IFireflyl
Gold Member
That's ALPBT to you.
-
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.
For or Against the ABK Acquisition (read OP first)
- Thread starter Schmick
- Start date
That's ALPBT to you.
GenericUser
Member
I buy the toy, that plays the games, I want to play. So it doesn't really matter to be honest. Although I have to say, that I prefer the xbox controller. I have no stakes in either sony or microsoft, so I do not gain any benefit if one or the other wins the console war. In my eyes, the are both assholes, because I have to give them my money.
Last edited:
Lord Malachite
Member
Vehemently against. Platform holders should not be permitted to buy out publishers--this should apply to Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Apple, Google, Valve, and Epic. Think I covered them all.
This leads to reduced competition, higher prices, closing or reduction of studios, layoffs, and a general hollowing out of the industry. Consumer choice is eroded, people's livelihoods get put into disarray, autonomy is lost.
There is literally no benefit to anyone but wealthy executives in the purchased entity who get golden parachutes, the fatcats of the platform holder itself, and fanboy console warriors who get to tick off another box on their sheet because they think faceless corporations are their super best friends forever.
This leads to reduced competition, higher prices, closing or reduction of studios, layoffs, and a general hollowing out of the industry. Consumer choice is eroded, people's livelihoods get put into disarray, autonomy is lost.
There is literally no benefit to anyone but wealthy executives in the purchased entity who get golden parachutes, the fatcats of the platform holder itself, and fanboy console warriors who get to tick off another box on their sheet because they think faceless corporations are their super best friends forever.
Robb
Gold Member
I’m mot sure if this post is ironic or not, but if not King is the mobile branch who own stuff like Candy Crush and a ton of other IP.
Kamina
Golden Boy
Hm, I know of that company, I read that it is owned by AB, however, the name is still Activision Blizzard, not AB King.
Last edited:
Robb
Gold Member
I think the abbreviation is used to clarify which companies are being bought, might be because King is arguably the biggest of the three.
From what I can tell it has been used frequently in most discussions about this deal.
01011001
Banned
I am 100% for it.
Activision Blizzard is currently in absolute shambles. making terrible move after terrible move.
they ruined Overwatch's core design philosophy in order to sell characters in battlepasses.
they let Vicarious Visions make THE BEST Tony Hawk game since the GameCube days, and then degrade them to a support team inside of Blizzard without any autonomy.
all they do these days is release Call of Duty and ruin Blizzard games with every step they make.
they have often 3 to 5 studios working on a single CoD title... a complete waste of manpower.
most studios were completely robbed of their own identity and just degraded to CoD support slaves
so IMO an acquisition can only be a good thing.
99% of their IPs is locked away deep in the basement, with Microsoft having access to them these might finally re-emerge and can be given to either other Xbox Studios or third party contractor studios.
the worst case scenario is that they keep being shit... so not much to lose here
Activision Blizzard is currently in absolute shambles. making terrible move after terrible move.
they ruined Overwatch's core design philosophy in order to sell characters in battlepasses.
they let Vicarious Visions make THE BEST Tony Hawk game since the GameCube days, and then degrade them to a support team inside of Blizzard without any autonomy.
all they do these days is release Call of Duty and ruin Blizzard games with every step they make.
they have often 3 to 5 studios working on a single CoD title... a complete waste of manpower.
most studios were completely robbed of their own identity and just degraded to CoD support slaves
so IMO an acquisition can only be a good thing.
99% of their IPs is locked away deep in the basement, with Microsoft having access to them these might finally re-emerge and can be given to either other Xbox Studios or third party contractor studios.
the worst case scenario is that they keep being shit... so not much to lose here
Last edited:
Bulletbrain
Member
Gaming is becoming fing expensive so I'm all for any corporate actions that ultimately means I have to pay less to enjoy my hobbie. Gamepass is really the only place in gaming where I can actually say "Huh, this is actually good value for my money”. More games being added to it will always be welcome.
Ofc I wil re-evaluate the value proposition when prices go up or the service changes somehow, but at the here and now, I'm all for the acquisition.
Ofc I wil re-evaluate the value proposition when prices go up or the service changes somehow, but at the here and now, I'm all for the acquisition.
Games Bookstore
Member
Against - I don't think any Console manufacturer should be buying Publishers. Even companies such as Google Apple or Amazon I'd be wary of as it has the potential for monopolistic practices which can be unhealthy for the industry.
If one of the big 3 ( MS, Sony or Nintendo) wants to buy a single game studio, and it makes sense for them to do so, I think that's perfectly fine. Acquiring an entire publisher is a completely different ball game, and if this sort of thing becomes more of a common practice, then it sets a dangerous precedent for the gaming industry as a whole.
Let's say this acquisition is approved, what's next? Sony decides to buy Take 2 in order to compete, or Nintendo in turn buys Sega. Before long all the major publishers are bought up, massive lay offs as the companies are restructured and it's harder and harder for the little guys to compete and ultimately there will be even less risk taking, more and more sequels and less and less new IPs, less originality and innovation in gaming.
If one of the big 3 ( MS, Sony or Nintendo) wants to buy a single game studio, and it makes sense for them to do so, I think that's perfectly fine. Acquiring an entire publisher is a completely different ball game, and if this sort of thing becomes more of a common practice, then it sets a dangerous precedent for the gaming industry as a whole.
Let's say this acquisition is approved, what's next? Sony decides to buy Take 2 in order to compete, or Nintendo in turn buys Sega. Before long all the major publishers are bought up, massive lay offs as the companies are restructured and it's harder and harder for the little guys to compete and ultimately there will be even less risk taking, more and more sequels and less and less new IPs, less originality and innovation in gaming.
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
No it won’t. I’ve been to the future. It was all Game Pass, and it was glorious.
GhostOfTsu
Banned
Buying publishers is not competition. That's the most ridiculous narrative they came up with.
Techno_Inked
Member
I'm definitely for the acquisition. I dont care anything about Activision-Blizzard. While if the acquisition fails, Microsoft will suddenly free up 68 billion to spend on anything I do care bout. Let the lames get the lames.
On one hand you have worries about
industry consolidation - which are pretty laughable since Xbox + ABK would have like 10% of market share
"COD won't be on PlayStation" - which are addressed by Microsoft through 10 year deal
On other hand you have
Breathing room for Activision studios to not be in constant COD mill
Possibilities to revive old ABK franchises like Starcraft, Hexen etc.
Getting rid of Kotick
ABK Games on Game Pass which is beneficial to players
No need to release COD at yearly basis
COD on Nintendo Switch
So yeah. Sign me the fuck up, because I think that positives outweighs the negatives
industry consolidation - which are pretty laughable since Xbox + ABK would have like 10% of market share
"COD won't be on PlayStation" - which are addressed by Microsoft through 10 year deal
On other hand you have
Breathing room for Activision studios to not be in constant COD mill
Possibilities to revive old ABK franchises like Starcraft, Hexen etc.
Getting rid of Kotick
ABK Games on Game Pass which is beneficial to players
No need to release COD at yearly basis
COD on Nintendo Switch
So yeah. Sign me the fuck up, because I think that positives outweighs the negatives
pasterpl
Member
For. It is quite simple, it benefits me as a gamer (mainly on this platforms; pc, Xbox, xcloud user, steam deck) and gamepass user. Will also benefit switch users at some point. No one is losing anything for at least 10 years and maybe MS can sort out mess that is happening at ABK.
Last edited:
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Personally indifferent. I buy Call of Duty every couple of years, but don't really care if I'll be able to get it for free on Gamepass or not.
Based on the IP that the deal would bring into Microsoft's ownership, I'm surprised at the $70Bn valuation. From where I sit, it's Call Of Duty and some games that aren't as popular as they used to be. I'm not sure there aren't many, many better uses for the money.
I'm surprised at the hand wringing this has triggered too. Call of Duty is pretty good, but I never hear anyone saying they love it. Lots of people groaning at the price and saying that it's the worst cod in years is what normally happens when a new game comes out. If Microsoft do buy the company, if the first COD that comes out while under their ownership is met with anything more positive than "lol worst cod ever" then it'll be fair to say that's mission accomplished and job well done.
So from a gaming perspective, I think it's a fairly underwhelming deal, I'm surprised people seem to want/don't want it to happen with such fervor. I'm not even sure anyone really does want it aside from wanting to argue about it. It seems to be that you could do a lot with $70bn. COD and Tony Hawk doesn't seem like enough.
From an industry perspective, Activision is selling to someone. It's either Microsoft who have shown great commitment to gaming or someone like Meta who are more likely to to change the nature of the company's products and business imo.
I also think getting caught up in console wars and content for Gamepass is not what this is about. This is about the longer term threat to Microsoft as a whole from other tech giants over the next ten or twenty years. I honestly don't think that the short term competition is what has driven the purchase.
So, to some degree, I think change is on the way for Activision Blizzard and things staying the same is mostly off the table. But for those who do want things to stay the same, imo Microsoft are the ones most likely to deliver it - for the next ten years anyway.
Edit: found out ambivalent is not what I am on this, I'm indifferent.
Based on the IP that the deal would bring into Microsoft's ownership, I'm surprised at the $70Bn valuation. From where I sit, it's Call Of Duty and some games that aren't as popular as they used to be. I'm not sure there aren't many, many better uses for the money.
I'm surprised at the hand wringing this has triggered too. Call of Duty is pretty good, but I never hear anyone saying they love it. Lots of people groaning at the price and saying that it's the worst cod in years is what normally happens when a new game comes out. If Microsoft do buy the company, if the first COD that comes out while under their ownership is met with anything more positive than "lol worst cod ever" then it'll be fair to say that's mission accomplished and job well done.
So from a gaming perspective, I think it's a fairly underwhelming deal, I'm surprised people seem to want/don't want it to happen with such fervor. I'm not even sure anyone really does want it aside from wanting to argue about it. It seems to be that you could do a lot with $70bn. COD and Tony Hawk doesn't seem like enough.
From an industry perspective, Activision is selling to someone. It's either Microsoft who have shown great commitment to gaming or someone like Meta who are more likely to to change the nature of the company's products and business imo.
I also think getting caught up in console wars and content for Gamepass is not what this is about. This is about the longer term threat to Microsoft as a whole from other tech giants over the next ten or twenty years. I honestly don't think that the short term competition is what has driven the purchase.
So, to some degree, I think change is on the way for Activision Blizzard and things staying the same is mostly off the table. But for those who do want things to stay the same, imo Microsoft are the ones most likely to deliver it - for the next ten years anyway.
Edit: found out ambivalent is not what I am on this, I'm indifferent.
Last edited:
Griffon
Member
A world where gamepass is in a dominant position is a world in which gamers refuse to buy games anymore.
It means a world where MS gets to be the sole arbiter of what games gets in, how much they get paid, and how much exposure they get. It's a fucking nightmare world. The death of every creators who aren't randomly in the good graces of MS.
Acquiring huge IPs like CoD would make them closer to that shit future. And I say fuck that, and I have absolutely no pitty for gamepass sycophants not getting anymore games for their expensive rental service.
It means a world where MS gets to be the sole arbiter of what games gets in, how much they get paid, and how much exposure they get. It's a fucking nightmare world. The death of every creators who aren't randomly in the good graces of MS.
Acquiring huge IPs like CoD would make them closer to that shit future. And I say fuck that, and I have absolutely no pitty for gamepass sycophants not getting anymore games for their expensive rental service.
Last edited:
Toots
Gold Member
It has been my honor to vote without reading OP first, and to reply to the first post. If i could i'd reply to all the posts in the thread just to spite you
Schmick
you controlling freak.edit : of course i'm gonna edit. I don't care about ABK, but i'd like to see HBK giving you the sweet chin music OP
Last edited:
killatopak
Gold Member
Don't care either way.
The only thing important to me is if the games will improve with this acquisition.
The only thing important to me is if the games will improve with this acquisition.
Cyborg
Member
Against.
In the end, a company with unlimited resources will try to control the market by buying it. Clearly organic growth is not possible or fast enough for MS and down the road (let's say 15 years) you will have a lot of IPs locked behind Microsoft's ''solution''. It will be an Xbox console + PC and a monopolist was never good for the consumer or innovation! In the end we lose.
In the end, a company with unlimited resources will try to control the market by buying it. Clearly organic growth is not possible or fast enough for MS and down the road (let's say 15 years) you will have a lot of IPs locked behind Microsoft's ''solution''. It will be an Xbox console + PC and a monopolist was never good for the consumer or innovation! In the end we lose.
Swift_Star
Banned
It's bad for all industries.
Gandih42
Member
Against.
I don't agree with the idea of consolidation of all these IPs from either Sony or Microsoft. Or in the media industry in general. I don't believe it will be for the better of customers or the industry long term. The only benefit I see is that it can create or maintain competition between the big three consoles, but this is in my eyes a really dangerous way to do that. Despite the arguable lack of next-gen exclusives the Xbox seems to be doing really well and much better than last generation, so I don't feel like this is necessary from maintaining strong competition. If it were to pass, I don't think it would shift the console landscape short term, but I'd be fearful of longer term entrenchment of each consoles position. Recent events in the tech sector don't really paint these tech giants as benevolent well-intentioned behemoths.
On the bright side though, it's just videogames.
I don't agree with the idea of consolidation of all these IPs from either Sony or Microsoft. Or in the media industry in general. I don't believe it will be for the better of customers or the industry long term. The only benefit I see is that it can create or maintain competition between the big three consoles, but this is in my eyes a really dangerous way to do that. Despite the arguable lack of next-gen exclusives the Xbox seems to be doing really well and much better than last generation, so I don't feel like this is necessary from maintaining strong competition. If it were to pass, I don't think it would shift the console landscape short term, but I'd be fearful of longer term entrenchment of each consoles position. Recent events in the tech sector don't really paint these tech giants as benevolent well-intentioned behemoths.
On the bright side though, it's just videogames.
Last edited:
Dr_Ifto
Member
The whole thing will shrink the market. Look at Bethesda caught in the Microsoft layoffs. Corporations are not there to make your life better, they are there to make money. Microsoft's approach is to consume all studios and drown out the competition. They did this before with other products and they will do it again.
Last edited:
Kataploom
Gold Member
Basically this... What most against don't know or care about is that someone else would buy them and remove them entirely from console/PC space to make them exclusives to the Cloud.
....
On the topic, i don't like consolidation but i'm mostly in favor because:
a) ABK in its current state sucks and i doubt microsoft could make things much worse.
b) If MS doesn't buy it, someone like Amazon or Google would, and that would be much worse.
I only support the deal because I'd rather have COD exclusive to Game Pass than exclusive to Occulus...
Also the arguments given by FTC and all their actions, come on, they're so out of touch that I want them to loose just because.
Fbh
Member
As someone who primarily plays on Sony consoles I'm somewhere between agree and don't care.
While I personally don't care about and don't buy Activision Blizzard games (well except Sekiro but that's a From game they just happened to publish in the west) I wouldn't mind Sony starting to feel some real pressure from Microsoft. IMO best case scenario as a Playstation owners would be if Xbox ended up selling as much or more than Ps5 this gen, make Sony feel like they actually have to fight to keep customers instead of making their console $150 more expensive in my country just because they know Playstation is the more popular brand.
While I personally don't care about and don't buy Activision Blizzard games (well except Sekiro but that's a From game they just happened to publish in the west) I wouldn't mind Sony starting to feel some real pressure from Microsoft. IMO best case scenario as a Playstation owners would be if Xbox ended up selling as much or more than Ps5 this gen, make Sony feel like they actually have to fight to keep customers instead of making their console $150 more expensive in my country just because they know Playstation is the more popular brand.
Last edited:
The Stig
Member
THIS JUST RAISES MORE QUESTIONS, DAMMIT!Americans Burger King
.Pennywise
Banned
Absolutely for. More games for me for cheaper, more competition, more dead IPs that could be revived.
As a consumer it's just pros for me.
Who the fuck cares about consolidation and what happens in 20 years, I might be dead by tomorrow.
As a consumer it's just pros for me.
Who the fuck cares about consolidation and what happens in 20 years, I might be dead by tomorrow.
bxrz
Member
This.For. Just so I can see everyone lose their shit & act like it's the end of the world.
I want the chaos. I want a pressured Sony. I want a more competitive Microsoft
Snake29
RSI Employee of the Year
I didn’t know they were developed under the same umbrella?
DavidGzz
Member
Nothing would change except for I wouldn't have more games accessible via Game Pass if it doesn't so not sure why I'd be against. Also more competition would force Sony to become hungrier. I own a PS5 as well, so it's a win-win.
Edit: Also, Sony and Nintendo can't afford them so MS keeping them away from Tencent, Google, or Amazon is also a win. I don't want to have to buy yet another console or have to play Diablo 4 or whatever via streaming only.
Edit: Also, Sony and Nintendo can't afford them so MS keeping them away from Tencent, Google, or Amazon is also a win. I don't want to have to buy yet another console or have to play Diablo 4 or whatever via streaming only.
Last edited:
I'm kinda mixed on it. I generally don't play abk games, I don't have gamepass, but at the same time I feel like this is just going too far. I was shocked by the Bethesda acquisition but I thought it was a good get for Microsoft. I kinda felt like it put them nearly on equal footing with Sony. I kind of just want the acquisition to go through in order to see Sony's response.
Rick Dangerous
Member
This. Nailed it.
Totally against.
gooner4life_uk
Member
I own all the console platforms and I'm locked into GPU for 3 years, but I'm against the Acti-Blizzard acquisition.
Microsoft own a lot of developers and still have very little first party output, I don't think it's right that they can just buy a publisher to make it seem like they have first party games.
I'd like to see them actually develop their own IP, the very few they have I've enjoyed like Forza & the Horizon series and Gears of War (even though the original wasn't really MS) sequels, but i want more from them, MS Game Studios needs to wake up, they need better creatives and not just throw money around to try and become something they're not.
Microsoft own a lot of developers and still have very little first party output, I don't think it's right that they can just buy a publisher to make it seem like they have first party games.
I'd like to see them actually develop their own IP, the very few they have I've enjoyed like Forza & the Horizon series and Gears of War (even though the original wasn't really MS) sequels, but i want more from them, MS Game Studios needs to wake up, they need better creatives and not just throw money around to try and become something they're not.
Clintizzle
Lord of Edge.
How is this different to how things work now? Xbox decide what is on GamePass but it's unclear how these deals are made in terms of what the devs get paid.
Similarly Sony would be going through a process where they decide what is on PS Plus and what the commercials look like with the devs.
I get the "MS is bad. They have a lot of money. Lots of money is bad" narrative - but let's not all pretend the shit Nintendo and Sony do to be competitive is better than what Xbox do.