I just thought, since the CMA said MS and ABK are not allowed to coordinate together, does that mean they cannot renegoiate the deal when/if it falls through in July? And then they put a 10 year ban on MS trying to buy abk again? Am i reading too much into that first part?
"Bobby Kotick, chief executive of Activision, strongly hinted on Monday that his company would now expand into EU countries instead of Britain. Mr Kotick said: “We intend to meaningfully expand our investment and workforce throughout the EU, and we’re excited for the benefits our transaction...
www.installbaseforum.com
And he still remained calm after all these attacks
I just thought, since the CMA said MS and ABK are not allowed to coordinate together, does that mean they cannot renegoiate the deal when/if it falls through in July? And then they put a 10 year ban on MS trying to buy abk again? Am i reading too much into that first part?
Yes, it just means that they can't invest money in eachother. Not that they can't renegotiate a deal. Basically, a merger can't happen unless things are settled in the UK.
These xbox die hards arent even gamers, much less Old head gamers. Its a cult now. It started off as an astroturf campaign with influencers and has spiraled into a cult. Phil spencer is never held accountable its always somebody else fault like sony or the cma or whoever their new enemy is.
Sorry in adavance for the horrendous formatting but im not editing that lol.
A former xbox executive from France shared some thoughts on this deal. Kind of interesting, might be thread worthy of itself.
"... Let's talk about #Xbox#Microsoft#ABK#Activision... Just a few thoughts! English first.
In recent news, the European Commission has officially approved the highly-discussed acquisition of Activision Blizzard King by Microsoft. This decision marks a significant development in the ongoing debate surrounding the potential impacts of this deal on the gaming industry.
As we delve into the various aspects of this acquisition, it is important to consider the broader implications it may have on innovation, competition, and the overall gaming ecosystem. It is surprising to see that the debate is focused on the potential vertical competition between Sony PlayStation and Xbox and the impact of this acquisition on the market's balance.
This may be because the Japanese company is very active with regulatory authorities, with the avowed aim of thwarting the transaction, or because Microsoft is quite adept at limiting the discussion to the obvious topic.
However, if the lobbying activities of PlayStation monopolize the attention of the media and gamers, summarizing the issue to vertical competition between console manufacturers overlooks the unprecedented impact of this acquisition on the entire global video game ecosystem. Sony puts forward numerous arguments, and Microsoft skillfully counters them, for example, by forging partnerships with third parties like Nvidia and even Nintendo.
The objective of the Redmond-based company is to limit the impression that this acquisition will grant it a dominant position in the video game market.
Sony considers that this acquisition would have a very negative impact on its position in the market and would harm competitive balance because Microsoft could quickly reach a hegemonic position on the market, as well as exert greater control by taking over flagship franchises.
Is it solely about vertical competition? What is very surprising, however, and perhaps due to the intense lobbying deployed by the Redmond-based company, is the deafening silence of the other market players.
Nintendo does not express itself or does so very sparingly, which almost amounts to supporting Microsoft.
One can imagine that the company that produces the Switch console would not necessarily see a weakening of its Japanese competitor in a bad light.
Independent developers, at least those "boosted by GamePass," are careful not to take sides against Microsoft, and even major publishers, who are increasingly integrating their catalogs into GamePass and have no interest in falling out with Xbox, remain silent, which amounts to supporting Microsoft.
At the same time, it is worth noting the little success Sony has had in finding allies in this fight, as if everyone knew the outcome of the conflict in advance and wanted to preserve their relationship with the firm led by Phil Spencer.
Reducing this acquisition to vertical competition between console manufacturers is an extreme simplification of the problems that ABK integration could pose to the entire market. It is blindness. A danger for stifled publishers? For publishers, it is evident that the integration of ABK into Xbox will create a significant disruption in the market. Even if Xbox allows PlayStation owners to play Call of Duty on the Japanese console, we cannot ignore the fact that the Call of Duty franchise will now belong to the American firm.
It is easy to imagine that Microsoft will be able to create a more attractive Call of Duty ecosystem for Xbox owners, either by offering future iterations of the game in GamePass (while Call of Duty will be available for $80 on PlayStation), by integrating the entire Call of Duty catalog into GamePass, by implementing more efficient XP systems for Xbox owners, or by developing specific exclusives (maps, weapons, cosmetics) for Xbox owners.
