• 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.

Yoboman

Member
Ok.....which one of you is on twitter rubbing it in?



Ryan Gosling Lol GIF
Cracking Up Lol GIF
The Office Lol GIF

They keep regurgitating "everybody in the games industry wants this"

No. CEOs who could get billions themselves one day want this

Actual developers don't think it's a good idea

vvGweuS.jpg
 

Varteras

Gold Member
They keep regurgitating "everybody in the games industry wants this"

No. CEOs who could get billions themselves one day want this

Actual developers don't think it's a good idea

vvGweuS.jpg

To this day, I fucking hate that Blizzard merged with Activision. Probably the saddest slow death I've ever watched in the gaming industry. Right up there with Sega no longer making consoles.
 

Yoboman

Member
To this day, I fucking hate that Blizzard merged with Activision. Probably the saddest slow death I've ever watched in the gaming industry. Right up there with Sega no longer making consoles.
Its not the only one

That period was the last wave of consolidation in the mid 2000s to early 2010s where it was the publishers buying up all the developers. It took away Bioware, Criterion, DICE, Blizzard, Eidos. Some dying slower deaths than others

Now people expect a different result from this period of consolidation?
 

wolffy66

Member
Activision is, I think, the most profitable independent publisher. They earn roughly $1.5 to $2 billion in profits every year. Now they will also get $3 billion as the divorce fee from Microsoft.

They will be completely fine continue operating as they have been.
There's a reason they wanted to sell. I'm sure that still exists.
 
Recently I’ve been rewatching this PS live-action trailer from their PS showcase in 2021, i had a feeling they somehow knew about MS intent to buy a massive sized publisher (like ABK) and needless to say, they were playing Chess this whole time…..



It's not a marathon or a sprint.

It's a game of chess. One that takes many moves and critical thinking to win.

02.gif
 

sainraja

Member
Nintendo Switch can run a 2023 Call of Duty without degrading gameplay or content? Can it even run 2022's MW 2?

Just a reminder: The DMZ mode has 66 players, along with hundreds of AI players. You sure about this?
Activision has put Call of Duty games on the Wii alongside more powerful systems. If they were going to attempt to put out a version that was the same, they would obviously need to make compromises and adjustments, but the core gameplay and content could still be the same. I mean, COD: MW did release on the PS3/X360 after all. The gameplay and content on the versions we got on the PS3/360 weren't degraded; at least no one considered them to be at that time.

This is likely what MS was planning (if they were even thinking of a native one). It's not impossible Heisenberg007 Heisenberg007 .
 
Last edited:

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
Activision has put Call of Duty games on the Wii alongside more powerful systems. If they were going to attempt to put out a version that was the same, they would obviously need to make compromises and adjustments, but the core gameplay and content could still be the same. I mean, COD: MW did release on the PS3/X360 after all. The gameplay and content on the versions we got on the PS3/360 weren't degraded; at least no one considered them to be at that time.

This is likely what MS was planning (if they were even thinking of a native one). It's not impossible Heisenberg007 Heisenberg007 .

It flopped on Wii

MS just wanted to save face and try and appear like the nice guy.

Activision would have hated it, it would’ve been a waste of resources, and it would have flopped for the entire ten years that contract was signed for

Just to try and get the deal to go through
 
Last edited:

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
Activision has put Call of Duty games on the Wii alongside more powerful systems. If they were going to attempt to put out a version that was the same, they would obviously need to make compromises and adjustments, but the core gameplay and content could still be the same. I mean, COD: MW did release on the PS3/X360 after all. The gameplay and content on the versions we got on the PS3/360 weren't degraded; at least no one considered them to be at that time.

This is likely what MS was planning (if they were even thinking of a native one). It's not impossible Heisenberg007 Heisenberg007 .
That was a possibility some time ago, but now the hardware differences have become way too big between PS5/XSX and Nintendo Switch. Switch is great, but it's not even as powerful as a 2013 PS4. There is a two-generation gap between the two consoles.

A PS5/XSX exclusive COD will not be able to run on Switch natively without compromising on content and parity.

Besides, if ABK could make it run natively, they'd have by now. Why would they not tap into ~120 million userbase for a live-service game.
 

Poltz

Member
a) CoD has provided exclusive or timed-exclusive downloadable content for either SIE or
Microsoft since CoD 2 in 2005, and these arrangements have not resulted in either SIE or
Microsoft being impaired in their ability to compete at times when the other had a limited exclusive.

(b) Activision already has a strong incentive to come up with different forms
of content and marketing exclusivity that it can monetise in its negotiations
with Microsoft and SIE. It submitted that, since 2005, these marketing
arrangements have included (i) exclusive console marketing
arrangements following the release of new titles and downloadable
content; (ii) priority access to new maps (until these were phased out
following the introduction of cross-platform play); (iii) exclusive access to
the online alpha version of the game and access to the beta version of the
game 5 days earlier than gamers on Xbox consoles or PC; (iv) game
bonuses such as extra “tier skips” on the battle pass; (v) the ability to
access additional “experience points” (eg through exclusive events); and
(vi) certain in-game character customisations and content bundles.569
Microsoft submitted that none of these foreclosed Xbox in the console
market, and that it is not credible to suggest that there are further forms of
exclusivity which Activision could have monetised but has not considered,
and which could have a material impact on downstream competition.

(c) Past attempts by Activision to steer users towards PlayStation to play
CoD had very little impact on Xbox. Between Call of Duty: Black Ops 3
(2015) and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (2019), Xbox maintained around
[]% of CoD gamers, despite Activision’s efforts to promote PlayStation
instead. The attempt to steer gamers towards SIE’s platform did not have
a foreclosure effect on Xbox.

Shock COD marketing is not the be all and end all of a console success.
 
Last edited:

Gone

Banned
I mean you wrote "CMA tell Microsoft beforehand that if they need the deal to go through they'll have to do"

That's exactly what they did.
Yeah, "please fuck up the company you just bought for 70 billion dollars" isn't a good option.
 

Nydius

Member
Besides, if ABK could make it run natively, they'd have by now. Why would they not tap into ~120 million userbase for a live-service game.
Looking at a different studio that was put in a position of being forced to develop for the Switch, it’s an absolute miracle that Sony San Diego was able to create a version of MLB The Show that offers feature parity with other versions. But they sacrificed a lot of graphical fidelity to achieve that goal.

I’d argue that if The Show 23 was a true current gen only title, the Switch version would likely have been similar to EA’s “legacy edition” versions of FIFA.

Getting COD with cross platform feature parity running on Switch in 2023?
Not happening.
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
Yeah, "please fuck up the company you just bought for 70 billion dollars" isn't a good option.
According to Phil Spencer, the deal was primarily about King and Candy Crush - not Activision.

Question: "You’re buying the Candy Crush company. People think about it as Call of Duty or whatever, but you’re buying Candy Crush."

Phil Spencer: "Absolutely. In addition, the number that’s not in the Candy Crush/King number is Call of Duty: Mobile and Diablo mobile, which are big franchises that exist in that Activision and Blizzard bucket that are also major players on phones. Yes, the idea that Activision is all about Call of Duty on console is a construct that might get created by our console competitor and maybe some players out there."

opNOGM7.jpg
 

Gone

Banned
According to Phil Spencer, the deal was primarily about King and Candy Crush - not Activision.

Question: "You’re buying the Candy Crush company. People think about it as Call of Duty or whatever, but you’re buying Candy Crush."

Phil Spencer: "Absolutely. In addition, the number that’s not in the Candy Crush/King number is Call of Duty: Mobile and Diablo mobile, which are big franchises that exist in that Activision and Blizzard bucket that are also major players on phones. Yes, the idea that Activision is all about Call of Duty on console is a construct that might get created by our console competitor and maybe some players out there."

opNOGM7.jpg
It's about everything.

The Activision Blizzard games for Gamepass. The King games for mobile and creating the alternative App Store on iOS and Android as they revealed.

Again, blocking the deal on the basis of cloud gaming is pathetic and doesn't make any sense whatever and this is something everyone knows deep down.
 

Varteras

Gold Member
It's about everything.

The Activision Blizzard games for Gamepass. The King games for mobile and creating the alternative App Store on iOS and Android as they revealed.

Again, blocking the deal on the basis of cloud gaming is pathetic and doesn't make any sense whatever and this is something everyone knows deep down.
days-of-our-lives-dool.gif
 
It's about everything.

The Activision Blizzard games for Gamepass. The King games for mobile and creating the alternative App Store on iOS and Android as they revealed.

Again, blocking the deal on the basis of cloud gaming is pathetic and doesn't make any sense whatever and this is something everyone knows deep down.

Not really otherwise the CMA wouldn't have come to that decision if it can be easily shot down. Also why they eliminated Sony from the equation.
 
Last edited:

Nydius

Member
Again, blocking the deal on the basis of cloud gaming is pathetic
It’s been explained time and again why you’re wrong so it’s a waste of time trying to explain it again.

The CMA is smarter than you or I and have literal experts who examined this for months. The only thing that’s “pathetic” is the straw grasping by Xbox fanboys looking for a reason to blame Sony for this when Sony was barely even a factor.

Man this thread has been a goldmine that shows me all the fanboys who I can safely block.
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
It's about everything.

The Activision Blizzard games for Gamepass. The King games for mobile and creating the alternative App Store on iOS and Android as they revealed.
Maybe, maybe not. But that's not what Phil Spencer said, as I just showed you.
Again, blocking the deal on the basis of cloud gaming is pathetic and doesn't make any sense whatever and this is something everyone knows deep down.
Absolutely not. In fact, everyone knows deep down that this is the right decision.
  • Does Microsoft have a 70% share in the UK Cloud gaming market? Yes.
  • Does Microsoft have the incentive to make ABK games exclusive to their cloud services? Yes.
  • Did Microsoft submit remedies that were in line with CMA's requests? No.
So the CMA blocked the acquisition. Makes 100% sense.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed

Bernoulli

M2 slut
It's about everything.

The Activision Blizzard games for Gamepass. The King games for mobile and creating the alternative App Store on iOS and Android as they revealed.

Again, blocking the deal on the basis of cloud gaming is pathetic and doesn't make any sense whatever and this is something everyone knows deep down.
nothing is stopping them from making an alternative store on android and sideloading is coming to ios in september

they dominate the cloud and want more, shouldn't scream the power of the cloud if you can't deal with consequences



Satya Nadella, chairman and CEO, Microsoft. “We’re investing deeply in world-class content, community and the cloud to usher in a new era of gaming that puts players and creators first and makes gaming safe, inclusive and accessible to all.”



 
Maybe, maybe not. But that's not what Phil Spencer said, as I just showed you.

Absolutely not. In fact, everyone knows deep down that this is the right decision.
  • Does Microsoft have a 70% share in the UK Cloud gaming market? Yes.
  • Does Microsoft have the incentive to make ABK games exclusive to their cloud services? Yes.
  • Did Microsoft submit remedies that were in line with CMA's requests? No.
So the CMA blocked the acquisition. Makes 100% sense.

Basically. Now putting the shoe on the other foot.

If they didn't use the cloud and used the console market it would be much easier for Microsoft to fight that. The CMA knows that it wasn't a good argument and there's plenty of evidence against it so they dropped it especially after they made that math error.

Now could Microsoft gave gotten this through?

Definitely however that would have required them to make divestments something they clearly don't want to do. Since the concessions didn't satisfy the CMA they blocked it. It was going to take way more than simple 10 year deals to get this through.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
nothing is stopping them from making an alternative store on android and sideloading is coming to ios in september

they dominate the cloud and want more, shouldn't scream the power of the cloud if you can't deal with consequences







makes gaming safe, inclusive and accessible to all.

This meme-worthy statement still makes me laugh whenever I think of it. Microsoft have crapped the bed over the past 12 months.
 

GHG

Gold Member
Microsoft and those who bat for them (both paid and unpaid): "regulators shouldn't exist to protect the market leader"

Regulators: "you are correct, that's why we are blocking this deal on the basis of you being the market leader in cloud and this deal would only result in you further locking down that market before it's even had the opportunity to grow organically, we are looking out for the companies who aren't market leaders"

Microsoft and those who bat for them (both paid and unpaid):

Surprised Meme GIF


Hence:

That "yes" wasn't what you thought it was.

Think About It GIF by Identity
 
Last edited:

GHG

Gold Member
according to this expert it's gameover for the CMA









He was already a nutter before the decision was announced but he's taken it to a whole new level since. It's outright insanity.

It makes you wonder how much him and sage really had/have riding on this. Makes me think that they didn't just have stock, but instead it must be options due to expire in the next couple of months, hence their urgency.

Either that and/or Microsoft have told them gloves off, go crazy.
 

Bernoulli

M2 slut
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom