultimately his bosses. I actually agree with that to an extent.
The difference is I don’t think that logic should suddenly stop with Don Mattrick or Asha Sharma.
I’m not going to claim every communication issue or controversial decision falls solely on Don, Phil or Asha because they’re all ultimately answering to Microsoft’s board. But it feels like you’re willing to give Phil that benefit of the doubt while being far less willing to extend the same courtesy to Don or Asha. To me, the standard should be consistent regardless of who’s in charge.
As for the 3% figure, I don’t really buy the conspiracy that it was intentionally manipulated. If Satya wanted Xbox’s financials presented a certain way, that’s what would happen. I doubt Asha had much say in how Microsoft chose to present those numbers to investors.
Where I do agree with you is Xbox’s messaging. It’s still all over the place. The biggest issue for me isn’t even whether they’re going multiplatform—it’s that nobody seems to know where the line actually is. Is every game going? Just live service? Only older games? Certain flagship titles? Xbox has been far too vague, and that uncertainty hurts consumer confidence.
Ultimately, that’s what I want from Asha more than anything else: pick a direction, communicate it clearly and then stick to it. Even if people don’t agree with every decision, consistency is far better than constantly wondering what the strategy is this month.
The thing is, Sarah, Aaran and Matt were all core members of Phil’s leadership team. That’s not to say you can’t like one individual member over another, obviously, but they all broadly shared the same strategic direction. If anything, I actually find it surprising that Matt not only survived the leadership change but ended up getting promoted.
On the creativity side, I do think Phil deserves some credit. Giving studios the freedom to experiment can be a good thing. The problem, in my opinion, was that it wasn’t paired with enough oversight or enough larger commercial projects.
Obsidian is actually a good example of getting that balance right. They worked on passion projects while also developing games with broader commercial appeal e.g. Avowed & the outerworlds 2. Double Fine, on the other hand, could have done something similar. They could have made a smaller passion project while also working on something like Psychonauts 3, Brutal Legend 2 or another title with wider appeal.
Ironically, now that Double Fine is independent again, I wouldn’t be surprised if they do exactly that. Without Microsoft bankrolling them, they’ll have a much stronger incentive to balance creative passion with commercial success because they’ll need that revenue to sustain themselves long term.
It’s a complicated discussion because creative freedom is valuable, but unlimited freedom isn’t always the answer either. Some times studios best work came about when made when studios were under real financial pressure because they knew they had to deliver. Obviously, you don’t want developers constantly fearing bankruptcy, but I do think some Xbox studios became a little too comfortable knowing Microsoft would continue funding them regardless of whether projects slipped by years or underperformed.
For me, the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle: give studios room to be creative, but also have strong leadership that keeps projects focused, commercially viable and actually shipping in a reasonable timeframe.
I think that’s a solid angle because it shifts the discussion from “the target was unrealistic” to “then why commit to that strategy?” I’d just tighten the wording:
You can absolutely argue the targets were unrealistic, but I would assume those expectations were communicated to Phil long before they became public.
If that’s the case, then Phil still chose to pursue a strategy centred around Game Pass and subscriptions, and to be fair to Microsoft’s board, they gave him just about everything he asked for to try and make that strategy succeed. They funded studio acquisitions, then approved the acquisitions of ZeniMax and Activision Blizzard, invested heavily in cloud infrastructure and generally backed Xbox for the better part of a decade.
If the targets were genuinely unattainable, then perhaps the strategy itself should have been different from the outset. Ultimately, strategy is part of a leader’s job.
My guess is that both Phil and Microsoft’s board believed Game Pass would take off much more aggressively on PC than it ultimately did. If that had happened, they may well have been much closer to hitting the growth trajectory they were aiming for.
Whether those expectations were too optimistic is a fair debate, but I don’t think it’s fair to act as though Phil had no agency in the strategy while also holding everyone after him fully accountable for its shortcomings.
I don’t necessarily agree that Call of Duty should never have been added to Game Pass. I think Microsoft’s hope was probably that adding CoD—and eventually the wider Activision Blizzard catalogue—would significantly accelerate Game Pass adoption, particularly on PC where they had much more room to grow than on console.
Whether that was realistic is another question, but I can understand the logic behind it. If you’re spending nearly $70 billion on Activision Blizzard, you’re naturally going to look for ways to leverage that content to grow your subscription service across multiple platforms, not just Xbox consoles.
Where we differ is on what Microsoft should have done afterwards. Microsoft spent nearly $70 billion acquiring Activision Blizzard, so from a business perspective they were always going to look at ways of improving the return on that investment. Whether people agree with that or not, it’s a pretty normal expectation for a public company.
I also think hindsight makes this conversation easier. If Microsoft genuinely believed Day One Call of Duty would significantly accelerate Game Pass growth, then I can understand why they tried it. It was a high-risk, high-reward play. It just doesn’t appear to have delivered the kind of subscriber growth they were hoping for.
As for the price increases, I actually agree there comes a point where pricing starts working against growth. Every price increase raises the value threshold consumers expect. The higher the subscription gets, the more content Microsoft has to add just to convince people it’s still worth subscribing.
Ultimately, I think Microsoft overestimated how much demand there was for Game Pass. My guess is they expected PC adoption in particular to be much stronger than it ended up being. If you’re building your long-term strategy around subscriber growth and that growth plateaus, then eventually something has to change. Whether that’s pricing, the Day One model, or the wider strategy is another debate, but standing still probably wasn’t a realistic option either.
I actually think that’s a fair point. I don’t think people should expect a studio that released a game in 2018 to magically have another one ready by 2020 or 2021. Development takes time, especially after Microsoft acquired a lot of studios that had either just shipped a game or were close to doing so.
I also agree Microsoft’s output has improved significantly since 2023. Going from the Xbox One years to averaging around 6+ first-party releases a year is a massive improvement.
Where I think we differ is that I’m looking beyond just the number of games released.
For me, it’s also about how efficiently those studios are being managed. We’ve seen games rebooted, projects cancelled, studios spending six, seven or even eight years on a single title, and in some cases releasing games that still didn’t meet expectations. That’s where I think Xbox’s management has struggled.
Ironically, I think both of us are right to an extent. Phil did eventually build a pipeline capable of producing far more games than Xbox One ever had, and he deserves credit for that. At the same time, I think it’s fair to question whether that pipeline was managed as efficiently as it could have been.
That’s why I’m more interested in what happens over the next few years. If Asha can maintain that level of output while shortening development cycles, improving consistency and reducing the number of troubled projects, then I’d say Xbox has genuinely improved from a management perspective. That’s ultimately what I’m looking for, not just a higher game count.
I can definitely understand why you feel that way. If Xbox won you back on the promise of Day One Game Pass and then changes that later, I get why it’d feel like Microsoft moving the goalposts.
Where I probably differ is that I don’t think Microsoft is making these decisions based on what feels fair to existing subscribers. They’re going to make whatever decision they believe gives them the strongest long-term financial return, even if that upsets part of the existing player base.
As for your idea of putting the games everywhere while using Game Pass as the main incentive, I actually think that would be pretty dangerous for the Xbox brand long term.
If every game is available everywhere, then the question becomes: why buy an Xbox? At that point, Xbox almost becomes a companion device rather than a primary platform. The only way I could really see that working is if Microsoft sold the hardware at a very aggressive price to make it the cheapest way to access Game Pass.
But then you run into another problem: is Microsoft actually willing to take massive losses on console hardware to make that work? Especially when Asha herself has already said the multiplatform strategy hasn’t grown as quickly as they hoped. To me, that suggests the additional software revenue probably isn’t large enough to comfortably subsidise a heavily loss-leading console strategy.
That’s why I think Microsoft is trying to find a middle ground. Enough exclusives to give people a reason to buy Xbox hardware, while still putting some games elsewhere to increase software revenue. Whether they find that balance is another question entirely, but I think that’s the direction they’re trying to head in.
You’re free to believe the rumours if you want, but I don’t think it’s fair to expect me to accept them without seeing the evidence. Throughout this discussion, especially when we’ve been talking about M&A, I’ve tried to back up my arguments with sources where I can, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to ask for the same in return.
If there’s a credible article or report behind those claims, I’m genuinely happy to read it. If not, then I think it’s more accurate to treat them as rumours rather than established fact.
On a completely unrelated note, I also need to find some banner artwork for my M&A write-up. I’ve been looking around online, but most of what I can find is either outdated or low quality. I’m hoping I can find something that’s a bit more up to date, or at least easy enough to edit into something suitable for the forum. Maybe I should have a look around this forum as well—I haven’t actually checked here yet.
If Microsoft didn’t care about gaming, I don’t think they would’ve expanded Xbox the way they did, built Game Pass, invested heavily in cloud gaming, or approved the Activision Blizzard King acquisition in the first place.
The difference, in my opinion, is between caring about an industry and expecting it to be financially accountable. Those aren’t mutually exclusive.
From Microsoft’s perspective, they gave Xbox roughly a decade to turn things around while also approving close to $100 billion in gaming acquisitions. At what point is it reasonable for them to start expecting stronger returns? Did people genuinely expect Microsoft to give Xbox another 10 years and another $100 billion before asking tougher questions?
And I don’t think it’s just Satya either. It’s probably not just the board. After a purchase the size of ABK, I’d imagine significant shareholders also started asking when that investment was going to translate into stronger financial performance. That’s just the reality of being a publicly traded company.
You can absolutely argue Microsoft’s expectations are too aggressive, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say they don’t care about gaming. If anything, I’d argue they care enough that they now want the business to justify one of the largest investments the company has ever made so they can continue expanding it.
Personally, I don’t think Microsoft’s gaming M&A is over. Phil Spencer has previously said Microsoft would continue making acquisitions, likely smaller than ABK, with areas like mobile and geographic expansion being priorities. More recently, Asha Sharma has also said M&A remains a way to accelerate strategies that would take too long to achieve organically.
Whether those acquisitions happen or not remains to be seen, but I don’t think gaming consolidation is over either. If anything, I think we’re still in the middle of it and Microsoft will continue to be a major buyer
Yeah, Activision was obviously a massive part of the acquisition… but Microsoft still spent that money though. It doesn’t magically stop counting as investment because around 70% of it was spent on ABK or because Call of Duty remained multiplatform.
Honestly, I also think making CoD exclusive would’ve made the regulatory process even harder than it already was, while potentially hurting Microsoft’s financial returns. There’s also the possibility that taking CoD away from PlayStation could’ve created an opening for something like Battlefield to become the default multiplatform military shooter over time, which would’ve weakened one of the biggest assets Microsoft had just spent nearly $70 billion acquiring.
To me, the long-term value of ABK wasn’t just CoD anyway. King was arguably one of the biggest strategic reasons behind the acquisition given Microsoft’s repeated interest in expanding into mobile, and Activision Blizzard still has plenty of IP Microsoft could choose to make exclusive if it wanted to lean back towards that model. Blizzard alone has Overwatch, Diablo, Warcraft and StarCraft, then you’ve got Crash, Spyro and dormant franchises like Prototype that could always be revived.
I also don’t completely disagree on Phil’s timeline. Sure, he arguably had much greater freedom after 2017 when Microsoft fully committed to Xbox. But even before then, Phil became Head of Xbox in 2014, so he still had years to influence the direction of the division before the ZeniMax and ABK acquisitions.
Also, can I ask for a source on Microsoft wanting to be the number one platform by 2030? I’ve seen Asha Sharma say she wants Xbox to become the number one gaming and entertainment company by 2030, but that’s a much broader ambition than saying Xbox has to become the number one console platform. Those aren’t necessarily the same thing.
I think that’s a worthwhile addition because it highlights that Phil’s philosophy wasn’t purely “everything must stay exclusive.” He’d already shown a willingness to expand beyond the console ecosystem long before the ABK deal. I’d integrate it like this:
I think we actually agree more than we disagree here.
I completely agree that the 2018 acquisitions weren’t really about saving the Xbox One. They were clearly investments for Xbox Series and beyond. I’d also agree that the ABK acquisition likely resulted in Microsoft’s senior leadership taking a much more hands-on role in Xbox.
Where I disagree is on the timing.
