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

[Xbob42]

18 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Who is Nintendo buying?  What acquisition is enabling them?

 

What’s stopping their competitors from encroaching into their market?

The fact that it's a merger or a buyout makes no material difference to me, though I understand it does to these outdated and poorly functioning government bodies. Any closed gardens where a single developer can grow all its exclusives is functionally the same. Instead of buying a company, you buy up talent, build up the company, branch it out and you're still making exclusives for a single proprietary platform. It's less outwardly dramatic but in my eyes the outcome is exactly the same.

 

MANDATE ALL GAMES ON ALL PLATFORMS COWARDS

[crispy4000]

6 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

The fact that it's a merger or a buyout makes no material difference to me, though I understand it does to these outdated and poorly functioning government bodies.

 

MANDATE ALL GAMES ON ALL PLATFORMS COWARDS

It makes no difference to you that these buyout arguments don’t apply to Nintendo.  You could have just said so, instead of well, the opposite.

 

Exclusivity is a whole different can of worms.  Microsoft has tried to tilt the concept towards subscriptions, and more specifically, who is and isn’t willing to surrender that ground to them.

 

I find it much less problematic that Nintendo keeps its own games to itself, as in the traditional model of supporting console ecosystems, than Microsoft acquiring large neutral publishers and blocking future releases from Sony and/or Nintendo.

 

Where’s that Hi-Fi Rush Switch port?  

[crispy4000]

6 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

Any closed gardens where a single developer can grow all its exclusives is functionally the same. Instead of buying a company, you buy up talent, build up the company, branch it out and you're still making exclusives for a single proprietary platform. It's less outwardly dramatic but in my eyes the outcome is exactly the same.

Saw your edit.

 

The material difference is that you don’t lose would-be multiplatform games in the process.  In other words, you and your eyes could play Starfield on a PS5.

 

That is objectively a different outcome.  Exclusives are then additions to the library, not subtractions from others.  Subtractions are what Microsoft and Sony have become increasingly focused on.  They’ve tried to do it small scale for the past decade+, now its moving towards console gamers picking sides based on the formerly multiplatform franchises they enjoy.

[Keyser_Soze]

I'd get Xenoblade if it came to PC.

[crispy4000]

3 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

I'd get Xenoblade if it came to PC.

Great.  As I’m sure many would for Zelda and Mario.

 

Nintendo wants to be in the console/handheld space, this is how they stay relevant there.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

6 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

Where’s that Hi-Fi Rush Switch port?

probably won’t happen since Bethesda was the publisher. But I assume the point would be Hi-Fi Rush should go to Switch also to compete on the platform and spur creativity. 
 

Platformer developers for PS, PC, and XBX don’t have to compete with Mario, so what reason do they have to innovate and improve? Since Nintendo games have no real competition in the space there’s no pressure to reduce price. 
 

Even works at a more micro level. Game Freak has no incentive to make a better Pokémon game, because nobody else can even make Pokémon games to compete with theirs. And again the prices never drop, while new entries have gotten more expensive over time as the quality degraded. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

Nintendo doesn't have Monopoly powers, nor are they purchasing anyone that would give them monopoly powers (or reduce competition) so aren't really doing anything similar. 

[Spork3245]

Just now, AbsolutSurgen said:

Nintendo doesn't have Monopoly powers, nor are they purchasing anyone that would give them monopoly powers (or reduce competition) so aren't really doing anything similar. 

 

They have a monopoly on Italian plumbers, and I think it's time Sony sued.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

probably won’t happen since Bethesda was the publisher. But I assume the point would be Hi-Fi Rush should go to Switch also to compete on the platform and spur creativity. 
 

If Doom could be ported, I don’t see why a game with a cartoon aesthetic couldn’t be.

But since it’s a new IP being leveraged for Games Pass, fat chance.

 

There’s also the PS5.  Why isn’t it coming there?  You already know.

 

1 hour ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Platformer developers for PS, PC, and XBX don’t have to compete with Mario, so what reason do they have to innovate and improve? Since Nintendo games have no real competition in the space there’s no pressure to reduce price. 

 

Nintendo doesn’t even reduce price on games that bomb anymore.

 

If this is to stop, Nintendo either needs to trip over themselves again, or Microsoft/Sony need to make a more concentrated play for their audience.  Maybe even release a new handheld.  Nothing is stopping them.

 

Nintendo still does face pressure to do new and exciting things with their franchises however, especially close to launch.  The Switch wouldn’t be where it is today without BoTW.  If their case isn’t appealing enough, the market can easily write them off.

 

A New Super Mario Wii U 2 wouldn’t cut it as the big Switch 2 launch title, for example.
 

1 hour ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Even works at a more micro level. Game Freak has no incentive to make a better Pokémon game, because nobody else can even make Pokémon games to compete with theirs. And again the prices never drop, while new entries have gotten more expensive over time as the quality degraded. 

The problem here is closer related to CoD.  It’s not that no one can make a better linear military shooter.  It’s that anyone who tries just isn’t going to challenge their mindshare.

 

Plus making kid-oriented monster collecting RPGs isn’t in vogue for large publishers anymore.  Just like kart racers.  It’s not just about Microsoft and Sony not challenging them.

 

Can’t really say the quality has degraded outside of Pokemon though.

[stepee]

38 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Nintendo doesn't have Monopoly powers, nor are they purchasing anyone that would give them monopoly powers (or reduce competition) so aren't really doing anything similar. 

 

Well they actually do have a literal monopoly on the handheld market and their own IPs are what pushed out all the competition in the west (It was that along with the MH deal that did it in Japan) - I don’t know whose argument this helps here but I think people forget about the handheld market now because it’s hiding under Nintendo.

[crispy4000]

26 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

Well they actually do have a literal monopoly on the handheld market and their own IPs are what pushed out all the competition in the west (It was that along with the MH deal that did it in Japan) - I don’t know whose argument this helps here but I think people forget about the handheld market now because it’s hiding under Nintendo.

The West pushed themselves out of the handheld market.

So many half baked spin-offs, barebone ports, licensed garbage, etc, over the years.  They got out of it what they put in.

 

Steam Deck has been the biggest push yet outside of Japan.  And that’s because Valve can leverage what they already have.

 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

4 hours ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Nintendo doesn't have Monopoly powers, nor are they purchasing anyone that would give them monopoly powers (or reduce competition) so aren't really doing anything similar. 

So are we arguing that MS shouldn’t be able to purchase Activision and keep because it would give them a monopoly on COD or because it would reduce competition? 
 

It can easily be argued that any exclusivity is bad for competition and bad for the consumer. Who are we protecting? The consumer or just major corporations? 

[HardAct]

10 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

Surely they can both be better without CoD and more valuable with it.

 

I’m with you on hating what they’ve become.

   Stopped playing COD after BLOPS3, the zombie package is the best as it has old classics as well as a bunch of new ones {at the time}. I loved COD up til BLOPS2 though multi player shooting people, it just got too repetitive and stale. It was a staple of ours for a good 10 years but was never a blind follower like many are that play it's yearly releases numbingly....

[TwinIon]

Monopoly powers absolutely exist if you narrow the market definition enough, it's simply a question as to if makes sense to make it so narrow. In the Epic/Apple battle arguably the primary question is if the market in question is "video games," "mobile software," "mobile games," "iOS software," or "iOS games." Certainly Apple doesn't have a monopoly on all video games, nor do they on mobile games or software. Of course, Epic would rather you define the market specifically to iOS, at which point it becomes very clear that Apple has a monopoly. Deciding if that market definition is valid is for the courts to decide, but even as someone sympathetic to Epic's goals, I'm not sure I'm ok with defining the market so narrowly.

 

Similarly, when it comes to Nintendo, I don't think you could really argue that they have a monopoly until you limit the market a bit too much for my taste. Yeah, they have a monopoly on Switch games, and you could probably widen that to "handheld console" and they'd still have a clear monopoly, but again, I don't think that's a useful market distinction when it's so easy to argue that Nintendo competes at the very least at the "mobile games" level, at which point Nintendo isn't even close to having a monopoly.

 

4 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

So are we arguing that MS shouldn’t be able to purchase Activision and keep because it would give them a monopoly on COD or because it would reduce competition? 
 

It can easily be argued that any exclusivity is bad for competition and bad for the consumer. Who are we protecting? The consumer or just major corporations? 

 

I agree the argument could be made, but I'd personally disagree for the same reasons. Limiting a market to just "COD" is insane to me, as it would be with any given franchise. Once you've widened the market definition a bit, I'd say that exclusives are good for competition, because it allows another avenue for competition to thrive. In some hypothetical world where exclusives aren't allowed, I imagine that would be a worse outcome for consumers because it changes so much about the economics of the industry and so narrows the way companies can compete. Right now the major hardware companies pour money into exclusive games competing with each other. Force that game to be multi-platform and many of those games probably don't get made.

 

This of course, relies on the assumption that that wider market of "video games" is itself competitive, which I think it currently is. As long as that market is a competitive one, exclusive games are a good way for that competition to foster good outcomes for consumers. If that competition were lacking and a single player was dominating the space, then every exclusive for that company would be problematic.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

Exclusive content in games kind of makes me think of the near extreme we’ve seen before. Every platform getting an exclusive and every retailer getting an exclusive. So the only way to own every bit of the game is to buy it on all platforms and from every retailer. 
 

When the NFL made their license exclusive to EA it killed competition and innovation. 
 

New COD games never going to PlayStation is only marginally different than Spider-Man never going to Xbox, or Nintendo never releasing their games anywhere else. You still need to buy the hardware where the software is to play it. It doesn’t matter what the consumer already owns. 
 

Maybe MS stops publishing Forza if Gran Turismo releases on Xbox. Would that be because they don’t see the point since now the ‘at least 1 sim racing franchise’ quota is reached? Maybe it forces both to up their game, because they can’t rely on being the only big fish in their small Ecco system pond. 
 

these companies want ‘competition’, but only on their terms, and more often then not regulators have been happy to just push it through. They’re being given a free pass to hide behind the very consumers they attempt to fleece or screw over for their corporate gain. 
 

Legally speaking this could end with MS being rejected and rebuked by regulators, and then just turning around and buying COD from Activision or reaching a multi-billion dollar publishing deal with Activision for the exclusivity of COD, and these regulators and Sony would be impotent to stop it. 
 

what are they gonna do then? Pass legislation to give governments the power to break up these companies and deny all exclusivity contracts and deals for products and services? Nope. But maybe they should. 

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

New COD games never going to PlayStation is only marginally different than Spider-Man never going to Xbox, or Nintendo never releasing their games anywhere else.

Not a great comparison.  CoD is an annualized franchise that tops annual sales charts most years, with a reach extending further into F2P and mobile spaces.  Comparing it to Nintendo’s output all at once doesn’t make much sense.  Or to a Spider-Man game releasing once in a blue moon.  

 

All goes to illustrate that the CoD machine occupies its own space in this industry.  It really is that important.  Which is why a buyout of Activision was so surprising to begin with, even with their PR problems.

The idea that a platform holder could choose to rip CoD away from their competitors should be shocking.  It’s one heck of a bargaining chip if nothing else.  The closer (imperfect) analog is GTA, just for how much V sold.  Imagine if Sony or Microsoft cinched that today, and said the other side could stop receiving them (in a decade).  It’s a huge deal if those franchises appeal to your audience.

[Guest]

All platform exclusive content increases costs to consumers by needing to sink money into multiple platforms, or decreases access. It is also part of what makes it worth developing these platforms in the first place, and why companies can afford to sell the platform base hardware for minimal profit as they create many much more profitable revenue streams on top of it.

 

Quite the conundrum

[crispy4000]

9 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

All platform exclusive content increases costs to consumers by needing to sink money into multiple platforms, or decreases access. It is also part of what makes it worth developing these platforms in the first place, and why companies can afford to sell the platform base hardware for minimal profit as they create many much more profitable revenue streams on top of it.

 

Quite the conundrum

1st party exclusives also tend to be less loaded with microtransactions and questionable season passes than the rest of the AAA industry.

 

Part of me thinks that also wouldn’t be worth losing.  It keeps a bit of a sanity check on the rest of the industry peddling too much bs.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

53 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

All goes to illustrate that the CoD machine occupies its own space in this industry.  It really is that important.  Which is why a buyout of Activision was so surprising to begin with, even with their PR problems.

If it’s that important then they all are. 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

36 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

1st party exclusives also tend to be less loaded with microtransactions and questionable season passes than the rest of the AAA industry.

 

Part of me thinks that also wouldn’t be worth losing.  It keeps a bit of a sanity check on the rest of the industry peddling too much bs.

Sadly Sony and MS first party games have already been dabbling in mtx. GT, Forza, Halo. And Sony bought Bungie for among other reasons to assist with their own plans for live service model games. 
 

So maybe games like GOW and Horizon will be allowed to stay free of mtx, but there’s clearly a plan and effort being made to get that extra revenue stream. 

[crispy4000]

2 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

If it’s that important then they all are. 

No, all things are not equal.  Take it from Microsoft themselves doubling down.

 

2 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Sadly Sony and MS first party games have already been dabbling in mtx. GT, Forza, Halo. And Sony bought Bungie for among other reasons to assist with their own plans for live service model games. 
 

So maybe games like GOW and Horizon will be allowed to stay free of mtx, but there’s clearly a plan and effort being made to get that extra revenue stream. 

Hate to say it, but this is one of the areas where Nintendo might be right to not discount their games by much or throw them on subscriptions.  They aren’t as pressured to make Splatoon 3 multiplayer free, or to turn Mario Kart into a mess of live-service cosmetics.  (…Just on iOS)

[AbsolutSurgen]

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

All platform exclusive content increases costs to consumers by needing to sink money into multiple platforms, or decreases access. It is also part of what makes it worth developing these platforms in the first place, and why companies can afford to sell the platform base hardware for minimal profit as they create many much more profitable revenue streams on top of it.

 

Quite the conundrum

True, but market forces are decreasing that.  MS now releases all its content on PC.  Sony is starting to.

[Keyser_Soze]

FOSS Patents: Defeat for Sony as FTC judge largely rejects its motion to quash Microsoft's subpoena in Activision Blizzard merger case

WWW.FOSSPATENTS.COM

---

The staff of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has just uploaded an order (PDF) by the agency's Chief (and only) Administrative Law Judge ...

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Exclusive: Microsoft's licensing offer likely to satisfy EU on Activision, sources say

WWW.REUTERS.COM

---

Microsoft's offer of licensing deals to rivals is likely to address EU antitrust concerns over its $69 billion acquisition of Activision , three people familiar with the matter said, helping it to clear a major hurdle.

 

Quote

Microsoft's (MSFT.O) offer of licensing deals to rivals is likely to address EU antitrust concerns over its $69 billion acquisition of Activision (ATVI.O), three people familiar with the matter said, helping it to clear a major hurdle.

 

[crispy4000]

Aren’t UK and US regulators the major hurdle?

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

23 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Aren’t UK and US regulators the major hurdle?

I think so. And I’m afraid, as funny as it has been, that it looks like opposition will just part before MS and allow it. 
 

these regulators and governments are just toothless or corrupt. Likely both.  

[crispy4000]

All I know is that if this deal doesn’t get properly scrutinized, then nothing should be off limits in this industry as far as M&As in the future.  They’ll all be able to point back to when Microsoft bought Activision.

 

Also, that 10 years is nothing in this industry anymore.  We’re past the point of these console manufacturers trying to ‘make it.’  If anyone has ever been on the outs, it’s Nintendo, and they still bounce back.

 

I’m far more inclined to believe that the means of competition in this industry have been tarnished by greedy executives.  Both with how they deal with each other, and how they collude to screw their consumers in tandem. (see: online multiplayer paywalls)

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

39 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Aren’t UK and US regulators the major hurdle?

 

The US FTC will be easily brushed aside in court if it ends up there.  The FTC is on a pretty impressive losing streak when cases finally end up in front of actual judges.

 

This entire deal hinges on the UK CMA.

[Guest]

The UK isn’t derailing this deal

[Dodger]

2 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

All I know is that if this deal doesn’t get properly scrutinized, then nothing should be off limits in this industry as far as M&As in the future.  They’ll all be able to point back to when Microsoft bought Activision.

 

Also, that 10 years is nothing in this industry anymore.  We’re past the point of these console manufacturers trying to ‘make it.’  If anyone has ever been on the outs, it’s Nintendo, and they still bounce back.

 

I’m far more inclined to believe that the means of competition in this industry have been tarnished by greedy executives.  Both with how they deal with each other, and how they collude to screw their consumers in tandem. (see: online multiplayer paywalls)

 

I think MS will be happy to just take all that revenue and be content to say every CoD will be on games pass. Plus I think it would be hard for a public company to justify cutting off a major revenue source to shareholders.

 

On the downside ten years from now you won’t be able to play Diablo 5 on your PS6

[crispy4000]

2 hours ago, Dodger said:

I think MS will be happy to just take all that revenue and be content to say every CoD will be on games pass. Plus I think it would be hard for a public company to justify cutting off a major revenue source to shareholders.

 

On the downside ten years from now you won’t be able to play Diablo 5 on your PS6

 

They would love to put CoD on Games Pass and charge Sony up the butt to do the same on PSN extra.  That's a win / win for Microsoft.

 

That's the kind of leverage that matters in the short term.  Long term, I see exclusivity as an ace up their sleeve to pull later on.  Even if its something as simple as DLC, early access or early releases for Games Pass players.  Some of that stuff makes too much sense to not explore once they don't have regulators breathing down their neck.  They would sell more consoles as a result.  Or they could renew a parity promise conditionally to get other things they'd want out of their competitors.

 

As for the rest of Activision, it'll be a lot more than Diablo not coming to Playstation.  Sony (and Nintendo) releases probably won't be a condition for other IP, and going off Bethesda, it won't be the norm.

[Keyser_Soze]

Microsoft granted access to Sony documents: The FTC's response in detail

WWW.GAMESINDUSTRY.BIZ

---

Sign up for the GI Daily here to get the biggest news straight to your inbox At a glance The Federal Trade Commission h…

 

[SuperSpreader]

5 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Microsoft granted access to Sony documents: The FTC's response in detail

WWW.GAMESINDUSTRY.BIZ

---

Sign up for the GI Daily here to get the biggest news straight to your inbox At a glance The Federal Trade Commission h…

 

 

Whoa wtf request is this Microsoft

 

Quote

 

Request to withhold employee performance reviews and evaluations: Granted

Sony argued that the requested documents related to performance reviews or evaluations of Jim Ryan and his direct reports, as well as other members of the company's leadership, were not relevant to the case and were an "unjustified invasion of employee privacy," according to the FTC.

 

 

Good luck ABK employees 

[SuperSpreader]

Honestly that performance review request tells me everything to know about Phil Spencer is and how Microsoft Games is run. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 hours ago, SuperSpreader said:

Honestly that performance review request tells me everything to know about Phil Spencer is and how Microsoft Games is run. 

 

From what I've read, the intent behind the performance review request was to analyze them to determine if any aspect of performance/compensation could be directly tied to actions that involve exclusivity deals or other actions that would "block" MS from obtaining favorable terms with third parties.