• 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 defends Activision buyout by claiming that Activision doesn't make any "must have" games.

Besides COD, what else do Activision really have that can really do massive damage to the competition? WOW? Tony Hawk? Overwatch? I still think $68 billion is absolutely insane for what Microsoft are getting.
 
Last edited:

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
Besides COD, what else do Activision really have that can really do massive damage to the competition? WOW? Tony Hawk? Overwatch? I still think over $70 billion insane for what Microsoft are getting.
WOW isnt exactly as popular today as it was back in the 2000s,
Tony Hawk is a dead brand sadly. I wish it would come back but even then it wouldn't be the same due to the complete lack of punk rock these days
Overwatch is... Overwatch.
 
Activision doesn't do anything other AAA developers can't do themselves. It's like Sony is saying that only Activision can make a modern FPS and no other developer can. Meanwhile Sony buys Bungie who made Halo and Destiny?

Black And White Reaction GIF
Sony could use the expertise of Bungie to develop a big budget AAA multiplayer shooter. I'm surprised no one has poured resources into developing a COD rival.
 

Fredrik

Member
They’ve said the games will come to PS so why are they even talking about a scenario where it doesn’t come to PS?
Are they changing their mind regarding exclusivity?
 
Besides COD, what else do Activision really have that can really do massive damage to the competition? WOW? Tony Hawk? Overwatch? I still think over $70 billion insane for what Microsoft are getting.


82% of acitivion/blizzards earnings are from 3 franchises, WoW, CoD, and Candy Crush, nothing else they do really moves a needle outside of maybe Diablo. World of Warcraft is almost old enough to drink, theres not gonna be a huge resurgence of players for the franchise at this point.

Activision itself is really only CoD at this point. Every single studio is necessary to keep that machine running
 
Sony could use the expertise of Bungie to develop a big budget AAA multiplayer shooter. I'm surprised no one has poured resources into developing a COD rival.

Sony are already doing that with Deviation, they are all ex-treyarch/blops guys.

Firewalk is also ex-bungie, respawn, and CoD guys. Now those studios have Bungie proper to lend expertise. I don’t think Sony is as scared about CoD as they are making it seem, they just dont want to make it easier for Microsoft. Especially if it means they are looking to acquire more publishers/studios after this
 
Last edited:

RCU005

Member
Does COD still have many years of life?

How long can they make COD and still sell well? I imagine it could get difficult with a franchise revolving around war. Didn't they come back to World War 2 again not so long ago?

Activision as a whole is a great acquisition, no doubt about it, but the value should come from the talent, not necessary the IPs. Not many IPs can last for 30 years, but they need to take advantage of all their studios to make new, fun and innovative games.

The question is: Will Microsoft will be able to utilize all those studios and IPs properly? They haven't done that with Rare so far in more than 20 years.
 
WOW isnt exactly as popular today as it was back in the 2000s,
Tony Hawk is a dead brand sadly. I wish it would come back but even then it wouldn't be the same due to the complete lack of punk rock these days
Overwatch is... Overwatch.
I see. Yep. So basically COD is all they really have that can shift huge numbers.
 

HTK

Banned
I'll just quote myself from the other thread.

Nintendo can be used as a clear example of that point.

They don't have CoD on thier system and are doing well, therefore CoD is not a must have for your business to survive.

It's the difference between "wants" and "needs."
PlayStation and Xbox are more alike in terms of games and target audience compared to Nintendo. So I don't think that's also a fair observation.
 
They are totay correct. If Sony doesn't have access to COD or Crash Bandicoot it won't result in the "foreclosure " of Sony or PlayStation.
Anyway, New Zealand is a joke thinking they have any say in what happens with MS and Activision.
 
I'll just quote myself from the other thread.

Nintendo can be used as a clear example of that point.

They don't have CoD on thier system and are doing well, therefore CoD is not a must have for your business to survive.

