144

Archive link: https://archive.ph/NF2r0

At some point, getting Nintendo would be a career moment and I honestly believe a good move for both companies. It's just taking a long time for Nintendo to see that their future exists off of their own hardware. A long time.... :-)

Email chain between Phil Spencer, Chris Capossela, and Takeshi Numoto discussing the potentially hostile purchase of Nintendo, ZeniMax, WB Games, and TikTok

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Adramis@beehaw.org 90 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The ActiBlizz merger needs to be shot down and Microsoft Games needs to be forced to split off from Microsoft. This tactic of "Make all the money in one sector, then use that unlimited money to invade another sector, force small businesses out by operating at a loss, and then enshittifying the entire sector to a state worse than it was originally" has to stop - across all sectors.

If you can't survive in your own sector on your own merits without money from Daddy Corpo, you deserve to die.

I also hate that Spencer talks like "sitting on a big pile of cash" instead of gambling it on the market is fucking stupid. Classic "NOW NOW NOW" American capitalism.

[-] phillaholic@lemm.ee 25 points 1 year ago

I get called a Sony fanboy for calling out Microsoft for being terrible for gaming. I haven’t owned a Nintendo device since N64, but I have nothing bad to say about them. They make great games.

[-] dawnerd@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago

It’s weird calling for one mega corp to be split up while supporting another mega corp that owns more than the first. Everyone needs a reality check if they think any mega corp doesn’t want the same thing.

[-] phillaholic@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

In the context of gaming, Sony and Microsoft couldn’t be more different. I can get over Sony’s terrible store backend or refund policies. I know how they work, how to avoid pitfalls, etc. at the end of the day, they make the better games that I like to play and have shown over the course of thirty years to support gaming first.

[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 15 points 1 year ago

No no... it's the part that Sony owns a headphone company, and a TV company, and their first product was a rice cooker.

The point was that they enter a space using funds from one of their other arms to strongarm away competition and become a conglomerate that owns and operates a huge percentage of people's lives and product purchases leaving almost no breathing room for other companies to ever enter.

It's not about refund policy or their games it's about the subsidized products they can only afford by min/maxing other economic spaces they control

[-] phillaholic@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

Nintendo was founded in the 1800s as a playing card company. To some extend every manufacturer started with something else. You're misrepresenting my point. Sony entered the market and competed based on actual merit. They have grown their own in-house talent, in-house IPs, and technology just like Nintendo. Microsoft almost threw in the towel in 2013. There recent moves scream Embrace, Extend, Extinguish where they don't have to worry about pesky things like making good games, but can force gamers to pay them monthly for whatever they feel like putting out, or just let third parties do the work and use their power to force them into whatever pricing Microsoft wants. People thinking GamePass is great should brush up on their history of what Microsoft does when they get the upper hand. I say this as a someone who uses a ton of Microsoft Products outside of gaming.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] ampersandrew@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago

I also hate that Spencer talks like “sitting on a big pile of cash” instead of gambling it on the market is fucking stupid.

If you're sitting on cash, you're guaranteed to lose money to inflation. If you invest it wisely, you have a good chance of beating inflation. Even in personal finance, it's very stupid to sit on a big pile of cash; everything above and beyond an emergency fund or savings for a short-term goal should be invested.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] UrLogicFails@beehaw.org 89 points 1 year ago

It seems like it there might be a number of updates about the FTC leak, but the notable highlights of this email from me are the plotted purchases of Nintendo and WB Games.

The way they discuss the purchase of Nintendo as if it is an inevitability and how they may need to purchase it in a hostile manner really cements to me that they are utilizing Microsoft's immense capital to obtain a gaming monopoly.

I know it is an unpopular position because of how beloved a Gamepass is, but this really solidifies how shady Xbox/ Microsoft is; and I really hope the acquisition of ActiBlizz is blocked.

[-] raccoona_nongrata@beehaw.org 59 points 1 year ago

I really don't get why people can't see Gamepass for the scam it is. Like, people need to understand that as soon as "games as a service" is normalized and the options to actually own a game indefinitely have been displaced, the price of things like Gamepass will start to rise. Microsoft would not offer gamepass if they didn't see the potential to squeeze more money out of people eventually.

It is inevitable, and it's always the same slow frog boil strategy.

[-] ampersandrew@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't see that happening for Game Pass, but do you know which company has already displaced ownership for their subscription service? Nintendo.

[-] Adramis@beehaw.org 28 points 1 year ago

Why wouldn't it happen for Game Pass? It's happened for every new service. Start them with a great deal to undermine all competition because you can eat the cost and they can't. When the competition dies, slowly start enshittifying it, until it's as bad or worse than the original. Arguably Microsoft is already starting that process by killing off the $1 demo.

Microsoft isn't going to pass up free money, and if anything this email conversation confirms that they're drooling, waiting for the "fuck them over the barrel" stage.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] IvyRaven@midwest.social 75 points 1 year ago

Micrsoft's gaming head honchos were talking about making a monopoly. And it's clearly the goal. They don't care about gamers or games just hurting Sony (they said their main goal was to kill Playstation). The ActiBlizz acquire showed them they can buy anyone. Monopolies of any kind are bad, and this would be horrible.

[-] rwhitisissle@beehaw.org 34 points 1 year ago

They don’t care about gamers or games

There is no such thing as a company that cares about the product they make or the people who buy their product. The purpose of every company is solely to make money. The product itself is, to some degree, arbitrary. The only reason Microsoft even makes video games is because it's adjacent, and in some ways a natural extension of, their original business.

[-] Kichae@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago

This is especially true of publicly traded companies.

A publicly traded company's customers are it's investors, and it's product is shareholder value. Everything else they do is just the manufacturing process.

[-] TwilightVulpine@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nintendo does care about making good games, or it wouldn't make all the weird moves that it does, and it wouldn't consistently output quality titles like it does. We are just so used to dispassionate money leeches controlling everything that the idea that anyone in charge cares about anything but money seems hard to believe.

Which is all the more reason why Microsoft can't be allowed to acquire it.

[-] sim_@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago

This is too broad of a brushstroke. Is there any megacorporation that cares about its customers? Doubt it. But are plenty of small studios that clearly value the quality of their product.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Chimaeratorian@beehaw.org 74 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I know these Chucklehead Executive Officers only exist to enrich the companies they run and by extension, themselves, but they all seem to fail to understand that running a company is not just merge and acquire. Of course that is what capitalism wants, but there is room for there to be more than five Big Names in Gaming, and a MSFT-owned Nintendo would not be what it is today. You don't become an innovator by buying the innovative companies.

Yes, Nintendo's hardware has gradually fallen "behind the times" (if you look at raw power, generationally) but guess what? A majority of people are still willing to play Mario, Zelda, and many more quality first-party titles on potatoes as long as the games are fun.

Nintendo has taken risks and made some weird crap over the years, but that is exactly what makes them different from the other two. I don't think we would have had Nintendo Switch today without the wild consumer success of the Wii and then the massive pendulum swing of the WiiU (which was tethered to the home just like that new PS5 Portal display controller). They came to market with an R&D Wii 1.5 prototype that flopped, but that sent them right back to the drawing board to rethink it, creating the Switch, which effectively merged their console and handheld divisions.

I am not a betting person, but if I was, I would be placing my chips on the card company-turned beloved video game creator that turns 134 this week, and not the American conglomerate that thinks the entire future of gaming is subscriptions and microtransactions on the third place console.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] storksforlegs@beehaw.org 66 points 1 year ago

"absorbing and destroying a unique company would be a real feather in the old cap"

[-] whofearsthenight@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago

I don't have a lot of specific love for any company, but Nintendo getting acquired by literally anyone would be a sad day.

[-] butterypowered@feddit.uk 47 points 1 year ago

Microsoft were monopoly seeking/abusing pricks in the 80s/90s/00s but I had just about started to accept that maybe they had changed. Accepting open source and open standards, and competing on their merits in the gaming world.

I was wrong. They’re not as powerful as they were 20 years ago but, having seen this email, their tactics seem unchanged.

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 30 points 1 year ago

Very telling that he wanted to do it because it seemed like a good career move personally first, as opposed to something that would somehow be a good match.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Hdcase@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago

Embrace, extend, extinguish. That's MS's strategy, by their own words.

[-] Kajo@beehaw.org 44 points 1 year ago

Getting Nintendo would be a career moment for me

Who cares about your career? How could it be a justification for anything?

[-] lowleveldata@programming.dev 25 points 1 year ago

It's a justification for him personally? Tbh I wouldn't say such a cringe thing even in internal emails

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BigTrout75@beehaw.org 36 points 1 year ago

And gone would be the innovation like Wii,3DS and Switch.

[-] Callie@pawb.social 36 points 1 year ago

As much as I like Microsoft, I don’t want them to touch Nintendo. I have no faith that they would continue doing what Nintendo does well.

[-] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 25 points 1 year ago

An Xbox branded portable with a soc taken from an Android tablet released 8 years ago would tank badly

Nintendo is successful because of their games, not because their hardware is the best

[-] 520@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

That and some of their hardware concepts. When they work, they really work.

[-] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

If that hardware was the first handheld gaming device capable of playing some small selection of 3D current gen games? It absolutely would have been successful.

Being Nintendo didn't make the Wii U successful, because it was the worst piece of shit anyone's ever made. The switch was successful because it was a good handheld.

Nah, the Wii U wasn't a bad system at all. It failed for lack of advertising and game support. There was nothing to play and people didn't understand it wasn't just a Wii accessory. The name certainly didn't help either.

[-] butterypowered@feddit.uk 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I agree. The Wii U was great fun. The second screen was great for off-TV play and for local multiplayer.

Not only was it terribly marketed, but Nintendo had trouble getting the 3DS to sell and put all their energy into saving that. This left the Wii U with a lack of games at launch.

Combine that with EA dropping Nintendo because they refused to adopt Origin as their online platform, and it was doomed from the start, whether the hardware was good or not.

Edit: and the gamepad was more comfortable to hold than the Switch, ironically.

[-] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 8 points 1 year ago

I mean that the nvidia shield tablet, which was released 3 years earlier, had almost exactly the same cpu/gpu of the nintendo switch for $100 cheaper, but it was a flop.

the secret it's in making a console that It's not able to run real current gen games (even in 2017), but it's able to run highly optimized games that look like current gen (especially 1st party games where they don't aim for visual realism)

i think for pure raw power the wiiu had a stronger cpu than the switch, but then the software didn't take advantage of

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] GunnarRunnar@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

Microsoft is a good underdog because they have infinite money. And a really bad market leader, I bet worse than Sony. It would've been way better for the industry to not let them acquire the big boys they have.

[-] espiritu_p@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago

Microsoft is not only a bad market leader.
It is a bad loser too. Remember the Nokia purchase? They sunk billions into the company too boost their worse mobile OS, and when it failed they shut down the whole company.
Imagine they would to something similar to Nintendo.

[-] ryannathans@lemmy.fmhy.net 31 points 1 year ago

No good could come of this

[-] bookmeat@lemm.ee 29 points 1 year ago

It's pretty awful that people like Phil define themselves by the ruin they can inflict on society.

[-] OfficialThunderbolt@beehaw.org 22 points 1 year ago

How would they plan to do that? Foreign investment in Japanese companies is heavily regulated, much more than it is regulated in the Americas or Europe.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 15 points 1 year ago

This is both interesting and terrifying at the same time. I'm not much of a Nintendo fan these days, but I don't think Microsoft would really help things if they acquired them. But I also doubt Nintendo would sell... Can they be taken over hostilely (acquire them through buying a controlling number of shares)? I am not sure how that shit works if the companies are in totally different countries, even if both are publicly traded.

[-] Jimbo@yiffit.net 13 points 1 year ago

Sounds awful

[-] technologicalcaveman@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

I hate all these bastards. That's why I only use gentoo and play games I find in thrift stores and google drive folders.

[-] ampersandrew@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

Boy would I love to see Nintendo's future in the hands of anyone except Nintendo. That's the only way their future will be off their own hardware, and probably the only way they become less of a barrier to game preservation. For those of you afraid of Microsoft absorbing Nintendo and becoming a monopoly, check the date on that e-mail and rest assured they can't get away with it anymore anyway.

[-] Tearcell@mastodon.gamedev.place 23 points 1 year ago

@ampersandrew @UrLogicFails for better or worse Nintendo does things their own way. You can bet you'd see yearly mario kart releases if that IP belonged to anyone else, and I don't think that would be for the better.

[-] ampersandrew@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

Is that the worst thing you can think of? Because that sounds like more than an acceptable trade if it meant that I could legally buy a ROM of Super Metroid I could play on my Steam Deck, or if I could legally play Tears of the Kingdom on a machine that can run it at 60 FPS, or if the first F-Zero game made in 20 years wasn't a live service battle royale with an expiration date baked into the game.

[-] Tearcell@mastodon.gamedev.place 12 points 1 year ago

@ampersandrew @UrLogicFails worst thing I could think of would be yearly bland releases barely worth playing and gutting the innovation they bring.

It's not like every release is brilliant or great (looking at you pokemon violet/scarlet), but look at what happened to Blizzard pre and post acquisition.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (36 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
144 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

30530 readers
72 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS