The leaks revealed plans for a revised Xbox Series X.
Honestly if you read the actual email I think there could be significant legal trouble ahead.
Spencer talks about how the main barrier to acquiring Nintendo is that they sit on a mountain of cash. He calls that unfortunate. He then proceeded to state a company with connections to Microsoft had just bought a lot of Nintendo shares, and how they could work with said company to make such an acquisition a reality.
The company in question publicly bought a massive amount of Nintendo shares. They then proceeded to pressure Nintendo to invest more capital instead of sitting on the cash pile they have now. They did this under claims that such a move would be beneficial to Nintendo in terms of ROI. However, it would also result in Nintendo being more vulnerable to an acquisition from Microsoft if any of those bets don’t pay off.
In short, it could be argued that Microsoft worked with investors to tank Nintendo so they could buy it. That’s a huge deal and will probably result in a shitstorm.
I’m sure that Microsoft will get the $10M fine they deserve.
Paid for by mass layoffs and rewarded with an exec bonus.
In short, it could be argued that Microsoft worked with investors to tank Nintendo so they could buy it. That’s a huge deal and will probably result in a shitstorm.
I mean, Nintendo selling shares of their company is a specific decision they have made. Do you think they are confused that people other than Nintendo employees are buying these shares? Or that the investors would have an agenda other than just being “Nintendo fans”?
Investors generally want to get a positive ROI. They don’t want to tank the company to the point where it can be acquired by another company for pennies on the dollar.
Look at Nokia. When they hired a former Microsoft exec, they weren’t expecting him to tank the entire company so it could be acquired by Microsoft.
The term “activist investor” exists for a reason. And nothing from that email suggests that MS was looking to “tank” Nintendo in some nefarious plot.
and even discussions about acquiring Nintendo.
Ew wtf? We’re truly headed towards a future where Microsoft just owns everything huh?
To quote Picard, “The line must be drawn here! This far! No further!”
So I don’t remember where but I’d heard about Microsoft wanting to buy Nintendo long time ago. The suits are always spitballing.
They made an offer like 20 years ago and got laughed out of the room.
- June 11, 2018 Ninja Theory
- June 11, 2018 Undead Labs
- June 11, 2018 Compulsion Games
- June 11, 2018 Playground Games
- November 10, 2018 inXile Entertainment
- November 10, 2018 Obsidian Entertainment
- June 9, 2019 Double Fine Productions
- September 21, 2020 ZeniMax Media
- January 18, 2022 Activision Blizzard
- April 5, 2023 Nemesys Games
“headed”. if it wasn’t for them being scared about the activision blizzard deal not being hand waved through like it was, there wouldn’t have been the 2020-2022 pause too. that’ll get right back on track now. Microsoft does deals for acquisitions in feb targetting june for completion normally so about then.
Imagine having specific months every year where you prepare to break and then break (if not the letter then definitely the spirit of) antitrust laws and most people either don’t know or pretend that there’s nothing wrong with it 🤬
June lines up with the end of fiscal quarter 2, so it kind of makes sense.
Yeah, it isn’t the logic of the timing I take issue with lol. Thanks for the reminder though 🙂
So they’re sorry people didn’t like the idea? Is that the message?
And “please ignore the content of the documents and instead, hey look Starfield is great right!?”
And funnily enough Starfield being Xbox/PC exclusive is an example why their hoarding is bad for gaming, and why the Activision deal shouldn’t pass.
deleted by creator
Why do people behave as if Starfield was the first game not released on PlayStation?
Who is doing that? It’s just blatantly obvious that it would’ve been released on PlayStation without Microsoft meddling and their games sell a shitload, I mean Skyrim has been chugging along over a decade now. So I’m not really sure how Starfield is irrelevant to Ms buying shit conversation.
It’s not what being an exclusive means (let not get into linguistics here, I mean strictly the gaming industry term). I agree this specific case was anticompetitive but framing it as an exclusive just weakens this point in my opinion and allows to shift the debate away from it.
Away from what? Everyone knows what it means – or maybe I don’t, please enlighten me in that case.
deleted by creator
It’s more like a default platform seeing as even former PlayStation exclusives are slowly getting a PC release as well. And I did call Starfield Xbox/PC exclusive, not just Xbox.
It’s probably not the word to describe what’s getting released where and stems from marketing but it’s commonly used in gaming so most understand its meaning.
PC is another of MS’s platforms with Windows. No shit they’re ok with their games being released on it when consumers are paying over a $100 for a Windows license every few years.
How about they buy sega instead
I want more sonic mania games and apparently sega won’t make them.
Given the Dreamcast and Xbox are practically cousins, I’ve always been surprised they didn’t buy em earlier
I’m sure they could have a partnership with them without having to purchase them. They could just fund some games for console exclusivity or something similar.
Yeah, look at how almost every game in the Yakuza become permanent residents on Game pass. One of the next game will even be on GP on day 1. They must be in a very good relationship