It's the difference between "wants" and "needs."
It' a bad example, Nintendo isn't a direct competitor. Try to look from a different angle: Pokemon is not a must have for business to survive, since Sony doesn't have it, but if you buy Pokemon away from Nintendo it will be a tremendous loss and damage for them more that the same acquisition would be for another company who doesn't have the same franchise history and fan base. You can't think for absolutes, perspective is fundamental.

For the console business COD is just the biggest franchise of the last 20 years. Of course you can survive, but you are buying your competitor single biggest source of income from a royalties perspective.
 
Last edited:

Mr Reasonable

Completely Unreasonable
Activision as a whole is a great acquisition, no doubt about it, but the value should come from the talent, not necessary the IPs. Not many IPs can last for 30 years, but they need to take advantage of all their studios to make new, fun and innovative games.

Sadly, I don't think things work like that anymore. Franchises, brands, universes, are the order of the day. Not creative minds and new ideas.

Most of the games in the best sellers lists are sequels, practically all of them. People know what they like and they like what they know.

The IP is the deal, not the workers, buildings, etc.

If you put COD vs signing Miyamoto's (or another celebrated designer) latest idea and wanted to make money, COD would be the safest bet, even if the new idea was more innovative, more interesting and more fun.

With that in mind, I would think Microsoft are correct that any major developer and publisher team could with enough money make a top tier FPS that the people who played it absolutely love. What this deal is about is that the game would likely be something of a failure financially because people will go for the game called Battlefield, COD, etc.
 
Last edited:

Ozriel

M$FT
Buying cod and sticking it on gamepass and keeping it exclusive doesn't make that much sense financially.
Cod rakes it over one billion maybe two annually from game sales alone that's before dlc and mtx.
Buy the time Xbox can keep it exclusive gamepass will probably have achieved its critical mass.

First off, Gamepass is still probably a long way from hittting critical mass. And even when that happens, you don’t relax on your oars and stop adding new content.

Not to mention it’ll still sell millions at retail and on PC even with day 1 Gamepass release.

Smell something?



typical pr BS

How can a non-public response to a regulator be ‘PR’?
 

DeadFire87

Neo Member
Its not just cod and activision really. Blizzards stuff sells crazy amounts too. WoW is never ending money funnel mmo. Diablo immortal has made 100 million in its first week. Microsoft has given up on getting gamers to their side by making new ips. So they will buy out whatever gamers play to get them on their side. Having top franchises and the top fps and the top mmo and so on in hopes it will grab more people. Having publishers under them do all the work on making the new stuff.
 
Last edited:

MistBreeze

Member
Sony already has Bungie so they can make their AAA shooter if they want

Microsoft is right about Activision not having must own AAA besides cod

Sony can not compete with Microsoft in acquisition front but sure they can aquire square or capcom

You must spend to win Sony
Complaining will not do much

It is ps3 generation all over again we nead Kaz Hirai back
 

Kataploom

Gold Member
I'll just quote myself from the other thread.

Nintendo can be used as a clear example of that point.

They don't have CoD on thier system and are doing well, therefore CoD is not a must have for your business to survive.

It's the difference between "wants" and "needs."
It's not a good example, Nintendo attracts other audiences... The problem with third parties on Nintendo isn't mainly power or installed base, it's always been about audience. Switch attracts lots of different people so it probably started to change a little
 

drganon

Member
Not really. Nintendo thrives because they exist in a different market segment. Buying up Bethesda and Activision was always an anti-competitive move. Microsoft is simply trying to position the acquisition to get the uninitiated to join the green rats and follow the flute.
Microsoft being anti competitive and having monopolistic tendencies? Say it ain't so.
 

lh032

I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
I mean...tecnically it isnt, few of their big revenue games were COD for casuals, and these people who play COD would probably dont buy alot of games imo.
 
Last edited:

Banjo64

cumsessed
If Nintendo can create their own little ecosystem with Splatoon (I say little but the last game sold 13+ million copies) Sony should be competent enough to create some MP action, although that's their weakness.
Would Splatoon sell 13m copies every year if it released annually, and is their scope for Splatoon to generate billions of dollars a year in MTX?

To be honest I’m surprised that Sony acquired Bungie and MS Acti. I would have though Destiny would fit better with Game Pass as there’s less operating costs involved, and it’s ‘episodic’ in style with its expansions. But here we are.
 

Snake29

RSI Employee of the Year
Sony are already doing that with Deviation, they are all ex-treyarch/blops guys.

Firewalk is also ex-bungie, respawn, and CoD guys. Now those studios have Bungie proper to lend expertise. I don’t think Sony is as scared about CoD as they are making it seem, they just dont want to make it easier for Microsoft. Especially if it means they are looking to acquire more publishers/studios after this

This is the right answer. People are reading way to much into these quotes from Sony and MS, and making their own stories around it.
 
Last edited:

The_Mike

I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Stupid comment. Sony has done nothing like this deal and you know it!

Sony could use the expertise of Bungie to develop a big budget AAA multiplayer shooter. I'm surprised no one has poured resources into developing a COD rival.

Maybe because its not as easy as people say in here?

Nah, everyone can make a basic shooter because that's what cod is

/s

Such a shame DICE shit the bed with BF2042. Would have been the perfect year to come out with a banger since hype was relatively low for Vanguard (vs other COD years).

You are just seeing cod as BF as fpses, but someone interested in cod is not necessarily interested in BF and vice versa.

I always liked CoD, and not really BF. Cod is a fast twitch shooter while BF is a more slow sim lite fps.

Steam and Switch not having CoD and still thriving kinda proves that statement.

But steam isn't the only pc store. You can still play call of duty on pc through the Blizzard store.

CoD games started to become exclusive on Blizzard store with CoD Black Ops IIII. And if you look at steams player stays lost there's no similar game there, which means people who like cod has the Blizzard store app.

You can't just install an app on playstation and get cod. It's not comparable.
 

Ozriel

M$FT
Besides COD, what else do Activision really have that can really do massive damage to the competition? WOW? Tony Hawk? Overwatch? I still think over $70 billion insane for what Microsoft are getting.

That’s because you imagine MS is buying Activision to ‘do massive damage to the competition’. Which is absurd.

They’re buying Activision for the revenue, and for the potential to drive a significant amount of subscriptions to Gamepass Ultimate.
 

Ozriel

M$FT
Does COD still have many years of life?

How long can they make COD and still sell well? I imagine it could get difficult with a franchise revolving around war. Didn't they come back to World War 2 again not so long ago?

Activision as a whole is a great acquisition, no doubt about it, but the value should come from the talent, not necessary the IPs. Not many IPs can last for 30 years, but they need to take advantage of all their studios to make new, fun and innovative games.

The question is: Will Microsoft will be able to utilize all those studios and IPs properly? They haven't done that with Rare so far in more than 20 years.

Rare’s a tough example for you to use, since their last game is their most successful to date.

Makes no sense to use the entire 20 year history. Ideally you’d look at recent history since that’s by far a better indicator of management.
 

0neAnd0nly

Gold Member
I truly think gaming PR might be among the dumbest branches of PR… and that is saying something.

Eef.

It was obvious from the start they wouldn’t keep CoD multiplat. Spencer, though likable, is just another suit. Faster people realize that, faster you accept the move. MS isn’t, and has never been, pro consumer. They don’t “care about the gamers”, they care about $. This was obvious from the moment it happened. Duh. It’s business. You don’t pay that much to own something and share it without strings attached if you share it at all. The way he worded the releases in the days following made that very clear.

Sony making dumb moves too, before I get heat from XBOX fans. They respond equally as dumb to the unfolding event of micro-acti.

Really has to be nice just being Nintendo, tbh. Lol. Not much care. They do their thing, gonna sell. Typically they shut up. Can’t botch it if you don’t care to comment. Ha.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Microsoft's point is completely disingenuous IMHO because that's like saying Microsoft don't make any "must have" operating systems or productivity tools, which is very true, but the position they occupy in the market by dominating first means that - in an alternative universe where PC hardware companies had money to acquire Microsoft - if someone like Lenovo or HP or Dell acquired their operating system or productivity tools and then had the market position to keep that software off of competing hardware it would be to the detriment of competition and world markets in general.

And just like CoD, everyone has tried to make an OS to replace Windows, and even the most worked on OS in the world - the Linux kernel with a world of free contributors - has no way to compete against Windows because it planted its flag at just the right time.

If Microsoft genuinely believes that, I wonder what their reaction would be if regulators said they can buy all of the company except for CoD developers and the IP. If the software isn't a must have, then it probably isn't a "must have" for them in the deal too.
 

Ozriel

M$FT
Microsoft's point is completely disingenuous IMHO because that's like saying Microsoft don't make any "must have" operating systems or productivity tools, which is very true, but the position they occupy in the market by dominating first means that - in an alternative universe where PC hardware companies had money to acquire Microsoft - if someone like Lenovo or HP or Dell acquired their operating system or productivity tools and then had the market position to keep that software off of competing hardware it would be to the detriment of competition and world markets in general.

And just like CoD, everyone has tried to make an OS to replace Windows, and even the most worked on OS in the world - the Linux kernel with a world of free contributors - has no way to compete against Windows because it planted its flag at just the right time.

If Microsoft genuinely believes that, I wonder what their reaction would be if regulators said they can buy all of the company except for CoD developers and the IP. If the software isn't a must have, then it probably isn't a "must have" for them in the deal too.

Maybe you should try to read the entire quote first, before typing?

They’ve essentially said the absence of Call of Duty won’t lead to PlayStation folding. And that’s 100% fact.
 
Last edited:

PaintTinJr

Member
Fanboys accusing Microsoft of being anti-competitive? Say it ain’t so 😂

Extremely hard to accuse the company in last place of being ‘monopolistic’, but here we are.
Is it though - if you look at the big picture?

I suspect Microsoft have lost more money directly on the Xbox/Kinnect/TVTVTV/gamepass project since they joined the industry than combined the losses of the last 20 companies that have gone bust or left the industry in the last 30years - even adjusting for inflation.

No other company that has ever joined the console market could have sustained the losses Microsoft had with the original xbox, never mind all the losses and spending on devs and publishers like Bethesda since then. So in the big picture, the last place company just needs to keep throwing marbles for as long as it takes until they own all the marbles. That's how the game is played. Them acquiring a company that would virtually guarantee them locking up the market if Sony stumbled - like they did with the PS3 - would give them a monopoly in the home console space and because of their wealth give them the same position in home console gaming as they have with Windows and Office, and then they come for Steam too in all likelihood.
 
Last edited:
I haven't played an Activision game in ages, not even sure what they do. But then I think Falcom makes must have games so take that as you will.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Maybe you should try to read the entire quote first, before typing?

They’ve essentially said the absence of Call of Duty won’t lead to PlayStation folding. And that’s 100% fact.
In the PS3 generation it would have potentially killed PlayStation given the yearly revenue sums involved. Sony skated very close to going out of business IIRC because of Xbox being able to blindly spend on original Xbox and the launch years of the 360, and then the new Kinect project, in a tiny window, when PlayStation were - like any normal business in a sector - working to timescales geared toward ROI. If you had also taken away PlayStations cut of CoD revenue in that period - where they were $500M down on Cell BE R&D, never mind launch PS3 subsidies to sell it at the price they did and all their first party AAA game dev costs - I don't think they would have made it.
 

ZywyPL

Banned
Besides COD, what else do Activision really have that can really do massive damage to the competition? WOW? Tony Hawk? Overwatch? I still think over $70 billion insane for what Microsoft are getting.

D4 is gonna be HUGE. Immortal already brings massive money. Candy Crush alone brings like 2B each year. There's a reason ActiBlizz is worts so much more than for example EA or Ubi, they do have massive IPs that bring massive revenue.

As for the console wars tho, yeah, there's really not much other than CoD that would do any impact to PS users if the games went exclusive to MS platforms.
 
Top Bottom