ChorizoPicozo
Banned
market segment
-
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 / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
laynelane
Member
The Union part bothers me, actually. Even now, people are working tirelessly to unionize at ABK and their efforts should be lauded. Dismissing that to score a point for MS' acquisition efforts is a bit distasteful. No one needs MS to ride in on a white horse and "save" them.
Last edited:
This argument is really strange. Let's think about this.. What's stopping them from putting their games on XCloud or Geforce Now (where they have already been available) today? Why would a purchase by Microsoft be necesssary for it to happen again?
Isn't it weird that ABK is arguing so much in favor of this deal even though several of their shareholders have protested against it (and even sued them for it)?
The proof lies in the endless number of other future outcomes that exist if the acquisition does not go through.
Someone else may buy them or they may remain independent. Who owns ABK is in no way related to whether their workers may IN THE FUTURE unionize or whether their games are available on cloud streaming services. The status of these things before the merger announcement is irrelevant, we're talking about the future here.
You (and Activision, I guess) are saying that there is no future possibility for this to happen unless Microsoft buys ABK. Bullshit.
What we on this forum believe is likely to happen or can happen is irrelevant.
What is important is what regulators believe is a likely probability.
Re unions; 1) ftc doesn't care and haven't even brought it up in their complaint 2) MS is just politicking and its not going to directly impact the ftc stance.
Re ABK going on game subscription services: ABK has stated its not likely to happen and the onus is on the FTC's to prove that's its a possibility. That would be via internal documents. ABK is not the only major publisher who doesn't believe in putting the majority of their games on subscription services, Take2 also doesn't. You have two publishers (excluding MS) that do, and they haven't rolled it out to consoles yet iirc.
ABK are already on subscription services. They don't do a lot of day one on subscription services. I don't think the FTC need to prove day one was coming because they can still show that it can degrade access regardless.
The idea that it takes Microsoft to port to Nintendo whereas an independent third party wouldn't have, while simultaneously arguing they are Microsoft's competitor, is ludicrous though. Just think about what people are saying there. Activision has released CoD on Wii U and Wii in the past. It doesn't take a so called competitor to bring it to Switch.
It's clear that Activision is using these things to try to paint benefits to the deal to push it through but it's pretty hollow suggesting they would never happen.
Last edited:
The ABK argument is, you can't degrade supply/access if the supplier wasn't interested in supplying the 'market'. The FTC would have to show that they were. I would be interested to quantify how many ABK games are hitting game subscription services. It does get weird cause you may have to be specific re defining essential inputs, Crash 12 months later doesn't feel like essential input.
Obviously assuming its a distinct and relevant market. The day one factor is interesting and it will be interesting to see how it plays out in court. If they can successfully argue that S2P (sub to play) is a separate market than B2P (buy to play) then the FTC have a much stronger argument.
I didn't bring up the Nintendo porting issue cause yeah, I think it's a weak argument/ concessions.
Last edited:
Not much new in this story, been reported before but does remind me that I need to see where the other lawsuit (think it was us investors) went
More so a note for myself: https://www.polygon.com/22949594/activision-blizzard-shareholder-lawsuit-sec-violation
Last edited:
Pelta88
Member
These minor lawsuits are about financial appeasement. But to reflect one of the most important but often forgotten factors of this proposed deal. Microsoft overpaid by $25 per share. There's a lot of money on the table if you're willing to take it to court and put Microsoft in a position where they can appease a fund or an individual, or have the acquisition delayed further.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
#1 Activision strategically and financially simply does not believe in putting their games on Xcloud or Geforce now. It's necessary for Microsoft to purchase them in order for this to take place because Microsoft and Xbox does fully embrace the cloud and services like Game Pass. Activision will obviously argue in favor of what the purchaser wants regardless of what their own position is. In fact, even Activision's own internal document support they do not believe in services such as Game Pass. And there is no cloud only option available through Game Pass. If you're on Game Pass, it means your game can be downloaded by paying subscribers to Game Pass.
#2 First of all the vast majority of Activision's shareholders were overwhelmingly for the deal. The vote in favor by shareholders was almost unanimous.
https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-new...te-in-favour-of-microsoft-acquisition-3215675
Nintendo did not forbide developers from releasing their mature themed games, Wii received 5 COD games that were well made ports, it was their weaker hardware and WiiU sales flop who made Activision to not bother continuing with the series on Switch, they could easily have released the PS3-4 crossgen titles and make adapted ports on the newer ones like before. Especially considering that it has been received lots of M rated AA to AAA content.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Banned
therefore market segment
you just need to look at the marketing of each console.
IFireflyl
Gold Member
Sometimes the things you say are ridiculously stupid.
If it wasn't clear, this is intended for
DarkMage619
.
DarkMage619
.
Last edited:
feynoob
Gold Member
APK stopped doing subscription services themselves.
And they clearly stated they won't put their games on Sub services to the regulators.
They have put Tony hawks, COD, and Crash on PS+ in the past. Some (like Crash 4) while the FTC were investigating. Their argument seems to be "day one" but I don't think the FTC cares about that distinction when talking about input.
feynoob
Gold Member
Keyword "Stopped".
Doesn't matter if they put it in the past or not.
Big games like COD stopped appearing on Sub services.
Last edited:
Maybe its just me but it seems strange to argue in favor of something you don't believe in and still demand to be taken seriously. Saying one thing and doing another.
skit_data
Member
YouTube could broadcast "Gamer's Lawsuit" against Activision Blizzard acquisition
What could go wrong?
Wow, entertainment event of the year?
Edit: If someone from Neogaf is going there you gotta bring a big fat banner with a green rat or something.
Last edited:
laynelane
Member
I guess we'll have to wait and see whether parts of the lawsuit will be broadcast. It could be interesting to see what the various arguments and counter-arguments are.
Last edited:
Microsoft/Activision Blizzard, In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission authorized an administrative complaint against the proposed merger between Microsoft Corp. and Activision Blizzard, Inc., a video game developer that creates and publishes games such as Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Diablo, and Overwatch. Microsoft sells the Xbox...
FTC schedule uploaded
Thirty7ven
Banned
I wanna give my props to the majority of Xbox fans in this thread that regardless of what they want out of this deal, they aren’t calling everyone an idiot by trying to convince us that the deal should go through because MS is playing ball with the unions and therefore FTC/EC is anti worker rights if they don’t clear it.
The amount of gaslighting people are doing with that shit in some places is embarrassing.
The amount of gaslighting people are doing with that shit in some places is embarrassing.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
But these worker unions donate a whole lot of money to the FTCs political allies. MS is very smart for taking this angle. They know how to get things done is this country.
Last edited:
feynoob
Gold Member
America is "buy political people to get your shit done".
Money rules here. With the right money, you can get what you want.
The fact that MS, a big tech is getting help from union is disgusting.
This is just a way to make themselves look like a nice company
.
ChorizoPicozo
Banned
is this good or bad?
feynoob
Gold Member
Bad.
Activision doesn't want unionization. They would downplay it as much as they can in order to stop them.
At this point, those workers hope is the deal getting passed.
GHG
Gold Member
Well unless those workers get more colleagues on-side then it's not happening. Not every employee wants unionisation, there are pitfalls.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
That's what makes it so powerful for the acquisition. They're saying "absent this deal" we ain't doing that game subscription service bs. Which strengthens the rationale behind Microsoft's need to acquire it, and it also erases its importance as a valuable input in multi-game subscription services.
That FTC schedule aligns with what was said in the pre hearing, where Microsoft and FTC agreed to an accelerated evidentiary disclosure process to more quickly ready it for federal court challenge.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Banned
so, only MS acquisition will give this workers a chance to form an Union and demand better wages and work conditions?
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
America is "buy political people to get your shit done".
Money rules here. With the right money, you can get what you want.
The fact that MS, a big tech is getting help from union is disgusting.
This is just a way to make themselves look like a nice company
I think you missed some years/decades where MS transformed within from Gates/Balmer to Nadella. MS works with unions not just because of GOV/FTC. There is talent retention/attraction, work/life balance and more at play here. MS are light years in front of corporate progression over most gaming industry players.
ZehDon
Member
Well said. Folks unfamiliar with Microsoft really don't understand what Nadella has done during his time in the big chair. Gates ran Microsoft like a fucking war machine, and Balmer kept Microsoft in stasis for 10 years chasing trends, throwing its weight around. Nadella has a real vision for the company, and it's a hell of a lot more open, accessible, and fair than the infamy Microsoft acquired under Gates and Balmer.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Fuck yes it is, and definitely thanks to Nadella. Hell of a placement getting him to run things. Massive respect for Satya. Azure is insane. As usual performance under windows code-bloat is still an issue at times but all cloud stuff is still blowing up. That open mantra applied to every facet of MS is kind of awe inspiring, for lack of a better word, to see corporate transformation at that scale is a sight. Now we're seeing years of manoeuvring coming to light and MS bringing that same holistic open mantra to Xbox, good times for gamers.
feynoob
Gold Member
ChorizoPicozo
Banned
can someone in here (genuinely and in good faith) argue against the mere possibility that this acquisition opens the possibility for workers to gain better working conditions?
Kagey K
Banned
Given that Activision has a long history of union busting and continue to do so as recently as 8 hours ago, I'd say there's no good faith argument there, anyone who tries to argue that, gives 0 shits about the devs themselves.
Activision Blizzard refuses to acknowledge Proletariat union
Activision Blizzard is refusing to voluntarily acknowledge an employee union at its Proletariat Games studio, as reveal…
www.gamesindustry.biz
That can go the other way too. If the selling party thinks the buying party’s plans would dampen the financial benefits of the selling party’s assets, the question can become why would they intentionally do that? And if the conclusion is domination of a corner of the market, it can backfire.
thismeinteil
Member
Spoke too soon.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
They are in no way saying such a thing, that it would dampen the financial benefits of the selling party's assets. They are saying simply, Microsoft and Xbox pursue a different financial strategy than what Activision Blizzard does currently with its games, and the only way a change by Activision Blizzard to the way Microsoft sells its games would ever occur is through this transaction.
The purpose isn't to care about Activision Blizzard's profits should the transaction go through. It's to assess its competitive impact on the relevant markets, the professionals of that industry, and the benefits and/or harms to consumers Microsoft feels Game Pass' business model works for them and for Xbox. Activision Blizzard need not ever hold the same view for its own business operations absent the Microsoft acquisition in order for this deal to meet approval. In fact, the agreement to be acquired by Microsoft is itself a clear endorsement of Activision Blizzard's games on Game Pass. It's the central nucleus of the entire deal. If you agree to this, this is what will happen. Pretty straightforward.
feynoob
Gold Member
Chilli findings. Idas did some breakdown in English.
The information gathered in the investigation makes it possible to affirm that the income generated by the Sony console from ABK are relevant, and that said relevance would discourage a blocking strategy by the parties. As a first background we can consider that Playstation is the console that generates the highest income for ABK, doubling in 2021 the income generated in its favor by Xbox consoles. The results are similar when looking at revenue for the Call of Duty franchise.
The importance of Sony is even more evident when the most successful Call of Duty title in the year 2020, Modern Warfare, is analyzed. For this title, Playstation represented 50-60% of revenue. The rest of the revenue is divided between PC with 20-30% and Xbox with 10-20%. This demonstrates the importance of the Sony console in ABK's products and how relevant would be for the company the loss of income by blocking from PlayStation the games developed by ABK.
The incentives to deploy an ABK game blocking strategy are also affected by the significant investments made during the course of the game's development, in adjustments aimed at meeting the technical specifications of the consoles. Due to the above, for this regulator it is evident that a possible blockade of Playstation would imply the loss of all the investments made years in advance to adapt the next releases of titles on Playstation.
[…]
But even such a partial lockdown scenario might be unlikely, if a low number of players are willing to migrate from PlayStation to Xbox as a result of the lockdown. In this sense, the results of the Survey – implemented by this Division to Chilean video game consumers – shed light on the willingness of players to change their device, given the supposed unavailability of Call of Duty on Sony consoles. The data from the Survey shows that 61% of console players, faced with a scenario of unavailability of Call of Duty, would opt for a different video game, and only 20% would opt to switch to another device.
[…]
In light of the foregoing, this Division considers that deploying a potential strategy of partial or total blocking of PlayStation would imply, in a certain way, contravening the trend towards which the market is projected, and would generate deviations towards competing video games that they do include this modality (crossplay). The importance of crossplay for Call of Duty players is confirmed, for local consumers, in the results of the Survey, which indicates that 72% of Call of Duty players on consoles consider this modality as a relevant factor for choosing your primary device.
[…]
If we analyze the conduct that the merged entity could display with respect to Sony, we have, first of all, that Call of Duty is not the franchise that generates the highest income for it. Illustrative of this is that, by 2021, Call of Duty represented [0%-10%] of the total revenue received by Sony, behind FIFA and Fortnite. Therefore, the removal of Call of Duty from the portfolio of titles available on its platform, while it could have some impact on the company's revenue, would not deprive Sony of its main source of income.
[…]
The damage at the profit level for console providers, such as Sony, is even more limited if one considers that, at least in the Chilean market, the vast majority of Call of Duty players, faced with indefinite unavailability of said franchise, would not change platforms and would only choose to play another video game.
Similarly, when asked: "Based on your experience as a video game player, rate the following contents from essential to highly dispensable", 65% considered the title Grand Theft Auto essential or not dispensable, and 62 % expressed such opinion regarding Call of Duty. It should be noted that these results are even more telling, considering that the respondent base was made up of Call of Duty players and not necessarily Grand Theft Auto players. Thus, the importance of Gran Theft Auto could be underestimated in view of those who make up the Survey sample.
The information gathered in the investigation makes it possible to affirm that the income generated by the Sony console from ABK are relevant, and that said relevance would discourage a blocking strategy by the parties. As a first background we can consider that Playstation is the console that generates the highest income for ABK, doubling in 2021 the income generated in its favor by Xbox consoles. The results are similar when looking at revenue for the Call of Duty franchise.
The importance of Sony is even more evident when the most successful Call of Duty title in the year 2020, Modern Warfare, is analyzed. For this title, Playstation represented 50-60% of revenue. The rest of the revenue is divided between PC with 20-30% and Xbox with 10-20%. This demonstrates the importance of the Sony console in ABK's products and how relevant would be for the company the loss of income by blocking from PlayStation the games developed by ABK.
The incentives to deploy an ABK game blocking strategy are also affected by the significant investments made during the course of the game's development, in adjustments aimed at meeting the technical specifications of the consoles. Due to the above, for this regulator it is evident that a possible blockade of Playstation would imply the loss of all the investments made years in advance to adapt the next releases of titles on Playstation.
[…]
But even such a partial lockdown scenario might be unlikely, if a low number of players are willing to migrate from PlayStation to Xbox as a result of the lockdown. In this sense, the results of the Survey – implemented by this Division to Chilean video game consumers – shed light on the willingness of players to change their device, given the supposed unavailability of Call of Duty on Sony consoles. The data from the Survey shows that 61% of console players, faced with a scenario of unavailability of Call of Duty, would opt for a different video game, and only 20% would opt to switch to another device.
[…]
In light of the foregoing, this Division considers that deploying a potential strategy of partial or total blocking of PlayStation would imply, in a certain way, contravening the trend towards which the market is projected, and would generate deviations towards competing video games that they do include this modality (crossplay). The importance of crossplay for Call of Duty players is confirmed, for local consumers, in the results of the Survey, which indicates that 72% of Call of Duty players on consoles consider this modality as a relevant factor for choosing your primary device.
[…]
If we analyze the conduct that the merged entity could display with respect to Sony, we have, first of all, that Call of Duty is not the franchise that generates the highest income for it. Illustrative of this is that, by 2021, Call of Duty represented [0%-10%] of the total revenue received by Sony, behind FIFA and Fortnite. Therefore, the removal of Call of Duty from the portfolio of titles available on its platform, while it could have some impact on the company's revenue, would not deprive Sony of its main source of income.
[…]
The damage at the profit level for console providers, such as Sony, is even more limited if one considers that, at least in the Chilean market, the vast majority of Call of Duty players, faced with indefinite unavailability of said franchise, would not change platforms and would only choose to play another video game.
Similarly, when asked: "Based on your experience as a video game player, rate the following contents from essential to highly dispensable", 65% considered the title Grand Theft Auto essential or not dispensable, and 62 % expressed such opinion regarding Call of Duty. It should be noted that these results are even more telling, considering that the respondent base was made up of Call of Duty players and not necessarily Grand Theft Auto players. Thus, the importance of Gran Theft Auto could be underestimated in view of those who make up the Survey sample.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Still cracks me up how they focus so much on Sony. What about Nintendo getting COD or streaming to any device growing in popularity or VR COD etc. It also leaves no room for future competition e.g. say a new device or way to play or a new game that outdoes COD, every leader loses the pedestal at some point, it's just how long...There is also no comparison to say Sony blocking Spiderman on Xbox in the console space? How exactly is one different to the other? They took SF off Xbox, didn't see the FTC jumping there? Even without Nintendo are you trying to tell me Steamdeck doesn't overlap somewhat with Sony and Xbox COD?
Clearly these regulators are clueless about balancing a ledger. You cannot be anti-competitive when you're not even blocking Sony, enabling them contractually for 10 years, have opened Nintendo and expanded your own devices and ways to play by double.
Clearly Sony has a monopoly on COD and want to keep it to themselves, hey FTC/regulators, perhaps try applying your monopoly principles to Sony/COD in the console space? Especially if you want to rule Nintendo out? Right?
And yet 3 out of 4 Sony COD players say crossplay is important? Which company was anti-consumer and anti-competitive by keeping their walled garden palace? Sony, again. FTC/regulators you're barking up the wrong tree, Jimbo got some dirt on the FTC?
Last edited:
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
I'm all for this getting the scrutiny it deserves, ita a huge deal and it should have every minute detail covered to ensure it is fair.
I'm not intelligent enough to know how this deal will affect the whole industry so I hope there are people clever enough that can look into that.
Saying that, of course I want all ABK games on my game pass subscription so of course that side of it makes sense to me.
Hopefully enough evidence is shown that for either way the deal goes all sides can understand the decision.
I'm more than happy for it to not go through if valid reasons with evidence that it's a dangerous deal for competition and would ultimately damage me as a consumer and customer.
KungFucius
King Snowflake
You are absolutely right the issue is complex strategically and financially. I find it odd that anyone would argue that ABK could put their games on services now and invalidate the argument. Putting games on a service you own or your parent company owns means you/parent gets 100% of any benefit earned. If you are putting something on a service owned by someone else, both parties need to get some benefit. Whether that benefit be strategic, or financial, it still has a value in dollars. The two things are not remotely the same. The argument is basically, you can give up the financial benefits of a partnership in a joint venture while eating the costs and risks that would be negated by the synergies in the partnership therefore you don't need the partnership because eating a loss while doing it alone is the same thing as benefiting as partners.
What they failed to realise is that this was MS' own greed and one they have tried to remedy since then.
Look at how close they were in 2019 before the release of the f2p COD:Warzone in 2020, even with the massive install base differences. MS limited the customers of the new game to half of xbox owners which was already small but generating just as much. They only remedied that fault in April 2021. It would be interesting to see 2022 numbers now.
Chile failed to look at recent data again. Modern warfare released in 2019 before next gen consoles. Why didn't they look at Modern Warfare 2 in 2022? Not enough data? look at Cold war or Vanguard. It's pretty telling when you need to go back 4 games to a specific xbox one title to paint a picture of no incentive. Then you look at the revenue from 2019 times and see it really wasn't that different anyway.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked