Just make your own Call of Doody, shouldn't be so hard. I bet you can download a free template for it.
Well just look at the quality of the PS5 hardware compared to XSS/XSX. They already can't match MS there, even if they sold more consoles in the past. I expect Sony to ditch console production and become a boutique publisher on PC and wherever else will have them. And that is the best case scenario.
I highly doubt Phil would speak to Jim about anything pertaining to this deal before its closing. Any and all talks should be held once it closes.
I'd say the chances are high that if contracts are not kept, there would be a suit against the entity it contracted with for damages under the contract. As well as a suit against MS for interfering in contractual relations, demanding the full amount of profit COD Sony would have realized during the contractual period. These companies are all legally distinct entities, so if one caused the other to interfere they'd be virtually certain to get sued.So how can Jim be so sure that the exist contracts will be kept? Is he referencing the SEC filings?
Activision stock has been in decline for years and it is perfectly normal for purchase companies to pay well in excess over current market value. These are the type of concepts people in this forum need to understand before we can even wish to have meaningful conversation.Microsoft paid almost 20 billions over Activision Blizzard market price (50 billion). This tells me Microsoft does not care about recouping their money soon.
Activision stock has been in decline for years and it is perfectly normal for purchase companies to pay well in excess over current market value. These are the type of concepts people in this forum need to understand before we can even wish to have meaningful conversation.
Please be careful with your words when saying "Microsoft doesn't care to recoup money soon..." All companies want to recoup investment as quickly as possible. There is no such thing as "not caring" when it comes to any capital investment amount, regardless of size.
Exactly.I think a better way of saying "MS doesn't care to recoup money soon" is that Microsoft isn't planning on recouping this money soon, rather it's planting a seed in the ground that it plans to see blossom 5-10 years from now.
Great way of looking at it.I think a better way of saying "MS doesn't care to recoup money soon" is that Microsoft isn't planning on recouping this money soon, rather it's planting a seed in the ground that it plans to see blossom 5-10 years from now.
Yes I figured this is what they are trying to get at but it is nevertheless an important distinction.I think a better way of saying "MS doesn't care to recoup money soon" is that Microsoft isn't planning on recouping this money soon, rather it's planting a seed in the ground that it plans to see blossom 5-10 years from now.
No, assets do not have value by simply existing. That is absurd.Great way of looking at it.
And to add to that. Buying Activision at 70b doesn't need 70b to recoup. It is an asset. It has value in and of itself just simply EXISTING. You don't need to recoup the money on the asset in some timeframe. It is an acquired asset that if you wanted to sell at a later time then the idea of recouping investment makes sense. But as an existing asset in a company's portfolio and books, just simply existing as a valuable asset is enough. Especially with IP ownership which is very much a powerful asset to own.
You missed the part when they said "and continue". A very operative phrase there.Misleading head title really.
Sony is saying it expect MS to honor the contractual agreements between Sony and acti. Which MS said it will.
Has nothing to do with what happened after the agreement end .Sony does not expect MS to release activision games multiplatform after the agreements end. They are not that naive
Damn, I feel bad for buying my house. I spent 500k and now its worth nothing because it has "no present value of future cash flow." (this phrase means nothing in this discussion). Intellectual property as an intangible asset is not some foreign concept.No, assets do not have value by simply existing. That is absurd.
The intrinsic value of an asset is measured by the present value of their future cash flows. In buying Activision for $70b, Microsoft bankers and accountants came to the conclusion that Activision's value was in excess of $70b. Of course these calculations are eternally subjective, which is why we have markets and M&A transactions.
Microsoft doesn't have to honor any contractual agreements for the new COD games coming up and they can pretty much tell Sony to go kick rocks. What is Sony going to do? file frivolous lawsuits and try to disrupt business. LOL, good luck with that.
Keep selling PS5 at record numbers while having PSN as the #1 revenue generator in the console industry, I suppose.Microsoft doesn't have to honor any contractual agreements for the new COD games coming up and they can pretty much tell Sony to go kick rocks. What is Sony going to do? file frivolous lawsuits and try to disrupt business. LOL, good luck with that.
I don't think you practice what you are accusing me of being reckless in my statements.Activision stock has been in decline for years and it is perfectly normal for purchase companies to pay well in excess over current market value. These are the type of concepts people in this forum need to understand before we can even wish to have meaningful conversation.
Please be careful with your words when saying "Microsoft doesn't care to recoup money soon..." All companies want to recoup investment as quickly as possible. There is no such thing as "not caring" when it comes to any capital investment amount, regardless of size.
If Sony wants to make sure Microsoft "honors existing contractual agreements" they need something to force it to happen. If Sony were to acquire EA, they could easily demand MS maintain Call of Duty on Playstation or they could threaten to stop making Madden and FIFA for Xbox. That would certainly make sure that "existing contractual agreements" are "honored" on the part of both companies.
Microsoft literally went through an antitrust trial and not only survived but has since become the world's second most valuable company by market cap, behind only Apple. They don't give a FUCK what anyone thinks. "Microsoft is a vampire" is a well-known saying in Silicon Valley. "The Beast from Redmond" is their nickname for decades.There are heavy fines and penalties with contracts like these. As in Microsoft would pay the full amount of revenue lost to Sony from not having Call of Duty on their platform. And we are talking millions to the billions. Though nothing for Microsoft, the bad press and implications would be very damaging. It would hurt any future deals they made with companies for lets say gamepass exclusivity.
Microsoft literally went through an antitrust trial and not only survived but has since become the world's second most valuable company by market cap, behind only Apple. They don't give a FUCK what anyone thinks. "Microsoft is a vampire" is a well-known saying in Silicon Valley. "The Beast from Redmond" is their nickname for decades.
The only way to force agreement from Microsoft is to threaten them with something big enough for them to care. The only thing big enough for them to care is Madden and FIFA. I'm willing to bet right now, EA is being bombarded with name your own price acquisition offers from literally everyone with the cash to make it happen today. If you control EA, you wield a powerful weapon against Microsoft Gaming because the Number 1, 2, and 3 franchises in the world are Call of Duty, Madden, and FIFA.
I don't think you practice what you are accusing me of being reckless in my statements.
First of all, here is the stock history of activision, there is no way you can interpret this as "in decline for years"
No, it is not abnormal. Gaming M&A is very competitive. In fact, Microsoft paid double Bethesda's perceived value of $3.5b to acquire them.Second thing, the excess value we are talking about here is in 40% of company value; that is huge fucking deal.
And third thing, you know damn well what I mean by Microsoft no recouping this money soon. It means that it will not matter to them if after 2 years if they stop the revenue stream from Sony. it did not matter with Bethesda and it would not matter with AIBL.
You are referring to your place of residence. You are using it as a utility, therefore the principles we are talking about wouldn't apply. Although it would apply if you purchased that house as an investment and were renting it out.Damn, I feel bad for buying my house. I spent 500k and now its worth nothing because it has "no present value of future cash flow." (this phrase means nothing in this discussion). Intellectual property as an intangible asset is not some foreign concept.
Damn, I feel bad for my economic degree. Everything I learned was wrong.
Edit: like what does the bold statement even mean? And the second part of that statement is you literally saying nothing. "MS Bankers (lmao internal bankers? lmao) and accountants (yes) came to the conclusion that Activision's value was in excess of 70b (nothing I said countered this and this has no bearing on the purchase, what are you talking about?). Of course these calculations are eternally subjective (eternally or internally? and what are you trying to say?) which is why we have markets (for internal evaluations? what are you saying?) and M&A transactions (what are you trying to say? Your point makes no sense).
What are you even saying here? Some companies value other companies but its subjective so thats why we have M&A and markets?
Ah, I see. I didn't see how it was relevent as a follow-up.I don't understand what you're trying to say with your edits but all I was saying is a market is collection of buyers and sellers with diff. opinions on value.
1000% agreed. But it would just be weird in most circumstances to purchase an income generating asset for big money and just leave it idle. I do get what you're saying now though and sorry for not understanding before.Ah, I see. I didn't see how it was relevent as a follow-up.
Assets DO have value sitting and doing nothing. They are still an asset and the PV or FV of future cashflow has no bearing on them being or not being an asset. Owned IPs are an asset. Even dormant IPs are an asset.
Agreed. No worries, appreciate the conversation.1000% agreed. But it would just be weird in most circumstances to purchase an income generating asset for big money and just leave it idle. I do get what you're saying now though and sorry for not understanding before.
i didnt read thisIs Sony going to live up to their contractual agreement? They have marketing rights. Will they keep marketing Call of Duty for MS now that it will be on Xbox and PC only? Lol.
Sony will get Modern Warfare 2 this year and Black Ops in 2023, that will be the end of their exclusivity deal. From 2024 onward COD is exclusive to Xbox and PC and will be on GamePass.
There’s no community for a game that doesn’t exist yet. He was talking about Warzone, which is no different than FO76 or TESO.If so why did Phil say “going forward” we are not going to remove access from those communities?
It was certainly a different phrasing than the Zenimax deal
Methinks MS was willing to eat the sales loss from Zenimax but the size of the purchase and the overwhelming share that is on PS makes me question their willingness to block Sony revenue with CoD
Make it better on Xbox and a “better deal” with GP? Sure
No matter what impression his choice of words give, communities is used in the present tense. He is using almost the exact same playbook as last year. I say almost because from a PR standpoint, he has brilliantly added another play that is getting people repeating the sentiment that its better this way so that Activision wasn't bought by a different big company without a gaming pedigree. I don't like seeing people fall for something so obvious, but I cannot knock that hustle if I'm being honest.If so why did Phil say “going forward” we are not going to remove access from those communities?
It was certainly a different phrasing than the Zenimax deal
Methinks MS was willing to eat the sales loss from Zenimax but the size of the purchase and the overwhelming share that is on PS makes me question their willingness to block Sony revenue with CoD
Make it better on Xbox and a “better deal” with GP? Sure
There’s no community for a game that doesn’t exist yet. He was talking about Warzone, which is no different than FO76 or TESO.
No matter what impression his choice of words give, communities is used in the present tense. He is using almost the exact same playbook as last year. I say almost because from a PR standpoint, he has brilliantly added another play that is getting people repeating the sentiment that its better this way so that Activision wasn't bought by a different big company without a gaming pedigree. I don't like seeing people fall for something so obvious, but I cannot knock that hustle if I'm being honest.
That's not how contracts work. Same as with Bethesda, it would be a legal nightmare for MS to bail on contracts as they would be required to cover Sony's losses from the broken agreement. A new contract can only be substituted if both parties agree to terms, and I don't see Sony or Microsoft finding new, mutually beneficial agreements.If Sony wants to make sure Microsoft "honors existing contractual agreements" they need something to force it to happen. If Sony were to acquire EA, they could easily demand MS maintain Call of Duty on Playstation or they could threaten to stop making Madden and FIFA for Xbox. That would certainly make sure that "existing contractual agreements" are "honored" on the part of both companies.
It’s ridiculous that they don’t do this. Why let another 25-45 million PS5s get sold before pulling games. PlayStation will sell another 100 million console and let another title slip in in the meantime to offset and keep people on PS. They already over paid into the billions to take away basically one game from PS. Just spend more and start being exclusive this October. Why give PS another infinity ward game that they’ll play over the next treyarch release anyway.There are heavy fines and penalties with contracts like these. As in Microsoft would pay the full amount of revenue lost to Sony from not having Call of Duty on their platform. And we are talking millions to the billions. Though nothing for Microsoft, the bad press and implications would be very damaging. It would hurt any future deals they made with companies for lets say gamepass exclusivity.
I highly doubt Phil would speak to Jim about anything pertaining to this deal before its closing. Any and all talks should be held once it closes.
Because they have the highest selling game every year and Bethesda has 2 big selling RPGs a generation at most. Also the cost of the deal is 10x. Wouldn't you treat something 10x as expensive as something else a little different? People don't really buy a console just for Bethesda games but people do buy consoles to have access to the annual COD title. They certainly want to make those players Xbox players, but they have to do so strategically. I am guessing no next gen COD on PS6 but COD on PS5 as long as it is viable.Why would Microsoft treat Activision's games any differently than Bethesda's?
Because they have the highest selling game every year and Bethesda has 2 big selling RPGs a generation at most. Also the cost of the deal is 10x. Wouldn't you treat something 10x as expensive as something else a little different? People don't really buy a console just for Bethesda games but people do buy consoles to have access to the annual COD title. They certainly want to make those players Xbox players, but they have to do so strategically. I am guessing no next gen COD on PS6 but COD on PS5 as long as it is viable.
Yeah MS would never put their biggest game on a competitors deviceBy doing this Microsoft would have to hand over 30% of their revenue to their biggest competitor, along with cannibalising a potential Gamepass and Xbox growth. That's just too insane to be true.
They often had marketing deals or game subscription deals (to include / keep certain games on PS Plus or PS Now) with 3rd party publishers. In this case I assume CoD since it has been the case in the past. I think they don't have planned an upcoming Sekiro or Tony Hawk, but in that case probably these ones too.what contracts did they have with activision?
Yeah, pretty sure they'll remove Minecraft and its spin-off games from PS tomorrow.Yeah MS would never put their biggest game on a competitors device
When they publish on platforms or stores they don't own, they give this 30% to the platform holder but they are reaching a way bigger audience so they more than compensate it. This is why MS published games on PS, Switch or Steam (or why now Sony is publishing on PC, or why all 3 console platform holders expanded to mobile) and doesn't remove from there the older ones the companies they bought already had there.By doing this Microsoft would have to hand over 30% of their revenue to their biggest competitor, along with cannibalising a potential Gamepass and Xbox growth. That's just too insane to be true.
No, Sony will be the publisher (so pretty likely will also own the IP) of their first game as Deviation.sony owns them?
It’s ridiculous that they don’t do this. Why let another 25-45 million PS5s get sold before pulling games. PlayStation will sell another 100 million console and let another title slip in in the meantime to offset and keep people on PS. They already over paid into the billions to take away basically one game from PS. Just spend more and start being exclusive this October. Why give PS another infinity ward game that they’ll play over the next treyarch release anyway.
If the whole point was to take CoD away from PS then why wait?
They wouldn’t unless there is some contract abiding them to release COD on PlayStation for x amount of years which I’m sure there is because PlayStation paid a lot of money for the marketing and exclusive dlc rights.Why would Microsoft treat Activision's games any differently than Bethesda's?
And this is why if T2 were to be sold they'd be bought for at least 25BN even though they're valued at 18BN.Microsoft paid almost 20 billions over Activision Blizzard market price (50 billion). This tells me Microsoft does not care about recouping their money soon.