Support NeoGAF

[reksveks]

What they failed to realise is that this was MS' own greed and one they have tried to remedy since then.

Look at how close they were in 2019 before the release of the f2p COD:Warzone in 2020, even with the massive install base differences. MS limited the customers of the new game to half of xbox owners which was already small but generating just as much. They only remedied that greed/fault in April 2021. It would be interesting to see 2022 numbers now.

Deekes charts have an asterisk, they maybe be accurate but remember that the 2019 and 2021 data for MS to going to be upper limits. He/They know that it caps out at 10% of ABK revenue but it could be lower.

Chile failed to look at recent data again. Modern warfare released in 2019 before next gen consoles. Why didn't they look at Modern Warfare 2 in 2022? Not enough data? look at Cold war or Vanguard. It's pretty telling when you need to go back 4 games to a specific xbox one title to paint a picture of no incentive. Then you look at the revenue from 2019 times and see it really wasn't that different anyway.

Wouldn't solve the issue until we get the 2022 data, it's not really about the specific games.

I would be interested to see what the actual source for the Chile data is.

 

[reksveks]

Not really related to this deal

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/11/mic...t-didnt-put-in-an-offer-ahead-adobe-deal.html

 

[feynoob]

This is a rough part.

Chile failed to look at recent data again. Modern warfare released in 2019 before next gen consoles. Why didn't they look at Modern Warfare 2 in 2022? Not enough data? look at Cold war or Vanguard. It's pretty telling when you need to go back 4 games to a specific xbox one title to paint a picture of no incentive. Then you look at the revenue from 2019 times and see it really wasn't that different anyway.

MW2 is Future data. Regulators didn't have time to get that info.

 

[Pelta88]

So Chillian regulators argument is that COD generates most of it's console profits from PS. Therefore it wouldn't make financial sense to stop shipping the game on PS?

While ignoring the fact that Microsoft overpaid by billions to acquire ATVI. Paying $95 per share when the stock price was $50?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

So Chillian regulators argument is that COD generates most of it's console profits from PS. Therefore it wouldn't make financial sense to stop shipping the game on PS?

While ignoring the fact that Microsoft overpaid by billions to acquire ATVI. Paying $95 per share when the stock price was $50?

and?

 

[feynoob]

So Chillian regulators argument is that COD generates most of it's console profits from PS. Therefore it wouldn't make financial sense to stop shipping the game on PS?

While ignoring the fact that Microsoft overpaid by billions to acquire ATVI. Paying $95 per share when the stock price was $50?

Oh Lord

 

[reksveks]

Paying $95 per share when the stock price was $50?

When was it 50 usd?

https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/ATVI

You do say some weird things or do random rounding?

Also it's a company in the billions, most absolute numbers re premiums are going to be in the billions.

 

[Three]

Deekes charts have an asterisk, they maybe be accurate but remember that the 2019 and 2021 data for MS to going to be upper limits. He/They know that it caps out at 10% of ABK revenue but it could be lower.

Fair enough but do we have better figures anywhere? Its clear that the revenue bump is from Warzone and MS limited its availability trying to push Xbox Live revenue instead.

Wouldn't solve the issue until we get the 2022 data, it's not really about the specific games.

I would be interested to see what the actual source for the Chile data is.

That's my point. We definitely need more recent data. A specific game is what Chile have used though.

"... Modern Warfare, is analyzed. For this title, Playstation represented 50-60% of revenue. The rest of the revenue is divided between PC with 20-30% and Xbox with 10-20%."

This was before Warzone, before new consoles, and on a bundled black friday PS4 Pro title from 2019. It's even less informative when you look at ABK revenue from that time anyway which is almost identical, it is nowhere near 50% vs 10% even with install base differences. only if you look at this specific title and ignore all other data can you paint this 50% vs 10% scenario.

If they really want to see how the current landscape is they could have looked at Cold War or Vanguard. Not looking at MW2 I could understand because that is a very recent entry.

 

[Three]

This is a rough part.

MW2 is Future data. Regulators didn't have time to get that info.

MW2 I said probably they had little data on but Cold war and vanguard? What's the reason for not looking at that more recent data?

 

[Three]

When was it 50 usd?

https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/ATVI

You do say some weird things or do random rounding?

Also it's a company in the billions, most absolute numbers re premiums are going to be in the billions.

That's what people seem to suggest is the value without this deal. I also questioned how this is calculated from this post:

The macro economic climate is what has changed. ATVI is a $50 or less stock if not for this deal. MSFT is locked in at $95 a share. $3B would be a small price to pay to get out of what has become a severely inflated deal in todays market.

I'm not sure what is used to estimate that but it had dropped to around $57 when the deal was announced.

 

[feynoob]

MW2 I said probably they had little data on but Cold war and vanguard? What's the reason for not looking at that more recent data?

They only go by with that they got.

Plus This is just 5 page breakdown. There is another one that has 38 pages. And it's all on Spanish.

 

[feynoob]

That's what people seem to suggest is the value without this deal. I also questioned how this is calculated from this post:

People only look at it from share prices, and not asking prices.

 

[reksveks]

That's my point. We definitely need more recent data. A specific game is what Chile have used though.

haven't had a chance to look at long document, there is some stuff about methodology but not sure it will answer the question.

That's what people seem to suggest is the value without this deal. I also questioned how this is calculated from this post:

I understand that and know that some people think MS/Apple/EA's and others value is overpriced (had that convo in this thread a couple of hundred pages back) but using that as a comparison point relative to the actual acquisition price just feels weird to me. There are other people (shareholders) complaining that 95 usd is a bit cheap given that it spent 2021 around 90 usd.

 

[Pelta88]

When was it 50 usd?

https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/ATVI

You do say some weird things or do random rounding?

Also it's a company in the billions, most absolute numbers re premiums are going to be in the billions.

You know the timeline of when negotiations started, right?

Oh Lord

There's simply no way a someone who regurgitates other peoples posts and parrots basement dwellers, who claim to have intimate knowledge of this deal, is objecting to anything I post. Your receipts in this very thread are legendary fey.

 

[feynoob]

There's simply no way a someone who regurgitates other peoples posts and parrots basement dwellers, who claim to have intimate knowledge of this deal, is objecting to anything I post. Your receipts in this very thread are legendary fey.

Are you salty about my work?

 

[reksveks]

You know the timeline of when negotiations started, right?

I think there is a significant difference between 57 (the lowest in dec 2021) and 50 (not been hit since 2019)

 

[Thirty7ven]

The whole “no incentive” “harms MS more than PS” is such bs.

Yes AB has no incentive and they would hurt themselves real bad but MS? Lol

 

[feynoob]

The whole “no incentive” “harms MS more than PS” is such bs.

Yes AB has no incentive and they would hurt themselves real bad but MS? Lol

No company would sacrifice those revenues, just for exclusivity.
We can make a case for lesser games, but big games print a lot of money.
MS might be a trillion dollar company, but they aren't dumb enough to throw away these revenues.

 

[gothmog]

No company would sacrifice those revenues, just for exclusivity.
We can make a case for lesser games, but big games print a lot of money.
MS might be a trillion dollar company, but they aren't dumb enough to throw away these revenues.

It's not dumb to throw away some short term revenue in order to make longer term gains. Microsoft is leaving a pretty substantial amount money on the table by making Starfield and TES6 exclusive. They are betting that many will buy into their ecosystem in order to play those games which is a pretty good bet. I know I lost no sleep buying my Series X knowing that there would be enough exclusives over the next few years to justify the purchase.

If Sony did not have existing deals for COD they would have absolutely locked out PlayStation. Those deals existed and this deal is under a lot more scrutiny than they expected, so they are spinning it into something that sounds reasonable.

Microsoft are masters at playing this game. Even the whole labor thing is worded in a way that makes you sound like a monster if you argue against it.

 

[Pelta88]

I think there is a significant difference between 57 (the lowest in dec 2021) and 50 (not been hit since 2019)

I usually don't respond to you lol But you're right in this instance. The SP hit a low of $56.42 and I said $50.

My mistake is that I was posting from memory.

However, the over payment fact still stands. Microsoft offered $95 per share. $39 dollars more than the stock was worth. A staggering over payment of 41% or 28.29 billion.

 

[wolffy71]

It's pretty clear that Activision and Ubisoft want to sell. As an American, what sense does it make to force them to sell to foreign companies? I don't get the FTC here. Tencent would be better?

 

[M1chl]

I usually don't respond to you lol But you're right in this instance. The SP hit a low of $56.42 and I said $50.

My mistake is that I was posting from memory.

However, the over payment fact still stands. Microsoft offered $95 per share. $39 dollars more than the stock was worth. A staggering over payment of 41% or 28.29 billion.

The fuck, the deal fucking sucks. I was happy about acquisition of Obsidian and other studios which were in existentialist crisis, but this for company that made last good game 13 years ago. MEH, hope it does not come through. Why would they pay that shit, they already have enough talent to make insane games, I wonder where the hold up is. And funnily enough it seems to me that Obsidian is the only one studios, which producing games for MS, others are in some sort of limbo.

I know it is not relevant, it's just some thoughts that I have.

 

[phil_t98]

I usually don't respond to you lol But you're right in this instance. The SP hit a low of $56.42 and I said $50.

My mistake is that I was posting from memory.

However, the over payment fact still stands. Microsoft offered $95 per share. $39 dollars more than the stock was worth. A staggering over payment of 41% or 28.29 billion.

just because shares are valued at a set price doesn't mean somebody has to sell them. if somebody wants them they can over bid for them to get the sale simple as that

 

[reksveks]

However, the over payment fact still stands. Microsoft offered $95 per share. $39 dollars more than the stock was worth. A staggering over payment of 41% or 28.29 billion.

Imo we should stick to % as premium's don't generally decrease with market cap and in my limited knowledge a 41% premium is not unheard of.

Glu was 36%
Zynga was 64%

Can find the table cause I am sure it came up somewhere else.

PS I want to say that MS definitely has an incentive to make COD exclusive, is it bigger than the disincentive more importantly? imo, not really.

 

[feynoob]

I usually don't respond to you lol But you're right in this instance. The SP hit a low of $56.42 and I said $50.

My mistake is that I was posting from memory.

However, the over payment fact still stands. Microsoft offered $95 per share. $39 dollars more than the stock was worth. A staggering over payment of 41% or 28.29 billion.

MS offered 80$ per share. Activision wanted 90+$, so MS agreed with their demand.
So much for knowing this deal.

 

[feynoob]

It's not dumb to throw away some short term revenue in order to make longer term gains.

It is. Nothing is set in gaming.

 

[gothmog]

It is. Nothing is set in gaming.

It's not, but for a company of the size of Microsoft they can afford to make strategic long term bets. It's the whole reason they stuck with Xbox after losing money for >10 years, right? If it was just about money they would have axed the brand years ago instead of doubling down on it.

 

[DarkMage619]

Chilli findings. Idas did some breakdown in English...

It's great to see that many of the South American regulators gave thoughtful and thorough reviews. Sad that the FTC didn't do thier due diligence. At least they have no authority without the courts and it's clear they arguments won't hold up there.

It's not dumb to throw away some short term revenue in order to make longer term gains. Microsoft is leaving a pretty substantial amount money on the table by making Starfield and TES6 exclusive. They are betting that many will buy into their ecosystem in order to play those games which is a pretty good bet. I know I lost no sleep buying my Series X knowing that there would be enough exclusives over the next few years to justify the purchase.

Capcom and Square left money on the table by skipping the Xbox platform for some of their major IP. Sometimes games don't hit every platform and I have a hard time believing that Starfield has a large built-in fan base on PlayStation seeing how that is brand new IP. With regard to Elder Scrolls it was the Xbox that gave that series exposure to consoles and the PC is the home of the biggest fans of the franchise. I'm pretty sure the next Elder Scrolls will hit PC so the biggest supporters will still have the series. Nothing stopping PlayStation gamers from playing the title there or streaming, or heaven forbid buying an Xbox.

If Sony did not have existing deals for COD they would have absolutely locked out PlayStation. Those deals existed and this deal is under a lot more scrutiny than they expected, so they are spinning it into something that sounds reasonable.

It's interesting you'd think MS would lock Sony out when Sony has done that far more frequently for much bigger IP. Exclusive titles are the lifeblood of PlayStation where MS has repeatedly put their IP on non Xbox platforms. Ten year plan to keep CoD on PlayStation/Nintendo platforms and Minecraft prove this point again.

Microsoft are masters at playing this game. Even the whole labor thing is worded in a way that makes you sound like a monster if you argue against it.

The Activision employees seem to appreciate the moves MS has made. I'm pretty sure it doesn't feel like a game to them.

 

[feynoob]

It's not, but for a company of the size of Microsoft they can afford to make strategic long term bets. It's the whole reason they stuck with Xbox after losing money for >10 years, right? If it was just about money they would have axed the brand years ago instead of doubling down on it.

It doesn't matter how much is MS worth it, it's a stupid decision.
Look at Xbox one. How did that work out for long term plan? What about halo?

We have BR now, and the way we view gaming is changing as time goes on.

It's why that decision is stupid.

 

[gothmog]

The Activision employees seem to appreciate the moves MS has made. I'm pretty sure it doesn't feel like a game to them.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said Microsoft are masters at playing the game, meaning acquisitions and handling the PR around them. I'm not saying anything about the labor efforts over at Activision.

 

[Pelta88]

The fuck, the deal fucking sucks. I was happy about acquisition of Obsidian and other studios which were in existentialist crisis, but this for company that made last good game 13 years ago. MEH, hope it does not come through. Why would they pay that shit, they already have enough talent to make insane games, I wonder where the hold up is. And funnily enough it seems to me that Obsidian is the only one studios, which producing games for MS, others are in some sort of limbo.

I know it is relevant, it's just some thoughts that I have.

But you're not wrong.

just because shares are valued at a set price doesn't mean somebody has to sell them. if somebody wants them they can over bid for them to get the sale simple as that

Consider the market conditions at the time for that stock. They were not in a position to negotiate. Suicide and the most egregious work conditions that made the state legislators, governor, and senators step in. The stock price didn't just fall. It plummeted at break neck speed.

Imo we should stick to % as premium's don't generally decrease with market cap and in my limited knowledge a 41% premium is not unheard of.

Glu was 36%
Zynga was 64%

Can find the table cause I am sure it came up somewhere else.

PS I want to say that MS definitely has an incentive to make COD exclusive, is it bigger than the disincentive more importantly? imo, not really.

Overpaying during negotiations to secure an acquisition is not unheard of. However, over paying by 28+ Billion is. At least that's what the market and every accompanying article written at that time was focused on. They had zero interest in gaming beyond results and as a whole, the wider market went into research mode to explain that type of over payment.

MS offered 80$ per share. Activision wanted 90+$, so MS agreed with their demand.
So much for knowing this deal.

Your posts, and I'm talking the ones you haven't copied and pasted from resetera or hoe law, always read extremely juvenile. The topic is over paying and in your mind proving the point I'm making, is some type of win.

Sit down somewhere when grown folk are talking fey

 

[feynoob]

Your posts, and I'm talking the ones you haven't copied and pasted from resetera or hoe law, always read extremely juvenile. The topic is over paying and in your mind proving the point I'm making, is some type of win.

Sit down somewhere when grown folk are talking fey

Why can't you respond like an adult? Instead of repeating the same thing like an AI?

 

[gothmog]

It doesn't matter how much is MS worth it, it's a stupid decision.
Look at Xbox one. How did that work out for long term plan? What about halo?

We have BR now, and the way we view gaming is changing as time goes on.

It's why that decision is stupid.

Maybe, but strategic thinking changes as you scale. MS mentions the other big players as competitors while almost ignoring real ones like Nintendo. Those imagined competitors really aren't competitors yet and may never be, but they are real to Microsoft from a long term planning perspective and are attempting to make big bets to counteract that.

 

[reksveks]

Overpaying during negotiations to secure an acquisition is not unheard of. However, over paying by 28+ Billion is. At least that's what the market and every accompanying article written at that time was focused on. They had zero interest in gaming beyond results and as a whole, the wider market went into research mode to explain that type of over payment.

Think fundamentally we ain't going to agree on how we are looking at the 'premium' so there isn't much point to continuing this convo.

You are using an absolute number and I am using a relative number.

I did want to ask if you still believe that if this deal fails, MS would go back to 2019 prices and if so, how quickly?

 

[feynoob]

Maybe, but strategic thinking changes as you scale. MS mentions the other big players as competitors while almost ignoring real ones like Nintendo. Those imagined competitors really aren't competitors yet and may never be, but they are real to Microsoft from a long term planning perspective and are attempting to make big bets to counteract that.

MS won't risk COD money for a long term.
Plus there is already a long term in plan, which is gamepass.

As long as they have day1 gamepass for cod, it's good for them.

 

[DarkMage619]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said Microsoft are masters at playing the game, meaning acquisitions and handling the PR around them. I'm not saying anything about the labor efforts over at Activision.

You specifically mentioned how the labor thing was worded but those words were backed by real action. You can call it a game but it has real consequences.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Why can't you respond like an adult? Instead of repeating the same thing like an AI?

A.I. is way better.

 

[Pelta88]

Think fundamentally we ain't going to agree on how we are looking at the 'premium' so there isn't much point to continuing this convo.

You are using an absolute number and I am using a relative number.

I did want to ask if you still believe that if this deal fails, MS would go back to 2019 prices and if so, how quickly?

If the deal fails the market will short the shit out of Microsoft's stock price. GHG is better placed to give you an idea of levels the price will retreat to. But I believe it will plummet and plummet quickly. I'm talking the moment the news of the failed acquisition breaks.

The SP will also fall on the news that the EU and CMA sue to block the deal.

 

[Thirty7ven]

No company would sacrifice those revenues, just for exclusivity.
We can make a case for lesser games, but big games print a lot of money.
MS might be a trillion dollar company, but they aren't dumb enough to throw away these revenues.

It’s not about being dumb, it’s about the cost of achieving your goals. Sure MS will be more than happy to put some games on PS5 until suddenly it makes more sense for them to not put those games there or PS6. And they have the means to do it earlier than most people think.

And to be fair it makes perfect sense, and anybody who thinks their goal isn’t to absolutely dominate gaming by any means necessary hasn’t been paying attention.

 

[gothmog]

MS won't risk COD money for a long term.
Plus there is already a long term in plan, which is gamepass.

As long as they have day1 gamepass for cod, it's good for them.

Not really looking to go back and forth on this too much but I doubt they care that much. Money is rarely a primary concern when you are in hypergrowth mode.

I also don't think Microsoft cares either way. I imagine one of their scenarios is to get Sony to allow GamePass on PlayStation. If that happens it doesn't matter if COD is exclusive or not.

 

[ToTTenTranz]

If the deal fails the market will short the shit out of Microsoft's stock price. GHG is better placed to give you an idea of levels the price will retreat to. But I believe it will plummet and plummet quickly. I'm talking the moment the news of the failed acquisition breaks.

I think if Microsoft successfully embeds ChatGPT into Bing and Windows their stock price will soar and this acquisition will become a distant second concern.

The SP will also fall on the news that the EU and CMA sue to block the deal.

AFAIK the European Commission doesn't sue to block. The European Commission blocks.
I don't know the mechanisms to appeal these decisions, but the E.U. doesn't play lawyers and courtrooms nearly as much as the US.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Not really looking to go back and forth on this too much but I doubt they care that much. Money is rarely a primary concern when you are in hypergrowth mode.

I also don't think Microsoft cares either way. I imagine one of their scenarios is to get Sony to allow GamePass on PlayStation. If that happens it doesn't matter if COD is exclusive or not.

You are likely correct that during hypergrowth, companies may prioritize expanding their user base and increasing revenue over securing exclusive deals for specific games. In regards to Microsoft and Sony, it's possible that Microsoft may be interested in getting Sony to allow GamePass on PlayStation as a way to expand their user base and increase revenue. It's also possible that the exclusivity of a game such as COD may not be a significant concern for Microsoft in this scenario.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I think if Microsoft successfully embeds ChatGPT into Bing and Windows their stock price will soar and this acquisition will become a distant second concern

It's possible Microsoft's stock could rise if they successfully integrate GPT into products like Bing and Windows, but the market is unpredictable and technology integration can be uncertain.

 

[DarkMage619]

It's possible Microsoft's stock could rise if they successfully integrate GPT into products like Bing and Windows, but the market is unpredictable and technology integration can be uncertain.

No doubt but the idea of Chat GPT being integrated into Windows and Bing is pretty exciting. That tech is amazing. It does hasten the Skynet future when the machines become aware sadly.

 

[GHG]

If the deal fails the market will short the shit out of Microsoft's stock price. GHG is better placed to give you an idea of levels the price will retreat to. But I believe it will plummet and plummet quickly. I'm talking the moment the news of the failed acquisition breaks.

The SP will also fall on the news that the EU and CMA sue to block the deal.

If the deal falls through:

• Bullish MSFT
• Bearish ATVI

If it goes through:

• Neutral MSFT
• Bullish ATVI (this one is obvious)

That's what the options market has priced in.

What's particularly notable is the fact that IV is elevated for ATVI for the months of March and August, which indicates the market expects tla resolution to come in either one of those two months and no others. IV for ATVI falls off a cliff for the Jan 2024 options which suggests the market expects a resolution this year at some point, even potentially as late as December.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

No doubt but the idea of Chat GPT being integrated into Windows and Bing is pretty exciting. That tech is amazing. It does hasten the Skynet future when the machines become aware sadly.

Oh yes, the idea of GPT technology being integrated into our daily lives through products like Windows and Bing is just thrilling. Can't wait for the machines to become self-aware and enslave us all. But hey, at least our search results will be more accurate

 

[Pelta88]

I think if Microsoft successfully embeds ChatGPT into Bing and Windows their stock price will soar and this acquisition will become a distant second concern.



AFAIK the European Commission doesn't sue to block. The European Commission blocks.
I don't know the mechanisms to appeal these decisions, but the E.U. doesn't play lawyers and courtrooms nearly as much as the US.

Microsoft will continue to innovate so their stock price will always recover. Or at least, it always has up and until this point.

As for the block/sue I was referring to the news more so than the actual mechanisms of the EU commission.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Microsoft wants the gamers in this lawsuit to wait

Ironic.

 

[reksveks]

Oh yes, the idea of GPT technology being integrated into our daily lives through products like Windows and Bing is just thrilling. Can't wait for the machines to become self-aware and enslave us all. But hey, at least our search results will be more accurate

if it can write my 'chase up' emails, i am okay for enslavement

 

[AmuroChan]

I'm not sure what is used to estimate that but it had dropped to around $57 when the deal was announced.

The market was still inflated at the time the deal was announced. The $50 estimation is based on the further decline of the Nasdaq in the months after the deal was announced. Had there been no deal, $ATVI would've continued to decline at around the average rate that all other tech companies declined at in the subsequent months.