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

[Guest]

Sony will throw more fits, but it’s over. There won’t be any meaningful changes to the terms of the deal. It was always inevitable, IMO.

[crispy4000]

14 hours ago, Brian said:

Depends how much Sony wants to push this. Sony getting unnecessary attention like below may be a catalyst for them to find an agreement with Microsoft and move on.
 

This is a Washington Senator so I’m sure Microsoft greased some wheels. 
 

U.S. Senator Blasts Sony's Monopoly On Cool Japanese Games

KOTAKU.COM

---

Politician says 'Sony controls a monopoly of 98% of the high-end game market' in Japan

 

There really isn’t an incentive for them to go back to the negotiating table.  They have about as much to gain as Valve would signing a document to ensure CoD releases.

 

Bartering for more than that (ie: subscription parity) will just line Microsoft’s pocket books at their expense.  That money is better spent on other deals and modes of competition.

 

I don’t think either company is going to be scared to make bold moves because Activision got acquired.  On the contrary.  They just won’t come at the same ludicrous price tag unless other capital gets involved.

[Dre801]

I just want this to be over.  I'm over it.

[crispy4000]

9 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Sony will throw more fits, but it’s over. There won’t be any meaningful changes to the terms of the deal. It was always inevitable, IMO.

This deal is pretty much done, but the fallout surely won’t be.

[Keyser_Soze]

3 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

This deal is pretty much done, but the fallout surely won’t be.

 

Nah that's at least 10 years away. They haven't even gotten to the new Elder Scrolls yet.

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Bartering for more than that (ie: subscription party) will just line Microsoft’s pocket books at their expense.  That money is better spent on other deals and modes of competition.

What is the basis for this claim 😂

[crispy4000]

14 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

What is the basis for this claim 😂

1) In one of their responses to the CMA, Sony said Microsoft quoted them a number for subscription parity for CoD.  And that it would make their subscription untenable to sustain if they agreed to it.  Unless these are outright lies, CoD will be a subscription exclusive to Games Pass.

 

2) Paying so much in perpetuity to their competitor just to remain on competitive terms is bad business.  It would be much more prudent to seek alternatives.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

1) In one of their responses to the CMA, Sony said Microsoft quoted them a number for subscription parity for CoD.  And that it would make their subscription untenable to sustain if they agreed to it.

 

2) Paying so much in perpetuity to their competitor just to remain on competitive terms is bad business.  It would be much more prudent to seek alternatives.

1. Of course Sony said that, they are trying to derail the deal!

 

2. There is no way to know that without knowing the actual numbers. MS materially shifting the accessibility of CoD on Sony platforms has a very complicated series of potential negative implications for Sony such that it is entirely possible their best path is to pay up for parity. None of us have any meaningful insight into this issue because we don’t know any of the numbers needed to make a reasonable assessment.

[crispy4000]

20 hours ago, sblfilms said:

1. Of course Sony said that, they are trying to derail the deal!

The number was redacted, not hidden from regulators.  If it wasn’t substantial, they wouldn’t have brought it up as supporting evidence to their argument.

 

20 hours ago, sblfilms said:

2. There is no way to know that without knowing the actual numbers.

Would you honestly expect it to come cheap??? I want to know the actual number too, but it wouldn’t be rational to think it’s chump change.

 

Here’s a good reason as any: neither Sony or Microsoft were able to broker a deal to put CoD on their subscription services prior to this.  It’ll take swallowing the company whole for $69 billion for it to happen.

 

20 hours ago, sblfilms said:

MS materially shifting the accessibility of CoD on Sony platforms has a very complicated series of potential negative implications for Sony such that it is entirely possible their best path is to pay up for parity.

 

If it costs them too much to put CoD on their subscription, it doesn’t follow that they should do it anyways and pay up to their rival.  It makes no sense to do something that lacks so much foresight.  They'll have to compete on different terms anyways, so ceding CoD to Games Pass is a smarter use of their money.  

 

That is their best path forward, and the probable outcome here.  Chasing parity is a losing strategy against a competitor buying up big IP for their own leverage.

[XxEvil AshxX]

3 hours ago, Brian said:

Depends how much Sony wants to push this. Sony getting unnecessary attention like below may be a catalyst for them to find an agreement with Microsoft and move on.
 

This is a Washington Senator so I’m sure Microsoft greased some wheels. 
 

U.S. Senator Blasts Sony's Monopoly On Cool Japanese Games

KOTAKU.COM

---

Politician says 'Sony controls a monopoly of 98% of the high-end game market' in Japan

 

 

Her grandkid complained about it over Spring Break.

[crispy4000]

Vid goes up in an hour or so, for a lawyer’s take.

[Keyser_Soze]

Looks like this movement is picking up traction.

 

11 members of Congress argue Sony is unfairly hurting Xbox in Japan

WWW.AXIOS.COM

---

In letters obtained by Axios, reps blast an “imbalanced Japanese video game market.”

 

[Spork3245]

36 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Looks like this movement is picking up traction.

 

11 members of Congress argue Sony is unfairly hurting Xbox in Japan

WWW.AXIOS.COM

---

In letters obtained by Axios, reps blast an “imbalanced Japanese video game market.”

 

 

Sony right now:

[Remarkableriots]

Quote

But Japan’s console market is also not quite a two-horse race: Nintendo, excluded from the definition of “high-end consoles” cited by the policymakers, crushes Sony and Microsoft.

 

[BloodyHell]

8 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

 

Sony right now:

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

4 hours ago, Remarkableriots said:

 

to be fair MS tried to include Nintendo in the “there’s more competition than you realize”

argument. Sony shut them down too like “Nintendo don’t count”. 
 

So yeah, basically Sony is admitting to a monopoly in Japan. 

[crispy4000]

Monopolizing a shrinking market in Japan.  Nintendo really should be thought of as a competitor, especially there.

 

I don’t see a good argument to how Microsoft got shoved out of competing in Japan.  They already tried to buy their way in, and failed, in the 360 era.  They didn’t do enough to entice Japanese developers last gen, who instead flocked to PC.  I’m pretty sure it’s just the vision they’re selling that Japan isn’t buying.   They’re not fully buying into Sony’s either, with their Western focus nowadays.  Its 3rd party Japanese companies themselves that seem to care about cultivating Japanese talent, like Sega buying Altus.

 

Microsoft will have to acquire someone notable to compete there.  If anything, their failures in Japan is reason not to block that kind of acquisition. 
 

As it stands, their troubles in Japan are more akin to their historical failures in the PC market: selling a platform unappealing to the intended audience.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The Japanese competition regulatory authority has approved the acquisition (for whatever that's worth in that particular market).

 

Japan’s competition regulator has approved Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard | VGC

WWW.VIDEOGAMESCHRONICLE.COM

---

The JFTC says the deal "would not substantially restrain competition"

 

Quote

 

The Japan Fair Trade Commission has published a statement in which it says it has “reviewed the transaction and reached the conclusion that [it] is unlikely to result in substantially restraining competition in any particular fields of trade”.

 

It added that it “has notified the parties that the JFTC will not issue a cease and desist order, resulting in the completion of its review”.

 

In a document explaining its decision, the JFTC said the deal didn’t violate any of its anti-competition legislature, saying “the integration falls under the safe harbor criteria for vertical business combinations”.

 

 

[Keyser_Soze]

28 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

The Japanese competition regulatory authority has approved the acquisition (for whatever that's worth in that particular market).

 

Congress really put some pressure on them

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

And here I was hoping this would lead to legislation around the world to make all exclusivity contracts illegal. 
 

funny how Japan gave it the stamp of approval right as Sony was getting some unwanted scrutiny and backlash. lol How mad must Sony be at their own government right now. 

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

And here I was hoping this would lead to legislation around the world to make all exclusivity contracts illegal. 
 

funny how Japan gave it the stamp of approval right as Sony was getting some unwanted scrutiny and backlash. lol How mad must Sony be at their own government right now. 

The writing was on the wall when the CMA folded.  Japan wasn’t stopping anyone.

 

The idea of making exclusivity contracts illegal is really, really dumb.  Not only does that sound draconian to enforce, but it’d have repercussions for 3rd parties working on 1st party IP, and also could kill a franchise like Bayonetta. 

 

We’d naturally see more acquisitions and studio/IP buyouts take its place.  (As we have anyways post Bethesda buyout) There’s evidently no stopping that method of paying for exclusivity.  It’s the same effect, only with more permanence, and sucking harder for gamers on the other side of the fence.

 

There’s no good reason that the console manufacturers shouldn’t be able to contract out, only swallow up whole.  If the latter is fair game, so is the former.

[TwinIon]

9 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

The writing was on the wall when the CMA folded.  Japan wasn’t stopping anyone.

 

The idea of making exclusivity contracts illegal is really, really dumb.  Not only does that sound draconian to enforce, but it’d have repercussions for 3rd parties working on 1st party IP, and also would have killed a franchise like Bayonetta. 

 

We’d naturally see more acquisitions and studio/IP buyouts take its place.  (As we have already post Bethesda buyout). There’s evidently no stopping that method of buying exclusivity.  It’s the same effect, only with more permanence, and sucking harder for gamers on the other side of the fence.

Agreed.

 

I think exclusivity agreements are good for the industry, as long as competition exists. I want Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo all trying to get the best games on their platforms. I want them all to be fighting for every console sale with every tool available to them.

 

Not that I'm a huge fan of market consolidation, but exclusivity doesn't necessarily lead to that, as long as no one is running an effective monopoly.

[crispy4000]

8 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

Agreed.

 

I think exclusivity agreements are good for the industry, as long as competition exists. I want Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo all trying to get the best games on their platforms. I want them all to be fighting for every console sale with every tool available to them.

 

Not that I'm a huge fan of market consolidation, but exclusivity doesn't necessarily lead to that, as long as no one is running an effective monopoly.

I’d add that really I don’t like contracts for games like FFXVI.  But if Microsoft wants to complain, they should go buy SquareEnix from under Sony’s nose like they bought Bethesda.  

 

These are the new terms of engagement.  We enjoyed a really great decade plus of smaller stakes competitive moves, for the consumer end at least, but times are changing. 

[Remarkableriots]

3 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

I’d add that really I don’t like contracts for games like FFXVI.  But if Microsoft wants to complain, they should go buy SquareEnix from under Sony’s nose like they bought Bethesda.  

 

These are the new terms of engagement.  We enjoyed a really great decade plus of smaller stakes competitive moves, for the consumer end at least, but times are changing. 

Microsoft buying Bethesda, an American company, is a lot easier than buying a Japanese company.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, Remarkableriots said:

Microsoft buying Bethesda, an American company, is a lot easier than buying a Japanese company.

No, it’s not.  But such is competition and business when so much capital gets thrown around.

[Dodger]

On 3/28/2023 at 3:46 PM, crispy4000 said:

Monopolizing a shrinking market in Japan.  Nintendo really should be thought of as a competitor, especially there.

 

I don’t see a good argument to how Microsoft got shoved out of competing in Japan.  They already tried to buy their way in, and failed, in the 360 era.  They didn’t do enough to entice Japanese developers last gen, who instead flocked to PC.  I’m pretty sure it’s just the vision they’re selling that Japan isn’t buying.   They’re not fully buying into Sony’s either, with their Western focus nowadays.  Its 3rd party Japanese companies themselves that seem to care about cultivating Japanese talent, like Sega buying Altus.

 

Microsoft will have to acquire someone notable to compete there.  If anything, their failures in Japan is reason not to block that kind of acquisition. 
 

As it stands, their troubles in Japan are more akin to their historical failures in the PC market: selling a platform unappealing to the intended audience.

 

Microsoft is claiming Sony pays Japanese third party publishers to not put their games on Xbox, that’s a lot more than they just never enticed companies to work with them.

[crispy4000]

19 hours ago, Dodger said:

Microsoft is claiming Sony pays Japanese third party publishers to not put their games on Xbox, that’s a lot more than they just never enticed companies to work with them.

 

As opposed to Microsoft buying Western studios of all sizes, like Bethesda, Ninja Theory and Double Fine, and keeping their future games off Sony consoles.  That's a lot more than game-by-game exclusivity contracts, timed or otherwise.  (Which Microsoft is no stranger to themselves)
 

If this was Nintendo complaining, that’d be a bit easier to sympathize with.  Granted, they did pay for Monster Hunter exclusivity on the 3DS.  They’d still be hypocrites for that.

 

But Microsoft....?  It's the bully complaining about being hit back by a weaker punch.  They have the weight to throw around, and they’re using it.

[Guest]

Exclusivity contracts are interesting to me because it seems clear that it is part of the funding mechanism for the development of many titles. The reality is that there are many games that would either not get made or be smaller in scope and scale if platform holders didn’t moneyhat the developer prior to release.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Sony's formal response to the UK CMA's recent pro-Microsoft ruling included citations of decade-old posts from Reddit and the Giant Bomb forum:

 

 

In the same response, Jim Ryan stated that Sony's business "would never recover" if MS ever released a "degraded" version of CoD for the PlayStation:

 

Jim Ryan: 'Our Business Would Never Recover' If Microsoft Degraded Call of Duty on PlayStation

WWW.VGCHARTZ.COM

---

Sony Interactive Entertainment President and CEO Jim Ryan in the company's response to the UK regulator, the Competition [...]

 

Quote

 

Sony Interactive Entertainment President and CEO Jim Ryan in the company's response to the UK regulator, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), Addendum stated PlayStation "would never recover" if Microsoft were to release a degraded version of Call of Duty on PlayStation if its acquisition of Activision Blizzard were to be approved.

 

Ryan said a degraded version of Call of Duty on PlayStation would "seriously damage our reputation. Our gamers would desert our platform in droves and network effects would exacerbate the problem. Our business would never recover."

 

Sony says the Addendum from the CMA ignored this testimony from Ryan and assumed that even a degraded version of the series on PlayStation would not cause gamers to switch from PlayStation to Xbox.

 

 

[silentbob]

What a whining little forum posting like bitch he is. Seriously on that poorer performance being an issue. If I’m not mistaken, wasn’t Sony’s MLB The Show, (which Sony was forced to make for other systems) usually a glitchier and slightly poorer frame rate version of the game on XBox. 

[crispy4000]

37 minutes ago, silentbob said:

What a whining little forum posting like bitch he is. Seriously on that poorer performance being an issue. If I’m not mistaken, wasn’t Sony’s MLB The Show, (which Sony was forced to make for other systems) usually a glitchier and slightly poorer frame rate version of the game on XBox. 

 

I think the worst part is that he cites a forum post about differences with halfed framerates.  It’d take some serious effort on Activision’s part to make CoD target only 30fps on PS5.  It’s just not happening.

 

There is a scenario where I could see a weak argument: a PS5 Pro existing and no Series X Pro, and CoD not doing anything with it when it does scale higher on PC.  But that’d be less about platform parity and more about not giving Sony an edge.  Similar things could be said about not supporting Dual Sense features if it ever comes to that.

 

On the flip side, if Sony releases ever releases an underpowered console, Microsoft should have no obligation to have performance parity with it.  In any of their multiplatform releases.

[Keyser_Soze]

Microsoft now has a 10 year commitment with ee

 

[Dodger]

[Keyser_Soze]

15 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

It's a UK thing so you'll have to ask @gamer.tv

[gamer.tv]

My wife is with EE, now to find out if this can benefit me in any way!