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.
jm89 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ragnarok did not beat TLOU2 by that much. Yes, it sold 5,1 million copies, but in 5 days. TLOU 2 sold 4 million copies in 3 days.

Also claims about "smaller userbase" are strange, since Ragnarok is also available on PS4. And yes, majority of sales are on PS5 (I suppose), but PS4 is still factor.
 
feynoob said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, it's all thanks to MS and EA embracing mtxs so well, first for EA Access then for Gamepass. Sony will do it too but with their mtx games.
 
Last edited:
Godot25 said:
Ragnarok did not beat TLOU2 by that much. Yes, it sold 5,1 million copies, but in 5 days. TLOU 2 sold 4 million copies in 3 days.

Also claims about "smaller userbase" are strange, since Ragnarok is also available on PS4. And yes, majority of sales are on PS5 (I suppose), but PS4 is still factor.
Click to expand...
But it did it on a smaller userbase, that's my point.

Take away ps4 sales and it's still doing really well.
 
Three said:
No, it's all thanks to MS and EA embracing mtxs so well, first for EA Access then for Gamepass. Sony will do it too but with their mtx games.
Click to expand...
Jesus. That's nice stretch.

I did not know that EA and MS co-founded microtransactions because of GamePass and EA Access. I wonder why Activision also don't have sub service since it's probably the reason why their games are riddled with mtx's.

Or maybe there is no correlation between sub services and having mtxs in games...
 
jm89 said:
But it did it on a smaller userbase, that's my point.

Take away ps4 sales and it's still doing really well.
Click to expand...
That's difficult topic.
Because in my eyes, first adopters are most likely buyers of games like Ragnarok. So arguments of "smaller userbase" are in my eyes not holding much. PS5 have 26 million consoles on the market. That's no slouch.
And since we don't know split between PS4/PS5, it's hard to draw any conclusion. On TrueTrophies there are 71k owners of Ragnarok on PS5 and 16k on PS4. But I don't know how representative it is.
 
Godot25 said:
That's difficult topic.
Because in my eyes, first adopters are most likely buyers of games like Ragnarok. So arguments of "smaller userbase" are in my eyes not holding much. PS5 have 26 million consoles on the market. That's no slouch.
And since we don't know split between PS4/PS5, it's hard to draw any conclusion. On TrueTrophies there are 71k owners of Ragnarok on PS5 and 16k on PS4. But I don't know how representative it is.
Click to expand...
Well first adopters are gonna be part of that smaller userbase, and they will be the biggest contributors to the sales if the game is worth buying.

We do have split from gfk charts, and ps5 ragnarok outsold ps4 by a significant margin
 
jm89 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because Sony didn't lose them.
gow ps4 userbase is still there. They just upgraded to ps5. Considering the game sold 20m on ps4, so ragnorak ps5 shouldn't be a suprise

When these userbases leaves your system, that is when you will see these losses.
 
Three said:
No, it's all thanks to MS and EA embracing mtxs so well, first for EA Access then for Gamepass. Sony will do it too but with their mtx games.
Click to expand...
Gamepass is to maximize sales. While Mtx is to maximize profit.
Both can coexist.

Xbox is suffering from game sales. Gamepass is their answer to that.
 
feynoob said:
Because Sony didn't lose them.
gow ps4 userbase is still there. They just upgraded to ps5. Considering the game sold 20m on ps4, so ragnorak ps5 shouldn't be a suprise

When these userbases leaves your system, that is when you will see these losses.
Click to expand...
That's an irrelevant point really we aren't talking about people leaving the system or people getting upgraded from ps4 to ps5(that is the case with xbox as well)

People will buy games on smaller userbases if the game is worth it.
 
Godot25 said:
Jesus. That's nice stretch.

I did not know that EA and MS co-founded microtransactions because of GamePass and EA Access. I wonder why Activision also don't have sub service since it's probably the reason why their games are riddled with mtx's.
Click to expand...
"Co-founded mtx" 😄 what the fuck are you talking about?

You're delusional if you think their games having mtxs and it being the business model don't play a part in offering games on a subscription rather than selling it, or get this brilliant idea, offering your game for free even. Not sure who co-founded that brilliant idea.

The fact that Activision didn't launch their own subscription service is irrelevant, CoD was selling and they were launching f2p games with MTXs.
Godot25 said:
Or maybe there is no correlation between sub services and having mtxs in games...
Click to expand...
You have no clue if you really believe this.
 
jm89 said:
That's an irrelevant point really we aren't talking about people leaving the system or people getting upgraded from ps4 to ps5(that is the case with xbox as well)

People will buy games on smaller userbases if the game is worth it.
Click to expand...
The point is not whether the game is worth or not.
The point is that, larger userbase allows you to sell more copies. Since every game is fighting for consumers money.

PS had 120m ps4. Those users are now upgrading to ps5.
 
feynoob said:
Gamepass is to maximize sales. While Mtx is to maximize profit.
Both can coexist.

Xbox is suffering from game sales. Gamepass is their answer to that.
Click to expand...
I have no clue why you think gamepass would "maximise sales". It cannibalises sales. It's even in the CMA documents from MS themselves. It's a different business model which they can monetise better with mtxs/dlc. The fact that most of their big budget games have mtxs is not some coincidence.
 
feynoob said:
The point is not whether the game is worth or not.
The point is that, larger userbase allows you to sell more copies. Since every game is fighting for consumers money.

PS had 120m ps4. Those users are now upgrading to ps5.
Click to expand...
Not really.

Whether the game is worth it or not matters. Game aren't selling just because there is a larger userbase.

Yeah i'm sure larger userbase allows you to sell more but that's not the point i'm making, games can sell amazingly well on a smaller audience.

Not sure why you keep brining up upgrading from ps4 when most ps4 users haven't even done that.
 
Three said:
I have no clue why you think gamepass would "maximise sales". It cannibalises sales. It's even in the CMA documents from MS themselves. It's a different business model which they can monetise better with mtxs/dlc. The fact that most of their big budget games have mtxs is not some coincidence.
Click to expand...
Ehh. Which microtransactions Forza Horizon 5 have? You mean that one-off purchase that will reveal all XP boards on a map? That was there in Forza Horizon 2 (before Game Pass?)
Halo Infinite is a separate thing because that game is free-to-play. And Halo 5 also had mictrotransactions and Game Pass was not a thing back then.

So, you are claiming that Microsoft having mtxs in their first-party games are not coincidence, while having no actual proof?

I mean, we can revisit this topic when Starfield will have mtxs, but until then it's pretty lame to claim this.
 
Last edited:
jm89 said:
Not really.

Whether the game is worth it or not matters. Game aren't selling just because there is a larger userbase.

Yeah i'm sure larger userbase allows you to sell more but that's not the point i'm making, games can sell amazingly well on a smaller audience.

Not sure why you keep brining up upgrading from ps4 when most ps4 users haven't even done that.
Click to expand...
Large userbase means literally nothing whem most games sell more on PS than on PC, with PC having the largest userbase.
Kingfey, as usual, has no clue about what he's saying.
Also, this is derailing the thread.
 
Last edited:
Godot25 said:
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.
Click to expand...
If the correlation is primarily based on the number of consoles sold then where are the individual PlatStation franchise entries that sold 48 million copies on PS4 alone?

God of War 2018 sold 23 million. How many of those were from when Sony discounted it to $20, then $15, then $10, then $8?

Nintendo's games sell so well for more reasons than number of consoles sold. They sell so well because they have much wider appeal. More consoles in hand just amplifies the success of their games.
 
jm89 said:
Not really.

Whether the game is worth it or not matters. Game aren't selling just because there is a larger userbase.

Yeah i'm sure larger userbase allows you to sell more but that's not the point i'm making, games can sell amazingly well on a smaller audience.

Not sure why you keep brining up upgrading from ps4 when most ps4 users haven't even done that.
Click to expand...
I think we might be having little bit differences here.

Gow 2018 had around 78m to 80m ps4 consoles.
That meant the game had wider potential targets. Keep in mind that, ps4 didn't have a small userbase.
By the time the ps4 hit 116m, God of War sold 20m copies.

Now you have these users buying ps5 for the next installment of the franchise.

This is why larger userbase matters. It helps your next gen, if your userbase still there.

MS on other hand had 55+m userbase of xbox one.
This means XsX would have less users buying 1st party games.

Keep in mind that 1st party for both consoles are around 17%-20% of the console.
 
Three said:
I have no clue why you think gamepass would "maximise sales". It cannibalises sales. It's even in the CMA documents from MS themselves. It's a different business model which they can monetise better with mtxs/dlc. The fact that most of their big budget games have mtxs is not some coincidence.
Click to expand...
Because it allows more people to play your 1st party games, which has the potential of them buying your game.

Next installment would have more fans which would actuallytry to buy your games, compared to actually selling it only.
 
feynoob said:
I think we might be having little bit differences here.

Gow 2018 had around 78m to 80m ps4 consoles.
That meant the game had wider potential targets. Keep in mind that, ps4 didn't have a small userbase.
By the time the ps4 hit 116m, God of War sold 20m copies.

Now you have these users buying ps5 for the next installment of the franchise.

This is why larger userbase matters. It helps your next gen, if your userbase still there.

MS on other hand had 55+m userbase of xbox one.
This means XsX would have less users buying 1st party games.

Keep in mind that 1st party for both consoles are around 17%-20% of the console.
Click to expand...
Yeah i'm sure larger userbase helps, but the larger userbase isn't there yet.
 
Godot25 said:
Ehh. Which microtransactions Forza Horizon 5 have? You mean that one-off purchase that will reveal all XP boards on a map?
Halo Infinite is a separate thing because that game is free-to-play. And Halo 5 also had mictrotransactions and Game Pass was not a thing back then.
Click to expand...
Yeah, maybe, you, should, stop, and think about what you are saying.
Halo 5 embracing mtxs made the transition to gamepass easier. As did EAs games to EA Access.
Godot25 said:
So, you are claiming that Microsoft having mtxs in their first-party games are not coincidence, while having no actual proof?
Click to expand...

Oh shut up will you. You only need common sense to know how games are monotised. Do you have any proof that there is a correlation between f2p games and mtxs? Must just be a coincidence that most of them have it.
 
Last edited:
Three said:
Yeah, maybe, you, should, stop, and think about what you are saying.



Oh shut up will you. You only need common sense to know how games are monotised. Do you have any proof that there is a correlation between f2p games and mtxs? Must just be a coincidence that most of them have it.
Click to expand...
That cars are part of "Car Pass" which was a thing even in Forza Horizon 2. You know...game that came out in 2014...
...when Game Pass was not a thing...

So. Try again :messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:

Every Forza Horizon (outside first game) had main game, Car Pass with additional cars and Expansion Pass with access to 2 paid expansions. So claiming that something changed because of Game Pass is strange. But whatever.

It's like claiming that Gears 5 had mtxs because of Game Pass, when Gears of War 4 also had them without Game Pass.
 
Last edited:
Godot25 said:
That cars are part of "Car Pass" which was a thing even in Forza Horizon 2. You know...game that came out in 2014...
...when Game Pass was not a thing...

So. Try again :messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:

It's like claiming that Gears 5 had mtxs because of Game Pass, when Gears of War 4 also had them without Game Pass.
Click to expand...
If you don't understand what's being said why do you bother?
"No, it's all thanks to MS and EA embracing mtxs so well" is what I said. That made their transition to EA access and Gamepass smooth.
 
Three said:
If you don't understand what's being said why do you bother?
"No, it's all thanks to MS and EA embracing mtxs so well" is what I said. That made their transition to EA access and Gamepass smooth.
Click to expand...
Which something that you can't even provide data for.

You want to claim that EA Access somehow made transition for EA around microtransactions smooth? While FIFA is top seller every year and it is not on EA Access until 9 months after release? Also while EA is making nonMTX sequel to Jedi: Fallen Order, another SP only Star Wars game and 3 Marvel games that will be also SP focused. And they allowed BioWare to make SP only games?
While biggest story for EA is Apex Legends which is F2P game?

While Microsoft having more mtxs in first-party games before Game Pass (Ryse for example) then they have now?

It's not about Game Pass or EA Access. It is about "when you creating live service game you have mtxs" and "when you are creating story driven SP game you don't have mtxs." Which is what every gaming company nowadays is doing. Regardless of if they have subscription service.

You are saying that there is direct corelation between games having mtx and having a subscription. Which is something you don't even have proof for and your "proof" was thrown to the bin after 5 seconds. I would even counter-argue, that GT7 has more microtransactions while not being in subscription than Forza Horizon 5 which is in subscription.

AAA publishers are trying to find a mix between huge story-driven games and live service games with mtxs. That the story. Even Sony understands that now. Not subscription services that leads to games having mictrotransactions.
 
Last edited:
Three said:
No it doesnt. As I and even MS said to regulators it cannabilises sales.

Does it give them the potential to buy dlc or mtxs though? Yes.
Click to expand...
Because currently, MS doesn't have a large numbers of people who will buy it. They are building that now. Which is why gamepass exist.
 
feynoob said:
Because currently, MS doesn't have a large numbers of people who will buy it. They are building that now. Which is why gamepass exist.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I follow. MS don't have a large number of people who will buy what? The games or the mtxs?

CoD does and that is also a reason given from the horses mouth as to why it's not on sub services, because sales would decrease, not "maximise".


Godot25 said:
Which something that you can't even provide data for.
Click to expand...
Can you provide me with data that shows a game that is f2p is monetised with mtxs? Have some common sense. Games that can garner a large audience in place of game sales (ie cheap or free) have mtxs. It's not rocket science.

Godot25 said:
You want to claim that EA Access somehow made transition for EA around microtransactions smooth? While FIFA is top seller every year and it is not on EA Access until 9 months after release?
Click to expand...
So you mean to tell me they get their sales revenue, then when sales decline have it on a sub and get sub/mtxs revenue too? Shocking I tell you.
 
Last edited:
Tiago Rodrigues said:
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?
Click to expand...

This is the stupidest thing I've seen. Please don't sit there and act like Microsoft hasn't had games sell millions or break records. No ones arguing the point about them only wanting to sell their 70 dollar games that's their business model that's why they want things to stay like that. The idea that if Forza wasn't in gamepass it wouldn't sell millions it's so stupid. Microsoft had games in game pass that were still charting but yes they're opting and gambling for a different model something that it they catch lightning on will definitely change things forever. Hence Sony's objections cause they really won't be able to compete on that level if Microsoft gets to 100 million subs paying them monthly can you imagine the revenue they'd be brining in that's what they're thinking about hence why king is important. Gamepass mobile game subs will take them to a whole different place. So again the standard model is great but its also capped Microsoft understands this.
 
Three said:
I'm not sure I follow. MS don't have a large number of people who will buy what? The games or the mtxs?
Click to expand...
Their 1st party. Xbox one was 55m, which meant 17% of userbase buying the game at max (following Sony first party to console).

You need to recoup the cost of those games, especially when the cost of making games is getting expensive these days.

For example, ragnorak with 5.5m sales at $65 average price would generate $375.5m. Minus $200m of development and marketing. You will have 175.5m profit.

Now do the same for MS games. Especially with halo infinite.

That is why gamepass is important for them.


Three said:
CoD does and that is also a reason given from the horses mouth as to why it's not on sub services, because sales would decrease, not "maximise".
Click to expand...
COD is mtx, but won't out on gamepass. Mw2 alone managed to get $1b revenue in 10 days. That is massive money from sales alone, not counting mtx. MtX would increase that money, but gamepass would decrease it. But increase mtx gain. It would take time to reach that revenue though
 
Swift_Star said:
Large userbase means literally nothing whem most games sell more on PS than on PC, with PC having the largest userbase.
Kingfey, as usual, has no clue about what he's saying.
Also, this is derailing the thread.
Click to expand...
How many games do you think are on steam?
It has both PS, Xbox and Nintendo timed exclusives games, plus Xbox and PS 1st party games.
Capcom saw most sales on pc.
www.tweaktown.com

PC made up 50% of Capcom's Q1 game sales, or about 5.8 million

PC is very important to Capcom, and the PC platform made up 50% of total game unit sales during its most recent Q1'22 period.
www.tweaktown.com www.tweaktown.com

As usual, you don't know anything.
 
feynoob said:
How many games do you think are on steam?
It has both PS, Xbox and Nintendo timed exclusives games, plus Xbox and PS 1st party games.
Capcom saw most sales on pc.
www.tweaktown.com

PC made up 50% of Capcom's Q1 game sales, or about 5.8 million

PC is very important to Capcom, and the PC platform made up 50% of total game unit sales during its most recent Q1'22 period.
www.tweaktown.com www.tweaktown.com

As usual, you don't know anything.
Click to expand...

Capcom only released games on Switch and PC in Q1. Not hard to beat PS or Xbox when you're not releasing anything on them
 
feynoob said:
Because Sony didn't lose them.
gow ps4 userbase is still there. They just upgraded to ps5. Considering the game sold 20m on ps4, so ragnorak ps5 shouldn't be a suprise

When these userbases leaves your system, that is when you will see these losses.
Click to expand...
Given how your account moves with you now with your library, it will be interesting to see/understand why people who switch platforms are doing so.
I would think that less people would just completely switch over but could be wrong there. We will see.
 
Last edited:
sainraja said:
Given how your account moves with you now with your library, it will be interesting to see/understand why people who switch platforms are doing so. I would think that less people would just completely switch over but could be wrong there. We will see.
Click to expand...
Right now with digital, it's harder for people to make that jump.
You will have start fresh with console.

Gamepass and ps+ premium helps little bit with that. If both companies can make it attractive, it can change people's mind.
 
feynoob said:
Right now with digital, it's harder for people to make that jump.
You will have start fresh with console.

Gamepass and ps+ premium helps little bit with that. If both companies can make it attractive, it can change people's mind.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I am saying. Given that is the case, how many will actually go through with it and if they do, they will basically be starting over.
 
feynoob said:
Their 1st party. Xbox one was 55m, which meant 17% of userbase buying the game at max (following Sony first party to console).

You need to recoup the cost of those games, especially when the cost of making games is getting expensive these days.

For example, ragnorak with 5.5m sales at $65 average price would generate $375.5m. Minus $200m of development and marketing. You will have 175.5m profit.

Now do the same for MS games. Especially with halo infinite.
Click to expand...
So, if selling to 17% of a 55M userbase doesn't recoup costs. How would giving it for next to nothing to a 25M userbase recoup it? What's the answer to that?

The point you were making is that it releasing on gamepass increases game sales somehow but it has been proven to lower premium game sales. Where they plan to recoup is mostly in MTXs and add-ons.

With Halo infinite they even went to the complete extreme of not just cheap on a sub but f2p in the hope that mtxs would recoup it.

feynoob said:
COD is mtx, but won't out on gamepass. Mw2 alone managed to get $1b revenue in 10 days. That is massive money from sales alone, not counting mtx. MtX would increase that money, but gamepass would decrease it. But increase mtx gain. It would take time to reach that revenue though
Click to expand...
CoD has the benefit of having both high sales and mtxs. They don't cannabilise sales of new releases but offered older CoDs on subscriptions when sales dry in the hope of attracting those who don't buy games but pay for mtxs.
 
sainraja said:
Yeah, that's what I am saying. Given that is the case, how many will actually go through with it and if they do, they will basically be starting over.
Click to expand...
I can think of 3 cases

Doing xbox one. Buying Bethesda and Activision. Or locking exclusives like ff.
 
Last edited:
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