waltdisneypixar

Microsoft is buying Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion

628 posts in this topic

16 hours ago, mcnichoj said:

The FTC was always going to get involved, MS knew this going in.

They just have to set up an agreement that COD will stay on PlayStation for whatever time period (ten years has been one number thrown out there) and get rid of all the old abusive AB employees.

 

Microsoft's plan was to offer 3 years if there was any noise and they're now offering 10. This is getting hotter than Microsoft ever thought it would. As one of their top guys said not long ago, 4 years ago they'd have rubber stamped this and it'd have been dealt with.

 

Western regulators realise how poor they've been in the past and are trying to finally do things right, which involves stopping massive companies like Microsoft capturing possible future sizable markets (Subscription/Cloud gaming) before they take off by simply throwing their cash around. Which if the goal would point to outright rejection than allowing it with concessions too. Meta has already been hit and Microsoft is now up. Now granted, the courts in America are heavily corrupt pro-business and would likely eventually get it through, but the CMA is a serious issue as there is no overturning the CMA's decisions.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its amusing watching MS bringing down COD and Sony playing down their developers' ability, just to win the argument. MS' reputation was already in the mud, but Sony dont need to stoop to that level.

Edited by JediKnight_327
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been talk going round that Microsoft has offered CoD in perpetuity to Sony (remember when Spencer was literally saying such a thing could not be promised?), but word is Sony has also turned that down like the 3 & 10 years before it. Keep in mind that such a thing isn't confirmed, but wouldn't be surprising considering how increasingly desperate Microsoft has become.

 

However, in good news for Microsoft the cheques have finally cleared and it is said that the Democrat party is exerting massive influence against the FTC to get the deal through for Microsoft. Officially the reasoning on that would likely be that as the Democrats just got done dropping the hammer on all of those transport unions (you expect the Republicans to do so which is why they don't get heat), and Microsoft has promised to not stand in the way of unions developing at Activision this is a sort of "see, we're for unions really". Unofficially it is just the usual corruption you'd expect in America. How can a regulatory body be truly independent if it is so vulnerable to these political pressures? Of course the whole setup of the thing is to allow this corruption anyway so everything is working as intended.

 

On 26/11/2022 at 11:37 PM, JediKnight_327 said:

Its amusing watching MS bringing down COD and Sony playing down their developers' ability, just to win the argument. MS' reputation was already in the mud, but Sony dont need to stoop to that level.

 

I think you're overly putting Microsoft down there. Among gamers you could maybe say that but even then they have their fanatics. Some of us can claim Microsoft is the same old Microsoft, just smarter with their PR like Spencer is for Xbox, but the fact is they actually enjoy a sterling reputation across many nations and that is regardless of political bent. For example big tech like Google/Meta/Apple are targets for Republicans because while they are corrupt to the bone, the culture war stuff can at times override the corruption so they'll seek to do the right things for the wrong reasons. Amazon has the worse working conditions of the lot by a significant margin so they will get attacked by Democrats who have to pretend they care about workers now and then. Microsoft has both parties on side and has had that for a long time now, hence them getting so desperate as they never expected all of this trouble and Microsoft does not want to fight this in court (which they'd be forced to if the FTC rejects them) as that could damage their built up reputation as the good boy of tech.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

I think you're overly putting Microsoft down there.

Isn't that what you're doing too? You constantly throw around the word "desperate", which last time I checked doesn't have a positive connotation to it. Your argument is that they kept changing their offer for COD but that's just how you bargain to save money. You never start haggling by saying what the most you'll pay is. If trying to save money makes you desperate, then I don't know a single person that isn't. I don't think they have been desperate during any step of this particular acquisition, they've just been going through the motions. From the onset of all this MS was looking to save huge bucks. They knew what was going on inside the company and wanted to wait till all the abuse allegations made the company go nuclear before swooping in and getting the best possible deal. That said they were also aware of the fact this would still be the biggest gaming transaction the world has ever seen and so they would have lots of government eyes on them. They knew the hurdles they were going to have to go through because luckily for them outside of the Xbox gaming division, this is nothing new to Microsoft. I'm sure going in they all had and still have the up most confidence that this deal is going to close in their favor. In the meantime they'll make whatever deal they can to make this end that much quicker so they can get back to making more money instead of wasting it. All these corporations are the devil so it doesn't matter what deal they make as they can always wriggle out of it later. Make a deal to have COD on PlayStation forever? Wait till the original deal made with Acti (MWII already dropped, so only two left) is done and then just drop the COD name. Release a game called just "Black Ops 5", then MS can turn around and say "We said they could get every COD game. That isn't a COD game, it's not called COD."

 

If we ever wanted to say MS was desperate, we would have to go back to 2014 when they acquired Mojang to own Minecraft. Which at the time was the biggest gaming transactions the world had ever seen. That sounds familiar. Every acquisition since was their continued desperation in response to the 2:1 console sale difference of the PS4 to their hardware. At this point though with the Xbox brand seeing their highest profit margins the brand has ever seen in the past few years (starting back in 2019), everything now at that point going forward and including Activision Blizzard is just the cherry on top.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mcnichoj said:

Isn't that what you're doing too? You constantly throw around the word "desperate", which last time I checked doesn't have a positive connotation to it. Your argument is that they kept changing their offer for COD but that's just how you bargain to save money. You never start haggling by saying what the most you'll pay is. If trying to save money makes you desperate, then I don't know a single person that isn't. I don't think they have been desperate during any step of this particular acquisition, they've just been going through the motions. From the onset of all this MS was looking to save huge bucks. They knew what was going on inside the company and wanted to wait till all the abuse allegations made the company go nuclear before swooping in and getting the best possible deal. That said they were also aware of the fact this would still be the biggest gaming transaction the world has ever seen and so they would have lots of government eyes on them. They knew the hurdles they were going to have to go through because luckily for them outside of the Xbox gaming division, this is nothing new to Microsoft. I'm sure going in they all had and still have the up most confidence that this deal is going to close in their favor. In the meantime they'll make whatever deal they can to make this end that much quicker so they can get back to making more money instead of wasting it. All these corporations are the devil so it doesn't matter what deal they make as they can always wriggle out of it later. Make a deal to have COD on PlayStation forever? Wait till the original deal made with Acti (MWII already dropped, so only two left) is done and then just drop the COD name. Release a game called just "Black Ops 5", then MS can turn around and say "We said they could get every COD game. That isn't a COD game, it's not called COD."

 

If we ever wanted to say MS was desperate, we would have to go back to 2014 when they acquired Mojang to own Minecraft. Which at the time was the biggest gaming transactions the world had ever seen. That sounds familiar. Every acquisition since was their continued desperation in response to the 2:1 console sale difference of the PS4 to their hardware. At this point though with the Xbox brand seeing their highest profit margins the brand has ever seen in the past few years (starting back in 2019), everything now at that point going forward and including Activision Blizzard is just the cherry on top.

 

You could frame it that way but I wouldn't. Microsoft appears to be scrambling and the only words to use to describe that would be desperate, nervous, and the like. Regardless of how tasteless I believe Microsoft to be, I've never put down the amount of money they can bring to bare or the influence they have stockpiled from playing that game better than anyone else in tech.

 

I myself have stated the trick they could play where they rebrand CoD to Warzone or whatever and get out of it that way (Sony could put them in court of course, but considering Microsoft's influence in America...), but regardless of that supposedly offering CoD for as long as PlayStation exists can only come off as desperate sorry. Microsoft itself in essence mocked (correctly) such a thing as not something you could do in business and then supposedly did it. Another part of the equation you haven't touched which makes them look desperate to me is Microsoft's constant want to do business in public with Sony which is just not something that is supposed to happen.

 

Profit margins? I don't recall Xbox ever providing those, just revenue as far as I remember. Microsoft has been buying Zenimax (2020) and other companies during that timeframe so it would be difficult for their revenue to not increase, but that says nothing of however profitable they are. In fact the latest 2022 numbers actually have had their revenue fall by 7% apparently so... anyway, out of Microsoft's own chicken lips in an effort to try and help them in this case they've said they lose massive amounts of money (up to 200 dollars) on their consoles (yes consoles themselves generally lose you money, but they're losing far more than Sony and obviously Nintendo). Gamepass is still very much in that Netflix mode of take massive losses today to make huge profits tomorrow (note, tomorrow may be in 10-20 years or simply never). Their sales of games are falling also (what is blamed for the 2022 drop) and potentially might eventually get cannibalised hard by Gamepass (they profess this won't happen yes I know, they profess a lot of things). Point is I don't trust such talk of Xbox being profitable. I'll believe it is when Xbox gets brave enough to show the full numbers which they haven't been for a long time now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok well COD has been a massive failure to OG players for years now so this doesn't really matter or apply to that type of person. The last decent one was Blops 2, from then onwards I guess WW2 was pretty good after 6 months of fixes and MWR was just as good as the original but for the most part COD is now a household name shared by million of dorks and wannabes that aren't really into video games anyway. With all of the wonderful SBMM lobbies etc etc it is clear that Activisions greed shows no boundaries, I mean the latest game has SBMM hit detection ffs so who in their right mind wants to play this? Let's not forget the huge amount of pc cheats happening in WZ1 and now WZ2, the series has no personality or meaning, just a abundance of casuals buying micro transactions and general bullshit to impress the share holders. Like many I am hoping that MS turn this around, we have nothing to lose. What else does Activision do? Well I don't know and really don't care, filthy company.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft once again doing business in public has stated that they have sent Nintendo & Valve 10 year commitments. Valve has already commented that they needed no such thing but whatever. Not seen anything of Nintendo but I imagine their response is much the same. What else can be said about Microsoft's ridiculous public displays after all if you don't want to offend.

 

On 06/12/2022 at 8:45 AM, Z1MZUM said:

Ok well COD has been a massive failure to OG players for years now so this doesn't really matter or apply to that type of person. The last decent one was Blops 2, from then onwards I guess WW2 was pretty good after 6 months of fixes and MWR was just as good as the original but for the most part COD is now a household name shared by million of dorks and wannabes that aren't really into video games anyway. With all of the wonderful SBMM lobbies etc etc it is clear that Activisions greed shows no boundaries, I mean the latest game has SBMM hit detection ffs so who in their right mind wants to play this? Let's not forget the huge amount of pc cheats happening in WZ1 and now WZ2, the series has no personality or meaning, just a abundance of casuals buying micro transactions and general bullshit to impress the share holders. Like many I am hoping that MS turn this around, we have nothing to lose. What else does Activision do? Well I don't know and really don't care, filthy company.

 

There is something to lose. If Microsoft's dream of subscriptions taking out traditional gaming comes about then having what is still very much a heavyweight series regardless of what you think of their recent quality, would give them a further edge to destroy the competition. Such a thing is 10-20 years away likely if it ever happens, hence why the grand 10 year commitments don't matter a jot. The optimal time to stick the knife in of it being an exclusive would be 10 years down the line and not now as you run the risk of just damaging the brand and not having it do all that much towards killing the competition.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

Microsoft once again doing business in public has stated that they have sent Nintendo & Valve 10 year commitments. Valve has already commented that they needed no such thing but whatever. Not seen anything of Nintendo but I imagine their response is much the same. What else can be said about Microsoft's ridiculous public displays after all if you don't want to offend.

 

 

There is something to lose. If Microsoft's dream of subscriptions taking out traditional gaming comes about then having what is still very much a heavyweight series regardless of what you think of their recent quality, would give them a further edge to destroy the competition. Such a thing is 10-20 years away likely if it ever happens, hence why the grand 10 year commitments don't matter a jot. The optimal time to stick the knife in of it being an exclusive would be 10 years down the line and not now as you run the risk of just damaging the brand and not having it do all that much towards killing the competition.

 

Heavy weight series? For casuals maybe. This isn't just some personal opinion, the online gaming community is not exactly praising this shit. Incompetent devs employed by "Diversity" under the thumb of some incredibly greedy motherfuckers who don't even play their games. When did Activision become dodgy? Hmm well the O2 series using the thps engine was the most obvious I suppose though COD in itself is an incurable venereal disease at this stage.

 

I'm fine with Killing Competition, go for it. I'm also fine if Sony and Nintendo suffer, we have enough games as it is.

Edited by Z1MZUM
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CelestialRequiem said:

It's comical that the FTC is finally regulating. 

 

They finally have someone leading it that doesn't buy the promises that haven't ever resulted from massive companies consolidating power.
 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DaivRules said:

 

They finally have someone leading it that doesn't buy the promises that haven't ever resulted from massive companies consolidating power.
 

The actual notice from their site provides even more insight: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/ftc-seeks-block-microsoft-corps-acquisition-activision-blizzard-inc

 

Quote

Activision is one of only a very small number of top video game developers in the world that create and publish high-quality video games for multiple devices, including video game consoles, PCs, and mobile devices. It produces some of the most iconic and popular video game titles, including Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Diablo, and Overwatch, and has millions of monthly active users around the world, according to the FTC’s complaint. Activision currently has a strategy of offering its games on many devices regardless of producer.

But that could change if the deal is allowed to proceed. With control over Activision’s blockbuster franchises, Microsoft would have both the means and motive to harm competition by manipulating Activision’s pricing, degrading Activision’s game quality or player experience on rival consoles and gaming services, changing the terms and timing of access to Activision’s content, or withholding content from competitors entirely, resulting in harm to consumers.

 

I bet this comes from both Sony and Google. The latter of which were able to prove that MS degrades their own quality on Google's services. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FTC looks at every major acquisition though these are the same people who allowed Disney/Fox so I don't expect them to do anything but give them their stamp of approval. Not to mention Microsoft practically is an arm of the government these days with the amount of political capital they have.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I think this will change the end result? Most likely not.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CMA and EU are probably gonna block it too. 
 

I never cared much for whether this merger happened or not but I would be dismayed to see Bobby Kotick continue his reign of terror.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when this was announced last year all i could think of is. ok so what games are gonna be taken away from us that we are use to getting ?  when Zenimax was bought out in no time flat they said Elder Scrolls was going to be xbox exclusive  ( and i know how much people " Love " their Skyrim ) and Starfield was going to be exclusive as well. as time progressed i thought. no way this can go through  they just had a huge deal with Zenimax.  but we all know Kotick was looking to sell is because the allegations started coming out and wanted a easy exit from this whole mess.

 

I just started getting into COD and i despised COD  till i got into COD Cold War and i missed out on vanguard but i did buy MW2 during Black Friday only to return it last night because of said reports that FTC was not going to block it and allow it to go through.  I know Nintendo and Valve ( Gabe Newell ) didn't care about the whole COD thing but IMO Valve doesn't have a say in this everything under the sun is pretty much on Steam ( unless EPIC paid exclusive too it's launcher first )  consoles have the bigger hit of this more people play COD on Playstation then Nintendo but to me it's more then about COD. 

 

It's about Competition of Gamepass VS PS Tier System, Activision being bought out means no more activision games most likely. I grew up playing Crash and Spyro and i wanna play them on Playstation i don't have the Money to afford all these systems but then again i don't want all those systems i want to play my games on 1 console so they buyout may mean hey no more crash and spyro games and Possible THPS games and i'm not ok with this ... people who don't go for these games are the type of people who will say " let them have it ... it doesn't effect me "  maybe try thinking of other gamers is all i got to say. If this thing get's blocked then at least everyone still gets access too said games ( Crash Spyro Diablo COD ) on not just Playstation but on Nintendo as well and Microsoft won't be missing out either. 

 

I know the whole work place of Activision is hell but if you get rid of Kotick to someone who can take responsibility and not sweep things under the rug maybe this crap wouldn't happen and i  know they face alot of law suits but i think Activision will still come through without closing doors and still be able to make games just get rid of the people who are part of the headlines for their terrible work ethics ETC.  the only true way for Activision games to be released o other platforms is to let the company be. if Microsoft wants Activision games on game pass let them pay for it  ( they got money to throw around, they got the Bank to do it  Sony may got money but not the Bank Microsoft does )  and hopefully Sony can then pay to get some Activision games on the Tier System too.  

 

I really do hope this deal does not go through and get's blocked, it's sad about their work place and it needs to get better but they can do that by letting go the people who deserve to be let go and put the right people in charge and i know they can do that and still come through just fine, just hope other fellow gamers have a heart that don't play the games activision owns and think about their fellow console owners that play said games and stand with them by sharing their voice for concern for those who do play these games on their system of choice and the fact that Microsoft Lied to the EU board about having the 2 games release on both consoles starfield and one other. so whos not to say that if this goes through they will take back things they said and make things exclusive ? 

 

also someone out there many months back made a graph or some kinda thing of research showing that if the deal went through Microsoft would monopoly the gaming industry so if it's true then theres that  and remember  back then Microsoft tried to buy out Nintendo and Nintendo laughed in their face AND  love or hate COD still sells damn well even if one doesn't sell as well as others  that doesn't mean it did poorly in sales either.  If i recall right I read Microsoft was trying super hard since sometime around 2010 that MLB Baseball the game should come to their platform as well and not just Sony's and not just one occasion did they try and finally MLB said ok sure  and then went to Sony and said they had to develop for Nintendo and Xbox as well if they wanted to keep the license to developing said game. so Sony agreed too it  ( i wouldn't be surprised that they were hoping the License was given too EA due to their partnership with them and throwing them a bone for have EA Play and Gamepass merge AND since their in bed together with also partnership deals during the PS4 Xbone Generation but that's just my opinion here ) 

 

The Fact Microsoft was underselling this buyout as " no big deal " is laughable and dirty handed tactic to pull off and i'm glad so many people who want to block this deal saw through their BULL because COD is the biggest FPS Franchise love it or hate it but it's true.  I just wanna say i hope in the end were all able to still play Activisions Franchise games from Playstation to Nintendo, no one should be left out from this BIG  Publishers games. 

 

that's my 2 cents

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is good news. Microsoft responded quickly and said they wanted to give peace (give us everything we want) a chance but if they have to war in court then they will. Ain't that nice. Microsoft has previously retreated from having to go to court so it is interesting that they are prepared to potentially spend all that goodwill they've built up likely for nothing if FTC gets assistance from the CMA which would render Microsoft's efforts in court pointless.

 

9 hours ago, DaivRules said:

They finally have someone leading it that doesn't buy the promises that haven't ever resulted from massive companies consolidating power.

 

Its good to see the follow through. Got worried that the Democrat party influence was going to get us a 2-2 which is functionally a pass. Microsoft supporters aren't wholly incorrect that the FTC is dealing more with the spirit of the law than the law itself, but just because the law is what it is doesn't mean it should be followed unquestionably to the letter. Very curious that on other issues and even this one if it involved Google/Apple/Whatever they'd argue that the law shouldn't be dealt with like that, but here on this case they think it should be followed to the letter and no more no less. As the FTC have said (and many have worked out as it is obvious), Microsoft clearly intends to get in early on Subscriptions/Cloud Gaming with massive investments and if those markets take off big then Microsoft will be almost invulnerable to competition.

 

 

 

Microsoft supporters have denied this for years so it is good to see it out in the open. As I and others have correctly said, Microsoft will promise all manner of things until it passes and then suddenly they ain't doing it. A sort of implied "What you actually believed us? Well aren't you stupid". All of this being heavily apparent in the massive amount of games that Microsoft took off PlayStation the moment they were able to. Of course Minecraft is a big exception and there is a number of small ones, something Microsoft supporters love to shout about, but I don't buy Microsoft's claims on the matter of them not being exclusive. We know with some of the smaller titles that Microsoft had no choice and I'm sure it was the same with Minecraft, regardless of what Spencer and the like say.

 

9 hours ago, CelestialRequiem said:

The actual notice from their site provides even more insight: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/ftc-seeks-block-microsoft-corps-acquisition-activision-blizzard-inc

 

I bet this comes from both Sony and Google. The latter of which were able to prove that MS degrades their own quality on Google's services. 

 

Wouldn't surprise me if Google was heavily involved and asked Sony to be their frontman on this. For all of the talk of some people Sony has enough positive reputation that Microsoft has to be nice and keep lying that they intend them no harm, all while constantly openly stating that they aim to destroy Apple & Google's gaming businesses. I do wonder about Apple though. Unlike Google they haven't seemed involved but like Google would have all the justification needed to be backing Sony too.

 

If I recall currently Microsoft stated that Google's issue was a "bug" and they "fixed it" a week later. Like with them getting those contracts to Nintendo/Valve days before the meeting with the FTC, it is transparent that such a "fix" was done simply to get this through and post the deal it would no doubt mysteriously degrade again. Another bit of assistance Google has had I think was with the taking down of Stadia. Many say Stadia failed due to Google's bad business sure, but I think it makes a strong statement regardless. Google a rich and powerful company was unable to compete in the market now... how is anybody supposed to once Microsoft has put in so much money and got so many third party studios. As Microsoft has already said, they aren't stopping at buying Activision and will be buying more once the deal clears.

 

8 hours ago, TheRetroManiac said:
7 hours ago, majob said:

I honestly want to know how Sony can make a trillion dollar company smaller according to Phil. That's a freaking laughable claim.

 

Nothing new. Documents to the CMA had Microsoft painting themselves as a brave good soul fighting against Sony's endless evil empire. According to Microsoft the only way they can hope to survive competing with Sony is to be allowed to buy up huge amounts of studios. Which is perhaps not wholly incorrect but that would be all due to Microsoft's own mismanagement, with Sony having little to do with it. A poster above talked about Xbox having record profits, which I stated was incorrect as Xbox only posts revenue (since the numbers became horrible to show openly) which doesn't tell the whole story (they're down in the latest quarter I believe also). Sony is making 2-3 billion in profit, a number reduced due to having to pump out PS5s. By all accounts Microsoft is spending more on game development than Sony is at this point (with less return as everything takes forever at Xbox due to mismanagement), Console costs is either more or around the same (Sony makes more consoles, but Microsoft's are significantly more expensive to make), and then you have Gamepass which if you take into account lost income from people using the sub rather than purchasing the game is most certainly a money pit right now as they are nowhere near the needed subscribers to support their service (not to mention Microsoft needs to pay companies more to get stuff on their service than Sony does anyway). Oh, and there is also the small matter that Xbox has 8 billion less revenue. In short there is simply no way that Xbox hasn't been losing billions if Sony with 8 billion more revenue and less costs is just making 2-3 billion.

 

7 hours ago, Stan Lee said:

CMA and EU are probably gonna block it too. 
 

I never cared much for whether this merger happened or not but I would be dismayed to see Bobby Kotick continue his reign of terror.

 

The FTC doing this gives them, especially the CMA, support to also block and the CMA blocking would render this dead instantly.

 

As for Kotick. Nothing says that Kotick and company can only be removed if Microsoft is allowed to buy them out. The truth of the matter is the board at Activision supports Kotick and doesn't want to do what they should have done when all of this kicked off, but know that eventually the heat would force them to have to do something. Kotick knowing this went around begging companies to buy them so he could escape safely. So ultimately if this fails then it just kicks the ball back to Activision who then will have to quickly make the decision to finish Kotick off straight away, or back him and see what that brings them.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering now how Microsoft will fight for this acquisition now that they have to go to big boy court now over it. The last time the FTC got on their back they ended up having to "split" the company into another division but it hardly affected their control of the software industry. I'm also wondering what they'll do if the deal actually does fail or if it succeeds because I doubt they're going to be very happy with how Sony either deprived them or attempted to deprive them of this acquisition and there's a rich history of the shit they've pulled against competitors that attempted to actually defend themselves from their onslaught

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the matter of the contracts Microsoft sent out there has been a development. Valve instantly commented and said that no such thing was needed to be done and that they have in fact not signed it. What is new is apparently Nintendo while confirming they received the contract, have not signed it either. As I've said, like with the regulators, Valve/Nintendo see this effort from Microsoft as a joke. There has been some effort by Microsoft and its supporters to portray Sony not signing the sent contract as Sony being a villain in the matter, but Valve/Nintendo also aren't signing them because this is not how business is supposed to be done and they likely, like the CMA/FTC, see no actual worth in these contracts Microsoft likes to talk up. There are such things as worthless contracts. The only difference between Sony and Valve/Nintendo is Sony called Microsoft out for trying to craft a false narrative with their sent contract, while Valve/Nintendo have just let Microsoft put out there the narrative they want as it doesn't affect them anyway.

 

3 hours ago, majob said:

I'm wondering now how Microsoft will fight for this acquisition now that they have to go to big boy court now over it. The last time the FTC got on their back they ended up having to "split" the company into another division but it hardly affected their control of the software industry. I'm also wondering what they'll do if the deal actually does fail or if it succeeds because I doubt they're going to be very happy with how Sony either deprived them or attempted to deprive them of this acquisition and there's a rich history of the shit they've pulled against competitors that attempted to actually defend themselves from their onslaught

 

There is some talk that the FTC, due to similar arguments/wording in places, has teamed up with the CMA. Their decision here gives support for the CMA to kill the deal and then Microsoft would be smarter to not take it to court as not only will there be no point, but them winning in court would only give the FTC a good example of why the law should change which would then make it easier to shut down other future Microsoft acquisitions and not simply in gaming.

 

The reaction from Microsoft is hard to say, I laid out some options some time back. This deal failing is costing them billions in fees, then you have the fact that the currency situation has changed which'll mean Microsoft lost out on a whole lot more, and then there were also some other notable companies that sold since this started which Microsoft had to miss on picking up. The old management would have moneyhatted big time in retaliation even if they had to bid x2-3 more than Sony I'm sure as they were that sort. The current management however has spent years railing against moneyhats (though I suppose Spencer could likely fool a bunch of people by claiming that Microsoft was "forced" into doing it so it is Sony's fault) and it doesn't support their aims anyway as Microsoft's want is to own production of the games flowing through their Gamepass pipeline, not simply rent them off whoever for X amount of time for much more than what it'd take Sony to get them. Buying up other smaller companies is of course also another option, but there is some thought out there on these things that the message sent if Microsoft fails here is to not even attempt to buy up another reasonably sized company in the short-medium term as that would get stopped some way too.

 

Best move is honestly they just pack the money away in the vault or try to use it in other sectors while trying to get Xbox in order, but considering Microsoft's ambition that seems like something they can't do. Investing in Xbox more is of course an option and sounds nice, but from what I've seen the current increased investment has only lead to Xbox having more to mismanage and thus lose even more money. Xbox already has more studios than Sony and are allowed to operate by Microsoft no matter how much losses they incur. There is no reason they shouldn't be able to effectively compete. In my view certain people simply need to go, but management at Xbox and even worse Microsoft itself have thus far refused to act, it is thought because they like those people.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reportedly Microsoft once again increased their offer to Sony (and others) with the addition that in the 10 year period they're offering they'll be able to pay to get CoD on their subscription services too. With the other regulators we'll see if that trick works, but it failed completely with the FTC who just ignored it. The amount of money it'd take to get CoD on such a service would be so large that no one would do it so Microsoft offering it is the same as offering nothing.

 

Another interesting aspect that has become more relevant is just how long this is taking and what that means for development. The FTC can long this out for a very long time and what is Activision going to do until then? They're currently developing a bunch of games as exclusives so if the deal fails then Starfield and company will functionally be Xbox console exclusives unless they delay the games to make a PlayStation version (Sony itself might be able to force them to delay the other versions as the PlayStation versions are so valuable). People have talked about Activision hating on Sony for stopping the deal and all that, but I think in such a scenario it may be Activision who'll have to make good as they'll have in essence given Microsoft free timed exclusives (well, technically Microsoft will have paid 2-3 billion for them which is hilarious if you think about it). The only saving grace for Microsoft/Kotick is that there is a case regarding regulatory bodies in the Supreme court in June and the incredibly corrupt pro-business Republicans will likely rule to render regulatory bodies pointless. If somehow they don't then... the FTC can hold Microsoft off for at the very least 3 years and that will mean some serious problems for Activision.

 

As for other small matters. The CMA recently put up a piece submitted by them by an unknown company (Epic possibly, paying back Microsoft's support against Apple) that sides with Microsoft. This has some people thinking that surely the CMA will side with Microsoft. Considering how often news that point to one thing and then it goes the opposite way has happened, this is not something to look too much into. Another aspect of all of this is there is a lot of former FTC people coming out against the FTC at the moment on this. Note, the FTC for a good while now has been seen as feckless at best, corrupt at worse. The people coming out of the woodwork now were the people there during that period and as such their views are very easily dismissed. Many corrupt people are experts on this and that, but it all goes towards serving corruption and they shouldn't be trusted.

Edited by Rozalia1
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said:

Another interesting aspect that has become more relevant is just how long this is taking and what that means for development. The FTC can long this out for a very long time and what is Activision going to do until then?

 

When it companies the size of these, it SHOULD take a long while to do some careful scrutiny of the deal. Including the history of the companies involved and how they've acted historically in their respective markets, balancing the promises made with how such a merger would be a measurable net positive for consumers, and actual repercussions for failing to deliver promised measurements.

Rarely do mergers at such massive scale do anything except consolidate power and increase market domination. I would prefer it if regulating bodies took longer and considered more input during their evaluations and wouldn't mind hearing about more mega-mergers being denied.

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.