Badlucktroll
Member
Bungie can drum up something.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
feynoob
Banned
Its a pdf document. I am using google translation, since I cant read serbian language.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Oh ok, these are from Serbia's approval for the deal.
Last edited:
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Phil was just saying what he had to say about Game Pass for the acquisition and was very clever in the process of doing so. His primary purpose was to tell you it's profitable to shutdown any suggestion by regulators Microsoft really doesn't care about the money they'll make from Activision Blizzard games on Playstation and is more than willing to sacrifice it all for a long-term competitive advantage. So message sent - we absolutely do care about profitability and are aiming for that as much as humanely possible.
Next, he doesn't tell you any other context for that 10-15% outside of the fact that it's a percentage of their content and services revenue. And so long as you view it through the lens of a very small number in the very low to mid-teens, Game Pass looks relatively non-threatening to regulators. For example, Sony was 17% of Activision Blizzard's overall revenue in 2020. That 17% into $1.37 billion for the year. Those small percentages can look mighty different once you attach them to a dollar amount at the end of a calendar/fiscal year.
In 2021 worldwide that 15% for Game Pass equated to $2.9 billion just on xbox consoles alone.
This was an accidentally leaked piece of info by Brazil's regulator before they quickly updated it to remove the data, along with a number of other data points that were meant to be restricted.
Based on rough calculations and what makes the most sense, he was most likely referring to 15% of their monthly content and services revenue, and we obviously can't tell the timeframe he's referring to, but what we do understand is that regardless of WHEN he was referring, month to month, quarter to quarter percentages will always change. It's a moving target. As such, Game Pass for calendar year 2021 was obviously higher than 15% because there's no other way to arrive at $2.9 billion for game pass just on consoles otherwise. And before people say that Brazil's regulator got it wrong, the information they put in was directly provided by Microsoft. It's also not the only chart they redacted in the updated version. It means there was a range of things they weren't supposed to show. I doubt that literally every single piece of extra information was removed purely because it was wrong. The only change they made was they now hid the exact numbers.
As for the cannibalisation of game sales, there is nothing revolutionary here. We have yet to see true evidence of cannibalization in the areas people all claimed we would - many implied 3rd party software sales would suffer dramatically. There is zero evidence of Game Pass hurting smaller to mid-sized games, and even less evidence of the big AAAs suffering. Cyberpunk didn't suffer, Elden Ring didn't suffer, MW2 didn't suffer, Far Cry 6 didn't suffer, AC Valhalla, Dying Light 2, MLB The Show (which actually went to Game Pass day one), Outriders found its market despite a day one game pass launch, and plenty of evidence exists showing Game Pass actually boosting sales of games.
Now as to first party games that launch in game-pass, yes, sales will of course be cannibalized, and that's Microsoft's goal. They prefer Game Pass over 'buy to play' and it's damn obvious they do because they get more of a reward from it financially. It's pretty obvious to everyone when it's literally part of the bonus/compensation packages for the highest level Microsoft executives. Microsoft has literally been pushing people to subscribe to Game Pass in a very obvious way now for years because a Game Pass subscriber that sticks around makes them way more money over time than a single 'one-time purchase' ever will. Every big game from Microsoft is advertised with the words "Play it Day One with Game Pass." They're not saying "Buy it now on Xbox Series X|S" consoles. The biggest marketing focus is "Day One With Game Pass."
Game Pass is bringing in way more revenue in a single year than even the most highly successful 'one time buy' games out there. It's making a whole lot more this year, for example, at over 25 million subs than the just over $1 billion in sales revenue MW2 has already brought in at launch. Game Pass combined with all the extra revenue from Activision Blizzard will be a monstrous combo even if once COD titles enter Game Pass they predictably start selling less upfront on Xbox consoles. It will be made up for by the growth in subscribers as a more affordable way to access those same games as well as a bunch of other games. People will then tell us about how sales have fallen off a cliff because of Game Pass this or Game Pass that, and Microsoft will be laughing all the way to the bank at the end of every calendar and fiscal year as Game Pass continues to grow. Even once it stalls heavily, which will come at some point, it will be 1000% sustainable long term with all the money they will be bringing in through Activision's mobile division, world of warcraft, Diablo 4, Warzone, Warzone mobile, Overwatch 2, and so much more, even Blizzard's new survival IP coming up.
Oh, and all of this gets added together with Starfield (which will be an absolute monster for Xbox Series consoles and Game Pass and on PC) and eventually Elder Scrolls 6, the gaming landscape will very different, but more competitive than it has ever been in its entire existence, because Sony is going to be bringing it too. And Nintendo doesn't miss. This is why I'm eager for this deal to go through because I see all the upside. Microsoft isn't stupid enough to take Call of Duty off Playstation. Not anytime soon anyway, if not ever. I think plenty of opportunities will arise for them to do precisely this in the future, and to the shock of many, Microsoft simply won't take it because they never intended to.
Another important factor in Microsoft owning Activision Blizzard is when sony is preparing the next playstation console, as per usual, some synergy can transpire from Activision's specific requests to both Microsoft and Sony that ensures specific next-generation GPU or game development features are supported at a bare minimum on both systems, and not just one. As I don't suspect Sony will seriously risk not fully information Activision Blizzard about what they got coming next so the next COD can be as good as possible on everything (One of the other big reasons I'm sure Sony doesn't want Microsoft having ABK - no problem withholding from the Minecraft Team, but that's not practical with Call of Duty being as big as it is)
Last edited:
skit_data
Member
That's confusing.
-Hey this company that doesn't sell consoles in your country might make games exclusive to their console.
Great for consumer options *deal approved*
Kvally
Member
And now F2P on Xbox doesn't require Gold either, as of a year and a half ago.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
I'm joking btw. I know this isn't as significant, but you gotta start somewhere.
Nah. Activision will be just fine. They are getting $3 billion dollars in pure profit from Microsoft in a break-up fee if the deal falls through, and I think we all know Activision's 2023 is about to light up the charts, don't we? They can literally toss that $3 billion they get from Microsoft directly into stock buy backs, significantly boosting their stocks and their investors' confidence. So their stock is very likely to be a very hot commodity even should the deal fall through.
feynoob
Banned
They want to bring xbox to their market, since MS has no presence in their country.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
That is little bit late now.
Kvally
Member
feynoob
Banned
MS should have done that long time ago. It hurted the platform. Those f2p games could have helped the platform, instead, they didn't take any actions fast.
IFireflyl
Gold Member
Fixed that for you.
ReBurn
Gold Member
At the end of they day they only need to appease regulators. It doesn't matter if Sony is happy. I guess we'll see if it works.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
I don't know. Seems like Sony has a lot of power.
feynoob
Banned
They dont. This move is to shutdown Sony. Sony cant go beyond this point. If they do that, regulators might have problems with them too.
12Dannu123
Member
At what exactly? If Regulators are happy with a 10 year deal for COD on PlayStation, then Sony can't do much to change it.
Last edited:
MarkMe2525
Banned
Until recently, Playstation Plus was Sony's multiplayer subscription with deals and a couple free games thrown in. This is not equivalent to the GamePass service. The statement is not clear on what exactly Sony was "presumably" attempting to bring to the Xbox store or if they ever attempted to bring anything at all.
MarkMe2525
Banned
Last edited:
Pelta88
Member
DM me so I don't forget.
MarkMe2525
Banned
It will not let me DM you. It states "You may not start a conversation with the following recipients: Pelta88."
Anyhow, I drew up an agreement.
To avoid any misunderstanding, we should reiterate the wager. I bet that if the deal goes through, there will not be a provision that blocks MS ability to offer CoD on gamepass for however long the concession to Sony is. Example, if MS signs a 5 year licensing deal with Sony for CoD, they shall not offer CoD on gamepass for those 5 years. This does not include any current marketing deals in place between Activision and Sony. This means I believe at the current end of the marketing agreement (2024 I believe?) MS will have CoD on gamepass if, of course, the deal goes through.
The winner of this wager has the privilege of picking out an avatar for the loser of said wager. Loser will have to use this avatar for 7 days. Honestly, I would prefer to spice it up a little and go for 2 weeks, but that is up to you.
Do you see any issues? If not, do you agree to these terms?
Last edited:
SenjutsuSage
Banned
And yet insignificant territories like those that have already approved the deal still possess power enough to make giants like Disney and 21st Century Fox divest ownership of assets in order to get their $71 billion deal approved. https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/disney-to-accept-divesting-of-fox-sports-in-brazil-and-mexico-1.1217994
Brazil forced Disney to divest assets, Mexico forced Disney to divest assets.
Another thing I want to highlight to showcase that big dollar amounts aren't as scary to big regulators as some think, CMA forced Disney to make yet another big acquisition they never wanted - for $25.8 billion (yes, really) - by purchasing Sky News in order to get its approval for the Disney Fox deal while forcing Fox, who wanted Sky for themselves, to fund Sky's operations at $130 million per year for 15 years. Also, Disney isn't allowed to sell Sky for up to 15 years and must also receive the consent of the UK's secretary of state before they can. My suspicion is CMA may want Microsoft to potentially up their commitment of COD on Playstation to as much as 15 years to keep in line with this same framework.
https://www.fiercevideo.com/video/d...s-as-fox-vows-to-pump-more-money-into-network
It's yet another day with yet another unconditional approval of the deal. And yet somehow if a single one of these "insignificant" places were to suddenly display some hostility towards the deal - or propose to block it - you and many others would be right here saying how significant it is and it's a sign that they're in even greater trouble with larger regulators.
And speaking of other large regulators, such as the FTC. Call me crazy, but I somehow do not see THIS FTC under THIS current President setting up a major battle in court against not just Microsoft (one of the few truly big and consistently friendly corporate allies Democrats have), but also a court battle, which would include one of the most powerful Labor Unions in the United States of America as Microsoft's ally, putting at risk a massive landmark agreement for unions in the United States (and specifically the games industry) between Microsoft and the Communication Workers of America Union, which depends on the transaction closing....
https://wccftech.com/activision-blizzard-x-microsoft-deal-backed-by-cwa-in-ftc-letter/
Translation, the labor union deal is tied to Microsoft's acquisition of Activision actually closing. Otherwise, there's no deal at all and the Biden FTC would have contributed to killing this deal.. where Activision Blizzard is heavily criticized for mistreating its workforce. How can that possibly go bad?
Do some folks in this thread understand how pro-labor union this administration is? How pro-Union a President Joe Biden is and has always been throughout his career of public service? Shit, a part of me almost wants to see the FTC try to sue just to see how Biden and Democrats (who still control the U.S. Senate and could be gaining subpoena power by end of day December 6th if they win a 51st seat in Georgia) could go nuclear in response. These are factors far too many are overlooking. Microsoft has a binding agreement with this union. With Activision's well-documented workplace issues, I just don't see how a possibility of letting them off the hook escapes major scrutiny and doesn't hurt the administration in ways that are easy to predict. Oh, and did I mention that this will directly put them at odds with major pro union United States Senators in the President's party, one of which happens to be a guy named Sherrod Brown (one of the few Democrats in the US still capable of winning a major statewide race in Ohio), who just so happens to be up for re-election in 2024?
Let's have a look at all pro-union Dems up for re-election in 2024 in the US Senate. Everybody on this list (minus Sinema but now has a major incentive to pretend to be one since Dems swept everything in Arizona) in my view is heavily pro-union. Even Manchin, a regular thorn in Biden's side, was forced back to negotiations due to pressure from Unions and his being up for re-election in 2024. Everybody on this list has an expiring term in 2025. There are some massive names on this list. Amy Klobuchar, Tim Kaine of Virginia (a state Democrats recently lost the governorship for and want back), Debbie Stabenow, Jacky Rosen (culinary union gave Democrats wins in Nevada in 2022), Chris Murphy (significant influence wielded by this guy), Bob Casey (PA is union central - and there's no seat more vital to hold than his come 2024), Tammy Baldwin (a state where Democrats failed to remove the most vulnerable sitting Republican US Senator despite winning the governor race - which will put her on edge and will give Senator Tammy Baldwin extra incentive to not look favorably on anything seemingly anti-union). And can't leave off Maria Cantwell, or Elizabeth Warren who was all over the labor aspects of this deal, among others. Rob Menendez of New Jersey is already embroiled in scandal, faced previous federal charges, the charges could be coming back, he barely scraped by with a victory last time, and now he's up for re-election again. Super vulnerable, will need all help he can get, meaning union support.
I've said from the very start in the USA there is a major political element to this deal's approval.
As stated before, nothing yet materially affects Microsoft and Activision's targeted window to close the transaction. What has always been true from the very start was that Microsoft, in the major territories that would ultimately determine the outcome of the transaction, would only at best end up making reasonable concessions they were always from the start prepared to make if it truly came down to it - but they would not represent anything that severely harmed the potential financial or competitive value to Microsoft.
Last edited:
MarkMe2525
Banned
SenjutsuSage
Banned
My guy, MS started their studio purchasing in enerst back in 2017. While I admit that the whole "wait till next year " mantra has run its course, this talk didn't really start until 2018-19. No where near a decade
All studio purchased for Microsoft began the year 2018, exactly the year following Phil Spencer being added to the leadership group at Microsoft.
Sep 2017 - Phil Joins leadership group sep 2017 (Now finally reporting directly to CEO Satya Nadella - previously reported to Terry Myerson, head of windows)
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/phil-spencer-joins-microsoft-senior-leadership-team
Mar 2018 - Terry Myerson, person who tried to kill Xbox and cut funding, the person Phil Spencer use to report to, and the same guy who ran the Windows and Devices Group at Microsoft, leaves Microsoft as part of a reorganization.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/29/microsoft-reorganizes-splits-company-into-2-divisions.html
Phil Spencer immediately buys 6 game studios that same year, beginning with
June 2018 - Microsoft acquires 4 studios - Ninja Theory, Compulsion, Undead Labs, and Playground Games
https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/10/microsoft-acquires-a-whole-bunch-of-game-studios/
Nov 2018 - Microsoft acquires 2 studios - Obsidian and InXile
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/micro...ng-two-independent-rpg-powerhouses-xbox-roof/
June 2019 - Microsoft acquires 1 studio - Double Fine
https://www.polygon.com/e3/2019/6/9...uires-double-fine-studios-e3-2019-first-party
Sep 2020 - Microsoft acquires Zenimax Media and gets Bethesda Softworks games publishing business as well. 8 studios (id software, Arkane, Bethesda Game Studios, roundhouse studios, alpha dog, tango gameworks, MachineGames, Zenimax Media Online Studios)
https://news.microsoft.com/2020/09/...ia-and-its-game-publisher-bethesda-softworks/
October 2021 - Activision acquired a game studio that Microsoft also gets with the acquisition - Digital Legends.
https://www.videogameschronicle.com...-to-work-on-its-new-call-of-duty-mobile-game/
Jan 2022 - Microsoft acquires Activision Blizzard King - Activision, Blizzard, and King each have their own games publishing businesses. Microsoft gets all 3 in addition to Major League Gaming. Microsoft gets a grand total of 14 game studios (across 52 different actual studio locations) Blizzard, for their part, has 9 different studio locations including the recently acquired proletariat and the recently integrated former Activision studio, Vicarious Visions. Activision on its own has 11 different studios spread across 32 locations around the world (the likes of which include demonware, infinity ward, raven, sledgehammer, treyarch, toys for bob, Activision Shanghai, Beenox, Digital Legends, Radical Entertainment, and Solid State Studio) A very important piece across these 11 different studios in 32 different studio locations around the world are Activision's Central Technology Group. It's their equivalent to Microsoft's Advanced Technology Group or Sony's ICE Team.
They're described as follows. https://research.activision.com/ -
Essentially, this is the team who, along with all the other crazy talented teams at Activision Blizzard, is most likely to help get things like Sampler Feedback Streaming to be more common in Xbox Series and also future PC titles, with major help from existing Xbox first party studios, Microsoft's Advanced Technology Group and even Bethesda studios. Can just imagine all the different ways they're going to find to collaborate amongst themselves.
You can see them listed as assisting along with Demonware on Activision's big new COD Mobile title (Warzone mobile).
Demonware is described as follows (on Wikipedia): This team is likely a very significant part of why Activision is able to turnaround new COD titles so quickly. They have a whole separate team they acquired back in like 2003 that is fully dedicated to making the entire process of an online multiplayer game as easy as humanely possible.
March 2022 - Activision creates new internal studio - Solid State Studios.
July 2022 - Blizzard Entertainment acquires 1 studio - Proletariat
https://investor.activision.com/new...ment-acquires-boston-based-studio-proletariat
Either way you look at it, this is an insane ass haul not just in terms of game IP, but in terms of raw studios, studio locations. It's an insane amount of manpower. Can only imagine what new IPs could end up emerging from this in the future. Most don't realize Activision and even Bethesda has continued doing smaller acquisitions on behalf of Microsoft.
Last edited:
Now, when Microsoft is offering 10-year Call of Duty deal on PlayStation as a remedy to get this deal through I wonder how Sony will move a goalpost.
I was always saying, that Sony knows that Call of Duty will stay on PlayStation with or without deal. They were just using "we will loose access to COD" to coverup their biggest fear: Call of Duty will be on Game Pass day one on our rival's platform and they can't compete there.
I was always saying, that Sony knows that Call of Duty will stay on PlayStation with or without deal. They were just using "we will loose access to COD" to coverup their biggest fear: Call of Duty will be on Game Pass day one on our rival's platform and they can't compete there.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
I think he refers to the "xbox has no games", which has been a meme since the launch of xbox one.My guy, MS started their studio purchasing in enerst back in 2017. While I admit that the whole "wait till next year " mantra has run its course, this talk didn't really start until 2018-19. No where near a decade
Pelta88
Member
You have yourself a wager!
GHG
Gold Member
My guy, MS started their studio purchasing in enerst back in 2017. While I admit that the whole "wait till next year " mantra has run its course, this talk didn't really start until 2018-19. No where near a decade
Before "wait for next year" it was "wait for e3". It all coincided with the drop off in 1st party games after they went chasing after the Wii crowd towards the end of the 360 generation.
MarkMe2525
Banned
Tiago Rodrigues
Member
lol
Because unlike MS, they don't need their games for free to sell millions. They can actually sell their games.
Why "take a revenue loss" when the model they are using is working for them and is turning their games into profit after not even a week?
oldergamer
Member
Dunno why you think its revenue loss when gamepass is generating more money then most of the top games combined.
tommib
Banned
Streaming xCloud. Phone, tablet, everything that has a browser.
Menzies
Banned
Great. We're all in agreement then. They've got nothing to worry about.
No need to recreate PS+ in the model of GamePass. No need to cry to regulators about CoD on GamePass. No need to complain about subscriber counts and investments required to compete with GamePass.
Sony games just sell and they don't need a multi-game subscription service. Who's going to tell Sony?
Bonsaibäumchen
Member
Because that worked so well for Google with Stadia right?Streaming xCloud. Phone, tablet, everything that has a browser.
Cloudgaming is garbage. Can't believe people are still cheering for that.
It might be reasonable for some games and as an alternative. But I sure hope it will never grow into a greater market because sooner or later games will only be playable through streaming. Its a trap set up by those companies to bind you to their services.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
It's all thanks to the large userbase, which they currently have.
Let them have Xbox userbase, and I guarantee you, they would do the same thing as Xbox.
Swift_Star
Banned
The userbase card. Oh I know who you are. You're that user that had a Garfield avatar and flooded the forum with useless threads and requested for a perm a few months back.
Lol
onesvenus
Member
Weren't there 4 million Forza Horizon 5 players before launch date, which you could only do by buying the game?
feynoob
Banned
Do you understand how important is userbase numbers?
tommib
Banned
I'm not cheering for it just that's it's an alternative to Microsoft exclusive games like Scorn or Pentiment. My experience with streaming Scorn was pretty miserable but I'm sure streaming will evolve and look better. The worst are the freezes. And I'm on the fastest internet you can get in the Netherlands.
jm89
Member
This isn't really true. The people who buy exclusives are actually a much smaller segment of the total userbase. Most of the people who bought are also ps5 users as shown by the split by gbiz.
baphomet
Member
1 million
feynoob
Banned
Larger user base = more chance of reaching potential buyers = more sales.
People who only buy your exclusives are small. It's the regular people that buy exclusives, not the fans of the console.
Its why Sony is fighting against this deal. They are losing potential buyers, who will buy their games.
This is also on the document, which they sent to the CMA.
Of course he is not understanding it.
Or at least he is pretending to not understand it.
Mario Kart 8 sold 8 million copies on WiiU. Which is great number in vacuum. But game was released on unsuccefull console and it diminished potential sales of game.
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe sold 48 million copies on Switch.
That should tell you everything you need to know corelation between sales of your games and success of your platform.
Majority of commercial failures of Xbox games (Sunset Overdrive, Quantum Break etc.) and last years can be directly attributed to lacklustre sales of Xbox One. Same is the case with success of PlayStation Studios games.
PS Now which is now called PS+ (Extra/Premium).
feynoob
Banned
Not to mention, consoles like PS and Xbox have fierce competition with other games, unlike Nintendo games.
Smaller userbase usually means blood bath for game sales, since they are all competing against each other. Which results in low game sales..
jm89
Member
There is a limit though, just look at tlou2 sales completely reliant on ps4 userbase, whilst ragnarok sold more on a much smaller ps5 userbase.
Regardless of what they are saying to the CMA, i don't buy your comment below. This isn't just about userbase, this is about creating games that people actually want to buy, which can sell on a small userbase.
Last edited:
- Status