Microsoft's acquisition of Activison Blizzard

Zzero

Major Tom
9 Jan 2023
4,005
2,333
Yeah, there's a lot of mental gymnastics being done to justify this situation as normal and even good for the industry.Ms have also indicated that they want to buy more publishers
And yet you were complaining about game industry consolidation. I mean what, do you think Microsoft is actually going to push Sony out of games or even take the lead on them with Blizzard and shitty CoD?
 

AshHunter216

Banned
8 Jan 2023
4,556
7,628
And yet you were complaining about game industry consolidation. I mean what, do you think Microsoft is actually going to push Sony out of games or even take the lead on them with Blizzard and shitty CoD?
Consolidation under 1st party platform holders, not multiplats staying multiplat after two 3rd parties combine. Also MS plan to keep buying more and more if they can. Try not to be obtuse.

 

AshHunter216

Banned
8 Jan 2023
4,556
7,628
Update posted by Idas from mlex

N7JLhhj_d.webp


3rd pont is interesting, why even say this passive aggressive statement If your confident in what you offered?

They likely want the CMA to believe that the concessions they're offering are extremely generous and might be frustrated if the CMA still don't agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FatKaz

Bryank75

I don't get ulcers, I give 'em!
Founder
18 Jun 2022
9,444
16,572
icon-era.com
Consolidation under 1st party platform holders, not multiplats staying multiplat after two 3rd parties combine. Also MS plan to keep buying more and more if they can. Try not to be obtuse.


That line alone is enough to show the intention...which is to buy their way to market dominance.

On that, the regulators should have enough cause to shut down any of their large acquisitions in the space into the future.
 
D

Deleted member 417

Guest
Its not about getting people to actually buy it, its about giving them the option to. And since no game in history has sold even half of 150 million copies nobody thinks that is what he meant by that.
"We have a console available for people who want to play offline Call of Duty, it's called the Xbox 360 Series S/X"
 

Zzero

Major Tom
9 Jan 2023
4,005
2,333
That’s on ABK, and people buy more games on ps consoles anyway lmao. We don’t need MS to make CoD available on switch, that’s disingenuous.
Switch has a very high games per unit sale ration, fyi. And that doesn't even include first party digital purchases, which Nintendo never makes public.
 

nongkris

Veteran
14 Feb 2023
1,325
2,158
Everywhere except the best selling console on the market today.
You know Activision is one of the few publishers that have supported switch with other franchises right? And the CMA concluded that Acti couldn't port the main game due to storage limitations. The best switch can hope to get is COD mobile.
 

Doncortez77

Veteran
8 Jan 2023
700
1,747
Everywhere except the best selling console on the market today.
Allow me to repost this:

I found this part from Idas post interesting

ABK thought about developing COD for Nintendo Switch, but the storage capacity was a serious problem (page 94)

Activision's internal documents note the technical limitations of the Nintendo Switch console. For example, one Activision document notes in an early-stage assessment that, to produce a CoD title on the Nintendo Switch, the CoD game would need [REDACTED] (whereas most current CoD titles require from 125- 175GB of storage on console or PC). The document also refers to Apex Legends's [REDACTED]. Another Activision document analysing potential studios [REDACTED] CoD assesses the additional work required [REDACTED] and notes technical issues in other games [REDACTED].

The CMA believes that Nintendo Switch may not be capable of offering games such as COD (page 95) and the importance of the agreement with Nintendo (page 145)

We note the Parties' submission that challenges with porting a game to Nintendo Switch has not impacted Nintendo's ability to compete on the downstream console market, as it offers more games than Xbox and PlayStation, including major games such as Apex Legends, Fortnite and Doom Eternal. However, we consider the evidence above shows that, relative to the Xbox and PlayStation, the Nintendo Switch (i) does not currently offer the same suite of graphically intensive games that PlayStation and Xbox compete on (with the exception of a few games such as Fortnite and Apex Legends), (ii) may not be capable of offering certain graphically intensive multiplayer games (such as CoD), and (iii) does not offer a similar user experience (eg, in terms of storage, graphics, and framerate).

Likewise, regardless of whether [REDACTED] with Nintendo may be legally binding, notwithstanding that this theory of harm is primarily focused on SIE for reasons already explained, there is also no certainty that this will lead to CoD becoming available on Nintendo. As stated above, the Nintendo Switch has certain technical limitations compared to the latest PlayStation and Xbox consoles (including, for instance, storage capacity). These limitations would need to be overcome for Call of Duty to become available for Nintendo Switch. This is notwithstanding any further disagreements or issues that may become apparent as both parties further develop [REDACTED]. Further, it is not clear at this stage the degree to which the CoD experience would differ on Nintendo Switch. This is acknowledged [REDACTED]. We are therefore unable to place material weight on this in terms of the Merged Entity's ability and/or incentive to foreclose given the early stage of the process and unforeseeable impacts on the market, and the more general limitations around contractual protection as noted above.

PS: this could be relevant to asses the importance of the agreement with Nintendo. For example, that maybe it's only useful for future hardware and in the mid-long term.


All that promising to make COD available to “150 million more players..” song and dance aint magically going to happen if that deal would have went through. Activision already reviewed the possibility and came to the conclusion that it wasn’t possible to bring a similar experience to the switch

Now explain how magically COD would be put on a switch because MS acquired ABK when Activision already looked into putting COD on the switch before the deal existed and chose not to due to hardware and storage limitation.

I guess your now going to say well they can put it on the next gen version of the switch but that then would make your original statement obsolete because then that would no longer be the best selling console on the market. That version that could handle COD would bring that market count back down to zero.
 

KiryuRealty

Cambridge Dictionary High Priest of Grammar
28 Nov 2022
6,646
8,166
Where it’s at.
That thing has a long way to go to catch up with the 100 million unit edge the Switch has on it.
If you're nothing but an anti-Sony troll, let me just be the first to invite you to just bugger off.

Your posts are all just worthless crap trying to annoy people, and we have more than enough of that shit from AdamsA******e, thanks.