Breaking: Microsoft to acquire Activision-Blizzard in near 70$ billion deal

BadBurger said:
Rare wasn't doing much of anything, then came out with Sea of Thieves. Love it or hate it, it has been a massive success.

Otherwise, outside of Lion's Head Studios*, haven't all of Microsoft's acquisitions just kind of kept on keeping on? Which would be an indication that MS is kind of hand's off.

* = it's my understanding ole' Pete Moly ran that one into the ground after MS allowed him too much control but I could be and probably am wrong - not a game historian or industry expert here
Click to expand...
They had a string of cancelled titles. The kinect game that got all the attention was smoke and mirrors
 
MrFunSocks said:
Sony brought it on themselves. Remember all the tweets from insiders at the start of this generation saying Sony were basically approaching everyone to moneyhat games away from Xbox? They did it all last gen, they're doing it again. They're now seeing the results of trying to outspend a company a hundred times their size.
Click to expand...

Microsoft is actually "only" about 15x larger than Sony (in terms of market cap), but sure.
 
oldergamer said:
They had a string of cancelled titles. The kinect game that got all the attention was smoke and mirrors
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call it a string of titles. Mattrick was trying to turn them into a Kinect studio. When they saw the blood in the water and knew he was about to take his golden parachute they made a little UE4 prototype and presented it to Spencer. He greenlit the game and now they have their biggest success in the studio's history.
 
Megatron said:
MS hasn't moneyhatted a AAA third party game since Tomb Raider 8 years ago. Not because they are saints or anything, but because the market changed. Sonys market share got too big and companies aren't willing to give MS exclusives and cut out the Sony user base. Microsoft can't compete with that. So while Sony leverages their advantage, MS does the same. That's what they HAVE to do or just keep letting game after game get bought out away from them.

And as others have pointed out, that's all really just a side story. They are acquiring content to drive game pass. They will come to Sony and give them the chance to have CoD and Starfield and Doom and Halo in their console if they put game pass on there.
Click to expand...
No they won't. Gamepass is not going on Playstation because Sony doesn't want it. It is not going on Playstation because Microsoft doesn't want it on there. Phil says that games will be exclusive to where gamepass is, is just him thinking that that is a nice way of saying that their games are staying exclusive.

All this talk about gamepass on Playstation and Sony being mad to let it happen is wrong. Putting gamepass on Playstation and all of Microsofts games going there would destroy their console hardware business and would give Sony a console hardware monopoly. Microsoft and Sony both know this. What Microsoft would also know is that once Sony have established a monopoly, what would then stop them from demanding ever higher royalties for games sold Playstation.

Microsoft are not worried about short term gains in cutting R&D for new hardware. This should be clear when they have invest 80bn in recent acquisitions which take time to recoup. This whole gamepass coming to playstation absurd.
 
Last edited:
MadPanda said:
That would be a very dumb move. They can close xbox and become 3rd party publisher as well, while they're at it. Why even own Xbox anymore if they're going to put Xbox on Sony consoles with all their games? We could just buy PlayStation and get both worlds in one box. I know I'd do it.
Click to expand...

Because hardware is not where the money is?
 
I can't help but think xbox and playstation wouldn't have bought so many studio's if neither of them started with the exclusivity deals on 3rd party games like shadow of the tomb raider on xbox or street fighter 5 on the playstation etc.

Gamers all seem to dislike exclusivity on 3rd party, especially now that some games are cross play.

I just hope that the fanatics can come to terms with the fact that the play the best video games, they will definitely have to own a playstation and a xbox/pc nowadays.
 
Nvzman said:
Anyone who thinks this struck a huge blow to Sony is misunderstanding the acquisition. MS made it very clear that CoD will likely remain multi-platform, so the only thing Sony is losing really is marketing rights. This won't really affect players too much, which is a good thing imo. A franchise like CoD being segregated to one console would be a pretty shitty move.
Click to expand...
I think that it's best to wait and see. This is all very similar to the Bethesda deal and it became clear after some time that MS had no intention of making any future games multiplatform.

Besides, if it did go exclusive, it gives Sony a massive kick up the ass to make more multiplayer games.

On another note, this is a way more exciting deal than just CoD being exclusive. There are so many awesome IPs that MS could bring back and I can't wait.
 
This anti trust thing will go nowhere. Call of Duty isn't that important, no one game will ever be that important.

People like Jason only need to look at recent anti trust investigations into Microsoft regarding tech/ip like Nuance, spanning the US and Australia etc. If something that specific/specialist gets through there's no way this gets blocked.

It will just drag out the completion date imo which is why it's pushed so far out to manage expectation.

What I struggle with is the argument about exclusivity. Spencer has made it clear that ultimately their purpose is abstraction of the games from the platform. So it's not that these games will be exclusive to Xbox. They will be exclusive to Microsoft's Gaming Service - if they are still selling them as physical releases though then I don't see that persisting. You don't/won't need an xbox to access Gamepass. If the PS5 had a decent browser you could access Gamepass now. As a GPU subscriber my thoughts are moving to 'at what point do these games become accessible only on GPU?' or 'GPU first for limited time'. Whether you are a PlayStation only gamer or a retail disc only gamer, you're part of the market that is trying to be converted into a GPU subscriber. The methods may be different but the goal will be the same for sure.

I think its more likely Warzone will stay as is, and the multiplayer components will still retail multiplatform (as the expansions are packaged) and maybe the campaigns will be exclusive to MS.
 
MidGenRefresh said:
Because hardware is not where the money is?
Click to expand...

It is as you make 30% on every possible transaction on your box and you set the rules on your platform. If it isn't then we wouldn't have 3 console manufacturers. I don't understand why I have to explain such obvious things. Stop comparing console business to streaming business.
 
From a Microsoft perspective, the deal looks brilliant. The company's stock rose on the news, despite the large outlay of cash involved. The price tag represents less than 3% of Microsoft's $2.3 trillion market value. As Moody's pointed out this past week, Microsoft has $137 billion in cash on its balance sheet and is likely to generate $50 billion in free cash flow in the current fiscal year.

The deal won't require financing, it won't affect Microsoft's stock repurchase program, and it won't come close to endangering the company's nearly 1% dividend yield. Also, Wall Street isn't worried about the price, at less than seven times Activision's forward sales, well below Microsoft's own price-to-sales multiple of 12 times. Lastly, the $95-per-share cost is still well below Activision's year-ago high of $104.

Microsoft said the deal, expected to close before June 2023, would provide an immediate boost to adjusted profits.
Click to expand...

www.barrons.com

Microsoftâs Activision Merger Is Historyâs Biggest Tech Deal. The Stocks to Play It.

Microsoftâs $69 billion purchase of videogame maker Activision Blizzard would be the largest tech deal of all time. But it faces a battle in D.C.
www.barrons.com
 
Nvzman said:
Anyone who thinks this struck a huge blow to Sony is misunderstanding the acquisition. MS made it very clear that CoD will likely remain multi-platform, so the only thing Sony is losing really is marketing rights. This won't really affect players too much, which is a good thing imo. A franchise like CoD being segregated to one console would be a pretty shitty move.
Click to expand...
Nah, COD going to gamepass is huge , it highlights the fact that with every release you need to dish out $70 on PlayStation but on Xbox its free with Gamepass.
 
The whole 70 dollars (or 90-100 dollars in my EU area) price policy might come under more public scrutiny now that one of the major supporters of Sonys price hike has been acquired by Microsoft - who are focussed on publishing all of their 1p games on a subscription service. Maybe it wont change anything, and Activision will still be able to follow Sony here, but I doubt it. There arent that many major publishers left that would support Sony on this. TakeTwo probably will, EA too maybe, and some Japanese publishers like Capcom and SE. But no doubt Activision was a major suppporter in this context.
 
Orbital2060 said:
The whole 70 dollars (or 90-100 dollars in my EU area) price policy might come under more public scrutiny now that one of the major supporters of Sonys price hike has been acquired by Microsoft - who are focussed on publishing all of their 1p games on a subscription service. Maybe it wont change anything, and Activision will still be able to follow Sony here, but I doubt it. There arent that many major publishers left that would support Sony on this. TakeTwo probably will, EA too maybe, and some Japanese publishers like Capcom and SE. But no doubt Activision was a major suppporter in this context.
Click to expand...
I can tell you from a friend high up in EA sports, that they are considering going free to play on Xbox due to the impact of gamepass. They are halfway there already.
 
MrFunSocks said:
Sony brought it on themselves. Remember all the tweets from insiders at the start of this generation saying Sony were basically approaching everyone to moneyhat games away from Xbox? They did it all last gen, they're doing it again. They're now seeing the results of trying to outspend a company a hundred times their size.
Click to expand...
This would happen regardless of Sony moneyhatted games or not. You people don't seem to understand what is really going on here.
 
cormack12 said:
This anti trust thing will go nowhere. Call of Duty isn't that important, no one game will ever be that important.

People like Jason only need to look at recent anti trust investigations into Microsoft regarding tech/ip like Nuance, spanning the US and Australia etc. If something that specific/specialist gets through there's no way this gets blocked.

It will just drag out the completion date imo which is why it's pushed so far out to manage expectation.

What I struggle with is the argument about exclusivity. Spencer has made it clear that ultimately their purpose is abstraction of the games from the platform. So it's not that these games will be exclusive to Xbox. They will be exclusive to Microsoft's Gaming Service - if they are still selling them as physical releases though then I don't see that persisting. You don't/won't need an xbox to access Gamepass. If the PS5 had a decent browser you could access Gamepass now. As a GPU subscriber my thoughts are moving to 'at what point do these games become accessible only on GPU?' or 'GPU first for limited time'. Whether you are a PlayStation only gamer or a retail disc only gamer, you're part of the market that is trying to be converted into a GPU subscriber. The methods may be different but the goal will be the same for sure.

I think its more likely Warzone will stay as is, and the multiplayer components will still retail multiplatform (as the expansions are packaged) and maybe the campaigns will be exclusive to MS.
Click to expand...

Having gamepass available on via xcloud on PS5 is one thing having gamepass games run natively on it is another.
However Microsoft will be aware that sony is definitely not there friend and putting gamepass on PS5 would cannibalise the xbox hardware business and give sony more leverage.
Also Sony probably dont have a ps5 browser because they dont want competing game streaming services on there device. Sony wont want gamepass on PlayStation because its competing directly with there business of 3rd party game sales and online subscriptions.

Like minecraft, ESO and fo76, COD will be on PlayStation in some way , warzone for example makes sense to stay multiplatform. However reguarding new releases it does not make sense to have games like starfield and Halo be xbox exclusive but COD: Vanguard 2 be multiplatform. I mean why do it for one game but not the others?

Phil has spoken many times about choice and it sounds like they dont want to limit peoples purchasing options they want to expand and grow all there options.
 
Man things has changed a lot since 2015

ycJJeoB.png
 
Ass of Can Whooping said:
They want to be ahead of the game and make it as difficult as possible for the other big tech companies to find any success

Remember their failed attempt to take on Twitch with Mixer? They want that role reversed. Sony has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree, that and providing content for gampass/xbox.
 
Roxkis_ii said:
Just curious, do you have an examples of studios that have become great after MS bought them?
Click to expand...
Playground, Turn 10. Bungie did their best work under Microsoft. Off the top of my head.

Double fine just put out one of their best games ever.

edit they formed turn 10 but they still became great under MS.
 
Last edited:


Leyasu said:
No they won't. Gamepass is not going on Playstation because Sony doesn't want it. It is not going on Playstation because Microsoft doesn't want it on there. Phil says that games will be exclusive to where gamepass is, is just him thinking that that is a nice way of saying that their games are staying exclusive.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree. I believed that changed their stance. I presume the original idea of Game Pass everywhere was when Xbox was in precarious position and MS was not sure that it will have success. Now? I believe they will go all in on pushing their platform and ecosystem. They are not bothered about portables though (I do curious what they are gonna do with Steam Deck as it is running Linux so kinda detrimental to Windows)

cormack12 said:
This anti trust thing will go nowhere. Call of Duty isn't that important, no one game will ever be that important.
Click to expand...
I also think so. I mean even after Acquisition MS won't prevent other developers to open studios and make games, even if they were to become the #1 in home console gaming revenue, it is still just a part of a bigger 160b market so their 25-30b of revenue would be at most 20% there.

oldergamer said:
I can tell you from a friend high up in EA sports, that they are considering going free to play on Xbox due to the impact of gamepass. They are halfway there already.
Click to expand...
I mean, didn't recent EA reports showed that they generate 70% of revenue from MTX anyway?
 
Last edited:
The DF direct is kinda funny , it's bad because maybe other gamers on other platforms can't enjoy these games ..

But if it's insomniac or ND or any other studio it's fine? While I highly enjoy ND games Uncharted 1 is in my top 20 , so is Sunset Overdrive .. but I can't get anymore consoles besides a switch and Xbox ..

How is this fair ? Am I not entitled to these studios output? Which is now exclusively on PlayStation?

I don't think Sony and MS are that different.
 
Last edited:
What this tells me is that Microsoft could have easily out paid the money Sony was offering studios for money hats but didn't because they had their eyes set on much bigger goals.

They don't have to buy take2, but they can easily out pay Sony for marketing rights. It's just a matter if they want to or not.
 
Basil King said:
What this tells me is that Microsoft could have easily out paid the money Sony was offering studios for money hats but didn't because they had their eyes set on much bigger goals.

They don't have to buy take2, but they can easily out pay Sony for marketing rights. It's just a matter if they want to or not.
Click to expand...
That has always been the case. That's why I laugh when people say MS is last place in gaming and will stay that way. They've barely even tried until now.
 
Leyasu said:
No they won't. Gamepass is not going on Playstation because Sony doesn't want it. It is not going on Playstation because Microsoft doesn't want it on there. Phil says that games will be exclusive to where gamepass is, is just him thinking that that is a nice way of saying that their games are staying exclusive.

All this talk about gamepass on Playstation and Sony being mad to let it happen is wrong. Putting gamepass on Playstation and all of Microsofts games going there would destroy their console hardware business and would give Sony a console hardware monopoly. Microsoft and Sony both know this. What Microsoft would also know is that once Sony have established a monopoly, what would then stop them from demanding ever higher royalties for games sold Playstation.

Microsoft are not worried about short term gains in cutting R&D for new hardware. This should be clear when they have invest 80bn in recent acquisitions which take time to recoup. This whole gamepass coming to playstation absurd.
Click to expand...
It has seemed like getting gamepass on PS is a white whale for MS. Some incredible goal that they are trying to make happen. If they succeed the games would only exist in that service on ps5. You wouldn't be able to buy them any other way. It's possible Sony wouldn't see much money at all from GP if it was playstation. Partially depending on what they negotiate but anyone who signs up for GP on a system other than PlayStation wouldn't be giving Sony a dime. Imagine if ms said you had to sign up on your phone, for instance? Then people on the service would have access to a ton of games they aren't paying Sony anything for and would have much less incentive to buy games from psn and just play what's on GP Or wait for games to go on heavily discounted sales.

i admit that I too have wondered how much MS REALLY wants GP on PS, and if it gets there they would probably require users to have the more expensive GP ultimate or a special Sony specific plan.
 
Megatron said:
It has seemed like getting gamepass on PS is a white whale for MS. Some incredible goal that they are trying to make happen. If they succeed the games would only exist in that service on ps5. You wouldn't be able to buy them any other way. It's possible Sony wouldn't see much money at all from GP if it was playstation. Partially depending on what they negotiate but anyone who signs up for GP on a system other than PlayStation wouldn't be giving Sony a dime. Imagine if ms said you had to sign up on your phone, for instance? Then people on the service would have access to a ton of games they aren't paying Sony anything for and would have much less incentive to buy games from psn and just play what's on GP Or wait for games to go on heavily discounted sales.

i admit that I too have wondered how much MS REALLY wants GP on PS, and if it gets there they would probably require users to have the more expensive GP ultimate or a special Sony specific plan.
Click to expand...
Bringing gamepass to PlayStation, Sony would demand day and date releases. Which would kill Xbox and hand them the market on a plate. They both know this. Perhaps there was a day when Microsoft considered going 3rd party and wanted it. But after investing 80bn, those days are gone.
 
sinnergy said:
The DF direct is kinda funny , it's bad because maybe other gamers on other platforms can't enjoy these games ..

But if it's insomniac or ND or any other studio it's fine? While I highly enjoy ND games Uncharted 1 is in my top 20 , so is Sunset Overdrive .. but I can't get anymore consoles besides a switch and Xbox ..

How is this fair ? Am I not entitled to these studios output? Which is now exclusively on PlayStation?

I don't think Sony and MS are that different.
Click to expand...
If you don't see the difference between Sony acquiring smaller studios they have helped develop compared to $70 billion publishers then i can't help you.
 
The funny thing about this whole deal for sore gamers is that at the end of the day a few things:

1. It's not like anything is changing anytime soon. There's some kind of 2023 deal that still has to go through and who knows if MS will keep on supporting PS after that. Minecraft and Bethesda games are still status quo. Nothing has changed, and nothing will change any time soon.

2. Activision's key console games are COD and to a much lesser extent Diablo, where Diablo games come out once every 10 years. Out of all the PS gamers out there, how many people even buy these games? Not many when compared to the user base. You got about 10 million PS COD copies sold every year and a fraction of that being Diablo sales. A ton of COD sales will be the same people buying it every year. If COD has sold 80 million copies on PS the last 8 years, its not like it's 80 million potential gamers affected who will be pissed at no more COD later on. It's probably like 20 million gamers tops (maybe even less) who will get affected. And that even assumes 100% of these gamers even care about the series anymore. Put it this way, for every annual COD gamer on PS (buying 6, 7 or 8 sequels in 8 years), it means a shit load of PS gamers buy ZERO COD games the whole time. So it's not like they will give a shit if COD leaves.

And even if someone is pissed about COD leaving, are they really going to bail the PS ecosystem over one game?
 
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige said:
The funny thing about this whole deal for sore gamers is that at the end of the day a few things:

1. It's not like anything is changing anytime soon. There's some kind of 2023 deal that still has to go through and who knows if MS will keep on supporting PS after that. Minecraft and Bethesda games are still status quo. Nothing has changed, and nothing will change any time soon.

2. Activision's key console games are COD and to a much lesser extent Diablo, where Diablo games come out once every 10 years. Out of all the PS gamers out there, how many people even buy these games? Not many when compared to the user base. You got about 10 million PS COD copies sold every year and a fraction of that being Diablo sales. A ton of COD sales will be the same people buying it every year. If COD has sold 80 million copies on PS the last 8 years, its not like it's 80 million potential gamers affected who will be pissed at no more COD later on. It's probably like 20 million gamers tops (maybe even less) who will get affected. And that even assumes 100% of these gamers even care about the series anymore. Put it this way, for every annual COD gamer on PS (buying 6, 7 or 8 sequels in 8 years), it means a shit load of PS gamers buy ZERO COD games the whole time. So it's not like they will give a shit if COD leaves.

And even if someone is pissed about COD leaving, are they really going to bail the PS ecosystem over one game?
Click to expand...
The major thing is the insane MTX money cod brings to sony and that that can effect their ability to invest in their first party games
 
tpieman2029 said:
The major thing is the insane MTX money cod brings to sony and that that can effect their ability to invest in their first party games
Click to expand...
Ok. And how much $$$ does Sony make off COD?

Last annual report, Sony's game division made over $3 billion profits, and the total company made $12 billion.

How much profit do you need for more games when these financials were the best in a long time (possible ever) and they have been able to churn out high budget first party games for 20 years even when the financials were much worse back then.
 
sinnergy said:
Still doesn't matter, the content is brought exclusively over to 1 locked 🔒 platform ..that's the whole point ..
Click to expand...
Brought not created. Insomniac can't make Spider-Man without Sony's money. Sucker punch couldn't have made infamous and sly copper without Sony's money. Returnal and demon souls would not be possible with the company living paycheck to paycheck relying on Sony money. Kojima needed Sony's funds to literally start a studio from scratch. We have seen what happens to studios who don't get funding. They shut down or stop making AAA games.

A company with $8 billion in revenue wasn't hurting for funding. Yes, in that case the content is bought to lock out access. But In the case of forza horizon, gears of war 4, titanfall 1, demon souls 2009, infamous 2009, kz 2004, heavenly sword 2007, death stranding 2019, returnal, and nearly all other Sony owned IPs made by independent studios, that content wouldn't exist without first party funding because no one else was interested in funding them. Cod, elder scrolls, fallout, doom and starfield are the biggest ip in the business. They have existed for decades without first party funding.
 
Last edited:
SlimySnake said:
Brought not created. Insomniac can't make Spider-Man without Sony's money. Sucker punch couldn't have made infamous and sly copper without Sony's money. Returnal and demon souls would not be possible with the company living paycheck to paycheck relying on Sony money. Kojima needed Sony's funds to literally start a studio from scratch. We have seen what happens to studios who don't get funding. They shut down or stop making AAA games.

A company with $8 billion in revenue wasn't hurting for funding. Yes, in that case the content is bought to lock out access. But In the case of forza horizon, gears of war 4, titanfall 1, demon souls 2009, infamous 2009, kz 2004, heavenly sword 2007, death stranding 2019, returnal, and nearly all other Sony owned IPs made by independent studios, that content wouldn't exist without first party funding because no one else was interested in funding them. Cod, elder scrolls, fallout, doom and starfield are the biggest ip in the business. They have existed for decades without first party funding.
Click to expand...
And the studios MS acquired couldn't make the games they are about to make without Microsoft's money.
 
SlimySnake said:
Brought not created. Insomniac can't make Spider-Man without Sony's money. Sucker punch couldn't have made infamous and sly copper without Sony's money. Returnal and demon souls would not be possible with the company living paycheck to paycheck relying on Sony money. Kojima needed Sony's funds to literally start a studio from scratch. We have seen what happens to studios who don't get funding. They shut down or stop making AAA games.

A company with $8 billion in revenue wasn't hurting for funding. Yes, in that case the content is bought to lock out access. But In the case of forza horizon, gears of war 4, titanfall 1, demon souls 2009, infamous 2009, kz 2004, heavenly sword 2007, death stranding 2019, returnal, and nearly all other Sony owned IPs made by independent studios, that content wouldn't exist without first party funding because no one else was interested in funding them. Cod, elder scrolls, fallout, doom and starfield are the biggest ip in the business. They have existed for decades without first party funding.
Click to expand...
I don't agree , and that's okay , I am done with this discussion.
 
Sosokrates said:
Nah, COD going to gamepass is huge , it highlights the fact that with every release you need to dish out $70 on PlayStation but on Xbox its free with Gamepass.
Click to expand...

This. There's every possibility that MS just leaves most of Activision/Blizzard alone on PS with games in key series being available for purchase. That seems a much safer tactic than putting a first-party limited GP directly on PS and basically ending Xbox first-party all together (whether it be local or in the cloud). Could PS users access GP from a browser on PS if it had one, sure, but that wouldn't effect MS at all as that would still be the full service and with no strings attached from Sony. I doubt MS cares where you access their cloud service from.

I can completely see a scenario where they treat Activision different than they did Bethesda. Bethesda might have been them catching up to where they should have been in the first party department, Activision might be more of a case of them just securing content for their service more so than operating as a first-party (or just on a limited number of titles). But than there is that possibility that they really want to drive users to a MS specific gaming service either on cloud or console and in that case they would go full nuclear and pull everything away from PS when they could.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
 
Last edited:
DaGwaphics said:
This. There's every possibility that MS just leaves most of Activision/Blizzard alone on PS with games in key series being available for purchase. That seems a much safer tactic then putting a first-party limited GP directly on PS and basically ending Xbox first-party all together (whether it be local or in the cloud). Could PS users access GP from a browser on PS if it had one, sure, but that wouldn't effect MS at all as that would still be the full service and with no strings attached from Sony. I doubt MS cares where you access their cloud service from.

I can completely see a scenario where they treat Activision different than they did Bethesda. Bethesda might have been them catching up to where they should have been in the first party department, Activision might be more of a case of them just securing content for their service more so than operating as a first-party (or just on a limited number of titles). But than there is that possibility that they really want to drive users to a MS specific gaming service either on cloud or console and in that case they would go full nuclear and pull everything away from PS when they could.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Click to expand...

It think other acti-blizzard games will be xbox exclusive, games like tony hawk and crash and other ip they have.

I dont see why world of Warcraft and starcraft dont come to xbox, theres literally no downsides to porting those games to xbox.
 
Just thinking about this and how much bobby kotic is a dick. People are taking shots at him on twitter that still work for the company. Sounds like he caused a lot of turmoil.

Anyway i was just thinking we heard rumors months back that ms was working on a purchase that was as big or bigger then Bethesda. Turned out to be totally right.
 
oldergamer said:
Just thinking about this and how much bobby kotic is a dick. People are taking shots at him on twitter that still work for the company. Sounds like he caused a lot of turmoil.

Anyway i was just thinking we heard rumors months back that ms was working on a purchase that was as big or bigger then Bethesda. Turned out to be totally right.
Click to expand...
Have any of the allegations against him be proven?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Microsoft wins FTC appeal challenging $69 billion Activision Blizzard deal
News Business  2 3
125
3K
Unknown? replied
WSJ: Videogame Giant Electronic Arts Near Roughly $50 Billion Deal to Go Private
News  2 3 4
169
219
justiceiro replied
The Outer Worlds 2 price reduces to $70, pre-orders reimbursed, Microsoft commits to $70 pricing for holiday games
2 3 4
174
2K
Sooner replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
8K
MDSLKTR replied
Bobby Kotick sold Activision Blizzard because of China...
2 3
116
9K
Rubim replied
Top Bottom