Support NeoGAF

[Banjo64]

Well there it is. Looking forward to MW2 on GP by Christmas.

So now that it looks like they've actually sold and not bought does that mean you're looking forward to not playing MW2 on GP by Christmas?

 

[Menzies]

But Microsoft's goals include to proliferate their subscription model and cloud gaming onto mobile, that's the entire reason for xCloud's existence and why they're offering xCloud on its own now on mobile (in Beta IIRC). And part of the job of these regulators is to make predictive reads on where things could most likely go, using data currently available.

If they were to just wait until the market reaches a point as you describe it before attempting to regulate, well it wouldn't be groups like the FTC or CMA looking into it but other reactive organizations instead.

This is true, but you would also call a regulator prognosticating massive take-over success on a what did you say? 4% market? as very aggressive. Is there precedent on applying regulation on such 'crystal-balling'?

This can be counterargued by the fact that Microsoft already have enough teams to provide that content, and can enter partnerships with 3P developers/publishers without needing to buy them outright, like what Sony have done with FromSoft and Square-Enix, or Nintendo with Sega and Platinum Games.

Acquisitions are not the sole means of acquiring content for such services.

Again true, but potentially counter-argued that this is expensive and they have plans to continue to release Activision games the traditional way on rival platforms.

This is the amazing thing about all this to me though. What we're seeing is that timed exclusive deals aren't regulated in any way, it's the complete wild west in this regard, go have it boys. As if to say a hypothetical scenario of Microsoft signing a contract with Activision tomorrow for the next decades worth of CoD to be day 1 on GamePass, with time-delays on rival platforms, and exclusive content perks...and no regulator will scrutinize this because it's not an acquisition. Whilst regulators use the taxpayers purse in years of discovery to come to the conclusion that CoD is also a protected commodity and essential input?

But that evidence is circumstantial, unless Microsoft can show what methodology they are using to determine that growth. What is the stability of subscribers from month to month? Are the increases in subscribers from the majority getting in at the normal price, or utilizing $1 conversions, MS Reward points, free trails etc.? Because that outright impacts the ARPU.

And the reason that would be important is because it would answer in which ways the service is sustainable: is it completely of its own merit, or is it "sustainable" because of the massive income generated from other larger divisions of the company that can basically absorb any losses and also cover massive publisher acquisitions?

The revenue numbers were leaked (now redacted) to suggest an ARPU of $10

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Goldman Sachs selling this much is as clear a sign as any that the market does not expect this deal to go through.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Goldman Sachs selling this much is as clear a sign as any that the market does not expect this deal to go through.

Wait wat? What is this new drama about?

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Wait wat? What is this new drama about?

Activision block of 3.7M shares traded earlier (NASDAQ:ATVI)

A block of 3.7 million shares of video game maker Activision (AVTI) were sold for a price of $72.25/share earlier. Goldman Sachs was to have shopped the block earlier Monday, according...

seekingalpha.com

 

[Mibu no ookami]

This is true, but you would also call a regulator prognosticating massive take-over success on a what did you say? 4% market? as very aggressive. Is there precedent on applying regulation on such 'crystal-balling'?


Again true, but potentially counter-argued that this is expensive and they have plans to continue to release Activision games the traditional way on rival platforms.

This is the amazing thing about all this to me though. What we're seeing is that timed exclusive deals aren't regulated in any way, it's the complete wild west in this regard, go have it boys. As if to say a hypothetical scenario of Microsoft signing a contract with Activision tomorrow for the next decades worth of CoD to be day 1 on GamePass, with time-delays on rival platforms, and exclusive content perks...and no regulator will scrutinize this because it's not an acquisition. Whilst regulators use the taxpayers purse in years of discovery to come to the conclusion that CoD is also a protected commodity and essential input?


The revenue numbers were leaked (now redacted) to suggest an ARPU of $10

For Microsoft to convince Activision as an independent entity to have CoD be exclusive to Xbox, they'd have to give considerable compensation and we're not talking about just one or two games here. Like it would have to be two generations worth of exclusivity. So you'd have to get like 10 years' worth of revenue in exchange and immediately recapitalize that towards other games because there would certainly be fallout, as a result, a brand damage.

If Microsoft wants to throw like 14 billion dollars at CoD for just CoD, I'm sure Activision would take a look at it and regulators wouldn't stop it. But the opportunity costs related in doing this make no sense.

 

[Menzies]

For Microsoft to convince Activision as an independent entity to have CoD be exclusive to Xbox, they'd have to give considerable compensation and we're not talking about just one or two games here. Like it would have to be two generations worth of exclusivity. So you'd have to get like 10 years' worth of revenue in exchange and immediately recapitalize that towards other games because there would certainly be fallout, as a result, a brand damage.

If Microsoft wants to throw like 14 billion dollars at CoD for just CoD, I'm sure Activision would take a look at it and regulators wouldn't stop it. But the opportunity costs related in doing this make no sense.

The point is the current regulation is beyond useless.

14 billion for 2-trillion-Microsoft, Microsoft with massive liquid assets in an inflationary market, Microsoft with a vision of gaming as a core pillar, Microsoft with new CEO of Gaming - is not a showstopper it once was.

I just can't believe that Microsoft are going to throw their hands in the air and not do anything if this deal is rejected. And what comes next might be even more egregiously 'unfair' in some minds.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

This is true, but you would also call a regulator prognosticating massive take-over success on a what did you say? 4% market? as very aggressive. Is there precedent on applying regulation on such 'crystal-balling'?

I couldn't tell you, because I don't know about acquisitions in a lot of other industries outside of gaming, and some of tv/movies and telecommunications, and the regulations that went on with those.

Someone with more knowledge on acquisition regulations throughout history than me would have to chime in. Though TBF, regulators particularly when it came to tech-related stuff were a lot more lax in prior years. If they had been more proactive early on, Microsoft probably would've never gotten to a point where the court hearings in 2000 happened.

Again true, but potentially counter-argued that this is expensive and they have plans to continue to release Activision games the traditional way on rival platforms.

True.

This is the amazing thing about all this to me though. What we're seeing is that timed exclusive deals aren't regulated in any way, it's the complete wild west in this regard, go have it boys. As if to say a hypothetical scenario of Microsoft signing a contract with Activision tomorrow for the next decades worth of CoD to be day 1 on GamePass, with time-delays on rival platforms, and exclusive content perks...and no regulator will scrutinize this because it's not an acquisition. Whilst regulators use the taxpayers purse in years of discovery to come to the conclusion that CoD is also a protected commodity and essential input?

I think Mibu no ookami responded to this part pretty well so no reason for me to repeat the same points.

The revenue numbers were leaked (now redacted) to suggest an ARPU of $10

You're referring to the leaked CADE documents that were then removed? That wasn't revenue for just GamePass, but also Xbox Live Gold, so combined they brought in $2.9 billion of revenue in 2021.

So combined annual ARPU for both services was $116 and monthly ARPU for both combined was ~ $10 ($9.66).

Goldman Sachs selling this much is as clear a sign as any that the market does not expect this deal to go through.

Did Goldman Sachs buy shares earlier this year? Or was that Koch Media?

Anyway if we see more selling off their shares then yeah, there is definitely a real chance of the deal failing. Groups like Goldman Sachs have insider knowledge on what's happening in these discussions through connections, so them selling their shares says quite a bit (potentially).

 

[Mibu no ookami]

The point is the current regulation is beyond useless.

14 billion for 2-trillion-Microsoft, Microsoft with massive liquid assets in an inflationary market, Microsoft with a vision of gaming as a core pillar, Microsoft with new CEO of Gaming - is not a showstopper it once was.

I just can't believe that Microsoft are going to throw their hands in the air and not do anything if this deal is rejected. And what comes next might be even more egregiously 'unfair' in some minds.

Microsoft is a massive company. We all know this, but deals still need to make SOME sense.

14 billion dollars for CoD exclusivity means you aren't even getting Activision's revenue or long-term prospects or other franchises. It's a tough pill to swallow. That 14 billion dollars would be better spent elsewhere in short and long-term strategy.

 

[HoofHearted]

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Did Goldman Sachs buy shares earlier this year? Or was that Koch Media?

Anyway if we see more selling off their shares then yeah, there is definitely a real chance of the deal failing. Groups like Goldman Sachs have insider knowledge on what's happening in these discussions through connections, so them selling their shares says quite a bit (potentially).

I mean it says quite a bit. It says they had such a large position here that the deal is so untenable at this point that they HAD to get out.

Keep in mind they're leaving 103 million dollars on the table.

Where this gets interesting is that Goldman acted as financial advisor to Microsoft in this deal.

I don't think they bought a significant number of shares in the last year or so.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc ownership in ATVI / Activision Blizzard Inc - 13F, 13D, 13G Filings - Fintel.io

Goldman Sachs Group Inc ownership in ATVI / Activision Blizzard Inc - 13F, 13D, 13G Filings - Fintel.io

fintel.io

Note this link suggests that they had significantly fewer shares than is mentioned in the article, so we may need to wait to hear more news on this.

 

[HoofHearted]

Sound like it with Goldman Sachs putting their money behind where they think it will go.

There's no "thinking" when it comes to Goldman Sachs - if they're making a move - there's a reason behind it already well supported via internal information..

 

[Mibu no ookami]

There's no "thinking" when it comes to Goldman Sachs - if they're making a move - there's a reason behind it already well supported via internal information..

First we'll see if this news is accurate, second we'll see if there is an institutional sell-off of the stock in the coming days/weeks

 

[Ezekiel_]

 

[HoofHearted]

First we'll see if this news is accurate, second we'll see if there is an institutional sell-off of the stock in the coming days/weeks

agreed - reading your note above on their earlier position - now all the chatter doesn't add up..

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I mean it says quite a bit. It says they had such a large position here that the deal is so untenable at this point that they HAD to get out.

Keep in mind they're leaving 103 million dollars on the table.

Where this gets interesting is that Goldman acted as financial advisor to Microsoft in this deal.

I don't think they bought a significant number of shares in the last year or so.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc ownership in ATVI / Activision Blizzard Inc - 13F, 13D, 13G Filings - Fintel.io

Goldman Sachs Group Inc ownership in ATVI / Activision Blizzard Inc - 13F, 13D, 13G Filings - Fintel.io

fintel.io

Note this link suggests that they had significantly fewer shares than is mentioned in the article, so we may need to wait to hear more news on this.

Oof. I wonder if, so should by some crazy chance this deal actually doesn't go through, Microsoft could build a case against Goldman Sachs and claim they led them on with "ineffective" council as advisors to pursue a deal that had a good chance of failing.

Although I'm obviously reaching with that; they'd have to prove Goldman Sachs even had some knowledge on European regulators in particular that would have definitely gotten the deal shut down, but led Microsoft on to do the deal anyway. And the onus would be on Microsoft to provide that type of proof. Even so, it'd be a big gamble on their part, considering what type of power (and relations to other companies, firms, banks etc.) a group like Goldman Sachs have.

But for now I'd probably just treat this as a one-off and maybe they are pulling out because they don't see the investment in a gaming initiative this way to their tastes, could also be due to worries of a likely impending recession. But if more investors start pulling out in similar capacity, well...

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Oof. I wonder if, so should by some crazy chance this deal actually doesn't go through, Microsoft could build a case against Goldman Sachs and claim they led them on with "ineffective" council as advisors to pursue a deal that had a good chance of failing.

Although I'm obviously reaching with that; they'd have to prove Goldman Sachs even had some knowledge on European regulators in particular that would have definitely gotten the deal shut down, but led Microsoft on to do the deal anyway. And the onus would be on Microsoft to provide that type of proof. Even so, it'd be a big gamble on their part, considering what type of power (and relations to other companies, firms, banks etc.) a group like Goldman Sachs have.

But for now I'd probably just treat this as a one-off and maybe they are pulling out because they don't see the investment in a gaming initiative this way to their tastes, could also be due to worries of a likely impending recession. But if more investors start pulling out in similar capacity, well...

I don't think the financial advice here amounts to more than looking at Activision's books and giving Microsoft a recommendation on how much they should be valued at and how much Microsoft should potentially offer over asking price.

I'm sure Goldman would have disclosed having an ownership stake in the company. And that a different group within Goldman managed those funds compared to the one that advised Microsoft.

The deal failing has little to do with Goldman Sachs.

There is no advance knowledge GS could have had here. Microsoft not GS presented their case to the CMA and Microsoft could have pledged whatever concessions they felt would have got the deal across the line.

Not many compaines GS included just walks away from 100 million dollars. Ultimately if this is true, the fund manager has determined this is less than 50% likely to go through. The next problem here is Activision is propped up by the buyout. When/if it fails, their stock price will crater. No one wants to be left holding on to that.

Their stock is currently 71.76. Microsoft is buying them for 95 dollars per share.

I'm not sure how Activision survives a significant market correction. Say they drop to 20-30 dollars per share, with the ongoing tumult around sexual harassment, staff owning shares are just going to start exiting left and right.

If there is institutional sell-off, the employees will be next.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

I don't think the financial advice here amounts to more than looking at Activision's books and giving Microsoft a recommendation on how much they should be valued at and how much Microsoft should potentially offer over asking price.

I'm sure Goldman would have disclosed having an ownership stake in the company. And that a different group within Goldman managed those funds compared to the one that advised Microsoft.

The deal failing has little to do with Goldman Sachs.

There is no advance knowledge GS could have had here. Microsoft not GS presented their case to the CMA and Microsoft could have pledged whatever concessions they felt would have got the deal across the line.

Not many compaines GS included just walks away from 100 million dollars. Ultimately if this is true, the fund manager has determined this is less than 50% likely to go through. The next problem here is Activision is propped up by the buyout. When/if it fails, their stock price will crater. No one wants to be left holding on to that.

Their stock is currently 71.76. Microsoft is buying them for 95 dollars per share.

I'm not sure how Activision survives a significant market correction. Say they drop to 20-30 dollars per share, with the ongoing tumult around sexual harassment, staff owning shares are just going to start exiting left and right.

If there is institutional sell-off, the employees will be next.

An interesting conundrum. If ActiBlizz existence is riding on this acquisition, is the ultimate outcome of its 'folding' better for consumers and competition?

I'm guessing if they went into receivership it would be a mass sell off of IP, then how do regulators look at how those pieces fall.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

An interesting conundrum. If ActiBlizz existence is riding on this acquisition, is the ultimate outcome of its 'folding' better for consumers and competition?

I'm guessing if they went into receivership it would be a mass sell off of IP, then how do regulators look at how those pieces fall.

I don't think they're going to go bankrupt tomorrow night here.

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that there's got to be serious headwinds around retention at Activision. Headwinds that might have been stemmed by the Microsoft buyout news.

I've worked for companies where people plan their exits right after bonus time and if bonuses get slashed early, you see the early exodus.

A lot of these workers at Activision will have stock options and they'll be hoping for significant payouts. Imagine thinking you're getting 95 dollars a share and instead get 30.

I expect a level of exodus out of Activision that will really hurt the company. It's a matter of time and this failed acquisition will probably accelerate it, but they'll just be a company more a kin to some of their peers they've overshadowed recently.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

I don't think they're going to go bankrupt tomorrow night here.

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that there's got to be serious headwinds around retention at Activision. Headwinds that might have been stemmed by the Microsoft buyout news.

I've worked for companies where people plan their exits right after bonus time and if bonuses get slashed early, you see the early exodus.

A lot of these workers at Activision will have stock options and they'll be hoping for significant payouts. Imagine thinking you're getting 95 dollars a share and instead get 30.

I expect a level of exodus out of Activision that will really hurt the company. It's a matter of time and this failed acquisition will probably accelerate it, but they'll just be a company more a kin to some of their peers they've overshadowed recently.

Even if it's not overnight, it's still an interesting thought given ActiBlizz's recent trajectory. If the CMA are so forward thinking with regard to streaming would they consider the long term outcomes with regards to what happens to ActiBlizz and it's IP if the deal doesn't go through.

 

[Fess]

Oof. I wonder if, so should by some crazy chance this deal actually doesn't go through, Microsoft could build a case against Goldman Sachs and claim they led them on with "ineffective" council as advisors to pursue a deal that had a good chance of failing.

Although I'm obviously reaching with that; they'd have to prove Goldman Sachs even had some knowledge on European regulators in particular that would have definitely gotten the deal shut down, but led Microsoft on to do the deal anyway. And the onus would be on Microsoft to provide that type of proof. Even so, it'd be a big gamble on their part, considering what type of power (and relations to other companies, firms, banks etc.) a group like Goldman Sachs have.

But for now I'd probably just treat this as a one-off and maybe they are pulling out because they don't see the investment in a gaming initiative this way to their tastes, could also be due to worries of a likely impending recession. But if more investors start pulling out in similar capacity, well...

The article says that a block of ABK stocks was sold and Goldman Sach was believed to have shopped it on monday.

 

[Helghan]

The gamepass catalogue then was around 250 games, it's now 500. In addition to that Bethesda alone cost 7.5 billion. A further 70 billion is pending.

Oh lol, you're counting Zenimax and Activision to it... I thought we were having a sane discussion.

"as Microsoft continues to invest in XGP"

You've even quoted that it was losing money 2 years ago from the other reply, so in this sentence what does the "continues" refer to a continuation of? Do you have any alternative thing that continues - other than losing money from investing in XGP?

Again continue investing doesn't mean losing money... That just means you are spending more money than before.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Activision block of 3.7M shares traded earlier (NASDAQ:ATVI)

A block of 3.7 million shares of video game maker Activision (AVTI) were sold for a price of $72.25/share earlier. Goldman Sachs was to have shopped the block earlier Monday, according...

seekingalpha.com

Weird timing to sell when their biggest game is coming out next week. Maybe the preorders are bad and they know it will tank

 

[twilo99]

Goldman Sachs selling this much is as clear a sign as any that the market does not expect this deal to go through.

Like I've been saying.

Usually when everyone is so sure about something it's not going to happen. Typical for publicly traded companies.

Sony has more sway than people give them credit for.

Alternatively they might be trying to push the price down and fill big bags before it pops on merger news…

So.. no one knows a thing.

 

[Three]

Again, you're not listening. There's no reason for Sony to build their own datacenter network when they can easily leverage on existing infrastructure.

You've not been reading then.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Weird timing to sell when their biggest game is coming out next week. Maybe the preorders are bad and they know it will tank

It could be the best selling game of the year, it isn't going to keep the stock price up if this M&A fails to go through. We're at a 25-dollar a share deficit as it is.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Even if it's not overnight, it's still an interesting thought given ActiBlizz's recent trajectory. If the CMA are so forward thinking with regard to streaming would they consider the long term outcomes with regards to what happens to ActiBlizz and it's IP if the deal doesn't go through.

No, their concern is for Microsoft becoming too powerful, they don't care if Activision disappears off the face of the planet.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

No, their concern is for Microsoft becoming too powerful, they don't care if Activision disappears off the face of the planet.

Potentially too powerful. I don't think it would short term.

 

[onesvenus]

One deal is self-correcting for the IP and the other has no such requirements.

Yeah, I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't change anything if CoD sales go down after spending 70 billion in Activision. Right.

Btw, from the Business insider news about Microsoft layoffs:

"We will continue to invest in our business and hire in key growth areas in the year ahead."

According to your logic, talking about investing in their business and not reinvesting means Microsoft has never made a profit. Do you see how stupid that is?

 

[Ozriel]

I literally never said that... but go on

"23 years to pay itself off"

"Loss leader"

 

[Ozriel]

Your take on this isn't consistent with how things end up, though.

You buy a publisher outright for exclusivity to take it from your competitor, and even if that doesn't translate to taking those sales on your own platform, if you can eat losses it can still just be a method to partially weaken your rival/s.

The reality at the moment is that Microsoft requires:
- Content for the subscription service they've gone all in
- A strong presence in mobile which King would provide.

Skipping all these fundamental reasons to paint the acquisition as intended to 'weaken Sony' makes no sense.

 

[TheGodfather07]

It always seemed crazy from the start. The idea that microsoft can just buy one of the biggest game ip in the world like that. A game that is very successful and has a massive player base on the competing platform. Best to stop it now before it even begins. Just leave multiplatform publishers alone. Nobody will be mad cause nothing is lost.

 

[DenchDeckard]

So it looks like it's falling through? Part of me is relieved but I want gsmepass to improve and keep offering me more content, i love the service and much prefer it to 70 dollar games. I hope something is done overall to stop marketing deals on third party games. How does this cod have stuff locked away from xbox and PC for a year. It's just wrong. Sure, do the 30 days thing but what is with this year thing that started with destiny etc on multiplat games?

Hope that gets stopped next.

Microsoft will just have to aim smaller. Maybe getnother publishers or devs and spend the money to stop Sony doing this stuff in thr future but I don't know how you do that without looking like the villain. You're not gonna pay more to get less.

 

[DarkMage619]

It always seemed crazy from the start. The idea that microsoft can just buy one of the biggest game ip in the world like that. A game that is very successful and has a massive player base on the competing platform. Best to stop it now before it even begins. Just leave multiplatform publishers alone. Nobody will be mad cause nothing is lost.

Nobody except most of the staff that is very unhappy about Bobby Kotick's leadership. Oh and many stockholders will be mad too. Oh and people who'd prefer to play these games via a subscription over a single purchase. Hmmm seems like quite a few people would be mad actually.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Nobody except most of the staff that is very unhappy about Bobby Kotick's leadership. Oh and many stockholders will be mad too. Oh and people who'd prefer to play these games via a subscription over a single purchase. Hmmm seems like quite a few people would be mad actually.

I actually think the acquisition would be very consumer friendly as people would be able to play the #1 game and others as part of a subscription that wouldn't cost much more than the game itself. On top of that it would light a fire under Sony to win customers back and we all know Sony thrive under pressure. These hypothetical MS takes over gaming because streaming is the future and MS have an Unattainable advantage with streaming + COD just seems like such finger in the air call.

 

[Three]

So it looks like it's falling through? Part of me is relieved but I want gsmepass to improve and keep offering me more content, i love the service and much prefer it to 70 dollar games. I hope something is done overall to stop marketing deals on third party games. How does this cod have stuff locked away from xbox and PC for a year. It's just wrong. Sure, do the 30 days thing but what is with this year thing that started with destiny etc on multiplat games?

Hope that gets stopped next.

Microsoft will just have to aim smaller. Maybe getnother publishers or devs and spend the money to stop Sony doing this stuff in thr future but I don't know how you do that without looking like the villain. You're not gonna pay more to get less.

Nothing stops MS from paying Activision to get content for you. If it falls through Activision sells its wares independently and nothing stops them from offering that content. Plus you will be getting content once those already owned studios actually start releasing things.

It would be nice to have parity but the content thing is way overblown just because of this acquisition. One Oni Skin is far more preferable than missing map packs with no crossplay from MS back in the 360 and early xbox one days. At least now everyone plays together on the same levels even if a bunch of them wear a Samurai mask. Big whoop.

 

[kyliethicc]

selling 3.7 million shares now, at about $72 per share, when Microsoft is trying to buy for $95 a share

thats selling for like 85 million dollars less than they can get if they deal goes through

sounds like they feared the deal getting blocked

 

[DenchDeckard]

Nothing stops MS from paying Activision to get content for you. If it falls through Activision sells its wares independently and nothing stops them from offering that content. Plus you will be getting content once those already owned studios actually start releasing things.

It would be nice to have parity but the content thing is way overblown just because of this acquisition. One Oni Skin is far more preferable than missing map packs with no crossplay from MS back in the 360 and early xbox one days. At least now everyone plays together on the same levels even if a bunch of them wear a Samurai mask. Big whoop.

I just get concerned with sonys contracts they clearly have caveats set up where games can't come to gamepass etc so they can literally sit there and say, "you want to launch on PlayStation...you can't go on gamepass" with some key publishers so that sucks for me. Like we saw with resi village and capcom.

Anyway I'm sure it will all work out, we are heading for a recession so thousands of people are going to start getting laid off which sucks. I just hope the industry stays healthy and competition is fair.

MS should be able to nurture their devs and come up with deals for some awesome gamepass content. They need to rock the boat somehow to tip the needle clearly though, Sony is far too dominant in their current position and need to be taken down a peg or two imo. Gonna be a long job though and I think PC has a better chance than xbox tbh.

 

[Banjo64]

The people who've invested thousands of dollars in to ABK stock and have been telling GAF that it's a sure thing reading these rumours right now;

 

[Orbital2060]

Did Berkshire Hathaway sell out?

One thing I dont understand is how this can be blocked when the Disney Fox deal went through. I dont see how regulators can approve that, and then not this. But I think the movie industry is used to dealing with competition in a different way, being an older business with deals shaking up their industry many times over the last 100 years.

Also, the CMA is in direct contradiction with CADE who made a very strong case for the deal, and then CMA being caught red-handed not investigating properly enough just recently.

 

[reksveks]

Did Berkshire Hathaway sell out?

Won't know for a couple of weeks afaik

Also, the CMA is in direct contradiction with CADE who made a very strong case for the deal, and then CMA being caught red-handed not investigating properly enough just recently.

Different priorities, I think both are defendable. Do think there was a slightly ott focus on Sony's argument from the CMA, instead of BlackNut, GeForce Now etc.

 

[Menzies]

Plus you will be getting content once those already owned studios actually start releasing things.

Lol, careful there T Three you're about to be drive-by quoted and mocked for daring to suggest "wait for next year".

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

The people who've invested thousands of dollars in to ABK stock and have been telling GAF that it's a sure thing reading these rumours right now;

 

[Orbital2060]

Like I've been saying.

Usually when everyone is so sure about something it's not going to happen. Typical for publicly traded companies.

Sony has more sway than people give them credit for.

Alternatively they might be trying to push the price down and fill big bags before it pops on merger news…

So.. no one knows a thing

They shouldnt have - theyre just 1 competitor among many who have answered the questions.

Everything else is just forum based console warring and FUD.

 

[TheGodfather07]

Nobody except most of the staff that is very unhappy about Bobby Kotick's leadership. Oh and many stockholders will be mad too. Oh and people who'd prefer to play these games via a subscription over a single purchase. Hmmm seems like quite a few people would be mad actually.

What's worse though? Not getting it on gamepass or pulling it off an entire platform? What's better as a whole? Even you have to admit its better overall if 3rd party publishers remain 3rd party. That's the same whether its Microsoft or Sony. Think about it. Cod may go exclusive but at what cost? Future square enix or capcom games? Nothing is off the table after a deal like this. Is it worth it just for you to have cod on gamepass? You will actually end up losing out more than you gain.

 

[Pelta88]

The hilarious nature of arm chair analysis is on full display with this Goldman Sachs nonsense.

Firstly, Goldman did not buy ATVI shares for their portfolio. They bought a block (discount) which they are selling on to market for profit. Crucially, they're selling both Call & Put options for that ATVI block. Which translates to Goldman trying to make money either way. As is their custom. The fact that they are selling Put options on ATVI means Goldman believes that the deal isn't a guarantee. And neither does the wider market...

Side note: Anyone citing moves in the actual real world market needs to drop a link or two for posterity.

Activision block of 3.7M shares traded earlier (NASDAQ:ATVI)

A block of 3.7 million shares of video game maker Activision (AVTI) were sold for a price of $72.25/share earlier. Goldman Sachs was to have shopped the block earlier Monday, according...

seekingalpha.com

Goldman Sachs Group Inc ownership in ATVI / Activision Blizzard Inc - 13F, 13D, 13G Filings - Fintel.io

Goldman Sachs Group Inc ownership in ATVI / Activision Blizzard Inc - 13F, 13D, 13G Filings - Fintel.io

fintel.io

 

[GHG]

All I need now is for ricardo_sousa11 to go all in, then I'm buying puts.

 

[Nothing1234]

So it looks like it's falling through? Part of me is relieved but I want gsmepass to improve and keep offering me more content, i love the service and much prefer it to 70 dollar games. I hope something is done overall to stop marketing deals on third party games. How does this cod have stuff locked away from xbox and PC for a year. It's just wrong. Sure, do the 30 days thing but what is with this year thing that started with destiny etc on multiplat games?

Hope that gets stopped next.

Microsoft will just have to aim smaller. Maybe getnother publishers or devs and spend the money to stop Sony doing this stuff in thr future but I don't know how you do that without looking like the villain. You're not gonna pay more to get less.

3rd Party marketing deals are fine. Xbox had exclusive content in Call of Duty and FIFA when they had marketing deals.

 

[TheGodfather07]

Maybe the deal goes through only with Microsoft agreeing to keep atleast call of duty fully multiplatform? They can still have exclusive content and all Activision games on gamepass. That way it gives people choice. If cod gamers on ps want to switch over to xbox, they can. Let them decide. Let them freely choose where they want to play. Thats fair right?

 

[intheinbetween]

They shouldnt have - theyre just 1 competitor among many who have answered the questions.

Everything else is just forum based console warring and FUD.

Also that could lead to monopoly, a company deciding the direction and fate of the industry.