Microsoft Microsoft/Activision Blizzard Acquisition - Information Thread, update: The Deal Has Closed

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

This case is really going to hinge on the testimony of the FTC's expert witnesses and the degree to which the MSFT attorneys will pick apart that testimony upon cross-examination.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Today was about executives looking bad and inconsistent. 

[crispy4000]

Phil's saying that because Sony was buying (timed) exclusivity, they felt the need to own more content to remain viable.  Apparently Sony wanted Starfield.  So Microsoft swoooped in and bought Bethesda out instead.

 

I don't think you get to throw a pity party about this if you're the ones with the deep pockets.  The more measured response would have been to bid higher.  Not say Sony's leverage is too great, so we should write a big fat check for everything Zenimax ever produces.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Phil's saying that because Sony was buying (timed) exclusivity, they felt the need to own more content to remain viable.  Apparently Sony wanted Starfield.  So Microsoft swoooped in and bought Bethesda out instead.

 

I don't think you get to throw a pity party about this if you're the ones with the deep pockets.  The more measured response would have been to bid higher.  Not say Sony's leverage is too great, so we should write a big fat check for everything Zenimax ever produces.

 

Money-hatting doesn't work as a strategy to keep up with the more dominant player in a market. In any industry. A great way to bleed the company/division dry.

[crispy4000]

14 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Money-hatting doesn't work as a strategy to keep up with the more dominant player in a market. In any industry. A great way to bleed the company/division dry.

 

Yes, that's true.  It would be a losing game in the long run for Microsoft, and Sony knows this and played their hand accordingly.

 

They woke a beast though.  It's not like Microsoft needed Activison to compete after buying Bethesda.

[SaysWho?]

18 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Money-hatting doesn't work as a strategy to keep up with the more dominant player in a market. In any industry. A great way to bleed the company/division dry.

 

5 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Yes, that's true.  It would be a losing game in the long run for Microsoft, and Sony knows this and played their hand accordingly.

 

They woke a beast though.  It's not like Microsoft needed Activison to compete after buying Bethesda.

 

No two ways about it -- they very well could have overextended themselves, especially with Activision. MS has deeper pockets, so it's also hard to have pity on them possibly bleeding themselves dry since many on this board was near gloating over how much money MS had as if MS were their rich boyfriend.

 

The real problem I see is they never could compete yet with Sony or Nintendo in terms of establishing popular IPs, at least recently. They were able to establish Halo, Forza and Gears of War into 2006, but there hasn't been much in the past 17 years, so the solution was to buy other publishers and their IPs outright for stuff they were already going to get on their consoles.

 

This acquisition deserves to fail, and should if people truly want something pro-consumer. It's not as if they're starved for devs anymore; they've got quite the collection of devs now and one of the most anticipated games of the year coming.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Phil just testified that Elder Scrolls VI is over five years away from release.

[Xbob42]

22 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

This acquisition deserves to fail, and should if people truly want something pro-consumer. It's not as if they're starved for devs anymore; they've got quite the collection of devs now and one of the most anticipated games of the year coming.

I just don't think I agree here. At least not from how I see things. To me, Activision-Blizzard has been extremely anti-consumer for years and it's been devastating to the quality of most of their products. I believe someone less...aggressive in terms of monetization finally getting a yoke around their necks would get us better and more varied games in the end.

 

I'm no fan of exclusives, but I like companies turning to dog shit quality as they overmilk a handful of IPs to be even worse. I also think even with rising prices Game Pass is a far more pro-consumer product than more $70-80-90 purchases depending on version + cosmetics + DLC + battle passes + whatever else. Of course, you're still able to buy these games so they're also not locked on Game Pass, which I think is important. I'm not so naive as to believe being acquired by MS would magically fix these issues (after all, MS would want to be making money) -- but I think because MS is trying to establish a library of high quality games that don't get them consistently fucking dunked on as they come in last place over and over again, that it would certainly alleviate it.

 

Also, maybe it could give MS some leverage on getting games like Final Fantasy on their services and platforms (there's a LOT of Sony exclusive shit that is very anti-consumer but doesn't confer any benefits to Sony fans either, Game Pass at least confers benefits to those in the Xbox ecosystem) because as it stands, nothing about the market is very pro-consumer, and I certainly don't see this deal falling through to be that either.

While whiteboard economics might call this deal bad for the industry, I just can't see it that way from any angle relevant to me as someone who plays these games. I think Activision-Blizzard's and Bethesda's ridiculous overmonetization has been more unbelievably harmful to consumers than just about anything else. Again, don't think this would outright fix these problems but nothing about the direction of Bethesda or Activision-Blizzard prior to this was giving me any indication of anything but a downward trend in quality products at a fair price.

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, Xbob42 said:

I just don't think I agree here. At least not from how I see things. To me, Activision-Blizzard has been extremely anti-consumer for years and it's been devastating to the quality of most of their products. I believe someone less...aggressive in terms of monetization finally getting a yoke around their necks would get us better and more varied games in the end.

 

I'm no fan of exclusives, but I like companies turning to dog shit quality as they overmilk a handful of IPs to be even worse. I also think even with rising prices Game Pass is a far more pro-consumer product than more $70-80-90 purchases depending on version + cosmetics + DLC + battle passes + whatever else. Of course, you're still able to buy these games so they're also not locked on Game Pass, which I think is important. I'm not so naive as to believe being acquired by MS would magically fix these issues (after all, MS would want to be making money) -- but I think because MS is trying to establish a library of high quality games that don't get them consistently fucking dunked on as they come in last place over and over again, that it would certainly alleviate it.

 

Also, maybe it could give MS some leverage on getting games like Final Fantasy on their services and platforms (there's a LOT of Sony exclusive shit that is very anti-consumer but doesn't confer any benefits to Sony fans either, Game Pass at least confers benefits to those in the Xbox ecosystem) because as it stands, nothing about the market is very pro-consumer, and I certainly don't see this deal falling through to be that either.

While whiteboard economics might call this deal bad for the industry, I just can't see it that way from any angle relevant to me as someone who plays these games. I think Activision-Blizzard's and Bethesda's ridiculous overmonetization has been more unbelievably harmful to consumers than just about anything else. Again, don't think this would outright fix these problems but nothing about the direction of Bethesda or Activision-Blizzard prior to this was giving me any indication of anything but a downward trend in quality products at a fair price.

 

If anything, a deal like this going through would just give Sony leverage to buy Square-Enix (which already offloaded some of its devs), not help MS long-term. 

 

Game Pass is still a MS service, and considering the number of third party games on the service and PS+, I've never bought the argument that buying the dev is beneficial to anyone. PS+ has plenty of Bethesda games, and there's nothing to indicate these other games wouldn't have landed on Game Pass anyway.

[Xbob42]

Sony functionally owns Square Enix anyway (in terms of exclusivity of games that people give a shit about in their catalogue), without having to even go through a process like this. What the hell's the difference?

And I would've bet large sums of money on new, flagship Bethesda titles not showing up on Game Pass. Old ones? Maaaaaybe. New ones? Maybe failures like Fallout 76? Starfield? Not in a million fucking years. (Or rather, not until it was several years old.)

 

It's all speculation of course, but I'm interested to see the path Bethesda will head down now. Skyrim was a big hit but damn, it seems like every other thing they did was a massive shit show and a terrible deal for the consumer. We have yet to see anything since the acquisition but their titles on Game Pass, so I want to see if that trajectory's different.

That all said, my actual long-term concerns have more to do with Microsoft's leadership post Phil Spencer. I think, despite the fact that they haven't had many great exclusives, that in terms of being pro-consumer and having good ideas, he's been fantastic. Far far better than his predecessor. But he won't be in that position forever. Will his successor keep on this path? 

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, Xbob42 said:

Sony functionally owns Square Enix anyway (in terms of exclusivity of games that people give a shit about in their catalogue), without having to even go through a process like this. What the hell's the difference?

And I would've bet large sums of money on new, flagship Bethesda titles not showing up on Game Pass. Old ones? Maaaaaybe. New ones? Maybe failures like Fallout 76? Starfield? Not in a million fucking years. (Or rather, not until it was several years old.)

 

It's all speculation of course, but I'm interested to see the path Bethesda will head down now. Skyrim was a big hit but damn, it seems like every other thing they did was a massive shit show and a terrible deal for the consumer. We have yet to see anything since the acquisition but their titles on Game Pass, so I want to see if that trajectory's different.

That all said, my actual long-term concerns have more to do with Microsoft's leadership post Phil Spencer. I think, despite the fact that they haven't had many great exclusives, that in terms of being pro-consumer and having good ideas, he's been fantastic. Far far better than his predecessor. But he won't be in that position forever. Will his successor keep on this path? 

 

Yeah, they don't really functionally "own" them (a couple exclusives doesn't really change that), but substitute SE for any other dev -- it just makes it easier for massive consolidation which benefits no one but corporate heads.

 

Buying Bethesda just removed games from other platforms; it certainly wasn't a pro-consumer move if you used anything other than MS products. The games would have shown up on Xbox as planned, and if they weren't there Day 1... what's the big deal, exactly? People without the service don't get the product no matter how long they wait. 

[Xbob42]

6 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Yeah, they don't really functionally "own" them (a couple exclusives doesn't really change that)

Uh yeah, from a consumer perspective they absolutely do. It's not "a couple of exclusives" --  all of Square's biggest games are almost always Playstation exclusive, and usually permanently to boot.

 

I mean, Microsoft just talked about how Fallout Shelter 2 would be on Playstation, so it's like they don't own Bethesda either, right? Or does the quality of the game tell you everything you need to know about what really matters?

 

6 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Buying Bethesda just removed games from other platforms; it certainly wasn't a pro-consumer move if you used anything other than MS products. The games would have shown up on Xbox as planned, and if they weren't there Day 1... what's the big deal, exactly? People without the service don't get the product no matter how long they wait. 

Well, from Sony platforms. My Steam Deck has 0 relationship to Microsoft and will probably play Starfield just fine.

 

I dunno man, I find it really hard to give a shit when Sony's entire deal is "look at all our exclusives" and I'm supposed to somehow care that it's from in-house studios, like, again, that matters in the slightest fucking way to me a consumer.

This is why I've always been anti-exclusive when it comes to video games. It's all weird mental gymnastics and odd justifications when I think it'd be best if all games just worked on all platforms that could reasonably run them -- and hardware was sold based on the quality of the hardware itself and the services it can provide. In this one particular case I think there's a positive path forward for companies I personally think have fallen to all-time lows in the pursuit of endless growth, and frankly there's going to be such a ridiculously large amount of way to play these "Xbox exclusives" outside of owning an Xbox that I'm not overbothered.

[crispy4000]

56 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

I just don't think I agree here. At least not from how I see things. To me, Activision-Blizzard has been extremely anti-consumer for years and it's been devastating to the quality of most of their products. I believe someone less...aggressive in terms of monetization finally getting a yoke around their necks would get us better and more varied games in the end.

 

I'm no fan of exclusives, but I like companies turning to dog shit quality as they overmilk a handful of IPs to be even worse. I also think even with rising prices Game Pass is a far more pro-consumer product than more $70-80-90 purchases depending on version + cosmetics + DLC + battle passes + whatever else. Of course, you're still able to buy these games so they're also not locked on Game Pass, which I think is important. I'm not so naive as to believe being acquired by MS would magically fix these issues (after all, MS would want to be making money) -- but I think because MS is trying to establish a library of high quality games that don't get them consistently fucking dunked on as they come in last place over and over again, that it would certainly alleviate it.

There's absolutely no reason to think Activision wouldn't continue to overmilk their same franchises under Microsoft.  It's a proven buisness model for them.  We're also talking about a company with a Battle Pass within a Battle Pass structure in place now, post the announcement of the merger.  I believe it's a sign they were gearing up to milk the DLC train even harder, which makes things materially worse on platforms where you'd still have to buy it outright.

 

56 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

Also, maybe it could give MS some leverage on getting games like Final Fantasy on their services and platforms (there's a LOT of Sony exclusive shit that is very anti-consumer but doesn't confer any benefits to Sony fans either, Game Pass at least confers benefits to those in the Xbox ecosystem) because as it stands, nothing about the market is very pro-consumer, and I certainly don't see this deal falling through to be that either.

 

What company will Sony buy or merge with in response to this acquisition going through?  And what will Microsoft's response be to that?

 

It's a bit too much magic pixie dust for me to believe such a big M&A will lead to more beneficial-to-consumers forms of competition.  The move itself is cutthroat.

[SaysWho?]

7 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

Uh yeah, from a consumer perspective they absolutely do. It's not "a couple of exclusives" --  all of Square's biggest games are almost always Playstation exclusive, and usually permanently to boot.

 

I mean, Microsoft just talked about how Fallout Shelter 2 would be on Playstation, so it's like they don't own Bethesda either, right? Or does the quality of the game tell you everything you need to know about what really matters?

 

Octopath Traveler II suddenly became a bad game?

 

It totally is just a few exclusives. FFXV certainly wasn't exclusive. Tomb Raider/Hitman weren't when SE owned them. Kingdom Hearts 3 wasn't. Star Ocean isn't. Dragon Quest isn't. The only three I can think of are FF16 (which could be timed, I dunno), and both parts of FF7 Remake. If you're comparing that to having control of Diablo, Call of Duty, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Warcraft, Overwatch, etc., then that's an easy argument for me.

 

Again, sub SE for something else if it helps; you're missing the point that it simply allows you to have a harder time getting the ideal world of no exclusives you're telling me you want.

 

7 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

 

Well, from Sony platforms. My Steam Deck has 0 relationship to Microsoft and will probably play Starfield just fine.

 

I dunno man, I find it really hard to give a shit when Sony's entire deal is "look at all our exclusives" and I'm supposed to somehow care that it's from in-house studios, like, again, that matters in the slightest fucking way to me a consumer.

This is why I've always been anti-exclusive when it comes to video games. It's all weird mental gymnastics and odd justifications when I think it'd be best if all games just worked on all platforms that could reasonably run them -- and hardware was sold based on the quality of the hardware itself and the services it can provide. In this one particular case I think there's a positive path forward for companies I personally think have fallen to all-time lows in the pursuit of endless growth, and frankly there's going to be such a ridiculously large amount of way to play these "Xbox exclusives" outside of owning an Xbox that I'm not overbothered.

 

I don't care what Sony and MS's pitches are. I care that massive corporate consolidation is being cheerleaded by "eat the rich" types who don't seem to understand wtf is coming out of their mouths! If you think OKing this means Sony/Nintendo/Apple/Amazon would try to buy massive publishers, then I think you're wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Game Pass is still a MS service, and considering the number of third party games on the service and PS+, I've never bought the argument that buying the dev is beneficial to anyone. PS+ has plenty of Bethesda games, and there's nothing to indicate these other games wouldn't have landed on Game Pass anyway.

Not on day one, most likely not. Game pass has really fundamentally changed my spending habits on games. Diablo IV is the first full price, day one purchase I’ve made on Xbox on like 3 years. I see similar for a lot of friends with GP subs. Tanked their purchasing because there had been a good stream of new, day one, content on the service.

 

And that’s part of the problem of discussing the pro-consumer/anti-consumer issues at play. If you’re an Xbox owner, it is overwhelmingly beneficial to you. If you aren’t, the acquisition is likely harmful to you.

[crispy4000]

9 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

It totally is just a few exclusives. FFXV certainly wasn't exclusive. Tomb Raider/Hitman weren't when SE owned them. Kingdom Hearts 3 wasn't. Star Ocean isn't. Dragon Quest isn't. The only three I can think of are FF16 (which could be timed, I dunno), and both parts of FF7 Remake. If you're comparing that to having control of Diablo, Call of Duty, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Warcraft, Overwatch, etc., then that's an easy argument for me.

 

The PS4/XBO era was probably time the best there ever was for cross-platform releases between Sony & Microsoft.  It wasn't perfect, but it was the best you could expect between two competing platforms.

 

To reiterate this to @Xbob42, I think we're pulling back from that now.  To get to how things were would take the pressure cooling down, not ratcheting up.

[SaysWho?]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Not on day one, most likely not. Game pass has really fundamentally changed my spending habits on games. Diablo IV is the first full price, day one purchase I’ve made on Xbox on like 3 years. I see similar for a lot of friends with GP subs. Tanked their purchasing because there had been a good stream of new, day one, content on the service.

 

And that’s part of the problem of discussing the pro-consumer/anti-consumer issues at play. If you’re an Xbox owner, it is overwhelmingly beneficial to you. If you aren’t, the acquisition is likely harmful to you.

 

Which means most consumers, yes.  

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Which means most consumers, yes.  

But your point, well seemingly, is about the way consumers are reacting. You’re incredulous as to why anybody would be in favor of it. If you own an Xbox, there is mostly reasons to affirm the deal because it means more top tier content available right at launch for your very reasonable subscription fee.

[Xbob42]

24 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

There's absolutely no reason to think Activision wouldn't continue to overmilk their same franchises under Microsoft.  We're also talking about a company with a Battle Pass within a Battle Pass structure in place now, post the announcement of the merger.  I think it's a sign they were gearing up to milk the DLC train even harder, which makes things materially worse on platforms where you'd still have to buy it outright.

 

What company will Sony buy or merge with in response to this acquisition going through?  And what will Microsoft's response be to that?

 

It's a bit too much magic pixie dust for me to believe such a big M&A will lead to more beneficial-to-consumers forms of competition.

Sony doesn't have even a fraction of the capital that Microsoft does, so I can't imagine an acquisition war going too well for them. Frankly MS could just literally buy Sony and probably barely notice it. Obviously would never happen but I'm just talking scale here. I think MS is trying to do whatever they can to gain back the loads of ground they've lost since the 360 era. They've clearly been unable to do so in-house. And I think Diablo 4's monetization was set long ago. You might be right on the monetization front, but I'm not convinced they'd want to go that route right out the gate while trying to rebuild a brand.

 

24 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Octopath Traveler II suddenly became a bad game?

 

It totally is just a few exclusives. FFXV certainly wasn't exclusive. Tomb Raider/Hitman weren't when SE owned them. Kingdom Hearts 3 wasn't. Star Ocean isn't. Dragon Quest isn't. The only three I can think of are FF16 (which could be timed, I dunno), and both parts of FF7 Remake. If you're comparing that to having control of Diablo, Call of Duty, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Warcraft, Overwatch, etc., then that's an easy argument for me.

 

Again, sub SE for something else if it helps; you're missing the point that it simply allows you to have a harder time getting the ideal world of no exclusives you're telling me you want.

 

 

I don't care what Sony and MS's pitches are. I care that massive corporate consolidation is being cheerleaded by "eat the rich" types who don't seem to understand wtf is coming out of their mouths!

Octopath 2 isn't shit when it comes to the scale and quality of games we're talking about here. I might personally enjoy it but it probably actually made less money than Fallout Shelter 2 would, lol. 

 

But you're right, there's a few more than I thought. Most of that list is definitely not flagship or recent, but sure! Their future releases, however...

 

And Square's own statements:

 

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/90699/square-enix-indicates-it-will-continue-making-exclusivity-deals-with-playstation/index.html

 

Sony "making a deal" with Square does not get an Xbox user those games, so functionally it's the same bullshit to me! But hey, at least you got Dying Light 2 and uhh... Infinity Strash. See a doctor if your Strash lasts more than 1 infinity.

 

Also I hope you're not referring to me as "cheerleading" this, because that's a crock of shit. I think it could potentially be better than what we have now, which is endless horse shit from these companies. I don't want the deal to go through because I want a big win for MS; I just don't think stopping the deal improves anything and can see a few ways in which things might get better for the selection of games these companies are releasing.

And frankly since you don't need an Xbox to play Game Pass games and can indeed play them on PC or via streaming (which apparently is a huuuuuge fucking deal to these agencies but we're ignoring it in this thread) even on a mobile phone (You guys all have phones, right?) then the games are still pretty easily accessible to those completely divorced from Xbox consoles.

[SaysWho?]

Just now, sblfilms said:

But your point, well seemingly, is about the way consumers are reacting. You’re incredulous as to why anybody would be in favor of it. If you own an Xbox, there is mostly reasons to affirm the deal because it means more top tier content available right at launch for your very reasonable subscription fee.

 

My point is that this only helps specifically GamePass subscribers by giving you stuff quicker, not by expanding who can play the games since Starfield was always coming to Xbox anyway.

 

I'm not incredulous; I know people have short-sighted reasons for wanting it for themselves without thinking about what massive consolidation would do to the industry in general. 

 

1 minute ago, Xbob42 said:

Sony doesn't have even a fraction of the capital that Microsoft does, so I can't imagine an acquisition war going too well for them. Frankly MS could just literally buy Sony and probably barely notice it. Obviously would never happen but I'm just talking scale here. I think MS it trying to do whatever they can to gain back the loads of ground they've lost since the 360 era. They've clearly been unable to do so in-house. And I think Diablo 4's monetization was set long ago. You might be right on the monetization front, but I'm not convinced they'd want to go that route right out the gate while trying to rebuild a brand.

 

Octopath 2 isn't shit when it comes to the scale and quality of games we're talking about here. I might personally enjoy it but it probably actually made less money than Fallout Shelter 2 would, lol. 

 

But you're right, there's a few more than I thought. Most of that list is definitely not flagship or recent, but sure! Their future releases, however...

 

And Square's own statements:

 

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/90699/square-enix-indicates-it-will-continue-making-exclusivity-deals-with-playstation/index.html

 

Sony "making a deal" with Square does not get an Xbox user those games, so functionally it's the same bullshit to me! But hey, at least you got Dying Light 2 and uhh... Infinity Strash. See a doctor if your Strash lasts more than 1 infinity.

 

Also I hope you're not referring to me as "cheerleading" this, because that's a crock of shit. I think it could potentially be better than what we have now, which is endless horse shit from these companies. I don't want the deal to go through because I want a big win for MS, I don't think stopping the deal improves anything and can see a few ways in which things might get better for the selection of games these companies are releasing.

 

In response to Crispy: you kind of made his point about what's dangerous about this if you're admitting a massive corporation could just buy everything willy-nilly and not notice. But I think you're wrong there too; you're acting as if Sony runs a lemonade stand. I don't want them trying to buy Square or Sega or Capcom or whatever you think is or isn't realistic. 

 

I feel you're intentionally missing the point with Square? I see PC/Switch/PS/Xbox releases, fewer Xbox, but considering many Japanese games don't do as well on Xbox compared to Switch/PS... it wouldn't shock me if some games just don't come to Xbox for sales reasons. And Octopath Traveler 1 SKIPPED Playstation but released on Xbox and originally came to Switch. 

 

Regardless, almost nothing is exclusively Sony's. And what do you define as recent? Hitman 3 came out 2 years ago. KH3 four years. Dragon Quest was 2 1/2 years. By this logic, only FFXVI was "recent" and the only exclusive I can think of, which is hardly the same as straight-up owning them. But if the flood gates open? That ideal future ain't happening, and we'll regress from there more and more.

[Dodger]

With this you have to look at the bigger picture. Sure in a vacuum this is bad, but MS is so far behind that without drastic moves like this and Bethesda, MS would eventually have to leave the console business, which is far worse for the industry. We already know how "arrogant Sony" operates and that is in a manner that is anti consumer. In the end Microsoft gaining market share will be good for all of us, while MS floundering would be bad for all of us. Healthy competition is a good thing, and MS isn't going to make it being only Halo/Forza/Gears.

 

Shit if it wasn't for MS we might not have any real BC this gen, and with how long it's taking games to come out this gen, and often needing months of patches just to not be shit, that's terrifying. Whether you realize it or not MS being successful is helping you out. Like with BC, and you think Sony would have expanded PS+ if there was no Games Pass? Push into cloud gaming if Xbox wasn't as well? Xbox has pushed Sony into expanding it's services and that's good for consumers.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

As somebody who doesn’t own a PS there is barely a difference between Sony paying to make any game from a dev that might be big an exclusive and just buying the entire publisher/developer to make all of the games exclusive. 
 

Games being exclusives have always sucked. 

[crispy4000]

4 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

Sony doesn't have even a fraction of the capital that Microsoft does, so I can't imagine an acquisition war going too well for them. Frankly MS could just literally buy Sony and probably barely notice it. Obviously would never happen but I'm just talking scale here. I think MS is trying to do whatever they can to gain back the loads of ground they've lost since the 360 era. They've clearly been unable to do so in-house. And I think Diablo 4's monetization was set long ago. You might be right on the monetization front, but I'm not convinced they'd want to go that route right out the gate while trying to rebuild a brand.

 

 

I was talking about CoD’s monetization.  They’re pulling the same stunt with Diablo too?  In CoD’s case, there’s literally no reason to not do it if the audience is paying.

 

An acquisition war wouldn’t go well for Sony, just like their market leader tactics wouldn’t work well for Microsoft.  Doesn’t mean they both won’t push things further when this deal presumably goes through.

[crispy4000]

11 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

As somebody who doesn’t own a PS there is barely a difference between Sony paying to make any game from a dev that might be big an exclusive and just buying the entire publisher/developer to make all of the games exclusive. 

The worst take.

 

Unless said publisher/developer makes a one-hit wonder, it matters for a ton more to own them outright.  Their past, present and future is bought in one fell swoop.

 

We saw it from Bethesda.  Acquisition beats individual exclusivity plays.

[SuperSpreader]

7 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

They were able to establish Halo, Forza and Gears of War into 2006, but there hasn't been much in the past 17 years,

Exactly, that clown Phil Spencer shouldn't be in charge of MORE IP and Devs. 

 

Anything that's going to Microsoft is going there to die. 

[Remarkableriots]

Jim Ryan, CEO of PlayStation, said: If Microsoft acquires Activision, Sony will not share PlayStation 6 information with Call of Duty creators | gagadget.com

GAGADGET.COM

---

The situation around Microsoft, ActivisionBlizzard, and Sony is not calming down. CharlieIntel, a Twitter account specialising in Call of Duty, published an interesting document in...

 

[crispy4000]

14 hours ago, Dodger said:

With this you have to look at the bigger picture. Sure in a vacuum this is bad, but MS is so far behind that without drastic moves like this and Bethesda, MS would eventually have to leave the console business, which is far worse for the industry. We already know how "arrogant Sony" operates and that is in a manner that is anti consumer. In the end Microsoft gaining market share will be good for all of us, while MS floundering would be bad for all of us. Healthy competition is a good thing, and MS isn't going to make it being only Halo/Forza/Gears.

 

That's an interesting take.  On one hand, there is a legitimate concern that things will get worse and not better for the console industry if shareholders start to pull out and Microsoft abandons the console market.  Not to mention it'd be devastating for anyone invested in their ecosystem, or what games they produce.

 

On the other hand, Nintendo didn't even fold after the Wii U, which did magnitudes worse than the Xbox One.  So I think it's fair to ask what it would truly take for Microsoft to bow out.  They've never had a problem maintaining relevance, unlike Nintendo and Sega.  They've never gone backwards in marketshare to the point of the original Xbox.  And now they have a clear and present mindshare advantage in the subscription gaming sector.

 

Microsoft still needed much more than Halo/Forza/Gears for a while, particularly since their partnerships with Bungie and Epic ended.  As much as I'd prefer they (and Sony) spend their capital building studios from the ground up, I get the point of a Bethesda acquisition and their smaller pick ups.  There's no time anymore for them to play catch up building from scratch.

 

Everyone should still be questioning if Activision-Blizzard is a step too far.  Today we heard about Kottick's efforts to leverage CoD to extort money from Microsoft for a sweetheart royalty discount.  Things get so much materially worse than that for Sony if Games Pass gets it day one.  And that's just the beginning of how their development resources and IP can be leveraged.  Microsoft isn't paying 9x the price of Bethesda to drive the industry as a whole forward.

 

 

14 hours ago, Dodger said:

Shit if it wasn't for MS we might not have any real BC this gen, and with how long it's taking games to come out this gen, and often needing months of patches just to not be shit, that's terrifying. Whether you realize it or not MS being successful is helping you out. Like with BC, and you think Sony would have expanded PS+ if there was no Games Pass? Push into cloud gaming if Xbox wasn't as well? Xbox has pushed Sony into expanding it's services and that's good for consumers.

 

All for the price of paying $60 annually to play the console games you already own online.  It's still a net positive on the whole having them here, but I'm always going to be bitter about that one.  It's changed my own gaming habits dramatically.

 

Just to mention it, Sony's interest in cloud gaming long preceded xCloud.  As much as they shit the bed with it.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, SuperSpreader said:

Exactly, that clown Phil Spencer shouldn't be in charge of MORE IP and Devs. 

 

Anything that's going to Microsoft is going there to die. 

 

This comment may not age well after Starfield.  It's already bunk on some level after Psyconauts 2, Hi-Fi Rush, Pentiment, etc.

[SuperSpreader]

2 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

This comment may not age well after Starfield.  It's already bunk on some level after Psyconauts 2, Hi-Fi Rush, Pentiment, etc.

 

[Keyser_Soze]

2 hours ago, SuperSpreader said:

Exactly, that clown Phil Spencer shouldn't be in charge of MORE IP and Devs. 

 

Anything that's going to Microsoft is going there to die. 

 

That clown Phil Spencer became the VP of Gaming in 2017 halfway through Xbox one's lifecycle. He's the one trying to right the ship. Don't blame him for mistakes that aren't his.

[SuperSpreader]

3 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

That clown Phil Spencer became the VP of Gaming in 2017 halfway through Xbox one's lifecycle. He's the one trying to right the ship. Don't blame him for mistakes that aren't his.

Imagine failing for 6 years, spending insane on acquisitions, having massive layoffs and still have armies of ppl defend you.

[Keyser_Soze]

imagine trolling this topic

[Spork3245]

I can’t even begin to imagine thinking that Phil Spencer has done a terrible job or that he’s to blame for much when you look at how his predecessor nearly destroyed the brand.

[crispy4000]

10 hours ago, Remarkableriots said:

Jim Ryan, CEO of PlayStation, said: If Microsoft acquires Activision, Sony will not share PlayStation 6 information with Call of Duty creators | gagadget.com

GAGADGET.COM

---

The situation around Microsoft, ActivisionBlizzard, and Sony is not calming down. CharlieIntel, a Twitter account specialising in Call of Duty, published an interesting document in...

 

I don‘t blame him for it.  Trade secrets in exchange for next-gen CoD at launch is still a rough bargain any way you slice it.

 

Gotta wonder what Microsoft would be willing to do for MLB though.  I can’t imagine that sending out early Xbox Next dev kits for that to Sony is worth it.

[SuperSpreader]

3 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

I can’t even begin to imagine thinking that Phil Spencer has done a terrible job or that he’s to blame for much when you look at how his predecessor nearly destroyed the brand.

 

MS should put ABK in charge of MS.