• 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.

johnjohn

Member
What's that got to do with anything being discussed or anything in the OP?

Don't be dense or make such silly strawman arguments.
You claim that you read past the headline, but you clearly didn't.
Yes. Reading between the lines.

Lol. That's not the definition of "reading between the lines".


No.


Mega lol.

The statement is clear = the explicit statement made with words that you can read?

Reading between the lines implies 'reading' what is not explicitly being said.


That's is not what they "say" between the lines.

What is explicitly being said is meaningless because the important thing is the meaning (what is being said ) between the lines.
What do you think they are saying between the lines? And who are they saying it to? And why are they saying it to them?
 
Last edited:

Fuz

Member
 
Firstly, that was 7 billion, not close to 70.

Secondly, Microsoft really wanted that mobile market. Rather than learn how to make phones they bought someone who could do it for them.

Difference is without Activision, Microsoft still make games. They aren't a new entrant into this market and the technology and talent that Nokia have, in Microsoft's eyes made them a must have if they weren't going to make their own handsets like Apple. Same for Activision. They have huge IP.

You don't spend that kind of money to buy someone who doesn't have something that is must have. Your definition of that depends on your context sure. Nokia was a waste of money because Microsoft didn't succeed in that space. But for what Nokia offered them at the time, it was a must have deal for them.

How anyone thought Lumia would succeed is beyond me.
 

John Wick

Member
It’s a bit wierd to try convince anybody this is the case while they’re dumping almost 70 billion dollars into it.
Exactly! Especially when they only paid $7 Billion for Zenimax. There must be something over at AB that made them splash 70 billion.
Sony are right in going to the regulator's. If this was the other way round MS would have done the same if not more.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Exactly! Especially when they only paid $7 Billion for Zenimax. There must be something over at AB that made them splash 70 billion.
Sony are right in going to the regulator's. If this was the other way round MS would have done the same if not more.

I think that nearly $5b a year profit put them on another level. I don't think they were selling for $7b. LOL

And, just to say what has been said 100 times in the thread already ad nauseam, MS made no statements to devalue AB or any of its properties in the statement. They only stated that AB and its properties are non critical to the market as a whole.
 
Last edited:
You do realise they bought Nokia for their patents as well and not just to make phones for them. There was a massive patent war going on back then between Apple, Google, Samsung etc.

Making phones was the major reason the costs was so high, especially the hidden costs that blew up after the acquisition.

How anyone thought Lumia would succeed is beyond me.
It succeeded for years, it didn't beat Apple or Samsung, but Lumia did way better early on before 2014, I think it even lead in some countries.
 
I don’t feel like any of their games are must have. Unless you live in a fog of nastolgia, it hasn’t been like that for well over a decade.
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
I don’t feel like any of their games are must have. Unless you live in a fog of nastolgia, it hasn’t been like that for well over a decade.
I agree. While Activision is a good get it really doesn't change much for me. The last Activision game I played was Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy and I bought it in a fog of nostalgia.
 

lordrand11

Neo Member
Just when you thought sony's claim is a bitter sore loser,,,, MS comes up with something even worse of a response. What a baffling thing to say the least.

COD is not special... then why are you buying it tardface ?

PS. I know this is just Legal stuff. but still wtf ? come up with a better response lol.
I'm sure COD is on the goal list, but you've got Diablo, Starcraft, Overwatch, Warcraft, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, and a whole ass myriad of other games that will make gamepass pretty fucking relevant
 

JackMcGunns

Member
I love this!

Everyone fighting how Activision makes games that are unrivaled, only to watch them later change their tune once the deal goes through lol.
 
People are crazy to think call of duty and all these other IP Xbox brought will not be exclusive once the contractual obligation are met for Sony.

Xbox would not have spent over a billon to not get exclusive content
 
Last edited:

John Wick

Member
I'm sure COD is on the goal list, but you've got Diablo, Starcraft, Overwatch, Warcraft, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, and a whole ass myriad of other games that will make gamepass pretty fucking relevant
Yeah but why for 70 billion? You just bought Zenimax for 7 billion with just as many IP. Clearly someone is lying......
 
Top Bottom