He says all of that, that’s the entire point of the line of questioning, and exactly why they have argued the merger should go through.
Tom Warren: Game Pass is not profitable yet
- Thread starter Gizmo_Duck
- Start date
When purchasing a house or any expesive purchase it's not a full price payment upfront. Most people and companies can't and don't do that. Infact some won't even let you purchase massive assets with upfront payments.
So that question that was asked to him was answered correctly, and explained in more detail than he needed to.
Y'all just reaching
The money they investing into ABK is justified to them and they feel like in the long run it'll be more valuable to them than not.
you posted this shyt in at least 3 different threadsstill not profitable
#shambles
He’s saying the acquisition doesn’t acquire a payment, which is totally does. We call initial deposits on homes down PAYMENTS.
Meach I got an Xbox Series X too. It’s okay to acknowledge when a statement is misleading..or dumb
Everyone sitting in the courtroom reported it for what it was. You are the one trying to make some different thing out of it.
In the context of the conversation, they were talking about money being spent for exclusive deals and content.
Phil was talking about how much more it costs xbox to acquire content compared to playstation.
The lawyer tried to “gotcha” phil by saying “y’all have no problem spending $70” on activation. Which prompted the quote from phil talking about the difference in spending money on content and purchasing an asset.
That’s all there was, i’m not even sure what you are getting at talking about “misleading pr” or whatever. He was defending from the lawyer trying to twist his words and reach for contradictions.
The lawyer ended up getting the worst of that exchange cause he made it look like he doesn’t understand the industry.
Last edited:
lemme get this right. Obtaining an asset by producing equivalent valuation to trade for that asset... is not... a... payment?
So if I want an apple, and to acquire the apple, I must hand over a dollar... this is not a payment if I expect the apple to maintain or increase it's valuation? So if I buy an apple from Safeway it's a purchase, but if I buy an apple from Safeway and it is the last apple ever in history, I've instead made an acquisition... despite still giving the store that same dollar.
...
This man has tried to fold his way around that simple question to the point that, I think... I think maybe he just argued against a defining principle of capitalism; exchange of goods and services?
It's ok to just say 'we want to purchase ABK so we can shave off a percentage of all their sales; which we believe in aggregate will come out as profitable to our bottom line after this initial 70billion initial cash infusion'. Mans coulda even said 'this is an investment; like a home purchase would be'. But to try and argue around the simplistic definition of what it means to buy something is intentionally obtuse and really just corporate obfuscation of the fact that they really want to buy something that people think they shouldn't be buying.
You got 70 billion to burn on acquisitions but ain't got no games, a console most people don't want to develop for due to it's technical limitations that you've handcuffed onto your flagship - which might actually move units if it's idiot little brother wasn't holding back the generation - and are in self-admitted last place against two companies without a third of your resources even with their powers combined like Captain Planet.
Imagine playing Late Stage Capitalism with Microsoft's resources and STILL being so far in last place that you literally have to start using your businessdaddy's money as WMDs to blow up the game field because there's no other way to cover the ground you've lost besides blowing up the ground.
Meanwhile, all they'd need to do is start packaging Game Pass for PC as an autodownload on every Windows machine, include one month free on new computer sales and stop worrying about consoles entirely and they would, literally, make Microsoft the world-leader in gaming machines in a walk. Literally. That's it. It'd cost them functionally nothing. Definitely not 70 billion fukking dollars.
Hustling backwards
So if I want an apple, and to acquire the apple, I must hand over a dollar... this is not a payment if I expect the apple to maintain or increase it's valuation? So if I buy an apple from Safeway it's a purchase, but if I buy an apple from Safeway and it is the last apple ever in history, I've instead made an acquisition... despite still giving the store that same dollar.
...
This man has tried to fold his way around that simple question to the point that, I think... I think maybe he just argued against a defining principle of capitalism; exchange of goods and services?
It's ok to just say 'we want to purchase ABK so we can shave off a percentage of all their sales; which we believe in aggregate will come out as profitable to our bottom line after this initial 70billion initial cash infusion'. Mans coulda even said 'this is an investment; like a home purchase would be'. But to try and argue around the simplistic definition of what it means to buy something is intentionally obtuse and really just corporate obfuscation of the fact that they really want to buy something that people think they shouldn't be buying.
You got 70 billion to burn on acquisitions but ain't got no games, a console most people don't want to develop for due to it's technical limitations that you've handcuffed onto your flagship - which might actually move units if it's idiot little brother wasn't holding back the generation - and are in self-admitted last place against two companies without a third of your resources even with their powers combined like Captain Planet.
Imagine playing Late Stage Capitalism with Microsoft's resources and STILL being so far in last place that you literally have to start using your businessdaddy's money as WMDs to blow up the game field because there's no other way to cover the ground you've lost besides blowing up the ground.
Meanwhile, all they'd need to do is start packaging Game Pass for PC as an autodownload on every Windows machine, include one month free on new computer sales and stop worrying about consoles entirely and they would, literally, make Microsoft the world-leader in gaming machines in a walk. Literally. That's it. It'd cost them functionally nothing. Definitely not 70 billion fukking dollars.
Hustling backwards
Don’t understand pretty much anything you are talking about brehslemme get this right. Obtaining an asset by producing equivalent valuation to trade for that asset... is not... a... payment?
So if I want an apple, and to acquire the apple, I must hand over a dollar... this is not a payment if I expect the apple to maintain or increase it's valuation? So if I buy an apple from Safeway it's a purchase, but if I buy an apple from Safeway and it is the last apple ever in history, I've instead made an acquisition... despite still giving the store that same dollar.
...
This man has tried to fold his way around that simple question to the point that, I think... I think maybe he just argued against a defining principle of capitalism; exchange of goods and services?
It's ok to just say 'we want to purchase ABK so we can shave off a percentage of all their sales; which we believe in aggregate will come out as profitable to our bottom line after this initial 70billion initial cash infusion'. Mans coulda even said 'this is an investment; like a home purchase would be'. But to try and argue around the simplistic definition of what it means to buy something is intentionally obtuse and really just corporate obfuscation of the fact that they really want to buy something that people think they shouldn't be buying.
You got 70 billion to burn on acquisitions but ain't got no games, a console most people don't want to develop for due to it's technical limitations that you've handcuffed onto your flagship - which might actually move units if it's idiot little brother wasn't holding back the generation - and are in self-admitted last place against two companies without a third of your resources even with their powers combined like Captain Planet.
Imagine playing Late Stage Capitalism with Microsoft's resources and STILL being so far in last place that you literally have to start using your businessdaddy's money as WMDs to blow up the game field because there's no other way to cover the ground you've lost besides blowing up the ground.
Meanwhile, all they'd need to do is start packaging Game Pass for PC as an autodownload on every Windows machine, include one month free on new computer sales and stop worrying about consoles entirely and they would, literally, make Microsoft the world-leader in gaming machines in a walk. Literally. That's it. It'd cost them functionally nothing. Definitely not 70 billion fukking dollars.
Hustling backwards
Animal House
Superstar
Great post but seems like people have their minds made up already and turned a blind eye to corporate fukkerylemme get this right. Obtaining an asset by producing equivalent valuation to trade for that asset... is not... a... payment?
So if I want an apple, and to acquire the apple, I must hand over a dollar... this is not a payment if I expect the apple to maintain or increase it's valuation? So if I buy an apple from Safeway it's a purchase, but if I buy an apple from Safeway and it is the last apple ever in history, I've instead made an acquisition... despite still giving the store that same dollar.
...
This man has tried to fold his way around that simple question to the point that, I think... I think maybe he just argued against a defining principle of capitalism; exchange of goods and services?
It's ok to just say 'we want to purchase ABK so we can shave off a percentage of all their sales; which we believe in aggregate will come out as profitable to our bottom line after this initial 70billion initial cash infusion'. Mans coulda even said 'this is an investment; like a home purchase would be'. But to try and argue around the simplistic definition of what it means to buy something is intentionally obtuse and really just corporate obfuscation of the fact that they really want to buy something that people think they shouldn't be buying.
You got 70 billion to burn on acquisitions but ain't got no games, a console most people don't want to develop for due to it's technical limitations that you've handcuffed onto your flagship - which might actually move units if it's idiot little brother wasn't holding back the generation - and are in self-admitted last place against two companies without a third of your resources even with their powers combined like Captain Planet.
Imagine playing Late Stage Capitalism with Microsoft's resources and STILL being so far in last place that you literally have to start using your businessdaddy's money as WMDs to blow up the game field because there's no other way to cover the ground you've lost besides blowing up the ground.
Meanwhile, all they'd need to do is start packaging Game Pass for PC as an autodownload on every Windows machine, include one month free on new computer sales and stop worrying about consoles entirely and they would, literally, make Microsoft the world-leader in gaming machines in a walk. Literally. That's it. It'd cost them functionally nothing. Definitely not 70 billion fukking dollars.
Hustling backwards
It’s crazy you typed all of that only to miss the entire point of the exchange.
We don't know how MS is paying for ABK, more than likely it's not a upfront 70 billion dollar check that ABK can cash.lemme get this right. Obtaining an asset by producing equivalent valuation to trade for that asset... is not... a... payment?
So if I want an apple, and to acquire the apple, I must hand over a dollar... this is not a payment if I expect the apple to maintain or increase it's valuation? So if I buy an apple from Safeway it's a purchase, but if I buy an apple from Safeway and it is the last apple ever in history, I've instead made an acquisition... despite still giving the store that same dollar.
...
This man has tried to fold his way around that simple question to the point that, I think... I think maybe he just argued against a defining principle of capitalism; exchange of goods and services?
It's ok to just say 'we want to purchase ABK so we can shave off a percentage of all their sales; which we believe in aggregate will come out as profitable to our bottom line after this initial 70billion initial cash infusion'. Mans coulda even said 'this is an investment; like a home purchase would be'. But to try and argue around the simplistic definition of what it means to buy something is intentionally obtuse and really just corporate obfuscation of the fact that they really want to buy something that people think they shouldn't be buying.
You got 70 billion to burn on acquisitions but ain't got no games, a console most people don't want to develop for due to it's technical limitations that you've handcuffed onto your flagship - which might actually move units if it's idiot little brother wasn't holding back the generation - and are in self-admitted last place against two companies without a third of your resources even with their powers combined like Captain Planet.
Imagine playing Late Stage Capitalism with Microsoft's resources and STILL being so far in last place that you literally have to start using your businessdaddy's money as WMDs to blow up the game field because there's no other way to cover the ground you've lost besides blowing up the ground.
Meanwhile, all they'd need to do is start packaging Game Pass for PC as an autodownload on every Windows machine, include one month free on new computer sales and stop worrying about consoles entirely and they would, literally, make Microsoft the world-leader in gaming machines in a walk. Literally. That's it. It'd cost them functionally nothing. Definitely not 70 billion fukking dollars.
Hustling backwards
Shares, incentives, investments and more are what probably make up most of this deal.
MS going from having over 100 billion on hand cash to 30 plus wouldn't sit well many folks.
So no it's not a upfront payment of 70 billion like he said they are probably transferring and investing all kind of assets and incentives WORTH 70 billion which includes cash and there network will still be around the same if not more than it is now.
Everything else you talking about is opinion and nonsense
You think playstation got to where they got with "playstation" money
No Sonys money and tech allowed them to purchase there 1st major publisher and the rest is history.Well you're not the sharpest knife in the draw so that's to be expected.Don’t understand pretty much anything you are talking about brehs
Diondon
Thanks to the lawyers uh, I marbled the foyer
Look what this industry has devolved into 
Fanservice
Bih call me senpai
“Corporate Fukkery” sounds like it could be a GOAT-tier porn flick
