Support NeoGAF

[Pelta88]

Good luck shorting a 2 trillion dollar company into oblivion.

I always find it difficult to have a conversation with you. I think it's your Avatar.

ATVI prices would definitely take a hit for sure. MSFT wouldn't though outside of a temporary blip. Your wet dream of MSFT being short sold into oblivion would remain nothing more than a wet spot on your bed sheets though.

At first I thought you were trying to have a conversation about the implications if the deal fell through. But then...

Microsoft's stock is safe with or without the deal. Anyone hoping to short-sell Microsoft of all companies with any major success is destined to lose a whole lot of money, my friend.

I'm not suggesting Microsoft would cease to exist...

It's difficult to even address real world implications if the deal falls through because the stance of many, here, has little to do with business. It's more so about who wins. Even trying to apply real world negative stock movement due to the potential failure of one of the most expensive deals in living memory could happen, has some of you like

For the record people made fortunes short selling MSFT this year. And that's on the back of a missed earnings and some negative news. Can you imagine... Well obviously some of you can't... But an obligated payout to ATVI of 3 Billion would make MSFT "share price" nose dive.

To be clear, that does not mean that Microsoft would cease to exist. Which again, is how some of you seem to take it. But there would be a run on MSFT share price. That's just a market fact.

 

[Forsythia]

lol Sony demanding content parity and PS+ day one is quite something when their whole mo for decades has been to gimp thirdparty games on competing platforms

 

[phil_t98]

lol Sony demanding content parity and PS+ day one is quite something when their whole mo for decades has been to gimp thirdparty games on competing platforms

Also when they are paying to keep games off gamepass to

 

[feynoob]

I always find it difficult to have a conversation with you. I think it's your Avatar.



At first I thought you were trying to have a conversation about the implications if the deal fell through. But then...


I'm not suggesting Microsoft would cease to exist...

It's difficult to even address real world implications if the deal falls through because the stance of many, here, has little to do with business. It's more so about who wins. Even trying to apply real world negative stock movement due to the potential failure of one of the most expensive deals in living memory could happen, has some of you like

For the record people made fortunes short selling MSFT this year. And that's on the back of a missed earnings and some negative news. Can you imagine... Well obviously some of you can't... But an obligated payout to ATVI of 3 Billion would make MSFT "share price" nose dive.

To be clear, that does not mean that Microsoft would cease to exist. Which again, is how some of you seem to take it. But there would be a run on MSFT share price. That's just a market fact.

GHG can you teach our guy here some lessons?

 

[Pelta88]

GHG can you teach our guy here some lessons?

Says the guy whose opinion is formed by copy/pasting resetera posts, Because in his reality, Phil Spencers latest PR is legally binding in a court of law.

 

[clarky]

I always find it difficult to have a conversation with you. I think it's your Avatar.



At first I thought you were trying to have a conversation about the implications if the deal fell through. But then...


I'm not suggesting Microsoft would cease to exist...

It's difficult to even address real world implications if the deal falls through because the stance of many, here, has little to do with business. It's more so about who wins. Even trying to apply real world negative stock movement due to the potential failure of one of the most expensive deals in living memory could happen, has some of you like

For the record people made fortunes short selling MSFT this year. And that's on the back of a missed earnings and some negative news. Can you imagine... Well obviously some of you can't... But an obligated payout to ATVI of 3 Billion would make MSFT "share price" nose dive.

To be clear, that does not mean that Microsoft would cease to exist. Which again, is how some of you seem to take it. But there would be a run on MSFT share price. That's just a market fact.

For a company worth 2 million billion dollars and with significant cash reserves i cant see the share price tanking into oblivion after taking a 3 billion scratch. That will have already been factored in.

Edit: i have no recollection of any interactions with you, but my avatar rules.

 

[Cheezewizz]

Its better than nothing.
Sony knows that COD would be dropped on gamepass day1. They wont be able to compete with that offer. So they have to get something from this deal.

This is where I think your reasoning falls apart. You seem to think that Sony ultimately has some sort of authority here. You keep circling back to what Sony thinks, and what Sony will do, and I honestly just don't get it.

You seem to believe that Sony "has to get something out of this deal", as though they're entitled to something. You'reunder the impression that Sony should get equal benefits to anything MS does. You need to keep in mind that MS is the one ponying up $70b in cash here... Not Sony.

 

[feynoob]

Says the guy whose opinion is formed by copy/pasting resetera posts, Because in his reality, Phil Spencers latest PR is legally binding in a court of law.

Why are you so obsessed with Phil?
Are you his closest fan?

 

[TheGodfather07]

It's funny how everybody only cares about call of duty with this deal. Nobody gives a shit about the other ip under Activision. It makes sense i guess. Cod has topped the charts yearly like forever.

 

[feynoob]

This is where I think your reasoning falls apart. You seem to think that Sony ultimately has some sort of authority here. You keep circling back to what Sony thinks, and what Sony will do, and I honestly just don't get it.

Sony is the one who is going to sign that paper. Unless they sign in, MS would have to try harder, or play with regulators.

You seem to believe that Sony "has to get something out of this deal", as though they're entitled to something. You'reunder the impression that Sony should get equal benefits to anything MS does. You need to keep in mind that MS is the one ponying up $70b in cash here... Not Sony.

And regulators are the one who will approve this deal.
As long as their demand is met, this deal would have a hard going through.
Which falls back to our point. CoD needs a signed contract.

 

[Pelta88]

For a company worth 2 million billion dollars and with significant cash reserves i cant see the share price tanking into oblivion after taking a 3 billion scratch. That will have already been factored in.

Edit: i have no recollection of any interactions with you, but my avatar rules.

I know that in this thread insults fly on a whim. So I'll preface the following by letting you know, in advance, that I say the following with all due respect.

My question is, do you follow the stock market?

Microsoft's worth and monetary value as a company, has absolutely no bearing on what would happen to Microsoft's "share price" if this deal fails to go through.

 

[feynoob]

It's funny how everybody only cares about call of duty with this deal. Nobody gives a shit about the other ip under Activision. It makes sense i guess. Cod has topped the charts yearly like forever.

Other IP are divided to consoles, pc and mobile and don't have the force pull as COd.

If COD were like other IP, and not do 10+m a year, then this deal wouldn't have had this much resistance.

Just 1 entry from COD alone generated like 1b in 10 days, or close to 15m sales at $65 range. That is pretty massive compared to the rest of the IP.

 

[feynoob]

Microsoft's worth and monetary value as a company, has absolutely no bearing on what would happen to Microsoft's "share price" if this deal fails to go through

 

[pasterpl]

I don't see a problem with ms putting cod on ps+ day 1, obviously Sony would have pay fair, market price for this $200-$400+ million per instalment is my guess, 10 year like this would cost Sony $4bn + in total. If they would like to include dlc's there would be an extra fee etc. all scenarios are possible. Ms might even demand Sony to pay for cod not going exclusive completely, all is in hands of regulators and then, when the deal is approved, ms.

 

[feynoob]

This is MS revenue and earnings.

Microsoft (MSFT) - Revenue

Current and historical revenue charts for Microsoft. As of April 2025 Microsoft's TTM revenue is of $261.80 Billion USD

companiesmarketcap.com

Revenue history for Microsoft from 2001 to 2022

Annual revenue

Year	Revenue	Change
2022 (TTM)	$203.07 B	9.83%
2021	$184.90 B	20.63%
2020	$153.28 B	14.18%
2019	$134.24 B	13.33%
2018	$118.45 B	19.82%
2017	$98.86 B	15.38%
2016	$85.68 B	-2.72%
2015	$88.08 B	-5.75%
2014	$93.45 B	12.01%
2013	$83.43 B	14.4%
2012	$72.93 B	1.22%
2011	$72.05 B	8.04%
2010	$66.69 B	13.63%
2009	$58.68 B	-5.31%
2008	$61.98 B	7.05%
2007	$57.89 B	25.71%
2006	$46.05 B	11.36%
2005	$41.35 B	7.5%
2004	$38.47 B	12.27%
2003	$34.26 B	11.31%
2002	$30.78 B	14.96%
2001	$26.77 B

Annual earnings

Year	Earnings	Change
2022 (TTM)	$84.76 B	6.38%
2021	$79.68 B	31.21%
2020	$60.72 B	21.81%
2019	$49.85 B	24.86%
2018	$39.92 B	39.54%
2017	$28.61 B	42.56%
2016	$20.07 B	24.44%
2015	$16.12 B	-40.88%
2014	$27.28 B	-2.69%
2013	$28.03 B	39.99%
2012	$20.02 B	-28.19%
2011	$27.88 B	2.94%
2010	$27.09 B	24.05%
2009	$21.84 B	-2.53%
2008	$22.40 B	-7.76%
2007	$24.29 B	39.45%
2006	$17.41 B	0.25%
2005	$17.37 B	16.42%
2004	$14.92 B	12.66%
2003	$13.24 B	-5.1%
2002	$13.96 B	55.11%
2001	$9.00 B

And this is their market cap

End of year Market Cap

Year	Market cap	Change
2022	$1.901 T	-24.63%
2021	$2.522 T	50%
2020	$1.681 T	40.1%
2019	$1.200 T	53.81%
2018	$780.36 B	18.25%
2017	$659.90 B	36.58%
2016	$483.16 B	9.89%
2015	$439.67 B	15.18%
2014	$381.72 B	22.94%
2013	$310.50 B	38.82%
2012	$223.66 B	2.42%
2011	$218.38 B	-6.89%
2010	$234.52 B	-12.67%
2009	$268.55 B	55.3%
2008	$172.92 B	-47.93%
2007	$332.11 B	13.76%
2006	$291.94 B	7.51%
2005	$271.54 B	-6.6%
2004	$290.71 B	-1.55%
2003	$295.29 B	6.75%
2002	$276.63 B	-22.74%
2001	$358.05 B

 

[Three]

CMA failed to build the argument regarding the multi-game subscription service. Even in their own document and it was not a solid point at all but a bunch of theoreticals. UK was mainly concerned about cloud, but even that is not a strong argument either because there is no legal argument that can be used against cloud streaming as it is a nascent market and nobody can predict what's gonna happen with it within the next 5 years for example.

The CMA argument isn't very weak because it's based on the parties (MS' and ABKs) own internal documents.

They were pushing the idea that it was providing the choice of games on millions of phones and combating Apple and Google through a browser.

 

[feynoob]

$3b loss isnt going to affect the company that much,

 

[clarky]

I know that in this thread insults fly on a whim. So I'll preface the following by letting you know, in advance, that I say the following with all due respect.

My question is, do you follow the stock market?

Microsoft's worth and monetary value as a company, has absolutely no bearing on what would happen to Microsoft's "share price" if this deal fails to go through.

Hang on your saying MSFT worth and value are not tied to the share price? Yeah we are done here.

 

[feynoob]

Hang on your saying MSFT worth and value are not tied to the share price? Yeah we are done here.

Its like it doesnt matter how much MS generates.
What is the point of the stock then?

 

[Pelta88]

Hang on your saying MSFT worth and value are not tied to the share price? Yeah we are done here.

Failed deal > Microsoft gets shorted, heavily.

Microsoft is Microsoft > What they bring to the market in terms of product and services mean that share price would recover.

I've been saying this for some time now. But I'm conversing with a user who has Aaron Greenberg in a swimsuit for an AVI. So yeah, I think it is best we end the conversation here

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Hang on your saying MSFT worth and value are not tied to the share price? Yeah we are done here.

Lol that's not an outlandish statement. We've just had a market crash for this very reason

 

[feynoob]

The CMA argument isn't very weak because it's based on the parties (MS' and ABKs) own internal documents.

They were pushing the idea that it was providing the choice of games on millions of phones and combating Apple and Google through a browser.

They did that to bethesda, and would do the same to activision.
CMA isnt stupid on this matter.

IF MS refuses PS+, they can get in to some trouble with regulators.

 

[feynoob]

Lol that's not an outlandish statement. We've just had a market crash for this very reason

That is big hedge funds and wall street people.
This is activision, a tiny company, with a 3b on the line. against a company, who generates insane profits.

Only idiots would short that stock.

 

[feynoob]

The stock market crash of 2008 was a result of defaults on consolidated mortgage-backed securities. Subprime housing loans comprised most MBS. Banks offered these loans to almost everyone, even those who weren't creditworthy. When the housing market fell, many homeowners defaulted on their loans

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

That is big hedge funds and wall street people.
This is activision, a tiny company, with a 3b on the line. against a company, who generates insane profits.

Only idiots would short that stock.

You can short any stock. Doesn't matter how big they are or how much money they make. I've shorted plenty of the big tech stocks this year.

 

[ReBurn]

The stock market crash of 2008 was a result of defaults on consolidated mortgage-backed securities. Subprime housing loans comprised most MBS. Banks offered these loans to almost everyone, even those who weren't creditworthy. When the housing market fell, many homeowners defaulted on their loans

Only a moron would buy securities based on the debt of people who have bad credit.

 

[feynoob]

You can short any stock. Doesn't matter how big they are or how much money they make. I've shorted plenty of the big tech stocks this year.

That is why you are here, and not in LA with hot chicks.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

That is why you are here, and not in LA with hot chicks.

I'm bangin, blazin and shitposting all at the same time bruh

 

[feynoob]

I'm bangin, blazin and shitposting all at the same time bruh

Is this what they call the perfect life?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Is this what they call the perfect life?

Once you have a PS5, yes, yes it is

 

[DavJay]

Wouldn't it be funny if MS discontinued CoD and start a new franchise called Modern Warfare being Only on Xbox?

 

[Banjo64]

They did that to bethesda, and would do the same to activision.
CMA isnt stupid on this matter.

IF MS refuses PS+, they can get in to some trouble with regulators.

This is a red herring. No regulator will care about this. Their (EU and UK) concerns are broad and can't be satiated by MS just doing a deal with Sony. If this goes through I'm starting to believe we'll see serious divestiture on top of concessions towards all potential current and future console/rival gaming platforms (Steam/Epic and other digital store fronts included) for a loooong time. I don't see PS Plus as being a factor. For the first time I'm starting to believe it won't go through at all, I don't see how Microsoft can resolve the CoD issue on top of all of the other concerns. The finish line is looking like one hell of a puzzle to arrive at, with MS potentially having to concede more than Activision are worth to get it through.

They've already got the crown jewel in Zenimax anyway.

 

[PaintTinJr]

$3b loss isnt going to affect the company that much,

Agreed.

IMO the main potential damage from the deal getting blocked is that it draws a line in the sand for easy acquisitions (below $70b) that all these mega companies can actually do with their earnings - potentially suggesting their valuations don't reflect their actual power - and that the deal failing shows a significant miscalculation by MSFT's management team where they've gone all-in on a deal that's failed, and even skirted many regulators - giving internal access to company info in the process - and the obvious conclusion is that if the success of the deal was important for their future plans to take that risk, then their present future plans that intersected that acquisition are now in disarray.

If there is a negative impact on MSFT's share price - in the event the deal fails - they've got no one to blame but themselves, as the decision to try and buy Activision was theirs and theirs alone, the status quo would have been fine for most of us.

 

[Pelta88]

That is big hedge funds and wall street people.
This is activision, a tiny company, with a 3b on the line. against a company, who generates insane profits.

Only idiots would short that stock.

Fortunately for us you're not a financial advisor and the stock market doesn't find resetera analysis (parroted as your own) as viable.

There have been 7 big short runs on shorting Microsoft's stock price in 2022. Taking the price from $350 per share to a low of $213 in 2022.

 

[feynoob]

Fortunately for us you're not a financial and the stock market doesn't find resetera analysis (parroted as your own) as viable.

There have been 7 big short runs on shorting Microsoft's stock price in 2022. Taking the price from $350 per share to a low of $213 in 2022.

I guess I owe you an apology.
Sorry for the early shit.

 

[feynoob]

Once you have a PS5, yes, yes it is

 

[Pelta88]

I guess I owe you an apology.
Sorry for the early shit.

Apology accepted.

 

[ReBurn]

Is that one you traded your gaming PC to your brother for?

 

[feynoob]

Is that one you traded your gaming PC to your brother for?

yes. He wasnt using it anymore. Its mine now.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

The CMA argument isn't very weak because it's based on the parties (MS' and ABKs) own internal documents.

They were pushing the idea that it was providing the choice of games on millions of phones and combating Apple and Google through a browser.

But that's a bunch of theoreticals. Google also believed in cloud streaming 2 years and until it did not. It is not a proven market but an investement and nobody knows if it succeeds or not. The case to block the deal cannot be built upon that. The law is not based on the idea that something "might" happen. It is like trying to jail a person because you believe that he will commit a crime in 5 years.

 

[gothmog]

But that's a bunch of theoreticals. Google also believed in cloud streaming 2 years and until it did not. It is not a proven market but an investement and nobody knows if it succeeds or not. The case to block the deal cannot be built upon that. The law is not based on the idea that something "might" happen. It is like trying to jail a person because you believe that he will commit a crime in 5 years.

From the FTC's own website: "Merger law is generally forward-looking: it bars mergers that may lead to harmful effects."

 

[Banjo64]

I'd suggest everyone gives this a skim through if they want to know what laws the CMA are concerned with, or how they work in general.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...-consumer-protection-enforcement-guidance.pdf

 

[reksveks]

It will have a direct effect on the entire markets and be carnage for ATVI and MSFT share price.

Put a % on carnage.

Also given that the shit will be priced in long before the official termination of the deal, you may not see a sudden drop. see Nvidia's short price around the official termination of the Arm deal.

 

[CatLady]

Sony is the one who is going to sign that paper. Unless they sign in, MS would have to try harder, or play with regulators.



And regulators are the one who will approve this deal.
As long as their demand is met, this deal would have a hard going through.
Which falls back to our point. CoD needs a signed contract.

Sony doesn't need nor are they entitled to shit unless the regulators say they are.

 

[adamsapple]

But that's a bunch of theoreticals. Google also believed in cloud streaming 2 years and until it did not. It is not a proven market but an investement and nobody knows if it succeeds or not. The case to block the deal cannot be built upon that. The law is not based on the idea that something "might" happen. It is like trying to jail a person because you believe that he will commit a crime in 5 years.

Google talking to anyone else about market competition is the most hilarious oxymoron in itself

ZYou browse in Light mode ?

I lost all respect for you man ..

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

From the FTC's own website: "Merger law is generally forward-looking: it bars mergers that may lead to harmful effects."

Forward looking means that FTC has to consider how the merger will change the existing landscape. Like for example "Aerojet-Lockheed will create a monopoly on missile production" or "Nvidia-ARM will give a control over the specification (or whatever it is called) used by the 80% of IoT industry" and so on. ABK deal will not change much for the gaming industry - Nintendo won't be affected, nothing will change for PC platform, Sony might lose some 1-3% of revenue and maybe some market share, mobile market is not affected. It won't lead to collapse of gaming industry or won't make Microsoft a monopoly controlling 50-70% of the entire 200b gaming industry.

Nascent markets are "nascent" because they are new and nobody can predict how they are gonna look like so you cannot regulated them. But is a subscriptions service a market? No.

We thought that movie streaming will kill theatrical releases - but it did not happen. It killed Blockbuster - sure, but so as digital market slowly killin digital releases. But it did not kill the movie industry, but just changed the way content is being distributed. Which is a part of natural process called "progress". Vinyl died (and made a comeback though), cassettes died, disks died and so on. But all in all, the market did not change - just because the games are distributed via Internet or Blu-ray, it does not mean that the gaming industry was killed.

Multi-game subscription services are the way to distribute the content, but that's not the market because it does not have the exclusive content that is only available in streaming service. That's why it is hard for regulators to block the deal. Because you cannot block it under the theoretical idea that streaming market will kill the traditional industry because "streaming" is not a separate market as of yet.

 

[feynoob]

Google talking to anyone else about market competition is the most hilarious oxymoron in itself




ZYou browse in Light mode ?

I lost all respect for you man ..

My PC is like that, But my phone is dark mode.

 

[gothmog]

Forward looking means that FTC has to consider how the merger will change the existing landscape. Like for example "Aerojet-Lockheed will create a monopoly on missile production" or "Nvidia-ARM will give a control over the specification (or whatever it is called) used by the 80% of IoT industry" and so on. ABK deal will not change much for the gaming industry - Nintendo won't be affected, nothing will change for PC platform, Sony might lose some 1-3% of revenue and maybe some market share, mobile market is not affected. It won't lead to collapse of gaming industry or won't make Microsoft a monopoly controlling 50-70% of the entire 200b gaming industry.

Nascent markets are "nascent" because they are new and nobody can predict how they are gonna look like. We thought that movie streaming will kill theatrical releases - but it did not happen. It killed Blockbuster - sure, but so as digital market slowly killin digital releases. But it did not kill the movie industry, but just changed the way content is being distributed.

Can't just take the L, huh?

 

[jm89]

Sony doesn't need nor are they entitled to shit unless the regulators say they are.

They aren't entitled, but they played the game and will probably get a much better deal then they would have.

I think others mentioned it earlier in the thread, it's possible worst case Sony are getting the 10 year deal, regulators agreeing to a worst concession then what ms already offered would be weird.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Can't just take the L, huh?

You can't take an L over an incorrect statement. It is like asking to take an L because I said that you cannot park under that sign and you still did.