• 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.

Breaking: Microsoft to acquire Activision-Blizzard in near 70$ billion deal

Nintendo and Sega technically enabled this first with Xband in the early 1990s, then in fact Sega doing this with Saturn Netlink and then SegaNet for Dreamcast, all well before Microsoft.



MS points also in some way inspired things like Fight Money in SFV which was actually a very good way to earn in-game currency for items. Then because gamers stupidly complained Capcom made Fight Money basically worthless.



Didn't Nintendo have avatars with the Wii? And they did that very soon after Microsoft introduced Avatars with the 360 (I think they introduced them with 360 IIRC).



Microtransactions history

And wow, would you look at that! Seems it started with games like Double Dragon 3: The Rosetta Stone, Maple Story, Second Life and Habbo Hotel. None of which are Microsoft games apparently (and all predating PD Zero at least two years if not 15 years in DD3's case). Just a simple search provided this.



Yeah this one was a boneheaded move they stuck with for a long time, but 1 out of 5 isn't good enough for a gatcha.
Proven wrong on 1 and 3, crazy about Xband though, I never knew about that.

With Avatars though, I didn't mean literally Mii's and Xbox avatars, I meant avatar as in a profile picture, doesn't matter though.
 

reksveks

Member
Doing the maths, 3bn of their last 12month worth of revenue was on consoles, assuming a general 60% to 40% split. That's 1.8bn away from Sony aka 10%.
 
Last edited:

West Texas CEO

GAF's Nicest Lunch Thief
simpsons-cliff.gif
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
What is this even supposed to be suggesting?

Only thing bigger than this IMO would be Sega announcing the Dreamcast 2.



Well I still would like arcades (real arcades) to be a major part of the market today but things change. Just gotta go with the flow. There are definitely gaming possibilities that model can bring which will be novel and innovative, but if there's enough demand for something more traditional, you'll have companies around to provide that as well.

But this is different from arcades going out of style. That happened naturally. Is MS bought 75% of all 3rd party studios and then just decided to NOT launch a new next-gen console 5 years from now......that's not natural. It's not what the gaming public was asking for and demanding. It'll be MS manipulating the market.
 

fallingdove

Member
So you're basically saying "fuck consoles, I'm just going to build a high end PC and continue to support Sony and Microsoft by buying all their games." So they lose out on what... $500 once from you while you continue supporting them in other ways?

This way of thinking makes no sense... People might as well just say "I don't like this. Games are dead to me. I quit."

Nope, I am saying fuck companies that spend $70B to restrict my consumer rights. And I don't have to support these companies on PC either.

If this consolidation continues, and you have to subscribe to Xbox for Activision, Bethesda, Ubisoft, Playstation for Take Two, Capcom, and Squareenix, and Nintendo for whatever else, gaming may very well be dead.
 

Ozriel

M$FT
I agree.

It isn’t that MS should be scorned for their move. It’s business.

It’s just never good to have monopolies , and gaming is simply headed that way.

That’s really what it comes down to.

I don't see the Monopoly here. Microsoft will still be 3rd in the gaming business behind Tencent and Sony.

I hear you, my bad. And I agree in that the culture of acquisition is concerning at this point on all fronts. It stifles organic growth some and locks out previous audiences. I'm also sure than of Sony had the capital we'd see similar Publisher scale acquisitions

Sony's already doing their best to lock up AAA JRPGs and to secure a near monopoly in the fighting games sector.
 

Loxus

Member
Thats not the way it works.

I can tell you dont own a home because when someone buys a house for $1M, they didn't "lose $1M". The asset itself is still worth money.

Activision also makes about $3 billion profit per year and rising a lot year after year.
Does a house make video games?
 

frogger

Member
I wonder if they'll keep COD yearly, or give it longer development cycles
They should make it every 2 years, and have the studios make new IPs. But as long as it sells, they will make it annually. I never understood the appeal of COD. In the 360 era, I was a big COD fan, but I still only played the single players.
 
Last edited:

Banjo64

cumsessed
Gamepass Ultimate will be $20 by the end of 2023. You can BOOK IT!
I mean, maybe. But you’ll be getting an absolute metric shit tonne of games day one from MS’s first party studios. For the CoD bros alone on PlayStation it’s £70 for the game annually and £50 for Plus. That’s the same RRP cost of Game Pass Ultimate for a year at present.

Personally I wouldn’t pay £15 a month for Ultimate, it’s currently £10.99.

I’d happily just pay for the basic tier to be honest if the deals on Ultimate dry up and they try to price hike. Personally I don’t think they’ll hike it too much but maybe £12.99 by the end of the generation.

Halo is now free to play and I’d still get the Forza’s, TES, Fallout, Starfield, Fable, Perfect Dark, Avowed, The Outer Worlds 2 and Hellblade 2 on the basic plan.
 
Microsoft is spending a lot of money to buy companies and properties because that's the only option left to them - they've tried to develop their own IPs and it hasn't really been working out that well. It takes a lot of careful, patient work to build up studio capacity and Microsoft is fundamentally a tech monopolist, it's not a media business like Sony.

Sony doesn't have the resources to get into a bidding war for every company under the sun, but it does have the studio capacity to create hit series to rival the ones that Microsoft has purchased. Sony needs to develop or purchase high-quality first-party exclusives that compete in the specific genres that Microsoft now has a presence in, particularly WRPGs and FPSes.

The FPS market is pretty saturated, so simply buying Bungie might be the best solution.

The WRPG market is wide open, though. With the demise of Bioware and the troubles at CD Projekt, Microsoft/Bethesda is really the only game in town when it comes to AAA WRPGs. If Sony can reconstitute a Bioware-caliber studio that focuses more on the story than on the open world (Bethesda's forte) I think that would put them in a strong position. Or they could buy CD Projekt, whose value has surely tanked recently.

Microsoft is spending a lot of money to buy established companies because they can't develop good games internally, and a lot of their spending is not directed at the console space. Sony doesn't need to spend as much money on acquisitions to be competitive - they can focus their energies on creating hit IPs to counter specific weak spots in their lineup.
 
Last edited:

clem84

Gold Member
I don't know about the rest of those franchises, but I bet CoD will remain multiplatform. It's very lucrative the way it is.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
That's just my opinion on the matter. Sony has been a pioneer in milking exclusives and they pretty much created the whole system and showed everyone how profitable it can be, so now when the competition does the same it seems to be a huge surprise to everyone?

You realize there's a difference between one game being exclusive and buying a publisher and making 30 games exclusive right?
 
I don't know about the rest of those franchises, but I bet CoD will remain multiplatform. It's very lucrative the way it is.
CoD is really the only franchise where this is even relevant, though. Blizzard isn't really a console company, almost all of its properties sell overwhelmingly on PC. And obviously Candy Crush and the rest of King's shit is irrelevant for consoles.
 

DeceptiveAlarm

Gold Member
I'm a big fan of wow and diablo. This is great news. No way Phil does worse than Bobby. They already have Mike Ybarra in charge ober there.
 

RaySoft

Member
How do you know it's bleeding money? We do have a general idea of what their revenue figures are annually, but if you just extrapolate profit margins based on the other companies they would be bringing in some profit.

In fact this would be the case even accounting for GamePass expenses, people forget that MS fully own the vertical stack (cloud hardware, software, data centers etc.) and don't have to pay out to rent that from other companies (which is where a lot of the operating expenses come from).

So it's probably more fair to say Xbox is bringing in some profit for MS, just nowhere near as much as Windows, let alone Office, Azure etc.



He's right about everything except equating this to a monopolistic purchase. Just because Acti/Blizzard have a lot of cache in gaming doesn't mean them being purchased gives MS 51% of even the traditional gaming market's revenue, let alone mobile's.

Legally speaking that's what you'd have to have in order to be considered a monopoly, IIRC.
I don't think the Xbox division has had a profitable year since they started. I could be wrong though.

It's quite usual practice to pay for the services you use from other divisions within the same company, but I dont know if MS are doing it this way or not.
 

ZywyPL

Banned
I don't know about the rest of those franchises, but I bet CoD will remain multiplatform. It's very lucrative the way it is.

Not really, people paying for PS+ instead of XBL and giving a cut from the game/DLC/MTX to Sony instead of MS is not very lucrative. And this applies to every other game in the wider picture since those players aren't on you ecosystem.
 
Proven wrong on 1 and 3, crazy about Xband though, I never knew about that.

With Avatars though, I didn't mean literally Mii's and Xbox avatars, I meant avatar as in a profile picture, doesn't matter though.

Fair enough. And yeah, online gaming goes WAY back, everything WRT stuff like Xband (and while at it, Sega Channel, which was basically a prototype GamePass in 1995) is incredibly interesting.

I don't care much for avatars or Miis, etc. myself but there's a market out there willing to pay for premium versions of them, might as well give them what they want if you can get some extra cash from it. And all things considered, it's extremely benign stuff, just a dumb little picture or virtual 3D model. Better than it being an NFT by far (unless Miis, Avatars etc. mutate into NFTs :S).

I don't think the Xbox division has had a profitable year since they started. I could be wrong though.

It's quite usual practice to pay for the services you use from other divisions within the same company, but I dont know if MS are doing it this way or not.

IIRC 360 Kinect was a massive success for them financially and that's likely around when the division started bringing in a lot of profit. People tend to forget how big Kinect was from that 2010 - 2012/2013 period, a ton of the Wii audience moved over to it for example (and that system had a very unusual hard drop-off atypical of other hugely successful game systems).

From what it sounds like, MS themselves have brought the Xbox division into the fold in the same space with their Azure division, so I'm not exactly sure if Xbox are paying out of their own allocated operating budget for Azure. We do know they had to divert a ton of Series X units to Azure, though, so that's likely an incurred cost on the division for sure. Question is how big of one would it have been; at most that was probably like 500K Series X units. Some BOM for the retail units could be cut but they'd have to pay for additional RAM for example.

That's maybe $250 million in all for those Series X units to Azure, wouldn't really be too big a hit on division net profits, though it'd cut them down a bit for sure. It's about the longer-term investments though.
 
Last edited:

Kdad

Member
Haven't played an AB game in years and wasn't planning too...but if these go exclusive it does take some checkboxes away from SONY with regard to their 3rd party content and THAT is a long term problem for them from a console hardware perspective.
I've been a PS stan since day one but with their move to PC and potentially less 3rd party content I can see myself just going PC with GamePass and PSNow. Its saddening that we are seeing the end of consoles for someone my age who has been there since Magnavox :). (I fully expect Nintendo to be an outlier for longer but they too, at some point, will get out of the hardware game)

Ul
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I have no problem with that.

Looking at all the money I spent buying DVDs, BRs and CD music discs over 30 years, what a waste of money. I dont need physical ownership for everything. There's only so many times I'm going to watch Casino or Goodfellas on DVD.

Then you are rooting for the death of video gaming. :-(
 
Fair enough. And yeah, online gaming goes WAY back, everything WRT stuff like Xband (and while at it, Sega Channel, which was basically a prototype GamePass in 1995) is incredibly interesting.

I don't care much for avatars or Miis, etc. myself but there's a market out there willing to pay for premium versions of them, might as well give them what they want if you can get some extra cash from it. And all things considered, it's extremely benign stuff, just a dumb little picture or virtual 3D model. Better than it being an NFT by far (unless Miis, Avatars etc. mutate into NFTs :S).

Actually the funny thing about it, which just came to me, is that now on Xbox you can upload and use any picture you want for free, as long as it isn't offensive and passes their filter.
 
Top Bottom