• 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 and Activision Blizzard: The FTC could approve the acquisition in August

Status
Not open for further replies.

reksveks

Member
Dude I live in Europe. I can sound as stupid according to you as I like.
And? I didn't say your freedom to be stupid was linked to where you live.

Ultimately the point is that there is a set of pro's and con's between living in the US vs EU; generally the EU population have voted for their rights and responsibilities (in the forms of laws) to match their priority. Calling it a 'trash zone' is stupid.

Going back to your comment but specifically about China, you do remember the whole Oracle + TikTok shit that went down? Ultimately there are regulators looking at the issues of Chinese investors/companies investing in UK/US/European companies but there is very little importance to gaming. Telecom's a very different beast and the bigger priority, its why UK is trying to strip Huawei out of the infrastructure however we need to start building more shit back in the West and make it cheaper but thats going to be a struggle.
 

Fredrik

Member
we need to start building more shit back in the West and make it cheaper but thats going to be a struggle.
I agree except for the ”cheaper” bit, I don’t see how that’s possible. I work building electronics in the west and competing with price is impossible, has been for a long time. We need to be better, that’s the only way. Better products, better quality, better support. We’ll never be cheaper.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
I agree except for the ”cheaper” bit, I don’t see how that’s possible. I work building electronics in the west and competing with price is impossible, has been for a long time. We need to be better, that’s the only way. Better products, better quality, better support. We’ll never be cheaper.
Yeah the cheaper bit is a bit of a tough topic. ultimately the market needs to value national security and other factors (including quality and support) alot more so we are happy to stump up more $ than the cheaper Chinese alternative.
 

Goalus

Member
And? I didn't say your freedom to be stupid was linked to where you live.

Ultimately the point is that there is a set of pro's and con's between living in the US vs EU; generally the EU population have voted for their rights and responsibilities (in the forms of laws) to match their priority. Calling it a 'trash zone' is stupid.
Unfortunately 'voting for our rights' usually results in more hassle and less convenience for us and getting locked out from certain services because some US companies don't want to bother with our BS - while the intended goal is not achieved at all. A good example is the cookie banner - it is a constant nuisance, and usually I just click 'all cookies' to make it disappear which is the same as not having the banner at all.
 

solidus12

Member
Good, now go after EA and Ubisoft so that all the big third party publishers become part of Microsoft Game Studios.
 

reksveks

Member
Unfortunately 'voting for our rights' usually results in more hassle and less convenience for us and getting locked out from certain services because some US companies don't want to bother with our BS - while the intended goal is not achieved at all. A good example is the cookie banner - it is a constant nuisance, and usually I just click 'all cookies' to make it disappear which is the same as not having the banner at all.
People have different opinions on privacy and the amount of transparency/control over their 'personal' data. The cookie banner issue is an imperfect solution to an complicated issue. There is also a fundamental issue where consumers are kinda giving weird signals that feel rather contradictory. It was like 62% of users wanted more privacy and also wanted more personalised services. I would be interested to know if you have an idea of a solution that would work, there is an idea around moving that cookie banner to the browser level afaik.

Also put 'personal' in quotes because the definition isn't as fixed as we probably would like aka the topic of 'fingerprinting'.

Curiously what service were you locked out of?
 

Goalus

Member
Curiously what service were you locked out of?
'service' was meant as a general term for lack of a better word.
Two examples:
In Europe we can't buy certain US ETFs because the European law requires the issuer to provide a certain document so that retail investors know what they're getting into. Many ETF issuers don't feel like doing this and are therefore not available for EU investors.

Meta Quest 2 is not offered in Germany because of 'data protection concerns'.
 

reksveks

Member
'service' was meant as a general term for lack of a better word.
Two examples:
In Europe we can't buy certain US ETFs because the European law requires the issuer to provide a certain document so that retail investors know what they're getting into. Many ETF issuers don't feel like doing this and are therefore not available for EU investors.

Meta Quest 2 is not offered in Germany because of 'data protection concerns'.
No worries, generally regulators are responsive to the public, there might need to be some quicker feedback but generally the system works even if you do get some weird and funny public comments. I just read some weird guy 'pitching' his web3 product to the US Dept of Treasury.
 

Fredrik

Member
Yeah the cheaper bit is a bit of a tough topic. ultimately the market needs to value national security and other factors (including quality and support) alot more so we are happy to stump up more $ than the cheaper Chinese alternative.
Yeah it’s an unfortunate result of an increasingly competitive and international industry.

Consumer electronics are nearly impossible to make in the west, people don’t want to pay $1000 for a console, you would need an almost religious loyal customer base, kinda like Linn in HiFi, to end with a profit.
And we’re all to blame tbh by checking for the cheapest deals on Amazon etc and never buying at list prices.

Industrial electronics is easier, the industry don’t buy things on Amazon, and don’t buy something because it’s cheap, there you want products you know you can trust, with easy access to nearly local support personal if things truly go south.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Given both Microsoft and Activision are American companies, why does Europe and China have anything to say about this?

Funny we still spitting out about monopoly when Sony, which is the market leader, could scrap up Bungie after being declined by Microsoft.

I wonder what impact it will have on world of Warcraft,if any at all.

Microsoft and Activision have offices and operate in Europe and China. If they want to continue operating in those markets then they have to follow the laws and regulations.

And Pete Parsons flat out said the Microsoft Bungie acquisition rumors were false.

I don't remember anyone being called in every time big spender tescent decides to buy some shit even though they are the biggest fish.

 

CuNi

Member
Consumer electronics are nearly impossible to make in the west, people don’t want to pay $1000 for a console, you would need an almost religious loyal customer base, kinda like Linn in HiFi, to end with a profit.
And we’re all to blame tbh by checking for the cheapest deals on Amazon etc and never buying at list prices.

I think the bigger issue is people are simply not willing to pay list price as it's often overpriced tbh.

I bought most of my consoles on deals, for example my PS4 for 200€, because to me it's not worth more than that. Were it never discounted to 200€, I would have never bought it. Same goes for TVs, electronics etc. The only hardware in recent times I payed "list" price for is my GPU because I had to bite the bullet on this one.

Hell I don't even buy games at list price because IMHO all the things with list price are at least 10 - 20% overpriced for what they're actually worth. Usually I'll get them half a year later for 50% off.

And I know many people that think the same. Obviously can't speak for every human out there but I think a good chunk sees it the same. We need to change our pricing policy first.
 

Begleiter

Member
Microsoft hasn't got the monopoly on the console gaming business. Why wouldn't this aquisition get approved?

I still think Microsoft are way overpaying for this deal. Activision/Blizzard aren't worth that much money.
It's important for it to seem like they might have issues or that they could do something, so that the rubber stamping function of the regulator isn't called into question.

There have been promises made about keeping CoD etc on all platforms, since the actual problem is Microsoft using acquisitions to deny titles to competing platforms, but I'd be very surprised if those hold into the next console generation.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Microsoft hasn't got the monopoly on the console gaming business. Why wouldn't this aquisition get approved?

I still think Microsoft are way overpaying for this deal. Activision/Blizzard aren't worth that much money.

Doesn't have to be about a monopoly. If the FTC thinks the acquisition will lessen competition then they could rule against it. I don't think that will be the case here though. Seems to be going smoothly.
 
Microsoft hasn't got the monopoly on the console gaming business. Why wouldn't this aquisition get approved?

I still think Microsoft are way overpaying for this deal. Activision/Blizzard aren't worth that much money.
That depends though... Call of Duty Warzone, Diablo, Candy Crush etc... Each game Makes like a million dollars per day... Non free to play games also sells millions like Call of Duty and Overwatch, expecially with Microtransactions.
 
Last edited:

GHG

Gold Member
Given both Microsoft and Activision are American companies, why does Europe and China have anything to say about this?

Funny we still spitting out about monopoly when Sony, which is the market leader, could scrap up Bungie after being declined by Microsoft.

I wonder what impact it will have on world of Warcraft,if any at all.

Bubba J What GIF by Jeff Dunham


Yes, because buying a publisher for $68.7 billion is the same as buying a studio for $3.6 billion.
 
Given both Microsoft and Activision are American companies, why does Europe and China have anything to say about this?

Funny we still spitting out about monopoly when Sony, which is the market leader, could scrap up Bungie after being declined by Microsoft.

I wonder what impact it will have on world of Warcraft,if any at all.
Bungie will stay third party even after the deal with Sony, the deal with Activision,Blizzard and MS on the other hand .....
 

The_Mike

I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Bubba J What GIF by Jeff Dunham


Yes, because buying a publisher for $68.7 billion is the same as buying a studio for $3.6 billion.
So, if Microsoft wanted to buy Activision for 3. 5 billion dollars then there wouldn't be fear of monopoly?

I thought it was about the studios they are acquiring and not the bid itself.

That's not how I understand monopoly. Isn't monopoly about owning a percentage of the industry, and not about being the biggest spender?
Bungie will stay third party even after the deal with Sony, the deal with Activision,Blizzard and MS on the other hand .....
Can you show me where Microsoft said Activision Blizzard games will be exclusive? AFAIK Microsoft has said the very same thing about their acquisition
 

oldergamer

Member
Microsoft hasn't got the monopoly on the console gaming business. Why wouldn't this aquisition get approved?

I still think Microsoft are way overpaying for this deal. Activision/Blizzard aren't worth that much money.
They generate over 8.5 billion in revenue each year. A company that generates that much is usually valued at much more.

Twitter was selling for 40 billion and generates 3.7 billion in revenue

So not overpaying.
 
Last edited:

Spyxos

Member
Uh, yes you can. Just tie the monthly WoW sub into the Gamepass account. Allow people to link their Bnet and MS accounts, and it's simple.
I think you still have to pay monthly for Elder Scrolls Online. Same will happen with WoW.
 

GHG

Gold Member
So, if Microsoft wanted to buy Activision for 3. 5 billion dollars then there wouldn't be fear of monopoly?

I thought it was about the studios they are acquiring and not the bid itself.

That's not how I understand monopoly. Isn't monopoly about owning a percentage of the industry, and not about being the biggest spender?

Can you show me where Microsoft said Activision Blizzard games will be exclusive? AFAIK Microsoft has said the very same thing about their acquisition

What kind of nonsense is this? Of course it's not about the valuation alone, it's about the amount of impact an acquisition potentially has on the wider market. $3.5 billion doesn't buy you Activision Blizzard because of the amount of money they pull in as a company, the number of studios they own/control and how many IP they have.

This shouldn't have to be explained, the two deals are not equivalent in any way shape or form.
 

Topher

Gold Member
So, if Microsoft wanted to buy Activision for 3. 5 billion dollars then there wouldn't be fear of monopoly?

I thought it was about the studios they are acquiring and not the bid itself.

That's not how I understand monopoly. Isn't monopoly about owning a percentage of the industry, and not about being the biggest spender?

The purchase price reflects the size and worth of the company. Surely it is obvious that Microsoft buying Activision is far more impactful to the gaming industry than Sony buying Bungie.
 

Fredrik

Member
I think the bigger issue is people are simply not willing to pay list price as it's often overpriced tbh.

I bought most of my consoles on deals, for example my PS4 for 200€, because to me it's not worth more than that. Were it never discounted to 200€, I would have never bought it. Same goes for TVs, electronics etc. The only hardware in recent times I payed "list" price for is my GPU because I had to bite the bullet on this one.

Hell I don't even buy games at list price because IMHO all the things with list price are at least 10 - 20% overpriced for what they're actually worth. Usually I'll get them half a year later for 50% off.

And I know many people that think the same. Obviously can't speak for every human out there but I think a good chunk sees it the same. We need to change our pricing policy first.
Overpriced is not the right word. If consumer electronics were made in the west then everything would be ”overpriced”. We’re just spoiled by low prices since the manufacturing is happening in low salary countries.
 

kikkis

Member
Yeah it’s an unfortunate result of an increasingly competitive and international industry.

