Support NeoGAF

[Kagey K]

PS+ was already losing subs year over year, if this goes through and CoD releases on game pass day 1, that's gonna be a notable bump in users there at least.

Anything that gets them off thier ass and tries to add value to the consumer, is good.

If they start losing that "free" money maybe they will do something.

Look at this WWE addition. Comes Jan 3 leaves March 13. Like 90 days is a good value add.

 

[adamsapple]

Anything that gets them off thier ass and tries to add value to the consumer, is good.

If they start losing that "free" money maybe they will do something.

Look at this WWE addition. Comes Jan 3 leaves March 13. Like 90 days is a good value add.

Interesting, that's an even shorter tenure than what R* did for RDR2 on game pass.

 

[Kagey K]

Interesting, that's an even shorter tenure than what R* did for RDR2 on game pass.

GtA Vice City is leaving PS+ at about the same duration.

Came in Oct 19, leaving Feb 17

I think the worst part for WWE is the leaving date was announced before it was even added to the program

 

[akimbo009]

GtA Vice City is leaving PS+ at about the same duration.

Came in Oct 19, leaving Feb 17

I think the worst part for WWE is the leaving date was announced before it was even added to the program

Are we talking about wrestling?

 

[MasterCornholio]

The meds were never for me. You always wanted to believe you were normal like the other kids, so we mixed the meds in with your cheese.

You're retarded, son.

Let's all go out for ice cream!!!!
That will make things better.

 

[Fabieter]

I just legitimately want to know if Sony has an actual plan for a Playstation without Call of Duty.

From where I'm sitting, it seems like Sony is kinda fucked here and they don't really have anything that could remotely possibly even pretend to replace it. They let Killzone and SOCOM both die, not that either were ever anything more than niche titles in their heyday, but this seems like an abject lesson in growing too dependent on third party developers for content.

Nintendo had it right from day 1, they don't need any third parties to be successful.

According to ms and alot of fanboys sony will be more than fine even without cod.

 

[freefornow]

I just legitimately want to know if Sony has an actual plan for a Playstation without Call of Duty.

They have 10+ years to work on one.

But..................................................................they wont have to. COD will be available to Sony after hypothetical 10 year deal ends. Renewal will be offered, but the "financials" of next agreement may look different. Or not.

Business!

 

[The_Mike]

What did swift do?

I know the person is a warrior which is why hes on my ignore list but I missed his meltdown

 

[Kagey K]

Are we talking about wrestling?

2K22 and PS+

 

[DenchDeckard]

This deal benefits consumers

If I and millions of others can play all of ABKs games on game pass how is that not benefitting consumers?

Imagine if they throw a WoW subscription in etc to game pass. It would be fucking amazing for all of us into video games??

I don't get it.

 

[feynoob]

If I and millions of others can play all of ABKs games on game pass how is that not benefitting consumers?

Imagine if they throw a WoW subscription in etc to game pass. It would be fucking amazing for all of us into video games??

I don't get it.

It only benefits MS, because they are the ones who will own the company.

Your benefits depends on them.

 

[The_Mike]

It only benefits MS, because they are the ones who will own the company.

Your benefits depends on them.

It benefits Xbox' customers.

Just like everything Playstation related benefits PS players.

Its not rocket science.

 

[feynoob]

It benefits Xbox' customers.

You answered your question.
Sadly the industry isn't Xbox only.

So this deal doesn't benefit consumers, only a subset of consumers, which doesn't represent the entire consumers.

 

[The_Mike]

You answered your question.
Sadly the industry isn't Xbox only.

So this deal doesn't benefit consumers, only a subset of consumers, which doesn't represent the entire consumers.

Just like every other deal similar to this.

It ain't the first deal like this, only in scale.

Edit - and its Sony that harms their own customers by not wanting to make a deal with Microsoft.

I'm well aware that it's just limited time, but they'd rather none than some - or in this case, wanting everything.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

You answered your question.
Sadly the industry isn't Xbox only.

So this deal doesn't benefit consumers, only a subset of consumers, which doesn't represent the entire consumers.

Wrong

 

[zzill3]

You answered your question.
Sadly the industry isn't Xbox only.

So this deal doesn't benefit consumers, only a subset of consumers, which doesn't represent the entire consumers.

Xbox and Nintendo consumers benefit, and no consumers are harmed. ABK content on Playstation will remain the same as it is today (that is, on PS but not the subscription service). Nintendo will get more ABK content like COD that they don't have, and xbox consumers will get it on game pass.

Literally no downside.

 

[feynoob]

Just like every other deal similar to this.

It ain't the first deal like this, only in scale.

Yup. Only the owner of the deal benefits it, and his userbase.

Wrong

unless the game hits ps+ day1, it only benefits MS ecosystem with their gamepass.

Xbox and Nintendo consumers benefit, and no consumers are harmed. ABK content on Playstation will remain the same as it is today (that is, on PS but not the subscription service). Nintendo will get more ABK content like COD that they don't have, and xbox consumers will get it on game pass.

Activision can do that. They dont need MS for that.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

unless the game hits ps+ day1, it only benefits MS ecosystem with their gamepass.

You are thinking small. You need to start thinking outside of the box.

 

[feynoob]

You are thinking small. You need to start thinking outside of the box.

I know that MS resources can help activision. But that doesnt change the fact that MS is the one who would benefit from this deal massively.
They will get enough content for gamepass, access to mobile market, and a head start in cloud department.
Consumers benefit is miniscule compared to those benefits.

 

[zzill3]

Activision can do that. They dont need MS for that.

And yet, they're not.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I know that MS resources can help activision. But that doesnt change the fact that MS is the one who would benefit from this deal massively.
They will get enough content for gamepass, access to mobile market, and a head start in cloud department.
Consumers benefit is miniscule compared to those benefits.

You keep thinking inside of the box.

 

[The_Mike]

Yup. Only the owner of the deal benefits it, and his user base

Funny thing is, Microsoft seems to be the baddies because of the deal, when the reality is that Activision openly wanted to be bought.

Sony and everyone else had the opportunity to offer a deal.

And you can be sure, that if Sony had the money then they would have struck without hesitation.

 

[feynoob]

And yet, they're not.

That doesnt mean they wont do it.

You keep thinking inside of the box.

enlighten me then.

Funny thing is, Microsoft seems to be the baddies because of the deal, when the reality is that Activision openly wanted to be bought.

Sony and everyone else had the opportunity to offer a deal.

And you can be sure, that if Sony had the money then they would have struck without hesitation.

The price point is the issue. other than that, every gamer that is not a fanboy likes that outcome. Imagine activision being owned by google, facebook or amazon.

 

[zzill3]

That doesnt mean they wont do it.

True, but you can either have something good for MS and Nintendo customers and neutral for PS customers (that is, not negative at all) definitely happening upon the completion of the acquisition or you have it potentially happening at a future date.

If you can pick, surely you'd choose the case where it definitely happens sooner rather than later, right?

 

[feynoob]

True, but you can either have something good for MS and Nintendo customers and neutral for PS customers (that is, not negative at all) definitely happening upon the completion of the acquisition or you have it potentially happening at a future date.

If you can pick, surely you'd choose the case where it definitely happens sooner rather than later, right?

For nintendo case, profit is a big issue. If both MS and Activision can tolerate that, then yes. I wont mind it. More people playing those games is good.

 

[Dick Jones]

Who cares if someone/anyone buys EA!

They got that sweet "Rolo to the Rescue" IP.

Spoiler

I'm being serious. That's a great fucking game

 

[IFireflyl]

Edit - and its Sony that harms their own customers by not wanting to make a deal with Microsoft.

I'm well aware that it's just limited time, but they'd rather none than some - or in this case, wanting everything.

Just stop with the console warring. Sony and Microsoft are both large corporations full of greed and shady activity. That's every major corporation in the world, and acting like Microsoft is somehow a pristine picture in comparison to the vileness of Sony is both pathetic and childish. Grow up. Microsoft doesn't make deals with Sony, and Sony doesn't make deals with Microsoft. As an example, Microsoft refuses to support true cross-play with Square Enix and Sony when it comes to Final Fantasy XIV. That's why Final Fantasy XIV isn't on Xbox, and that's a very real example of how Microsoft is harming their own consumers.

https://gamerant.com/final-fantasy-14-xbox-one/

According to Final Fantasy 14 game director Naoki Yoshida, a Final Fantasy 14 Xbox One port hasn't happened yet due to Microsoft's own rules about cross-play. Apparently Microsoft has a rule about players being able to chat with those on other platforms, as well as a rule against making a community with players on another platform, like a Guild, for instance.

What an absolutely ridiculous rule that is. It's 2022 and Microsoft still only supports cross-play so long as you can't communicate with players on PlayStation, Switch, et cetera. "What amazing! Much the best!" Quit fanboying. It's sad and ridiculous.

 

[adamsapple]

Who cares if someone/anyone buys EA!

The real question is does Sony/MS even *want* to buy EA ? I don't think it makes anywhere close to bank like Activision does (if I'm wrong, please correct me).

 

[Fess]

I hear Facebook was approached and increased the bid before MS finalized the $70 billion price. Could MS failing here end with a Zuck deal instead?

 

[feynoob]

The real question is does Sony/MS even *want* to buy EA ? I don't think it makes anywhere close to bank like Activision does (if I'm wrong, please correct me).

Electronic Arts total number of employees in 2022 was 12,900

That would be massive for Sony and MS.
They can give them new projects.

