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

[Biggie]

1 hour ago, Dodger said:

CoD has basically hollowed out Activision, and if MS isn't careful it will start to hollow out their studios as well. If CoD switches to every other year releases it won't be so the studios can work on other games, it will be cause games take a long time to develop now and it just takes that long to develop the games. At first I was hopeful that would happen but I doubt MS is spending this kind of money so we can get new Crash and Spyro games. It's to get CoD on GamesPass to drive that recurrent revenue. CoD on Games Pass allows MS to buy another studio that can make other content, not free Activision to do it. 

Nah man. The people want a new Crash and Spyro game. 
 

[GeneticBlueprint]

1 hour ago, DPCyric said:

 

Skylanders was a thing nearly a decade ago they have not been in the position to try something different in a long time. CoD sells and is what makes their investors happy, they had several flops outside of that and moved all the studios with flops to CoD development. Fortunately we have gotten some Crash games lately but they are way too reliant on CoD currently and how long is that really sustainable?

I asked that same question ten years ago :P

[SuperSpreader]

Remember Guitar Hero? Tony Hawk? 

[DPCyric]

7 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

I asked that same question ten years ago :P

 

They have had some underperformers since then and are lucky to be back in the position they are. They really need to move to an every other year model.

[GeneticBlueprint]

Just now, DPCyric said:

 

They have had some underperformers since then and are lucky to be back in the position they are. They really need to move to an every other year model.

 

I mean no argument from me. I think CoD is awful and have thought so since MW2 pretty much. I'd happily take an every-other-year approach if I can't get my preferred just-stop-making-it approach.

[DPCyric]

1 hour ago, SuperSpreader said:

Remember Guitar Hero? Tony Hawk? 

 

Tony Hawk 1+2 was fairly recently and I believe was successful. I'm certain that is a franchise Microsoft will leverage for Gamepass.

 

50 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

I mean no argument from me. I think CoD is awful and have thought so since MW2 pretty much. I'd happily take an every-other-year approach if I can't get my preferred just-stop-making-it approach.

 

I've always thought CoD was bad at a fundamental level but I have had fun playing some of them. I think they could do a mainline game every two years and do spinoffs in between.

[Xbob42]

3 hours ago, Dodger said:

CoD has basically hollowed out Activision, and if MS isn't careful it will start to hollow out their studios as well. If CoD switches to every other year releases it won't be so the studios can work on other games, it will be cause games take a long time to develop now and it just takes that long to develop the games. At first I was hopeful that would happen but I doubt MS is spending this kind of money so we can get new Crash and Spyro games. It's to get CoD on GamesPass to drive that recurrent revenue. CoD on Games Pass allows MS to buy another studio that can make other content, not free Activision to do it. 

I think this is a weird way to look at it. MS will just have Activision keep pumping out the same shit every year like they always do, no need to "hollow" anything out. But then they can also leverage the myriad IPs that Activision comes with and just... have other studios work on them. If MS wanted to laser focus on one gargantuan series, they'd have done that with Minecraft. They'll want to diversify as they've been doing nonstop, have as many different products being worked on by as many studios as possible so they have a consistent stream of games -- which they have yet to do. They're obviously working on it, but sure as shit haven't hit their stride yet.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

Well after all this time MSFT’s plan for GamePass will finally be CODified. 
 

Thank you. Thank you very much. 

[crispy4000]

25 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

I think this is a weird way to look at it. MS will just have Activision keep pumping out the same shit every year like they always do, no need to "hollow" anything out. But then they can also leverage the myriad IPs that Activision comes with and just... have other studios work on them. If MS wanted to laser focus on one gargantuan series, they'd have done that with Minecraft. They'll want to diversify as they've been doing nonstop, have as many different products being worked on by as many studios as possible so they have a consistent stream of games -- which they have yet to do. They're obviously working on it, but sure as shit haven't hit their stride yet.

I think he was referring to Activison effectively killing other studios to pour resources into CoD.  (And Blizzard in Neversoft’s case)

[Xbob42]

46 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

I think he was referring to Activison effectively killing other studios to pour resources into CoD.  (And Blizzard in Neversoft’s case)

Yeah, but that's like the opposite of Microsoft's MO. Like, I'm sure they will be 100% into getting all that sweet, sweet CoD revenue, but you don't need to gut the rest of your company to do that, and frankly I'm surprised Activision went as far as they did. They've ran series into the dirt before, and while they've always been able to pull out some new big hit, as commercials will often tell you:

 

 

The way they were willing to put every single egg into the smallest basket possible was... well it was something. And, like, I know the argument is always "well it worked," but... was gutting the rest of the company really necessary to achieve these results?

It starts to make slightly more sense if I think about it as some quarterly earnings bullshit where maybe they don't want any products that might reflect negatively or show any sort of losses? Real deranged capitalism bullshit I have no interest in.

[crispy4000]

Microsoft didn't buy CoD to watch it diminish.  We'd probably need see CoD fall from its prominent position for them to want to invest less in it than now.

 

Like, um, Halo.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

OLOLOLOLOLOLO

 

Kagan rejects emergency request to block Microsoft, Activision Blizzard merger

THEHILL.COM

---

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan Tuesday rejected an emergency request to block Microsoft and Activision Blizzard from merging. In a brief order, Kagan denied a last-minute bid from a group of...

 

[Remarkableriots]

The end of the story will be later: Microsoft's appeal to block ActivisionBlizzard's acquisition postponed for 2 months | gagadget.com

GAGADGET.COM

---

It seemed that the situation around Microsoft's acquisition of ActivisionBlizzard was supposed to be over, but it wasn't.

Quote

The CAT, the UK's Court of Appeal for Competition, has postponed Microsoft's appeal against the CMA, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority, blocking the deal for 2 months, although the hearing was originally scheduled for 28 July.

In order to allow Microsoft to acquire ActivisionBlizzard, the corporation proposed new terms of the deal, which mainly concern changes in cloud gaming. The deal was blocked because of the fear that Microsoft would monopolise this area.

The CMA stated that the additional time would allow the agency to discuss Microsoft's proposals promptly and constructively. Also, both parties are confident that the restructuring of the deal can eliminate the problems identified by the regulator. We'll see what happens next.

 

[Xbob42]

11 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

Microsoft didn't buy CoD to watch it diminish.  We'd probably need see CoD fall from its prominent position for them to want to invest less in it than now.

 

Like, um, Halo.

You don't need to invest your entire company into a property to have it not diminish. That's completely absurd. They should be growing all the other properties they now have along with Call of Duty, so they have a nice diversified portfolio and a reason for people to give a shit about Xbox/Game Pass outside of CoD launches. All this "everything is just gonna be CoD" thinking is so narrow and small picture. 

[crispy4000]

2 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

You don't need to invest your entire company into a property to have it not diminish. That's completely absurd. They should be growing all the other properties they now have along with Call of Duty, so they have a nice diversified portfolio and a reason for people to give a shit about Xbox/Game Pass outside of CoD launches. All this "everything is just gonna be CoD" thinking is so narrow and small picture. 

 

I don't disagree.  But part of keeping CoD relevant in 2023 includes sustaining and growing Warzone and CoD mobile.  Keeping these and the main entries relevant as GaaS titles in the age of Fortnite.  And now, making promised Switch ports.

 

Activision is basically split today into CoD, Blizzard, King and Other.  So to say they're all just CoD now is a bit too reductive, even if there is some truth to how its cannibalized the Other category.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

[SuperSpreader]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

rofl this exactly 

[Keyser_Soze]

Still more promising than Papa EA

[Brian]

I’m still shocked Spencer got Nadella on board for the $70B acquisition. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, Brian said:

I’m still shocked Spencer got Nadella on board for the $70B acquisition. 

 

That aspect definitely has me perplexed as well.

 

What I would give to see the metrics that Spencer presented to obtain the green light.

[SuperSpreader]

[crispy4000]

 

[Remarkableriots]

Microsoft and Activision Blizzard extend merger agreement to October - The Verge

WWW.THEVERGE.COM

---

Microsoft is reportedly proposing to sell off its UK cloud gaming rights to appease regulators.

 

[Remarkableriots]

The feds just laid out new guidelines for approving mergers — here they are

WWW.CNBC.COM

---

The new guidelines are meant to give businesses and courts a sense of how the two agencies determine whether a deal is unlawful.

Quote

1. Mergers should not significantly increase concentration in highly concentrated markets.

2. Mergers should not eliminate substantial competition between firms.

3. Mergers should not increase the risk of coordination.

4. Mergers should not eliminate a potential entrant in a concentrated market.

5. Mergers should not substantially lessen competition by creating a firm that controls products or services that its rivals may use to compete.

6. Vertical mergers should not create market structures that foreclose competition.

7. Mergers should not entrench or extend a dominant position.

8. Mergers should not further a trend toward concentration.

9. When a merger is part of a series of multiple acquisitions, the agencies may examine the whole series.

10. When a merger involves a multi-sided platform, the agencies examine competition between platforms, on a platform, or to displace a platform.

11. When a merger involves competing buyers, the agencies examine whether it may substantially lessen competition for workers or other sellers.

12. When an acquisition involves partial ownership or minority interests, the agencies examine its impact on competition.

13. Mergers should not otherwise substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Quote

FTC's ALJ Chapell, in a hearing for another case, says they are "in limbo" on the Microsoft case right now. But he thinks its a "waste of time and energy" to have admin trials move forward when the federal courts are considering issues related to the same merger.

 

[Remarkableriots]

Activision Blizzard lays off esports staff as it faces potential dramatic changes for the Overwatch League - The Verge

WWW.THEVERGE.COM

---

Uncertainty plagues the future of the Overwatch League.

Quote

Amid the final days of the Activision Blizzard / Microsoft deal, Activision Blizzard is laying off workers in its esports department while also preparing for potentially huge changes coming to the Overwatch League.

 

[SuperSpreader]

There's gonna be more of that. 

[SuperSpreader]

MW2 Fans Demand Refunds After ‘Lies’ About Two-Year Cycle

WWW.GGRECON.COM

---

After Activision backtracked on its two-year Modern Warfare 2 cycle, angry fans are demanding refunds on the skins they've paid for.

 

 

 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

I get being annoyed that it looked like Activision was going to allow for a focus on quality for the first time in 15 years, but nope, looks like they chose greed after all. Shocker. 
 

just don’t buy the next COD game. Not everyone does. Even those that do eventually buy the new one don’t always do it day one. So skip the next one. It’s not like the servers for the past COD game gets shut down the day the new game launches, nor will all the paid cosmetics get deleted. So yeah, just don’t buy COD this year. I mean they probably can’t afford it anyways since they spent $20 on a skin within the last 365 days. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Microsoft to sell off Activision cloud gaming rights to Ubisoft in bid for UK approval - The Verge

WWW.THEVERGE.COM

---

A big change to Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard acquisition.

 

 

Quote

 

Microsoft is restructuring its proposed Activision Blizzard deal to transfer cloud gaming rights for current and new Activision Blizzard games to Ubisoft. The transfer of rights is designed to appease regulators in the UK that are concerned about the impact Microsoft’s proposed $68.7 billion deal will have on cloud gaming competition. The restructured deal has triggered a new regulatory investigation in the UK that could last until October 18th.

 

To address the concerns about the impact of the proposed acquisition on cloud game streaming raised by the UK Competition and Markets Authority, we are restructuring the transaction to acquire a narrower set of rights,” says Microsoft president Brad Smith. “This includes executing an agreement effective at the closing of our merger that transfers the cloud streaming rights for all current and new Activision Blizzard PC and console games released over the next 15 years to Ubisoft Entertainment SA, a leading global game publisher. The rights will be in perpetuity.”

 

 

[Spork3245]

7 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Microsoft to sell off Activision cloud gaming rights to Ubisoft in bid for UK approval - The Verge

WWW.THEVERGE.COM

---

A big change to Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard acquisition.

 

 

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Activision Blizzard Games Coming To Ubisoft+

NEWS.UBISOFT.COM

---

Ubisoft has signed an agreement to bring Call of Duty and more to Ubisoft+ and streaming services.

 

Quote

 

Yes, you read that headline right.

 

Ubisoft today announced the signing of an agreement which will give Ubisoft cloud streaming rights to games like Call of Duty and more, coming into effect upon the completion of Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard. The agreement includes the complete slate of current Activision Blizzard games, as well as all their new titles launching in the 15 years after the closing of Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard. The games will land on Ubisoft+, while also allowing Ubisoft to license them to cloud gaming companies, service providers, and console makers.

 

With a single subscription to Ubisoft+ Multi Access, players will soon be able to play their favorite Ubisoft and Activision Blizzard games across multiple platforms including PC, Xbox consoles and Amazon Luna, and on the PlayStation platform through Ubisoft+ Classics. The agreement will offer players even greater access to a large library of beloved and classic titles as well as the newest releases, all through cloud streaming.

 

[Mr.Vic20]

Sure.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

So this is cloud and streaming. Also only for games released in the next 15 years. 
 

does this mean MS still gets to put the games on GamePass as long as you have to download them? 

[Ghost_MH]

30 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

So this is cloud and streaming. Also only for games released in the next 15 years. 
 

does this mean MS still gets to put the games on GamePass as long as you have to download them? 

 

Looks like this is just for streaming, so Microsoft will be able to include them with Game Pass for download play. However, Ubisoft can also license them back to Microsoft for Game Pass streaming.