• 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 defends Activision buyout by claiming that Activision doesn't make any "must have" games.

DaGwaphics

Member
My original timeline was ~5years from the start of project kinect - which started with the 360. feel free to re-read.

This was your question: Do you have any explanation why the Xbox one had two major issues at launch, but only fixed the DRM one? Why did they have to wait years before decoupling kinect from the product - that was hated by ardent gamers - even xbox fans - and they didn't want to pay £100 extra for kinect for a weaker machine. How do you explain that decision if my recall is fiction?

MS did respond very quickly to the pricing concern along with uncoupling kinect from the system. That part of your recall is fiction. They could only make that change so fast, considering they already had production running and the original bundle sold like hotcakes at the start, it took a bit of time for it to become obvious that the $500 pricing was going to tank sales.
 
Last edited:

PaintTinJr

Member
This was your question: Do you have any explanation why the Xbox one had two major issues at launch, but only fixed the DRM one? Why did they have to wait years before decoupling kinect from the product - that was hated by ardent gamers - even xbox fans - and they didn't want to pay £100 extra for kinect for a weaker machine. How do you explain that decision if my recall is fiction?

MS did respond very quickly to the pricing concern along with uncoupling kinect from the system. That part of your recall is fiction. They could only make that change so fast, considering they already had production running and the original bundle sold like hotcakes at the start, it took a bit of time for it to become obvious that the $500 pricing was going to tank sales.
Well if you are saying it is less than a year, and ignoring the reveal was way before the release which is over a year - ie years - then it seems like a trivial point when I wasn't checking exact dates - and will concede it was only over a year they had to fix both problems from the reveal. It doesn't change my point in anyway. It only became a question because the other respondent to the comment of a previous timeline comment claimed it was all fiction that 5years from the start of the project they returned to normal non-kinect console stuff.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
Well if you are saying it is less than a year, and ignoring the reveal was way before the release which is over a year - ie years - then it seems like a trivial point when I wasn't checking exact dates - and will concede it was only over a year they had to fix both problems from the reveal. It doesn't change my point in anyway. It only became a question because the other respondent to the comment of a previous timeline comment claimed it was all fiction that 5years from the start of the project they returned to normal non-kinect console stuff.

The reveal date really wouldn't figure in as far as them knowing whether or not the bundle/pricing was going to lower sales. The console launched well with them selling everything they could get on shelves for a couple months (can't remember if they starting falling behind noticeably in March or April), then when you figure in the time to get the unbundled systems boxed and on store shelves, I'd say they made the change very, very quickly.
 
If you actually read my comments you would see I defined the difference of them continuing yet never show a ROI - working profit that you mentioned "being profitable" isn't covering the investment.
So many out of context strawman statements I'm not sure how to respond when you haven't read the comments fully and dealt with each one as is, and have just glued together things you want to disagree with.
If you actually did the research the "profitable" for MS included the investment.

You also don't know what a strawman is and are using it to avoid directly addressing anything. The fact you think TVTV was a "loss" shows you don't even have your timeline right that was before launch.
 
Its actually literally what's said in the OP.

there is nothing unique about the video games developed and published by Activision Blizzard that is a ‘must have’ for rival PC and console video game distributors that could give rise to a foreclosure concern

COD is the biggest FPS on the PC and rival consoles. How is that not a must-have for those platforms?

And no... Sony nor third parties can make an FPS with the same level of popularity and play engagement (COD at its height has done 100m+ players). That's self-evident from the copious attempts made over the past 3 gens to do so, but to no avail.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
COD is the biggest FPS on the PC and rival consoles. How is that not a must-have for those platforms?

They didn't say it wasn't a great title or not a title you'd definitely want on there, they said there wouldn't be foreclosure concerns if a console or distributor didn't have access to it. That's a colossal difference. It's a statement they obviously make with an eye on their cause, but it's a true statement nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
They didn't say it wasn't a great title or a title you'd definitely want on there,

Neither did I.

they said there wouldn't be foreclosure concerns if a console or distributor didn't have access to it.

Exactly. Which is obviously BS.

If the biggest FPS on competing platforms being snatched away isn't a concern for MS's rivals with this deal, then nothing is.

It's a hilariously disingenuous statement.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Neither did I.



Exactly. Which is obviously BS.

If the biggest FPS on competing platforms being snatched away isn't a concern for MS's rivals with this deal, then nothing is.

It's a hilariously disingenuous statement.

Again, they never said MS's rivals would have no concerns about it, they said there would be no foreclosure concerns. Do you really think Sony is folding the gaming division is they don't have CoD? I don't think so.

Granted, MS doesn't get the final say and obviously Sony thinks the market would be irreparably damaged, though it didn't seem like the devs were agreeing with that. It might hurt Sony a bit, but does it make them unable to compete? That's for the regulators to decide.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Its actually literally what's said in the OP.

there is nothing unique about the video games developed and published by Activision Blizzard that is a ‘must have’ for rival PC and console video game distributors that could give rise to a foreclosure concern
What the hell is a foreclosure concern. Nobody took out a loan.
 
Again, they never said MS's rivals would have no concerns about it, they said there would be no foreclosure concerns. Do you really think Sony is folding the gaming division is they don't have CoD? I don't think so.

You're misunderstanding what they mean by "foreclosure concerns". They're not talking about Sony and other rivals shutting down their businesses if no COD---as that would be fucking patently absurd.

They're talking about concerns related to the closure of this $70B Activision deal. Their use of the word "foreclosure" is not technically correct.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
You're misunderstanding what they mean by "foreclosure concerns". They're not talking about Sony and other rivals shutting down their businesses if no COD---as that would be fucking patently absurd.

They're talking about concerns related to the closure of this $70B Activision deal. Their use of the word "foreclosure" is not technically correct.

If that's what they are doing they are using it in a way that I've never seen. It's typical for there to be foreclosure concerns (meaning a risk of market foreclosure) with vertical mergers. I read the statement as MS saying that isn't a concern in this case (because the property involved isn't important enough to the market). Basically, MS is not going to wreck the console or game distributor markets with this deal, even if CoD was pulled.

I'm not even sure if this is being looked at as a vertical merger, does being a console maker buying a game maker create that situation? I have no idea. LOL

Also, what type of merger is supposed to be worse for the market horizontal or vertical? 🤷‍♂️

Obviously it would be crazy for MS to say they thought there were concerns (would be basically validating any opposition), but it seems like a reasonable stance to me. More reasonable than Activision is greater than sliced bread.
 
Last edited:
If that's what they are doing they are using it in a way that I've never seen. It's typical for there to be foreclosure concerns (meaning a risk of market foreclosure) with vertical mergers. I read the statement as MS saying that isn't a concern in this case (because the property involved isn't important enough to the market). Basically, MS is not going to wreck the console or game distributor markets with this deal, even if CoD was pulled.

I'm not even sure if this is being looked at as a vertical merger, does being a console maker buying a game maker create that situation? I have no idea. LOL

I don't understand why market foreclosure would even be the threshold here (or what kind of acquisition could possibly eventuate that in theory).

So if you're right and that's what they mean, then yes it's true, but only because it's an absurd truism.

That's like claiming that MS buying Sony won't lead to earthquakes in Vietnam. Of course, it won't. That doesn't mean such a deal wouldn't be problematic to competition within the market.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
I don't understand why market foreclosure would even be the threshold here (or what kind of acquisition could possibly eventuate that in theory).

So if you're right and that's what they mean, then yes it's true, but only because it's an absurd truism.

That's like claiming that MS buying Sony won't lead to earthquakes in Vietnam. Of course, it won't. That doesn't mean such a deal wouldn't be problematic to competition within the market.

Market foreclosure is basically all these boards are looking at. Whether or not this deal would give MS and edge that would ultimately result in them controlling the entire market. They don't care if it's fair to the other businesses or gamers or not.
 
Last edited:
Market foreclosure is basically all these boards are looking at. Whether or not this deal would give MS and edge that would ultimately result in them controlling the entire market. They don't care if it's fair to the other businesses or gamers or not.

Well, that essentially renders the boards virtually useless at preventing market monopolies.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Well, that essentially renders the boards virtually useless at preventing market monopolies.

It all depends on how the different countries define the market. The broader it is the smaller MS is in the big picture, the narrower they look the rougher it is for MS (let's say if they look at gaming subscriptions as a separate market). I've always assumed that the deal would pass, just because the game software market isn't consolidated enough yet for there to be legitimate concerns about the health of the market. I guess we'll see how it works out. The number of processes and things all over the world that they have to go through to get this type of thing done, boggles the mind. Where would you even start.
 
Last edited:

Deerock71

Member
In 30 years when all that's left is Fornite on Meta VR and all franchises are part of that game, people will look back and laugh at people shitting their diapers about an ancient franchise once known as "Call of Duty" not being on a specific game console.
I would have mocked and ridiculed you openly six months ago, but now I'm running around at level 97 in Fortnite in my Temple of Doom Indiana Jones, and you might be right. :messenger_grinning_sweat:
 

DaGwaphics

Member
I don't understand why market foreclosure would even be the threshold here (or what kind of acquisition could possibly eventuate that in theory).

So if you're right and that's what they mean, then yes it's true, but only because it's an absurd truism.

That's like claiming that MS buying Sony won't lead to earthquakes in Vietnam. Of course, it won't. That doesn't mean such a deal wouldn't be problematic to competition within the market.

MS buying Sony would bring with it major concerns for the market. Basically making only two console vendors and creating a situation where developers only had one distribution path on console (since Nintendo does their own thing performance wise). That would be an impossible deal to close. I doubt either Sony or MS could get away with buying Nintendo either. You are basically in mobile phone carrier territory because of how few console makers there are and how high the cost to entry is there.
 
Last edited:

Deerock71

Member
MS buying Sony would bring with it major concerns for the market. Basically making only two console vendors and creating a situation where developers only had one distribution path on console (since Nintendo does their own thing performance wise). That would be an impossible deal to close. I doubt either Sony or MS could get away with buying Nintendo either. You are basically in mobile phone carrier territory because of how few console makers there are and how high the cost to entry is there.
This is the most salient point; Activision doesn't make any must-have hardware.
 
Last edited:
It all depends on how the different countries define the market. The broader it is the smaller MS is in the big picture, the narrower they look the rougher it is for MS (let's say if they look at gaming subscriptions as a separate market). I've always assumed that the deal would pass, just because the game software market isn't consolidated enough yet for there to be legitimate concerns about the health of the market. I guess we'll see how it works out. The number of processes and things all over the world that they have to go through to get this type of thing done, boggles the mind. Where would you even start.

They have to define the market in such a way that it encompasses all of Activision Blizzard's business interests. So the PC + Console gaming market as a whole, plus consideration for the separate mobile market.

Subscription services aren't a separate market. They're just an alternative distribution method from boxed game sales and download games.

The mobile market is clearly distinct from the console + PC gaming market. And there could be an argument made that the console gaming market is distinct from the PC market.

Regardless, if the deal creates an unfair advantage for MS it will do so in all areas where Activision does business with MS's rivals; so console and PC, but not mobile. But yeah, if the threshold for defining "an unfair advantage" is "will foreclose the market", the deal will see no resistance whatsoever... but that just means the threshold the deal is examined against is borked.
 
There are a lot of smart ppl at Microsoft... apparently none of them were available for this interview LOL

For real tho... totally understand why they said it. It's a business move, they need to get this approved. You can it dumb, but it's smart. You can call Sony "pussy" for claiming to be "scared" but that's a smart move. These two companies are playing chess, not checkers.
 
Last edited:

PaintTinJr

Member
The reveal date really wouldn't figure in as far as them knowing whether or not the bundle/pricing was going to lower sales. The console launched well with them selling everything they could get on shelves for a couple months (can't remember if they starting falling behind noticeably in March or April), then when you figure in the time to get the unbundled systems boxed and on store shelves, I'd say they made the change very, very quickly.
The pricing - from how I remember it - was a secondary issue post launch and people already hated kinect before the X1 reveal and didn't want another and vocally said so - post reveal - after already seeing it fail to deliver the 360 gaming experiences claimed such as the Milo vapourware original sales pitch and very laggy motion gaming.

Unlike the early negativity to the DRM Xbox doubled down on kinect being, or being part of the platform experience at release, and my belief is that, based on timelines and funding needs for xbox was that, project kinect was paying for the X1 hardware and launch, so couldn't be dropped sooner, until the first half of the project had ran its course, and at that five year window they were then able to remove it as a failed part of that ongoing xbox project, You only need look at the drought of conventional new IP games made by Xbox until the end of the generation to consider project kinect was the reason,
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
Regardless, if the deal creates an unfair advantage for MS it will do so in all areas where Activision does business with MS's rivals; so console and PC, but not mobile. But yeah, if the threshold for defining "an unfair advantage" is "will foreclose the market", the deal will see no resistance whatsoever... but that just means the threshold the deal is examined against is borked.

I would guess that it isn't anywhere near that simplistic. But, there probably is a big difference in what these regulators see as an "unfair advantage" and what Sony or a PS gamer would define as "unfair".
 

Kagey K

Banned
I would guess that it isn't anywhere near that simplistic. But, there probably is a big difference in what these regulators see as an "unfair advantage" and what Sony or a PS gamer would define as "unfair".
It's totally fair to pay to keep 3rd party games off other systems, totally unfair to purchase and then fund the 3rd party to make the games.

🤪
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
It's totally fair to pay to keep 3rd party games off other systems, totally unfair to purchase and then fund the 3rd party to make the games.

🤪

I mean, I'm not saying that I'm any better. I thought it was totally unfair that SF5 was only on PS, I just don't think the suits at the FTC thought it was unfair. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 

Kagey K

Banned
I mean, I'm not saying that I'm any better. I thought it was totally unfair that SF5 was only on PS, I just don't think the suits at the FTC thought it was unfair. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
That's why it would have been easier to buy 70B in exclusives. FTC doesn't even give a second glance at that.

MS just figured it would be a better investment to take all the risk and recoup all the profits instead of just handing over marketing money.
 
I'll just quote myself from the other thread.

Nintendo can be used as a clear example of that point.

They don't have CoD on thier system and are doing well, therefore CoD is not a must have for your business to survive.

It's the difference between "wants" and "needs."

PlayStation is a gigantic part of the call of duty market. Switch isn't. Call of Duty has never been relevant on Nintendo platforms. But, like Minecraft, Microsoft kept it on all platforms. The majority of console players enjoy call of duty on PlayStation and it's a franchise that sells millions upon millions a year and whilst I'm not as interested as I was in gaming as I was in previous years, I'm pretty sure behind GTA V it'll either be call of duty or FIFA that sells the second most amount of copies per year as major AAA console titles.

Call of duty is a must have game. Sony are right. But so is GTA. Sony could pay 70 billion for Rockstar/Take Two and whip it away from Microsoft. Then see how people like their games stuck to certain platforms.

Honestly the industry consolation going on is bullshit.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
That's why it would have been easier to buy 70B in exclusives. FTC doesn't even give a second glance at that.

MS just figured it would be a better investment to take all the risk and recoup all the profits instead of just handing over marketing money.

They certainly did take a big risk. I think I remember reading that they are out $3b if the deal gets blocked, ouch, that's a lot of money.
 

Kagey K

Banned
PlayStation is a gigantic part of the call of duty market. Switch isn't. Call of Duty has never been relevant on Nintendo platforms. But, like Minecraft, Microsoft kept it on all platforms. The majority of console players enjoy call of duty on PlayStation and it's a franchise that sells millions upon millions a year and whilst I'm not as interested as I was in gaming as I was in previous years, I'm pretty sure behind GTA V it'll either be call of duty or FIFA that sells the second most amount of copies per year as major AAA console titles.

Call of duty is a must have game. Sony are right. But so is GTA. Sony could pay 70 billion for Rockstar/Take Two and whip it away from Microsoft. Then see how people like their games stuck to certain platforms.

Honestly the industry consolation going on is bullshit.
The quote specifically says nobody is going bankrupt if they don't have CoD on thier system. The title just omitted the context.

Based solely on the title my comment may seem incorrect.

Based on the body of the OP my example works.
 

Razvedka

Banned
By this definition there are no mist have games. Like it or hate it, Call of Duty, Diablo, etc are big big deals. They have immense brand recognition and make truckloads of money.
 

sainraja

Member
Besides COD, what else do Activision really have that can really do massive damage to the competition? WOW? Tony Hawk? Overwatch? I still think $68 billion is absolutely insane for what Microsoft are getting.
That's the only IP that Sony is concerned about, the reason their statement focuses on it AND also why MS is downplaying Activision's portfolio without specifically naming COD. Both statements are equally silly if you ask me and both statements are focusing on things that either raises the impact such a move by MS can have or downplays the impact it could have.
 

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
You know why, better to just accept it and move on
So again you are trolling by having nothing but speaking out your ass like you do.

AB1ia3C.gif
 
Last edited:
So again you are trolling by having nothing but speaking out your ass like you do.

AB1ia3C.gif
Bet you thought elder scrolls was coming as well.

Anyways even if you're right (money says that you aren't), the fact that they'll be on gamepass day one instead of costing 70+tax will draw people over. And even if they keep mainline titles on PS5, they'll have some kind warzone items available only to pc/xbox (lemme guess, you don't think they'd do that either?)
 

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
Bet you thought elder scrolls was coming as well.

Anyways even if you're right (money says that you aren't), the fact that they'll be on gamepass day one instead of costing 70+tax will draw people over. And even if they keep mainline titles on PS5, they'll have some kind warzone items available only to pc/xbox (lemme guess, you don't think they'd do that either?)
Microsoft never said Elder Scrolls/Bethesda games were going to PlayStation.

So no I didn't.

It costing $70 has been the case for both Xbox and PlayStation.

(Now for a mix of My speculation and facts)
Most people use the buy they're games model so I don't see that changing regardless if it was on GP.
As usual I expect it to continue have the most success with the "buying it for $70 model" and on the PlayStation platform.
 
That kind of statement makes no sense as an adult. "This has no value so I want to buy it. " Anyone with an IQ over 80 can see that makes no sense.
 

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
The ONLY decent thing Activision ever did was publishing Sekiro for west, other than that I don't give two shit about any of their games.
 
Last edited:
(Now for a mix of My speculation and facts)
Most people use the buy they're games model so I don't see that changing regardless if it was on GP.
As usual I expect it to continue have the most success with the "buying it for $70 model" and on the PlayStation platform.
I would agree with that, at least up until the games are strictly next gen (and then who knows) and/or they start releasing exclusive items for Xbox/pc in warzone

Assuming that Xbox actually keeps the mainline games on playstation, past the current agreement
 
Last edited:

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
I would agree with that, at least up until the games are strictly next gen (and then who knows) and/or they start releasing exclusive items for Xbox/pc in warzone

Assuming that Xbox actually keeps the mainline games on playstation, past the current agreement
Fair enough.
But no one knows.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom