Support NeoGAF

[adamsapple]

I don't recall Kotick responding to regulator announcements before now. Suddenly Activision taking the driver's seat?

He's put out similar letters on Business Wire before as well.

This is not new.

A Letter from CEO Bobby Kotick Regarding Activision Blizzard’s Merger With Microsoft

Activision Blizzard, Inc. (Nasdaq: ATVI) CEO Bobby Kotick today sent the following letter to all employees. September 1, 2022 Team, I wanted to provid

www.businesswire.com

 

[Topher]

He's put out similar letters on Business Wire before as well.

This is not new.

A Letter from CEO Bobby Kotick Regarding Activision Blizzard’s Merger With Microsoft

Activision Blizzard, Inc. (Nasdaq: ATVI) CEO Bobby Kotick today sent the following letter to all employees. September 1, 2022 Team, I wanted to provid

www.businesswire.com

Ah....ok. First time I recall seeing anything from Activision on this.

 

[GametimeUK]

I can't wait for June 2023. It's a wrap at that point, Microsoft will have acquired Activision and we can look back at these threads and laugh at ourselves.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Well actually they do. The board recently reappointment him so clearly you have no idea what you're talking about

https://thebossmagazine.com/activision-ceo-bobby-kotik-re-elected/

Uhhh... no, I'm sorry. Kotick and the existing Board of Directors are ESSENTIAL till the deal is approved. They're the ones who approved the deal at the highest level that is responsible for the very big payouts the biggest shareholders are going to get. Why would you not re-elect the people essential to the $68.7 billion deal you're waiting on to receive regulatory approval? Kotick is not long for the nearest tall cliff the moment the deal gets approved. He lasts at best 1 year after deal close. Why the heck do you think Microsoft's CEO and Phil don't ever criticize him in public?

 

[Drewpee]

I still think the deal gets made but with concessions. Dumbo Ryan done well getting this deal scrutinised. MS are company not to be trusted.

Thank God for a little trustworthy company like Sony.

 

[oldergamer]

There are lots hoping for the merger to not happen in here, but I think they may be disappointed in the result.

 

[TheGodfather07]

They've already made their stance on this clear, why is this even a question other than stoking inflammatory commentary ?

What did they say? I haven't been keeping up with it. Thats why I'm asking.

 

[Three]

Uhhh... no, I'm sorry. Kotick and the existing Board of Directors are ESSENTIAL till the deal is approved. They're the ones who approved the deal at the highest level that is responsible for the very big payouts the biggest shareholders are going to get. Why would you not re-elect the people essential to the $68.7 billion deal you're waiting on to receive regulatory approval? Kotick is not long for the nearest tall cliff the moment the deal gets approved. He lasts at best 1 year after deal close. Why the heck do you think Microsoft's CEO and Phil don't ever criticize him in public?

Look, I don't care what you think might happen if/after Phil takes over but your idea that shareholders want Kotick gone is nonsense. For what? Due to the criticism he had for employee treatment? If that were the case 95% of shareholders also wouldn't have voted against adding an employee representative to Activision Blizzard’s board of directors.

 

[adamsapple]

What did they say? I haven't been keeping up with it. Thats why I'm asking.

Phil did an interview and he said as long as playstation consoles exist, they'll keep publishing CoD games on it.

I think internally they intend to keep it Multiplat like Minecraft in perpetuity.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

They've already made their stance on this clear, why is this even a question other than stoking inflammatory commentary ?

Philly just need to put the ink in that intention.

 

[DarkMage619]

You’ve made some pretty ludicrous posts on this topic.

None more ludicrous than not considering Nintendo a competitor in this space or that that cloud and subscription gaming is some sort of separate market. I like the one claiming MS has similar cultural issues as Activision or the real doosy thinking that, Sony the market leader, couldn't compete any longer without CoD. People are twisting themselves into knots trying to portray MS as both a 3rd place loser in gaming and a monopolistic tyrant continues to be hilarious. I've hardly making any claims that aren't substantiated with actual evidence. Can't say the same with things you've said.

Someone whose opinion I trust is Hoeg. Here is his latest video on the EU phase 2 comments.

I can't wait for June 2023. It's a wrap at that point, Microsoft will have acquired Activision and we can look back at these threads and laugh at ourselves.

I can think of a few people who won't be laughing but actual Xbox customers will be pleased.

Look, I don't care what you think might happen if/after Phil takes over but your idea that shareholders want Kotick gone is nonsense. For what? Due to the criticism he had for employee treatment? If that were the case 95% of shareholders also wouldn't have voted against adding an employee representative to Activision Blizzard’s board of directors.

The board and shareholders certainly like Kotick. The rank and file employees and gamers do not. The rank and file employees are responsible for game creation and those are the people who should be happy with their work environment. Thankfully this acquisition will remove entities that have no role in game creation and foster an environment where actual creatives can do their best work.

The CMA have internal documents from both parties which has more information about their business strategy. They are not looking at fantasy land and nuclear waste console bundles. That's just you.

First off it was an analogy. Second the CMA is thinking that Nintendo is both a competitor and also not a competitor which is certainly fantasy land.

 

[laynelane]

Phil did an interview and he said as long as playstation consoles exist, they'll keep publishing CoD games on it.

I think internally they intend to keep it Multiplat like Minecraft in perpetuity.

It's possible some of the confusion has occurred due to this:

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/playstation-xboxs-call-of-duty-offer-was-inadequate-on-many-levels

I'm of a mind to just wait and see. It seems like things are routinely shifting and changing behind the scenes. Hopefully, the outcome will be satisfactory for players and companies alike.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Look, I don't care what you think might happen if/after Phil takes over but your idea that shareholders want Kotick gone is nonsense. For what? Due to the criticism he had for employee treatment? If that were the case 95% of shareholders also wouldn't have voted against adding an employee representative to Activision Blizzard’s board of directors.

They are entertaining him for the purpose of the deal. Same way Microsoft's CEO did. Why do you think shareholders all voted with full confidence at the very height of the scandals? It's cause the deal is more important than everything. They got their eyes on the prize. The overall shareholder vote was just as convincing at the height of the scandals. COD doing as well as it does also involves performance bonuses. They're looking at money on top of money in addition to the deal closing. They will show nothing but unity until it doesn't matter.

 

[The_Mike]

500 MILLION PLAYERS. WTF!

And people laughed at me when i posted that figure of 55% of console players playing cod.

Gaf is an echo chamber in this regard.

People in here thinks playstation sells well because of the exclusives when in reality most players play fifa and call of duty and doesn't give a shit about the rest.

 

[Topher]

500 MILLION PLAYERS. WTF!

And people laughed at me when i posted that figure of 55% of console players playing cod.

Not sure why people would laugh at that. Call of Duty is at the top of the NPD best sellers list every single year.

 

[feynoob]

Philly just need to put the ink in that intention.

It's illegal.

 

[adamsapple]

Philly just need to put the ink in that intention.

They literally can't sign any legal documentation about Call of Duty's future platforms, or anything Activision, until and unless the deal closes ...

 

[feynoob]

They literally can't sign any legal documentation about Call of Duty's future platforms, or anything Activision, until and unless the deal closes ...

This is something people need to understand.

 

[Banjo64]

None more ludicrous than not considering Nintendo a competitor in this space or that that cloud and subscription gaming is some sort of separate market. I like the one claiming MS has similar cultural issues as Activision or the real doosy thinking that, Sony the market leader, couldn't compete any longer without CoD. People are twisting themselves into knots trying to portray MS as both a 3rd place loser in gaming and a monopolistic tyrant continues to be hilarious. I've hardly making any claims that aren't substantiated with actual evidence. Can't say the same with things you've said.

Someone whose opinion I trust is Hoeg. Here is his latest video on the EU phase 2 comments.




I can think of a few people who won't be laughing but actual Xbox customers will be pleased.


The board and shareholders certainly like Kotick. The rank and file employees and gamers do not. The rank and file employees are responsible for game creation and those are the people who should be happy with their work environment. Thankfully this acquisition will remove entities that have no role in game creation and foster an environment where actual creatives can do their best work.


First off it was an analogy. Second the CMA is thinking that Nintendo is both a competitor and also not a competitor which is certainly fantasy land.

Never seen someone lose the plot like this. Claiming Microsoft could put nuclear material inside Xboxes is not more ludicrous than saying that Xbox/PlayStation compete for the same mindshare separate to Nintendo. Ok lad. Actually hoping this deal goes through, just for your sanity.

 

[feynoob]

Second the CMA is thinking that Nintendo is both a competitor and also not a competitor which is certainly fantasy land.

Nintendo isn't a competitor to Xbox and Ps. In term of hardware sales, yes.
But in term of competition, No.

Nintendo has switch, which can't run 3rd party games like COD. Until switch has those game, then it won't be a competitor to those 2.

Cma is right on this one.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

They literally can't sign any legal documentation about Call of Duty's future platforms, or anything Activision, until and unless the deal closes ...

That is the point.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

It's illegal.

No.

 

[adamsapple]

That is the point.

Once the deal closes they'll put ink on it like Minecraft's ongoing support. But they're doing the max of what they can at this point in terms of committing fans/players/regulators about their intentions.

 

[64bitmodels]

just because nintendo sells video games like sony and MS do not make them one in the same
one is clearly geared towards casual traveling people who like a low powered console that can transform into a handheld
the other are powerful consoles focused on bringing the biggest AAA experiences to your home

Nintendo have stopped making true powerful consoles since 2006 (a shame really) so i don't see how you can compare them to Sony and MS who have basically been banking off having the most powerful console hardware and biggest AAA titles.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Once the deal closes they'll put ink on it like Minecraft's ongoing support. But they're doing the max of what they can at this point in terms of committing fans/players/regulators about their intentions.

That's is the point.

We can't take at face value anything that Phill and MS say as truth.

 

[64bitmodels]

People in here thinks playstation sells well because of the exclusives when in reality most players play fifa and call of duty and doesn't give a shit about the rest.

yep. GOW selling 20 million copies is impressive but that's really only 1/6th of the PS4 userbase. the other 5/6ths are buying the newest cod, fifa and buying all the vbucks

that being said playstation simply excels better at marketing and hype (and also exclusives to keep the brand loyalty they have). Playstation has had multiple showcases on their newest AAA titles and builds up hype for their newest games through careful suspense and dripfeeding. MS showed us a bit of Starfield, and not much else since then. Same for Forza. there's suspense and letting the hype cook, and then there's leaving your fanbase in the dark

And Playstation simply has a higher global mindshare. More europeans, africans and asians recognize playstation than they do Xbox. They're equal in the US but unlike most Americans would want you to think, the USA isn't the only country on earth. Frankly i don't have much of a good clue why, besides maybe exclusives, but that's how it rolls.

 

[feynoob]

No.

It is.
Activision isn't under his belt.

 

[DarkMage619]

Never seen someone lose the plot like this. Claiming Microsoft could put nuclear material inside Xboxes is not more ludicrous than saying that Xbox/PlayStation compete for the same mindshare separate to Nintendo. Ok lad. Actually hoping this deal goes through, just for your sanity.

They are equally as ridiculous and it's pretty damn disrespectful to the 30+ year legacy of gaming Nintendo has fostered over the years. To claim MS is losing to a company that isn't even in competition is pretty humorous though. I guess MS is losing to McDonald's too. I suppose whatever it takes to make MS more threatening than they really are. I hope people actually learn to count to three. There are three video game platforms and Nintendo is absolutely one of them and all are in competition.

just because nintendo sells video games like sony and MS do not make them one in the same
one is clearly geared towards casual traveling people who like a low powered console that can transform into a handheld
the other are powerful consoles focused on bringing the biggest AAA experiences to your home

Nintendo have stopped making true powerful consoles since 2006 (a shame really) so i don't see how you can compare them to Sony and MS who have basically been banking off having the most powerful console hardware and biggest AAA titles.

This is pretty silly because all three companies are doing different things. You can play all new Xbox games without owning any Xbox hardware at all. You can stream new Xbox games with last generation hardware. You can access Game pass games on your phone and tablets. Does that mean MS is no longer in competition with with Nintendo and Sony? MS has low powered hardware for sale too does that mean Sony is in a market by itself? Come on.

Rather than trying to use mental gymnastics to claim some companies aren't competitors it's probably better to just say all three are competing for your gaming dollars by offering all sorts of different games and services. This is a fact. Nintendo isn't counted on a separate list when NPD runs the numbers. If they aren't competitors why was it a big deal PS5 outsold Switch? Why not just be consistent?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

It is.
Activision isn't under his belt.

That is not what I am saying.

If phill keeps saying: "CoD on PlayStation"

therefore, he is not going to have any issue signing that condition. when and if such condition is necessary for this deal to be approved.

 

[64bitmodels]

This is pretty silly because all three companies are doing different things. You can play all new Xbox games without owning any Xbox hardware at all. You can stream new Xbox games with last generation hardware. You can access Game pass games on your phone and tablets. Does that mean MS is no longer in competition with with Nintendo and Sony? MS has low powered hardware for sale too does that mean Sony is in a market by itself? Come on.

what the fuck no
that just means Xbox is offering more ways to play their games. It doesn't change the fact however that their business as of now is currently geared off of selling powerful hardware and AAA titles.
Xbox isn't selling a hybrid handheld like Nintendo is, they're in direct competition with Sony

just because Xbox offers a lower cost way to play their games, it doesnt suddenly change their business model.

 

[mckmas8808]

That is not what I am saying.

If phill keeps saying: "CoD on PlayStation"

therefore, he is not going to have any issue signing that condition. when and if such condition is necessary for this deal to be approved.

Good point

 

[//DEVIL//]

That is not what I am saying.

If phill keeps saying: "CoD on PlayStation"

therefore, he is not going to have any issue signing that condition. when and if such condition is necessary for this deal to be approved.

When you say Phill you mean MS as in general or just Phill? because once that money comes from Phill's pocket, he can mean what he is saying and sign that condition. Since he is not, all he can do is PR talk to try and convince everyone otherwise. this is like 101 man, cmon. However, I also do not see MS will ever signing a condition where it says it will keep a game on the PlayStation console forever. If one day the PlayStation console sells as much as a PS Vita does in japan, MS will be forced to develop and publish a game on a console that has no user base or maybe keep developing COD for PS4 when PS6 is on out for example. There are so many variables and conditions MS will NOT go through just for the sake of it.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

When you say Phill you mean MS as in general or just Phill? because once that money comes from Phill's pocket, he can mean what he is saying and sign that condition. Since he is not, all he can do is PR talk to try and convince everyone otherwise. this is like 101 man, cmon. However, I also do not see MS will ever signing a condition where it says it will keep a game on the PlayStation console forever. If one day the PlayStation console sells as much as a PS Vita does in japan, MS will be forced to develop and publish a game on a console that has no user base or maybe keep developing COD for PS4 when PS6 is on out for example. There is so many variables and conditions MS will NOT go through just for the sake of it.

Not the point at all of what I am saying
.

 

[//DEVIL//]

Not the point at all of what I am saying
.

apologies then, I guess I missed your point.

 

[onesvenus]

If they pull out because they're told to put their promise on paper, it would prove to all that they were lying all along.

No company would sign something that ties them in perpetuity. That doesn't mean they are lying.

Nintendo isn't a competitor to Xbox and Ps. In term of hardware sales, yes.
But in term of competition, No.

Nintendo has switch, which can't run 3rd party games like COD. Until switch has those game, then it won't be a competitor to those 2.

Cma is right on this one.

Nintendo competes against Xbox, PS for my money and my time

 

[DarkMage619]

what the fuck no
that just means Xbox is offering more ways to play their games. It doesn't change the fact however that their business as of now is currently geared off of selling powerful hardware and AAA titles.
Xbox isn't selling a hybrid handheld like Nintendo is, they're in direct competition with Sony

just because Xbox offers a lower cost way to play their games, it doesnt suddenly change their business model.

Their business model is to sell as many games, in as many genres, on as many platforms as possible. The power of the console is just a feature like using the Switch on a TV or portable is a feature. MS sells games like Grounded, Ori, Age of Empires, and Pentiment. Hardly games requiring powerful hardware to play. Singling out Nintendo like it isn't a video game hardware competitor like Sony and MS is completely laughable. How can MS be third in consoles if there are only two competitors? Just madness.

Nintendo competes against Xbox, PS for my money and my time

I knew I wasn't crazy! The idea that people argue Nintendo isn't a video game competitor is insane! Just because they make different types of games doesn't change their business. Neither Nintendo or Sony make a flight simulator game. I guess MS is in a market by themselves!

 

[reksveks]

Nintendo isn't a competitor to Xbox and Ps. In term of hardware sales, yes.
But in term of competition, No.

Nintendo has switch, which can't run 3rd party games like COD. Until switch has those game, then it won't be a competitor to those 2.

Cma is right on this one.

They ain't imo, you don't need to have the same software library to be a competitor, you just need an alternative and switch definitely can be argued to have that.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

People equating Nintendo to PS or Xbox are wrong.

Is like equating blockbuster Superhero movies to, i dunno horror movies.

They are both movies but expectations are different.

You don't buy Nintendos because of the hardware.

 

[reksveks]

People equating Nintendo to PS or Xbox are wrong.

Is like equating blockbuster Superhero movies to, i dunno horror movies.

They are both movies but expectations are different.

You don't buy Nintendos because of the hardware.

There is a difference between not being equal (just using that term cause you used equating but you can use 'not being similar') and not being competitors and think that's the point that some people are raising.

There is the complicating factor of market definitions.

 

[Three]

Once the deal closes they'll put ink on it like Minecraft's ongoing support. But they're doing the max of what they can at this point in terms of committing fans/players/regulators about their intentions.

both Activision and MS could have put in proposals (Activision in ink) when the CMA asked for proposals at phase 1. They didn't. As with most companies MS wanted to see what they can get away with instead of committing with their full intentions. Once the true scrutiny starts they see what they have to do to get the deal through.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

There is a difference between not being equal (just using that term cause you used equating but you can use 'not being similar') and not being competitors and think that's the point that some people are raising.

There is the complicating factor of market definitions.

They ain't imo, you don't need to have the same software library to be a competitor, you just need an alternative and switch definitely can be argued to have that.

This thread is about Activision and Nintendo don't get their big games like COD and Diablo 4. Playstation is Activision's biggest customer, Nintendo is the smallest. The CMA and EU are smart enough to know it doesn't really affect them whatever happens.

This is why they are not competition in this (Activision) case.

It's not confusing, don't go full Darkmage.

 

[reksveks]

This thread is about Activision and Nintendo don't get their big games like COD and Diablo 4. Playstation is Activision's biggest customer, Nintendo is the smallest. The CMA and EU are smart enough to know it doesn't really affect them whatever happens.

Because Nintendo decided to not fight that battle. Something that Sony in theory could do. I agree that Nintendo is less impacted by this deal but also so is MacOS/Linux.

This is why they are not competition in this (Activision) case.

It's not confusing, don't go full Darkmage.

Again competition isn't down to the library.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Trying to act like Nintendo isn't a key competitor is peak gaming we have seen for generations. When they are doing insanely we'll everyone acts like they aren't competition and talks about how they are great entry points for kids into gaming etc even though every one of us man babies around the world still buys them and spends hard earned money on their products. When they aren't doing as well everyone talks about how they need to up their output or improve to be competitive.

The fact is, Nintendo sell video games....video games are what we enjoy....we decide where we spend our money and more importantly where we spend our finite time playing video games....am I purchasing and playing bayonetta 3 over god of war this weekend? They are competing for sure.

If you can't see this you are crackers imo.

 

[onesvenus]

People equating Nintendo to PS or Xbox are wrong.

Is like equating blockbuster Superhero movies to, i dunno horror movies.

They are both movies but expectations are different.

You don't buy Nintendos because of the hardware.

Aren't Marvel movies competing with horror movies on the box office? And on viewer times?
They absolutely are.
That expectations are different doesn't mean they don't compete

 

[feynoob]

They ain't imo, you don't need to have the same software library to be a competitor, you just need an alternative and switch definitely can be argued to have that.

Nintendo competes against Xbox, PS for my money and my time

Content wise, it isn't.
The most demanded 3rd party contents are shared between Xbox, PC and PS.

Switch hardware being inferior allows devs to skip the console.

 

[feynoob]

Aren't Marvel movies competing with horror movies on the box office? And on viewer times?
They absolutely are.
That expectations are different doesn't mean they don't compete

????
Why does a horror fan, wants to watch a marvel movie, instead of horror movie?

 

[onesvenus]

????
Why does a horror fan, wants to watch a marvel movie, instead of horror movie?

Because there might be viewers who like both Marvel and horror movies?

 

[onesvenus]

Content wise, it isn't.

Of course they do.
If I have a finite amount of time and a finite amount of money and God of War releases at the same time as say Bayonetta 3, I need to choose where to spend my money and time.

 

[reksveks]

Switch hardware being inferior allows devs to skip the console.

Until the install base/possible audience becomes interesting to try and target like Fifa/Apex.

Why does a horror fan, wants to watch a marvel movie, instead of horror movie?

Because there might be viewers who like both Marvel and horror movies?

Yeah, users don't have fixed taste and don't generally consume content just within a single genre. Genre/type is just one aspect of thier decisions.

Could get back into the Reed Hasting comments about Netflix's competition years ago.

 

[ReBurn]

People equating Nintendo to PS or Xbox are wrong.

Is like equating blockbuster Superhero movies to, i dunno horror movies.

They are both movies but expectations are different.

You don't buy Nintendos because of the hardware.

Most people don't buy PlayStation or Xbox because of hardware, either. Most people buy them to be able to play games. Most people don't have separate budgets for Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft. People choose whether they are going to use some of their finite financial resources to buy games regardless of which platform the games are on. For a lot of people a sale to Nintendo means a sale lost for Sony and Microsoft.

You have virtually no control over how to use the power in console hardware aside from presets if developers choose to give them to you. If people were after power they wouldn't buy boxes locked to an outdated spec for 6+ years. They would invest in PC where they have control.

The consoles all fight for a share of the same pie. Always have, always will.