Consumer electronics are nearly impossible to make in the west, people don’t want to pay $1000 for a console, you would need an almost religious loyal customer base, kinda like Linn in HiFi, to end with a profit.
And we’re all to blame tbh by checking for the cheapest deals on Amazon etc and never buying at list prices.

Industrial electronics is easier, the industry don’t buy things on Amazon, and don’t buy something because it’s cheap, there you want products you know you can trust, with easy access to nearly local support personal if things truly go south.
Assembly is like 10 dolllars in iphone. Consoles would cost a max of 50 bucks more made in West, Assuming industry would have well developed facilities for mass production which the don't.
 

Topher

Gold Member
They always said they'd keep "COD" on PlayStation. Warzone will always be multiplat, and Warzone is the "COD" people play now. But if you want the 2024 COD campaign, get a Game Pass device.

Nah....no way. Microsoft would get raked over the coals if they did that. The industry would call them out as being deceptive and anti-consumer. And don't think for a second that FTC is powerless to revisit this transaction if they feel that they were misled.
 

Fredrik

Member
Assembly is like 10 dolllars in iphone. Consoles would cost a max of 50 bucks more made in West, Assuming industry would have well developed facilities for mass production which the don't.
I doubt that but iPhones are already expensive so it’s a bad example anyway.
 

Jinzo Prime

Member
Yeah
rlDirpG.png
Hey, Microsoft. My personal attorney for a decade now runs the FTC. I was the one who got her the job.

hZcEuGG.png
That was very nice of you.

rlDirpG.png
Anyway, she thinks it sure would be swell if you invested heavily in my state's gaming industry.

hZcEuGG.png
Senator Schumer, are you threatening me?

rlDirpG.png
And she thinks you're probably not the right fit for Activision-Blizzard if you can't see the enormous opportunities here.



et cceter
For context, Schumer and MS President Brad Sims just so happened to have a meeting the other day about investing into New York state. I didn't know that the FTC Chair was also his personal lawyer, however, what a coincidence! But I'm sure there's nothing to see here, move along!
 
Last edited:
So, if Microsoft wanted to buy Activision for 3. 5 billion dollars then there wouldn't be fear of monopoly?

I thought it was about the studios they are acquiring and not the bid itself.

That's not how I understand monopoly. Isn't monopoly about owning a percentage of the industry, and not about being the biggest spender?

Can you show me where Microsoft said Activision Blizzard games will be exclusive? AFAIK Microsoft has said the very same thing about their acquisition
MS said a lot of things and did not follow up. Do you realy think that games like Doom, Diablo and CoD and many others stay multiplatform and will be also on Playstation? And according to several Xboxfans a lot of games from Activision Blizzard wil not be on PS. And what will happen with Games of Bethesda?
I believe it when i see it....
 
Last edited:

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Even AFTER the Activision purchase, MS will only have 12% of the gaming market and be #3 after Sony and Tencent. That is in no way a monopoly.
True now, but you can save that simplistic view for the FTC (yes the deal will pass). You know it is misleading to say they would only have 12% of the market as a reason why this is not an impactful move that may make wreck competitiveness in the market. A Sony console makes sense when it has third parties and first parties, but judging the health of the market without taking the effect of those two mega publishers going exclusive and removing one of the platforms is … misleading.
Anyways if the forum were clearly biased for one platform maker and I checked this thread out as well as the threads on Haven acquisition and Bungie acquisitions being heavily trolled and compared it to this one… mmmh… 🤷‍♂️.
 
Last edited:

Infamy v1

Member
Bungie will stay third party even after the deal with Sony, the deal with Activision,Blizzard and MS on the other hand .....

Bungie staying third party is 100% entirely due to Bungie themselves requiring that stiplitation or no deal would've been made. Not Sony. Sony, the company who extended Destiny DLC timed exclusivity behind the scenes a second year so that Xbox players didn't get it until the sequel was out, would love to have Destiny and future titles exclusive.

I love how Sony fans like to pretend Sony is just playing nice when it wasn't up to them to begin with, lmao.
 

chonga

Member
Even AFTER the Activision purchase, MS will only have 12% of the gaming market and be #3 after Sony and Tencent. That is in no way a monopoly.
There are segments within segments, though.

For an easy example, you could say that even if Red Bull bought every other energy drinks company that it would only own a small fraction of the soft drinks market, and an even smaller percentage of the entire drinks market.

But it would have an entire monopoly on energy drinks.

Simply saying x% of 'gaming' is not very useful. You have hardware, you have software. You have PC, you have consoles, you have handhelds. You have continental/regional outputs etc etc.

Further, x% as a share of revenue doesn't tell you much about the effect for the consumer, for that you instead need to know share of volume. Just as a ridiculous example to illustrate the point if there are two businesses in a market and one sells 100 units at $1 and someone else sells 1 unit at $100 they have equal share by revenue. But clearly the low priced business has 99% share of the market by volume.

There are so many things to consider and that's why these things take months and not a few seconds of Googling a companies financial filings.
 

Topher

Gold Member
That depends though... Call of Duty Warzone, Diablo, Candy Crush etc... Each game Makes like a million dollars per day... Non free to play games also sells millions like Call of Duty and Overwatch, expecially with Microtransactions.

And a big reason why these franchises make so much money is because they are multiplats, not console exclusives. If we are going to justify the $65 billion purchase price by the revenue the games bring in then isn't it strange to also promote the idea that Microsoft is going to shut off a significant chunk of that revenue that come from specific platforms?
 
Last edited:
Blizzard-and-Microsoft-Deal.png




The green light from the Federal Trade Commission for Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard could come next month. A few hours ago the Redmond giant confirmed that it had responded to the second request for sending documentation by the FTC and now the US government agency has 30 days to request further information, otherwise it will have to automatically approve the operation.

Consequently, the agreement between Microsoft and Activision Blizzard could materialize as early as August, with numerous IPs, including those of Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Diablo, Overwatch and Crash Bandicoot, which would officially become part of the already rich verdecrociato catalog.

https://www.realmicentral.com/2022/...-could-approve-the-acquisition-in-august/amp/
Meanwhile Bo
Bungie staying third party is 100% entirely due to Bungie themselves requiring that stiplitation or no deal would've been made. Not Sony. Sony, the company who extended Destiny DLC timed exclusivity behind the scenes a second year so that Xbox players didn't get it until the sequel was out, would love to have Destiny and future titles exclusive.

I love how Sony fans like to pretend Sony is just playing nice when it wasn't up to them to begin with, lmao.
Timed DLC exclusive is not the same as locking a whole game for PS only. And dont act if MS did not locked whole games and DLC for Xbox for a year. I love how Xbox fans dont talk about that.
 

Lognor

Banned
Nah....no way. Microsoft would get raked over the coals if they did that. The industry would call them out as being deceptive and anti-consumer. And don't think for a second that FTC is powerless to revisit this transaction if they feel that they were misled.
We'll see. I'm just glad I have an Xbox so I don't have to even worry about what Microsoft will decide to do with the mainline COD games.

Same with Destiny. I'm not 100% certain that they'll keep it on Xbox, so you'd be better off buying a PS5 if you want to play that game.

But honestly, I don't play either game. I haven't played COD since the PS3 days. But I will play them again once they're on Game Pass since they'll be "free." Actually looking forward to it!! I hadn't played a competitive fps in years until I started playing Halo Infinite and I've had a blast with it.
 

Ozriel

M$FT
They always said they'd keep "COD" on PlayStation. Warzone will always be multiplat, and Warzone is the "COD" people play now. But if you want the 2024 COD campaign, get a Game Pass device.

No. They’ll be putting all Call of Duty titles on PlayStation, PC and eventually, Switch 2.

MS said a lot of things and did not follow up. Do you realy think that games like Doom, Diablo and CoD and many others stay multiplatform and will be also on Playstation? And according to several Xboxfans a lot of games from Activision Blizzard wil not be on PS. And what will happen with Games of Bethesda?
I believe it when i see it....

I don’t believe Microsoft ever promised that Bethesda games going forward would be multiplatform. Let’s not make things up.

And yes, it is possible that some future Activision games could be exclusive. But not Call of Duty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom