• 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.
So I'm hearing that the reason Brazil approved the deal so fast is because Microsoft have agreed to provide financial aid & investments into the Brazilian government. If that's true, that sounds a bit "suspect", to say the least. Brazil has actually taken big money from other companies (look at how embedded Coca-Cola is in the country, or McDonald's, and ask how they pulled that off), so I wouldn't be surprised if they took Microsoft money in exchange for approving the acquisition on their end.

That said, it just shows how shady these deals can actually go and how the ethics of integrity can be undermined by lining pockets.
This is embarrassing, bro. Get off console warrior twitter. You got that talking point from there, I know it for a fact.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
As if admitting to a lifetime net loss would be so damning that they would walk away an eat a $3b penalty. I'm not seeing it, the information they provide wouldn't be for public consumption anyway, even if that were the case (which I don't think it is). Seems like that would only strengthen MS's argument since MS pulling out of the market, given their current position in it, would be a much bigger blow to the competitive landscape than this acquisition closing. Developers of modern games would basically be up the creek without a paddle if that played out.

I don't think MS, or any other business for that matter, has this strange desire to have a certain project be this or that over a lifetime. They live in the here and now, losses that were written off years ago are history and so are successes/profits for that matter. Decisions are always going to be made with a closer eye on the current numbers combined with speculation for future outcomes.
II can't tell if you are feigning understanding or genuinely not smart enough to understand the basics of business, now.

Just assume for 1second that xbox (classic business model) was losing $1-2b per year from 2001-2016.
Is their presence in the market conducive to a healthier or disrupted industry, for industry winners - the companies that naturally turn a profit and could only sustain a normal 5 year investment loss on a project?

This whole thread is about regulators protecting market competition, and so if it was proven that xbox is a phantom division for MSFT funnelling money in for decades until all competitors (such as PlayStation) are exhausted by the anti-competitive financing, then obviously regulators wouldn't be in favour of MSFT acquiring $70b ACTIV and quickening the rate at which MSFT exhausts the competition.

I mean, this is pretty straightforward financial fair play competition we are discussing for anyone that follows sports like European football.

Xbox in this scenario would be a club like Man City and MSFT would be the oil rich nation owner, where they can even bypass the fair play rules if they want by wholesale buying other unrealted companies and make them endorse the football club with whatever amount the club needs to pass the spending/earning ratio needs for financial fair play.

Market competition to be healthy needs to be fair and based on consumer choice resulting in the success of market players, not the unlimited spending of mega corps from other sectors able to disrupt the natural order of things for more than a defacto market investment cycle.
 
Last edited:
This is embarrassing, bro. Get off console warrior twitter. You got that talking point from there, I know it for a fact.

It was actually from a podcast and the way they mentioned it sounded credible, but I came across the actual thing they were referring to and it's not the same thing at all. So yeah I jumped the gun a bit on that, for sure.

The problem is that there is no real evidence here of wrong-doing here. This does feel like an allegation that requires more evidence

There are obviously very real concerns with lobbying but this seems like a very weird example.

I mean in the very specific context of this acquisition and the review by regulators in deciding to approve it or not, yes it's a weird example. But the point in particular is just about certain broader implications those types of corporate/government close-knit relationships may be able to foster where you're essentially in a "pay-to-play" environment and if you don't participate, you lose out regardless of the actual product (or quality of product) you're providing to your main clientele.

It's a discussion for another time, though.
 

Ozriel

M$FT
So I'm hearing that the reason Brazil approved the deal so fast is because Microsoft have agreed to provide financial aid & investments into the Brazilian government. If that's true, that sounds a bit "suspect", to say the least. Brazil has actually taken big money from other companies (look at how embedded Coca-Cola is in the country, or McDonald's, and ask how they pulled that off), so I wouldn't be surprised if they took Microsoft money in exchange for approving the acquisition on their end.

That said, it just shows how shady these deals can actually go and how the ethics of integrity can be undermined by lining pockets.


You could either read this thread with pages and pages of text from the CADE decision with detailed reasons behind the decision to approve the deal…or amplify conspiracy theories from Twitter fanboys.
Not sure why you’d choose the latter

Are you asking why Sony don’t just spend 10s or 100s of billions on their own data centres?

As I’ve probably said about 4 times now, they are a publicly traded company with PlayStation being a main pillar and can’t simply copy Microsoft’s strategy if it loses them a lot of money. Pretty simple really.

Sony doesn’t need to ‘copy Microsoft’s strategy’ . They’ve signed a deal with Microsoft for Azure for gaming. They don’t need to spend billions on data centers. All they need to do is pay MS for using Azure datacenters and they’ll have the exact same backbone MS uses.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/20/18632374/microsoft-sony-cloud-gaming-partnership-amazon-google
 

Ozriel

M$FT
https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/10/06/activision-m-a-microsoft-eu



Hopefully some eye thought provoking reading for those determined to make this a simplistic case of Sony vs Microsoft.

Did you read the article? These are similar to questions CADE asked. And most of the other publishers have given responses to other regulators that dismiss concern.
It’s certainly unlikely that Ubisoft or EA (for example) would respond with claims that MS purchasing Activision would hamper the release of future Ubisoft or EA games on Xbox. MS is certainly not going to stop paying EA for EA Play in Gamepass Ultimate.

Doesn’t seem like there’s anything out of the ordinary there. But you can clarify what part you found ‘thought provoking’.
 
They invested in console but it wasn't in the same position that google or anybody else entering would be in by a long shot. Before xbox MS was already heavily in gaming on PC. Microsoft Game Studios existed before xbox did, dating back to 1982 and PC gaming wasn't exactly a new platform.
Having access to PC did not bring them much benefits.

They had a massive Zones community with age of empires, midtown madness, motorcross madness, flight sim, monster truck madness.
And now tell which of those gamess did even come to Xbox at launch? (some of them I think did not even come to Xbox at all until Xbox 360 or even Xbox Series)

As I’ve probably said about 4 times now, they are a publicly traded company with PlayStation being a main pillar and can’t simply copy Microsoft’s strategy if it loses them a lot of money.
Microsoft is a publicly traded company. Playstation had all the opportunities to invest into cloud infrastructure if they wanted too. But they did not. Just like usual. One of the biggest music publishers without a streaming service. Huge movie publisher without a streaming service. Sony lost a lot of opportunities. Just like it stopped being a huge electronic giant by losing to Samsung, LG etc.
 
Last edited:

GrayDock

Member
As a Brazilian I can say that I'm little surprised that Xbox is under 20% market share and Playstation over 50% here. I thought the difference was like 15% or less between them. Maybe I'm in a hardcore bubble...
And I thought that CoD had more impact than it actually has. People here probably play a lot more FIFA and GTA than anything else. Probably another bubble...
That said, I believe that in USA and UK Xbox and Playstation probably are closer to 50-50 market share, and CoD probably has more impact there than here, so Cade's decision might not be a good baseline for those markets regulator's decision.
 

Hendrick's

If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
I believe that they failed to get content and especially exclusive content because the major players and their market share make it more difficult for them to.
Same reason why MS can't compete economically with Sony in the money-hat game, and why that is probably the only real unfair advantage in this whole thing. MS are solving that by buying publishers so Sony can no longer play that game.
 
They definitely did seem to be focussed on consumer protection (y)
Consumer protection != Sony market position protection. Hopefully CMA will move away from Sony talking points and to actual real issues. I really appreciate the thorough review CADE did. They directly addressed Sony's concerns.
No shit. That doesn’t mean the two things can’t align though (something that can benefit Sony can also ensure there is fair competition in the future).

And yeah, they did raise prices, the fucking orcs. Has nothing to do with this though.
In this case Sony's market position is one of the reasons they felt comfortable raising the prices on consumers. All the more reason to get more competition in this space. Currently there isn't a great argument in how this acquisition hurts normal video game consumers. The biggest arguments against Game pass is the price isn't sustainable not that they are gouging consumers.

See you are just using spaghetti logic now. You can tart it up however you like, but factually; Pokémon and Mario are absolute behemoths compared to anything that Sony has ever had (and will ever have). The cultural mindshare that those two IP have is unique.
There is no spaghetti logic sir. Right now the hype is at a all time high for God of War a Sony product. Sony will be able to compete with MS no matter what MS does. This acquisition doesn't change that in the slightest. Every platform needs to find their niche. MS has game subs, Nintendo has old fan favorites and Sony has the blockbuster single player cinematic experiences. Everyone has a place. All can be successful.
Barmy way of just saying ‘MS had tried to commit to keeping CoD and CoD alone on PS for 3 years’
MS offered Sony a guaranteed 3 years of CoD AFTER the acquisition. They never said Sony would not be able to get more. Sony would just have to offer something to get it. No company would promise their IP on another platform in perpetuity with no conditions. It is business after all.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
II can't tell if you are feigning understanding or genuinely not smart enough to understand the basics of business, now.

Just assume for 1second that xbox (classic business model) was losing $1-2b per year from 2001-2016.
Is their presence in the market conducive to a healthier or disrupted industry, for industry winners - the companies that naturally turn a profit and could only sustain a normal 5 year investment loss on a project?

This whole thread is about regulators protecting market competition, and so if it was proven that xbox is a phantom division for MSFT funnelling money in for decades until all competitors (such as PlayStation) are exhausted by the anti-competitive financing, then obviously regulators wouldn't be in favour of MSFT acquiring $70b ACTIV and quickening the rate at which MSFT exhausts the competition.

I mean, this is pretty straightforward financial fair play competition we are discussing for anyone that follows sports like European football.

Xbox in this scenario would be a club like Man City and MSFT would be the oil rich nation owner, where they can even bypass the fair play rules if they want by wholesale buying other unrealted companies and make them endorse the football club with whatever amount the club needs to pass the spending/earning ratio needs for financial fair play.

Market competition to be healthy needs to be fair and based on consumer choice resulting in the success of market players, not the unlimited spending of mega corps from other sectors able to disrupt the natural order of things for more than a defacto market investment cycle.

Your posts must be parody at this point, but I'll reply anyway. :messenger_grinning: What I was getting at is that the primary goal of business is the here and now, not what happened back in 2000 or however long you want to go back in history.

Take the OG Xbox for example. It is widely known that MS lost money on that project, you can see from the documentary they released that this was understood from the beginning and that there was never a real road to profitability for that console generation. They knowingly invested that money to build the brand and lay the ground work for real competition and a chance for profits in gen 2. Keep in mind that even here, there is no "phantom division" designed to exhaust the competition. If that was the case they would have priced the OG Xbox in a predatory manner (say $100 on launch day) and had a real shot at an instantly dominant position.

I'm sure when they make decisions involving the direction of the gaming division today, they aren't constantly looking back at that OG Xbox generation and figuring they have to recoup those early losses. They wrote those off the books long ago. If the regulators are interested in the health of MS's gaming business, they too would be looking at the here and now and trying to speculate based on that what MS + Activision looks like in terms of the overall market. What MS was doing with Xbox 20 years ago is relevant to no one at this point.

We know for a fact that the gaming division was profitable in 2019, and likely was even more profitable in 2020 and 2021 (based on revenue growth). But, I'm not sure how that matters at the end of the day. Unprofitable companies make acquisitions all the time. If you think MS is using predatory tactics against the competition, please explain where. Looks like their consoles and software are priced normally, they have a subscription service with a library of games, yeah the competition has that too. Just because Sony says they think they can make more money with traditional sales does not make GP predatory. A company can choose to earn less to find a niche, that's not against the law.

Not to mention the notion that MS is burning all this money for GP and it's eating all their software sales and so on is all blown apart by the fact that gaming division revenue is growing (and at a faster clip than the competition) each year. If things were as Sony fanboys say, gaming division revenue would have been in free-fall for some time now.
 
Last edited:

freefornow

Member
Brazil approved the deal so fast is because Microsoft have agreed to provide financial aid & investments into the Brazilian government.
MSFT announced this in 2020 (and preamble probably took place a long time before this), way before Acti acquisition was announced.

Twitter warriors are reaching.
Unless this was all part of MSFT's evil master plan
Mike Myers Evil Laugh GIF
 

DaGwaphics

Member
As a Brazilian I can say that I'm little surprised that Xbox is under 20% market share and Playstation over 50% here. I thought the difference was like 15% or less between them. Maybe I'm in a hardcore bubble...
And I thought that CoD had more impact than it actually has. People here probably play a lot more FIFA and GTA than anything else. Probably another bubble...
That said, I believe that in USA and UK Xbox and Playstation probably are closer to 50-50 market share, and CoD probably has more impact there than here, so Cade's decision might not be a good baseline for those markets regulator's decision.

When they say that MS/Xbox is under 20% here in the report, I'm thinking they are talking about game publishing and distribution, which would include all platforms (PC, Mobile, Console, etc. and all publishers/studios). MS's position in the console market isn't directly influenced/changed by this deal (Activision doesn't manufacture a console), so I don't think that plays in to these numbers.
 
Last edited:

ReBurn

Gold Member
https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/10/06/activision-m-a-microsoft-eu



Hopefully some eye thought provoking reading for those determined to make this a simplistic case of Sony vs Microsoft.
I'm not sure what thoughts it should be provoking.

Seems like for other publishers like EA taking Activision out of the picture would be a good thing. When it comes to developers looking for a publisher one less option doesn't change things that much. There are still a ton of them, not to mention that self publishing is easier now than it was in the past. Sony and Microsoft already have a lot of the same customer data that Activision has.

These are good questions for regulators to ask but there really aren't any gotchas or angles that haven't been addressed in the conversations we've been having.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/10/06/activision-m-a-microsoft-eu



Hopefully some eye thought provoking reading for those determined to make this a simplistic case of Sony vs Microsoft.

EA reps have already spoken that they see this deal as favorable to them. CADE also asked various major publishers and they all gave their approval. If EU is asking major publishers, like CADE did, they will likely get similar favorable responses 🤷‍♂️



Same reason why MS can't compete economically with Sony in the money-hat game, and why that is probably the only real unfair advantage in this whole thing. MS are solving that by buying publishers so Sony can no longer play that game.


Yep. T Three has inadvertently made the case for MS trying to get more exclusive content.

Like CADE's report said:

ELgQDls.png
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Your posts must be parody at this point, but I'll reply anyway. :messenger_grinning: What I was getting at is that the primary goal of business is the here and now, not what happened back in 2000 or however long you want to go back in history.

Take the OG Xbox for example. It is widely known that MS lost money on that project, you can see from the documentary they released that this was understood from the beginning and that there was never a real road to profitability for that console generation. They knowingly invested that money to build the brand and lay the ground work for real competition and a chance for profits in gen 2. Keep in mind that even here, there is no "phantom division" designed to exhaust the competition. If that was the case they would have priced the OG Xbox in a predatory manner (say $100 on launch day) and had a real shot at an instantly dominant position.

I'm sure when they make decisions involving the direction of the gaming division today, they aren't constantly looking back at that OG Xbox generation and figuring they have to recoup those early losses. They wrote those off the books long ago. If the regulators are interested in the health of MS's gaming business, they too would be looking at the here and now and trying to speculate based on that what MS + Activision looks like in terms of the overall market. What MS was doing with Xbox 20 years ago is relevant to no one at this point.

We know for a fact that the gaming division was profitable in 2019, and likely was even more profitable in 2020 and 2021 (based on revenue growth). But, I'm not sure how that matters at the end of the day. Unprofitable companies make acquisitions all the time. If you think MS is using predatory tactics against the competition, please explain where. Looks like their consoles and software are priced normally, they have a subscription service with a library of games, yeah the competition has that too. Just because Sony says they think they can make more money with traditional sales does not make GP predatory. A company can choose to earn less to find a niche, that's not against the law.

Not to mention the notion that MS is burning all this money for GP and it's eating all their software sales and so on is all blown apart by the fact that gaming division revenue is growing (and at a faster clip than the competition) each year. If things were as Sony fanboys say, gaming division revenue would have been in free-fall for some time now.
That's a lot of words to tell me you don't agree with fair market competition and don't believe in a healthy market to deliver us the best gaming experiences out of necessity for those companies trying to be viable to stay in business.

Realistically how many pre-trillion dollar companies could have funded xbox losses for two decades and then be in a position to drop $80b on 3 companies like Mojang, Bethesda, Activision - other than MSFT? When almost no one could operate in a market like that, it is never going to be fair market competition, and certainly not healthy for market competition,
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
That's a lot of words to tell me you don't agree with fair market competition and don't believe in a healthy market to deliver us the best gaming experiences out of necessity for those companies trying to be viable to stay in business.

Realistically how many pre-trillion dollar companies could have funded xbox losses for two decades and then be in a position to drop $80b on 3 companies like Mojang, Bethesda, Activision - other than MSFT? When almost no one could operate in a market like that, it is never going to be fair market competition, and certainly not healthy for market competition,
f85K8FU.jpg
 

Kagey K

Banned
As an Xbox fan since its inception. This will be good for my wallet but horrendous for the industry if it goes through.

I honestly hope it doesnt
It's going to be bad for Activision (and the industry) if it fails also. The stock will tank and they won't have the money to retain all the employees.

They may never recover as a company. There really 3 outcomes, an Activision owned by MS, a smaller Activision that consists only of CoD and Blizzard or no Activision at all.

The genie is out and they won't be able to go back to operating as normal.
 

reksveks

Member
https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/10/06/activision-m-a-microsoft-eu

Hopefully some eye thought provoking reading for those determined to make this a simplistic case of Sony vs Microsoft.
Technically these are just the questions the EU is asking publishers/devs/platforms.

I think we need the responses before seeing if anyone other than Sony is complaining re making it a simplistic case of Sony vs Microsoft. It definitely isn't just about console but it never was.

I sadly don't think we will get those responses.

Personally think the most damaging rebuttal would be someone like nvidia
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
FeaOx63XEBckXIS






This is the scope of EU's initial investigation into the acquisition. Provisional deadline in November like we already knew.

I'm a bit puzzled into what encompasses the Manufacture or peripheral equipment portion.
 

Neofire

Member
As an Xbox fan since its inception. This will be good for my wallet but horrendous for the industry if it goes through.

I honestly hope it doesnt
Good to see a open minded post on this situation. It's indeed only good for Xbox users and as you said this will be disastrous for the industry as a whole. Everyone knows exactly what MS will do once they fully acquire Activision Blizzard despite the lullabies Uncle Phil tells the media.
 

akimbo009

Gold Member
Good to see a open minded post on this situation. It's indeed only good for Xbox users and as you said this will be disastrous for the industry as a whole. Everyone knows exactly what MS will do once they fully acquire Activision Blizzard despite the lullabies Uncle Phil tells the media.

Fortune teller, do tell
 
Good to see a open minded post on this situation. It's indeed only good for Xbox users and as you said this will be disastrous for the industry as a whole. Everyone knows exactly what MS will do once they fully acquire Activision Blizzard despite the lullabies Uncle Phil tells the media.

Does open minded mean "I agree with it so it must be right"? Because I fail to see how that post is any more "open-minded" than the majority of posts in this thread.

And what is it that MS will do that will be disastrous for the industry? Or are you just fearmongering because you personally don't want the acquisition to happen? I fail to see any monumental negatives to "the industry" unless this is the straw that will lead to EA/Ubisoft/Take Two to all be sold off (highly doubtful). And no, COD fans on Playstation being forced to play COD on PC/mobile/Xbox instead isn't disastrous for the industry as a whole, just annoying for those particular consumers. Competition won't be destroyed by this, if anything it will lead to stronger competition between Xbox and Playstation. Publishers and devs won't disappear and all be consolidated as there will always be other ones that take their place.

I'd love to hear what you think would be disastrous for the industry based on this acquisition
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Having access to PC did not bring them much benefits.


And now tell which of those gamess did even come to Xbox at launch? (some of them I think did not even come to Xbox at all until Xbox 360 or even Xbox Series)
The majority eventually but Midtown Madness certainly released on OG xbox, NHL and NBA. That's not the point though the point was that they were an established publisher. They had dev partners and in-house studios in the PC space who started making xbox releases, Microsoft Game Studios had NHL, NBA licences prior to xbox, released those games on PC then after xbox, xbox. Sony weren't out there buying up Rockstar and EA either. They didn't have as much as an uphill struggle as google would.
EA reps have already spoken that they see this deal as favorable to them. CADE also asked various major publishers and they all gave their approval. If EU is asking major publishers, like CADE did, they will likely get similar favorable responses 🤷‍♂️






Yep. T Three has inadvertently made the case for MS trying to get more exclusive content.

Like CADE's report said:

ELgQDls.png
It wasn't inadvertently. I even put "exclusive content" in quotes to show that was what CADE were saying. I'm not the one pretending exclusives are going the way of the dinosaur, wont happen because "we won't remove it from the leaders" or are generally evil though. That's you lot, and you change your tune when it's your favourite company at it or whatever argument you're trying to make.
 
Last edited:

ByWatterson

Member
So I'm hearing that the reason Brazil approved the deal so fast is because Microsoft have agreed to provide financial aid & investments into the Brazilian government. If that's true, that sounds a bit "suspect", to say the least. Brazil has actually taken big money from other companies (look at how embedded Coca-Cola is in the country, or McDonald's, and ask how they pulled that off), so I wouldn't be surprised if they took Microsoft money in exchange for approving the acquisition on their end.

That said, it just shows how shady these deals can actually go and how the ethics of integrity can be undermined by lining pockets.

"So I'm hearing"
 

Gavon West

Spread's Cheeks for Intrusive Ads
I mean if they can't counter that and are really dependent on the 2 to 3 bigger games Activision releases each other year then that's kinda weak isn't it?
but that's not gonna happen.

Nintendo survives and sells more systems than ever mostly thanks to indy games and their first party titles. if Nintendo can do that then Sony can too, even tho Sony doesn't need to because their hardware can support all third party titles easily, while Nintendo's hardware needs special care by devs
Because Nintendo can, means nothing when talking about sony. Nothing at all. Just look at the lengths they've gone trying to block this deal. Clearly Sony doesn't think so either. CoD was Sony's ace in the whole for decades. They leaned too heavy on CoD this entire time. When this acquisition goes through, Sony is back to the drawing board and they've been in the game for more than two decades. Hell yeah they're scared. Nintendo gives zero fucks. They've been killing it without CoD this entire time. They'll be fine. Sony is about to go through some growth. Growth is painful.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It wasn't inadvertently. I even put "exclusive content" in quotes to show that was what CADE were saying. I'm not the one pretending exclusives are going the way of the dinosaur, wont happen because "we won't remove it from the leaders" or are generally evil though. That's you lot, and you change your tune when it's your favourite company at it or whatever argument you're trying to make.

No one's trying to make any argument, just highlighting that you made a very good case for why MS needs to acquire studios to be competitive in the industry, and like CADE's conclusion said, getting exclusives is a part of healthy market competition.

Both major next-gen console manufacturers do it, it's been happening for a while and will continue to happen so regardless of what we say on forums.
 

Dolomite

Member
So I'm hearing that the reason Brazil approved the deal so fast is because Microsoft have agreed to provide financial aid & investments into the Brazilian government. If that's true, that sounds a bit "suspect", to say the least. Brazil has actually taken big money from other companies (look at how embedded Coca-Cola is in the country, or McDonald's, and ask how they pulled that off), so I wouldn't be surprised if they took Microsoft money in exchange for approving the acquisition on their end.

That said, it just shows how shady these deals can actually go and how the ethics of integrity can be undermined by lining pockets.
Lol what bro
You gotta find sources as something this is a bad take😂
 

Three

Member
Same reason why MS can't compete economically with Sony in the money-hat game, and why that is probably the only real unfair advantage in this whole thing. MS are solving that by buying publishers so Sony can no longer play that game.
Exactly I include them too but MS are a major player and wouldn't in any way be struggling to create exclusive content without ABK. Even saying they aren't making it exclusive. Having $80B on hand and an established console marketshare that's no less than 33% in the UK and US, and an OS stranglehold on games developed is not the unfair advantage when it comes to competing with Google? Sony's install base after PS4 is "the only real unfair advantage" for MS to you? I guess if MS was all that you're concerned about that would make sense.

No one's trying to make any argument, just highlighting that you made a very good case for why MS needs to acquire studios to be competitive in the industry, and like CADE's conclusion said, getting exclusives is a part of healthy market competition.

Both major next-gen console manufacturers do it, it's been happening for a while and will continue to happen so regardless of what we say on forums.

MS already are competitive in the industry especially in markets like the US and UK. I'm talking about Phil and the online gang's talking points of exclusives happening or mattering less in the future or pretending they're satan reincarnate. your arguments in other threads where you pretend a beta a week early, some hogwarts skin, timed FF are unfair but then cheerlead that crap in other cases with "I'm eating good with all these timed exclusives on gamepass", "elder scrolls and COD could become exclusive, I'm totally OK with this!". It's all just a ruse with contradictory logic:

Also, why do some of y'all keep misrepresenting the quote, Imran very clearly said games, and content and/or both. Timed exclusive missions and modes fall into that category very neatly.

And in your list that you want to post so bad, how many of those games are third party timed exclusives the caliber of Square and Bethesda's AAA games that were/are exclusive, timed or otherwise ?
 
Last edited:

clarky

Gold Member
It's going to be bad for Activision (and the industry) if it fails also. The stock will tank and they won't have the money to retain all the employees.

They may never recover as a company. There really 3 outcomes, an Activision owned by MS, a smaller Activision that consists only of CoD and Blizzard or no Activision at all.

The genie is out and they won't be able to go back to operating as normal.
Genuine question. How so? Does Activision have cash flow problems? Apart from the scandal they seem like a profitable company. Why would the stock tank?
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
His/her source...if you know twitter you know


Imagine using anything from that account unironically.

Posting a 2+ year old link with "announces" like it's relevant news to what happened today.


MS already are competitive in the industry especially in markets like the US and UK. I'm talking about Phil and the online gang's talking points of exclusives happening or mattering less in the future or pretending they're satan reincarnate. your arguments in other threads where you pretend a beta a week early, some hogwarts skin, timed FF are unfair but then cheerlead that crap in other cases with "I'm eating good with all these timed exclusives on gamepass", "elder scrolls and COD could become exclusive, I'm totally OK with this!". It's all just a ruse with contradictory logic:

?

My post you've linked were in reply to some users who were in denial with comments like "so nothing came out of it" etc etc. Plenty did come out of it with examples. But that's another discussion for another topic. Also I've said a couple of dozen times already that I don't think CoD will become exclusive, hell I've said they should keep it multiplat so at least the one big complaint can be resolved.
 
Last edited:

Kagey K

Banned
Genuine question. How so? Does Activision have cash flow problems? Apart from the scandal they seem like a profitable company. Why would the stock tank?
It's barely holding at 73.00 right now, when the stock is promising 95.00 at close.

Lots of investors buying with the promise of near 20.00 gains. The second this deal fails (if it should) there is going to be a rush to dump stocks before they bottom out.

I estimate that it will fall to around 30.00 and create a massive cash problem for them, as most stock dumps do.

Should that happen they will lose a bunch of cash flow that they use to maintain overhead expenses and they will need to trim the fat.

With that being said I believe this goes through and the ones that invest now are going to see big fat gains during a bear market. As soon as 1 of the big 3 approves this the stock is going to jump to 85 almost immediately.
 
Last edited:

pasterpl

Member
As an Xbox fan since its inception. This will be good for my wallet but horrendous for the industry if it goes through.

I honestly hope it doesnt

Good to see a open minded post on this situation. It's indeed only good for Xbox users and as you said this will be disastrous for the industry as a whole. Everyone knows exactly what MS will do once they fully acquire Activision Blizzard despite the lullabies Uncle Phil tells the media.


You both do realise that ms releases all of their games day 1 on pc as well as Xbox, most are on gamepass and majority suppport xcloud. Only player base that is due to lose something on this deal are playstation gamers. Ms probably will end exclusive maps and modes shit on playstation and this will come to pc gamers as well as Xbox users, I also can see cod coming back to steam etc. so only owners of playstation will be at lost. Ant they are not the whole industry, they are not even majority of the industry.
 

clarky

Gold Member
It's barely holding at 73.00 right now, when the stock is promising 95.00 at close.

Lots of investors buying with the promise of near 20.00 gains. The second this deal fails (if it should) there is going to be a rush to dump stocks before they bottom out.

I estimate that it will fall to around 30.00 and create a massive cash problem for them, as most stock dumps do.

Should that happen they will lose a bunch of cash flow that they use to maintain overhead expenses and they will need to trim the fat.

With that being said I believe this goes through and the ones that invest now are going to see big fat gains during a bear market. As soon as 1 of the big 3 approves this the stock is going to jump to 85 almost immediately.
Makes sense. Cheers.
 

Ozriel

M$FT
Good to see a open minded post on this situation. It's indeed only good for Xbox users and as you said this will be disastrous for the industry as a whole. Everyone knows exactly what MS will do once they fully acquire Activision Blizzard despite the lullabies Uncle Phil tells the media.

In the past, you’ve wanted Sony to buy Leyou (a publisher), Take Two and Square Enix. You’ve contributed enthusiastically in threads talking about SIE’s rumored $13bn acquisition warchest All with the expectation that games would be exclusive post-acquisition.

Why reach for the ‘horrendous’ and ‘disastrous’ adjectives when it’s MS doing something you’ve previously advocated?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom