I think that would be best for gaming but MSFT is so petty and horrible they would probably try to collapse gaming on the way out.
But if they leave in peace or go third party and become benign, then I would be happy out.
Microsoft's acquisition of Activison Blizzard
- Thread starter Darth Vader
- Start date
I think that would be best for gaming but MSFT is so petty and horrible they would probably try to collapse gaming on the way out.
But if they leave in peace or go third party and become benign, then I would be happy out.
I think the best case scenario is everything MS owns being PC-exclusive going forward. Good thing most of what they own are shitty PC devs they pulled into the console space anyway.
None because they’re arguing before the Eu, not the cma and isn’t the 22nd the deadline for when ms is supposed to respond to the cma. Also as we’ve seen time and time again, Microsoft’s lawyers and strategy is to assume regulators are ignorant about gaming when they’re actually quite in formed. And Sony apparently will be there in person to argue back and forth as well.
So Sony will get to explain in person why the 10 year licensing deal is not adequate?
Missed this, great insight there from Idas.
So we can see what they are anticipating...
I've also seen someone there claim that they would hire someone like that even if they only had to make a behavioral change, but I dunno. Going to be really interesting to see what Sony says at the hearing as well and who they send to make their arguments.
There's an awful lot of Xbox hardcore fanboys in that thread who are convinced this will go through nomatter what!
I mean, it could.... but they never had any doubt and think MSFT is entitled to it.
There are a few people worth reading in the thread, one is Idas. But I'd be selective enough in what I take seriously.
Game pass is their attempt to collapse gaming. A subscription model is completely unsustainable for entertainment industries that rely on new content. Microsoft's play was to subsidise this model, devalue gaming and/or force their competitors into a race to the bottom, and jack up the prices when they're the only game in town, or just profit off the Azure backbone. The development costs associated with AAA titles (>100m) or any 1st party title that isn't recouped in the slightest, and the requirement to pay 3rd parties to get content on the service can't possibly be covered by $15 per user per month.
It doesn't add up at all, or is a significantly worse revenue outcome for devs, for contained single player experiences unless people continue to sub beyond the time required to play a single title they subbed for (you'd need to increase a game's audience 2-4 fold to earn as much in a launch window based on current RRP) and no extra content is procured or developed by Ms 1st party.
The math gets exponentially worse when you factor in that GP is paying to host content outside of that single title, and the same users could pay the same monthly sub but play multiple games.
Turns out GP didn't kill the gaming business, but Microsoft's hardware business instead. It discourages purchases on Xbox, bleeds money and reduces tail end sales, drives more dev focus to competitors, and strengthens Xbox's competitors' positions.
I only scroll through it till I see an Idas post lol
Now I'm curious as to whether they anticipate a drop in value due to a failed or significantly limited merger or if this is just standard stock trading.Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway reduces its stakes in Activision Blizzard by 12.35%, and now holds a 6.7% stake:
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/JYPISFD7EZOFBHNLZZJR7JVKCQ.jpg)
Berkshire dumps shares in TSMC, banks; increases Apple stake
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc slashed its stake in Taiwanese contract chipmaker TSMC , as well as in some banks in the fourth quarter, while bolstering its holdings in Apple Inc .www.reuters.com
In other words, compete with console gaming as a whole instead. Which is what they should have done from day one.
They're shorting the stocks, it's fairly common whenever a company is in trouble.
Idas was confident at one point, he isn't anymore and it seems he understands how this things work. I do not and the only people confident right now are deluded fanboys.
Yeah, based on what I've been seeing from reading his stuff and others, the EU might be convinced by behavioral remedies, but the cma is less likely to be. MS may be hoping that if they can convince the EU to accept their proposed remedies, the CMA will be more likely to go along with what their neighbors did.
You've just described one of the biggest own goals in gaming history.
An entire plan undone the moment they played their hand with Bethesda. And an endeavour now seemingly unsustainable without huge IP to drive subscribers.
I also ponder if things could get worse, though it depends on the legal powers of regulators post acquisition which I'm no expert on.
One thing is clear though, regulators would not have approved the Bethesda acquisition knowing MS's true intentions to make the software exclusive. And phase 2 investigations allowed regulators to question MS on this decision and peak into future Bethesda software plans revealing another four unannounced exclusives.
So Phase 2 has allowed regulators to see MS's true intention with purchases, its willingness to withhold future software and sustain any loses and internal docs reveal its only true competitor (and its customers) most affected by this strategy. Like I said I'm no expert but I can't see regulators having this information and just allow it to continue and do nothing.
I don't agree with everything in this article, but it does have some interesting takes on a couple of the reasons why regulators have offered so much pushback on the deal.
www.google.com
Microsoft’s Billion-Dollar ‘Call of Duty’ Problem
Microsoft’s $69 billion takeover of Activision Blizzard seemed inevitable. Now government regulators around the world are trying to block the deal over … ‘Call of Duty’?
www.google.com