Could with huge concessions but I'm expecting it'll be dropped soon. I think MS have to start paying Activision penalties if it goes past a certain date?
Microsoft's acquisition of Activison Blizzard
- Thread starter Darth Vader
- Start date
The 10 year deal will be the next hang up i think, assuming CMA even let it go that far.
CMA concerns are with cloud, but here's the issue how far into the future are CMA looking probably quite far out as cloud market is still growing. A 10 year deal won't give them any sort of ressaurance that microsft won't foreclose on sony, nobody is stupid enough to take there word on it.
The other issue let's say they are crazy enough to go with a 10 year deal, well cloud will need to be part of that, so COD ends up on ps plus, but at what cost? Whats the licensing terms? They need to make it fair not just for sony but for other existing and future competitors.
There is alot of shit CMA will have to get involved in to make this work and structural remedies would be the most sane solution.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 417
Guest
Wasn't that one of the stipulations that Notch made? That it must be kept multiplatform?
It was a condition of the sale that it remain on all platforms it was available on or in development for when Mojang was sold to MS.
So these are some of my quick thoughts and concerns on the deal
- If merger is approved and no real concessions are made What stops Microsoft from buying every other major publisher now with 2 Trillion dollar war chest compared to Sony's and Nintendo's
- Microsoft will then obviously have the monopoly to either charge an arm or a leg to have content on other devices or force everyone on to the xbox/MS ecosystem
- Microsoft's track record of managing not just studios but companies they buy is terrible Nokia, Mixr and Skype just to name a few
- Microsoft's management of game studios is terrible with underwhelming releases after multiple delays and/or studio closures
- Union's will get blindsided by the amount of staff they will cut to "streamline" their portfolio but also to deny pay increases to staff especially once unionized
- Activision can already do deal with Nintendo and that they don't need Microsoft's money or hand holding to do it they already have the financial resourcses to do so or just stop giving Bobby Cockface huge bonuses for shit performances
Microsoft just needs to actually understand how to make games in an entertainment sense and not a corporate sense hire the right fucking executives and managers for each studio have studios work on new IP's and not get burnt out pumping out the same franchises year in and year out develop an clear identity of what it wants to do instead of slipping its slimy dick in to every pie and seeing what sticks. EA lost its way a bit but is slowly understanding and course correcting a bit and developing good games again if they can do it why can't Microsoft?
Additional thoughts:
A lot of Sony's marketshare success has been because of quality product not buying 3rd party publishers. Look at Microsoft's history they just buy then fail to succeed in growing their investment when they purchase it (Nokia and Skype as mentioned)
Sony bounced back after a horrific start withe PS3 where it was a huge financial loss to the company so much so people thought Sony was going to go under and would struggle with launching a PS4. Microsoft's missteps and failure to claw back after the Xbox One is part of their problem and why they lost so many people but also because Microsoft's shift in around 2011 especially with Kinect.
Microsoft was aggressive with 3rd party deals during the 360 era and early stages with Xbox One Titanfall and Tomb raider as an example. Sony don't have a 2 Trillion dollar warchest this Activision deal is what about 70% approx of all of Sony's value and Microsoft were notorious in the 90's for buying out any form of competition and are looking to repeat that. You can't just buy your way to the top all the time you actually you know have to fucking earn it by doing the hard yards. Gamepass yeah seems like a good deal upfront but unless you have that 2 billion gamers subscribed to it paying the full price you are not going to sustain developing big budget games and will likely have to look at monetization methods to make up for any loses in people not physically buying copies of the game instead of renting them out in a subscription service.
Movies have multiple ways they recoup loses from cinema to then bluray 4K and DVD sales then digital sales on platforms to then agreements with streaming services/subscriptions.
- If merger is approved and no real concessions are made What stops Microsoft from buying every other major publisher now with 2 Trillion dollar war chest compared to Sony's and Nintendo's
- Microsoft will then obviously have the monopoly to either charge an arm or a leg to have content on other devices or force everyone on to the xbox/MS ecosystem
- Microsoft's track record of managing not just studios but companies they buy is terrible Nokia, Mixr and Skype just to name a few
- Microsoft's management of game studios is terrible with underwhelming releases after multiple delays and/or studio closures
- Union's will get blindsided by the amount of staff they will cut to "streamline" their portfolio but also to deny pay increases to staff especially once unionized
- Activision can already do deal with Nintendo and that they don't need Microsoft's money or hand holding to do it they already have the financial resourcses to do so or just stop giving Bobby Cockface huge bonuses for shit performances
Microsoft just needs to actually understand how to make games in an entertainment sense and not a corporate sense hire the right fucking executives and managers for each studio have studios work on new IP's and not get burnt out pumping out the same franchises year in and year out develop an clear identity of what it wants to do instead of slipping its slimy dick in to every pie and seeing what sticks. EA lost its way a bit but is slowly understanding and course correcting a bit and developing good games again if they can do it why can't Microsoft?
Additional thoughts:
A lot of Sony's marketshare success has been because of quality product not buying 3rd party publishers. Look at Microsoft's history they just buy then fail to succeed in growing their investment when they purchase it (Nokia and Skype as mentioned)
Sony bounced back after a horrific start withe PS3 where it was a huge financial loss to the company so much so people thought Sony was going to go under and would struggle with launching a PS4. Microsoft's missteps and failure to claw back after the Xbox One is part of their problem and why they lost so many people but also because Microsoft's shift in around 2011 especially with Kinect.
Microsoft was aggressive with 3rd party deals during the 360 era and early stages with Xbox One Titanfall and Tomb raider as an example. Sony don't have a 2 Trillion dollar warchest this Activision deal is what about 70% approx of all of Sony's value and Microsoft were notorious in the 90's for buying out any form of competition and are looking to repeat that. You can't just buy your way to the top all the time you actually you know have to fucking earn it by doing the hard yards. Gamepass yeah seems like a good deal upfront but unless you have that 2 billion gamers subscribed to it paying the full price you are not going to sustain developing big budget games and will likely have to look at monetization methods to make up for any loses in people not physically buying copies of the game instead of renting them out in a subscription service.
Movies have multiple ways they recoup loses from cinema to then bluray 4K and DVD sales then digital sales on platforms to then agreements with streaming services/subscriptions.
The deal isn’t being passed without MAJOR concessions anywhere, so just chill on that.
Seriously, why is anyone still saying “What if it goes through without changes?” That ship sunk when the CMA said that they won’t accept anything but divestiture.
MS isn’t buying Activision just to discard the biggest-selling IP on games. And yes, whether anyone here plays it or likes it, COD is the single biggest seller in gaming.
If the CMA says no deal if MS will own COD, and MS says they won’t consider any deal that requires they divest COD, use a little logical thought and figure out the outcome.
Seriously, why is anyone still saying “What if it goes through without changes?” That ship sunk when the CMA said that they won’t accept anything but divestiture.
MS isn’t buying Activision just to discard the biggest-selling IP on games. And yes, whether anyone here plays it or likes it, COD is the single biggest seller in gaming.
If the CMA says no deal if MS will own COD, and MS says they won’t consider any deal that requires they divest COD, use a little logical thought and figure out the outcome.
My example or thought post was purely a what if worst case scenario
Which is not a possible scenario by any means anymore. You wasted the time it took to type that, and the time of anyone reading it.
He gave his thoughts, it might have been a waste of time to you but no need for this kind of response.
Art is never advanced simply by doing what is necessary, mon frere!He gave his thoughts, it might have been a waste of time to you but no need for this kind of response.
His posts have useful information, even if he has somewhat of a bias.
He’s probably hanging by his belt in his closet after yesterday.
Latest from Idas is that there were a total of 100 lawyers there from all involved parties.
Sounds about right, given the number of parties involved and presenting to the comission.
so sony's cod marketing rights expire next year.
that's 9 years since they flipped the deal on MS, starting with black ops 3 in 2015.
Is it really just down to the CMA? I heard that some of the European regulators did not like Brad Smith's presentation yesterday. Not sure where I can find this being verified, it's just something I've heard through the grapevine.
If I had to guess, it was probably because of the combination of once again trying to gin up the public through wordy favoritism and lock a regulatory decision in a corner, combined with what probably came off as pretentious boisterousness. Also maybe signing legal deals (of intent) with companies over assets his company doesn't legally own yet could be another factor, and the fact his appeals were less directed to answering concerns of regulators, but rather to gain cheers from an incensed public (which ties into the first point I mentioned).
Keep in mind yesterday was just MS giving their side of things. I think Sony gives theirs today, and other companies present as well. The EC aren't making the decision to approve or deny this week (AFAIK); they are just letting both sides speak their pieces in favor of & against the deal.
But speaking of which, have there been any noteworthy developments today? I know there's a Brad Smith interview with some network that's laughably bad, but I wouldn't classify that as significant. Just hilarious (and that interview might've been done yesterday for all I know).
I picked up on this, as well. You'd think if the Nvidia and Nintendo agreements yesterday were good enough, Microsoft would not have reverted back to pushing out a hardline stance on one of the key structural remedies presented by the CMA. That to me seems like they're feeling themselves, but ti also looks like something else: pure arrogance. And there was a dash of arrogance in something Brad Smith said when addressing regulators and Sony specifically in his presentation yesterday, too.
If Microsoft feels that what's been offered to Nvidia and Nintendo can only occur if they have 100% ownership of COD, they need to actually prove it with numbers. Just like how they've been trying to subpoena Sony to prove (with numbers) that they can't operate PlayStation as-is without COD (which begs the question, if MS aren't interested in removing it off the platform, why even entertain that hypothetical?), Microsoft should be requested to provide numbers proving that somehow, someway, ABK can't bring COD to Switch or Switch 2 while remaining independent. That ABK can't allow GeForce Now to cloud-stream COD without Microsoft owning them.
Microsoft wants to double-down on the idea that they "need" to keep full COD ownership in order to do these things, or ensure that Sony continues to get COD...then show the numbers. But when it comes to gaming, that's one thing Microsoft are deathly afraid to actually do: show their own, raw, internal numbers. They don't do it for Game Pass subs (anymore). They don't do it for Xbox sold-through sales numbers. They don't do it for Xbox Live Gold. They don't do it for software revenue, or hardware revenue. No, they lump ALL of those together into total division revenue, then use sometimes-questionable percentages to give a "hint" at those individual parts of the gaming business.
And why is that? This is something regulators should be asking, and pressing Microsoft on. If they "need" ABK and COD so badly, let the numbers tell them way. If they aren't willing to share those with regulators, then why aren't they? Are they afraid it might lead to an audit? Are ABK afraid to give their full numbers over for review, for a similar situation? Like I said, if Microsoft are saying there's no intent to sell COD in order to acquire ABK, then they are basically saying they need full ownership in order to bring it to "more gamers" (i.e Nintendo and Nvidia gamers).
Meaning they should have data to show that their owning ABK & COD is a requirement for such, so can't they share that data with regulators to make a more definitive case? Something tells me they can't, because they don't have any data supporting the notion
Last edited: