$3 billion down the toilet, around the same amount sony scooped up bungie for. The same studio that put xbox on the map ouch.
10s of millions spent on lawyers fees
Embarassing behaviour of execs all in the public eye now, and embarassing statements from the likes of spencer that will be used against him in the future
Precedent being set to prevent them from future big purchases
We have documents showing xbox poor performance
Put more money into marketing this deal then marketing xbox, while they continue to bleed marketshare. At this point the gen is over.
Folks lose their jobs for less, heads will roll and they will go for xbox execs imo.
Reddit is where I spend a majority of my time. Tried to reply to Microsoft's little helper /u/Cyshox earlier only to discover he had blocked me. I guess that's his MO. Block anyone who disagrees with him, that way he can shill for Microsoft without opposition.
My twitter timeline (Im banned so its just suggested accounts to follow) is nothing but Microsoft AI bot accounts touting the EU decision, attacking the cma, taking the cma out of context to make it seem like theyre saying something theye not, or saying MS really will abandon the uk market if this doesnt go through. How has no regulator been asked to take a look at fake viral marketing like this? If you were casual joe know nothing gamer, youd think xbox was the most popular console out there and everyone loves it.
I will add none of these bot accounts have that much engagement, maybe a couple hundred likes and retweets, probably all from each other.
Reddit is where I spend a majority of my time. Tried to reply to Microsoft's little helper /u/Cyshox earlier only to discover he had blocked me. I guess that's his MO. Block anyone who disagrees with him, that way he can shill for Microsoft without opposition.
There's another guy on there called selenex. Dude is extremely negative about any and all things Playstation. Makes PlanetSmasher on era look like a cheerleader shill by comparison.
My twitter timeline is nothing but Microsoft AI bot accounts touting the EU decision, attacking the cma [...] How has no regulator been asked to take a look at fake viral marketing like this?
There's a peculiar divergence somewhere. PlayStation currently enjoys a larger share of the market, yet Xbox dominates social media by several orders of magnitude. Pro Microsoft commentary in journalism, consultancies, and search algorithms.
There's another guy on there called selenex. Dude is extremely negative about any and all things Playstation. Makes PlanetSmasher on era look like a cheerleader shill by comparison.
Oh, there's an entire army of accounts that promote Microsoft's interests daily. I've exposed many of them. Reddit is no different in that sense. It's frustrating when they work together to push misleading information to the front page, where millions of people are influenced by it. It can be worse than ResetEra in that sense.
There's a peculiar divergence somewhere. PlayStation currently enjoys a larger share of the market, yet Xbox dominates social media by several orders of magnitude. Pro Microsoft commentary in journalism, consultancies, and search algorithms.
Most of these accounts in social media are bots
Everyone knows this
Nobody gives a shit about the Xbox brand
Also lots of alts xbots accounts are getting banned in neogaf right now
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
His conclusions are correct but publishers are acting in the same way he attributes to Nintendo: self-servingly. No one, including retail where Xbox has a shrinking, almost vanishing, presence, is worried about staying on Microsoft's good side. They can see the writing on the wall because they have access to the low sales numbers and declining engagement. Publishers were unphased because locking up Call of Duty (or incentivising its user base to move to Xbox on GP) opens up the door for more sales of their COD competitors on PlayStation.
And I object to the categorisation of Microsoft's countering of arguments through the signing of deals as skillful. The CMA saw right through them and dismissed their effectiveness.
The clowns really believe CMA made a math error... I swear, they believe any crap that goes on their way.
If they made a math error, why hasn't MS contested this error? lol
The clowns really believe CMA made a math error... I swear, they believe any crap that goes on their way.
If they made a math error, why hasn't MS contested this error? lol
Best thing is it's immaterial. The CMA says a different current market share wouldn't change their position because they're not so short-sighted as to look at the market now and immediately after a hypothetical merger and give it the thumbs up.
Something just dawned on me while responding to some people on Twitter: since Sony automatically fall into the definition of being a cloud service provider (same way MS does), that technically means they are granted cloud access to all ABK games for the next 10 years similar to Boosteroid, Nvidia and others .
Now, that doesn't mean they will get native PS4/5 versions of all ABK games. It also doesn't mean the cloud version of the games they get would be PlayStation ones; if the game has a native PlayStation version then the cloud version would also be the PlayStation version. For other games Sony would have to either facilitate a cloud streaming platform on PC, some form of Game Pass on PlayStation (not happening), or just announce their own partnership with a BYOG cloud provider like Boosteroid tied to a PS+ subscription to stream PC versions of ABK games on PlayStation systems.
However, the options are clearly there and Sony would still be exempt from paying a license to Microsoft for cloud streaming privilege of those games same way Nintendo, Nvidia, Boosteroid etc. are. This REALLY shows how much EC kind of neutered Microsoft's attempts with the original 10-year deal; there's not only that, but also the fact all ABK games are included in this, including console games (in MS's press release for the Boosteroid deal, ABK console games are explicitly NOT mentioned, just ABK PC games...and ABK have several games without PC ports), means that technically, even if Sony does not get native ports of ABK games going forward, the EC's ruling requires they have the right to get cloud versions of ALL of ABK's games anyway.
No wonder Brad Smith's tweets yesterday seemed oddly deflated and why there hasn't been a lot of showboating from people like Lulu or Florian; I doubt even "professionals" like Hoeg Law have figured this out due to their swiftness to attack the CMA. At least when it comes to the cloud side of things the more I think of the EC's decision the more it sounds like a temporary divestiture, just without actually calling it a divestiture. Seen someone else mention that too, they were on the money. I genuinely don't think the EC's concessions are what MS wanted but they took them because having all three big regulators shut the deal down would just look terrible.
I know a lot of people are upset with the EC and their approach is different from the CMA's for sure, but I'm starting to low-key think they made a genius move in their own little way. The only thing being, it's temporary (10 years), and it seems MS still get 100% proceeds from MTX in-app purchases of sales in the games through the providers, something companies like Sony obviously contest (I wonder if Sony can raise the cut they take from ABK games sold through PS store as a result, say to 40% instead of 30%, to make up for it?). The CMA and FTC seem to want more permanent solutions, but I still think it's kind of hilarious MS have seemingly accepted a temporary divestiture on the cloud side of things.
EDIT: Also FWIW I did watch the Jez7780 podcast last night and he pointed some of these things out as well; the fuller implications of the EC's remedies didn't hit me until getting into a debate on Twitter about it though. And the workarounds I described for Sony, are equally viable for Nintendo as well.
Something just dawned on me while responding to some people on Twitter: since Sony automatically fall into the definition of being a cloud service provider (same way MS does), that technically means they are granted cloud access to all ABK games for the next 10 years similar to Boosteroid, Nvidia and others .
Now, that doesn't mean they will get native PS4/5 versions of all ABK games. It also doesn't mean the cloud version of the games they get would be PlayStation ones; if the game has a native PlayStation version then the cloud version would also be the PlayStation version. For other games Sony would have to either facilitate a cloud streaming platform on PC, some form of Game Pass on PlayStation (not happening), or just announce their own partnership with a BYOG cloud provider like Boosteroid tied to a PS+ subscription to stream PC versions of ABK games on PlayStation systems.
However, the options are clearly there and Sony would still be exempt from paying a license to Microsoft for cloud streaming privilege of those games same way Nintendo, Nvidia, Boosteroid etc. are. This REALLY shows how much EC kind of neutered Microsoft's attempts with the original 10-year deal; there's not only that, but also the fact all ABK games are included in this, including console games (in MS's press release for the Boosteroid deal, ABK console games are explicitly NOT mentioned, just ABK PC games...and ABK have several games without PC ports), means that technically, even if Sony does not get native ports of ABK games going forward, the EC's ruling requires they have the right to get cloud versions of ALL of ABK's games anyway.
No wonder Brad Smith's tweets yesterday seemed oddly deflated and why there hasn't been a lot of showboating from people like Lulu or Florian; I doubt even "professionals" like Hoeg Law have figured this out due to their swiftness to attack the CMA. At least when it comes to the cloud side of things the more I think of the EC's decision the more it sounds like a temporary divestiture, just without actually calling it a divestiture. Seen someone else mention that too, they were on the money. I genuinely don't think the EC's concessions are what MS wanted but they took them because having all three big regulators shut the deal down would just look terrible.
In an unprecedented partnership with Blacknut Cloud Gaming, Sony will now include all ABK games on their service via PC cloud streaming at no additional cost. Micro-transactions are disabled to protect PlayStation costumers.
Something just dawned on me while responding to some people on Twitter: since Sony automatically fall into the definition of being a cloud service provider (same way MS does), that technically means they are granted cloud access to all ABK games for the next 10 years similar to Boosteroid, Nvidia and others .
Now, that doesn't mean they will get native PS4/5 versions of all ABK games. It also doesn't mean the cloud version of the games they get would be PlayStation ones; if the game has a native PlayStation version then the cloud version would also be the PlayStation version. For other games Sony would have to either facilitate a cloud streaming platform on PC, some form of Game Pass on PlayStation (not happening), or just announce their own partnership with a BYOG cloud provider like Boosteroid tied to a PS+ subscription to stream PC versions of ABK games on PlayStation systems.
However, the options are clearly there and Sony would still be exempt from paying a license to Microsoft for cloud streaming privilege of those games same way Nintendo, Nvidia, Boosteroid etc. are. This REALLY shows how much EC kind of neutered Microsoft's attempts with the original 10-year deal; there's not only that, but also the fact all ABK games are included in this, including console games (in MS's press release for the Boosteroid deal, ABK console games are explicitly NOT mentioned, just ABK PC games...and ABK have several games without PC ports), means that technically, even if Sony does not get native ports of ABK games going forward, the EC's ruling requires they have the right to get cloud versions of ALL of ABK's games anyway.
No wonder Brad Smith's tweets yesterday seemed oddly deflated and why there hasn't been a lot of showboating from people like Lulu or Florian; I doubt even "professionals" like Hoeg Law have figured this out due to their swiftness to attack the CMA. At least when it comes to the cloud side of things the more I think of the EC's decision the more it sounds like a temporary divestiture, just without actually calling it a divestiture. Seen someone else mention that too, they were on the money. I genuinely don't think the EC's concessions are what MS wanted but they took them because having all three big regulators shut the deal down would just look terrible.
I know a lot of people are upset with the EC and their approach is different from the CMA's for sure, but I'm starting to low-key think they made a genius move in their own little way. The only thing being, it's temporary (10 years), and it seems MS still get 100% proceeds from MTX in-app purchases of sales in the games through the providers, something companies like Sony obviously contest (I wonder if Sony can raise the cut they take from ABK games sold through PS store as a result, say to 40% instead of 30%, to make up for it?). The CMA and FTC seem to want more permanent solutions, but I still think it's kind of hilarious MS have seemingly accepted a temporary divestiture on the cloud side of things.
Do they usually close it after a verdict that the parties intend to appeal? I'd have thought that happens after the window to appeal has passed (if nothing is lodged).
Do they usually close it after a verdict that the parties intend to appeal? I'd have thought that happens after the window to appeal has passed (if nothing is lodged).
They’ll likely leave things as they are until the deadline date and announce the death of the deal due to the timeframe for an appeal being too long for the businesses to operate healthily with the restrictions and uncertainty.
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.
.
