• 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?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
mrmustard

mrmustard

Banned
Heisenberg007 said:
5bkHBut.jpg


43.5% votes for Kim Kardashian. Says so much about him and the community of lunatics he has built on his Twitter profile.

P.S. Would be hilarious if Margrethe Vestager also blocks the acquisition, and then Florian and his minions start tweeting against her and how she knows nothing.😄
Click to expand...
I think he has even more blue than green people reading and retweeting/linking his stuff, but i guess he doesn't care. Attention is attention.
 
Last edited:
Topher

Topher

Gold Member
sinnergy said:
Doesn’t mean they won’t … it’s just tactics .. you think they invested so much , they just roll over 🤣
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about them "rolling over", now did I? If MS was willing to break up ABK then they may have missed their chance though. If the CAT sends this back to CMA for revision then they may reconsider doing this, but if they lose the appeal then it is over.
 
Astray

Astray

Member
Heisenberg007 said:
Xbox may have gone under the radar a bit because of how insanely profitable Microsoft is and continues to be. However, I suspect that the ABK fallout may lead to closer scrutiny and review of the Xbox division -- and its leadership.
Click to expand...
No, they went under the radar because for more than a decade, money was essentially free and thus a lot of fiscally-unwise business plans were able to happen.

Now investors will absolutely have more scrutiny over everything, this isn't limited to Xbox, Playstation has its own things that can be looked at as inefficiency as well, such as PSVR or some of their less-profitable studios.
 
Heisenberg007

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
Pelta88 said:
You can't be serious?

“That's something well beyond anything I've ever done. I don't know that I'm equipped to do it, and the responsibility for that definitely hits home.”

You follow Hoe Law and Idas and regurgitate era posts. I know I'm not the only one who has called you out for that. But to be clear, Phil Spencer has been on every tv show that will have him, claiming he is responsible for the Activision acquisition. For you to turn around and claim that he didn't spearhead the deal when he himself claims ownership... Makes me think you're still studying those era hope posts for validity. It's been 18 month feynoob feynoob it's time you source your info elsewhere. Respectfully.
Click to expand...
Funny thing is that Phil is awfully quiet now. He has not made a single public comment related to the acquisition. Perhaps his way of abolishing himself from the responsibility now, that it was more of a team effort and that Phil wasn't leading this?
 
Heisenberg007

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
Astray said:
No, they went under the radar because for more than a decade, money was essentially free and thus a lot of fiscally-unwise business plans were able to happen.

Now investors will absolutely have more scrutiny over everything, this isn't limited to Xbox, Playstation has its own things that can be looked at as inefficiency as well, such as PSVR or some of their less-profitable studios.
Click to expand...
You're referring to inflation / recession?
 
POKEYCLYDE

POKEYCLYDE

Member
Heisenberg007 said:
Question for y'all.

There is a possibility now that one or both of Brad Smith and Phil Spencer may get fired. I personally think Phil Spencer is more likely to go than Brad because of how Xbox is performing overall, so it goes beyond ABK.

But ...

I don't think anybody has talked about the possibility of Satya Nadella being terminated over this? Is that a real possibility?

When Microsoft pays the $3 billion penalty, I reckon the board will have some questions. I think they will also ask what's next for Xbox, what's the plan, what's the current performance, and what's the ROI.

What is everyone's thoughts on that? And if it comes to Satya, can he make Phil the scapegoat at the point?
Click to expand...
I believe for the quarter overall revenue was up by 9%.

The Xbox division at the moment is a smaller part of their portfolio. Investment now can lead to exponentially greater profits in the future. That's Microsoft's vision for it's gaming division.

As long as shareholders are happy with Microsoft's overall performance, and Microsoft continues to believe in/promise their long term goals with their gaming division, I don't think shareholders or the board will demand a strategy pivot.

$3B is a drop in the bucket when revenue for 3 months was something like $50B right?

Not entirely sure what will happen when the deal is officially dead and Microsoft has to give up that $3B, will the share price drop, will it remain the same, will it go up? Not sure. I expected the share price to drop when the CMA announced the block, but it actually went up.

As for who might get fired, I don't know. Not sure how essential Phil or Brad are to the vision of the company. A shake up of upper management usually means steering the boat in a different direction. With an increase of overall revenue going up by 9% I think Satya is safe. If the gaming division wants to maintain course and still invest to realize their long term goals I think Phil is safe. And Brad.. might depend on how badly Microsoft's image is damaged from the anti-UK stuff they're saying. I'd say he's in the most danger.
 
Heisenberg007

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
POKEYCLYDE said:
I believe for the quarter overall revenue was up by 9%.

The Xbox division at the moment is a smaller part of their portfolio. Investment now can lead to exponentially greater profits in the future. That's Microsoft's vision for it's gaming division.

As long as shareholders are happy with Microsoft's overall performance, and Microsoft continues to believe in/promise their long term goals with their gaming division, I don't think shareholders or the board will demand a strategy pivot.

$3B is a drop in the bucket when revenue for 3 months was something like $50B right?

Not entirely sure what will happen when the deal is officially dead and Microsoft has to give up that $3B, will the share price drop, will it remain the same, will it go up? Not sure. I expected the share price to drop when the CMA announced the block, but it actually went up.

As for who might get fired, I don't know. Not sure how essential Phil or Brad are to the vision of the company. A shake up of upper management usually means steering the boat in a different direction. With an increase of overall revenue going up by 9% I think Satya is safe. If the gaming division wants to maintain course and still invest to realize their long term goals I think Phil is safe. And Brad.. might depend on how badly Microsoft's image is damaged from the anti-UK stuff they're saying. I'd say he's in the most danger.
Click to expand...
Yes, Microsoft's revenue was up by 9% total. Xbox's was down by 4%.

I agree - as long as they are making money, most things will be fine. The only exception would be if the ABK fallout leads to a closer scrutiny of the Xbox division and if it hasn't been making progress as the board wanted it to be by now. That may change things.

Especially now that Microsoft has washed its dirty laundry in the public, making them appear so small and non-competitive against Sony trying to make this acquisition go through.
 
Thirty7ven

Thirty7ven

Banned
Maybe they don’t fire anyone and instead adjust the strategy?

If you are running your strategy based on MAUs across multiple platforms and store fronts then it makes no sense to make Xbox exclusives.

They should focus on Steamdeck like handhelds and go top of the line, expensive, niche console where it’s the best place to play Xbox games, while releasing games on PlayStation and Nintendo etc
 
Bernoulli

Bernoulli

M2 slut
Thirty7ven said:
Maybe they don’t fire anyone and instead adjust the strategy?

If you are running your strategy based on MAUs across multiple platforms and store fronts then it makes no sense to make Xbox exclusives.

They should focus on Steamdeck like handhelds and go top of the line, expensive, niche console where it’s the best place to play Xbox games, while releasing games on PlayStation and Nintendo etc
Click to expand...
whatever they do theyr are stuck with gamepass
now the players prefer to wait for the games to come to gamepass instead of buying, same is tarting to happen for some games on ps+
xbox should drop the gamepass or make their games come months later not day 1
 
feynoob

feynoob

Gold Member
Pelta88 said:
You can't be serious?

“That's something well beyond anything I've ever done. I don't know that I'm equipped to do it, and the responsibility for that definitely hits home.”
[/URL][/URL][/URL]
Click to expand...

Activision in spotlight​

The Activision deal puts Microsoft in the spotlight with regulators. Microsoft doesn’t expect to close the deal until June 2023. It is being reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission, led by Chairwoman Lina Khan, who has broadcast her plans to increase scrutiny of mergers.

On Thursday, four U.S. senators sent a letter to the FTC citing concerns about the deal, saying it could undermine employees’ calls for accountability over alleged misconduct at Activision.

Around the time the deal was announced in January, Mr. Smith said he woke up at 4 a.m. with his mind full of ideas. Unable to fall back asleep, he began sketching out a plan to blunt criticism by addressing competition concerns head-on.

He called Microsoft’s gaming chief, Phil Spencer, at 8 a.m. to hammer out plans to contact Sony Group Corp., Microsoft’s main competitor in gaming, to let it know Microsoft would continue to make Activision games for Sony’s PlayStation consoles.

Mr. Smith decided with Mr. Nadella, the CEO, to announce that Microsoft planned to pre-emptively make its app store more open than Apple’s without government pressure, such as by not requiring developers to use a proprietary payment system.

The company saw this as part of a pitch to regulators around the world that it would be a good steward of a huge addition to its already big gaming business. The next month, it unveiled the new app store principles in Washington to lawmakers and the press.

“We’re more focused on adapting to regulation than fighting against it,” Mr. Smith told reporters. “We want to be clear with regulators and with the public that if this acquisition is approved, they can count on Microsoft to adapt to the rules that are emerging, and run our business in a responsible way.”
Click to expand...

That is not someone that is resposible for this deal. You dont get called that early by your boss on how to handle this deal.

Pelta88 said:
You follow Hoe Law and Idas and regurgitate era posts. I know I'm not the only one who has called you out for that. But to be clear, Phil Spencer has been on every tv show that will have him, claiming he is responsible for the Activision acquisition. For you to turn around and claim that he didn't spearhead the deal when he himself claims ownership... Makes me think you're still studying those era hope posts for validity. It's been 18 month feynoob feynoob feynoob feynoob it's time you source your info elsewhere. Respectfully.
Click to expand...
Again with this notion. Do you call out everyone that disagree with you, as someone who takes his info from other people.

Edit: I dont have issue with you. I dont like you calling me like this. I have nothing to do with these people. Especially hoeglaw.
 
Last edited:
feynoob

feynoob

Gold Member
Heisenberg007 said:
ABK, yes. I've said as much earlier in this thread that it would be unfair to Phil if they fire him just because of ABK.

However, it is possible that the ABK acquisition mishap serves as the straw that broke the camel's back. If management is indeed unhappy with Xbox's progress, the ABK debacle, the subsequent $3 billion penalty, and a performance review of XBS so far this generation, may frustrate the Board of Directors.

Mainly because the trend is downward. If the trend was improving, I'd think there is more time for Phil to steer the ship.
Click to expand...
The camel for me would be bethesda/zenimax.
If Phil doesnt manage those studio with their content, MS wont feel safe with him managing their future purchases.

That would be the last strike for me. You dont keep someone like that around.
 
GHG

GHG

Gold Member
Astray said:
Xbox influencers literally reporting news about.. Construction companies leaving the London Stock Exchange.



I swear whoever gives them notes in the big Xbox discord server needs to be sacked, never seen such desperate and obvious shilling.
Click to expand...


"just a news aggregator" eh adamsapple adamsapple

But hey, if you do happen to have an interest in financial markets I'll be more than glad to help get you started and point you in the right direction.
 
feynoob

feynoob

Gold Member
Thirty7ven said:
Maybe they don’t fire anyone and instead adjust the strategy?

If you are running your strategy based on MAUs across multiple platforms and store fronts then it makes no sense to make Xbox exclusives.

They should focus on Steamdeck like handhelds and go top of the line, expensive, niche console where it’s the best place to play Xbox games, while releasing games on PlayStation and Nintendo etc
Click to expand...
The issue is their content management.
Currently Xbox has issue keeping up the future pipleline with consistent games.

Worse is that, the relationship with 3rd party is not that good, as MS doesnt make AAA exclusive games like they used to do during X360.
 
Thirty7ven

Thirty7ven

Banned
Bernoulli said:
whatever they do theyr are stuck with gamepass
now the players prefer to wait for the games to come to gamepass instead of buying, same is tarting to happen for some games on ps+
xbox should drop the gamepass or make their games come months later not day 1
Click to expand...

Whatever, they can have a first party only GP on PlayStation and Nintendo, just like their PC GP and Xbox GP aren’t the same. And just do both, sell games too.

This need to protect Xbox HW is holding them back. It just doesn’t fit their strategy, it’s clear they are trying to pivot away from consoles while at the same time being afraid of losing their console audience which they won’t. They are being stubborn, just embrace the PlayStation and Nintendo audience.

So what if they upset the minority of Xbox fanboys whose whole identity is being anti PlayStation?
 
Last edited:
Heisenberg007

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
Bernoulli said:
whatever they do theyr are stuck with gamepass
now the players prefer to wait for the games to come to gamepass instead of buying, same is tarting to happen for some games on ps+
xbox should drop the gamepass or make their games come months later not day 1
Click to expand...
As much as I agree that Game Pass has damaged Xbox immensely, is it even possible for them to backtrack on that?

I don't think they can now. The backlash would be unprecedented. And I think people will move away from Xbox in droves if they ever dropped Game Pass -- or even stopped day one first-party releases on Game Pass.

At this point, they will have to continue with Game Pass as that gives them the best opportunity to keep its userbase intact.
 
feynoob

feynoob

Gold Member
Heisenberg007 said:
As much as I agree that Game Pass has damaged Xbox immensely, is it even possible for them to backtrack on that?

I don't think they can now. The backlash would be unprecedented. And I think people will move away from Xbox in droves if they ever dropped Game Pass -- or even stopped day one first-party releases on Game Pass.

At this point, they will have to continue with Game Pass as that gives them the best opportunity to keep its userbase intact.
Click to expand...
Gamepass havent damaged xbox. It actually made them somewhat relevent.

https://www.xboxone-hq.com/xbox-one-exclusive-games-list-0-gdate_us-DESC/

That is the Xbox one exclusive games. The recent ones were due to gamepass.
 
GHG

GHG

Gold Member
Astray said:
GHG GHG will explain it better than me, but I'm referring to years of very low interest rates, particularly during the COVID crisis.

Inflation was a symptom of it, and recession is a symptom of the global system's attempt to fix it.
Click to expand...

Your assumptions are correct.

A big thing that people are missing with all of this is the fact that the economic environment in which this deal was agreed no longer exists. There's no guarantee Microsoft will want to reinvest that cash in the near term due to the fact that interest rates are so high (and are likely to continue climbing higher) meaning they are likely to get a better yield sitting on the money compared to the return on capital any acquisition would get them (particularly in the gaming sphere).
 
Last edited:
sainraja

sainraja

Member
Heisenberg007 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is impossible for Activision to do it. Yes, some compromises will need to be made for it to run on the system; I am not denying that. I also don't see how any content will need to be different. It will just be a low-fidelity version of the COD we see on the high-end consoles; they just need to make sure it runs like the PS3/360 versions did. What exactly do you think the new COD games are doing that would prevent them from releasing a low-spec version of the game?

Heisenberg007 said:
A PS5/XSX exclusive COD will not be able to run on Switch natively without compromising on content and parity.
Click to expand...
They don't need to get the PS5/XSX version running on the Switch. They just need to create a native version of the game that is close to the PS5/XSX version to run on the Switch.

Heisenberg007 said:
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.
Click to expand...
They likely did not see it as a worthwhile effort to even try to make it happen, for various different reasons but one of the reasons could be that the series hasn't been that popular on the Nintendo consoles? As James pointed out.
 
Last edited:
X-Wing

X-Wing

Member
I wonder if Microsoft pays him just to keep everyone hoping for the deal to pass so stocks won't crash or something.
If I had Twitter I'd go there and call him a fraud but I'm not gonna give Musk any traffic on that shithole.
 
Last edited:
feynoob

feynoob

Gold Member
X-Wing said:
I wonder if Microsoft pays him just to keep everyone hoping for the deal to pass so stocks won't crash or something.
If I had Twitter I'd go there and call him a fraud but I'm not gonna give Musk any traffic on that shithole.
Click to expand...
The stock market likes the deal to fail, as MS will lose 68b to gaming sector, if it passes. They don't like that.
They will love that money to go to printing money departments, instead of gaming.
 
S

SneakersSO

Member
Heisenberg007 said:
Question for y'all.

There is a possibility now that one or both of Brad Smith and Phil Spencer may get fired. I personally think Phil Spencer is more likely to go than Brad because of how Xbox is performing overall, so it goes beyond ABK.

But ...

I don't think anybody has talked about the possibility of Satya Nadella being terminated over this? Is that a real possibility?

When Microsoft pays the $3 billion penalty, I reckon the board will have some questions. I think they will also ask what's next for Xbox, what's the plan, what's the current performance, and what's the ROI.

What is everyone's thoughts on that? And if it comes to Satya, can he make Phil the scapegoat at the point?
Click to expand...
I'll speak from personal experience dealing with, working for, and working around Microsoft over the years, but my perspective is this: they do not admit mistakes, ever. They just go silent and make a PR spin to obfuscate issues.

Phil Spencer has been with Microsoft for 20 years, give or take, and has been heading up the Xbox publishing efforts for at least 15 of those years. 20 years in Corporate America is a LONG time. At this point, Phil has hit as high a point as an executive given the performance of the division he has operating has had during his tenure; the literal embodiment of failing upwards. It would be insanely easy to sell a narrative that Phil has decided to retire and spend more time with his family.

A lot of people bought the notion that Bonnie Ross left Halo/343 of her own volition to spend more time with her family, but anyone who is in the know knows that is a flat out lie, and that she was merely the very first part of attempting to restructure the org heading up Halo to try and see if they can salvage the reputation and importance of the IP for their publishing strategy. Their corporate culture is not one where they make a public firing and admit mistakes like this unless its absolutely necessary, and all of their efforts for a decade+ now have been spent on building an unimpeachable brand around Phil Spencer, despite the shoddy leadership history of the division under his watch. Heck, they even have people internally who just play on Spencer's public-facing Xbox account, just to sell the image of him being 'one of the gamers'.
 
Heisenberg007

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
sainraja said:
I don't think it is impossible for Activision to do it. Yes, some compromises will need to be made for it to run on the system; I am not denying that. I also don't see how any content will need to be different. It will just be a low-fidelity version of the COD we see on the high-end consoles; they just need to make sure it runs like the PS3/360 versions did. What exactly do you think the new COD games are doing that would prevent them from releasing a low-spec version of the game?

They don't need to get the PS5/XSX version running on the Switch. They just need to create a native version of the game that is close to the PS4/XSX version to run on the Switch.

They likely did not see it as a worthwhile effort to even try to make it happen, for various different reasons but one of the reasons could be that the series hasn't been that popular on the Nintendo consoles? As James pointed out.
Click to expand...
I'll only add a couple of points here:

1. Soon there won't be a PS4/Xbox one version as COD moves to current-gen only. In that case, it'd be nearly impossible for them to make a native version for Switch that is even behind PS4 in terms of power and performance.

2. A cross-gen product can often have different versions that aren't at par. For example, Battlefield had 64 players on PS4 while only 24 players on PS3. Similarly, Shadow of Mordor did not have the Nemesis system in PS3/X360 versions. If ABK makes a native PS5/XSX version of COD and a native Switch version, I expect a lot of similar cutbacks. In that case, there won' be content parity.
 
feynoob

feynoob

Gold Member
SneakersSO said:
I'll speak from personal experience dealing with, working for, and working around Microsoft over the years, but my perspective is this: they do not admit mistakes, ever. They just go silent and make a PR spin to obfuscate issues.

Phil Spencer has been with Microsoft for 20 years, give or take, and has been heading up the Xbox publishing efforts for at least 15 of those years. 20 years in Corporate America is a LONG time. At this point, Phil has hit as high a point as an executive given the performance of the division he has operating has had during his tenure; the literal embodiment of failing upwards. It would be insanely easy to sell a narrative that Phil has decided to retire and spend more time with his family.

A lot of people bought the notion that Bonnie Ross left Halo/343 of her own volition to spend more time with her family, but anyone who is in the know knows that is a flat out lie, and that she was merely the very first part of attempting to restructure the org heading up Halo to try and see if they can salvage the reputation and importance of the IP for their publishing strategy. Their corporate culture is not one where they make a public firing and admit mistakes like this unless its absolutely necessary, and all of their efforts for a decade+ now have been spent on building an unimpeachable brand around Phil Spencer, despite the shoddy leadership history of the division under his watch. Heck, they even have people internally who just play on Spencer's public-facing Xbox account, just to sell the image of him being 'one of the gamers'.
Click to expand...
When you have an easy business that prints you alot of money, you get sloppy.
That is MS. Without windows, they wouldn't be in this position.Couple that with Xbox being a side project, they won't care about it that much.

The only reason they are paying that much attention is due to games like fortnite, and mobile games which brings insane amount of money for cheap production.

Fortnite is carrying epic business. King is making a lot of money from candy crush. Genshin impact is making insane amount of money. Apple and Google are generating insane money from app store and Play store. With all these revenue, you can see why they are making these moves.
 
sainraja

sainraja

Member
Heisenberg007 said:
I'll only add a couple of points here:

1. Soon there won't be a PS4/Xbox one version as COD moves to current-gen only. In that case, it'd be nearly impossible for them to make a native version for Switch that is even behind PS4 in terms of power and performance.

2. A cross-gen product can often have different versions that aren't at par. For example, Battlefield had 64 players on PS4 while only 24 players on PS3. Similarly, Shadow of Mordor did not have the Nemesis system in PS3/X360 versions. If ABK makes a native PS5/XSX version of COD and a native Switch version, I expect a lot of similar cutbacks. In that case, there won' be content parity.
Click to expand...
So you get what I am saying. But I wouldn't call it "content parity," given the differences will be more on the "functional" side. The technology may not support a specific feature, such as the number of players or a smart system like the Nemesis system, but the overall game will still be the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
76K
MasterCornholio replied
Microsoft now says the CMA was ‘tough and fair’ over Activision Blizzard deal
Opinion Business Game Dev
17
2K
DaGwaphics replied
FTC appeals to block already-completed Microsoft-Activision deal
2
63
5K
Mythoclast replied
  • Locked
UK minister defends CMA's decision to block MS/ABK
News
0
780
Daniel_Mallorca1985 replied
  • Locked
Microsoft to sell off Activision cloud gaming rights to Ubisoft in bid for UK approval
News Business 2 3 4
154
14K
Spyxos replied
Top Bottom