• 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.

feynoob

Banned
These studios will be managed by the same people that let these mediocre games release that put Microsoft in this position, But yeah let's bring all these studios into a system that's failing, surely then the blockbusters will roll out.
Its the studio count man.
Game development take time. When you have low studios, you generally going to have period of time with no games, since you dont have alot of studios.

Why do you think Xbox is known for halo, forza and gears? Because that is their 3 main studios, with rare doing sea of theives and undead labs doing state of decays.

Their studios purchase started late. Have they done 2 years early, Xbox would couple of new games from their studios.

All this falls on MS lack of Xbox investment during X360.
 

Varteras

Gold Member
The Office Lol GIF by NETFLIX


This thread delivers!
 

Three

Member
The LTV can't be based on current users. It has to be based on users gained from making CoD exclusive.
Based on research you can estimate how many new users you would gain from that decision.
What is the LTV based on then? It's not based on making COD exclusive. It's based on current spending habits of the current userbase.
Those new Xbox users can buy multiple games, subscribe to services, buy microtransactions. This is their LTV, all of the monetary value THEY add is weighted against how much money Microsoft misses out on by making CoD exclusive.
Which is based on actual purchase data of current users on X/S. It says this in the CMA documents:

In the ordinary course of business, Microsoft estimates the value of an Xbox customer and calls this their “lifetime value” (LTV), based on actual purchase data of Xbox Series X/S owners.

That's what I'm saying. The point is that MS doesn't need to miss out on it if it increases price of the sub and changes the currently low LTV for everyone significantly.

It does not make sense to weigh decision B's benefit against the costs of decision A. Decision B can be made independently of decision A. When you use decision B's benefit to cancel out decision A's cost you are foregoing decision B's benefit. This is financially illogical.
No you're not because decision B's benefit is not static and gives you market power. You would only just cancel it for that year but you've moved people to that ecosystem and made it attractive for new user growth. Something you don't measure with only full market coverage analysis either. Any subsequent hike would result in even greater gain with your 'cheap' in comparison subscription. There is no upstream dilution of COD. Those users could pay their lost cost multiple times over if, like Netflix, over the course of 5-6yrs the price goes from $9 a month to $14. The benefit is that you've locked them in to the ecosystem/sub and you can now turn the LTV up. $1.45 is only the break even point, you can end up making those who have switched spend more yearly through gamepass than they were before.
 
Last edited:

Poltz

Member


Have you read this thread yet? It's the very definition of madness.

And I just want to point how two-faced Sullivan from Resetera is. He is very anti Sony in his posts in both the acquisition thread and this, yet he pops by once in a while in the PlayStation OT thread and even once said that the PS5 is his favourite console. No wonder almost no one engages with him over at the PlayStation OT over at REE.
Sullivan doesn’t even own an Xbox.
 
I'd say be careful what you wish for. Kotick turned the entirety of Activision into a Call of Duty factory and exerted influence over Blizzard to restrict their development focus.
Microsoft is already like that. They are little more than a Halo and Forza factory. I don't see how anything would change under MS except that they wouldn't need to develop a Playstation version of CoD anymore.
 

Varteras

Gold Member
Microsoft is already like that. They are little more than a Halo and Forza factory. I don't see how anything would change under MS except that they wouldn't need to develop a Playstation version of CoD anymore.
I'm usually pretty critical of the Xbox management, but in no way do I think they're like ABK under Kotick. Focusing on Xbox as it currently is, the difference is almost night and day.

Xbox takes a largely hands off approach to their studios. They may want some of them to continue making particular franchises, but overall they have let their studios do what they want. Which, as we've been hearing, has created other problems. But at least they're not being total tyrants. Xbox is allowing these smaller games to be made instead of all focus on huge projects. Yes, there is some franchise regurgitation but it's acceptable.

This is not at all the case for any studio under Activision. Imagine Xbox forcing 343, The Coalition, Obsidian, and Ninja Theory to make Halo games. Then telling Compulsion, Inxile, The Initiative, Undead Labs, and Double Fine that they will either act as support studios for their games, make some kind of Free-2-Play Halo title that they have to support for years to come, or do remakes of them. Oh and maybe work on a new Conker game. Because Rare can't do it because now they're too busy doing remasters of Zenimax games. Mojang will just keep making Minecraft until they die. Which they seem fine with but that may be because the guy who had the original idea took the money and ran. Playground has to make only Forza Horizon and Turn 10 is now their support studio. Until they're needed to help on Halo.

Then Alpha Dog gets put to work on a Halo mobile live service game. Roundhouse gets nearly all of its staff laid off and then told to help Avalanche on their new Contraband game, for what little they can now do, and then they mysteriously vanish while the website still acts like they exist. Id is told to make what hardly qualifies as a sequel to their next game and charge full price. Then told to make it a Free-2-Play game. Then told to slow down and send some people to go help other studios. Then get bitched at for slowing down. Bethesda gets told to make a mobile version of Starfield and monetize the fuck out of it. Oh and they'll be working with a Chinese company to do it. Tango, Machine, and Arkane are told to put their games on life support and not make a sequel. Just maybe go help Zenimax Online with their MMO. That makes money.

If Kotick had his way, that would be the reality of Xbox.
 

Three

Member
Last edited:

Ozriel

M$FT
These studios will be managed by the same people that let these mediocre games release that put Microsoft in this position, But yeah let's bring all these studios into a system that's failing, surely then the blockbusters will roll out.

Aside from the fact that Xbox first party output of the past couple of years have had really good reviews, you clearly aren’t aware of how Microsoft Games is set up.

Activision, like Bethesda, will be a standalone subsidiary of Microsoft Games. Different management from Xbox Games Studios. Most of Activision’s current management will remain in place, post acquisition, similar to Bethesda.

If you truly believed the system was failing, you wouldn’t be making these posts.
 

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
Aside from the fact that Xbox first party output of the past couple of years have had really good reviews, you clearly aren’t aware of how Microsoft Games is set up.

Activision, like Bethesda, will be a standalone subsidiary of Microsoft Games. Different management from Xbox Games Studios. Most of Activision’s current management will remain in place, post acquisition, similar to Bethesda.

If you truly believed the system was failing, you wouldn’t be making these posts.
who is paying the bills?
 

ulantan

Member
Aside from the fact that Xbox first party output of the past couple of years have had really good reviews, you clearly aren’t aware of how Microsoft Games is set up.

Activision, like Bethesda, will be a standalone subsidiary of Microsoft Games. Different management from Xbox Games Studios. Most of Activision’s current management will remain in place, post acquisition, similar to Bethesda.

If you truly believed the system was failing, you wouldn’t be making these posts.
And yet Microsoft is still losing market share. They all review well but not well enough to move the needle.
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
Been busy and haven't been able to pop into this thread as frequently. Hope y'all are doing great.

I'm gonna leave everyone with a question here in the meantime:

Console concerns are out of the window. But Cloud concerns are still there for the CMA, and, interestingly, they haven't updated the remedies yet. Although I still believe that this deal will likely pass now, the CMA identified 4 key Cloud players:
  • Nvidia ✅
  • Amazon Luna ❌
  • Microsft xCloud
  • SIE PlayStation Plus ❌
The second category of companies that "are potential entrants or are already active in cloud gaming to some extent" is:
  • Tencent ❌
  • Shadow ❌
  • Meta ❌
  • Nintendo ✅
  • Antstream Arcade ✅
  • Others (5 companies ❌, including Boosteroid ✅)
The green ticks and red crosses indicate the companies that Microsoft has signed deals with. I think if Nvidia hadn't signed, it'd be really tough for Microsoft. But they still haven't signed with 2/3 of the main competitors.

In the secondary category, they have not signed deals with 8 out of 11 companies.

I think this is the reason why the CMA has not updated its suggested remedies because they specifically mentioned that behavioral remedies would be tough to enforce, primarily because of Cloud gaming.

mJweXwX.jpg


Do you all think that -- surprising everyone once again -- the CMA might still stick with divestment or prohibition because there are still concerns in the cloud gaming market and behavioral remedies will be tough to enforce?

After all, xCloud is the leading cloud gaming provider in the UK with a 70% market share. So the same principles that the Japanese FTC used to approve the deal (Sony's high market share in the country) would apply here for Microsoft's xCloud in the UK.

What chance do you think this scenario has or hasn't in terms of percentage?
 

Baki

Member
If I were in Satya's position, I would certainly be considering the fact that Kotick has made ABK very successful (commercially) by a significant margin compared to any third-party company not called Tencent. I would be thinking of the possibility of an Xbox division ran by someone like him.
They’re going to give kottick the keys to the kingdom
 

reksveks

Member
Shadow doesn't require a deal, it's covered by the open licensing proposal. I think MS calls that out.

Amazon Luna
I am trying to figure out if Luna is covered, Ubisoft already BYOG to Luna if you buy a PC sku.

Do you all think that -- surprising everyone once again -- the CMA might still stick with divestment or prohibition because there are still concerns in the cloud gaming market and behavioral remedies will be tough to enforce?
I do think the open licensing proposal does provide a RCB for consumers and gives cloud services an opportunity. Not sure ABK would be so free with the license. The one issue that I think MS needs to resolve for me is the windows licensing cost but they do have options there imo.

Qq, how many of the 'Others' had BYOG models?

That's the other questions, does the ABK argument around them not willing to support MGS convince the CMA? I can only see 1/2 companies able to support ABK games on that model.
 
Last edited:

Varteras

Gold Member
Been busy and haven't been able to pop into this thread as frequently. Hope y'all are doing great.

I'm gonna leave everyone with a question here in the meantime:

Console concerns are out of the window. But Cloud concerns are still there for the CMA, and, interestingly, they haven't updated the remedies yet. Although I still believe that this deal will likely pass now, the CMA identified 4 key Cloud players:
  • Nvidia ✅
  • Amazon Luna ❌
  • Microsft xCloud
  • SIE PlayStation Plus ❌
The second category of companies that "are potential entrants or are already active in cloud gaming to some extent" is:
  • Tencent ❌
  • Shadow ❌
  • Meta ❌
  • Nintendo ✅
  • Antstream Arcade ✅
  • Others (5 companies ❌, including Boosteroid ✅)
The green ticks and red crosses indicate the companies that Microsoft has signed deals with. I think if Nvidia hadn't signed, it'd be really tough for Microsoft. But they still haven't signed with 2/3 of the main competitors.

In the secondary category, they have not signed deals with 8 out of 11 companies.

I think this is the reason why the CMA has not updated its suggested remedies because they specifically mentioned that behavioral remedies would be tough to enforce, primarily because of Cloud gaming.

mJweXwX.jpg


Do you all think that -- surprising everyone once again -- the CMA might still stick with divestment or prohibition because there are still concerns in the cloud gaming market and behavioral remedies will be tough to enforce?

After all, xCloud is the leading cloud gaming provider in the UK with a 70% market share. So the same principles that the Japanese FTC used to approve the deal (Sony's high market share in the country) would apply here for Microsoft's xCloud in the UK.

What chance do you think this scenario has or hasn't in terms of percentage?

I believe that comes down to how concerned the CMA is over a fledgling market that may not grow much or even necessarily survive in the coming years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't regulators, including the CMA, commented on the difficulty of coming up with any model for that market which could give them even a remote idea on impact? If it's too difficult to predict then that would beg the question; do they err on the side of caution or do they concede that they shouldn't be restricting a market that is too early to make any assertions on?
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
I believe that comes down to how concerned the CMA is over a fledgling market that may not grow much or even necessarily survive in the coming years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't regulators, including the CMA, commented on the difficulty of coming up with any model for that market which could give them even a remote idea on impact? If it's too difficult to predict then that would beg the question; do they err on the side of caution or do they concede that they shouldn't be restricting a market that is too early to make any assertions on?
I don't remember the impact thing; I may have missed it altogether.

I think how deeply the CMA wants to be involved in behavioral remedies in a market that's ever-growing and rapidly changing will be the key. If they don't even know what the market would look and play like in the next few years, will it be wise for the CMA to be bound in behavioral remedies, trying to enforce something they can't even accurately predict yet?

I think that will have the biggest influence on this decision now.
 

wolffy71

Banned
No they didn't expect the deal to close in the June timeframe, they stated they expected it to be completed during the current fiscal year which meant everything between July 2022 and June 2023.
And again there's a lawsuit with FTC *starting* in summer 2023.

It's obvious that things didn't go as they wanted. They didn't want to be forced to give up on totally controlling COD for 10 years (see what they proposed to Sony initially), they didn't want to sign legally binding contracts to support all their cloud competitors with all their games for 10 years and so on. That happened because Sony bitched, nVidia bitched and so on.
These are all compromises they were forced to accept by the strong opposition they got.
And again let's wait to see which are the regulators' final requests because just two weeks ago some people were talking about Microsoft leaving UK :messenger_grinning_sweat:
The argument was the UK would never force them to leave under pretty much any circumstance. They caved like we all knew they would.
 
Last edited:

Varteras

Gold Member
I don't remember the impact thing; I may have missed it altogether.

I think how deeply the CMA wants to be involved in behavioral remedies in a market that's ever-growing and rapidly changing will be the key. If they don't even know what the market would look and play like in the next few years, will it be wise for the CMA to be bound in behavioral remedies, trying to enforce something they can't even accurately predict yet?

I think that will have the biggest influence on this decision now.

Personally, I'd want regulators to be cautious within reason. Any acquisition of a substantial size has the potential to cause issues in the market, but one of this size is something you just don't want to get wrong. Consoles may not be a concern at this point, but you are risking Microsoft being in a position to utterly dominate an emerging market. I don't know that you install behavioral remedies and hope you never have to bother enforcing them. Because by the time you get to it the damage has probably been done or it becomes virtually impossible to dislodge the issue. I mean, whatever decision they make is, without a doubt, going to send waves through the industry and into the future. Everyone will look back on this.
 
Last edited:

Yoboman

Member
I personally wouldn't even consider Cloud a real market. Its either tied to a MGS where most people use it offline, or its BYOG and irrelevent. Other than that it's Luna and will dead in 12 months

I would also argue that,as far as I'm aware, COD and Activision doesnt have a presence on these platforms so you can't foreclose what doesn't exist
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
That's the other questions, does the ABK argument around them not willing to support MGS convince the CMA? I can only see 1/2 companies able to support ABK games on that model.
I think the CMA haven't given that much thought. Their models seem to ignore the land-and-expand strategy the gaming subs allow long term.
 
Last edited:

Yoboman

Member
The Cloud argument seems stupid from any angle except vertical monopolisation, in that Xbox will have control of the gaming cloud market, one of the few actual cloud infrastructure and some of the most popular IP around

Could lead to situations like "oh you want COD access? Then you need to implement Xcloud access".

Still not a strong argument IMO.

The CMA had much more solid footing in the console market and it still baffles me that they calculated wrong and ended up finding COD makes more on PlayStation and that their conclusion was "it's too big to be foreclosed" while speaking to the trillion dollar company, rather than "foreclosure could have a far bigger impact on the market than we originally calculated".
 

Jemm

Member
It's obvious that things didn't go as they wanted. They didn't want to be forced to give up on totally controlling COD for 10 years (see what they proposed to Sony initially), they didn't want to sign legally binding contracts to support all their cloud competitors with all their games for 10 years and so on. That happened because Sony bitched, nVidia bitched and so on.
I don't think Microsoft really expected that everything would go through without at least some concessions. Maybe they wanted it, but didn't realistically think it would happen.

Of course, they tried to make better deals for themselves in the beginning and see if it would go through. Then they made better offers to reduce concerns of CMA and others. Microsoft probably had internally planned that they can go as far as 10 year long (or longer) deals, but offered shorter ones (3-5 years) first to see if they were enough. Maybe they could have gone even further if everything else failed, who knows?

Wouldn't make sense to offer the best deals (for others) immediately, in any case.
 

Rac3r

Member
The CMA had much more solid footing in the console market and it still baffles me that they calculated wrong and ended up finding COD makes more on PlayStation and that their conclusion was "it's too big to be foreclosed" while speaking to the trillion dollar company, rather than "foreclosure could have a far bigger impact on the market than we originally calculated".
It's very bizarre, the way they flipped on such weak rationale. Brad Smith must be very good at his job, because how the fuck does Microsoft get the benefit of doubt in this situation? They're a 2 trillion dollar corporation that just bought another major publisher (foreclosing future Bethesda games to their competitors), and trying to push a multi-game subscription. Subscriptions are built on loss leading and exclusivity.
 

RoboFu

One of the green rats
Do you people even realize activision been in the red year over year for the past 3or 4 years? It’s the reason why they are being bought in the first place. It’s not just MS lobbying for the this buy but activision as well.
 
Last edited:

SixPin

Neo Member
Been busy and haven't been able to pop into this thread as frequently. Hope y'all are doing great.

I'm gonna leave everyone with a question here in the meantime:

Console concerns are out of the window. But Cloud concerns are still there for the CMA, and, interestingly, they haven't updated the remedies yet. Although I still believe that this deal will likely pass now, the CMA identified 4 key Cloud players:
  • Nvidia ✅
  • Amazon Luna ❌
  • Microsft xCloud
  • SIE PlayStation Plus ❌
The second category of companies that "are potential entrants or are already active in cloud gaming to some extent" is:
  • Tencent ❌
  • Shadow ❌
  • Meta ❌
  • Nintendo ✅
  • Antstream Arcade ✅
  • Others (5 companies ❌, including Boosteroid ✅)
The green ticks and red crosses indicate the companies that Microsoft has signed deals with. I think if Nvidia hadn't signed, it'd be really tough for Microsoft. But they still haven't signed with 2/3 of the main competitors.

In the secondary category, they have not signed deals with 8 out of 11 companies.

I think this is the reason why the CMA has not updated its suggested remedies because they specifically mentioned that behavioral remedies would be tough to enforce, primarily because of Cloud gaming.

mJweXwX.jpg


Do you all think that -- surprising everyone once again -- the CMA might still stick with divestment or prohibition because there are still concerns in the cloud gaming market and behavioral remedies will be tough to enforce?

After all, xCloud is the leading cloud gaming provider in the UK with a 70% market share. So the same principles that the Japanese FTC used to approve the deal (Sony's high market share in the country) would apply here for Microsoft's xCloud in the UK.

What chance do you think this scenario has or hasn't in terms of percentage?
I wouldn't be surprised. The CMA prefers structural remedies when the SLC is part of a nascent, dynamic market where the SLC is not short them. That's the case of Cloud.

The CMA made META divest Giphy, a gif platform. They are very behavioural adverse.
 
Been busy and haven't been able to pop into this thread as frequently. Hope y'all are doing great.

I'm gonna leave everyone with a question here in the meantime:

Console concerns are out of the window. But Cloud concerns are still there for the CMA, and, interestingly, they haven't updated the remedies yet. Although I still believe that this deal will likely pass now, the CMA identified 4 key Cloud players:
  • Nvidia ✅
  • Amazon Luna ❌
  • Microsft xCloud
  • SIE PlayStation Plus ❌
The second category of companies that "are potential entrants or are already active in cloud gaming to some extent" is:
  • Tencent ❌
  • Shadow ❌
  • Meta ❌
  • Nintendo ✅
  • Antstream Arcade ✅
  • Others (5 companies ❌, including Boosteroid ✅)
The green ticks and red crosses indicate the companies that Microsoft has signed deals with. I think if Nvidia hadn't signed, it'd be really tough for Microsoft. But they still haven't signed with 2/3 of the main competitors.

In the secondary category, they have not signed deals with 8 out of 11 companies.

I think this is the reason why the CMA has not updated its suggested remedies because they specifically mentioned that behavioral remedies would be tough to enforce, primarily because of Cloud gaming.

mJweXwX.jpg


Do you all think that -- surprising everyone once again -- the CMA might still stick with divestment or prohibition because there are still concerns in the cloud gaming market and behavioral remedies will be tough to enforce?

After all, xCloud is the leading cloud gaming provider in the UK with a 70% market share. So the same principles that the Japanese FTC used to approve the deal (Sony's high market share in the country) would apply here for Microsoft's xCloud in the UK.

What chance do you think this scenario has or hasn't in terms of percentage?

Man I would love to see that just for the entertainment. It would be like the neogaf version of wrestlemania. doubt it though. CMA will approve. Microsoft know what they're doing when it comes to making acquisitions. I didn't think the CMA would do a u turn but somehow Microsoft convinced them.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
The Cloud argument seems stupid from any angle except vertical monopolisation, in that Xbox will have control of the gaming cloud market, one of the few actual cloud infrastructure and some of the most popular IP around

Could lead to situations like "oh you want COD access? Then you need to implement Xcloud access".

Still not a strong argument IMO.

The CMA had much more solid footing in the console market and it still baffles me that they calculated wrong and ended up finding COD makes more on PlayStation and that their conclusion was "it's too big to be foreclosed" while speaking to the trillion dollar company, rather than "foreclosure could have a far bigger impact on the market than we originally calculated".
They messed up their calculations for their console foreclosure incentives analysis and sort of just said forget it because they probably didn't know who had a good model anymore. They had only one downstream competitor complaining and some unknown upstream rivals saying don't block it for needed competition. I think it was just a slightly less troublesome route instead of trying to come up with some other theory of harm. What's a little strange is why they dropped the MGS concerns.

It's difficult to predict what the merging party might do down the line. I personally think they still had the ability to foreclose in a couple of years and were fighting for that right but the SoO was presented by the EC and they offered their agreements as a remedy so foreclosure likely is not happening if it passes either way. I think the CMA using the lowered LTV for xbox users in the first 2 years wouldn't be the same in the near future and they could have done it and would have had nobody objected. The merging upstream competitor would likely get a boost in sales in microtransactions too. I think the GP figure MS gave was 20% or something like that. The increased pricing power for the growing gamepass install base would have been too good to pass up too.

They are concentrating on cloud it seems. Cloud probably just won over the regulators and they care more for it. It's the ultimate competitive landscape for them. Low switching cost or commitment, no hardware vendor lockin, and possible way to topple some mobile duopoly. They saw it and think that's what they need to protect, that's the future. Here we're divided on that but I'm sure regulators truly believe in it.
 
Last edited:

Mephisto40

Member
Man I would love to see that just for the entertainment. It would be like the neogaf version of wrestlemania. doubt it though. CMA will approve. Microsoft know what they're doing when it comes to making acquisitions. I didn't think the CMA would do a u turn but somehow Microsoft convinced them.
Yeh, buy the company, get them to make a shitty game, and then sack everybody that works for the company
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom