• 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)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Poltz

Member
What??Of course we can blame. It is the existence of that timed exclusivity deal that can lead to the game never coming out on a platform. If there were no temporary exclusivity, Silent Hill 2 would come out day one on Xbox and its users would enjoy it... whether or not it ended up being a sales success. Now it will depend on the terms of the exclusivity that Sony has dictated and the level of success that it achieves.

Do you think that Sony is not aware of this fact when signing those agreements from its position of market leader?


The funny thing is that with this statement you are giving me the reason when I say that this type of temporary exclusivities with such long periods and carried out by the market leader can have effects, both in the market and among the user when choosing a platform, that an total exclusive...😉


The Medium is an indi AA with an exclusivity of less than 6 months in the first year of launch of the consoles. The example you looked for is funny 😂

Rest assured that if all time exclusives were of that type or duration..... You wouldn't see people having so much discussion about those.
The first year of the consoles? Interesting.
 
What??Of course we can blame. It is the existence of that timed exclusivity deal that can lead to the game never coming out on a platform. If there were no temporary exclusivity, Silent Hill 2 would come out day one on Xbox and its users would enjoy it... whether or not it ended up being a sales success. Now it will depend on the terms of the exclusivity that Sony has dictated and the level of success that it achieves.

Do you think that Sony is not aware of this fact when signing those agreements from its position of market leader?


The funny thing is that with this statement you are giving me the reason when I say that this type of temporary exclusivities with such long periods and carried out by the market leader can have effects, both in the market and among the user when choosing a platform, that an total exclusive...😉


The Medium is an indi AA with an exclusivity of less than 6 months in the first year of launch of the consoles. The example you looked for is funny 😂

Rest assured that if all time exclusives were of that type or duration..... You wouldn't see people having so much discussion about those.

I don't know maybe you should blame yourself for not buying the game even if it comes out a little later.

No idea why you think temporary and timed exclusives are the same.

Silent Hill 2 will come out on Xbox. Its up to consumers to buy the game if they want it.
 

Pelta88

Member
To be fair, people probably didn’t know she existed until this thread. I know I didn’t.

A Key Character in one of the biggest budgeted, most viewed, TV show on HBO that averaged 44 Million views per episode. And "People" didn't know she existed?

Ok.
 
Last edited:

Thirty7ven

Banned
They also had equal market share so the deals made financial sense. If you think Microsoft sells enough extra copies of a game to remotely make back 100 million dollars plus i have a bridge to sell you. They only get 30% of each extra copy or 20 bucks or so. You need 5 million extra copies to break even. Because of inflation and worse market share now I'm sure that 100 million is probably closer to 150-200 million. Do the math on that.

So they go out there and fund projects. When was the last time Xbox funded a third party on a new IP? Quantum Break? Ori?

I don't know maybe you should blame yourself for not buying the game even if it comes out a little later.

No idea why you think temporary and timed exclusives are the same.

Silent Hill 2 will come out on Xbox. Its up to consumers to buy the game if they want it.

Mass Effect being 360 exclusive for years didn’t stop PlayStation userbase from buying it and the sequels.

People who have this big problem with timed exclusives have a severe case of FOMO.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
I don't know maybe you should blame yourself for not buying the game even if it comes out a little later.

No idea why you think temporary and timed exclusives are the same.

Silent Hill 2 will come out on Xbox. Its up to consumers to buy the game if they want it.
wHaT aBoUt stAlKeR tWooOo
 

Nubulax

Member
I'll put it another way: Microsoft has chosen not to invest their massive amounts of money into making big deals for Xbox. Microsoft could absolutely do it and not even break a sweat. But they chose not to just as they chose to slash Xbox marketing budget.

With this ABK deal MS has gone the complete opposite of the spectrum and sunk an absolute massive shit ton of money, I would argue WAY undeservedly so, into the XBOX division. When you sink two of your five largest acquisitions in your entire history worth some 75+ Billion into a division of your company that is literally insignificant to your actual business (imo) that is literally going out piece by piece and buying your way to #1 and owning all the content permanently. Instead of actually progressing and "competing" they just want to shortcut and own everything that has already proven to be sucessful and buy all the different popular brands. Nobody can tell me MS cant afford to buy a few larger timed exclusives themselves when they have spent $75 billion dollars on Bethesda and ABK

SHIT, this talk about MS foreclosing on COD and not being able to do it is a joke. If they wanted to take a simple 1% loss on their revenue to make it exclusive that would be close to a 2 BILLION dollar loss they can absorb in a year by having COD exclusive.... and that loss would only be 1% for them. 1%!!!!!
 
Last edited:
wHaT aBoUt stAlKeR tWooOo

And that will come to PlayStation.

Approve Pedro Pascal GIF by Nordisk Film Finland


Mass Effect being 360 exclusive for years didn’t stop PlayStation userbase from buying it and the sequels.

People who have this big problem with timed exclusives have a severe case of FOMO.

People boycotting games due to the timed nature of them are in a minority.
 
Last edited:
i think people are misunderstanding why MS can't do the exclusivity deals that sony is doing.

The gaming business itself is still a business.

So when there's 60 million PS5s and 30 million Xboxes, Sony has to replace sales targets for a 30 million userbase and Microsoft has to replace sales targets for a 60 million userbase. The math is twice as worse.

On top of that when you're behind, the exclusivity deal is less likely to work than in a dominant position because you don't have a guarantee you will get the users as a residual effect from the deal. So it's twice as expensive as the competitor and it's also less likely to work as intended. From a dominant standpoint, the goal is kind of the opposite, instead of trying to attract users, it's to retain them. You already have the users.

But anyways, back to the business aspect. Microsoft doing exclusivity deals hurts the performance of their business segment which makes it worse in the eyes of investors as well as within the media. Acquisitions aren't considered the same as day to day business. You won't see gaming in the red because of acquiring activision. This is also why MS turned to acquisitions because it achieves the same goals as exclusivity deals with none of the same downsides. The only thing is there is heightened risk but MS is mitigating it by maintaining multi-platform access. So they're widening their segment performance while also expanding new segments while still getting the benefit of exclusivity deals.

So where they were at in the industry, the acquisitions made a lot more sense than trying to do the same shit sony was doing because it would only hurt them. It's not because they're poor, it just didn't make financial sense to do it.

The problem is, the market leader (Sony) is reaching publishers for exclusive titles either in full form, temporary, or simply by releasing exclusive content for PS platforms. In some cases even enforcing contracts so their gaming subscription service should be the first option when the publisher decides its game to be launched on any.

If this is a common behavior of the market leader, even it doubles the XBOX marketshare, then how do you expect MS to gain ground? Money is the key in here, as it is for Sony as well, otherwise if Sony was so comfortable then they wouldn’t care less about getting third-party exclusives. Also by that logic some sort of monopolistic behavior could hinted on those movements.
 

Poltz

Member
The problem is, the market leader (Sony) is reaching publishers for exclusive titles either in full form, temporary, or simply by releasing exclusive content for PS platforms. In some cases even enforcing contracts so their gaming subscription service should be the first option when the publisher decides its game to be launched on any.

If this is a common behavior of the market leader, even it doubles the XBOX marketshare, then how do you expect MS to gain ground? Money is the key in here, as it is for Sony as well, otherwise if Sony was so comfortable then they wouldn’t care less about getting third-party exclusives. Also by that logic some sort of monopolistic behavior could hinted on those movements.
Do you think Game Pass deals don’t exclude PS+?
 

Darsxx82

Member
I don't know maybe you should blame yourself for not buying the game even if it comes out a little later.
LOL ,since when has this been the discussion??? The discussion is whether a timed exclusive can have the same effects on the market and the platform choice process among users as a total exclusive..... And the answer is YES.

It is the reason why they are so used
Silent Hill 2 will come out on Xbox. Its up to consumers to buy the game if they want it.


Right now they don't know for sure if it's going to come out on Xbox and neither are they motivated to wait 1or more year for it to come out.....

That is, right now they only see that the game will be released on PS5 and they are forcing them to buy that platform to play it...
 

dibella360

Banned
With this ABK deal MS has gone the complete opposite of the spectrum and sunk an absolute massive shit ton of money, I would argue WAY undeservedly so, into the XBOX division. When you sink two of your five largest acquisitions in your entire history worth some 75+ Billion into a division of your company that is literally insignificant to your actual business (imo) that is literally going out piece by piece and buying your way to #1 and owning all the content permanently. Instead of actually progressing and "competing" they just want to shortcut and own everything that has already proven to be sucessful and buy all the different popular brands. Nobody can tell me MS cant afford to buy a few larger timed exclusives themselves when they have spent $75 billion dollars on Bethesda and ABK

SHIT, this talk about MS foreclosing on COD and not being able to do it is a joke. If they wanted to take a simple 1% loss on their revenue to make it exclusive that would be close to a 2 BILLION dollar loss they can absorb in a year by having COD exclusive.... and that loss would only be 1% for them. 1%!!!!!
I have been thinking about this a lot ... To me, this investment is more than just gaming. A year so, Satya Nadella did an interview where he talked about Facebook's planned Metaverse and how Microsoft plans to be at the forefront of this. He later stated that IP and globally recognized digital worlds are the key to all of this. Now I am not saying this is the sole reason for this (Gamepass and the mobile storefront is the focus), but I do think it is an added value to them. As stupid as the metaverse is, it will be designed and built by game developers. Owning the IP allows them to build these worlds.
 

DrFigs

Member
With this ABK deal MS has gone the complete opposite of the spectrum and sunk an absolute massive shit ton of money, I would argue WAY undeservedly so, into the XBOX division. When you sink two of your five largest acquisitions in your entire history worth some 75+ Billion into a division of your company that is literally insignificant to your actual business (imo) that is literally going out piece by piece and buying your way to #1 and owning all the content permanently. Instead of actually progressing and "competing" they just want to shortcut and own everything that has already proven to be sucessful and buy all the different popular brands. Nobody can tell me MS cant afford to buy a few larger timed exclusives themselves when they have spent $75 billion dollars on Bethesda and ABK

SHIT, this talk about MS foreclosing on COD and not being able to do it is a joke. If they wanted to take a simple 1% loss on their revenue to make it exclusive that would be close to a 2 BILLION dollar loss they can absorb in a year by having COD exclusive.... and that loss would only be 1% for them. 1%!!!!!
It puts them in a really good position to monopolize PC gaming which might make the price tag worth it for that alone. If all Blizzard and COD games go on gamepass and drives up engagement for the xbox store, it's a huge game changer for pc gaming. You'd have to be pretty dumb to think this acquisition is about king, but yeah i don't think it's a bad investment in the gaming division, since the goal seems to be to drive competitors out of the market.
 
Last edited:

Poltz

Member
LOL ,since when has this been the discussion??? The discussion is whether a timed exclusive can have the same effects on the market and the platform choice process among users as a total exclusive..... And the answer is YES.

It is the reason why they are so used



Right now they don't know for sure if it's going to come out on Xbox and neither are they motivated to wait 1or more year for it to come out.....

That is, right now they only see that the game will be released on PS5 and they are forcing them to buy that platform to play it...
Did you feel the same way about Monser Hunter Rise on Switch, the follow up to the hugely successful Monster Hunter World? You know the game that sold 20m?
 

GHound

Member
Did you feel the same way about Monser Hunter Rise on Switch, the follow up to the hugely successful Monster Hunter World? You know the game that sold 20m?
To put that in perspective that's nearly twice as much or more than the entire Silent Hill franchise as of around 2018.
 

Warablo

Member
For the same reason you believe MS will. Money, money it needs more than MS.
I dont think Microsoft will keep making games after the binding contract expires for Sony. Though I could see maybe they wait until next gen to pull exclusivity for CoD.

Sony has even less to gain with money because Xbox's marketshare still hasn't recovered.
 
Last edited:

Poltz

Member
To put that in perspective that's nearly twice as much or more than the entire Silent Hill franchise as of around 2018.
That’s what people seem to miss. I thought GTA6 was PS exclusive the way people were going on.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
The problem is, the market leader (Sony) is reaching publishers for exclusive titles either in full form, temporary, or simply by releasing exclusive content for PS platforms.

As is Microsoft, as far as exclusives.

In some cases even enforcing contracts so their gaming subscription service should be the first option when the publisher decides its game to be launched on any.

Not quite. Sony marketing agreements include the right of first refusal to match offers made from competing services for six months after the initial term of the marketing agreement has expired. Beyond that, every game is free to make whatever subsequent deals they want. For the most part, none of this matters. As I've said in the past, most games that get these marketing deals were never going to show up on any subscription service regardless. RE Village, the game whose contract was revealed to give this information, has been free to be on Game Pass for a while now. Sales matter.
 
Last edited:
LOL ,since when has this been the discussion??? The discussion is whether a timed exclusive can have the same effects on the market and the platform choice process among users as a total exclusive..... And the answer is YES.

It is the reason why they are so used



Right now they don't know for sure if it's going to come out on Xbox and neither are they motivated to wait 1or more year for it to come out.....

That is, right now they only see that the game will be released on PS5 and they are forcing them to buy that platform to play it...

The answer is no to that question. Total exclusives have a much bigger impact than temporary deals. They are not the same.

And how are you feeling today?

:messenger_winking_tongue:
 
Last edited:

Schmick

Member
Not exactly because with timed exclusives you can just wait for the game to come out. With permanent exclusives you can't.

Usually permanent exclusives will convince more people to change platforms. With temporary exclusives some will while others will choose to wait.

Some people will not buy PS5s to play Silent Hill 2. But they will still buy the game when it releases on their platform.
The fact that Timed Exclusives exist must mean they have the same impact as Permanent Exclusive and they work, otherwise why have them in the first place?! I can't think of any other reason to have Time Exclusive other than attempting to attract gamers to a specific eco-system.
 

feynoob

Member
The fact that Timed Exclusives exist must mean they have the same impact as Permanent Exclusive and they work, otherwise why have them in the first place?! I can't think of any other reason to have Time Exclusive other than attempting to attract gamers to a specific eco-system.
They exist to deny games to a specific system, and to attract gamers to their system.
They might be for 1 year, but they are doing a good job if people buy most copies on your platform.
 
The fact that Timed Exclusives exist must mean they have the same impact as Permanent Exclusive and they work, otherwise why have them in the first place?! I can't think of any other reason to have Time Exclusive other than attempting to attract gamers to a specific eco-system.

It really doesn't have the same impact as permanent exclusives. Also timed exclusives are cheaper for companies to get.

I agree with attracting people to your ecosystem what I'm disagreeing with is that the impact is the same.

When exclusivity is temporary the games still sell to consumers of other platforms. Just at a later date.
 

Topher

Gold Member

Microsoft's chances of closing Activision deal raised to 70% from 50% at Citi​



The probability of Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) closing its planned $69 billion acquisition of Activision (NASDAQ:ATVI) was raised to 70% from 50% at Citi after the U.K.'s antitrust regulator "provisionally concluded" that the proposed deal would not reduce competition in the console gaming market.

Citi also raised its price target to $91 from $88 to reflect the higher likelihood that the $95 a share mega video game transaction will close, analyst Jason Bazinet, who has a buy rating on Activision, wrote in a note on Friday. Activision (ATVI) shares gained 6% on Friday to close at $84.39.

"For investors willing to own Activision through into 2024, we see $11 of upside ($95 less $84) and $2 of downside ($82 less $84)," Bazinet wrote. "In effect, Activision is akin to a very low-cost call option on the Microsoft transaction gaining approval."

The U.K.'s provisional findings on Friday came as a surprise to some M&A investors who had become concerned that the regulator was planning to block the deal. The transaction has already faced opposition in the U.S., where the Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit in December challenging the combination. The European Union is set to make its final decision on the acquisition in May.

"If the deal receives incremental approvals across jurisdictions (UK, EU, US), we expect investors will ascribe a higher probability to the deal closing pushing Activision closer to the $95 all-cash offer price," Bazinet wrote.

The U.K. regulatory agency didn't say whether the proposed deal would impact the cloud gaming market. The agency is slated to issue a final report on the matter by April 26.

Activision is worth $82 a share under a no deal scenario, according to Bazinet, which includes $14 a share in net cash, which the analysts suspect merger arb investors are not giving ATVI the benefit of its net cash under a scenario where the transaction isn't completed. Absent the cash value, Wall Street is currently pricing in a ~60% chance of a deal close, up from 40% before the U.K regulator's comments on Friday.

"If the deal gets rejected by any one of the regulators, we would not be surprised if the equity first trades to $68 (our estimated no deal value ex-cash), Bazinet wrote. "However, we would expect shares to eventually recover to $82 ($68 + $14 of cash), as we suspect fundamental investors will ascribe value to Activision’s net cash."

Earlier this month, Reuters reported that Microsoft (MSFT) is likely headed toward European Union antitrust approval for the Activision (ATVI) deal, thanks to its offers to license videogames to its competitors.

 

Darsxx82

Member
The answer is no to that question. Total exclusives have a much bigger impact than temporary deals. They are not the same.

Nobody has said that they are the same, it is being said that they can produce the same effects in the user and in the market (especially if the clear market leader does it) ...... which is true and the reason why it's are so used.


And how are you feeling today?

:messenger_winking_tongue:
🏋️
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Any LTV model would have to look at new customers that switched to Xbox because of CoD being exclusive. Which is a small number. The cost/benefit analysis is only looking at one decision in a vacuum. (As it should)

Very high costs and little benefit to make CoD exclusive. That's the decision the CMA has reached. If you start looking for ways that Microsoft could make up the costs, you'll find ways they could do it.

In your example, you double the current Gamepass subscriber number and charge the entire subscriber base $1.50 more. This makes up for the costs/losses of not selling on Playstation, but it's using already established Xbox users along with "switchers".

The math below is spicy, basically shows that even if the switchers paid nearly 5x as much on Xbox than they did on Playstation, the cost of making CoD exclusive outweighs the benefits.

Lets say there are 40M Playstation CoD players. And 15% of them (6M) left Playstation and joined Gamepass.

Not accounting for MTX and Battle passes, just base game/sub price. At 40M x $70, losses for a year from taking CoD away from Playstation is $2.8B, if you only account for the 70% Xbox would make from the purchases, it would roughly be $2B.

Now onto the 6M that switched to Xbox, all of which jumped into Gamepass, never unsubscribed. At an average price of $10 a month, that's $120 a year just for the subscription, Microsoft would be making $720M. Maybe you think all 6M PS switchers would pay for ultimate at $15. That brings up the "benefit" to $1.08B.

Maybe that's not enough. You want Gamepass prices to increase. Let's say all 6M PS switchers are happy to pay $20 a month for Gamepass, that's $240 a year. That's $1.44B

The benefit of those 6M new Gamepass users paying above and beyond what Gamepass currently charges still falls short of the cost of taking CoD away from Playstation. To the tune of $560M a year, and this is assuming the 6M that switched would pay nearly 5x as much as they did on Playstation.

If you average out actual spending habits, MTX and battle passes, the cost of taking CoD off Playstation increases. Where as the 6M switchers would average out probably lower than the $240 a year.
I think you are being very, very generous with your calculations. See details below:

A COD installment sells around 30M on ALL PLATFORMs over its entire lifetime. 40M COD base game sales on Playstation alone in a year is ludicrously high, it's impossible. In 2021 all CODs combined sold 25M on all platforms combined in a year.

Unless gamepass had zero growth since Jan 2022 (25M), which would be both alarming and surprising I doubt I've doubled gamepass subs either. In Dec 2022 they said they set a gamepass record and hit 38% growth in subscribers for the fiscal year (ending June 2022). Their target was actually 73% growth before major releases like starfield, redfall, FM, etc. Gamepass subs are likely in the mid 30M already (Mar 2023). Going by that and the fact that this is before the major Activison and Zenimax titles hit gamepass I would say my 40-50M sub estimate would even be on the low side come 2025 when MS are allowed to remove COD (the Sony contracts end) and they have had major Zenimax and Activision titles hitting the service.
Lets say of the 25M CoD sales in a year 50% are on PS and the rest PC and xbox combined.
($70*12.5million)/(50million*12months) = $1.45 per month increase

A $1.45 a month increase to regain all CoD sales lost on Playstation.
 
Last edited:
I believe I said SF5?

SF5 was likely not going to be made at all without Sony funding it. Because it did well, that allowed SF6 to be greenlit internally by Capcom without external funding support so that it launched day and date on Xbox

Maybe you should be thankful Sony funded SF5 exclusively?

Approx 3 years since FF7R released. What are the odds it's still going to show up on Xbox?

I dunno, maybe Square feels the port isn’t worth their time? No idea, but the latest we know of it’s no longer required to be exclusive
 
Last edited:

KingT731

Member
Talk about 'damaging'...one company inked an exclusivity deal with Capcom for SF5 and then bought the world's most prominent fighting game tournament (Evo), pretty much cementing their platform as THE fighting game platform. Then pays for what looks to be permanent exclusivity for AAA entries in the most popular JRPG franchise.
Why omit the AAA Final Fantasy games and focus on Deathloop and GHostwire? You can't have forgotten...you've been posting excitedly in the FFXVI threads.
Do you know why Evo was sold?

Per Square-Enix there are no deals in place to keep FF7R or FFXVI off of Xbox beyond the noted periods.
 

phil_t98

#SonyToo
SF5 was likely not going to be made at all without Sony funding it. Because it did well, that allowed SF6 to be greenlit internally by Capcom without external funding support so that it launched day and date on Xbox

Maybe you should be thankful Sony funded SF5 exclusively?



I dunno, maybe Square feels the port isn’t worth their time? No idea, but the latest we know of it’s no longer required to be exclusive

But in Sony funding it they completely blocked it off another platform, I mean why not fund it to keep the game alive and have a timed exclusive?
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
I think you are being very, very generous with your calculations. See details below:

A COD installment sells around 30M on ALL PLATFORMs over its entire lifetime. 40M COD base game sales on Playstation alone in a year is ludicrously high, it's impossible. In 2021 all CODs combined sold 25M on all platforms combined in a year.

Unless gamepass had zero growth since Jan 2022 (25M), which would be both alarming and surprising I doubt I've doubled gamepass subs. In Dec 2022 they said they set a gamepass record and hit 38% growth in subscribers for the fiscal year (ending June 2022). Their target was actually 73% growth before major releases like starfield, redfall, FM, etc. Gamepass subs are likely in the mid 30M already (Mar 2023). Going by that and the fact that this is before the major Activison and Zenimax titles hit gamepass I would say my 40-50M sub estimate would even be on the low side come 2025 when MS are allowed to remove COD (the Sony contracts end) and they have had major Zenimax and Activision titles hitting the service.
Lets say of the 25M CoD sales in a year 50% are on PS and the rest PC and xbox combined.
($70*12.5million)/(50million*12months) = $1.45 per month increase

A $1.45 a month increase to regain all CoD sales lost on Playstation.
Except Microsoft gets zero from this until 2025. Then it will still take years to double the gp subscribers. So for the first few years years it is double your estimate. Raising prices 3-5 dollars a month will also get many to cancel especially the PC side. That is a 33% hike for pc and xbox non ultimate users pretty steap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom