Netflix Comments on Microsoft's Acquisition of Activision Blizzard - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 03 March 2022 / 2,435 Views
Netflix COO and chief product officer Greg Peters in a recent earnings call with investors has commented on Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard.
"I think to some degree, it's an endorsement of the core thesis that we have around subscription being a great model to connect consumers around the world with games and game experiences," said Peters,
"And we’re open to licensing, accessing large game IP that people will recognize. And I think you'll see some of that happen over the year to come. But we also see back to test like building out a whole cloth and the ability to take the franchises or the big titles, let's call it, that we are excited about and actually develop interactive experiences that are connected to those. We see a huge long-term multiyear opportunity in that, too.
"So we're very open. We're going to be experimental and try a bunch of things. But I would say the eyes that we have on the long-term prize really center more around our ability to create properties that are connected to the universes, the characters, the stories that we're building in other places and sort of magnify that value for the fans of those stories."
Netflix did launch Netflix Games in November 2021 for Android users at no additional cost, as well as no ads and no in-app purchases.
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel dedicated to gaming Let's Plays and tutorials. You can contact the author at wdangelo@vgchartz.com or on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
"subscription being a great model to connect people"
Uhh, no... I dislike the idea of turning all of gaming into a sub model, but I know you Netflix, that's what you're all about, so I'm not surprised to hear you even mention gaming and subs in the same sentence.
Yeah but there definitely is a long term principal for opposing subscription services. It's all about control. It's not an issue until it is. So while I agree mostly, there definitely is a valid argument against subscription services.
If a subscription service is $1 a year, and the physical copy costs $1000, then the subscription service is better value.
If the physical copy costs $1 and the subscription service costs $1000 a year, then the physical copy is better value.
So I take each on their own merits. Issues of "control" and "preservation factor into the total value proposition, but don't define them for me.
In a world full of hate and injustice of all kinds, there are things I care about a great deal more than how much control I have over my music, movies, and games.
Yes but then by pricing the physicial or digital copy way above the sub model, you create a control flow that suits your ideals.
Think about it, if you convince pubs and everyone else to price higher for anything but the sub models, people will then flock to the sub models, and since a lot of pubs in recent years have all jumped onto sub models in one form or another, they are then able to make it look convincing by pricing games higher (like this console generation as a prime example, and SE trying to price their pc ports 2x higher).
If everyone flocks to the sub model, with time you can eventually just do away with "need" to supply digital/physical copies and just make the sub model the new standard and then, the only standard, since there's really no going anywhere from paying a sub to a company.
This is what I oppose, because I know where it goes, I've seen companies hold onto ideals and dreams far longer than the average human with one lifespan. If a company wants something to change in order to benefit them more over time, they will cling onto that dream.
It would be better and in the best interests for both company and customer if both the sub model and the buy to own model are kept in check and both made available till the end of time, because that offers us choice, instead of a company deciding it's bored of not being able to milk one model, and wanting to kill it off in favour of a new model.
I care about control I have over the things I bought, because that's my money, that's my time I went into earning that money. If I throw that care away, then it means nothing, and my money and time would also mean nothing. Yes more important things to care about like your health, but that's the default for all of us, nothing special goes outside that realm of care.
It's not wrong to care about control over your media. But it also doesn't inspire me personally.
But if you subscribe to a service, it's not "your money" in the sense of having made a purchase. So the two aren't connected. I care more about control if I purchase something, and virtually not at all if I subscribe to a service with a rotating selection of content.
You seem to have conflated the two.
Well I wasn't saying there is never a value in subscriptions. I see your point there.
I just meant the reason companies are pushing subscriptions so much is because they want control. People want physical media because they want control. That's the tug of war that I think a consumer can pick a side on. Either they care or they don't.
So please don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to imply that your stance is incorrect or wrong. If value is important to you, that's fine. That's your choice.
I was just saying that the argument against subscriptions can be made regardless of value. I have subscriptions. I have for a long time. But I'm just cautious of the business model. I think it can and eventually will be a way to pull people away from physical media for the purpose of increasing revenue. Rather than buy once and keep forever, it's own never and pay forever.
But you're entitled to your valid opinion. If value is important, then subscriptions are definitely beneficial.
Fair enough. :) Interestingly, I've gone from subscribing to cable television, to instead cancelling cable and buying many of the TV shows I watch (though buying them through digital distribution). So that's an example of me finding a better value proposition in ENDING a subscription.
The only reason why it inspires me, is because I know that if I don't care for it, I lose rights to it and any kind of say in the future, and I don't think anyone wants to lose something like that in any aspect of life.
You pay them with your money, by subbing or by buying a copy to own, but the former doesn't give you a single semblance of ownership, since that model is based on "renting", while the latter isn't based on renting but buy to own and play whenever you want (mostly without a net connection).
The two aren't the same, but different in various ways, either way that part isn't nearly as important as say, scrubbing one option entirely off the board and only running with a singular model for gaming, that's not what I want happening ever, that's the part I truly care about.
Well we(the consumer) will always have some power in terms of price. Don't buy it. And hopefully competition would help, too. Although that's not always the case.
We would definitely be in a position of far less power though.
We do more or less have that power, but in all honesty, it takes a massive ton of bad stuff to do, to really piss of the average customer these days.
No offence to the rest of the world, but I honestly think we're more self aware and caring, and actually want changes made, but the rest of those ppl out there either don't care, or aren't smart enough to want to care and get mad when bad things happen, which is why you don't see big fights going on with customer vs company.
We had the lootbox fiasco with Battlefront II, but that only lasted nearly 1 year, and now that's been largely forgotten about, because the rest of the world doesn't care, or thinks that issue has been resolved (it really hasn't, still seeing lootboxes in multiple games these days, so "gambling" still exists within games aimed at children).
I'm assuming we're both American. I'd think other parts of the world probably care about more things but feel less empowered or entitled.
But yes, subscription game services are not something the majority of consumers have much interest in changing. So I see your point there. Everyone would have to be equally outraged.
I'm from the UK, but it depends on where you are tbh. Some folks in the UK couldn't give a rats arse about what happens to their TV/cable, others do.
My folks complained back in the day about how Sky Digital was getting more expensive, and they were getting less channels over time (because Sky got greedy and started locking channels behind a premium charge). Eventually they just stopped bothering with it, but they definitely felt like they lost something when they did.
Me?, I'd rather fight for what I'd originally paid for, because if I don't, I'll end up like my folks, being forced out of a ring to move on to somewhere else, again and again and again.
I agree. However, the unfortunate reality is that everyone has to be on the same page.
It's like net neutrality here in the US. It has gone back and forth so many times. I'm fairly certain it's currently dead for the sake of "the free market", but if there aren't enough people that care it's a losing battle.
I'm not saying it's a foregone conclusion that we're screwed, but without enough people being vocal about it, nothing can stop it.
In this case, more people are probably excited about subscriptions and the deals rather than what will eventually be lost. By the time enough people care, it will be very difficult to reverse course.
Fair enough. There are definitely bigger issues than subscription services.
That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't feel passionately about it. It's just that I don't, not that you shouldn't. :)
gamepass on netflix, through cloud? possible.
I rather Netflix stays out of gaming space. Their original content is hardly good (even more when it starts over there) and I don't really want more fragmentation.
Last thing this industry needs is Netflix getting wigged out, copying MS in buying out bigger shit and turning it all into a subscription model.
They gonna offer us 64 bit crappy games haha I would be surprised if they can cater us modern games!
