# Talk:Microsoft Gaming

To avoid editing warring, I'm opening this. Clearly, this version of a table listing all the subsidiaries is not appropriate, given that each of the three major publishers have their own similar table, and part of the reason to make this MS Gaming article was to avoid a similar mess at Xbox Game Studios. But I don't believe we need even a reduced table like this, as that's still replicating the table problem from XGS. I understand the desire to list all the studios under each label, but I think at this level, it is not important to this table, or at least I would look for something that is streamlined and highlights the major divisions of each publisher. For example, in mentioning Zenimax, Bethesda should clearly be mentioned, but not things like Arkane. Or in mentioning Activision Blizzard, naming the three major COD studios (Treyarch, Infinity Ward, and Sledgehammer), as well as making sure King is mentioned, but none of the smaller studios. This can be done in the short version of the table, as in this version by adding one additional column for that distinction. Masem (t) 02:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding a list of Microsoft's gaming subsidiaries and studios to the existing Microsoft Gaming Wikipedia page would enhance the page's value by providing a clear overview of the company's gaming structure. This addition improves accessibility for users interested in Microsoft's involvement in video game development and ensures the information stays current with regular updates. If there's no existing comprehensive resource on the Microsoft Gaming page covering all subsidiaries, this addition would fill a knowledge gap. Adhering to Wikipedia guidelines and seeking community feedback are essential for maintaining accuracy and neutrality. Ryan York (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Those arguments are an WP:ITSUSEFUL stance, which is not why we include content. Further the argument would then say that there should be a single comprehensive page for every Microsoft division and companies owned, which would be excessively large. Masem (t) 03:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, I understand the concern about creating excessively large page dedicating on gaming studios. However, at the moment, we don't have a dedicated page specifically listing every Microsoft studio together. Perhaps for now, let's keep the current structure, and we can revisit the idea of creating a separate page for Microsoft Studios later. This way, we maintain a balance between providing useful information and avoiding excessive page size.  Ryan York (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
If we take a look at the other publisher’s highest patent company pages, most of them list the entire sublabels and each individual studio, even companies with as nearly as many studios/substudios as Microsoft Gaming. If the page was bloated with history and other filler then I would be more concerned but I believe it is a good idea to properly display them under the same umbrella. Pats6XChamps (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Or perhaps we can find a way to condense the table even more if you want? I can remove the logos if it’s too much. I totally agree not using the break down table like that other user was attempting to add (reserved for smaller pages), but the one I use doesn’t take up a whole page and offers short and quick summaries (and gives each studio a shoutout/character in what they do).
I feel like this way looks a lot better than what other companies page’s has with simple bulletin points upon bulletin points. Pats6XChamps (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. I'm willing to create a separate page for Microsoft Gaming studios and divisions later. I am aware of the size of Microsoft Gaming, and it cannot be compared with other publishers, but gaming studios also need to be represented here, as most of them have been acquired by Microsoft Gaming recently. Ryan York (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Please no. We don't need topics fragmented into multiple pages. -- ferret (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
No, not the topic. A good example of what I propose would be the List of assets owned by the Walt Disney Company page. We can create something like that for Microsoft Gaming studios. Ryan York (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Ditto on the first part. I genuinely think this gives just enough information while still being concise and not a mega-bloated part of the page at all. Also to keep in perspective, the size of the page is around 35,000 bytes as a whole, and is likely not going to expand as fast as it has since it was created. SIE, EA, Take-Two all range between 100,000-150,000 bytes as the size of their page while containing all of their individual studies and labels. MS Gaming even with the table is still a third of the size of the smallest page of those listed. Pats6XChamps (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I know Embracer Group used to have a huge ass table but now it is "reasonably" trimmed down, and instead there a List of mergers and acquisitions by Embracer Group which organizes the information in a large table but in a form that is more akin to a timeline, making it easy to add and remove from.
Remember that the reason that this page was created was to get out of the big ass table that was being generated at XGS, and now it seems ppl are trending back towards that. I really think we need to only list the next immediate level divisions, and as long as those divisions are notable with a standalone page, only touch the highlights. For non-notable divisions or those that wouldn't standalone per NCORP, then a brief paragraph like being done here makes sense. This is how summary style should work here. Masem (t) 05:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
To add as another issue, as we saw this at XGS when it was one big table - when describing the studios, editors were starting to try to add every single game the studio worked on or other aspects, which for a studio like, say, Rare, with lots of different properties and some before they were XGS, just flooded the table. Having the same listing of studios on at least two different articles is going to create two separate headaches related to editors wanting to make sure their favorite series from a dev is added even after consensus has trimmed those lists down. We have hyperlinks for many reasons, one is this type of situation. Masem (t) 05:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree, highlighting significant studios is a good approach to ensure that the most important information is conveyed while maintaining readability. By briefly mentioning noteworthy studios and providing key information about their contributions or significance within the context of Microsoft Gaming, we can strike a balance between brevity and informativeness. In the Subsidiaries and Studios section, I wrote Microsoft's worldwide studios and its UK presence without listing all of the studios, for example.
This will allow readers to get a sense of the diverse portfolio without overwhelming them with excessive details. If there are specific studios that are particularly noteworthy or have played a crucial role in Microsoft Gaming's overall strategy, those could be emphasized in the page. Ryan York (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
You can remove the list of studios. But let's keep the subsidiaries part. Ryan York (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Would removing the mentions of all series so the table doesn’t get flooded, but keeping the devs shown and be the policy suffice? Pats6XChamps (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Keeping the separate studios under each of the main divisions would be reasonable, just not the current version of the table. Masem (t) 01:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Is it okay  now? Appreciate the reply Pats6XChamps (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 I would be in favour of removing the table outright. Xbox Game Studios, ZeniMax Media, and Activision Blizzard (plus Activision, Blizzard Entertainment, and King) each have their own articles, including their own tables or lists of studios. Listing those should be more than enough. Tableizing all of their studios is just added maintenance and could balloon the article unnecessarily as those segments expand. Let's keep the Microsoft Gaming article focused on the division's direct operations, without WP:COATRACKing. IceWelder [✉] 10:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Highly disagree this article needs a list of it's studios, they are working together across the subdivisions which are no more then publishing labels. the current form is ok, but i advocate for the full table with series and all informations provided in it, it's simply more reasonable not to hide al this information in subartciles of subarticles. Norschweden (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

We need to enhance the history section. Currently, the Microsoft gaming section predominantly discusses acquisitions. I believe we can provide a more thorough and nuanced exploration. Let's strive for a more comprehensive overview that delves into various aspects of Microsoft's gaming history. Ryan York (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Remember, the history of MS Gaming started only in 2022. What happened with XGS actually probably needs to be cut back alot because there's a whole separate article for it. All we really can start with is that when MS proposed to acquire Activision Blizzard, they established MS Gaming at that time as to be where Activision Blizzard would live. That's it. Masem (t) 05:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Got it, I can certainly expand on the history after 2022. Additionally, I believe briefly discussing Microsoft's past gaming history and pinpointing key moments will be necessary to describe why Microsoft's gaming business has evolved into what it is today. Thanks! Ryan York (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to include Criticism, Influence, and the Metaverse as subjects, but I'm unsure whether to place them under the "Divisional Structure" heading or create a new heading. If I add them under the Divisional Structure heading, it might become too lengthy and complicated for that specific subject. Ryan York (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind this divison has only existed for a year. I am not sure how much criticism and influence you can say about the division, though MS's overall activities involving gaming may warrant someplce, but I don't know where yet. And I've not heard anything about MS getting into the Metaverse. Masem (t) 01:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Monopolization has emerged as a prominent criticism in recent months concerning Microsoft's Gaming division for example. Additionally, there appears to be a potential misalignment in our discussion regarding the Metaverse, as it can be perceived in various ways. The Metaverse I am referring to is akin to a social club and competition. Articles I've encountered highlight issues such as the domination of platforms like Call of Duty and World of Warcraft (WoW), suggesting a lack of healthy competition.
I think it is essential to note that I am committed to focusing on relevant aspects and will provide accurate citations to improve the article.  Ryan York (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Just keep in mind that there was already some criticism raised during the Activison acquisition process, which is covered there, so it should be about post-acquisition views and the like.  And I think you're talking more about the marketplace and competition than the "metaverse" which is a specific type of content mode, but I will wait to see how you add it. For now I'd just make a new section like "Commentary" or the like. Masem (t) 03:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thanks a lot! Ryan York (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Microsoft Gaming/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cocobb8 (talk · contribs) 16:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This GA is undergoing further checks for Good Article Criteria following this discussion. I will be posting my progress here over the next few days. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

'Microsoft Gaming announced that Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick will leave the company on December 29, 2023'
Yes, I have revised the sentence and stated that he announced his departure from the company with a source cited via Windows Central. Ryan York (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This date has passed. Would the use of the term "would" instead of "will" be better here? "Will" implies that it has yet to happen, even though the next sentence says that "following his departure, ...". Thanks! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Done!  Ryan York (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


### GA review
Last updated: 03:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC) by Ryan York 
Estimated completion date: ~February 28
See what the criteria are and what they are not
1) Well-written

 1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
 1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
2) Verifiable with no original research

 2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
 2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
 2c) it contains no original research
 2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism
3) Broad in its coverage

 3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
 3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
4) Neutral:

 4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each
5) Stable:

 5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

 6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
 6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
Overall:  


#### Comments:
The first few reads went very well, the article reads easily. I have encountered no major spelling or grammar errors and my autocorrect didn't either.
So far, the list of references is complete and has no errors. IABot didn't find anything either.
Excellent use of in-line citations. Here are a few random spot-checks for references and verifiability:
 Xbox Series X/S consoles sold 21 million units in total by 2023. Verified with the sourced website
 Additionally, Microsoft Gaming sold Activision Blizzard's cloud gaming rights to Ubisoft for 15 years due to regulatory pressure from the acquisition of Activision Blizzard. Verified with the sourced website.
 Microsoft Gaming laid off 1,900 staff (approximately 8% of its workforce) in January 2024. Verified with the sourced website.
 Microsoft Gaming announced that Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick will leave the company on December 29, 2023. Statement not updated, though the source validates it. @Ryan York: would you like to change the sentence and source it with confirmation of his departure? Outcome: Citation kept, another one added, sentence wording changed.
This concludes my spot-check of in-line citations.
Close to every sentence in the article is sourced! There are no paragraphs that are unsourced, so there definitely isn't any original research.
Earwig's copyvio detector didn't find anything, no copyvio.
The article addresses the main aspects, and properly summarizes key points.
Excellent use of neutral point of view.
The history of the article looks good, no edit wars, stability confirmed.
I checked all provided media, they all have the proper copyright tags. I fixed one caption, now all are written according to the guidelines.
This concludes my review of the article, and it is kept as  Passed!