Microsoft's acquisition of Activison Blizzard
- Thread starter Darth Vader
- Start date
Still better than what I saw from the Reee founding mods’ secret discord.Found some old pictures
Its part of the xbox cult hivemind. If you dont add "But i still think the deal will go through" you will have a legion of unhinged, lunatic fringe, dangerous, clinically insane xbot cultists in your DMs threatening you. He doesnt mean it hes just saying it protect himself.
Klobrille is the biggest clown. I also found out recently his username in german literally means toilet seat.Found some old pictures
Funny that when Xbox's management is literally shit at doing their actual job.
Not really. PlayStation doesn't "need" Xbox to compete as a strong 2nd in order to prosper. Nintendo doesn't really have a handheld competitor anymore but they've been putting out some of their best 1P games ever on the Switch. Now, would it be nice if Xbox were a stronger #2 to compete against it? Of course. But is it a necessity in order to keep PlayStation healthy or honest? No.
I mean, the PS2 was virtually uncontested by Dreamcast, Xbox or Gamecube, but for many that's still a golden age in gaming and we saw a lot of the best games ever come out on that system. Lack of any of those other systems providing any real market competition (in terms of outselling the PS2) didn't stop Sony from dropping PS2's price over the years, or doing a Greatest Hits line of games at cheaper retail prices, either. And the online (albeit not as good as XBL's of the time) was free.
If I want Xbox to be better (and I do), that's so that the brand can live up to its own potential, not to keep PlayStation "honest". PlayStation doesn't need Xbox for that, and it doesn't need Xbox in order to be motivated to keep empowering great 1P and 3P games. Customers and money are reasons enough Sony would want to keep that going strong. But I would definitely like an Xbox that is a stronger competitor.
I want them to earn it, though, not buy their way into the position. Like I've always said, Microsoft does have some quality games. They just released one last month, and another one (FH5) is getting a rally update later this year. I've never agreed with the idea that Microsoft's 1P is "trash"...but there's a difference between having mostly good 1P games and having 1P games with mainstream, mass-market appeal. It's the latter of those which Xbox is VERY weak in; they either outright lack such games, or have an IP or two fitting the bill yet is not associated with Xbox as a brand.
Halo is shell of its former self. The Forza games have never been big mainstream hits. Gears is mostly irrelevant now. Cuphead saw more success on Switch, PS4 and PC well beyond what it did on Xbox. Sea of Thieves is "modestly" popular but not in a critical way. See what I mean? I think MS know this and it's a massive reason they went for Zenimax, and why they're so desperate for acquiring ABK. Elder Scrolls, DOOM, Fallout, COD, Warcraft....these are names people know, they have tons of mainstream mass-market appeal, and they're also generally great games on top of all that.
But like I said, I don't really agree with Microsoft wanting to buy their way to that rank in terms of such IP. When you look at Sony's marquee 1P games, between GOW, Spiderman, TLOU, Uncharted, GT etc....Sony spent many years, decades in some cases, carefully building up those IPs as franchises with mainstream, mass-market appeal, over multiple console generations. When you look at Nintendo with Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Smash Bros, Mario Kart etc...they've done the exact same thing, building those up over decades with carefully curated games over multiple generations of hardware.
Microsoft's problem is the same as what Sega suffered from: lack of marquee IP retention over multiple generations. Almost every console gen, Sega discarded older IP and made newer ones. In some cases, like Sonic, they actually skipped a whole console generation curating the IP the way they should have, which impacted future releases (Sonic Adventure on Dreamcast would have been an even bigger deal if a proper Sonic game came out for the Saturn). Games that SHOULD HAVE (IMO) gotten sequels never did, like Ristar, Pulstar, and Eternal Champions (all of these should have gotten sequels on the Saturn, and maybe even sequels to those on the Dreamcast). Games like Phantasy Star should not have skipped the Saturn, either.
In Sega's case I think their arcade heritage was a big reason into why they were late to start curating IP over multiple generations, because in the arcade space it was regular to do one-and-done type of games (IP/franchise-wise) or not to linger on a given IP for so long. You needed big new hooks to draw players to your offerings so going through IP in short spaces of time was normal. However that wasn't going to translate well to console and I don't think Sega really started zeroing in on it until it was a bit too late. Microsoft doesn't actually have that excuse; they were in the PC gaming space before coming to console and should have known from there about how many of the bigger games (Ultima, Space Quest, etc.) built up their audiences through multiple releases over periods of years and across multiple PC "generations". If not from there, then they should have been able to observe Nintendo's work in IP retention for Mario, Zelda etc. over the NES, SNES and N64 generations (and to a lesser extent, Sega's with Sonic and Virtua Fighter), learning early from those.
But MS let almost all of their marquee franchises either burn out or stagnate too soon. Halo peaked with the 360 (critically & commercially); Gears also peaked with the 360 (critically & commercially). For all intents and purposes, Forza Motorsport stagnated in terms of market growth years ago. Fable peaked with 360 (critically & commercially). Crackdown peaked with 360, as well (critically & commercially, and Crackdown 3 killed the franchise). MS never built on IP they should have in order to keep long-term variety in their 1P lineup (Viva Pinata, Too Human, Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey etc.). And with XBO there are IP they should have tried building on harder and associate more closely with the Xbox brand, but failed to, such as Cuphead.
All of those are due to Microsoft's negligence, but unlike Sega (who had to leave as a platform holder and focus on rebuilding mindshare of several IP on once-competitor systems), Microsoft have decided to stick with making consoles. And, they realize their problem....I just don't agree with them buying massive publishers and IP as a fully justified solution, not without some compromises (which is what concessions, hopefully involving structural remedies, would involve). Microsoft could have easily spent the second half of the XBO gen rebuilding their 1P the way Sony did with PS3 (which paid off massively to repair brand damage and helped set up the PS4 for success). But Microsoft chose not to do that. They chose to dilute the brand identity of Xbox by putting all 1P games on PC Day 1. They chose to focus on programs like BC and services like Game Pass instead of completing games like Scalebound and Phantom Dust reboot, or salvaging train wrecks like Crackdown 3.
Microsoft didn't put their priorities where they really mattered and now they're paying the price for it. But just because they're paying the price, doesn't mean they should get to buy up giant 3P publishers on their own terms and potentially set a dangerous precedent for industry consolidation (at least in terms of buying huge 3P publishers as a platform holder; I don't really like Embracer Group acquiring a lot of studios either but they have no incentives to leverage that content for a non-existent console or gaming service). Mind, I still think they should be able to buy ABK, but not without accepting some form of structural remedies (and I've already mentioned what I would consider fair structural remedies, if they could enable things like MS retaining partial ownership of the divested asset, but MS/Sony/Nintendo able to acquire publishing rights of content of the divested asset for their own platforms, have some limitations for service rights depending on if they're Day 1 or not, etc.).
And if Microsoft are stubborn to the point of not accepting that, then maybe it was never a good idea for them to acquire them
When u think about it, xbox division didnt create 1 single big blockbuster ip since inception.
Halo and gears were created by others and they bought ips. Same with minecraft. Crazy.
Not really. PlayStation doesn't "need" Xbox to compete as a strong 2nd in order to prosper. Nintendo doesn't really have a handheld competitor anymore but they've been putting out some of their best 1P games ever on the Switch. Now, would it be nice if Xbox were a stronger #2 to compete against it? Of course. But is it a necessity in order to keep PlayStation healthy or honest? No.
I mean, the PS2 was virtually uncontested by Dreamcast, Xbox or Gamecube, but for many that's still a golden age in gaming and we saw a lot of the best games ever come out on that system. Lack of any of those other systems providing any real market competition (in terms of outselling the PS2) didn't stop Sony from dropping PS2's price over the years, or doing a Greatest Hits line of games at cheaper retail prices, either. And the online (albeit not as good as XBL's of the time) was free.
If I want Xbox to be better (and I do), that's so that the brand can live up to its own potential, not to keep PlayStation "honest". PlayStation doesn't need Xbox for that, and it doesn't need Xbox in order to be motivated to keep empowering great 1P and 3P games. Customers and money are reasons enough Sony would want to keep that going strong. But I would definitely like an Xbox that is a stronger competitor.
I want them to earn it, though, not buy their way into the position. Like I've always said, Microsoft does have some quality games. They just released one last month, and another one (FH5) is getting a rally update later this year. I've never agreed with the idea that Microsoft's 1P is "trash"...but there's a difference between having mostly good 1P games and having 1P games with mainstream, mass-market appeal. It's the latter of those which Xbox is VERY weak in; they either outright lack such games, or have an IP or two fitting the bill yet is not associated with Xbox as a brand.
Halo is shell of its former self. The Forza games have never been big mainstream hits. Gears is mostly irrelevant now. Cuphead saw more success on Switch, PS4 and PC well beyond what it did on Xbox. Sea of Thieves is "modestly" popular but not in a critical way. See what I mean? I think MS know this and it's a massive reason they went for Zenimax, and why they're so desperate for acquiring ABK. Elder Scrolls, DOOM, Fallout, COD, Warcraft....these are names people know, they have tons of mainstream mass-market appeal, and they're also generally great games on top of all that.
But like I said, I don't really agree with Microsoft wanting to buy their way to that rank in terms of such IP. When you look at Sony's marquee 1P games, between GOW, Spiderman, TLOU, Uncharted, GT etc....Sony spent many years, decades in some cases, carefully building up those IPs as franchises with mainstream, mass-market appeal, over multiple console generations. When you look at Nintendo with Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Smash Bros, Mario Kart etc...they've done the exact same thing, building those up over decades with carefully curated games over multiple generations of hardware.
Microsoft's problem is the same as what Sega suffered from: lack of marquee IP retention over multiple generations. Almost every console gen, Sega discarded older IP and made newer ones. In some cases, like Sonic, they actually skipped a whole console generation curating the IP the way they should have, which impacted future releases (Sonic Adventure on Dreamcast would have been an even bigger deal if a proper Sonic game came out for the Saturn). Games that SHOULD HAVE (IMO) gotten sequels never did, like Ristar, Pulstar, and Eternal Champions (all of these should have gotten sequels on the Saturn, and maybe even sequels to those on the Dreamcast). Games like Phantasy Star should not have skipped the Saturn, either.
In Sega's case I think their arcade heritage was a big reason into why they were late to start curating IP over multiple generations, because in the arcade space it was regular to do one-and-done type of games (IP/franchise-wise) or not to linger on a given IP for so long. You needed big new hooks to draw players to your offerings so going through IP in short spaces of time was normal. However that wasn't going to translate well to console and I don't think Sega really started zeroing in on it until it was a bit too late. Microsoft doesn't actually have that excuse; they were in the PC gaming space before coming to console and should have known from there about how many of the bigger games (Ultima, Space Quest, etc.) built up their audiences through multiple releases over periods of years and across multiple PC "generations". If not from there, then they should have been able to observe Nintendo's work in IP retention for Mario, Zelda etc. over the NES, SNES and N64 generations (and to a lesser extent, Sega's with Sonic and Virtua Fighter), learning early from those.
But MS let almost all of their marquee franchises either burn out or stagnate too soon. Halo peaked with the 360 (critically & commercially); Gears also peaked with the 360 (critically & commercially). For all intents and purposes, Forza Motorsport stagnated in terms of market growth years ago. Fable peaked with 360 (critically & commercially). Crackdown peaked with 360, as well (critically & commercially, and Crackdown 3 killed the franchise). MS never built on IP they should have in order to keep long-term variety in their 1P lineup (Viva Pinata, Too Human, Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey etc.). And with XBO there are IP they should have tried building on harder and associate more closely with the Xbox brand, but failed to, such as Cuphead.
All of those are due to Microsoft's negligence, but unlike Sega (who had to leave as a platform holder and focus on rebuilding mindshare of several IP on once-competitor systems), Microsoft have decided to stick with making consoles. And, they realize their problem....I just don't agree with them buying massive publishers and IP as a fully justified solution, not without some compromises (which is what concessions, hopefully involving structural remedies, would involve). Microsoft could have easily spent the second half of the XBO gen rebuilding their 1P the way Sony did with PS3 (which paid off massively to repair brand damage and helped set up the PS4 for success). But Microsoft chose not to do that. They chose to dilute the brand identity of Xbox by putting all 1P games on PC Day 1. They chose to focus on programs like BC and services like Game Pass instead of completing games like Scalebound and Phantom Dust reboot, or salvaging train wrecks like Crackdown 3.
Microsoft didn't put their priorities where they really mattered and now they're paying the price for it. But just because they're paying the price, doesn't mean they should get to buy up giant 3P publishers on their own terms and potentially set a dangerous precedent for industry consolidation (at least in terms of buying huge 3P publishers as a platform holder; I don't really like Embracer Group acquiring a lot of studios either but they have no incentives to leverage that content for a non-existent console or gaming service). Mind, I still think they should be able to buy ABK, but not without accepting some form of structural remedies (and I've already mentioned what I would consider fair structural remedies, if they could enable things like MS retaining partial ownership of the divested asset, but MS/Sony/Nintendo able to acquire publishing rights of content of the divested asset for their own platforms, have some limitations for service rights depending on if they're Day 1 or not, etc.).
And if Microsoft are stubborn to the point of not accepting that, then maybe it was never a good idea for them to acquire them
No real organic homegrown ip that I can think of outside of maybe Forza in 20 plus years of gaming.
I just realized something similar. I think Bungie and Lionhead had their big IP already in development when MS bought them, but I can't think of any huge IPs they own with the exception of Forza that weren't already in the works or weren't already established before MS made the acquisition. I could be wrong though.
The "we need xbox" argument could maybe work in a world where Series S wasn't a thing. But console gamers as a whole would be better of in a world where PS5 was the only baseline that devs had to design for.
I'm curious how a divested Xbox would even function. If what @KiryuRealty said about the losses Xbox have taken over the years are true...would it become the responsibility of the divested Xbox company to account for those losses, or would Microsoft just waive them and account for the losses themselves? MS would have to pump some money into a divested Xbox so that's still maybe what, another $10 billion?
Without the larger Microsoft to cling to, a divested Xbox would have to change so many things. Would Game Pass come along for the ride? Those loopholes and pricind deals are getting eliminated ASAP with a divested Xbox. Would probably see a price increase in America, as well. Honestly, if the deal doesn't go through, I can't see a divested Xbox division surviving for any more than three years, if they were to still keep up the console side of things.
Their only option would be to go multiplatform immediately in the event the division were divested, but I can't see why Microsoft would divest their actual studios with the hardware side. They COULD make good money retaining the game IP and developers while going full multiplatform, and just selling off the hardware side. But the hardware side would be likely worthless to a potential buyer unless it were another company with known gaming aspirations like Amazon (Apple would have no need because their own brand is magnitudes more popular; they could just make a console with a brand-new Apple brand and it'd come with none of the baggage of the Xbox brand). Even more so if a divested Xbox brand is literally just the hardware side itself.
Still gonna stick with the idea, if the ABK deal doesn't go through, MS are better off keeping the Xbox hardware around but merging it with the Surface division. Make Microsoft Gaming a software-only division, split off Game Pass & xCloud into some Entertainment Services division (if they still had Mixer around they could've rolled it into such a division too). Go fully multiplatform, turn Xbox consoles into NUC mini-PC-style gaming devices with full Windows support (offer a $200 upgrade path option for current Xbox owners or maybe even just push a free update to Windows 11 on Series S & X devices), bring as many games Day 1 to as many devices as makes sense (i.e next main Halo to PC, Xbox, PlayStation, HiFi Rush 2 to PC/Xbox/PlayStation/Switch 2/(maybe)iOS, Pentiment 2 to PC/Xbox/PlayStation/Switch 2/iOS/Android, etc.), and make versions of Game Pass curated for each platform holder.
They'd get more out of keeping Xbox hardware around and internal, versus divesting it to a market of companies that likely have little interest in just the hardware itself.
MS might have to abandon the series S version as a requirement for devs and just have the series X version streamed to that console.
Why keep making the consoles when they are losing hundreds per unit and have no hope of hitting economies of scale on continued production to cut the losses?
I don't see them selling Xbox, but I do see them dipping out of hardware and going third party shortly. This will happen despite, no, to the tune of, reee's kicking and screaming, and it's good to see both industry bloggers like Robinson and some of the general populace (on Reee, of all places!) start to come round to that fact.
That Spencer interview seals the deal for me on the diminished confidence Microsoft has in the acquisition going through. Will be good to see the back of him, Kotick, and Lulu.
That Spencer interview seals the deal for me on the diminished confidence Microsoft has in the acquisition going through. Will be good to see the back of him, Kotick, and Lulu.
They won’t sell the division, they‘ll just pivot to being a third-party or PC-only publisher.
They tried to sell the division to Samsung at the end of the 360 generation, and that failed. It’s a much harder sell now.
Last edited:
The problem is that the vast majority of Xbox consoles sold ARE the Series S. So that is the de facto console for most xbox owners. I do not see them dropping the requirement without a class action lawsuit coming their way.
Dudes are nearly ready to fight a war over this, lol.
