• 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 and Activision Blizzard: The FTC could approve the acquisition in August

Hezekiah

Banned
It doesn't even matter. In fact, MS keeping COD multi only benefits them. I look forward to all the spin when the top selling game of 2023 on PS is a Microsoft game.
I love the way this is put across as some big achievement.

MS needs games so it buys them. I guess they created Sea of Thieves in the past few years, I know that's popular on here 😄
 
It doesn't even matter. In fact, MS keeping COD multi only benefits them. I look forward to all the spin when the top selling game of 2023 on PS is a Microsoft game.
People keep using this argument but it makes no sense, the point of exclusives isn't direct sales, but to draw people into your market...

It's the same reason they release consoles at a loss, next CoD or two will be multi and then break off, there's a reason starfield isn't hitting playstation
 
I'm glad you love WarCraft (which has a declining userbase), and franchises that peaked 20 years ago 👍.

That big brain of yours working overtime.
Riveting tale bro, I guess you're right and Microsoft probably didn't have blizzard games in mind when shelling out 70 billion dollars

You continue to impress me with the big brain thinking, you're a step ahead of everyone!
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
  • Blur
  • Caesar
  • Call of Duty
  • Candy Crush
  • Crash Bandicoot
  • Diablo
  • DJ Hero
  • Empire Earth
  • Gabriel Knight
  • Geometry Wars
  • Guitar Hero
  • Gun
  • Hearthstone
  • Heroes of the Storm
  • Hexen
  • Interstate ’76
  • King’s Quest
  • Laura Bow Mysteries
  • The Lost Vikings
  • Overwatch
  • Phantasmagoria
  • Pitfall
  • Police Quest
  • Prototype
  • Quest for Glory
  • Singularity
  • Skylanders
  • Solider of Fortune
  • Space Quest
  • Spyro the Dragon
  • StarCraft
  • Tenchu (legacy games)
  • TimeShift
  • Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater
  • True Crime
  • World of Warcraft
  • Zork

There's a lot more there than the list.

People keep short handing the deal as just CoD, there's a literal trove of IPs at Microsoft's disposal if the deal goes through.
 

Hezekiah

Banned
Riveting tale bro, I guess you're right and Microsoft probably didn't have blizzard games in mind when shelling out 70 billion dollars

You continue to impress me with the big brain thinking, you're a step ahead of everyone!
Err yeah nice reach there.

Your big brain thinking is extremely well hidden indeed!
 

Hendrick's

Member
People keep using this argument but it makes no sense, the point of exclusives isn't direct sales, but to draw people into your market...

It's the same reason they release consoles at a loss, next CoD or two will be multi and then break off, there's a reason starfield isn't hitting playstation
It doesn't make sense to only those that haven't figured out exclusives have lost most of their importance and that services is king.
 

sainraja

Member
There are segments within segments, though.

For an easy example, you could say that even if Red Bull bought every other energy drinks company that it would only own a small fraction of the soft drinks market, and an even smaller percentage of the entire drinks market.

But it would have an entire monopoly on energy drinks.

Simply saying x% of 'gaming' is not very useful. You have hardware, you have software. You have PC, you have consoles, you have handhelds. You have continental/regional outputs etc etc.

Further, x% as a share of revenue doesn't tell you much about the effect for the consumer, for that you instead need to know share of volume. Just as a ridiculous example to illustrate the point if there are two businesses in a market and one sells 100 units at $1 and someone else sells 1 unit at $100 they have equal share by revenue. But clearly the low priced business has 99% share of the market by volume.

There are so many things to consider and that's why these things take months and not a few seconds of Googling a companies financial filings.
He will run around the point and make you go in circles. Don't waste your time.

That doesn't answer my question at all.
And he probably won't (dodge/go in circles and all that). He'll make the same point you are and then flip on it when the company in question isn't the one he has sworn his allegiance to lol.

Regardless, I think it is fruitless to discuss this for this long when the landscape is so dynamic that anything can influence a decision to change. Microsoft/Activision and Sony/Bungie may have plans right now to release their IPs on competing consoles (and they may even honor those plans if those games were set to release in the next few months) but that can easily change in the future due to other circumstances, some of which we can't predict right now. If what they are saying now is: all COD titles and future Bungie games will be available on other platforms, just believe that. When that doesn't happen or happens, discuss that. No point in wasting a lot of effort on that right now.

So I think it's just better to go with information that is clear and adjust when the opposite is revealed or comes to pass. There is no point in sticking firmly to what one side has said at this moment in time.
 
Last edited:

reinking

Member
There's a lot more there than the list.

People keep short handing the deal as just CoD, there's a literal trove of IPs at Microsoft's disposal if the deal goes through.
I really hope they take advantage of some of them. I would love to see a new game based on the Police Quest series. Updated and modernized.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I really hope they take advantage of some of them. I would love to see a new game based on the Police Quest series. Updated and modernized.

I would love it if the first thing they do is give Singularity a res and FPS boost BC compatibility patch.
 
It doesn't make sense to only those that haven't figured out exclusives have lost most of their importance and that services is king.
Yep, my guess is that first couple of CoDs are "its on gamepass day one or you can spend 70 on playstation" followed by xbox/pc only making gamepass even more appealing
 

Genx3

Member
Microsoft hasn't got the monopoly on the console gaming business. Why wouldn't this aquisition get approved?

I still think Microsoft are way overpaying for this deal. Activision/Blizzard aren't worth that much money.
Agreee with this.
It would actually benefit Xbox as a whole for this to get shot down.
MS can repurpose that money into buying a bunch of smaller companies.
WB, Sega, Capcom, and a bunch of other smaller companies would be more beneficial imo.
 

C2brixx

Member
Explain why Microsoft is telling the FTC that they will continue to release COD on PlayStation.
It would make absolutely no business sense for them not to make COD available on Playstation. If nothing else it's a defense move to blunt any service based fps Sony tries to cook up. COD on everything (including Nintendo platforms) will continue to cement it's position as the dominant FPS.
 
It would make absolutely no business sense for them not to make COD available on Playstation. If nothing else it's a defense move to blunt any service based fps Sony tries to cook up. COD on everything (including Nintendo platforms) will continue to cement it's position as the dominant FPS.
Microsoft would have to share 30% sales with Sony lol, or they could sell full price on their own platform, draw users into their infrastructure and suddenly they're getting a piece of all 3rd party games themselves

Microsoft would love to bankrupt Sony if it was legally viable, they aren't friends
 

reinking

Member
You also think Steam is upset when people buy games on something other than a Steam Deck?
Not at all. I am not dumb enough to think any of these companies are not going to do what makes them the most money. I was just curious which side you thought would be spinning. MS because they have a hit on PS5? Or, Sony because a MS game sold more on PS5 and XBSX?
 
Last edited:
Nah, Microsoft has no desire to bankrupt Sony. Sony is a customer of Microsoft's in Azure. Companies can be competitors in one area and partners in another. Happens all the time.
You're right, I went a bit too broad, but Microsoft would certainly prefer users in their market over sony's lol, and exclusives play a large role in that
 

Hezekiah

Banned
You're right, nobody cares about blizzard games, have a good one dude 🙄
Yep, that's exactly what I said

 
Last edited:

kirby007

Member
not what you said but deffo what was implied

edit: ignore me, I'm not even sure why i'm butting in here, the cherrypicking and attitude say enough really
 
Last edited:

sainraja

Member
I mean... doesn't it already outsell everything? What difference will it being under MS make? Fanboy fuel?
^^ that's all it is being used as right now. A bullet point in the fanboy war narrative or as you stated: "fanboy fuel". If people that have been playing games, who have taken interest in the inner-workings of the gaming industry, haven't realized how dynamic the industry is, how things can change from one year to the next, then I don't think there is anything else they can be told.

Stubbornness is their speciality. If they align themselves to one brand without prejudice that is. It is perfectly okay to have your preferences but your preferences shouldn't overrule being level headed or whatever.
 
Last edited:

Lognor

Banned
Remains to be seen...
I remember when people laughed about ms paying $2.5b for mojang. And we know how that turned out. I see some of that with Activision but I think this time people are more reserved. Microsoft's m&a team is top notch. They know what they're doing.

I think in a few years no one will doubt that it was a great deal for MS. I can't recall how long it took with mojang but those claims that ms overpaid are ancient history now.

But we can revisit in a few years.
 

Three

Member
Cause companies can never change their minds down the road, right? Especially not game companies, no no no.

If Microsoft made CoD Xbox exclusive, they could make a lot of money selling their consoles & cloud gaming service to the masses. Being that Microsoft is a corporation (i.e. their objective is to make money), do you have any reasons WHY they shouldn't make it exclusive? The only argument I can think of is that, when they crunch the numbers, they will make more money selling CoD on other platforms than would getting customers to buy Xbox's specifically for CoD. This argument will decide, in the future, whether CoD remains multiplatform or not, nothing else.
Because they make more money not making it exclusive. If MS wanted to somehow make more money by making something exclusive they could have done it with Minecraft already about 4 yrs ago.
 

Topher

Gold Member
I remember when people laughed about ms paying $2.5b for mojang. And we know how that turned out. I see some of that with Activision but I think this time people are more reserved. Microsoft's m&a team is top notch. They know what they're doing.

I think in a few years no one will doubt that it was a great deal for MS. I can't recall how long it took with mojang but those claims that ms overpaid are ancient history now.

But we can revisit in a few years.

I wasn't laughing at MS for buying Activision. And I'm not "people". Just me. I said whether it is a good deal "remains to be seen". Same for Bungie and Sony.
 

kirby007

Member
While the ROI is many years away (unless its being resold), having the money working instead of being simple assets under the current climate already is a good deal.
 
Because they make more money not making it exclusive. If MS wanted to somehow make more money by making something exclusive they could have done it with Minecraft already about 4 yrs ago.
Removing an existing game from the platform isn't the same as ruling out future ones
 

Three

Member
Removing an existing game from the platform isn't the same as ruling out future ones
Who said anything about removing an existing game. Minecraft had several expansions and nothing was excluded. CoD would basically make a lot less money as would minecraft. People don't understand that they are not into petty console wars that costs them money.
 
Last edited:

MScarpa

Member
I think it's pretty obvious that this acquisition shouldn't have any issue with any regulator since it wouldn't mean them to have even close of having a monopoly or even being market leaders in gaming or in any gaming market.


Regulators won't ask them to do anything and can't force them do anything like that specially when MS is not a market leader in gaming and doesn't have anything close to a monopoly.

MS will continue releasing their Minecraft, Bethesda and Activision Blizzard games in rival consoles because they want this money from rival consoles that have a big ass AAA market share, not because somebody else forces them to do so.
Starfield still coming to Playstation?
 

Fredrik

Gold Member
We will see. Regardless, tweets, blogs, emails, are not binding on this level of federal approval. Contracts and signatures are. I'm fine with people trusting Spencer or not trusting Spencer. Though in terms of "they have to follow through with their blog or the FTC will come after them" is a ridiculous take. After existing contracts expire, MS can do whatever they wish with their property. Whether they want to honor their statements that will be, at the time, years prior, is up to them.
What I think will happen is this:

Call of Duty will keep on existing as a multi platform IP.
Diablo as well.
And Crash Bandicoot.

Then we’ll see new IPs, sometimes similar in game style, being made exclusive to Xbox and PC.
 

dvdvideo

Member
Gonna be a lot of people eating crow when COD contracts for AAA version expire (ie. not WARZONE) and it become Xbox exclusive. MS is playing the long game and they need FCC approval, so of course they are saying all the right things right now.
We all see how Bethesda turned out, same people swore up and down all those games would be multiplatform too. MS didn't spend this kind of money just to keep things the same.
 
Top Bottom