Bernd Lauert
Banned
This is embarrassing, bro. Get off console warrior twitter. You got that talking point from there, I know it for a fact.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
II can't tell if you are feigning understanding or genuinely not smart enough to understand the basics of business, now.
Just assume for 1second that xbox (classic business model) was losing $1-2b per year from 2001-2016.
Is their presence in the market conducive to a healthier or disrupted industry, for industry winners - the companies that naturally turn a profit and could only sustain a normal 5 year investment loss on a project?
This whole thread is about regulators protecting market competition, and so if it was proven that xbox is a phantom division for MSFT funnelling money in for decades until all competitors (such as PlayStation) are exhausted by the anti-competitive financing, then obviously regulators wouldn't be in favour of MSFT acquiring $70b ACTIV and quickening the rate at which MSFT exhausts the competition.
I mean, this is pretty straightforward financial fair play competition we are discussing for anyone that follows sports like European football.
Xbox in this scenario would be a club like Man City and MSFT would be the oil rich nation owner, where they can even bypass the fair play rules if they want by wholesale buying other unrealted companies and make them endorse the football club with whatever amount the club needs to pass the spending/earning ratio needs for financial fair play.
Market competition to be healthy needs to be fair and based on consumer choice resulting in the success of market players, not the unlimited spending of mega corps from other sectors able to disrupt the natural order of things for more than a defacto market investment cycle.
Last edited:
Bernd Lauert
Banned
We already know that EA is rubbing their hands because of the possibility that CoD might not be on Playstation anymore. I bet other 3rd parties are too.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
It was actually from a podcast and the way they mentioned it sounded credible, but I came across the actual thing they were referring to and it's not the same thing at all. So yeah I jumped the gun a bit on that, for sure.
I mean in the very specific context of this acquisition and the review by regulators in deciding to approve it or not, yes it's a weird example. But the point in particular is just about certain broader implications those types of corporate/government close-knit relationships may be able to foster where you're essentially in a "pay-to-play" environment and if you don't participate, you lose out regardless of the actual product (or quality of product) you're providing to your main clientele.
It's a discussion for another time, though.
You could either read this thread with pages and pages of text from the CADE decision with detailed reasons behind the decision to approve the deal…or amplify conspiracy theories from Twitter fanboys.
Not sure why you'd choose the latter
Sony doesn't need to 'copy Microsoft's strategy' . They've signed a deal with Microsoft for Azure for gaming. They don't need to spend billions on data centers. All they need to do is pay MS for using Azure datacenters and they'll have the exact same backbone MS uses.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/20/18632374/microsoft-sony-cloud-gaming-partnership-amazon-google
Did you read the article? These are similar to questions CADE asked. And most of the other publishers have given responses to other regulators that dismiss concern.
It's certainly unlikely that Ubisoft or EA (for example) would respond with claims that MS purchasing Activision would hamper the release of future Ubisoft or EA games on Xbox. MS is certainly not going to stop paying EA for EA Play in Gamepass Ultimate.
Doesn't seem like there's anything out of the ordinary there. But you can clarify what part you found 'thought provoking'.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Having access to PC did not bring them much benefits.
And now tell which of those gamess did even come to Xbox at launch? (some of them I think did not even come to Xbox at all until Xbox 360 or even Xbox Series)
Microsoft is a publicly traded company. Playstation had all the opportunities to invest into cloud infrastructure if they wanted too. But they did not. Just like usual. One of the biggest music publishers without a streaming service. Huge movie publisher without a streaming service. Sony lost a lot of opportunities. Just like it stopped being a huge electronic giant by losing to Samsung, LG etc.
Last edited:
GrayDock
Member
As a Brazilian I can say that I'm little surprised that Xbox is under 20% market share and Playstation over 50% here. I thought the difference was like 15% or less between them. Maybe I'm in a hardcore bubble...
And I thought that CoD had more impact than it actually has. People here probably play a lot more FIFA and GTA than anything else. Probably another bubble...
That said, I believe that in USA and UK Xbox and Playstation probably are closer to 50-50 market share, and CoD probably has more impact there than here, so Cade's decision might not be a good baseline for those markets regulator's decision.
And I thought that CoD had more impact than it actually has. People here probably play a lot more FIFA and GTA than anything else. Probably another bubble...
That said, I believe that in USA and UK Xbox and Playstation probably are closer to 50-50 market share, and CoD probably has more impact there than here, so Cade's decision might not be a good baseline for those markets regulator's decision.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Same reason why MS can't compete economically with Sony in the money-hat game, and why that is probably the only real unfair advantage in this whole thing. MS are solving that by buying publishers so Sony can no longer play that game.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Consumer protection != Sony market position protection. Hopefully CMA will move away from Sony talking points and to actual real issues. I really appreciate the thorough review CADE did. They directly addressed Sony's concerns.They definitely did seem to be focussed on consumer protection
In this case Sony's market position is one of the reasons they felt comfortable raising the prices on consumers. All the more reason to get more competition in this space. Currently there isn't a great argument in how this acquisition hurts normal video game consumers. The biggest arguments against Game pass is the price isn't sustainable not that they are gouging consumers.
There is no spaghetti logic sir. Right now the hype is at a all time high for God of War a Sony product. Sony will be able to compete with MS no matter what MS does. This acquisition doesn't change that in the slightest. Every platform needs to find their niche. MS has game subs, Nintendo has old fan favorites and Sony has the blockbuster single player cinematic experiences. Everyone has a place. All can be successful.
MS offered Sony a guaranteed 3 years of CoD AFTER the acquisition. They never said Sony would not be able to get more. Sony would just have to offer something to get it. No company would promise their IP on another platform in perpetuity with no conditions. It is business after all.
SportsFan581
Member
Your posts must be parody at this point, but I'll reply anyway.
What I was getting at is that the primary goal of business is the here and now, not what happened back in 2000 or however long you want to go back in history.Take the OG Xbox for example. It is widely known that MS lost money on that project, you can see from the documentary they released that this was understood from the beginning and that there was never a real road to profitability for that console generation. They knowingly invested that money to build the brand and lay the ground work for real competition and a chance for profits in gen 2. Keep in mind that even here, there is no "phantom division" designed to exhaust the competition. If that was the case they would have priced the OG Xbox in a predatory manner (say $100 on launch day) and had a real shot at an instantly dominant position.
I'm sure when they make decisions involving the direction of the gaming division today, they aren't constantly looking back at that OG Xbox generation and figuring they have to recoup those early losses. They wrote those off the books long ago. If the regulators are interested in the health of MS's gaming business, they too would be looking at the here and now and trying to speculate based on that what MS + Activision looks like in terms of the overall market. What MS was doing with Xbox 20 years ago is relevant to no one at this point.
We know for a fact that the gaming division was profitable in 2019, and likely was even more profitable in 2020 and 2021 (based on revenue growth). But, I'm not sure how that matters at the end of the day. Unprofitable companies make acquisitions all the time. If you think MS is using predatory tactics against the competition, please explain where. Looks like their consoles and software are priced normally, they have a subscription service with a library of games, yeah the competition has that too. Just because Sony says they think they can make more money with traditional sales does not make GP predatory. A company can choose to earn less to find a niche, that's not against the law.
Not to mention the notion that MS is burning all this money for GP and it's eating all their software sales and so on is all blown apart by the fact that gaming division revenue is growing (and at a faster clip than the competition) each year. If things were as Sony fanboys say, gaming division revenue would have been in free-fall for some time now.
Last edited:
freefornow
Member
MSFT announced this in 2020 (and preamble probably took place a long time before this), way before Acti acquisition was announced.
Twitter warriors are reaching.
Unless this was all part of MSFT's evil master plan
SportsFan581
Member
When they say that MS/Xbox is under 20% here in the report, I'm thinking they are talking about game publishing and distribution, which would include all platforms (PC, Mobile, Console, etc. and all publishers/studios). MS's position in the console market isn't directly influenced/changed by this deal (Activision doesn't manufacture a console), so I don't think that plays in to these numbers.
Last edited:
ReBurn
Gold Member
I'm not sure what thoughts it should be provoking.
Seems like for other publishers like EA taking Activision out of the picture would be a good thing. When it comes to developers looking for a publisher one less option doesn't change things that much. There are still a ton of them, not to mention that self publishing is easier now than it was in the past. Sony and Microsoft already have a lot of the same customer data that Activision has.
These are good questions for regulators to ask but there really aren't any gotchas or angles that haven't been addressed in the conversations we've been having.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Can you elaborate on how this deal hurts Xbox customers and the industry at large? Also curious if you have given any consideration to Bobby Kotick and Activision employees as well.
bender
What time is it?
MechWarrior (4) became the dreadful MechAssault 1 & 2.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
EA reps have already spoken that they see this deal as favorable to them. CADE also asked various major publishers and they all gave their approval. If EU is asking major publishers, like CADE did, they will likely get similar favorable responses
Yep. T Three has inadvertently made the case for MS trying to get more exclusive content.
Like CADE's report said:
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
That's a lot of words to tell me you don't agree with fair market competition and don't believe in a healthy market to deliver us the best gaming experiences out of necessity for those companies trying to be viable to stay in business.Your posts must be parody at this point, but I'll reply anyway.
Take the OG Xbox for example. It is widely known that MS lost money on that project, you can see from the documentary they released that this was understood from the beginning and that there was never a real road to profitability for that console generation. They knowingly invested that money to build the brand and lay the ground work for real competition and a chance for profits in gen 2. Keep in mind that even here, there is no "phantom division" designed to exhaust the competition. If that was the case they would have priced the OG Xbox in a predatory manner (say $100 on launch day) and had a real shot at an instantly dominant position.
I'm sure when they make decisions involving the direction of the gaming division today, they aren't constantly looking back at that OG Xbox generation and figuring they have to recoup those early losses. They wrote those off the books long ago. If the regulators are interested in the health of MS's gaming business, they too would be looking at the here and now and trying to speculate based on that what MS + Activision looks like in terms of the overall market. What MS was doing with Xbox 20 years ago is relevant to no one at this point.
We know for a fact that the gaming division was profitable in 2019, and likely was even more profitable in 2020 and 2021 (based on revenue growth). But, I'm not sure how that matters at the end of the day. Unprofitable companies make acquisitions all the time. If you think MS is using predatory tactics against the competition, please explain where. Looks like their consoles and software are priced normally, they have a subscription service with a library of games, yeah the competition has that too. Just because Sony says they think they can make more money with traditional sales does not make GP predatory. A company can choose to earn less to find a niche, that's not against the law.
Not to mention the notion that MS is burning all this money for GP and it's eating all their software sales and so on is all blown apart by the fact that gaming division revenue is growing (and at a faster clip than the competition) each year. If things were as Sony fanboys say, gaming division revenue would have been in free-fall for some time now.
Realistically how many pre-trillion dollar companies could have funded xbox losses for two decades and then be in a position to drop $80b on 3 companies like Mojang, Bethesda, Activision - other than MSFT? When almost no one could operate in a market like that, it is never going to be fair market competition, and certainly not healthy for market competition,
SportsFan581
Member
@
PaintTinJr
you're on your own planet buddy. Send me a postcard.
PaintTinJr
you're on your own planet buddy. Send me a postcard.
Last edited:
ReBurn
Gold Member
Kagey K
Banned
It's going to be bad for Activision (and the industry) if it fails also. The stock will tank and they won't have the money to retain all the employees.
They may never recover as a company. There really 3 outcomes, an Activision owned by MS, a smaller Activision that consists only of CoD and Blizzard or no Activision at all.
The genie is out and they won't be able to go back to operating as normal.
Technically these are just the questions the EU is asking publishers/devs/platforms.
I think we need the responses before seeing if anyone other than Sony is complaining re making it a simplistic case of Sony vs Microsoft. It definitely isn't just about console but it never was.
I sadly don't think we will get those responses.
Personally think the most damaging rebuttal would be someone like nvidia
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Has Jimbo said anything about Brazil's approval?
SportsFan581
Member
ChorizoPicozo
Member
ChorizoPicozo
Member
He is going to call Phill at 2 AM.Today he drinks, tomorrow he responds.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
This is the scope of EU's initial investigation into the acquisition. Provisional deadline in November like we already knew.
I'm a bit puzzled into what encompasses the Manufacture or peripheral equipment portion.
Neofire
Member
Good to see a open minded post on this situation. It's indeed only good for Xbox users and as you said this will be disastrous for the industry as a whole. Everyone knows exactly what MS will do once they fully acquire Activision Blizzard despite the lullabies Uncle Phil tells the media.
Hawk269
Member
I "lol'D" way to much to this.....but as I type this I am sipping on a double Crown and Coke.Today he drinks, tomorrow he responds.
akimbo009
Gold Member
Fortune teller, do tell
nikolino840
Member
Yeah i see switch going bankruptcy....nvidia and amd closing the factories..konami going full pachinko mark cerny homeless and more
SteelCurtain 59
Member
Does open minded mean "I agree with it so it must be right"? Because I fail to see how that post is any more "open-minded" than the majority of posts in this thread.
And what is it that MS will do that will be disastrous for the industry? Or are you just fearmongering because you personally don't want the acquisition to happen? I fail to see any monumental negatives to "the industry" unless this is the straw that will lead to EA/Ubisoft/Take Two to all be sold off (highly doubtful). And no, COD fans on Playstation being forced to play COD on PC/mobile/Xbox instead isn't disastrous for the industry as a whole, just annoying for those particular consumers. Competition won't be destroyed by this, if anything it will lead to stronger competition between Xbox and Playstation. Publishers and devs won't disappear and all be consolidated as there will always be other ones that take their place.
I'd love to hear what you think would be disastrous for the industry based on this acquisition
Last edited:
The majority eventually but Midtown Madness certainly released on OG xbox, NHL and NBA. That's not the point though the point was that they were an established publisher. They had dev partners and in-house studios in the PC space who started making xbox releases, Microsoft Game Studios had NHL, NBA licences prior to xbox, released those games on PC then after xbox, xbox. Sony weren't out there buying up Rockstar and EA either. They didn't have as much as an uphill struggle as google would.
It wasn't inadvertently. I even put "exclusive content" in quotes to show that was what CADE were saying. I'm not the one pretending exclusives are going the way of the dinosaur, wont happen because "we won't remove it from the leaders" or are generally evil though. That's you lot, and you change your tune when it's your favourite company at it or whatever argument you're trying to make.EA reps have already spoken that they see this deal as favorable to them. CADE also asked various major publishers and they all gave their approval. If EU is asking major publishers, like CADE did, they will likely get similar favorable responses
Yep. T Three has inadvertently made the case for MS trying to get more exclusive content.
Like CADE's report said:
Last edited:
ByWatterson
Member
"So I'm hearing"
Gavon West
Spread's Cheeks for Intrusive Ads
Because Nintendo can, means nothing when talking about sony. Nothing at all. Just look at the lengths they've gone trying to block this deal. Clearly Sony doesn't think so either. CoD was Sony's ace in the whole for decades. They leaned too heavy on CoD this entire time. When this acquisition goes through, Sony is back to the drawing board and they've been in the game for more than two decades. Hell yeah they're scared. Nintendo gives zero fucks. They've been killing it without CoD this entire time. They'll be fine. Sony is about to go through some growth. Growth is painful.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
No one's trying to make any argument, just highlighting that you made a very good case for why MS needs to acquire studios to be competitive in the industry, and like CADE's conclusion said, getting exclusives is a part of healthy market competition.
Both major next-gen console manufacturers do it, it's been happening for a while and will continue to happen so regardless of what we say on forums.
SportsFan581
Member
Dolomite
Member
Exactly I include them too but MS are a major player and wouldn't in any way be struggling to create exclusive content without ABK. Even saying they aren't making it exclusive. Having $80B on hand and an established console marketshare that's no less than 33% in the UK and US, and an OS stranglehold on games developed is not the unfair advantage when it comes to competing with Google? Sony's install base after PS4 is "the only real unfair advantage" for MS to you? I guess if MS was all that you're concerned about that would make sense.
MS already are competitive in the industry especially in markets like the US and UK. I'm talking about Phil and the online gang's talking points of exclusives happening or mattering less in the future or pretending they're satan reincarnate. your arguments in other threads where you pretend a beta a week early, some hogwarts skin, timed FF are unfair but then cheerlead that crap in other cases with "I'm eating good with all these timed exclusives on gamepass", "elder scrolls and COD could become exclusive, I'm totally OK with this!". It's all just a ruse with contradictory logic:
Last edited:
nikolino840
Member
His/her source...if you know twitter you knowLol what bro
You gotta find sources as something this is a bad take
clarky
Gold Member
Genuine question. How so? Does Activision have cash flow problems? Apart from the scandal they seem like a profitable company. Why would the stock tank?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Imagine using anything from that account unironically.
Posting a 2+ year old link with "announces" like it's relevant news to what happened today.
?
My post you've linked were in reply to some users who were in denial with comments like "so nothing came out of it" etc etc. Plenty did come out of it with examples. But that's another discussion for another topic. Also I've said a couple of dozen times already that I don't think CoD will become exclusive, hell I've said they should keep it multiplat so at least the one big complaint can be resolved.
Last edited:
Kagey K
Banned
It's barely holding at 73.00 right now, when the stock is promising 95.00 at close.
Lots of investors buying with the promise of near 20.00 gains. The second this deal fails (if it should) there is going to be a rush to dump stocks before they bottom out.
I estimate that it will fall to around 30.00 and create a massive cash problem for them, as most stock dumps do.
Should that happen they will lose a bunch of cash flow that they use to maintain overhead expenses and they will need to trim the fat.
With that being said I believe this goes through and the ones that invest now are going to see big fat gains during a bear market. As soon as 1 of the big 3 approves this the stock is going to jump to 85 almost immediately.
Last edited:
pasterpl
Member
You both do realise that ms releases all of their games day 1 on pc as well as Xbox, most are on gamepass and majority suppport xcloud. Only player base that is due to lose something on this deal are playstation gamers. Ms probably will end exclusive maps and modes shit on playstation and this will come to pc gamers as well as Xbox users, I also can see cod coming back to steam etc. so only owners of playstation will be at lost. Ant they are not the whole industry, they are not even majority of the industry.
pasterpl
Member
Just putting this in here so trolls don't have to look to much (when CMA approves the deal);
https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/business/empower-everyone/
https://news.microsoft.com/en-gb/20...r-memorandum-of-understanding-with-microsoft/
https://news.microsoft.com/en-gb/20...n-diseases-and-the-microsoft-cloud-will-help/
https://news.microsoft.com/en-gb/20...ts-industry-certified-digital-qualifications/
https://news.microsoft.com/en-gb/20...-sector-organisations-to-use-the-azure-cloud/
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/compliance/regulatory/offering-g-cloud-uk
https://www.publictechnology.net/ar...ight-microsoft-first-its-kind-£20m-azure-deal
Based on the above we know that CMA process and phase 2 is all smoke and mirrors /s
Am I right?
https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/business/empower-everyone/
https://news.microsoft.com/en-gb/20...r-memorandum-of-understanding-with-microsoft/
https://news.microsoft.com/en-gb/20...n-diseases-and-the-microsoft-cloud-will-help/
https://news.microsoft.com/en-gb/20...ts-industry-certified-digital-qualifications/
https://news.microsoft.com/en-gb/20...-sector-organisations-to-use-the-azure-cloud/
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/compliance/regulatory/offering-g-cloud-uk
https://www.publictechnology.net/ar...ight-microsoft-first-its-kind-£20m-azure-deal
Based on the above we know that CMA process and phase 2 is all smoke and mirrors /s
Am I right?
clarky
Gold Member
Makes sense. Cheers.
In the past, you've wanted Sony to buy Leyou (a publisher), Take Two and Square Enix. You've contributed enthusiastically in threads talking about SIE's rumored $13bn acquisition warchest All with the expectation that games would be exclusive post-acquisition.
Why reach for the 'horrendous' and 'disastrous' adjectives when it's MS doing something you've previously advocated?
- Status