• 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

supernova8

Banned
x4K4Lrk.jpg
 
As I said, even if a COD competitor sold HALF of what COD sells, the return on investment would be greater than having spent 70 billion dollars. Even selling a quarter of what COD sells.

COD wasn't always the market leader. It used to trail both medal of honor and socom. It wasn't until Modern Warfare did that really change. Change always happens in the industry. Doom, Quake and Unreal Tournament used to be the go to FPS. Things change.

Sega used to outsell Nintendo in North America, until they didn't.

Hope you get my point.

Throwing so much money into any IP isn't smart business sense (and obviously it isn't literally all COD), but it doesn't add up to the sum of its parts.
Over the years I personally loved Resistance, SOCOM, & Killzone but they never really caught on to the level Sony would have liked, which is evident in the fact they vacated the FPS genre to 3rd parties. I’m not saying it’s impossible for a Sony to eventually strike gold by resurrecting one of these IPs or by creating a new one in house, but the idea that you can just duplicate even half the massive success of CoD overnight is fantasy thinking. Acquisitions like ActiBlizz happen because those types of IPs define an entire genre & you don’t just re-create that easily.
 
Over the years I personally loved Resistance, SOCOM, & Killzone but they never really caught on to the level Sony would have liked, which is evident in the fact they vacated the FPS genre to 3rd parties. I’m not saying it’s impossible for a Sony to eventually strike gold by resurrecting one of these IPs or by creating a new one in house, but the idea that you can just duplicate even half the massive success of CoD overnight is fantasy thinking. Acquisitions like ActiBlizz happen because those types of IPs define an entire genre & you don’t just re-create that easily.
Sony never put nearly the resources they are putting into their current crop of AAA titles into these games let alone what would be required for a big FPS.

You might as well say uncharted won't be successful because Syphon Filter didn't have that much market penetration.

Most of this does just come down the talent and budget.
 

MScarpa

Member
It BETTER be! Hell they've spent over $80 Billion over the last 3 years to do so. That money better mean they can sell more consoles and create more revenue and profit than Sony. If not now, then when? What will it take?
It's not even about hardware anymore. It's about the Gamepass ecosystem. That's the future. If it was up to MS they wouldn't even make a console. Just let you play anywhere from anything. I can't be the only one that sees this.
 

Y0ssarian

Banned
It's not even about hardware anymore. It's about the Gamepass ecosystem. That's the future. If it was up to MS they wouldn't even make a console. Just let you play anywhere from anything. I can't be the only one that sees this.
When MS bought Bethesda I saw Microsoft was the future. Only thing is, I still prefer the PS exclusives. Even with MS owning CoD, Diablo, etc
 

Stuart360

Member
It's not even about hardware anymore. It's about the Gamepass ecosystem. That's the future. If it was up to MS they wouldn't even make a console. Just let you play anywhere from anything. I can't be the only one that sees this.
Problem with that viewpoint is that not only has Phil pulicly confirmed more Xbox consoles in development, but Gamepass is primarily a game download and store front service. Phil has literally said Hardware sales is important to Microsoft because they need to sell hardware for Gamepass to run on it.
If Gamepass was Xcloud only, then maybe yes, but i think thats quite a ways off yet.

Streaming is the long term future, its inevitable. I think thats still 15-20 years into Microsofts long term plan though.
 
As I said, even if a COD competitor sold HALF of what COD sells, the return on investment would be greater than having spent 70 billion dollars. Even selling a quarter of what COD sells.

COD wasn't always the market leader. It used to trail both medal of honor and socom. It wasn't until Modern Warfare did that really change. Change always happens in the industry. Doom, Quake and Unreal Tournament used to be the go to FPS. Things change.

Sega used to outsell Nintendo in North America, until they didn't.

Hope you get my point.

Throwing so much money into any IP isn't smart business sense (and obviously it isn't literally all COD), but it doesn't add up to the sum of its parts.

I agree

This deal is enormously risky. In terms of scale, it's >3X the size of their second largest acquisition, Linkedin. And it is essentially all wrapped up in two IP, one of which has the vast majority of its sales on the Playstation ecosystem. Microsoft's enormous, so if this looks horrible a decade from now they won't care. But it looks like throwing good money after bad to me.

It is hard for me to imagine what kind of mental arithmetic went into this valuation once you remove Playstation from the picture and start releasing their properties on GamePass. It just seems to me like Microsoft has stupid money and no other targets to throw it at, so Activision makes big headlines... but honestly how does this fit into their strategy? The IP is limited to a handful of mega properties, whose interest has been waning, with studios that are in the midst of turnover and turmoil.

Does Microsoft really want to manage another enormous publisher? How are they ever going to get an ROI on this deal with Playstation out of the picture? GamePass without Activision was already more than compelling through the Bethesda purchase. What does Activision actually add to that other than a massive land grab for a currently hot IP but where audiences have started moving over to other titles?

This seems like an enormously risky overpay and overflex just because Microsoft can, but comes with all sorts of risk and baggage that I could see 10 years down the line looking like a mistake, much in the same way Rare was viewed but on a massively larger scale.

Like...really? $70B couldn't be better spent ACTUALLY expanding the industry? That's what's pretty sad about all this. Maybe Microsoft can right the Activision ship (I'm doubtful). But again it all boils down to it not really adding much to the industry, it's purely an addition by subtraction move similar to Bethesda but multiplied by 10x. While I'm sure it's fun for the superfans to continually gloat about these sorts of moves, does anyone stop and question what good it is actually doing in improving your hobby?
 
Last edited:

Megatron

Member
Yes, yes they can. We’re talking take two, not activision here and they can. But go on, armchair executive.
My apologies, I thought you meant Activision. It’s the same principal though. T2 IF they went for sale Will approach all serious bidders. MS will NOT let Sony outbid them. They will just keep going And upping their bid Until Sony has to bow out.

Now the Japanese companies are a different story as their government is going to make it much easier for Sony to buy them than a foreign company. But T2 would just be about the highest bidder So that is probably Sony’s best opportunity. A Konami games division or Square Or even the oft rumored Sega.
 
Last edited:
I do. MS isn't buying Blizzard to just watch it stagnate. This is common sense. The possibilities just expanded tenfold from this acquisition.

Yes, I am sure Microsoft has the means and expertise of being proper stewards of Blizzard IP that Activision just somehow didn't get. Rare is a good case history in that stewardship of IP.

While I HOPE that is the case, I am not convinced there is a strong argument to support that this is what will actually happen over time.
 
Yes, I am sure Microsoft has the means and expertise of being proper stewards of Blizzard IP that Activision just somehow didn't get. Rare is a good case history in that stewardship of IP.

While I HOPE that is the case, I am not convinced there is a strong argument to support that this is what will actually happen over time.
Rare has a remarkable success with Sea of Thieves and now they have Everwild in development. If you're not convinced, I guess all you can do is wait and see.
 

OmegaSupreme

advanced basic bitch
Rare has a remarkable success with Sea of Thieves and now they have Everwild in development. If you're not convinced, I guess all you can do is wait and see.
How many years did that take? Rare was languishing for years under ms. It's a reasonable doubt.
 
Last edited:

MScarpa

Member
Problem with that viewpoint is that not only has Phil pulicly confirmed more Xbox consoles in development, but Gamepass is primarily a game download and store front service. Phil has literally said Hardware sales is important to Microsoft because they need to sell hardware for Gamepass to run on it.
If Gamepass was Xcloud only, then maybe yes, but i think thats quite a ways off yet.

Streaming is the long term future, its inevitable. I think thats still 15-20 years into Microsofts long term plan though.
Streaming is the future. You bet on futures. It's why MS wants you to stream from your TV, your tablet, phone, pc. Etc. It's about gamepass and the subs. No hardware. But hey maybe im wrong.
 
Rare has a remarkable success with Sea of Thieves and now they have Everwild in development. If you're not convinced, I guess all you can do is wait and see.

That wasn't my argument, regardless of how you feel about those two properties.

Rare has an enormous amount of underutilized IP and has stagnated for decades sitting on it. I personally would prefer they bring those back INSTEAD of focusing on stuff like SoT, and experimental projects like Everwild that are in development hell.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
I do. MS isn't buying Blizzard to just watch it stagnate. This is common sense. The possibilities just expanded tenfold from this acquisition.
Yup.

When a company acquires brands off another company, the company doesnt go into it thinking.... "I'm just gonna sit here and milk it as it trends down"

Their goal is to take the reins and boost it. Even if that means involving still supporting PS in some way to keep it going. It's not like MS cut off support of Minecraft and Bethesda games off PS.
 

Spend $70B over the next 20 years trying to build up new studios and franchises that may or may not be successful or spend $70B today and get it all wrapped in a bow?

Work smarter, not harder.

Besides it's not like Sony never bought a studio or platform exclusivity, they just don't have as much money to spend.
 

Beechos

Member
Streaming is the future. You bet on futures. It's why MS wants you to stream from your TV, your tablet, phone, pc. Etc. It's about gamepass and the subs. No hardware. But hey maybe im wrong.
You are right thats the end goal 10 years down the line. Stream gamepass to your toaster if you want to. Doesnt matter what hardware you own you will still end up paying ms for the games.
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
Would you be asking me that if it was Sony? Or Apple or Google?
Well considering sony already has 70% market share. Google they gave up on gaming. Apple isn't interested in traditional gaming. They want things on phones tablets or insane margin hardware.
 

Zeroing

Banned
Yes I'd be asking the exact same question. I never once thought this would be an issue till i started seeing people bring it up.
If you don’t see any issue on corporations buying big 3rd party publishers to devalue the competition and limit the options you - the gamer, have to play those games on, then I have no idea how to explain it to you!
 
Another mega deal. This is frightening. I hate Monopoly and this is one on the horizon , even more when they are private and worldwide.

Pay to win, with the money coming from another Monopoly (basically Office).
 
If you don’t see any issue on corporations buying big 3rd party publishers to devalue the competition and limit the options you - the gamer, have to play those games on, then I have no idea how to explain it to you!
They didn't limit the options though, they actually expanded them.
 

clarky

Gold Member
I do. MS isn't buying Blizzard to just watch it stagnate. This is common sense. The possibilities just expanded tenfold from this acquisition.
Agreed.

They have what like at least 32 studios now (typing that just feels insane lol) If they get their ducks in a row and every game dev is on a 4 year dev cycle (pulled that from my ass) that still a new AAA game on game pass every 6-7 weeks. Not including global publishing, indie's and third party stuff . Thats fucking mental.
 

Stuart360

Member
That wasn't my argument, regardless of how you feel about those two properties.

Rare has an enormous amount of underutilized IP and has stagnated for decades sitting on it. I personally would prefer they bring those back INSTEAD of focusing on stuff like SoT, and experimental projects like Everwild that are in development hell.
So would i but i guess James you missed it when Rare came out publicly a few years ago and said they wont be working on any of their past franchises in the future.

To get some of those old Rare games they would have to be farmed out.
 

OmegaSupreme

advanced basic bitch
They will now be available to play on tablets, smartphones, laptops, etc. You could never stream Diablo or WoW to an iPhone. You couldn't play Starcraft on a tablet. Now you will be able to.
Why on earth would you want to? How many people are streaming these types of games?
 

OmegaSupreme

advanced basic bitch
It's an option, that's all I'm saying. Someone said that they are removing options, but they are doing the opposite.
An option that so few people will use compared to who would have bought it physically on playstation. They are taking this franchise out of more players hands then they are putting in.
 
Top Bottom