However, we continue to focus solely on the vertical competition between Xbox and PlayStation. We seem to forget that the integration of Call of Duty into Xbox will have an immediate and extremely significant impact on other FPS games available on the platform.
It is quite evident that Xbox will prioritize its own FPS titles, as Microsoft has always done, at the expense of emerging or existing third-party FPS games. Consequently, franchises like Battlefield, for example, whose potential to appeal to a broader target audience will be hindered, will have limited support from Xbox.
Similarly, what place will there be for a new FPS game in GamePass when gamers can find the entire catalogs of Halo and Call of Duty there? It is conceivable that this will lead to a scarcity of the genre, which will already have a multitude of "free" and high-quality FPS games in GamePass, all owned by Microsoft.
As we know, Call of Duty consumes a significant amount of playtime, and the available playtime for other FPS games in GamePass will be further reduced. In the medium term, it is the gamers who will be at a disadvantage, and the offerings will be limited to an oligopoly of FPS games owned by a decreasing number of players, with Microsoft alone controlling Call of Duty, Halo, Gears, and more.
The limitation of available playtime is a phenomenon that has been observed for several years, resulting from the already dominant position of Call of Duty and a few other AAAA games. This position will only be amplified if Xbox acquires Activision.
The problem for publishers who would like to challenge this new paradigm is that doing so would mean declaring war on Xbox, which already wields significant influence in the market and will exert even greater influence in the future. It is also conceivable that Microsoft, in the future, will not be as accommodating when it comes to integrating FPS games not owned by them into GamePass.
However, publishers currently present in GamePass find it challenging to criticize the acquisition without risking their presence in Microsoft's subscription offering. Ultimately, there is a significant risk for publishers and developers to speak out against the potential market domination and the perils of what could be called horizontal competition. In terms of the games themselves and in the medium term, the risk is very real for all franchises not owned by Microsoft, whether they are already established or currently in development.
The end of the line for retailers, or has GamePass killed the Retail Star? Just as publishers are hesitant or unable to intervene in the debate, we observe the silence of retailers, whose daily revenue still partially depends on sales of Xbox consoles and products, as well as sales of Call of Duty. For many years, if not always, the launch of Call of Duty has been a significant source of revenue for retailers.
They can rely not only on the physical sales of the game but also on the substantial investments made by Activision in retail to orchestrate the launch of their flagship franchise. For a few weeks, stores become Call of Duty branded, the day one becomes an event, and the licensing objects surrounding the franchise or the massively available collector's editions all contribute to significant revenue and margins for distributors. In a scenario where Call of Duty will be available in GamePass for Xbox owners and priced at $80 in retail for PlayStation owners, it is foreseeable that the new owner of the franchise will no longer invest heavily in retail.
Such investments will become unnecessary as Xbox players will have access to the game through GamePass, and PlayStation players will know where to find it. This represents a significant stream of revenue that will vanish for distributors, not just in terms of physical sales but also the large-scale launches of titles such as Call of Duty, Overwatch, or even Diablo, which have all been memorable events for players.
The loss of this revenue could spell the definitive end for physical retail, which still plays a crucial role in the vitality of the video game market. Today, and this is a fact, we know that the retail investments that traditionally accompanied the launches of Microsoft's flagship franchises have been reduced to a minimum since Forza, Halo, or Gears became part of GamePass. Retailers have already found it challenging to adapt, and it is feared that the reduction in Activision's investments will be the final blow. GamePass could prove to be a retail killer.
However, it is difficult to bite the hand that partially feeds you, and we do not hear retailers warning about the risks this acquisition poses to their business model and their future in the gaming industry.
The impact on the broader gaming ecosystem Beyond the immediate concerns of console competition, publisher struggles, and the fate of retailers, the Microsoft-Activision acquisition has far-reaching implications for the entire gaming ecosystem. One aspect that has received less attention is the potential impact on innovation and diversity in game development.
Activision Blizzard King, with its diverse portfolio of studios and franchises, has been a major player in the industry, contributing to the variety of gaming experiences available to players. However, with the acquisition, there is a real risk that the focus will shift towards maximizing profits and exploiting established franchises, potentially stifling creativity and the emergence of new IPs.
Furthermore, the consolidation of power in the hands of a few major players, such as Microsoft, could limit competition and create barriers for smaller developers and publishers.
The gaming industry has thrived on the contributions of independent studios and innovative startups, which have often brought fresh ideas and unique experiences to the table. If the acquisition leads to a more monopolistic landscape, these smaller players may struggle to compete and find opportunities for growth. 1/2
2/2 Another concern is the potential for increased monetization and the impact on player experiences. Activision Blizzard King has faced criticism in the past for its aggressive monetization practices, which have sometimes been perceived as predatory.
With Microsoft's emphasis on services like GamePass and the goal of maximizing revenue, there is a risk that such practices could become even more prevalent, potentially alienating players and eroding trust in the industry.
Finally, the acquisition could have implications for the broader cultural impact of gaming.
Activision Blizzard King has been involved in controversies related to workplace culture and allegations of harassment and discrimination.
Addressing these issues and fostering a more inclusive and diverse gaming community should be a priority.
However, the acquisition raises questions about how these matters will be handled and whether meaningful change will be prioritized alongside financial considerations. In conclusion, the Microsoft-Activision acquisition has far-reaching implications that extend beyond the realm of console competition.
It affects publishers, developers, retailers, and the gaming ecosystem as a whole.
While vertical competition between consoles is a part of the equation, it is crucial to consider the broader impact on innovation, diversity, monetization practices, and cultural issues.
The future of the gaming industry hangs in the balance, and the decisions made in the wake of this acquisition will shape its trajectory for years to come.
A Significant Blow to the Gaming Media Industry? At a time when IGN is implementing employee layoffs, Gamekult is shutting down in France, and gaming media outlets worldwide are facing substantial challenges, the consolidation of Activision's franchises under Microsoft's control poses a clear threat. Even prior to the emergence of GamePass, Xbox has historically invested less in media advertising compared to Playstation.
There is concern that this trend will extend to the flagship franchises of the Santa Monica-based publisher, or that investments will diminish for games included in the GamePass.
This puts hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue at risk for gaming media outlets. It is worth noting that we are not referring to television, where Xbox investments are rare exceptions and significantly smaller in scale compared to Sony's.
Instead, we are focusing on the gaming websites that we rely on daily for information and that serve as driving forces within the gaming industry.
When was the last time we witnessed a massive worldwide campaign for the launch of Forza, Gears, or Halo? In contrast, Playstation consistently and extensively supports all its releases. The campaigns for GamePass cannot replace the substantial funding that has disappeared.
As evident, the debate encompasses far more than just vertical competition among console manufacturers and an escalated console war. It jeopardizes the delicate balance within the gaming ecosystem, including creativity, opportunities that GamePass still offers to smaller market players, the survival of other significant franchises in this new system, struggling retailers, and media outlets facing their own challenges.
While it is not our role to make decisions, it is crucial that we all remain aware of these implications. Microsoft's proficiency in leveraging a dominant position, as observed in the cases of Office and Windows, serves as a reminder of the potential consequences. Thanks for reading Hugues"
I just thought, since the CMA said MS and ABK are not allowed to coordinate together, does that mean they cannot renegoiate the deal when/if it falls through in July? And then they put a 10 year ban on MS trying to buy abk again? Am i reading too much into that first part?
This acquisition deal will die on July 18th once the window they had in their deal to complete it is over. They always can renegotiate it to extend that window and continue the process appealing the FTC and CMA decisions until the past possible appealing, something I think it's what MS will do.
If after all the appealings there's still some regulator blocking the deal, the deal will be totally dead. At that point, I assume that MS may be able to try it again but in other conditions more appealing for these regulators: maybe something like what CMA suggested: to separate CoD and its teams into a different company that would be sold to someone not owned by MS, and to allow MS buy the rest of ABK.
These xbox die hards arent even gamers, much less Old head gamers. Its a cult now. It started off as an astroturf campaign with influencers and has spiraled into a cult. Phil spencer is never held accountable its always somebody else fault like sony or the cma or whoever their new enemy is.
What is very surprising, however, and perhaps due to the intense lobbying deployed by the Redmond-based company, is the deafening silence of the other market players.
Nintendo does not express itself or does so very sparingly, which almost amounts to supporting Microsoft.
One can imagine that the company that produces the Switch console would not necessarily see a weakening of its Japanese competitor in a bad light.
Independent developers, at least those "boosted by GamePass," are careful not to take sides against Microsoft, and even major publishers, who are increasingly integrating their catalogs into GamePass and have no interest in falling out with Xbox, remain silent, which amounts to supporting Microsoft.
At the same time, it is worth noting the little success Sony has had in finding allies in this fight, as if everyone knew the outcome of the conflict in advance and wanted to preserve their relationship with the firm led by Phil Spencer.
2/2 Another concern is the potential for increased monetization and the impact on player experiences. Activision Blizzard King has faced criticism in the past for its aggressive monetization practices, which have sometimes been perceived as predatory.
With Microsoft's emphasis on services like GamePass and the goal of maximizing revenue, there is a risk that such practices could become even more prevalent, potentially alienating players and eroding trust in the industry.
Finally, the acquisition could have implications for the broader cultural impact of gaming.
Activision Blizzard King has been involved in controversies related to workplace culture and allegations of harassment and discrimination.
Addressing these issues and fostering a more inclusive and diverse gaming community should be a priority.
However, the acquisition raises questions about how these matters will be handled and whether meaningful change will be prioritized alongside financial considerations. In conclusion, the Microsoft-Activision acquisition has far-reaching implications that extend beyond the realm of console competition.
It affects publishers, developers, retailers, and the gaming ecosystem as a whole.
While vertical competition between consoles is a part of the equation, it is crucial to consider the broader impact on innovation, diversity, monetization practices, and cultural issues.
The future of the gaming industry hangs in the balance, and the decisions made in the wake of this acquisition will shape its trajectory for years to come.
A Significant Blow to the Gaming Media Industry? At a time when IGN is implementing employee layoffs, Gamekult is shutting down in France, and gaming media outlets worldwide are facing substantial challenges, the consolidation of Activision's franchises under Microsoft's control poses a clear threat. Even prior to the emergence of GamePass, Xbox has historically invested less in media advertising compared to Playstation.
There is concern that this trend will extend to the flagship franchises of the Santa Monica-based publisher, or that investments will diminish for games included in the GamePass.
This puts hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue at risk for gaming media outlets. It is worth noting that we are not referring to television, where Xbox investments are rare exceptions and significantly smaller in scale compared to Sony's.
Instead, we are focusing on the gaming websites that we rely on daily for information and that serve as driving forces within the gaming industry.
When was the last time we witnessed a massive worldwide campaign for the launch of Forza, Gears, or Halo? In contrast, Playstation consistently and extensively supports all its releases. The campaigns for GamePass cannot replace the substantial funding that has disappeared.
As evident, the debate encompasses far more than just vertical competition among console manufacturers and an escalated console war. It jeopardizes the delicate balance within the gaming ecosystem, including creativity, opportunities that GamePass still offers to smaller market players, the survival of other significant franchises in this new system, struggling retailers, and media outlets facing their own challenges.
While it is not our role to make decisions, it is crucial that we all remain aware of these implications. Microsoft's proficiency in leveraging a dominant position, as observed in the cases of Office and Windows, serves as a reminder of the potential consequences. Thanks for reading Hugues"
"Bobby Kotick, chief executive of Activision, strongly hinted on Monday that his company would now expand into EU countries instead of Britain. Mr Kotick said: “We intend to meaningfully expand our investment and workforce throughout the EU, and we’re excited for the benefits our transaction...
www.installbaseforum.com
And he still remained calm after all these attacks
Analyst Brian Fitzgerald just said that the Activision deal could be going on for at least 18 months…I’m really bummed out with this crap. View attachment 1369
I disagree that the EU and CMA's view on the cloud market contradict eachother that much. Their main point of contention was whether or not behavioral remedies were enough to solve the problem.
Analyst Brian Fitzgerald just said that the Activision deal could be going on for at least 18 months…I’m really bummed out with this crap. View attachment 1369
I disagree that the EU and CMA's view on the cloud market contradict eachother that much. Their main point of contention was whether or not behavioral remedies were enough to solve the problem.
It doesn't contradict at all. They're reaching because they're desperate for a lifeline. Also, this keeps the bots engaged and giving them clicks, which gives them money.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.eurogamer.net
www.installbaseforum.com
#Microsoft#ABK#Activision... Just a few thoughts! English first. 
