• 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)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
FoxMcChief said:
I think MS’s next target should be From Software.
Click to expand...
Tongue Goat GIF
 
James Sawyer Ford

James Sawyer Ford

Member
Punished Miku said:
Xbox would have marketing rights, and could say every year at E3 it's on Gamepass. That alone would be enough in my opinion to give them a fighting chance even if the game remains available for PS, which I think it would.
Click to expand...

But giving it away on GamePass is effectively stealing an audience away from an entire platform, because only a company the size of MS would be willing to eat that upfront cost for a longer term return

Microsoft can and should compete by making their first party games desirable again like they once were
 
Last edited:
Mr Moose

Mr Moose

Member
DrFigs

DrFigs

Member
Punished Miku said:
I personally wouldn't support other large MS acquisitions, but that's just my opinion on it. I think they needed that 1 killer third party game on Gamepass. When 360 was thriving, they had the Call of Duty marketing rights as well. I do think they see Call of Duty as being somewhat fitting with their brand identity the one time they had some success. What I assumed was going to happen was Call of Duty staying multiplat like they said. Xbox would have marketing rights, and could say every year at E3 it's on Gamepass. That alone would be enough in my opinion to give them a fighting chance even if the game remains available for PS, which I think it would.

From my perspective, I have purchased 2 Activision/Blizz games in like 20 years so I feel their impact is really not that big of a deal (Diablo III and Wolverine Origins). It's a bit more games from Blizz on Gamepass, maybe some renewed strategy games on PC since MS supports that, and everyone still has Call of Duty. Seemed fine to me.

The reason I didn't feel it was that out of bounds for MS in this one instance is because from my point of view they're doing many things that encapsulate "fair" competition, and it's just not moving the needle at all. Cheaper console, cheaper games in many cases, new sub service with a cheap price, investing heavily in first party development. Lowering the price is the traditional way to compete. MS was literally cutting series S prices while Sony raised PS5 prices and you just saw the PS market share increase. At this moment in the present, that was really all I needed to see.

Further acquisitions I would view in a similar way by taking stock of the current strength and health of the companies involved and trying to see how it would impact evening things out. That's really all anyone can do. If it's not a giant impact, then it'll probably be fine.
Click to expand...
This point here about MS doing the most and still struggling is why I'm not as against the acquisition as I once was. They do have the cheaper console, they do have the cheaper games, they have a heavily subsidized subscription service when compared to ps now/ ps plus. It's pretty clear at this point they're falling behind the competition despite how much money they're losing on this product. idk whether that should justify MS buying something as large as Activision, but it's not as crazy as it seemed to me a few months ago.
 
demigod

demigod

Member
knocksky said:
Where? PC. Where the barrier to entry is significantly higher. Or Nintendo, who would quickly find themselves squeezed by a Sony gaming behemoth. I.E a very limited library of 3rd party games.

I am struggling to find something good that would come out of Microsoft quitting the console business and giving Sony a monopoly.
Click to expand...
Why do they need to quit the console business since folks keep championing that gamepass is profitable with the best value in gaming? Who’s fault would it be if xbox leaves, sony? Why can’t xbox look into their issues instead of always blaming small sony? Why do they need Acti/Blizz just to compete?

Do you know that Brad wants to blockbuster Sony? Imagine the outcome if that happens. Oh wait we already seen some of the outcomes already.
* raising game prices
* paid online
* horse armor mtx
* didn’t allow crossplay
* always online drm fiasco
* forcing kinect on their consumers
* taking away games from competitor after buying said publisher/ studios

Sure Sony has their issues as well but stop pretending that ms are saints.
 
S

SneakersSO

Member
Sanepar said:
Most of UK game journalists think this deal will go through with concessions.
Click to expand...
1) I know many game journalists - the amount I consider on having an actual domain within this industry and aren't just 'fans' with a media outlet, I can count on one hand.

2) These same journalists, 6-8 months ago, even as late as October, were all claiming both the CMA and the EC were going to rubber stamp this deal and let it pass. That should tell you all you need to know on how well they understand this process.

The only piece I saw that got any of the issues presented by the EC and CMA correctly was that Gameindustry.biz article I saw get posted either Saturday or Sunday.
 
Punished Miku

Punished Miku

Human Rights Subscription Service
James Sawyer Ford said:
But giving it away on GamePass is effectively stealing an audience away from an entire platform, because only a company the size of MS would be willing to eat that upfront cost for a longer term return

Microsoft can and should compete by making their first party games desirable again like they once were
Click to expand...
It's not stealing anything. It's trying a new distribution model, which is exactly how you do compete. Call of Duty would be available through retail on PS, or retail / sub on Xbox. It would be retail vs. sub, and it would be a competition. If the sub model is more attractive, they win some customers.

If you don't agree, that's fine. That's my opinion on it.
 
James Sawyer Ford

James Sawyer Ford

Member
Punished Miku said:
It's not stealing anything. It's trying a new distribution model, which is exactly how you do compete. Call of Duty would be available through retail on PS, or retail / sub on Xbox. It would be retail vs. sub, and it would be a competition. If the sub model is more attractive, they win some customers.

If you don't agree, that's fine. That's my opinion on it.
Click to expand...

Hey guys! Your favorite game you only buy a console for is now yours day 1 on GamePass for less than $5/month while your competitor charges $70 per title

How is that not theft? It’s a massive cheat code that will ultimately put consumers in a worse position once the rug is pulled out in due time
 
Heisenberg007

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
Punished Miku said:
I personally wouldn't support other large MS acquisitions, but that's just my opinion on it. I think they needed that 1 killer third party game on Gamepass. When 360 was thriving, they had the Call of Duty marketing rights as well. I do think they see Call of Duty as being somewhat fitting with their brand identity the one time they had some success. What I assumed was going to happen was Call of Duty staying multiplat like they said. Xbox would have marketing rights, and could say every year at E3 it's on Gamepass. That alone would be enough in my opinion to give them a fighting chance even if the game remains available for PS, which I think it would.

From my perspective, I have purchased 2 Activision/Blizz games in like 20 years so I feel their impact is really not that big of a deal (Diablo III and Wolverine Origins). It's a bit more games from Blizz on Gamepass, maybe some renewed strategy games on PC since MS supports that, and everyone still has Call of Duty. Seemed fine to me.

The reason I didn't feel it was that out of bounds for MS in this one instance is because from my point of view they're doing many things that encapsulate "fair" competition, and it's just not moving the needle at all. Cheaper console, cheaper games in many cases, new sub service with a cheap price, investing heavily in first party development. Lowering the price is the traditional way to compete. MS was literally cutting series S prices while Sony raised PS5 prices and you just saw the PS market share increase. At this moment in the present, that was really all I needed to see.

Further acquisitions I would view in a similar way by taking stock of the current strength and health of the companies involved and trying to see how it would impact evening things out. That's really all anyone can do. If it's not a giant impact, then it'll probably be fine.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Sony has carefully cultivated that level of trust and brand perception over years and dozens of high-quality games released at a consistent clip. That's why that price increase didn't hurt them.

As for Game Pass, I agree that it'll benefit if COD is on Game Pass, even if it is multiplatform. And to be honest, MS still has that option even if the acquisition fails. They can strike a deal with ABK and get COD on Game Pass (+ even other ABK games). That's not anti-competitive at all and won't require any scrutiny.

And that just adds value for Xbox / Game Pass users without taking anything away from the competitive landscape or altering the course of the industry. That's really fair play and they should think about it in case the acquisition fails.

As for their first-party production, however, they still need to up their game there. No workarounds there. They have invested in studios, but they never focused on cultivating that relationship first or building the right infrastructure or tech first. Jim Ryan's organic growth comments get a lot of memes, but he was right. Sony's acquired studios start delivering games from the get-go (Insomniac, Firesprite, Sucker Punch) without any management problems or executives leaving the studios because those studios were always working with PlayStation using PlayStation tech, tools, and support.

Instead of Zenimax and Inxile and Compulsion Games, Xbox should have acquired Moon Studios, Asobo, Creative Assembly, etc. and partner with other talented studios to buy them later.
 
Punished Miku

Punished Miku

Human Rights Subscription Service
Heisenberg007 said:
To be fair, Sony has carefully cultivated that level of trust and brand perception over years and dozens of high-quality games released at a consistent clip. That's why that price increase didn't hurt them.

As for Game Pass, I agree that it'll benefit if COD is on Game Pass, even if it is multiplatform. And to be honest, MS still has that option even if the acquisition fails. They can strike a deal with ABK and get COD on Game Pass (+ even other ABK games). That's not anti-competitive at all and won't require any scrutiny.

And that just adds value for Xbox / Game Pass users without taking anything away from the competitive landscape or altering the course of the industry. That's really fair play and they should think about it in case the acquisition fails.

As for their first-party production, however, they still need to up their game there. No workarounds there. They have invested in studios, but they never focused on cultivating that relationship first or building the right infrastructure or tech first. Jim Ryan's organic growth comments get a lot of memes, but he was right. Sony's acquired studios start delivering games from the get-go (Insomniac, Firesprite, Sucker Punch) without any management problems or executives leaving the studios because those studios were always working with PlayStation using PlayStation tech, tools, and support.

Instead of Zenimax and Inxile and Compulsion Games, Xbox should have acquired Moon Studios, Asobo, Creative Assembly, etc. and partner with other talented studios to buy them later.
Click to expand...
For sure. Personally I think they have to do all of the above to stand a chance.

Sony isn't going to be sitting still. They'll be continually improving while all this is going on. That factors into my opinion as well.

Anyway, thanks for being a normal person.
 
ToadMan

ToadMan

Member
Punished Miku said:
It's not stealing anything. It's trying a new distribution model, which is exactly how you do compete. Call of Duty would be available through retail on PS, or retail / sub on Xbox. It would be retail vs. sub, and it would be a competition. If the sub model is more attractive, they win some customers.

If you don't agree, that's fine. That's my opinion on it.
Click to expand...
No need for an acquisition for CoD to come to GP.

But without an acquisition it is economically non-viable - hence the anticompetitive acquisition being attempted.

And hypothesising some future where MS can get CoD exclusive on GP - well it’s still economically non-viable at today’s sub price point so subs go up.

Sounds painfully familiar to what’s happened with Office over the last 2 decades.

Trillion dollar companies didn’t get that way by leaving your money on the table for long.
 
James Sawyer Ford

James Sawyer Ford

Member
Punished Miku said:
It's offering consumers choice in distribution and letting them pick what they think is better. If Call of Duty was exclusive, you'd be right. But I never believed that was ever a possibility.
Click to expand...

And this is where the argument breaks down. If this deal is about offering consumers a choice, there’s no reason for Microsoft to pursue it to begin with

Whether that’s through preferential Sub terms or expiring contracts, it’s why MS has continued to move the goalpost

And certainly Bethesda’s acquisition was never about choice either as we’ve all come to find out
 
Last edited:
S

Sneakysnake

Banned
demigod said:
Why do they need to quit the console business since folks keep championing that gamepass is profitable with the best value in gaming? Who’s fault would it be if xbox leaves, sony? Why can’t xbox look into their issues instead of always blaming small sony? Why do they need Acti/Blizz just to compete?

Do you know that Brad wants to blockbuster Sony? Imagine the outcome if that happens. Oh wait we already seen some of the outcomes already.
* raising game prices
* paid online
* horse armor mtx
* didn’t allow crossplay
* always online drm fiasco
* forcing kinect on their consumers
* taking away games from competitor after buying said publisher/ studios

Sure Sony has their issues as well but stop pretending that ms are saints.
Click to expand...
Good points except for maybe the one about didn't allow cross play. Sony were the ones dragging their feet on cross play. How do you blame Microsoft for that? MS has been pushing cross play hard for the last 2 gens and Sony was actively working against it until it became inevitable
 
Loxus

Loxus

Member
knocksky said:
Where? PC. Where the barrier to entry is significantly higher. Or Nintendo, who would quickly find themselves squeezed by a Sony gaming behemoth. I.E a very limited library of 3rd party games.

I am struggling to find something good that would come out of Microsoft quitting the console business and giving Sony a monopoly.
Click to expand...
Console gaming has always been an affordable way to game, even before Microsoft entered into the console space.

And when in becomes expensive, we see what can happen with the PS3.

Your just trying to find some way to paint Sony as bad.
 
Last edited:
A

abacab driver

Banned
Heisenberg007 said:
As for the reason for favoring this deal -- I think it's just wrong. What if Xbox's situation doesn't improve after ABK? Like it didn't improve after Zenimax?
Click to expand...

How exactly would owning Zenimax for 2 years "change Xbox's situation" when their biggest Zenimax games havent even released yet?

HiFi Rush is the first Zenimax game in 2 years that Sony didn't money-hat for timed exclusivity. Redfall will be the next, followed by their first big release of this gen, Starfield.
This isn't a sprint.

Even if EVERYTHING Xbox was working on released in one year, Xbox wouldn't change from 3rd place to 2nd or 1st immediately..it would just simply be a platform with an unbelievable lineup of games that us 'hardcore' gamers can selfishly enjoy.

Only the casual consumer has the power to change the landscape..which is why Sony is doing anything it can to prevent a situation where COD hits Gamepass (w/ Xbox marketing rights to boot).
 
demigod

demigod

Member
Sneakysnake said:
Good points except for maybe the one about didn't allow cross play. Sony were the ones dragging their feet on cross play. How do you blame Microsoft for that? MS has been pushing cross play hard for the last 2 gens and Sony was actively working against it until it became inevitable
Click to expand...
MS were the first ones against it during the 360 days when Sony allowed it. They reversed their course when they were losing player base to Sony.
 
Pelta88

Pelta88

Member
SneakersSO said:
1) I know many game journalists - the amount I consider on having an actual domain within this industry and aren't just 'fans' with a media outlet, I can count on one hand.

2) These same journalists, 6-8 months ago, even as late as October, were all claiming both the CMA and the EC were going to rubber stamp this deal and let it pass. That should tell you all you need to know on how well they understand this process.

The only piece I saw that got any of the issues presented by the EC and CMA correctly was that Gameindustry.biz article I saw get posted either Saturday or Sunday.
Click to expand...

100% factual!
 
Heisenberg007

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
Sneakysnake said:
Good points except for maybe the one about didn't allow cross play. Sony were the ones dragging their feet on cross play. How do you blame Microsoft for that? MS has been pushing cross play hard for the last 2 gens and Sony was actively working against it until it became inevitable
Click to expand...
It was Microsoft who didn't allow cross-play between Xbox 360 and PS3, when both consoles had a similar market share.

When Xbox One lost market share and player counts to PS4, Microsoft reached out to Sony for cross-play, and then Sony didn't agree to it just like Microsoft didn't last generation.

Microsoft started it, though.
 
S

Sneakysnake

Banned
Heisenberg007 said:
It was Microsoft who didn't allow cross-play between Xbox 360 and PS3, when both consoles had a similar market share.

When Xbox One lost market share and player counts to PS4, Microsoft reached out to Sony for cross-play, and then Sony didn't agree to it just like Microsoft didn't last generation.

Microsoft started it, though.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clearing that up. Here I was thinking Sony "started it" last gen
 
Punished Miku

Punished Miku

Human Rights Subscription Service
James Sawyer Ford said:
And this is where the argument breaks down. If this deal is about offering consumers a choice, there’s no reason for Microsoft to pursue it to begin with

Whether that’s through preferential Sub terms or expiring contracts, it’s why MS has continued to move the goalpost

And certainly Bethesda’s acquisition was never about choice either as we’ve all come to find out
Click to expand...
They want exclusives obviously. But we were discussing Call of Duty. In that case it would remain multiplat so consumers would choose which system, and whether they prefer buying or renting. Similar to Minecraft, like they said. MS still needs some exclusives, but they have shown a history of not dismantling unusually large communities of players, and Call of Duty is certainly that - let alone the monetary reasons for keeping it on PS.

Personally I think no one can afford putting COD on a sub service unless they own the game. It's just too expensive to make sense of it for long, even for MS. With an acquisition it's not just bleeding money if they own the investment. It's pretty much the only way it will be on GP in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
77K
MasterCornholio replied
Microsoft now says the CMA was ‘tough and fair’ over Activision Blizzard deal
Opinion Business Game Dev
17
2K
DaGwaphics replied
FTC appeals to block already-completed Microsoft-Activision deal
2
63
5K
Mythoclast replied
  • Locked
UK minister defends CMA's decision to block MS/ABK
News
0
792
Daniel_Mallorca1985 replied
  • Locked
Microsoft to sell off Activision cloud gaming rights to Ubisoft in bid for UK approval
News Business 2 3 4
154
14K
Spyxos replied
Top Bottom