Jump to content

Microsoft is buying Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion [FTC sues to stop - CMA issues updated preliminary findings]


waltdisneypixar

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Valtekken173 said:

I absolutely do not care about market consolidation when it comes to getting Activision's current management to fuck off. Same goes for EA, for example.

 

Sony doesn't need to acquire companies with money exclusively. A variety of options is on the table, including stock+money and debt+money, or any combination of the aforementioned means. As for Capcom, everybody says they don't want to sell until they sell (see Insomniac for ages before being acquired by Sony).

 

I disagree. I think Kotick and his clique will fuck off. Maybe not immediately, but they're done, 100%. Hell, Kotick's style of management is at odds with Microsoft's management style, where Xbox is concerned at least. Makes no sense to keep him and his gang there.

 

Isn't EA much better now than it used to be? Maybe I've missed it, but I'm pretty sure EA doesn't get the same level of hate that they used to either.

 

Capcom is a family business. As such I'm pretty sure that unlike the usual with companies where if you make a big enough offer you pretty much force them to sell as management is duty bound to do the thing that makes the most money possible for shareholders, management at Capcom can just reject it with no problem. I'm sure you've heard, but family business does have some added value to people over in Japan (hence why even in tech you have companies like Capcom and Konami who are set up like that) so having the company in the family name and having a legacy might be worth more to them than making a lot of short term money. Which to me is to be commended. Too many companies are too easily bought.

 

Why would it be at odds exactly? If he was in charge of Xbox itself then you'd have a point (not impossible that happens by the way. If even an incompetent like Spencer can have Nadella wrapped around his finger than imagine what a "killer" like Kotick might be able to do). Kotick managing as he does at an Activision under Microsoft wouldn't cause any problems as Microsoft's policy is to be hands off and let each of their top managers do as they like, which is terrible for Xbox as so many are incompetent.

 

55 minutes ago, RadiantFlamberge said:

I hate to say it, but this actually has me rooting wholeheartedly for Xbox SX/SS to fail like Sega Dreamcast. Not that Dreamcast deserved to tank, but Xbox sure does. Let Xbox become another Sega... out of the console business, but still around as a 3rd party for PC, Sony, and Nintendo.

 

This is the second time they've tried to destroy gaming as we know it. First time was the Xbox One. Nothing wrong with at this point just wanting this entity that is constantly attacking to just go away for good.

 

As for quitting Xbox and becoming the biggest third party. While better than the now it itself is a disgusting thought as none of that would be earned, but thankfully I don't believe it would last anyway. Microsoft is in gaming because they have their dream of domination. If gaming becomes in such a way that Microsoft sees no path towards such a thing than their interest in having games evaporates. Gaming makes little for a company like Microsoft and has already lost them massive amounts of money (how much who knows as they hide the figures). As such they'll either keep studios up until they start underperforming which considering Xbox management would be instantly the moment Microsoft no longer tolerates losses, hence why when Spencer first took over he was closing down studio after studio to get "lean" even though that went completely against what he actually wanted to do but had no choice in the matter due to Microsoft not being as tolerant with losses as they currently are at the time. Or, they'll look to sell off their studios straight away and make some quick money back, perhaps keeping a few just so they have a presence and can keep up with some developments that happen in tech.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

Isn't EA much better now than it used to be? Maybe I've missed it, but I'm pretty sure EA doesn't get the same level of hate that they used to either.

 

Capcom is a family business. As such I'm pretty sure that unlike the usual with companies where if you make a big enough offer you pretty much force them to sell as management is duty bound to do the thing that makes the most money possible for shareholders, management at Capcom can just reject it with no problem. I'm sure you've heard, but family business does have some added value to people over in Japan (hence why even in tech you have companies like Capcom and Konami who are set up like that) so having the company in the family name and having a legacy might be worth more to them than making a lot of short term money. Which to me is to be commended. Too many companies are too easily bought.

 

Why would it be at odds exactly? If he was in charge of Xbox itself then you'd have a point (not impossible that happens by the way. If even an incompetent like Spencer can have Nadella wrapped around his finger than imagine what a "killer" like Kotick might be able to do). Kotick managing as he does at an Activision under Microsoft wouldn't cause any problems as Microsoft's policy is to be hands off and let each of their top managers do as they like, which is terrible for Xbox as so many are incompetent.

EA can be as good as they want, I know what lurks under their shiny surface. They're pieces of shit at heart so long as that management is there. They will lay low for a while, make one or two projects the fans want and then go back to anti-consumer bullshit.

 

I know that Capcom is a family business, but again...everybody says they won't sell, until they actually do. Everyone has a price. Not to mention Sony is Japanese, so they have a much easier path towards acquisition.

 

He's at odds with Spencer's style. Spencer's tried not to throw in microtransactions in recent MS games, at least when those games are full price games. Activision's entire current business model IS microtransactions. The two models cannot coexist under Spencer and Xbox at large, and considering Spencer would be the boss in this arrangement (and no, the fact that Acti would stay as a separate brand and business unit doesn't matter because they'd still be answering to Spencer)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are we just going to gloss over the fact that Halo: Infinite - a huge release for Xbox that's also part of their biggest/flagship IP - has microtransactions, or...?

 

Either way, this deal going through would benefit Kotick and his cronies more than anything, while also having a far broader and negative industry-wide effect.

Edited by Zephrese
Felt too wordy. lol
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted the above in its own thread as while somewhat related to this matter, it's also its own thing and very serious. 

 

2 hours ago, Valtekken173 said:

EA can be as good as they want, I know what lurks under their shiny surface. They're pieces of shit at heart so long as that management is there. They will lay low for a while, make one or two projects the fans want and then go back to anti-consumer bullshit.

 

I know that Capcom is a family business, but again...everybody says they won't sell, until they actually do. Everyone has a price. Not to mention Sony is Japanese, so they have a much easier path towards acquisition.

 

He's at odds with Spencer's style. Spencer's tried not to throw in microtransactions in recent MS games, at least when those games are full price games. Activision's entire current business model IS microtransactions. The two models cannot coexist under Spencer and Xbox at large, and considering Spencer would be the boss in this arrangement (and no, the fact that Acti would stay as a separate brand and business unit doesn't matter because they'd still be answering to Spencer)...

 

I don't follow EA's stuff as I don't care for them so I can't comment if they're being fake about it or if they've really changed. I get what you're saying though obviously, never bought Microsoft's act of being good guys either and recent events keep proving me being right to do so.

 

They would have it easier perhaps yes, but there really has been no indication Capcom will want to sell. Capcom some time back maybe sure as they weren't doing great, but for a long time now Capcom is at the top of their game.

 

Spencer? The guy who keeps failing guys at Xbox even though they should have been fired several times over? That Spencer? I'm pretty sure Kotick would eat Spencer up in one bite, figuratively speaking. @Zephrese also makes an excellent point. If Kotick wants to do those things and Spencer actually musters up the courage to tell him no for whatever reason, Kotick can always go above Spencer. Who is Microsoft management going to trust is correct? Their new best friend who is well known for being an excellent operator? Or Spencer who even with massive backing has been completely unable to gain any ground against Sony for a great many years now?

 

Like I've said, be very careful what you wish for because it certainly is not completely impossible they end up at some point putting Kotick in charge of Xbox. Hopefully we won't have to worry at all about that and this deal gets scrapped, but the odds are currently low (not impossible) so we'll see.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

I don't follow EA's stuff as I don't care for them so I can't comment if they're being fake about it or if they've really changed. I get what you're saying though obviously, never bought Microsoft's act of being good guys either and recent events keep proving me being right to do so.

 

They would have it easier perhaps yes, but there really has been no indication Capcom will want to sell. Capcom some time back maybe sure as they weren't doing great, but for a long time now Capcom is at the top of their game.

 

Spencer? The guy who keeps failing guys at Xbox even though they should have been fired several times over? That Spencer? I'm pretty sure Kotick would eat Spencer up in one bite, figuratively speaking. @Zephrese also makes an excellent point. If Kotick wants to do those things and Spencer actually musters up the courage to tell him no for whatever reason, Kotick can always go above Spencer. Who is Microsoft management going to trust is correct? Their new best friend who is well known for being an excellent operator? Or Spencer who even with massive backing has been completely unable to gain any ground against Sony for a great many years now?

 

Like I've said, be very careful what you wish for because it certainly is not completely impossible they end up at some point putting Kotick in charge of Xbox. Hopefully we won't have to worry at all about that and this deal gets scrapped, but the odds are currently low (not impossible) so we'll see.

I don't think any of these companies are good guys, tbh. Their motive is profit, the only difference between them is whether they also provide something with decent artistic value in that pursuit. We've been through this song and dance with EA before though, so I'm even more skeptical than I would be with others.

 

I know there's no indication they'd want to sell. I said I want Sony to buy them, not that Capcom is looking to sell. If I were making such an argument I'd be talking about Ubisoft, which is basically collapsing and has been laughed out of every room it tried to sell itself in.

 

Tbh I don't care for Spencer's performance, I'm only highlighting how Spencer's style isn't compatible with Kotick's style. Kotick will have to answer to Spencer no matter what because Spencer is the head of any Microsoft gaming business. Microsoft certainly seems to trust his guidance enough to drop $70 billion on Activision, at least. Kotick is good with shareholders, but when you have to answer to somebody higher up the chain rather than shareholders directly, you'll find that the priorities you were hired to attend to are no longer there. I'd also like to add that I willingly ignored Halo Infinite because it's free to play in the microtransactions-riddled part, so I have zero issues with that. I did specify "full price".

 

I doubt that will ever happen. The deal will go through, Kotick and his gang will fuck off and Spencer will have to prove that this acquisition was worth it. It'll be interesting to see him try and produce any results that aren't bound to Game Pass since most of the Xbox Game Studios efforts so far have resulted in little to no releases in the first place (any releases that were entirely created and developed under Microsoft's management, that is).

Edited by Valtekken173
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Valtekken173 said:

I'd also like to add that I willingly ignored Halo Infinite because it's free to play in the microtransactions-riddled part, so I have zero issues with that. I did specify "full price".

 

You did, but the fact they did it at all - and with one of their biggest IPs, no less - proves that they are certainly not above doing what Activision has been for years.

Edited by Zephrese
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zephrese said:

 

You did, but the fact they did it at all - and with one of their biggest IPs, no less - proves that they are certainly not above doing what Activision has been for years.

No company is above that. What I did say, and I was very specific in doing so, is that Spencer has "tried not to throw in microtransactions in recent MS games, at least when those games are full price games", which doesn't seem factually wrong in any way to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Valtekken173 said:

No company is above that. What I did say, and I was very specific in doing so, is that Spencer has "tried not to throw in microtransactions in recent MS games, at least when those games are full price games", which doesn't seem factually wrong in any way to me.

 

I'm just saying that him "trying" clearly doesn't mean much of anything when Xbox's biggest IP has succumbed to it.

The distinction between full-price and "free" is irrelevant to the intent behind it. 

Edited by Zephrese
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Zephrese said:

 

I'm just saying that him "trying" clearly doesn't mean much of anything when Xbox's biggest IP has succumbed to it.

The distinction between full-price and "free" is irrelevant to the intent behind it. 

It's very relevant. It at the very least shows that they're aware that mtx in a full price title would cause a shitstorm and be very much rejected by people. Mtx in a free to play title are widely accepted for obvious reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Valtekken173 said:

It's very relevant. Mtx in a free to play title are widely accepted for obvious reasons.

 

Not really because it doesn't change the intention behind including it in the first place, as I already mentioned. Saying that the distinction matters for subjective and personal reasons also doesn't change the intent behind the inclusion of MTX. It being "widely accepted" doesn't mean it's a good thing (it's not), nor change the intention behind including MTX to begin with either, but that's a topic for another time.

Edited by Zephrese
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Zephrese said:

Not really because it doesn't change the intention behind including it in the first place, as I already mentioned. Saying that the distinction matters for subjective and personal reasons also doesn't change the intent behind the inclusion of MTX. It being "widely accepted" doesn't mean it's a good thing (it's not), nor change the intention behind including MTX to begin with either, but that's a topic for another time.

This isn't just about me or a majority of people being okay with mtx in free to play games. This is about mtx in free to play games being the only way to make those games make sense. Why would mtx not be okay in free to play games? It's the only revenue stream those games have. The intent behind including mtx in those games is making them financially viable. The intent behind including mtx in full price games is pure and unadulterated greed. Surely you understand how the two intents are not even remotely comparable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Valtekken173 said:

This isn't just about me or a majority of people being okay with mtx in free to play games. This is about mtx in free to play games being the only way to make those games make sense. Why would mtx not be okay in free to play games? It's the only revenue stream those games have. The intent behind including mtx in those games is making them financially viable. The intent behind including mtx in full price games is pure and unadulterated greed. Surely you understand how the two intents are not even remotely comparable.

 

Surely you understand that Microsoft didn't need - financially or otherwise - to put MTX into Halo (again, one of their biggest and most lucrative IPs), and more than likely only made it free to play so as to push said MTX more easily. It's less greedy than making you pay for the game (or, in this case, the multiplayer specifically), sure, but greed is still the name of the game. If you can't read between the lines to see their intentions, that's a you problem.

Edited by Zephrese
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zephrese said:

 

Surely you understand that Microsoft didn't need - financially or otherwise - to put MTX into Halo (again, one of their biggest and most lucrative IPs), and more than likely only made it free to play so as to push said MTX more easily. It's less greedy than making you pay for the game (or, in this case, the multiplayer specifically), sure, but greed is still the name of the game.

This isn't a matter of needing it, this is a matter of choosing an audience for the game. They chose to expand the audience for the Halo multiplayer and keep the audience for the singleplayer smaller (in relative terms). I wouldn't call it greedy, pushing mtx in a free to play game is literally just saying "we won't make you pay $70, a $2 skin will be enough". Tons more people who would otherwise not even touch Halo at least tried the multiplayer mode this way. It's just a business choice, but it's far from a greedy one (mainly because it was a gamble and it might have very well failed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Valtekken173 said:

It's just a business choice, but it's far from a greedy one (mainly because it was a gamble and it might have very well failed).

 

It's still incredibly greedy, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Edited by Zephrese
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2023 at 7:37 PM, Rozalia1 said:

Isn't EA much better now than it used to be? Maybe I've missed it, but I'm pretty sure EA doesn't get the same level of hate that they used to either.

I think EA has come around some. I'm watching them now for Mass Effect 5. ME5 is a day one for me, while Starfield is something I'll wait a bit on (and I'll buy it for PC, not Xbox). Capcom is just fine as well. SF5 was a little disappointing, but then SF6 looks like it'll make up for 5's missteps.

 

May EA and Capcom never be in Microsoft's crosshairs. Best that they stay independent of any console makers.

 

MTX may be fine in free-to-play games, but I'd prefer an option to buy a Premium Edition. Some premium games with MP and SP modes should give you an a la carte option. For example, a CoD or Battlefield game could offer you either the campaign or MP content alone for $40, or the entire package for $70 (the usual price for a current CoD).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is a tough one. On one hand can I buy that Netease made such threats towards Activision? Yes. On the other hand Netease claiming that Activision is lying and this is part of their harassment campaign against companies and regulators worldwide? I can buy that 100%. As we've seen with Activision's behaviour towards Sony, management does not care about burning bridges as the management knows they're finished if the deal fails so they're all in on this and don't care who they have to malign to get it. In regards to China they obviously did have some manner of bust up there and the Chinese regulator is one of the ones that if they say no then the deal is dead. We've all seen the manner of games they've been playing against the FTC and CMA, trying to put together a narrative where they better pass the deal or the narrative Microsoft's PR machine has created will show them as corrupt for not passing it. As such, I can believe this is a message to the Chinese regulator that if China says no then the narrative will be that China is corrupt and getting petty revenge on Activision after the brave American company didn't give in to those damn dirty reds. We'll see how that works out. Playing this sort of game and attempting to bully China tends to not be well advised because if the narrative becomes that China is weak and surrendering to Activision by passing the deal, then China would rather risk harming themselves and stop the deal if that would make them look strong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Forgive the source.

 

I find it absolutely bizarre that Microsoft (It was Activision yes, but anything they do currently is signed off by Microsoft) decided to make an enemy out of NetEase by smearing their name recently. I get the plan, smear NetEase in such a way that NetEase raising a complaint would imply their smear to be true and so NetEase will be scared into not raising a complaint... except and they should know this, that does not work with Chinese companies. Microsoft as usual doing things as if they're in America.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said:

 

Forgive the source.

 

I find it absolutely bizarre that Microsoft (It was Activision yes, but anything they do currently is signed off by Microsoft) decided to make an enemy out of NetEase by smearing their name recently. I get the plan, smear NetEase in such a way that NetEase raising a complaint would imply their smear to be true and so NetEase will be scared into not raising a complaint... except and they should know this, that does not work with Chinese companies. Microsoft as usual doing things as if they're in America.

And the story continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a rumor now that if this merger goes through, Sony will attempt to buy Take Two for 20bn

 

Not a bad idea on paper, kind of a " if you make CoD exclusive, we make GTA exclusive"?

 

 

 

Would this even be possible/realistic?

Edited by AJ_-_808
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't put any stock in that guy. Comments make it pretty clear this guy just makes guesses hoping they'll be right so he'll get credibility.

 

Anyway, responses to the CMA's 180 are up.

 

Microsoft's response: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/642e9ac67de82b000c31375c/Microsoft_response.pdf

Sony's response: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/642e9aee7de82b0012313735/SIE_response.pdf

 

First time that Sony's response has been larger than Microsoft's which usually would be x2-3 times larger. The PR machine is at full power as you'd expect. Microsoft can call regulators irrational, they can say that the FTC is not fit for purpose and unamerican, they can race bait, but if Sony says the CMA's unprecedented massive 180 is irrational then how dare they. The usual hypocrisy. 

 

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/90986/sony-identifies-4-errors-with-cmas-data-model-says-is-off-by-at-least-70/index.html

 

This is interesting. Sony claims that what the CMA used for their massive 180 (which Microsoft helped with) is inaccurate by 70%. If this were to cause the CMA to 180 again, for a 360, then that would be something.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it'll change anything but I like how Sonys lawyers called microsoft out on their hypocrisy  in regards to the zenimax acquisition and that their minecraft equivalence was a stretched truth considering they did block its presence on other platforms.. I'd be really interested on seeing how much Sony would actually have to pay Microsoft for a Call of Duty game since they seem to imply it'll be more than what Activision charged despite their claims of easing any barriers in putting the game on PS+ to give similar access along the lines of gamepass.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...