You say Microsoft didn’t give ABK a chance because they pivoted three months later, but I don’t think the decision to go multiplatform was made three months after the acquisition closed. Decisions like that aren’t made overnight. They would’ve involved months of internal discussions, financial modelling and board-level conversations before they were ever announced publicly.
I’d actually argue the opposite. The fact Microsoft was willing to spend nearly two years fighting regulators to complete the biggest acquisition in gaming history suggests they still believed in Xbox’s future during that period. If they’d already concluded the strategy had failed, I’m not convinced they would’ve spent all that time, money and political capital getting the deal over the line.
I also think it’s worth remembering that ABK wasn’t the only investment. By the time Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King, they’d already spent years investing in Xbox, acquired ZeniMax, expanded Xbox Game Studios, built Game Pass, invested heavily in cloud gaming and pushed onto PC. The ABK acquisition wasn’t the start of Microsoft’s investment—it was the culmination of it.
I also think you’re giving Phil a bit too much credit here. I don’t think Phil was ever as anti-multiplatform as you’re suggesting. Long before the wider multiplatform pivot, he was already breaking down parts of Xbox’s traditional walled garden by bringing first-party games to PC and even allowing titles like Ori and Cuphead to release on competing platforms. That’s obviously very different from putting Halo or Gears on PlayStation, but it does show Phil was already more open to expanding beyond the Xbox console than previous leadership had been.
So I don’t really see the multiplatform pivot as Microsoft judging ABK after three months. I see it as Microsoft looking at almost a decade of investment, including ABK, and deciding the overall strategy wasn’t producing the returns they were hoping for.
That said, I completely agree with your final point. Xbox’s messaging has been a mess. Going from “everything is exclusive,” to “case-by-case,” to now seemingly moving back towards more exclusivity has left consumers with no clear idea what Xbox actually wants to be. Whether someone supports exclusives or not, constantly changing direction is one of the quickest ways to erode trust in a brand.
I think that’s a fair clarification. If you’re talking specifically about first-party software sales rather than the overall success of the Xbox 360, then I can understand where you’re coming from.
That said, I think there’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem here. Xbox’s first-party catalogue during the 360 era wasn’t particularly large compared to today. Halo, Gears and Forza did most of the heavy lifting, with a handful of smaller exclusives around them. Compare that to today where Microsoft owns Activision Blizzard King, ZeniMax and over 30 studios. They’re operating on a completely different scale now.
I also don’t think it’s entirely fair to judge the traditional model purely on software sales. The strategy wasn’t just about selling games, it was about selling consoles, building an ecosystem and growing Xbox Live. By those metrics, the 360 era was clearly Microsoft’s strongest generation.
Where I completely agree is that Xbox has lacked consistency. Everwild dragging on for years, Perfect Dark being rebooted, Tango not getting The Evil Within 3, Obsidian not touching Fallout sooner… those are all valid criticisms of management. I don’t think Xbox’s biggest issue has been a lack of talent or creativity, it’s been execution and prioritisation.
And that’s probably where I differ from you. I don’t think Game Pass was necessarily proof the traditional model never worked. I think it was Microsoft recognising they weren’t going to beat PlayStation by playing exactly the same game, so they tried to differentiate with subscriptions, cloud gaming and PC. Whether that strategy ultimately succeeded is another debate, but I see it more as an attempt to change the rules than an admission the old model was fundamentally broken.
I believe Xbox can turn things around, but there are a lot of “ifs.”
Is Microsoft’s board willing to sell the next Xbox at a significant loss to rebuild market share? Can Asha convince the board to lean back into exclusives? If Microsoft continues with gaming M&A, what does that actually look like? Do they focus on mobile with companies like Netmarble, Playrix, DeNA or Playtika? Do they target more traditional console publishers like SEGA, Square Enix, Ubisoft, Capcom or Konami? Do they go after another major acquisition like Take-Two? Or do they look at platform-focused companies like Valve or Discord?
Then there are the product questions. Is The Elder Scrolls VI ready for next-gen launch? Would Microsoft allow Xbox to effectively subsidise itself for a few years through revenue from Call of Duty, Minecraft, King and the wider mobile business while rebuilding the console side?
There are just a lot of variables, which is why I describe myself as cautiously optimistic rather than convinced. I haven’t even returned to Xbox yet because I’m still waiting to see if Microsoft actually commits to a long-term strategy instead of pivoting again.
One thing I did want to ask though—you keep referring to Xbox as the “5th platform.” What’s your ranking? I assume you’re counting something like mobile, PC, Nintendo, PlayStation and then Xbox, but I just wanted to check what your top five actually are because I’m not entirely sure what you’re comparing it against.
I don’t know if I’ll respond to future messages straight away—I probably will eventually, but I want to focus on my M&A write-up for now.
So far I’ve only finished the introduction and the Bandai Namco section, and I’ve still got another 39 companies to cover, plus the conclusion, so it’s going to take a while.
I also need to find some decent acquisition banners/artwork for it because most of the ones I’ve found online are either outdated or don’t really fit what I’m trying to do. I’m going to have a look through these forums first and see if anyone has already made some. Might get lucky.
Not going to respond to everything you posted so I’ll just respond to one main aspect. Don Mattrick vs Phil Spencer.
Regardless of any corporate higher ups approving this or that or whatever the case may be, it comes down to one simple aspect - GAMES.
I switched from Xbox 360 to PlayStation 4 because of all the stuff Microsoft wanted to implement and I wasn’t having any of it but I also switched because I knew Sony had more studios and more games coming.
I ended up with 20 played and completed Sony published games for the PlayStation 4 generation where as with Xbox One, I had 7 played and complete games including Halo 5: Guardians which I didn’t play until August 2024 but since it’s an Xbox One game, I still include it. So through 7 years for both, Sony gave me three times as many games as Microsoft did.
With the current generation, I switched from PlayStation 4 to Xbox Series X because of Microsoft including their games day one on Game Pass (saves me money as I don’t have to buy them) as well as the fact that Spencer accomplished what I was hoping which was giving me more games and more studios.
That’s what I wanted and asked for during the Xbox One generation. Phil simply gave me what I wanted and Mattrick didn’t.
My personal opinion aside, Mattrick wasn’t there long before he left and it was on a horrible note so that’s what im always going to remember where as with Phil, he tried his best to fix the damage that was done but you can only do so much before you realize that you’re fighting a losing battle.
Phil seemed to at least to me that he cared and was consumer friendly and tried to do right by the studios and consumers/fans as best he could. He didn’t come across as a greedy, money hungry corporate suit like nearly all of them at every company do.
Having an extremely weak launch, the Halo Infinite one year delay (in hindsight, it should have been a two year delay) and only giving me two games between launch through 2022 was horrible but I have to be fair - since E3 2018 when all the acquisitions started, I looked at all of them as being at least 5 years away from giving me a game and even then, the game wasn’t guaranteed to be of any interest for me.
I know people will say that Phil and Microsoft shouldn’t have put all their eggs into the Halo Infinite basket and I agree 100% but at the same time, when you go through every studio in 2020, not a single one of them was ever going to have anything ready for launch so as bad and disappointing as it was, it was unavoidable because none of the studios were close to being ready.
Also, this was before they announced that they were acquiring Bethesda. They could have had Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo in Fall 2021 and Spring 2022 respectively but Sony paid for them to be one year timed exclusives and I understand why Microsoft didn’t fight that. Could have dragged on legally and when you look at those two games, not worth spending the money it would cost to fight for them. I would have done the same in all honesty and just ride it out which is what they did.
I’m also someone that looks at it all in a long term perspective and I knew games were coming so while I was disappointed, it was only two years into the generation so I wasn’t going to go nuts about it because they still would have 5+ years to make up for it and at least for me personally, they easily did by far.
So while I don’t hate or even dislike Mattrick due to him simply not being around long enough, the issue was that the one thing he’ll always be remembered for will be the Xbox One reveal which in all honesty was a freaking disaster.
The place/spot where Xbox is in simply started with that reveal and 13+ years later, nothing has really changed. It’s still the same shit.
On a related note, I watch OhNoIt’sAlex on YouTube and the shit he shows from all of these PlayStation youtubers and gaming media, im sorry but it doesn’t matter who’s in Phil’s spot, they have no fucking chance at changing people’s minds let alone winning. They just don’t. The gaming media and industry is simply too heavily favored to Sony and Nintendo to where it doesn’t matter what Microsoft does or doesn’t do.
Xbox in my opinion is BY FAR the best console gaming platform of the three. I don’t even see it as being remotely close because of all positives, perks and bonuses that you get from being in the Xbox eco-system but if you’re not someone who’s already in or knows about it, you would never know because the gaming industry and gaming media don’t play on Xbox so they don’t know shit about Xbox and because of that, Microsoft will sadly always be behind regardless of what they do.
Mobile
PC
PlayStation
Nintendo
Xbox
You could probably swap 3 and 4 depending on which you like/favor more. I just don’t see the Xbox platform ever moving up in the rankings I posted above but at the same time, they don’t need to.
They’ve been massively successful and massively profitable regardless of what anyone wants to believe or regardless of what Microsoft’s corporate suits say. They can be 5th and still do great and be amazing for consumers and gamers. It simply comes down to if they want to stay consumer and gamer friendly or if they want to become like Sony and Nintendo which for them as a company and for the Xbox brand, will only do more harm than good because they’re not heavily favored like Sony and Nintendo are and have been for decades.
As for you believing that Xbox can become better than 5th, there’s a LOT of what if’s you posted. I do believe that if they stay consumer friendly and focus on monetary value, I think they can do extremely well like they’ve done for the most part but that also includes taking a massive monetary loss on Helix which I don’t see them doing at all. I’ll be shocked and admit that I was wrong if they do.
At this point, all I truly care about is GAMES. Microsoft has given me games this generation to where they will surpass what Sony gave me with PlayStation 4 and outnumber what they themselves gave me with Xbox One by a ratio of 3 to 1. As long as Microsoft continues to give me games that I want to play and complete, in all honesty, im highly unlikely to go anywhere else because at 47, im just over with it all.
I don’t have the energy for this shit anymore. I like the platform, I like the console, I like everything that it offers and im getting games. So unless Helix changes all of this, im going nowhere. In fact, I will be buying a second Xbox Series X 2TB Galaxy Black Edition next week just in case the one I have craps out on me or anything. Basically, it’s a precaution and since it’s being discontinued August 1st, I don’t want to take the chance of having to spend more money and getting an older model with less storage space.
Another update: I have began the formal write up process, it is progressing a little slower than I had hoped but I would rather take my time rather than rush it. I will update this post just like how I updated the quoted post over time so you guys can see the progress with the formal write up
Introduction-Complete
Bandai Namco-Complete
Capcom- Completed
CD Projekt- Completed
Coffee Stain Group AB- Completed
Com2uS Holdings-Complete
Cygames-Complete
DeNa-In Progress
Discord-Not Started
Electronic Arts-Not Started
Embracer Group (post Fellowship spin off)-Not Started
Epic Games-Not Started
Fellowship Entertainment (the Embracer spin off)-Not Started
There’s some discussion that EA could unload some studios and IPs, I think the original source was noted to be an analyst speculating rather than an actual source, but it seems a reasonable prospect with the new acquisition.
Question is - would Xbox buy any? Xbox of 10 years ago surely would have, but I’m not sure if Xbox of today would. They have expressed an interest in further acquisitions, but maybe not in buying risky individual studios anymore, and I don’t know if the likes of Bioware would suddenly perform any better under Xbox than under EA.
That said, it’s an interesting prospect - maybe Mass Effect/Dragon Age is a big enough IP to fit into their new IP focus. As for other IP/Studios - maybe Motive with Dead Space? It fills a gap Xbox is missing, but given the remake didn’t seem to perform well enough to justify an immediete sequel, well, I don’t know if Xbox would bite.
It would be pretty funny if Asha somehow turned out to be even worse and continued the trend. I still think Microsoft should’ve seriously considered someone with Bobby Kotick’s business track record, controversy aside.
It doesn’t magically stop counting as investment because around 70% of it was spent on ABK or because Call of Duty remained multiplatform.