Support NeoGAF

[Loomy]

According to Smith: "now it is up to the agency to block the purchase or approve the acquisition with the necessary concessions so that Activision Blizzard games can reach more than 150 million people worldwide"

What exactly is preventing ABK from reaching those 150m people today?

Does he mean Nintendo? Who are they trying to convince us they’re trying to save here?

 

[DenchDeckard]

Fuck me, I thought this deal was done and MS were fooked l. Now...its swung the other way...again...

Being it tomorrow Jimbo.

 

[Topher]

You mean after sony attempted to take Starfield away first. Don't be pissed Microsoft actually beat them to the punch. Its like walking up to someone punching them in the face and cry when they beat you down. Zenimax is on jimbo for forcing Microsoft to do something by moneyhatting every next generation Zenimax game.

What is hilarious to me is that gamers are now at the point of arguing which company sucks less for gaming: Microsoft or Sony.

My answer: They both suck

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

What is hilarious to me is that gamers are now at the point of arguing which company sucks less for gaming: Microsoft or Sony.

My answer: They both suck

Its why I game on both so I don't have to deal with who sucks worse

 

[Topher]

Its why I game on both so I don't have to deal with who sucks worse

Exactly the same

 

[Thirty7ven]

Well they better hope this shit goes through after telling everyone they out there taking a beating.

 

[DarkBatman]

You mean after sony attempted to take Starfield away first. Don't be pissed Microsoft actually beat them to the punch. Its like walking up to someone punching them in the face and cry when they beat you down. Zenimax is on jimbo for forcing Microsoft to do something by moneyhatting every next generation Zenimax game.

Sorry but that "Wow, they wanted an exclusive deal and they forced Microsoft to buy Zenimax for $7.5 billion." bullshit is just ridiculous.
Why didn't MS just offer more $$$? And then they come up with some "more games for more gamers" nonsense. PR bullshit - and people like you swallow it too.

 

[Gambit2483]

We always knew COD was the real reason for the AB purchase.

 

[gothmog]

Its why I game on both so I don't have to deal with who sucks worse

Same. Everyone sucks. Sony tends to be more lame than suck sometimes.

 

[Elios83]

Fuck me, I thought this deal was done and MS were fooked l. Now...its swung the other way...again...

Being it tomorrow Jimbo.

It hasn't swung anywhere. They have only cleared up they have no intentions to satisfy the CMA requests and that they think that shopping around 10 years deals will do the trick for them.

 

[Talkin Hawkin]

They need CoD to bring the players over to Azure. No CoD, no Azure. No Azure, no controlling large chunks of the industry by owning the servers.

That is the real reason for this purchase. Azure. Taking market share from Amazon and gaining a foothold in control how the gaming industry is distributed.

 

[Clintizzle]

The best thing about this is that regardless of MS getting approval for the acquisition, CoD will be on PlayStation. All this drama (for CoD) is getting boring now.

 

[Wulfer]

Starfield would have made huge bucks on the PS5 as well. But that didn't stop MS from canceling it right after the Bethesda Acquisition.

I would have done the same if I was MS after I spoke with Bethesda and found out what Sony was trying to pull with Starfield! See, you kind of have to look through the glass from the other side from time to time to see the big picture!

 

[demigod]

There are more nuances to getting GP onto the 3 big platform holdouts for it (Sony/Nintendo/Valve) than just giving them a 30% cut.

MS has already approached all 3 of them with offers on getting GP included. The points of contention aren't against GP, but more of just where the in-game dlc sales will go through (MS store or the platform holders store), what the cut % of all in-game purchases will be, and what the revenue split for total amount of users on the platform who use the service.

MS' positions for these 3 pain points are entirely in their favor in a way that these 3 do not find palatable. Again - Sony/Nintendo/Valve aren't opposed to game subscriptions not being owned by them being allowed on their platform, they just want it on terms that maximize the value for them. MS' terms right now are not the same sort of terms EA Play/Access or Ubisoft+ has presented.

Like i've said earlier - MS is fully aware that their long-term business goals will necessitate platform expansion, which means publishing on Nintendo/PS was always in the cards. They just want to do it with terms that benefit them the most; if MS were to agree to what Sony/Nintendo/Valve currently want, then they'd never be able to renegotiate favorable terms for themselves in the future after they got all that growth they sought.

I can picture how it went.

Ms: we will bring limited GP to playstation and you get 30% cut of the subs
Sony: sweet, where do i sign
Ms: but we get to keep all mtx/dlc, in return we will host all of your cloud needs
Sony: you can go kick rocks

 

[Banjo64]

In a recent interview on The Verge's podcast Decoder, Spencer claimed that Activision was primarily bought for its mobile juggernaut, Candy Crush.

Everything they say is a lie.

 

[HerpDerpstreit]

of course is not the money (well it is) but right now is about growing for the gaming division (MAU)

Yeah I don't get this narrative that M$ is anti-consumer. Especially when we know that not only was Sony anti crossplay to the point where they charge devs to make it work with the Sony ecosystem, they also have paid to keep games off of services like Gamepass.

Where as on the flip side of that coin, outside of Starfield and potentially Elder Scrolls 6, Microsoft has done a lot of things that I view as good things for gaming as a whole. Minecraft, the ori and cup head games, doom eternal, fallout series, Crossplay functionality, they honored the Deathloop Playstation exclusivity deal. I truly don't understand the narrative that because of one, possibly two examples of games that haven't even been release, that Microsoft is anti-consumer.

 

[ZehDon]

...Meanwhile, it seems that Sony has returned to oppose the acquisition, not accepting the 10 years of Call of Duty on PlayStation offered by Microsoft.

Ah, Jimbo still wants the regulators to give it to him for free. I don't think Sony's strategy of using Government agencies to do its business negotiations is going to get the results it wants.

 

[XXL]

Well they better hope this shit goes through after telling everyone they out there taking a beating.

It took their lust for winning to reveal the beating they have been trying to hide for years.

 

[demigod]

Kotick already said Sony hasn't been returning Activision's calls. If the deal were to go through without them locking in a long-term COD deal like Nintendo and Nvidia did and they still ignore Activision's calls about the game, they could end up with an even worse situation. In that scenario, Sony corp will dump Jim fast.

Your facemask is slipping.

 

[Warablo]

If Microsoft deal with Nintendo and Nvedia includes all xbox studios games then Sony can ask the same deal,

Which means xbox is third party

Sony is not even willing to talk to anybody.

 

[Represent.]

This shit better fail.

 

[ToadMan]

That makes zero sense to take it away from Sony and put it on other platforms

The CMA thought it made sense since they brought up that scenario in their analysis.

It makes perfect sense if your goal is to foreclose on a competitor to establish a de facto monopoly. Give up short term income now for a much larger prize later.

But I’m sure that idea has never occurred to MS….

 

[PaintTinJr]

I just don't get why people keep thinking MS will take COD away from PS as it makes a ton of money there

All MS needs to do is have nice incentives to play on an Xbox and many of the very hardcore COD fans will migrate to Xbox and still keep a huge PS base paying them money

But the part I've bolded is still a foreclosure strategy at some point, soon or later, and that is always the angle Microsoft will be pushing with gaming to defend Windows defacto status. The $69b will be small potato if they can start a Sega demise for PlayStation long term, or force them elsewhere like Nintendo.

 

[Crispy Gamer]

Lol smh can't wait until this is all over

 

[Varteras]

Honestly, the EC has been weird. Some of the language they've used seems super critical of MS, but like the CMA only to a higher degree, they seem far more accepting of behavioral remedies. However, the last things the EC put on the table indicated their impact areas are cloud, console, and subscription services; one of the things the CMA's PF did is they specified that they don't feel subscription services represent a completely new way for consumers to access software, aka its not an entirely independent sub-market of the pre-existing markets they have defined, like console and Cloud.

The issue here is if the EC is still considering subscription services an emerging market they think this deal will competitively impact, that means that they could want a remedy that address that - nothing announced today speaks to that core issue. Getting NVidia on board speaks to the Cloud market concerns both the CMA and the EC outlined in their own ways, but the CMA also specified their concern in the Cloud market goes beyond the participants that are in the market today (Sony/MS/Google (RIP)/Amazon/Nvidia), but also to any potential future entrants into the market, so while the NVidia deal does get them closer on the EC and CMA's concern, it doesn't offer a remedy in offering any new market entrants in cloud.

Finally theres the console market, which seems to be the vector MS wanted to speak to specifically with their points regarding marketshare. The issue here is the one I specifically pointed out: MS cannot simply say "we want to put ATVI's games on MORE platforms" while also saying "There is no way for us to compete against Sony's marketshare lead" - how does this purchase make you more competitive in the console marketshare while you're also doing everything to signal you plan on getting no major exclusivity from this deal? Further, CMA's issue pertaining to the console market specifically speak to the amount of users both they and Sony feel would immediately leave the ecosystem purely if this deal were made and CoD were to somehow go exclusive.

Now, heres the way I look at it: given that Sony had 30m today to explain their position and MS was given 15m (ATVI was also given 15 I believe?), this means that what Brad Smith did in their public display was more than likely more or less what they presented to the regulators today. If thats the case, I doubt the regulators were swayed - these are the same exact arguments MS has been making for 4+ months, at minimum. These were the same arguments they've been making that still led them into these regulatory hurdles, so if these same arguments didn't sway them before, I highly doubt regulators would be swayed now. The fact that MS has tried these last 2 weeks or so to get Sony to the table somehow tells me that MS is fully aware they need to get opposition on board lest the deal gets killed.

Considering MS has been using the public PR angle as their primary pressure tool against their opposition on the deal, I imagine that if MS had curated better terms for Sony, they'd have said so today. In fact, it was MS who has been leaking terms of their deals thus far, so i'm 100% positive if they had created a more 'fair' deal for Sony, they would've shouted it from the rooftops today to add to the public PR pressure campaign. That must mean that a 10-year deal is their ceiling. Not sure if the regulators are gonna bite on that timetable; doesn't seem like the CMA or EC was particularly interested in that before.

And your take on the FTC? They seem to be the most determined to squash the deal. Do you think they'll budge or are they going to ride this all the way to a high court, assuming Microsoft wants to fight that long, and let a Federal judge decide probably years from now?

 

[In Cold Blood]

Hmm....
The Nvidia deal makes me wonder just how important this ABK deal is for MS.
In one foul swoop MS has given their biggest streaming opposition full access to their games catalogue.
I wonder just what they would be willing to do to get the deal done.
As a long suffering Xbox player I'm starting to think that MS would offer Sony something ridiculous to get the deal over the line.
If they came out and said that all Activision, Blizzard and Bethesda games would go to PS and PS+ day and date I wouldn't be surprised at this point.

Maybe this deal is so big that it actually has MS questioning Wether being a massive publisher is a better buisness to be in than a console maker.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Yeah I don't get this narrative that M$ is anti-consumer. Especially when we know that not only was Sony anti crossplay to the point where they charge devs to make it work with the Sony ecosystem, they also have paid to keep games off of services like Gamepass.

Where as on the flip side of that coin, outside of Starfield and potentially Elder Scrolls 6, Microsoft has done a lot of things that I view as good things for gaming as a whole. Minecraft, the ori and cup head games, doom eternal, fallout series, Crossplay functionality, they honored the Deathloop Playstation exclusivity deal. I truly don't understand the narrative that because of one, possibly two examples of games that haven't even been release, that Microsoft is anti-consumer.

dont go crazy either.

 

[Unknown?]

Activision should be sold off in pieces. Give them COD but let other companies have the rest. Under their management COD will end up like Halo anyways.

 

[Draugoth]

relevant:

 

[Loxus]

I don’t get why some think MS would take CoD away from Sony. They want to make money off those suckers.

This can't be about making money.

Activision had a Net/Operating Income of ~3 billion in 2021.

If we use that number and add a billion for Nintendo and NVidia to make the Net/Operating Income ~4 billion on average.

70 ÷ 4 billion would take Microsoft ~17 years to turn this deal into a profit. More if they minus Sony.

Let's say they managed their expenses and made 6 billion on average, that's ~11 years.
By then, we'll be making PS7 & Xbox11 speculation threads.

Don't even think about if they add Activision games to GamePass.

 

[Iced Arcade]

Exactly the same

Yeah neither of these companies give a flying fuck about any of us lol.


And competition is good cause Sony and MS would absolutely rape us gamers if they didn't have competition with each other.

 

[Gobjuduck]

Yeah I don't get this narrative that M$ is anti-consumer.

Xbox is objectively the most pro-consumer of the big three.

 

[mansoor1980]

relevant:

jim ryan should use this in the case to screw bobby

 

[Ozriel]

What exactly is preventing ABK from reaching those 150m people today?

Joke question? Activision Blizzard has no intention of putting their games on cloud streaming, subscription services or on Nintendo hardware.

We always knew COD was the real reason for the AB purchase.

In a recent interview on The Verge's podcast Decoder, Spencer claimed that Activision was primarily bought for its mobile juggernaut, Candy Crush.

Everything they say is a lie.

There's no real 'lie' there. They've long since touted mobile as a key growth area. That doesn't mean COD isn't relevant, or the revenues it brings aren't important.
Two truths can co-exist.

 

[Robb]

Seems obvious they’ll fight for it, who wouldn’t.

When it’s all said and done, and if this fails, I’d be surprised to se them just leave the deal as a whole. I’m thinking MS definitely wants King.

 

[mckmas8808]

In a recent interview on The Verge's podcast Decoder, Spencer claimed that Activision was primarily bought for its mobile juggernaut, Candy Crush.

Everything they say is a lie.

It's always a lie!

 

[FoxMcChief]

Xbox is objectively the most pro-consumer of the big three.

Not even a contest.

 

[Ozriel]

They need CoD to bring the players over to Azure. No CoD, no Azure. No Azure, no controlling large chunks of the industry by owning the servers.

That is the real reason for this purchase. Azure. Taking market share from Amazon and gaining a foothold in control how the gaming industry is distributed.

"No COD no Azure"

Really? Why stop at Azure? Could have thrown in Windows and Office while you were at it.

 

[SneakersSO]

And your take on the FTC? They seem to be the most determined to squash the deal. Do you think they'll budge or are they going to ride this all the way to a high court, assuming Microsoft wants to fight that long, and let a Federal judge decide probably years from now?

The FTC has simply no reason to budge on their current position. what ToadMan has said regarding the FTC taking this case to what is essentially is their court is correct. Sure, MS will appeal if they lose, but its going to drag this entire case out for years. Maybe thats the intention on the FTC here, to test how much money & time MS is willing to burn at a chance at getting this through, but I doubt the FTC is gonna change positions unless Sony signs a deal with MS (or the current makeup of the FTC changes should the Executive Branch's admin change in 2024).

At this junction though, the biggest obstacle to this entire thing is still the CMA.

 

[mckmas8808]

Joke question? Activision Blizzard has no intention of putting their games on cloud streaming, subscription services or on Nintendo hardware.

Well................why wouldn't they? Nothing is stopping them.

 

[Wulfer]

jim ryan should use this in the case to screw bobby

Why so, he (Jim) can screw himself? Let's get upset the two possible and (are) owners of the COD franchise one year before we have to renew our next agreement.

 

[Talkin Hawkin]

"No COD no Azure"

Really? Why stop at Azure? Could have thrown in Windows and Office while you were at it.

I stopped at Azure because mentioning windows and office would have been stupid.

To explain; CoD is the biggest draw of Activision in number of players and holds the most usage of any of the games in the ABK umbrella. Where King has the most players and is an easy foothold to grabbing 250 million users to add to gamepass, COD is the real breadwinner of the deal.

 

[mansoor1980]

Why so, he (Jim) can screw himself?

why would he screw himself by screwing bobby? jim aint even returning his calls , he aint afraid , he is a badass
he will take em all on SOLO

 

[anthony2690]

Worse case scenario.

Shift the cod ip name, keep the studios and make spiritual successors with a new name.

Like EA is doing with EA Sports FC, I personally don't think it is too difficult to get around.

Just use the name modern warfare or black ops or whatever.

 

[The_Mike]

Xbox is objectively the most pro-consumer of the big three.

What do you mean?

PC players gets the game 3 years after the initial console release.

 

[bitbydeath]

Sony is not even willing to talk to anybody.

By talk, do you mean make a deal with MS so they get what they want?

 

[Varteras]

The FTC has simply no reason to budge on their current position. what ToadMan has said regarding the FTC taking this case to what is essentially is their court is correct. Sure, MS will appeal if they lose, but its going to drag this entire case out for years. Maybe thats the intention on the FTC here, to test how much money & time MS is willing to burn at a chance at getting this through, but I doubt the FTC is gonna change positions unless Sony signs a deal with MS.

At this junction though, the biggest obstacle to this entire thing is still the CMA.

Which between their unlikeliness of accepting a behavioral remedy and Microsoft stating there is no deal without CoD, this whole thing might very well be dead in two months unless one of them suddenly sings a different tune.

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

Big surprise that when Phil is out of the picture, MS can appear competent.

Noppe when you read the timeline Phil Spencer was present and speaking by the presentation from MS at the hearing

 

[Warablo]

By talk, do you mean make a deal with MS so they get what they want?

Nah, by talk I mean even talk about any negotiations. Their stance is THIS SHOULD BE BLOCKED. So of course they aren't going to negotiate at all.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

This almost seems like they are taunting the regulators to block it. Bold move, Cotten. Not sure it’ll work out for them.

Selling off one game property isn’t impossible like MS indicates. You just sell off the IP and studios that traditionally supported CoD. It either becomes its own company or they find another buyer. Totally plausible either way