SenjutsuSage
Banned
Yes, I've been honest about this. I have well over $8k invested in this, and I do believe the deal will close. But... I would be supporting the deal even if I didn't have money invested because, well, I'm a big ass Xbot.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Yes, I've been honest about this. I have well over $8k invested in this, and I do believe the deal will close. But... I would be supporting the deal even if I didn't have money invested because, well, I'm a big ass Xbot.
feynoob
Banned
At least you are honest about it.Yes, I've been honest about this. I have well over $8k invested in this, and I do believe the deal will close. But... I would be supporting the deal even if I didn't have money invested because, well, I'm a big ass Xbot.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Microsoft kills a key componant of Game Pass if the games aren't available for cloud streaming across multiple devices. Activision Blizzard games like Diablo, COD etc, all come to supported samsung and LG televisions, comes to chrome books, cloud handheld devices, mobile phones, tablets, Linux computers, weaker, less capable windows PCs, pretty much any device with a supported web browser would now be able to get access to all Activision Blizzard games, and not just less desirable mobile variants. We know there will be a future nintendo gaming device that comes after the Switch. The list I just rang out are all the devices that currently have no way to access ABK's best games, much less for as low as $9.99 or $14.99 per month, but suddenly will if the deal is approved.
This means Apple TVs, Amazon Firesticks, Roku TVs. The potential is through the roof. Game Pass would be able to bring Activision Blizzard's games normally limited to consoles and capable PCs to all of those devices. I honestly also think Microsoft should open COD up to Nvidia Geforce Now streaming. They still need to buy the game to play it on there. More money for Microsoft. They should also allow Sony to get COD on PS Plus, just not in the same complete fashion as Microsoft is able to. Not as complete a category of games, Sony has to pay for it, etc.
If Microsoft made all the games exclusive to Xbox it would be extremely dumb. I don't think there's anything wrong with making OTHER Activision Blizzard games beyond Diablo IV exclusive to Xbox consoles and PC or Game Pass, but Call of Duty has to be the cut off or the limiter because of how badly it would harm that whole community. Call of Duty is a trojan horse for Microsoft. There are places that Xbox will NEVER be more popular than Playstation no matter how many amazing games it gets. Call of Duty allows Microsoft to utilize playstation's popularity to get traction in places where it normally doesn't have it.
Edit: BTW This includes Playstation consoles. With the browser support they, too, can access everything in Game Pass, and for cheaper than they could do it instead of paying $70. But we all know better and know that many hardcores will choose to play native over cloud right? But even so this brings a great deal even to playstation fans who are interested in COD and other ABK titles.
Last edited:
Banjo64
cumsessed
Yes, I've been honest about this. I have well over $8k invested in this, and I do believe the deal will close. But... I would be supporting the deal even if I didn't have money invested because, well, I'm a big ass Xbot.
Ass of Can Whooping
can I get a fact check on this? I swear it was 40k last year.
Thabass
Member
It would greatly surprise me if Microsoft would not allow COD to ever be on PS consoles again. It's a slam dunk that they would keep the non-exclusivity up because Microsoft would lose out on a bunch of revenue that way. I think Sony has it's judgement clouded that Microsoft would just stop producing the game for other consoles. The only time I would see this happening is if the Sony version of the game stops being profitable for Microsoft and Activision.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Sony know full well Microsoft won't do it. Sony is relying on scare tactics that even they themselves do not believe. This isn't about Call of Duty. It's about Sony's fear of the Game Pass business model becoming more popularized. They don't want to see it becoming more mainstream and normalized over paying full price for the games before you can play them. Sony isn't prepared for too many gamers to embrace an all you can eat buffet style of gaming that also has incredible AAA experiences on there as well, not just the cheap stuff.
Plus, it boils down to something as simple as this. Their stock. Sony's stock will be devastated if this deal is approved. They would have run the analysis and likely market response (even though we all know Sony would be completely fine and eventually rebound once people stop freaking out), there might be investors who start seeing Microsoft as a safer place to part their money solely because of what bringing Activision Blizzard into the fold would mean for Microsoft's Gaming business.
Another large factor. Sony gets many of the deals and arrangements they get because of how they are perceived as the market leader. If suddenly you got Xbox in control of Call of Duty yearly releases, Warzone, and all the other IP at Activision Blizzard, why wouldn't you as a business person demand a higher price from Sony to exclude Xbox? Why wouldn't you demand a higher price for Sony to secure a timed exclusive deal? Sony's deals would become more expensive should the Activision Blizzard deal go through. These are the things Sony will never say, but it's the true reason they oppose the deal. They know damn well they will not lose Call of Duty as long as Playstation exists.
Ass of Can Whooping
Banned
Lol fucking weak
Wulfer
Member
Nothing more really needs to be said SenjutsuSage nailed the heart of the matter. This is about Sony's stature with 3rd Parties not about COD! Also, Sony wants to hold the industry to its image of the gaming world not what the gaming world could be by others.
Last edited:
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Hendrick's got that sassy thot energy going,
Topher
Gold Member
Future console warriors on GAF are going to look to this thread as a treasure trove.
GhostOfTsu
Banned
Yes, I've been honest about this. I have well over $8k invested in this, and I do believe the deal will close. But... I would be supporting the deal even if I didn't have money invested because, well, I'm a big ass Xbot.
I'm so confident I put $40,000 in Activision Stock.
IFireflyl
Gold Member
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
When can we next expect a big update? We need some real excitement.
feynoob
Banned
Dont know, but at least I am learning webD. It might make me busy, while I wait for some news.
GHG
Gold Member
Don't ask questions. The one thing these guys have in common is that they all lie and twist the truth when convenient.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Meta acquisition of Within reportedly approved by court in loss for FTC
The FTC sued to block Meta's acquisition of Within in July, arguing Meta was using the deal "to buy its way to the top," rather than compete on its own merits.
www.cnbc.com
I'm sure this was already posted but it really brings to light how badly the FTC's regulatory track record has been against various companies recently. Facebook is an actual market leader in VR and a real anti-trust case could have been made about their attempts to buy more VR companies and the FTC still lost.
MS is NOT anywhere near dominant in video games so the case against them is far flimsier. It's pretty clear yet again that the case against this acquisition is pretty weak. Political cases have no place in actual industry regulation.
Topher
Gold Member
drganon
Member
Fixed
feynoob
Banned
Every company is trying to have their own account these days.
Don mattrick was from the future.
bender
What time is it?
Yes, I've been honest about this. I have well over $8k invested in this, and I do believe the deal will close. But... I would be supporting the deal even if I didn't have money invested because, well, I'm a big ass Xbot.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
And something just occurred to me. Some are saying as an argument against the deal that Sony first-party successes like God of War or even eventually, spider-man 2, shouldn't matter or aren't relevant because they aren't yearly franchises like Call of Duty. But if that's the case, why have so many made such a fuss over games like Starfield. Nobody has longer dev cycles than Bethesda when making their epic single player RPGs. The last Elder Scrolls when that comes out was 2011. So by the time it releases it will have been north of 13-15 years since the last game.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
You only know I'm a big Xbox fan cause I told you guys. You would have never been able to figure it out in a million, billion years!
bitbydeath
Member
Wait, why would Sony’s own franchises matter for anything?
I’m going to regret asking aren’t I…
feynoob
Banned
One is Sony games, which they made themselves, while the other was independent publisher, which MS bought.
2 different situations.
Starfield and other Bethesda games could have seen a PS5 release if MS didn't bought them.
Same thing is going to happen to Activision.
Flip the position, and Xbox fans would cry about this deal too.
Fredrik
Member
It’s selfish but yeah I honestly can’t see any longterm effects affect for me personally than getting access to more games for less money and giving more games a fair shot since I don’t have to buy everything. So for me it’s a great future with a bigger and more diverse GP library.I can appreciate that point of view because it focuses on what you see this deal will do for you as a gamer rather than what is best for <insert mega-corporation name here>.
That said, if Sony would have PC versions day 1 and the same save and license syncing I wouldn’t care what studios or publishers Sony acquire either. I’m a subscriber on the new PS+ as well, would be the same thing, just means more games for less money.
IFireflyl
Gold Member
The issue is that all long-term effects are "potential". It's possible that this acquisition would have zero impact on the gaming industry. It's also possible that this acquisition can cause a ripple effect that will cause long-term harm to the gaming industry.
For example, if Xbox uses this acquisition to shove out other gaming services like Nvidia's GeForce Now (or whatever it's called). Or if Microsoft uses this acquisition as precedent to buy up more large publishers, effectively buying the gaming industry. The potential for disaster is what gives pause to those of us who are against this acquisition.
Big tech consolidating power is virtually always bad for consumers. If this acquisition does go through then I hope it's as inconsequential as some people in this thread think it's going to be.
MS/Activision also brought in Sony. They are serving subpoenas to those who might oppose it it seems.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Sony is the most vocal opponent to the deal. I'd wager they'd love to show regulators why they'd be unable to compete if MS buys Activision.
Fredrik
Member
As said above I know it’s selfish but I just like subscriptions, suits me perfectly, so longterm effects toward that particular future is less of an issue for me. I can see some potential traps but I think the market will make sure things don’t go too far, I’ve experienced GFWL issues (Dirt 3) but it was corrected. So right now I only see the upsides of having access to a bigger library for less money, as with Netflix and Spotify and Disney+ etc but without any compression downgrades. I think it’s awesome tbh.I addressed stances like the one you describe in the very post you quoted. This is all part of Microsoft's current image where they want to be seen as the "value" option across the industry, that along with several other policies that they've recently adopted all serve to make them appear to be humanitarian in their efforts. You want cheap games, that makes sense, but at what cost (both in the short term and the long term)?
Further consolidation does not need to happen. The only reason ATVI are up for sale is because Kotick saw the writing on the wall and sought to find an out avenue that was on his own terms, resulting in a huge payday for himself and the rest of his leadership team. The great irony is that if this attempted acquisition never came to fruition then he would already be gone - hence anyone saying they approve of this deal because it means ATVI will rid themselves of Kotick is... To be polite, misguided.
The following does not apply to activision but from a big picture perspective, companies who are unable to sustain themselves financially are typically those who have failed to manage themselves appropriately and/or companies who have failed to provide products which have an appropriate level of demand in the market. Those companies typically don't get purchased and this certainly does not describe ATVI. Microsoft are just being opportunistic here.
Yeh it's a simple inconvenience until its not.
But well done on misinterpreting and misrepresenting my point.
If things truly go south I bet I can stop subscribing and go back to buying games, I don’t see a scenario where that choice is removed anytime soon. And I know I’ll always have all platforms anyway so any exclusivity scenario makes no difference, I can use all controllers just fine.
Best case scenario would be Gamepass and PS+ library through Steam, but can’t have everything so I take what I can get for now.
https://www.accc.gov.au/public-regi...microsoft-corporation-activision-blizzard-inc
Pointed out by Ida's, not a surprise
Pointed out by Ida's, not a surprise
Last edited:
Hero of Spielberg
Member
The ACCC are a joke. They’ll just wait for any regulatory body with teeth to make a decision and then they’ll say ‘yeah, that’s what we thought too!’
Clintizzle
Lord of Edge.
My thoughts exactly.
Yup. They are probably waiting for CMA/EU. Same as FTC.
If CMA and EU approve this deal there is literally no way it does not go through. FTC picked a wrong fight and rest of regulatory bodies will follow big guys.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I'm a big ass Xbot.
feynoob
Banned
Since I don't want to derail that thread, I will respond you here.
Don mattrick issue was not focusing on first party studios and expanding them. In term of 3rd party output, he did fantastic job.
But having 3rd party games is meaningless, if you don't have enough first party studios. It's was one major issues of Xbox, and why they had little output.
2-4 studios would have made a massive improvement in term of their output.
Then you have the TV legacy and the state of Xbox one launch.
Xss/s bad start is completely under Phil. Halo infinite was under his leadership. 2022 was his disaster. He couldn't even get AAA 3rd party exclusives during that year.
Sony major issues was their console, not their studios like Xbox. Not the same thing.
Studios make games. If you are having a problem with your studios, it means less output, which Xbox one had.
On other hand PS3 had great games. It's like day and night.
If Don mattrick was to expand first party studios, Xbox one and xsx/s would have had a lot of games by now. You don't
Imagine if Sony didn't buy insomniac and MS bought them. That would mean Sony wouldn't have spiderman, miles, ratchet and wolverine.
Maybe other studios could do it, but it won't be the same level output as insomniac.
When you build a house, you always start with the base.
Don mattrick issue was not focusing on first party studios and expanding them. In term of 3rd party output, he did fantastic job.
But having 3rd party games is meaningless, if you don't have enough first party studios. It's was one major issues of Xbox, and why they had little output.
2-4 studios would have made a massive improvement in term of their output.
Then you have the TV legacy and the state of Xbox one launch.
Xss/s bad start is completely under Phil. Halo infinite was under his leadership. 2022 was his disaster. He couldn't even get AAA 3rd party exclusives during that year.
Sony major issues was their console, not their studios like Xbox. Not the same thing.
Studios make games. If you are having a problem with your studios, it means less output, which Xbox one had.
On other hand PS3 had great games. It's like day and night.
If Don mattrick was to expand first party studios, Xbox one and xsx/s would have had a lot of games by now. You don't
Imagine if Sony didn't buy insomniac and MS bought them. That would mean Sony wouldn't have spiderman, miles, ratchet and wolverine.
Maybe other studios could do it, but it won't be the same level output as insomniac.
feynoob
Banned
The issue is building blocks.
Games take time to make. With small studios, you can't put out a lot of games.
People don't realize how badly don made Xbox.
It's not him alone. Even MS didn't invest money by expanding their in-house studios during his era.
Look at 2023 output. 3-4 games are from Bethesda/zenimax. 1 will be from ninja theory which Phil bought in 2018.
They only have 2 games from Mojang and turn 10.
That is how bad the damage is.
jm89
Member
Yes, I've been honest about this. I have well over $8k invested in this, and I do believe the deal will close. But... I would be supporting the deal even if I didn't have money invested because, well, I'm a big ass Xbot.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
DarkMage619
$MSFT
We can blame Phil or Don but the fact remains that the X360, Xbox's most successful generation had them in 3rd place at the end of it. MS has never won any generation of console since Xbox has existed. This happens when they had lots of games and when they have had none.
It is complete nonsense to think this acquisition will suddenly keep Nintendo and Sony from being able to successfully compete in the games industry. What it will do is expand Xbox’s first party offerings and improve working conditions for Activision employees. Both of those things are good overall.
feynoob
Banned
Who is talking about acquisition here?
This topic was from another thread.
I didn't want to derail that thread so I responded them here.
Astray
Gold Member
CMA/EU will be the biggest obstacles because they have a more robust set of rules that favor them more than FTC does.
Also, really not a good idea to invest based on being a fan, this is hard earned money that should be invested to generate future value for you and your fam, you don't invest it on the basis of liking Phil Spencer.
Also, really not a good idea to invest based on being a fan, this is hard earned money that should be invested to generate future value for you and your fam, you don't invest it on the basis of liking Phil Spencer.
caligula13
Gold Member
i am tired of waiting. when will COD be available in Gamepass?
Didn't Phil take over in 2014, which would be 8-9 years ago depending on month?
No dispute that MS botched the good will from OG Xbox and 360 before Phil took over. But its been 8-9 years. Building blocks are not the issue at this point. Management is the issue IMO.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
It's all relevant to the transaction because in approving a purchase like this, Microsoft and Activision must convince major regulators that what Microsoft could be acquiring and some of what could eventually be made exclusive to Xbox at some point in the future, isn't so essential to Playstation's ability to exist or remain highly competitive in the games industry (especially as it relates to consoles) that the transaction should be automatically blocked on such grounds.
The strength of sales of Playstation consoles, the strength of sony's first-party releases, and the overall strength of the playstation business with third-party games that are not by Activision Blizzard are all relevant factors worth analyzing to assess how much of a harm there would be to Playstation should the transaction be allowed to go ahead. In the last quarter, over 80 million games were sold on Playstation and over 20 million of them were sony first-party titles. That's damn impressive. And don't think they haven't gone back to previous big Sony release years such as 2018 and 2020 and looked at those financial breakdowns. Notice how much less detail Microsoft shares publicly about its games business? Many assume that's because it's not so flattering. If that's true, it will look pretty good to regulators in the end and help make Microsoft's case.
So while everybody has focused specifically on Microsoft and Activision Blizzard, when considering a merger of this magnitude, the competitors in the market where the transaction is most likely to cause any impact or impact anything of value a competitor might be able to offer to their customer base is also just as relevant. This is why mergers are reviewed at all. It reviews how it will affect the market and the toughest competition in that market. 3 Sony first-party titles, including God of War, being in the top 10 best selling games list in the US for 2022 as such is relevant. Sony's recent quarterly earnings that were just dropped are also highly relevant, as are Xbox's results and Activision Blizzard's upcoming results. The microscope is on Xbox and Microsoft, yes, but a microscope is also on Sony and Playstation especially because they've fought to prevent this deal to such a major extent. So God of War: Ragnarok lighting it up as it did will be relevant.
MLB: The Show, Sony's own first-party title, continuing to drop day one on Game Pass year after year without harming Sony and Playstation will also be relevant. The very strong playstation quarterly results are fantastic news as far as Microsoft's lawyers are concerned since they are trying to demonstrate, in order to get this deal approved, that Sony will be perfectly fine and will be strong in a post Microsoft acquires Activision Blizzard world.
bitbydeath
Member
Just showing how many play COD on PlayStation platforms and how much money they make from it is enough, their own games aren’t relevant as its about the potential loss of sale that could impact their future.
Let’s say someone is a hardcore COD player and buys GoW, TLOU etc as well, there is a chance if the deal goes through that, that player will leave and not buy future Sony games. Their own games aren’t relevant to this equation.
That’s all they need to prove.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked