Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Topher said:
Are you talking about the three tweets regarding the Activision Blizzard acquisition? Ok......I guess. No real harm in doing that when someone asked them a question about it either though. They did provide a link back to their site at the end for more information. Most of their tweets are like the Nvidia one. Short summary of the update with a link.
Click to expand...
Yes - that's what I'm referring to - that entire sequence was odd - I agree that their other tweets are typical and follow expectations.
 
phil_t98 said:
What's gonna be diff with 2.0?
Click to expand...


I think different maps and shit. Originally when they announced WZ2, everyone thought it was gonna be next-gen only so they be fresh from the last-gen bloat and 150~GB installs (they said as much I think). But then they announced WZ2 for all platforms.


feynoob said:
Both studios are helping xbox devs.
It seems very suspicious.
Click to expand...


If this turns out to be true, and I think there's an approximate 0.001% chance, then they are a lot more fucking devious than the public facing front they show :messenger_grinning_sweat:
 
Last edited:
splattered said:
To be fair i've seen several people online suggest things of this nature around embracer, or even just straight up fully buying embracer itself? I dunno
Click to expand...

Embracer's market cap is $6bn. Unless I read that wrong. I thought they were a lot more valuable than that.

I won't be surprised if either company is looking at them as a potential acquisition next.
 
Topher said:
That doesn't change the fact that Nintendo's focus was creating a product that attracted a different demographic of gamer. Your article says that as well.

"Reggie Fils-Aime, chief of Nintendo's North American division, articulated Nintendo's new strategy at the 2006 E3 Conference. "It's no longer confined to just the few," he said. "It's about everyone." Those simple words spelled out Nintendo's strategy from that day forward: Get everyone. Get the kids. Get the teenagers. Get the parents. Get the grandparents. Get boys. Get girls. Nintendo games would not just be the unhealthy addictions of reclusive, pockmarked teenagers or aimless twentysomethings. Nintendo games would be for everyone."

That strategy had a heck of a lot more to do with broadening their base than simply making a less powerful, cheaper console. Again, consumer driven. Factually, we are not talking about mergers and acquisitions here in any case. That's where this comparison falls apart.
Click to expand...
I think you're flying fast and loose with your terms and perceived definitions. I think your consumer driven is attempting to conflate blue ocean strategy.

I mean sure, you can opine that it is "consumer driven" to pivot to untested, uncelebrated, and under-spec'd hardware with motion controls - but there are no consumers reacting to and shouting demand for a product that up to this point never existed.

I'll maintain that they were still shouldered into this by competitors more than you're prepared to give credit to, as there is no business case for solely-game-focused and undiversified Nintendo to sustain losses on hardware. I'll leave it there.
 
Menzies said:
I think you're flying fast and loose with your terms and perceived definitions. I think your consumer driven is attempting to conflate blue ocean strategy.

I mean sure, you can opine that it is "consumer driven" to pivot to untested, uncelebrated, and under-spec'd hardware with motion controls - but there are no consumers reacting to and shouting demand for a product that up to this point never existed.

I'll maintain that they were still shouldered into this by competitors more than you're prepared to give credit to, as there is no business case for solely-game-focused and undiversified Nintendo to sustain losses on hardware. I'll leave it there.
Click to expand...

I think you're trying to shove a square peg into a round hole in order to use Nintendo to check some box that says Nintendo proves PlayStation can survive without Call of Duty and it just doesn't work. I don't necessarily even disagree with the premise that PS could survive minus CoD, for the record. But this Nintendo example is just bogus.

I think you are missing the point of Nintendo's drive towards a "consumer driven" product with Wii entirely. Nintendo wasn't going after the type of gamer who paid attention to hardware specs . The article you posted made that point quite well. While gamers looked down their nose at Wii, there were hordes of consumers buying every last one they could find. Seems like Nintendo succeeded quite well in their consumer driven strategy.

You are right. I don't give competition as much credit as you do. The design and marketing of Wii was fixated on non-gamers, not creating a non-loss console. Wii was one of those products that people did not know they wanted until they saw it. If the competition had much to do with that then it was on the periphery, not the focus. You don't create Wii if you are trying to get a dirt cheap console to market. You create Ouya. There was much more to Wii than that and yes, it was absolutely consumer driven.
 
SteadyEvo said:
Is the deal gonna happen or not?
Click to expand...
Christian Bale Idk GIF
 
Ass of Can Whooping said:
Monopolistic practice are moves in which you take to gain control in a market. Moves such as buying multiple massive third party publishers. You do not need to be a monopoly to engage in said practice. Should be obvious
Click to expand...
Would monopolistic practice be something like the dominant company with the top market position in the gaming industry buying up multiple massive 3rd party games and content to block them from their competitors at the beginning of a new generation?
 
CatLady said:
Would monopolistic practice be something like the dominant company with the top market position in the gaming industry buying up multiple massive 3rd party games and content to block them from their competitors at the beginning of a new generation?
Click to expand...

You're asking the wrong question. I've learned that when deciding what is monopolistic or not, you must first consider 'will this hurt Sony?'

If so, then yes it is monopolistic. If not, then no this is healthy competition.

Edit: A perfect implementation of this logic can be observed in the comment below.
 
Last edited:
CatLady said:
Would monopolistic practice be something like the dominant company with the top market position in the gaming industry buying up multiple massive 3rd party games and content to block them from their competitors at the beginning of a new generation?
Click to expand...
No.
 
CatLady said:
Would monopolistic practice be something like the dominant company with the top market position in the gaming industry buying up multiple massive 3rd party games and content to block them from their competitors at the beginning of a new generation?
Click to expand...
Hear, hear.

I don't understand the effort on display to morally exculpate Sony, throw a halo on them and eject them from the guilty seat right where they belong next to Microsoft.
 
CatLady said:
Would monopolistic practice be something like the dominant company with the top market position in the gaming industry buying up multiple massive 3rd party games and content to block them from their competitors at the beginning of a new generation?
Click to expand...

Do said individual games risk said competitors from competing?
 
adamsapple said:
This is some next level conspiracy shit :messenger_tears_of_joy:
Click to expand...

I personally thought this was what was going on all along. Phil Spencer has personally expressed his interest in Crystal Dynamics and the Tomb Raider IP multiple times to me and other Xbox fans at Xbox fanfest at E3 prior to Covid. Phil has always badly wanted both Crystal Dynamics as a studio and Tomb Raider, and I believe by extension he wants their fellow partner studio Eidos also. It is not by an accident they seem so focused on Xbox first party game development.

I think Microsoft is going to make Embracer an offer for them once ABK is cleared. We shall see, though.
 
SenjutsuSage said:
I personally thought this was what was going on all along. Phil Spencer has personally expressed his interest in Crystal Dynamics and the Tomb Raider IP multiple times to me and other Xbox fans at Xbox fanfest at E3 prior to Covid. Phil has always badly wanted both Crystal Dynamics as a studio and Tomb Raider, and I believe by extension he wants their fellow partner studio Eidos also. It is not by an accident they seem so focused on Xbox first party game development.

I think Microsoft is going to make Embracer an offer for them once ABK is cleared. We shall see, though.
Click to expand...
It's an interesting idea. I had no idea Eidos was working on Fable too so there is clearly a business relationship there. At this point I just want the Activision deal to close to get more Game pass content. After that more studios can be looked at if it makes sense.
 
If anyone still wondering, why COD is important for competition. This is why.


Being the most selling game for all these years is something. and the only one that can compete it, is Rockstar drop, or bethesda drop. Elden ring was exception. But its almost getting beaten by mw2 sales(11.4m in 3 days).
 
DarkMage619 said:
It's an interesting idea. I had no idea Eidos was working on Fable too so there is clearly a business relationship there. At this point I just want the Activision deal to close to get more Game pass content. After that more studios can be looked at if it makes sense.
Click to expand...

Great advantage for the Activision Blizzard deal is getting those studios and all the talent. The raw manpower will make it a lot more possible for game engine work to happen that transitions more games, especially in major franchises, to actually using the very best features available to Xbox consoles, which will, by extension, increase their use on PC. This work is already undergoing at Microsoft, but it doesn't hurt to get Activision Blizzard studios contributing to the effort and sharing with other xbox first-party studios.
 
feynoob said:
If anyone still wondering, why COD is important for competition. This is why.


Being the most selling game for all these years is something. and the only one that can compete it, is Rockstar drop, or bethesda drop. Elden ring was exception. But its almost getting beaten by mw2 sales(11.4m in 3 days).
Click to expand...


Probably why Phil Spencer confirmed that it would still be on Sony post-acquisition 'as long as there's a Sony to ship to'.
 
feynoob said:
If anyone still wondering, why COD is important for competition. This is why.


Being the most selling game for all these years is something. and the only one that can compete it, is Rockstar drop, or bethesda drop. Elden ring was exception. But its almost getting beaten by mw2 sales(11.4m in 3 days).
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter as much as you think. It isn't about competing with one game, but every game by every publisher across the entire industry. For Activision Blizzard's games on console (not just COD, but everything) accounted for 10% or less of global revenue & global market share. It's the same on PC as well. It's only through the combination of Microsoft and Activision Blizzard that the two of them together would be between 10%-20% of global market share and revenue on consoles.

EA actually has a larger market share worldwide for their titles in 2021 than even Activision Blizzard does. These are numbers provided directly by Microsoft and the other publishers CADE reached out to.

uJ3JQTf.png


This deal, though this seems to have all kinds of attention right now, is as straightforward as it gets. There's no way based on the hard data in a phase 2 investigation CMA can possibly arrive at a likely significant lessening of competition based on the 'balance of probabilities' legal standard.

Also, COD could lose the title this year to Elden Ring. :P But we shall see.
 
Last edited:
Hero of Spielberg said:
You're asking the wrong question. I've learned that when deciding what is monopolistic or not, you must first consider 'will this hurt Sony?'

If so, then yes it is monopolistic. If not, then no this is healthy competition.

Edit: A perfect implementation of this logic can be observed in the comment below.
Click to expand...
It's not a question of 'will this hurt', it's a question of 'how much' and whether it's fatal to the competition.

Exclusivity deals hurt competitors but not usually fatal.
 
Hero of Spielberg said:
Probably why Phil Spencer confirmed that it would still be on Sony post-acquisition 'as long as there's a Sony to ship to'.
Click to expand...
That quote wasn't there before. Which is why CMA was fussy about this deal. Otherwise, they would have accelerated the deal, should Phil have said those words day1 of the deal.

SenjutsuSage said:
It doesn't matter as much as you think. It isn't about competing with one game, but every game by every publisher across the entire industry. For Activision Blizzard's games on console (not just COD, but everything) accounted for 10% or less of global revenue & global market share. It's the same on PC as well. It's only through the combination of Microsoft and Activision Blizzard that the two of them together would be between 10%-20% of global market share and revenue on consoles.

EA actually has a larger market share worldwide for their titles in 2021 than even Activision Blizzard does. These are numbers provided directly by Microsoft and the other publishers CADE reached out to.

uJ3JQTf.png


This deal, though this seems to have all kinds of attention right now, is as straightforward as it gets. There's no way based on the hard data in a phase 2 investigation CMA can possibly arrive at a likely significant lessening of competition based on the 'balance of probabilities' legal standard.

Also, COD could lose the title this year to Elden Ring. :p But we shall see.
Click to expand...
The problem is that game has significant power. That much copies for 1 year, and managing to release it yearly shows how much power it has. It can tip the balance of those 2 consoles.

Ps2 vs Xbox one wasn't a competition. Once MS picked CoD marketing, they were going toe to toe with ps3 (despite ps3 viasco and x360 death of ring).
 
reksveks said:
It's not a question of 'will this hurt', it's a question of 'how much' and whether it's fatal to the competition.

Exclusivity deals hurt competitors but not usually fatal.
Click to expand...

So given that they've confirmed that COD will remain on PS, what do you consider the 'fatal' exclusively deal that will destroy the market leader in gaming's ability to compete?
 
Hero of Spielberg said:
So given that they've confirmed that COD will remain on PS, what do you consider the 'fatal' exclusively deal that will destroy the market leader in gaming's ability to compete?
Click to expand...
I am saying what the CMA and other regulators will be looking at. I don't think there is a game/content that would fatally harm Sony from competing. There are very few of those in general across all of media.

I personally don't think the Sony argument is that strong and think if the CMA is most worried about the console market then MSFT will give that to regulators/Sony to get the deal through.

If the regulators are concerned about multi-game subscription services then it gets more interesting. I don't know how much MSFT would like not having COD on GP, maybe pulling the marketing deal out of Sony control is enough.

As a MSFT shareholder, think personally every upto divesting Activision should be on the table if it comes to that. Think King is the golden egg.
 
Sony want that COD pie with the same deal they've carved out with Activision. Phil ain't gonna allow that, obviously when the time comes if Ryan wants COD to remain on PS he'll have to do it on Phils term's. This will be a simple quid pro quo situation that I'm sure will get ironed out.

We know the deal will go through, Microsoft have been very confident from the beginning and its just a matter of when.
 
Negotiator101 said:
Sony want that COD pie with the same deal they've carved out with Activision. Phil ain't gonna allow that, obviously when the time comes if Ryan wants COD to remain on PS he'll have to do it on Phils term's. This will be a simple quid pro quo situation that I'm sure will get ironed out.

We know the deal will go through, Microsoft have been very confident from the beginning and its just a matter of when.
Click to expand...


how about a deal where we give you cod day one and you give us Spiderman 6 months later
 
phil_t98 said:
how about a deal where we give you cod day one and you give us Spiderman 6 months later
Click to expand...
It could be anything really, I don't think Microsoft want to lose money by removing COD from PS. I'd imagine it comes down to Gamepass and subs. If COD on Gamepass doesn't increase subs significantly then they will have to keep it on PS regardless. Let's just see what happens, competition drives the industry forward.
 
Negotiator101 said:
It could be anything really, I don't think Microsoft want to lose money by removing COD from PS. I'd imagine it comes down to Gamepass and subs. If COD on Gamepass doesn't increase subs significantly then they will have to keep it on PS regardless. Let's just see what happens, competition drives the industry forward.
Click to expand...
Negotiator101 said:
For a few year's, nothing has been done obviously long term.
Click to expand...

they committed long term the other day when they said as long as there is a playstation Cod will be on there

I see nothing wrong with Microsoft trying to get something back in return off Sony though
 
phil_t98 said:
they committed long term the other day when they said as long as there is a playstation Cod will be on there

I see nothing wrong with Microsoft trying to get something back in return off Sony though
Click to expand...
Stating intent and committing to something are not the same. There's nothing signed so it's all speculative atm. That's not a bad thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
2K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
6K
MDSLKTR replied
Microsoft, Activision Deny Report Regarding Financial Performance
Business Hardware  2 3
131
11K
Jaybe replied
What happened to all the people that were cheering over that MS Activision acquisition?
Drama  5 6 7 8 9
414
18K
GateofD replied
Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
99K
MasterCornholio replied
Top Bottom