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

[johnny]

let’s give the saudis a shot at owning activision blizzard. would be better than xbox! 

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, johnny said:

let’s give the saudis a shot at owning activision blizzard. would be better than xbox! 

Well, they both deal in oily business schemes and sweeping women under the rug.

[SuperSpreader]

7 hours ago, Remarkableriots said:

Bethesda Executive "Confused" By Microsoft's Willingness To Keep Call Of Duty On PlayStation - GameSpot

WWW.GAMESPOT.COM

 

 

[crispy4000]

FTC's expert:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.413969/gov.uscourts.cand.413969.224.0.pdf

 

Quote

Defendants’ economic expert Prof. Carlton asserts without any cited evidence that
the acquisition will create “greater incentives to invest in developing new games or franchises or
improving existing games or franchises.”105 Prof. Carlton claims that “[t]he combined company
will have an increased incentive” to engage in such investment,106 but this is not correct in
general: the Merged Entity may actually have a reduced incentive to invest compared to an
independent Activision in games, features, or other content that also benefits rivals of Microsoft.
The reason is similar to why the Merged Entity would have a greater economic incentive to
foreclose Activision content than an independent Activision: by reducing investment in content
that benefits Microsoft’s rivals, the Merged Entity stands to gain from diverted sales to
Microsoft’s Xbox consoles and Game Pass subscriptions.

 

This stood out to me.  I think it's probably most reasonable for Microsoft to double down on Battle Passes with CoD, with a big new release every 2-3 years.  That would free up much of their support studios to work on exclusive projects and round out Games Pass' release schedule.

 

An independent Activision doesn't need to support a console, so it makes sense to just ride the gravy train they've set up currently.
 

On one hand, I'd love to see Activision pull away from CoD somewhat.  On the other, Microsoft will leverage what they can to force the market in their direction with their wallet. 

[SuperSpreader]

1 hour ago, crispy4000 said:

with a big new release every 2-3 years.

Call of Duty will reportedly skip an annual release for the first time in nearly 20 years | VGC

WWW.VIDEOGAMESCHRONICLE.COM

---

2023's game will reportedly be pushed back following poor sales of Vanguard…

 

 

1 hour ago, crispy4000 said:

That would free up much of their support studios to work on exclusive projects and round out Games Pass' release schedule.

 

It won't/hasn't 

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, SuperSpreader said:

It won't/hasn't 

 

It may if Microsoft wants resources put elsewhere.  Pile on Halo, for example.

[crispy4000]

Cross referencing some of the live blogs of Jim's questioning:

 

Quote

Xbox chief Phil Spencer send Jim Ryan a commitment list of games last year that would remain on PlayStation after the proposed Activision Blizzard deal closes.

The list included Overwatch but not Overwatch 2. “Other Activision games on PlayStation must be sufficiently broad, to fully align with gamers expectations,” said Ryan in the email.

 

Quote

MS made assurances about some games. "It is our opinion that it was not a meaningful list." "This list represented a particular selection of older titles."  Overwatch 1 was on the list but not Overwatch 2.

 

I don't think any new Blizzard game could be expected to come to PS5.

[Remarkableriots]

FTC spars with Microsoft gaming chief Phil Spencer over how Xbox is run

WWW.AXIOS.COM

---

The company is defending its acquisition of Activision against charges that the deal would be anti-competitive.

Quote

Two very different versions of Microsoft’s gaming division were described in court last week during ongoing hearings in the Federal Trade Commission’s attempt to block Microsoft’s $69 billion bid to buy Activision Blizzard.

 

Why it matters: Xbox’s public reputation, at times seemingly too complimentary of competitors, too frank about its struggles to be true, is getting tested by evidence and aggressive FTC questioning.

 

Microsoft's take on Microsoft is of a company whose gaming team is trying to expand the market by playing nice even with traditional rivals, producing games for as many systems, including PlayStation, as possible, with some limits.

 

The FTC’s take on Microsoft is that it talks nice publicly but has different plans in mind and is prepared to use the company’s war chest to tolerate short-term losses to squeeze rivals.

 

[Xbob42]

Trying to prove long-term intent seems like a dubious proposition at the best of times. It's hard to prove intent of things that've already happened!

[crispy4000]

Microsoft wanted to acquire Square Enix as part of plan for mobile Game Pass - The Verge

WWW.THEVERGE.COM

---

Another potential acquisition.

That’s another way to buy FF exclusivity.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The discovery process for this case has really laid bare the reality that Microsoft doesn't appear to have any real interest, strategy, or ability to grow Xbox organically.

[crispy4000]

29 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

The discovery process for this case has really laid bare the reality that Microsoft doesn't appear to have any real interest, strategy, or ability to grow Xbox organically.

 

I'm sure they have the ability.  But definitely not the interest.

 

They see the importance of legacy IP and established development resources for their Game Pass ambitions.

[Spork3245]

It’s frustrating that they don’t bring back all of the old MSFT PC IPs from the 90s

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

38 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

The discovery process for this case has really laid bare the reality that Microsoft doesn't appear to have any real interest, strategy, or ability to grow Xbox organically.

nope. And Sony wanted to shut MS out of any every third party major release too. At least Sony has good first party games, but they were definitely trying to kneecap MS to have only shit. 
 

both are just trying to win by throwing money around to lock stuff up. And when Xbox was limited to its own budget Sony had the advantage. But once Xbox got access to the full MS checkbook … well here we are. 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

6 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

It’s frustrating that they don’t bring back all of the old MSFT PC IPs from the 90s

It’s frustrating MS can’t seemingly manage IPs like they could in the 360 era. 

[Spork3245]

Just now, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

It’s frustrating MS can’t seemingly manage IPs like they could in the 360 era. 

OG XBOX was them at their height imo

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

6 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

OG XBOX was them at their height imo

I can see that. I felt like the Xbox 360 era was where it was them nearly perfected. Halo at its best, Forza at its best, Gears and Gears at its best, publishing ME, Fable at its best 

[crispy4000]

42 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

nope. And Sony wanted to shut MS out of any every third party major release too. At least Sony has good first party games, but they were definitely trying to kneecap MS to have only shit.

 

Microsoft was playing a similar game before Phil took over with timed exclusivity.  Mass Effect, Oblivion, Bioshock, Dead Rising 1 and 3, Rise of the Tomb Raider, etc.  It worked out well for them in the 360 era, not so much with the Xbox One.

 

I'd consider either of these companies buying SquareEnix to be an effort to kneecap the other.  Sega too, to a lesser degree.  And of course, Bethesda.

We don't know when/if they offered Square a deal, do we?  Only that it was intended?

[ShreddieMercury]

OG Xbox was definitely their creative peak in my opinion, but the 360 library is among the best of any console.  But it did miss awesome stuff like SEGA's output and MS's push into sports games with stuff like Rallisport Challenge and Amped.  The 360 is also where you saw the over reliance on only a few franchises, which has had severely diminishing returns.

[crispy4000]

Quote

The court has pulled all its exhibits after the Sony redaction mess.

While we listen to Dr. Bailey’s testimony, a storm is unfolding elsewhere in the FTC v. Microsoft case. The court uploaded a document earlier from Sony that included confidential financial information that wasn’t properly redacted. Now all the documents have suddenly disappeared.

It looks like Sony redacted the documents with a pen and when you scan them in it’s easy to see the redactions. Reporters and Sony’s competition will have downloaded all the documents as they were in the public domain, so the damage is done:

• Horizon Forbidden West apparently cost $212 million over five years with 300 employees

• 1 million gamers play nothing but Call of Duty

• Sony says only one more Call of Duty game was guaranteed to come to PlayStation

 

  

Quote

In 2021, over [14?] million users (by device) spent 30 percent or more of their time playing Call of Duty, over 6 million users spent more than 70% of their time on Call of Duty, and about 1 million users spent 100% of their gaming time on Call of Duty. In 2021, Call of Duty players spent an average of [116?] hours per year playing Call of Duty. Call of Duty players spending more than 70 percent of their time on Call of Duty spent an average of 296 hours on the franchise.

 

[TwinIon]

On 6/26/2023 at 1:58 PM, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Microsoft was ready to ‘go spend Sony out of business’ to strengthen Xbox - The Verge

WWW.THEVERGE.COM

---

A key email in the FTC v. Microsoft case

 

 

I feel like this is the most instructive thing that we've seen in this case so far. MS trying to build up as much of a content moat as possible in order to win in game streaming in 10 years explains basically everything else we've heard from them.

 

The other thing not said in this email is that Disney was "late" to streaming, but it didn't matter because they had all the content. If Sony is late to build a competitive streaming service, it doesn't really matter if they have the content people want.

[crispy4000]

 

Quote

FTC: Activision hasn’t signed deals to offer COD first on other platforms, right?

Kotick: It’s possible.

 

What a weasel.

[TwinIon]

What other games are there like that, that sell in huge amounts to people that primarily or only play that game?

 

Fifa and Madden for sure. Probably Dota/LoL. Probably some of the other popular shooters like Apex, Destiny, CS:GO. Maybe GTAV. Certainly there are lots of niche titles like The Sims or Flight Sim where people primarily play only that game.

 

Maybe the more interesting question is what percent of game time is spent by people who only or primarily play a single game?

[crispy4000]

Just now, TwinIon said:

What other games are there like that, that sell in huge amounts to people that primarily or only play that game?

 

Fifa and Madden for sure. Probably Dota/LoL. Probably some of the other popular shooters like Apex, Destiny, CS:GO. Maybe GTAV. Certainly there are lots of niche titles like The Sims or Flight Sim where people primarily play only that game.

 

Maybe the more interesting question is what percent of game time is spent by people who only or primarily play a single game?

 

Minecraft.  Roblox.

[crispy4000]

Quote

Sony accidentally revealed how much money Call of Duty is worth to PlayStation.

We knew it was over a billion dollars, but PlayStation boss Jim Ryan’s unredacted letter suggests CoD represented $800 million in PlayStation revenue in the United States alone, and — I think that says $1.5 billion, right? — worldwide. (That’s in 2021 specifically.)

Those players represent way more money to Sony than that, though: Ryan says CoD players spend (what looks to me like) $15.9 billion per year, on average, on everything else they buy.

Then again, some PlayStation gamers play nothing but CoD, we just learned.

 

$$$

[AbsolutSurgen]

2 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

The discovery process for this case has really laid bare the reality that Microsoft doesn't appear to have any real interest, strategy, or ability to grow Xbox organically.

I think we all knew that before, but this just proved it.

[TwinIon]

2 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

That sounds like what basically every filmmaker who had their movie go straight to streaming would say.

 

The fun thing is, given where we are with the streaming wars, we don't even know who is right quite yet. Streaming isn't even profitable yet. Could be that we look back on sending movies straight to streaming as a short term loss that never made sense. Could be that streaming does end up being far more profitable in the long term and we end up regularly seeing future blockbusters released straight to streaming.

 

It probably doesn't make sense to forgo normal sales of COD and put them right on GamePass right now, but it might in the future. I suspect that, like with films, we'll see a hybrid approach. You don't release Avatar straight to Disney+, but after the box office dies down you can put it on there as well.

[Remarkableriots]

21 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

What other games are there like that, that sell in huge amounts to people that primarily or only play that game?

 

Fifa and Madden for sure. Probably Dota/LoL. Probably some of the other popular shooters like Apex, Destiny, CS:GO. Maybe GTAV. Certainly there are lots of niche titles like The Sims or Flight Sim where people primarily play only that game.

 

Maybe the more interesting question is what percent of game time is spent by people who only or primarily play a single game?

Final Fantasy XIV 

[crispy4000]

Quote

According to SIE internal surveys, almost half of PlayStation 5 owners in the United States also own a Nintendo Switch, while less than 20% of PlayStation 5 owners in the United States also own an Xbox Series X or S.

 

This is why Nintendo's stayed relevant.

 

I'd imagine Microsoft's number would be closer to a 1/4 or 1/3rd if they never did day and date on PC.

[SuperSpreader]

2 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

real interest, strategy, or ability to grow Xbox organically

 

Bro it's Microsoft 

[SuperSpreader]

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

It’s frustrating that they don’t bring back all of the old MSFT PC IPs from the 90s

 

haha wait till they get their hands on more IP

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

 

I feel like if kotick is saying this then there’s receipts of him saying it in the past and he doesn’t want to get called out for lying. 

52 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I feel like this is the most instructive thing that we've seen in this case so far. MS trying to build up as much of a content moat as possible in order to win in game streaming in 10 years explains basically everything else we've heard from them.

It’s almost like this is why some suggested the 10 year agreements MS was offering was pointless, because 10 years was when they were expecting everything for streaming to really take off. And MS would be holding nearly all of the IPs people want to play. 

[SuperSpreader]

53 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

 

What a weasel.

 

lol he agreed to the merger because his company was imploding at the time under sexual abuse scandals

 

Fucking idiots 

[SuperSpreader]

52 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

What other games are there like that, that sell in huge amounts to people that primarily or only play that game?

 

"Nintendo"

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

Judge to Kotick: “then why did you agree to the merger?.” 
Kotick: