Well it's not like Microsoft doesn't have 20 IPs just collecting dust. Why would they want to have more dust collecting IPs? They aren't worth anything meaningful. EA Sports is what is juicy about EA.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Polygon: Microsoft is looking into acquiring EA says reliable source close to Microsoft (and others)
- Thread starter Rychu
- Start date
Well it's not like Microsoft doesn't have 20 IPs just collecting dust. Why would they want to have more dust collecting IPs? They aren't worth anything meaningful. EA Sports is what is juicy about EA.
It's all about Theme Park as far as I'm concerned. Dead Space needs resurrecting too.
If spending $40bil will net you an extra say $3-4bil profit a year right from the get go, with no real downsides (and there wouldn't really be any if they just kept EA running "business as usual"), but it would give you a massive advantage in the industry which could lead to being the industry leader in not only marketshare but also innovative services, they'd be stupid not to seriously consider it.
The minecraft deal really opened a lot of eyes up high at MS I think. $2.5bil was called ridiculous and delusional by a very large portion of the gaming media and even larger portion of people on forums like this, yet it has turned out to be one of the best purchases in the history of the industry. That was for essentially a single franchise. This deal would net MS dozens of franchises, many of which sell upwards of 15mil copies a year, every year. Their gaming revenue would go through the roof, as would their profit, but more importantly their presence and hold on the industry would be undeniable.
Honestly I think that anyone dismissing this and saying it has 0% chance of happening is delusional. Microsoft are one of the biggest companies in the world, and they have time and time again since Nadella took over stated and shown their commitment to gaming. It's a massive industry, and they have the chance to get at the front of the future direction that is happening, like it or not (Games as a service, subscriptions).
Minecraft makes Sony uneasy, especailly with the Better Together update. Now imagine all those EA games and having them apply the Xbox Live integration into everything. That would be a really sneaky move on their part. Isn't Microsoft more about Xbox Live numbers than trying to sell consoles?
To promote Windows/Xbox over the other consoles they could also chip away by having some dlc and other incentives only on the Xbox/Windows side of things, along with the Play Anywhere incentive. EA also has smaller indie games that could also exclude PS4 and Switch but the big games makes no sense ignoring the PS4.
In terms of "buy the company out" exclusives, then yea those are pretty much the only ones I'd consider worth mentioning, with the possible exception of Dragon Age and Mass Effect if they can course correct it, and it hasn't been too badly damaged by Andromeda. The Sims is a big IP, but it's very much a PC IP as well.. it's not shifting consoles. Pretty much everything else you listed is questionable if EA themselves will bother to produce a new entry. Games like Mirror's Edge Burnout and SSX all sound great to us on forums, but their future is in doubt for a reason. Perhaps if the removal of the EA Sports part of the company made the rest really cheap by comparison then it may be worth considering (and honestly, mostly for Origin), but otherwise Battlefield is pretty much the only IP that would be notably more attractive than the cheap Gears of War IP they already picked up. And much like how Halo has gone from king of the hill to just another FPS, an exclusive Battlefield could easily fare worse, and Forza Horizon has already kinda been eating Need for Speed's lunch in recent years without cutting off the platform that doesn't have a clearly superior alternative.
Not being able to make EA Sports titles exclusive is missing the point. You wouldn't be buying them for exclusivity, You'd be buying them for the continued stable revenue they can bring with IP that would be effectively immune to suddenly getting torpedoed by the new hotness (the next PUBG or whatever). More importantly though, even without exclusivity you can leverage IP you own for advantages. Microsoft already does this with Minecraft where the game is most associated with Xbox, because that's the console it's always promoted with, and turn up each year at their E3 conference, etc. It would allow them to add the sports games to GamePass on day 1 which would instantly make pretty much any other platforms look like an unfavorable choice for anyone primarily interested in EA's sports games.
If you're not looking at the purchase as a means to leverage their IP for your services, and instead are only thinking about console exclusivity, then they'd be better off picking a publisher that has a range of strong IP that doesn't almost entirely overlap with the kind of IP they already have prominent series for. MS already has Halo to serve as their Battlefield. They already have Forza Horizon to serve as their Need for Speed. The already have Halo Wars, Age of Empire and Rise of Nations negating the need for trying to resuscitate Command & Conquer. They'd be paying a lot for a bunch of IP that's very similar to what's already not shifting a ton of consoles for them. You could pick up Sega, Capcom CDPR and Square Enix all for less than half of EA's current cost (let's assume EA Sports takes half their value). Sega would come with Sonic and Atlus, Capcom would come with Monster Hunter, Street Fighter and Resident Evil, CDPR would come with The Witcher and Square Enix would come with Tomb Raider and Final Fantasy... and we're here talking about Command & Conquer, Mirror's Edge and Road Rash? EA only makes any sense because of EA Sports. They'd die laughing if they managed to sell you the rest for a substantial cost but keep that.
Didn't see this before. Still no. :P
Whilst I'm enjoying the discussions of what an EA purchase would mean for MS, I'm certainly not in the "I think this is probably happening" camp.
Last edited:
To play devil's advocate here, it's a long term investment. I would say keeping the sports franchises exclusive would obviously hurt sales of those games initially being that the install base is lower. But it could also drive console sales in MS direction. Look at Dreamcast vs PS2. I'm not saying the lack of EA Sports was the deciding factor behind the Dreamcast's ultimate death but lots of consumers considering those options back then certainly said, "Well I can't play Madden on that so PS2 it is!"
So you lose some sales globally on those franchises on competing hardware. You do gain sales of those franchises on your own hardware as well. Not enough to offset the difference at first BUT more importantly you also gain hardware sales. Now all of your upcoming 1st party and third party projects have a larger install base. So the software sales across your entire lineup (Including the sports games sales you initially lost) has increased. Especially if you can continue to build upon that install base growth year after year. In a few years you are in a much better position. You're not going to win the console race this generation but each year you will be more profitable than the last. So as a company that's great business. And you will be in a MUCH better position for the start of the next console race.
I don't know the total sales on those games so I don't know how large of a loss that is. I know it is large though. What I theorize is that if the loss is greater than what they would gain they won't do it. But if the gain is greater they will.
Interesting discussion but hard to watch. All I kept thinking is how thirsty can you be while watching the third guy fidget.
I just don't believe there is enough for Micrsooft to invest that much into games to buy out EA. It also brings up the conflict of interest in going after Valve. Getting Respawn and those types of deals makes the most sense.
Last edited:
MS acquire EA wouldn't make much sense for MS and EA too.
MS strategy for gaming is to strengthen the general strategy "cloud first". They looking for opportunities to utilize their Azure backend. (see latest acquisition PlayFab). When it comes to address the current weakness of 1st party games diversity they looking for single entities with promising IPs they can acquire to not overcompensate regarding payroll and risk.
Even Valve would not be a good fit other than having a PC monopoly publishing PC games. I don't think this would get an allowance by the authority.
MS strategy for gaming is to strengthen the general strategy "cloud first". They looking for opportunities to utilize their Azure backend. (see latest acquisition PlayFab). When it comes to address the current weakness of 1st party games diversity they looking for single entities with promising IPs they can acquire to not overcompensate regarding payroll and risk.
Even Valve would not be a good fit other than having a PC monopoly publishing PC games. I don't think this would get an allowance by the authority.
Last edited:
With Minecraft there's reasons just based on it's easier to dev for when it's on one platform. I don't think it's all about screwing over Sony at all. They aren't taking away the older game.
MS buying EA would be huge for Azure utilization wtf? That's a strange comment to make.
MS buying EA makes a lot of sense for too many reasons (will recover its investment longterm, game pass, azure usage and exposure, frostbite)... Hell, Battlefield with Crackdown level of destruction alone is a massive use and exopsure for azure.
Now there are reasons for it to not happen too, but if the aquisition was to happen, it would make a LOT of sense with what MS has going on & the direction they are going in.
Yes EA games do or could do but, but EA comes with a lot of overhead that MS doesn't need. The outcome would be comparable to what happened with Nokia. A lot of restructuring cost and risk taking. I don't see it.
I agree the overhead is one of the negatives, but comparing it to Nokia? Nokia was already dead in the wild and that purchase made absolutely zero sense. It's a nonsense comparison and there are no similarities between the Nokia aquisition and a potential EA aquisition.
Buying Nokia would be like buying Blackberry now. You don't need to be an accountant to know it's gonna be a disaster, that's not quite the case with EA.
Nah, what happened with Nokia was completely different. That was an expensive purchase of a company that was already in freefall. You couldn't make money by running Nokia "business as usual", because business as usual was a goddamn disaster.
EA post-purchase would still make money if effectively nothing else had changed and they'd have huge advantages being linked to the platform, because there still (and will probably pretty much always be) hugely relevant in the market. Nokia was bought at a point where everyone was like "oh, I remember them, they made the 3310 back in the day!".
Agreed. They bought Nokia because it was the last saving grace for WP. It was a stupid purchase.
I was not using Nokia as an example for the current market share or success of their products. I brought it in because Nokia was never a fit to what MS is about. Same goes for EA. There are parts of EA that would fit but there a much larger parts of EA that don't fit, imo. I am more looking from the business portfolio and business transformation perspective than on what games would fit into the MS portfolio.
The integration of a single studio is hard and complex enough (culture, payment structures, processes) and that is why I see to much risk (and very low benefit) by acquiring EA.
Thing is, Nokia would have been a fit for what MS was about at that point in time, if MS weren't just being so terrible at being about it. Were Windows Phone not so late to the partly, completely lacking OEM support, and without apps, then MS would have had a mobile business that would warrant owning someone that could be responsible for producing the flagship "Surface" type hardware for others to follow.
Xbox Live on the other hand is relevant in the market, and is making first-mover steps towards where the market is inevitably going to end up in time with GamePass. EA are a good match, as not only are they a company headed in basically the same direction with EA Access, but they also hold properties that would be very effective at drawing subscribers, and establishing a service as a market leader. This would all be without them being a huge financial black hole in the meantime.
You also have to consider that just as easily as we can be sitting here talking about MS buying EA, it's equally plausible that other huge companies would consider doing the same, and then whatever advantages would potentially be gained by having FIFA day 1 on GamePass, potentially become the uphill battle against FIFA on an Amazon Games (EA Access rebranded) being promoted all over Twitch. It's entirely possible for an overly conservative outlook to result in another "Android" appearing in a market that MS should have grabbed by the horns when it'd have been easy to.
MS don't need to fill up Game Pass with a lot of 1st party stuff at the beginning. Let the Game Pass play out and let them get experience what works and what is not. I don't see the need for overload the offer now at the beginning and taking very high risks. What is the motivation to be too fast? Patience and taking the right risks is key here imo.
But we throw opinions here. I see your point but it is not something I would do (or recommend).
I don't think they need to fill the service with "a lot" of stuff either. I think they need to fill the service up with "key important" stuff, that keeps people subscribing. I think offering EA Sports titles day one would pretty much kick the service off to the mainstream even with the absence of basically anything else being put on the service day 1. It wouldn't be dissimilar to how people used to sign up for satellite TV in the early days almost exclusively because major sporting licenses were attached to them.
EA's sports games are uniquely suited to the service, because they represent a slate of software that turns the service into a "no brainer" for a large portion of the market. Being games that are updated annually, are immune to going out of fashion, and lose pretty much all relevance by the time the next iteration releases means that they aren't games many people would be better served by simply waiting for a sale on as opposed to just keeping the subscription running forever. There isn't really a similar situation for almost any other IP. Stuff like GTA releases too infrequently. Stuff like COD has people happily still playing Black Ops 1, and in most cases fanbase don't overlap in the way someone playing one sports game is highly likely to want at least one of the others (making them break even on the price of the subscription when compared to 2 games purchases annually).
I would agree with you about the lack of need to rush, and letting change happen organically if there weren't so many examples of such changes happening suddenly with drastic consequences. Both Windows Mobile and Blackberry had it good before the iPhone hit, and either could have sat in Android's spot (which was originally targeting a Blackberry like experience) had they got their shit in order immediately as opposed to after the market was set. I feel MS currently doesn't have too much to fear from Sony in this regards, because despite Sony's overwhelming advantages in the console space, they haven't shown much of a vision yet for transcending that. However, Amazon already own Twitch (leaving MS desperately trying to float Mixer in comparison), they already started buying team like Double Helix from under MS' nose, they're already a freaking huge provider of entertainment services, and have demonstrated a willingness to consolidate new mediums into their offerings. If they theorectically did decide that $40b for EA was worth it to kickstart a push into gaming (and I'm fairly confident it would be), then that bridge is crossed and done at that point, and MS wouldn't be able buy an equivalent.
The thing about EA is were the profit comes from. FIFA, Madden, Battlefield?
There is Respawn which would be a positive for IP and talent. DICE are full of talent too. Frostbite engine, jury is out on that as we haven't seen anything great beyond their own work. Motive Studios under Jade Raymond, who knows. Popcap, the husk of Bioware?
Revenue from FIFA, a positive but a guarantee, a license under EA but what do you think FIFA will ask when Microsoft own them, same for Madden?
The IP portfolio is probably very nice to have. If you take away FIFA, Madden, Star Wars, the latter certainly isn't a guarantee once that contract runs out. EA is a lot of meat but could easily be stripped to not a lot for $40 billion depending how things go.
Amazon lurking is certainly a possibility. Microsoft tend to be late or too early but they are already in the game and if they get EA, that might put off Bezos from thinking about entering, still think he wouldn't bother as long as there is three platform holders.
There is Respawn which would be a positive for IP and talent. DICE are full of talent too. Frostbite engine, jury is out on that as we haven't seen anything great beyond their own work. Motive Studios under Jade Raymond, who knows. Popcap, the husk of Bioware?
Revenue from FIFA, a positive but a guarantee, a license under EA but what do you think FIFA will ask when Microsoft own them, same for Madden?
The IP portfolio is probably very nice to have. If you take away FIFA, Madden, Star Wars, the latter certainly isn't a guarantee once that contract runs out. EA is a lot of meat but could easily be stripped to not a lot for $40 billion depending how things go.
Amazon lurking is certainly a possibility. Microsoft tend to be late or too early but they are already in the game and if they get EA, that might put off Bezos from thinking about entering, still think he wouldn't bother as long as there is three platform holders.
I think if operated in a fashion similar to Minecraft, stripping EA of licenses makes little sense regardless of who owns them. They've been creating FIFA since the early 90s and Madden since the late 80s. They're not exactly an easily replaceable outfit, because outside of Konami, there's basically been nobody else all these years creating competing products (excluding stuff like NBA 2K where the license is already non-exclusive). There's no guarantee that the fanbase EA has built up for all these years would be receptive to the different gameplay another team would create, and then you have a potential "you're the label, but we're still the band" situation of EA putting out a game that's FIFA in all but name, the general audience being aware of that (I mean, they're EA Sports... everyone knows who they are), and them just including some form of roster/player marketplace like Forza's that allows the community to effectively put all the players and teams back in regardless.
As for Amazon. I agree they probably don't want to enter the current crowded market. The thing is though is that the market is currently HMV, not Netflix. I don't think they would consider the serviced-based gaming market as crowded, and if anything their purchases of Twitch and gaming talent seems to imply they're preparing for the moment the clocks get reset and the history of the current players becomes moot.
Last edited:
Exactly, if MS leaves EA as they were (multiplatform, etc). FIFA isn't touching that license. EA IS FIFA and they aren't gonna do anything to jeopardize that and I guess same is true for NFL. If it was to happen, the sports games would see absolutely no chances except maybe a release on Switch day 1, and cross play/cross buy on pc/xbox/maybe switch. And a release on Games Pass day 1. That's about it really. Battlefield/front might get crackdown's destruction tech.
Any other game is up in the air (titanfall, nfs, etc) and could possible be exclusive. Battlefield is kinda a toss inthe air wether it's exclusive or not but I think it wouldn't be. Normally I'd say not NFS also but that'd be using Forza Tech no doubt and I don't think MS will put that on PS, they'd probably put Forza on a 3 year cycle at that point with NFS becoming either Forza full on arcade, or Forza Fast and Furious all but in name. Hell, probably even in name too tbh.
People expecting FIFA to come in and strip licenses just because EA were bought are ridiculous, that's not gonna happen and tbh EA probably has more leverage over FIFA than FIFA has over EA at this point. Any other developer making it would no doubt be a worse game as a whole and it's sales would definitely be hurt as a result.
Last edited:
If any platform company were to buy EA, EA would most likely be split into two companies: e.g. If Microsoft were to buy EA, EA Worldwide Studios(Except maybe Ghost Games) fold into the Xbox brand. Then EA stays as basically EA Sports, EA All Play, Ghost Games and EA Maxis. with Microsoft having a 40% stake in that venture. The same would be true if Sony or Nintendo were to purchase EA.
As we have seen as long as Disney is getting paid they don't care if their content is exclusive to a platform so don't see the Star Wars as much of an issue if it was exclusive, at the end of the day Disney is getting paid the cost of license.
As we have seen as long as Disney is getting paid they don't care if their content is exclusive to a platform so don't see the Star Wars as much of an issue if it was exclusive, at the end of the day Disney is getting paid the cost of license.
I really recommend watching the Easy Allies Podcast. It's a good summary and assessment of the whole article.
I agree that this seems like a ridiculous purchase from a short term view of buying EA to solve the lack of exclusives on Xbox One. But if you look a bit longer term at what Microsoft's goals are in gaming, it doesn't seem as implausible.
Microsoft has said quite a few times since launching Gamepass that they want to create the Netflix of games. At this moment in time there are probably 2 companies that also show a desire to become the Netflix of games - EA and Sony.
If we eventually move away from a console hardware model to a digital service model, PlayStation and Xbox will become far less relevant. They will still have XBL and PSN as platforms for people to play games on but without reliance on their hardware there will be far less incentive for publishers to use those platforms and give up 30% of their game revenue.
EA has been preparing for this possible future for a few years now. They have created there own digital platform for people to buy and play their games with Origin. They use their own servers for all their multiplayer games. They are also the first major publisher to experiment with a subscription service for their games. EA have also discussed the idea of working with other publishers on a possible subscription service and other publishers have spoken with them about becoming a part of EA access.
The most important thing for a company to have if they want to become the Netflix of gaming is content. I would argue that if this transition does happen that EA are actually in the best position to become the Netflix of games.
PlayStation and Xbox simply do not have the ability to produce enough content to become a major player in such a market. all the power (content), lies with the publishers, who are more likely to partner together or make their own services rather than continue to rely on Xbox or PlayStation.
If Microsoft were to buy EA, they would solve a big part of their content problem, while also acquiring what is possibly it's biggest rival to fulfilling it's goal of becoming the dominant platform in a digital and streaming future for games.
Edit: Just want to point out that I don't think this is necessarily what is going to happen or what I want. I just find it fun to speculate about these things.
Microsoft has said quite a few times since launching Gamepass that they want to create the Netflix of games. At this moment in time there are probably 2 companies that also show a desire to become the Netflix of games - EA and Sony.
If we eventually move away from a console hardware model to a digital service model, PlayStation and Xbox will become far less relevant. They will still have XBL and PSN as platforms for people to play games on but without reliance on their hardware there will be far less incentive for publishers to use those platforms and give up 30% of their game revenue.
EA has been preparing for this possible future for a few years now. They have created there own digital platform for people to buy and play their games with Origin. They use their own servers for all their multiplayer games. They are also the first major publisher to experiment with a subscription service for their games. EA have also discussed the idea of working with other publishers on a possible subscription service and other publishers have spoken with them about becoming a part of EA access.
The most important thing for a company to have if they want to become the Netflix of gaming is content. I would argue that if this transition does happen that EA are actually in the best position to become the Netflix of games.
PlayStation and Xbox simply do not have the ability to produce enough content to become a major player in such a market. all the power (content), lies with the publishers, who are more likely to partner together or make their own services rather than continue to rely on Xbox or PlayStation.
If Microsoft were to buy EA, they would solve a big part of their content problem, while also acquiring what is possibly it's biggest rival to fulfilling it's goal of becoming the dominant platform in a digital and streaming future for games.
Edit: Just want to point out that I don't think this is necessarily what is going to happen or what I want. I just find it fun to speculate about these things.
Last edited:
Interesting to hear more from people discussing what the actual thinking could be behind such a purchase rather than kneejerk dismissing it out of hand. Didn't realise that they had been investing so much in buying other gaming companies in recent years also.
If MS really wanted to become the Netflix of gaming, with availability on as many platforms as possible, then buying EA makes sense. They'd gain a lot of content, servers, subscribers to EA/Origin Access, and developers to make themselves a multi-platform leader in GaaS and subscription-based gaming over night.
I could imagine your Origin ID becoming an Xbox Live ID in the near term, boosting their MAU significantly, with the long-term prospect of getting users into Game Pass and eventually their streaming service.
I see several people think MS would want to make some games exclusive to Xbox and Windows, but I think it was Nadella who told Spencer to think beyond Windows, which is likely why Spencer no longer reports to the EVP of Windows. With that, I think everything would stay multi-platform, with Halo, Gears, Forza, etc going multi-platform eventually, perhaps way down the road when game streaming takes off and nobody gives a flip about the device it's running on, just as people feel about their movie and music streaming now.
Edit: As much sense as it makes given the direction of Xbox, it seems that MS could make better use of cash on more lucrative prospects on the business productivity side of things. Then again, maybe Nadella sees Xbox as Microsoft's best chance at staying relevant on the consumer side of things long term? Perhaps he thinks a big acquisition on the gaming side would make more money long term than letting all of that cash just sit there. Ultimaltely I doubt the EA acquisition has any chance, but I'm eager to see what other big whales they're looking at.
I could imagine your Origin ID becoming an Xbox Live ID in the near term, boosting their MAU significantly, with the long-term prospect of getting users into Game Pass and eventually their streaming service.
I see several people think MS would want to make some games exclusive to Xbox and Windows, but I think it was Nadella who told Spencer to think beyond Windows, which is likely why Spencer no longer reports to the EVP of Windows. With that, I think everything would stay multi-platform, with Halo, Gears, Forza, etc going multi-platform eventually, perhaps way down the road when game streaming takes off and nobody gives a flip about the device it's running on, just as people feel about their movie and music streaming now.
Edit: As much sense as it makes given the direction of Xbox, it seems that MS could make better use of cash on more lucrative prospects on the business productivity side of things. Then again, maybe Nadella sees Xbox as Microsoft's best chance at staying relevant on the consumer side of things long term? Perhaps he thinks a big acquisition on the gaming side would make more money long term than letting all of that cash just sit there. Ultimaltely I doubt the EA acquisition has any chance, but I'm eager to see what other big whales they're looking at.
Last edited:
We have yet to see if Crackdowns destruction tech can be used in practice.
They have promised A LOT but not yet delivered.
Battlefields destruction on the other hand has been trimmed in several released games...
(yea, it is fun to destroy stuff but when everyone thinks that the game will become a bit flat...)
This is the first time im hearing of a former gametrailers podcast lol. Thanks! Also, this is actually a great discussion between them, unlike the typical fanboy response you hear on the internet nowadays where people just say "Microsoft is done." In hindsight its crazy how well that MInecraft buyout may have worked out for them. I bet an EA buyout would be even bigger and much more long term.
If MS wont' even release thier games on Steam, then I can assure you they are not going multiplatform.
Buying EA, everything that's 3rd party would remain so. But at the same time, the studios EA have would work on Xbox exclusives for Games Pass. Along side the big 3rd party games.
Given how Nadella has pushed for things like Office 365 to be be available everywhere, I just don't see him wanting a subscription-based Xbox business to be locked down to a couple of devices over the long haul. If they're going down the streaming route there is no reason to restrict the number of available devices.
MS want to make money from markets where Xbox is not popular. Buying EA and thier IP would see that happen. The billions that BF, Fifa, generate every year becomes money that MS see.
Putting Xbox on Steam, PlayStation lessens the prestige of the brand, in markets where Xbox is already strong.
There is just no way they would go 3rd party.
Only scenario I see this happening in any way, is to add games to gamepass and further their plans with the "gameflix" idea. And secure a few studio's while at it.
And it doesn't even have to EA, it could be anyone really with a strong catalogue of games.
Xbox Games Pass being everywhere would be met with the same WW reception as Xbox hardware. It would not do well namely.
The thinking behind the MS EA acquistion is to increase profit and revenue from markets that Xbox could never get.
For example BF sells 10m mainly on the PS4 in Europe. MS as the owner of EA will see this profit.
Meanwhile Phil Spencer tasks the EA studios to work on exclusive content for Xbox and Games Pass, which the aim being to sell Xbox hardware and subs.
The thinking behind the MS EA acquistion is to increase profit and revenue from markets that Xbox could never get.
For example BF sells 10m mainly on the PS4 in Europe. MS as the owner of EA will see this profit.
Meanwhile Phil Spencer tasks the EA studios to work on exclusive content for Xbox and Games Pass, which the aim being to sell Xbox hardware and subs.
There's very little chance of this happening in my opinion. I mean it could but it is extremely unlikely compared to them buying either individual studios or a different publisher as alot of EAs value is from their licenses. The smarter thing to do long term would probably be to buy a few independent studios (IO?) and start some first party studios of varying sizes then put some of the very talented people they have under their employ in charge. A studio headed by Joseph Staten could be amazing as the guy has an insane knack for creating interesting universes and has experience both writing and directing games.
Investing money into acquiring EA would be a lot wiser as they get established franchises, proven studios, and technology that can be used to make money immediately.
Your suggestion to acquire independent developers, and to pay them MS wages, to create unproven expensive studios with no track record, would be commercial suicide.
There aren't many hardware-exclusive entertainment subscription services out there for a good reason. Long term I just don't see Nadella giving a shit about selling more hardware when he is all about getting as many subscribers as possible to their cloud-based platforms and services.
The problem I see with it is you are getting alot of really good IP but most of the studios who made those IP in the first place are in a ditch somewhere. You get Dead Space but Visceral is gone. You get Skate but Black Box is gone. They would to my knowledge (and I might be wrong here) be getting DICE, which is fine but does MS really need another FPS? You get Respawn which is fine by me as I would like a stay in their inevitable execution but again mainly an FPS studio outside of that Star Wars thing. Bioware is not exactly in a good spot right now.
Dice could do far more than FPS' if allowed. They made Rallisport Challenge and Midtown Madness games for the OG Xbox back in the day, and Mirror's Edge more recently. They've been mostly stuck on Battlefield and Battlefront awhile now, because of the successes of those games, but 343i doing Halo, they may not need Battlefield games to happen as frequently.
I do agree though that most of EA's legacy IP would remain untouched. Something like Dead Space I could see them maybe finding another developer for (Creative Assembly could probably handle that one as well actually), but they're not gonna try to revive Command & Conquer or Road Rash or whatever. They have enough of their own 2nd tier IP that they don't acknowledge.