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

[Slava]

8 hours ago, Redgrave said:

Like yeah Bobby will be gone but in the end he got away with everything along with a big payout but people seem to have this bizarre idea that MicroSoft are some knight in shining armor here to save the day and that the company along with the games will just automatically be better

 

It's amusing, isn't it? I'm noticing the same thing. People are convinced that Activision's harassment culture will instantly disappear, and that Call of Duty will no longer have annual releases and become great again. And I'm reading that thinking "What makes you think so?". The second point especially. Yeah sure, they bought the company for 69 billion to stop its biggest money making machine. CoD makes the top selling games list every single year, I can't imagine Phil Spencer suddenly deciding to change that.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Slava

[AJ_Radio]

On 1/20/2022 at 1:22 PM, Eagle said:

People are already derailing this into an east vs. west "debate" (AKA people somehow still reeling from the "censorship" Sony did a while ago taking any opportunity they can get to rant about it)? Jeez... it was already bad enough when all the complaints were actually on topic, but I suppose nothing's bad enough that it can't get worse.

 

I already saw this coming a mile away when this topic was made. I think I'm starting to get too old to care about this nonsense, because it's our children who are going to be truly fucked in the long run here.

 

Then again, they're too busy playing on their parents iPad to know anything and by the time they get to be my age, the gaming industry will either be long dead or exist solely to make profit in the hands of a few corporations who control everything.

 

Bad news all around regardless of what people say. Microsoft's business tactics have been predatory and scummy for as long as we can remember. Going to have to side with Steve Jobs when it comes to his view of Microsoft, because he was absolutely right.

[TomataEighty9]

Gaming has been in constant change since The beginning. Everytime there is a change, people get mad. That is just how it is.

 

Sega is not making consoles anymore. We are not playing 8bit machines anymore, and soon The discs Will be gone too. It is part of life, change.

 

like it or hate it. I am sure gaming Will be cool and relevant, also in The future. Just in another form.

[Z1MZUM]

On 1/22/2022 at 5:36 AM, Elvick_ said:

Exceptions don’t disprove a rule. People like you who accept less than everything are why we’ll never get full bc ever again. Short of a legally dubious third party piece of hardware. 

 

People like me would be gamers, People like me will just buy what we want. People like me will have original Hardware modified or not.

 

We'll never get full BC anyway, Some effort is better then no effort. For Sony everything is Just a cash grab and everything they don't want just get's crippled. 

 

People like me are very happy with this Activision change even though no one knows what will happen. The state of Activision has gotten that toxic it's like buying anything published by them is like befriending a rapist.

 

I think we just need to settle down and lock the topic

Edited January 25, 2022 by Z1MZUM

[starcrunch061]

On 1/20/2022 at 3:43 PM, Eagle said:

 it's not actually about how the acquisition affects Sony's influence on the western market, as we've seen by the dozens of other topics derailed by the same kind of people - it's just an excuse to rant about the "censorship" thing and how the east is so much better because they aren't "woke" or whatever.

 

I feel like I contributed to this (and possibly started it), and it really wasn't my intention. I certainly have my issues with Jim Ryan, but it isn't the "wokeness" of Sony that bothers. It's his inability to react well.

 

Sony had a golden opportunity to make some real noise with its PSNow during the pandemic. And...they did nothing. The service was as staid and boring as it was at any time prior. It's still a pain to navigate, it still has a lackluster offering of games. MS has really brought Gamepass up. Sony had a chance to compete and they didn't.

 

Indie developers have publicly shown dissatisfaction towards Sony's indie policy, and this has nothing to do with "woke western Sony". Again, we can go in circles about who's to blame, but I tend to put such blame on leadership. 

 

On 1/20/2022 at 3:43 PM, Eagle said:

Disregarding that I believe Phil Spencer's latest tweet talking about how "Sony is an important part of their industry" shows that they aren't really competing with each other and seem rather happy to co-exist (which is why the "console war" thing gets more grating by the day, but I digress)...

 

Maybe Sony is an important part of their industry. But there are plenty of good reasons for the head of a tech outfit to make such claims in light of the regulator eye of Sauron. I couldn't care less about the "console war"...excepting the fact that I care about the object that I purchase and use. 

[TJ_Solo]

Quote

 

Sony had a golden opportunity to make some real noise with its PSNow during the pandemic. And...they did nothing. The service was as staid and boring as it was at any time prior. It's still a pain to navigate, it still has a lackluster offering of games. MS has really brought Gamepass up. Sony had a chance to compete and they didn't.

 

 

 

 

 

Shame how Sony just decided to give away free games instead of capitalize on a world wide global crisis. 

 

Quote

Indie developers have publicly shown dissatisfaction towards Sony's indie policy, and this has nothing to do with "woke western Sony". Again, we can go in circles about who's to blame, but I tend to put such blame on leadership. 

There was one dev complaining about normal industry wide practices but solely aiming at Sony.
This for some reason overshadows all of Shuei Yoshida and Adam Boyes have done for the Indiestation(a fun moniker people on social media made for Sony when indie games weren't viewed as a positive) 

Edited January 25, 2022 by TJ_Solo

[TomataEighty9]

2 minutes ago, TJ_Solo said:

 

 

Shame how Sony just decided to give away free games instead of capitalize on a world wide global crisis. 

 

What hindered them from doing that, AND fix their shit service?

Don't get me wrong, im a Sony man. I've had all playstations. And i will get ps5 when i can. But i gotta agree that Sony is not doing well enough right now on the services, compared to Microsoft.

[The_Mighty_Ducks]

I think companies should make an agreement between each other that all games that were not originally exclusive shall ALWAYS be available to other consoles when they aquire a 3rd party studio. 

 

 

 

 

[TomataEighty9]

1 hour ago, The_Mighty_Ducks said:

I think companies should make an agreement between each other that all games that were not originally exclusive shall ALWAYS be available to other consoles when they aquire a 3rd party studio. 

 

 

 

 

 

Why on earth would they do that? 

 

It's not a charity. It's business. 

 

If Microsoft pays almost 70 billion $ for studios, WHY should they not keep the games exclusive to their platform? come on man... 

 

That's just naive. 

Oh yeah, just a little extra thing to my post about Sony and their shitty service. The fact that psn store prices for DIGITAL games, is more often than not, more expensive than buying a PHYSICAL game, is so mindblowingly stupid, that i just can't understand who makes that shit up... No wonder Sony is losing ground to Microsoft.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Beyondthegrave07
Don't use "retarded" as a slur or insult.

[starcrunch061]

25 minutes ago, TomataEighty9 said:

Oh yeah, just a little extra thing to my post about Sony and their shitty service. The fact that psn store prices for DIGITAL games, is more often than not, more expensive than buying a PHYSICAL game, is so mindblowingly retarded, that i just can't understand who makes that shit up... No wonder Sony is losing ground to Microsoft.

 

Is it different with MS? I just assumed that both stores were the same.

 

But I do agree that, while I've found many great digital deals, it's very odd to see physical games get huge price cuts while the digital price remains the same. I bought FFXII (a steelbook version, no less) back in 2017 for $14.99. I'm well aware that the store is trying to shed stock, but still...it was $14.99. Checking PSPrices, you can currently grab a physical copy for $18.97 at Amazon.com in the US.

 

So naturally, the digital price...is $49.99.

Edited January 25, 2022 by starcrunch061

[TomataEighty9]

52 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

Is it different with MS? I just assumed that both stores were the same.

 

But I do agree that, while I've found many great digital deals, it's very odd to see physical games get huge price cuts while the digital price remains the same. I bought FFXII (a steelbook version, no less) back in 2017 for $14.99. I'm well aware that the store is trying to shed stock, but still...it was $14.99. Checking PSPrices, you can currently grab a physical copy for $18.97 at Amazon.com in the US.

 

So naturally, the physical price...is $49.99.

 

I honestly dont know how MS store is, price wise

But Sony is more stupid with prices online, than GameStop was in their store with used games being more expensive than NEW games haha

Edited January 25, 2022 by Beyondthegrave07
Don't use "retarded" as a slur or insult.

[starcrunch061]

On 1/22/2022 at 2:13 AM, Slava said:

It's amusing, isn't it? I'm noticing the same thing. People are convinced that Activision's harassment culture will instantly disappear, and that Call of Duty will no longer have annual releases and become great again. And I'm reading that thinking "What makes you think so?". The second point especially. Yeah sure, they bought the company for 69 billion to stop its biggest money making machine. CoD makes the top selling games list every single year, I can't imagine Phil Spencer suddenly deciding to change that.

 

Agreed as well. The whole "This is good because Kotick is gone!" is particularly nauseating. Bobby Kotick is likely going to get one of the greatest golden parachutes in history. It hardly sounds like something that is meant to discourage toxic culture.

[Aodir]

23 minutes ago, TomataEighty9 said:

I honestly dont know how MS store is, price wise

 

Every digital storefront acts the same, higher pricing versus physical occur in all of them. It has to do with inventory cost, where physical stores see the need to sell games asap to make room for new titles, digital just doesn't suffer from that so it keeps pricing up longer with virtually no competition. 

 

On the other hand, a year or so after release you'll see physical stores with much smaller stock of said title, likely still mid priced competing against the only thing decent that came with digital storefronts, the sales.

[Herwest299]

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by Herwest299

[Amonares]

On 1/19/2022 at 10:52 AM, Vergil said:

You do know Newcastle is like 10 times richer now?

Their owner, not the club. It's also money they'll never be able to spend and they still haven't done anything so far, that's why I'm putting Man City who have actually done something that's an equivalent of Microsoft's Activision Blizzard acquisition.

[Rozalia1]

7 hours ago, TomataEighty9 said:

 

Why on earth would they do that? 

 

It's not a charity. It's business. 

 

If Microsoft pays almost 70 billion $ for studios, WHY should they not keep the games exclusive to their platform? come on man... 

 

That's just naive. 

Oh yeah, just a little extra thing to my post about Sony and their shitty service. The fact that psn store prices for DIGITAL games, is more often than not, more expensive than buying a PHYSICAL game, is so mindblowingly stupid, that i just can't understand who makes that shit up... No wonder Sony is losing ground to Microsoft.

 

Microsoft certainly should seek to not have it on Sony/Nintendo platforms due to them being their competition (Microsoft is very arrogant to say otherwise). I take no issue with that itself. Their claim that they want their games on every platform is laughable though considering that if they were true to that, on top of Sony/Nintendo not being competition according to themselves, then why don't they put their games on those two platforms? The answer is obvious. 

 

As for digital game pricing, the story goes that the reason digital isn't cheaper is to not damage relations with the retailers that sell physical copies of games. Many might see this as nonsense but well, considering Microsoft is now straight up giving Gamestop a % of all digital game sales sold on Xboxes... good relations with retailers is serious business. Though, a point against that is... no one can pinpoint what exactly Microsoft gets out of that deal. My best guess is that if what physical game sales data we have is true is America too then Sony in some cases sells x4 more physical copies than Microsoft which meant Xbox started losing presence in stores, which only further causes them to sell less games physically. Anecdotal but I seem to recall reading comments from people in some places... France? That some stores over there straight up didn't stock Xbox games as Xbox's physical game sales were so poor. This was during the Xbox One period though, though I doubt much has changed since then. 

[DaivRules]

7 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said:

As for digital game pricing, the story goes that the reason digital isn't cheaper is to not damage relations with the retailers that sell physical copies of games.

Not a chance this is true. Wholesale price for physical console games to retailers is typically 20-35% of retail price at launch. $60 games typically cost the retailers around $12-18 dollars, depending on the volume the retailer orders. 
 

The only damage console manufacturers have been managing is the slow shift to a mainly digital or digital only release. The largest retailers in the US are ready to drop all floor space for a console manufacturer if they only release a digital only console. Those digital game cards were a negotiation from some of the largest publishers at the start of the PS4 era to assure retailers they’d still have a piece of the pie. 
 

The plan has always been to keep digital game prices on consoles high because PC is still rampant with piracy and they can keep margins. The absolute fallacy people bought into that digital goods will always drop in price over time was a fantasy suckers bought into. People point to Steam and expect prices to fall inline, but Steams only real competition is pirates, so they have to drop prices in hopes of convincing anyone to keep spending money on things others take as please. 
 

[RadiantFlamberge]

On 1/20/2022 at 5:12 PM, MidnightDragon said:

There's still gotta be a catch, but this may soothe some nerves.

 

https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2022/01/xbox-boss-expresses-desire-to-keep-call-of-duty-on-playstation-after-activision-buyout-is-complete

Nice. I did see this coming, given the CoD franchise being popular on both sides. Cutting off PS from future CoD installments would likely backfire. ActiBlizz (and for that matter, Bethesda's studios) will probably be expected to create some new Xbox exclusive franchises, though.

 

Will ActiBlizz be better or worse overall under Microsoft? I wouldn't bet a thousand dollars on the outcome. Ditching Kotick would be a good move, but it doesn't guarantee anything. ActiBlizz could end up getting someone better, or similarly bad.

 

I don't want to see people on the other side suffer. If a formerly PS exclusive game sees a port to Xbox, I see no harm in that. In fact, I'm pleased to see it get more exposure. Seeing Falcom games which were formerly PS exclusive also appear on PC and Nintendo Switch is more than fine with me... it's a great thing.

[Griffon234]

16 minutes ago, RadiantFlamberge said:

Nice. I did see this coming, given the CoD franchise being popular on both sides. Cutting off PS from future CoD installments would likely backfire. ActiBlizz (and for that matter, Bethesda's studios) will probably be expected to create some new Xbox exclusive franchises, though.

 

Will ActiBlizz be better or worse overall under Microsoft? I wouldn't bet a thousand dollars on the outcome. Ditching Kotick would be a good move, but it doesn't guarantee anything. ActiBlizz could end up getting someone better, or similarly bad.

 

I don't want to see people on the other side suffer. If a formerly PS exclusive game sees a port to Xbox, I see no harm in that. In fact, I'm pleased to see it get more exposure. Seeing Falcom games which were formerly PS exclusive also appear on PC and Nintendo Switch is more than fine with me... it's a great thing.

 

I'd imagine this holds true only for their current contractual obligations - similarly to how they have fulfilled their contractual obligations to Sony with Bethesda, and then everything beyond was announced exclusive for Xbox and PC.
 

 

I bet that it will be exclusive to Xbox and PC after the next three games.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Griffon234

[Septic_Phlegm]

All of this is because Xbox owners constantly complained about having no new games to play.

 

Soon they will have hundreds, but how many of them will be any good?

 

This will likely harm gaming, not enhance it.

[EverythingOnFire]

9 hours ago, RadiantFlamberge said:

Nice. I did see this coming, given the CoD franchise being popular on both sides. Cutting off PS from future CoD installments would likely backfire. ActiBlizz (and for that matter, Bethesda's studios) will probably be expected to create some new Xbox exclusive franchises, though.

 

I agree. Microsoft will hoard some of the Bethesda titles, but each CoD game is a guaranteed 8-to-15 million units sold on Playstation. It would be extremely foolish to piss off millions of gamers and lose out on all that money.

 

I think the worst case scenario is that they'll require PS CoD players to have a Microsoft account, like they did with Halo players on Steam. That's a win-win-win; it would satisfy most consumers, make them a ton of extra cash, and they'd still get to grow the Microsoft gaming ecosystem. 

[Rozalia1]

Sony's contracts with those Microsoft buys is why those games will be coming to PlayStation. Once the period ends then unless Microsoft's gaming money pit gets closed future CoD games will be console exclusives. Unlike Bethesda these contracts are lengthier and as such very useful to Sony in giving them time to try and build their own big multiplayer titles. It was said before all this that Sony had in fact been focusing more on multiplayer titles and it looks like they were very wise to do so considering this happening. TLOU Factions 2 and Twisted Metal are multiplayer titles we know are coming but they surely will be putting forward more titles to help build them up on PlayStation for when titles like CoD are taken, as you can't count on the American courts stopping Microsoft.

 

17 hours ago, DaivRules said:

Not a chance this is true. Wholesale price for physical console games to retailers is typically 20-35% of retail price at launch. $60 games typically cost the retailers around $12-18 dollars, depending on the volume the retailer orders. 
 

The only damage console manufacturers have been managing is the slow shift to a mainly digital or digital only release. The largest retailers in the US are ready to drop all floor space for a console manufacturer if they only release a digital only console. Those digital game cards were a negotiation from some of the largest publishers at the start of the PS4 era to assure retailers they’d still have a piece of the pie. 
 

The plan has always been to keep digital game prices on consoles high because PC is still rampant with piracy and they can keep margins. The absolute fallacy people bought into that digital goods will always drop in price over time was a fantasy suckers bought into. People point to Steam and expect prices to fall inline, but Steams only real competition is pirates, so they have to drop prices in hopes of convincing anyone to keep spending money on things others take as please. 

 

As I said, that is the "story". Up to you if you want to believe it. You have any explanation for Microsoft giving Gamestop digital sales money? Why would they do that if relations with physical retailers wasn't important?

 

8 hours ago, Septic_Phlegm said:

All of this is because Xbox owners constantly complained about having no new games to play.

 

Soon they will have hundreds, but how many of them will be any good?

 

This will likely harm gaming, not enhance it.

 

Xbox owners complaining has nothing to do with. This is happening because Spencer convinced his money mark boss to open the money pit up.

[DaivRules]

1 hour ago, Rozalia1 said:

As I said, that is the "story". Up to you if you want to believe it. You have any explanation for Microsoft giving Gamestop digital sales money? Why would they do that if relations with physical retailers wasn't important?

 

I would need to research this situation with MS giving Gamestop money. Any reputable sources for it? My first thought is the Gamestop CEO realized sharing customer data was a revenue source and MS was willing to pay them for the data in exchange for Gamestop promoting their products. But that's only a hypothesis and I'd need to consider what information is out that that would contradict it.

 

...

 

That didn't take long. And I didn't say that Microsoft didn't find relations with physical retailers important. Microsoft does to a point and physical retailers know their worth for selling consoles, games, and accessories.

 

Quote

The first sign of this new revenue-sharing arrangement actually came somewhat hidden in a press release GameStop issued last week, trumpeting a "Multi-year Strategic Partnership with Microsoft." That announcement focused heavily on GameStop agreeing to use Microsoft's cloud-based infrastructure for its back-end sales systems and a deal for store associates to start using Microsoft Surface tablets going forward.

Buried in that press release, though, was a vague sentence that could be much more important to GameStop's future: "GameStop and Microsoft will both benefit from the customer acquisition and lifetime revenue value of each gamer brought into the Xbox ecosystem."

 

 

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/10/microsoft-will-give-gamestop-a-share-of-xboxs-digital-revenues/

 

MS is selling them Azure infrastructure and hardware and Gamestop will promote Xbox. A little more clear cut that MS generously just giving Gamestop money for digital sales.

 

 

And it only reinforces to the fact that MS knows digital sales have huge margins and can split those with a retail on any hardware that retailer sells. Digital prices are kept high intentionally to keep margin high where they know they can, not to avoid damaging relations with the retailers that sell physical copies. 

[Rozalia1]

11 hours ago, DaivRules said:

I would need to research this situation with MS giving Gamestop money. Any reputable sources for it? My first thought is the Gamestop CEO realized sharing customer data was a revenue source and MS was willing to pay them for the data in exchange for Gamestop promoting their products. But that's only a hypothesis and I'd need to consider what information is out that that would contradict it.

 

...

 

That didn't take long. And I didn't say that Microsoft didn't find relations with physical retailers important. Microsoft does to a point and physical retailers know their worth for selling consoles, games, and accessories.

 

 

MS is selling them Azure infrastructure and hardware and Gamestop will promote Xbox. A little more clear cut that MS generously just giving Gamestop money for digital sales.

 

 

And it only reinforces to the fact that MS knows digital sales have huge margins and can split those with a retail on any hardware that retailer sells. Digital prices are kept high intentionally to keep margin high where they know they can, not to avoid damaging relations with the retailers that sell physical copies. 

 

Does Microsoft need to bother with that though? Their physical game sales are poor and only going to get worse.

[DaivRules]

3 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

 

Does Microsoft need to bother with that though? Their physical game sales are poor and only going to get worse.

Speculation about what Microsoft “needs” versus what they do is a fools game. However the deal with Gamestop, again, isn’t just about physical game sales. They get data. Data to Microsoft is incredibly valuable to them as a company, where they have shown physical game sales are less valuable to them.