Plus EA managed to stay alive for too long, and have expertise in their field.

 

[Three]

I hear Facebook was approached and increased the bid before MS finalized the $70 billion price. Could MS failing here end with a Zuck deal instead?

According to the SEC filing no other offering was made so if it fails Activision just remains independent.

Contrary to popular belief Activision were not actually actively looking for a buyer, MS approached Activision and offered a price. Activision asked for more and looked to see if it could get a higher one. Activision didn't sell to anyone and nobody offered them a price, then MS accepted Activision's higher price. Activision isn't in financial trouble.

 

[Three]

And yet, they're not.

Why do you think they're not doing it. Why do you think they will after? Then you'll have your answer.

 

[Three]

Funny thing is, Microsoft seems to be the baddies because of the deal, when the reality is that Activision openly wanted to be bought.

Sony and everyone else had the opportunity to offer a deal.

And you can be sure, that if Sony had the money then they would have struck without hesitation.

Activision didn't want to be bought. MS made them an offer and the board of directors are obligated to discuss any offer on behalf of shareholders and vote on it. I don't understand where this idea that Activision all of a sudden "wanted to be bought" comes from other than again trying to suggest MS is doing somebody a favour in this buyout. Someone was even trying to suggest Activison was in financial trouble which I bet stemmed from the same ridiculous idea. Sony and almost everyone else could not have paid above $70B so talk of this "opportunity" is also absurd.

 

[zzill3]

According to the SEC filing no other offering was made so if it fails Activision just remains independent.

Contrary to popular belief Activision were not actually actively looking for a buyer, MS approached Activision and offered a price. Activision asked for more and looked to see if it could get a higher one. Activision didn't sell to anyone and nobody offered them a price, then MS accepted Activision's higher price. Activision isn't in financial trouble.

What's all this about then?

Why do you think they're not doing it. Why do you think they will after? Then you'll have your answer.

I didn't ask a question

 

[Three]

What's all this about then?

It's a rumour. A rumour I posted to fredrik in another thread which is why Fess even came here to discuss it. The SEC filing which is legally factual shows there was no formal offers made. The rumoured facebook may have had no interest even if ABK approached other potential buyers after the MS proposal.

I didn't ask a question

I know you didn't, I'm asking you them so that maybe you can figure out why Activison hasn't done it itself and why MS is making these promises.

 

[feynoob]

According to the SEC filing no other offering was made so if it fails Activision just remains independent.

Contrary to popular belief Activision were not actually actively looking for a buyer, MS approached Activision and offered a price. Activision asked for more and looked to see if it could get a higher one. Activision didn't sell to anyone and nobody offered them a price, then MS accepted Activision's higher price. Activision isn't in financial trouble.

Activision went directly to Facebook, after MS made the offer.
Once Facebook declined, they went back and accepted MS offer.

 

[feynoob]

https://www.economicliberties.us/pr...th-is-no-different-than-any-other-monopolist/

Washington, D.C. — The American Economic Liberties Project released the following statement after Microsoft filed its response to the Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuit to block the company’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard.

“Does Microsoft President Brad Smith agree with the extremist argument that the Federal Trade Commission is unconstitutional? That’s what his rebuttal to the FTC’s case against Microsoft’s takeover of Activision argues. Reporters and lawmakers should start asking Mr. Smith if he believes the administrative state should be destroyed,” said Sarah Miller, Executive Director of the American Economic Liberties Project.

“Smith is waging a sophisticated political campaign to convince elites that he’s a reasonable, progressive businessman. Just yesterday — the same day Microsoft filed its extremist rebuttal — he told the New York Times he’ll continue to pursue a ‘nice guy’ strategy as he seeks to close his acquisition of Activision,” said Miller.

“But Microsoft’s use of this extremely dangerous argument in a conservative judicial environment makes clear he’s no different than any other monopolist,” added Miller. “In pursuit of profit and power, Mr. Smith seems keen to risk — even fight for — the destruction of core democratic institutions and the elimination of the responsibilities to protect the public that Congress has granted them.”

This seems little bit extreme

 

[zzill3]

It's a rumour. A rumour I posted to fredrik in another thread which is why Fess even came here to discuss it. The SEC filing which is legally factual shows there was no formal offers made. The rumoured facebook may have had no interest even if ABK approached other potential buyers after the MS proposal.

No formal offers being made doesn't mean ABK weren't looking for a buyer, it means that they didn't find one until MS.

I know you didn't, I'm asking you them so that maybe you can figure out why Activison hasn't done it itself and why MS is making these promises.

ABK haven't put content on subscription services or switch because they think they'll get more money not doing those things than doing them.
MS would do those things because they think they'll get more money doing those things than not doing them.

It's all about money.

Still not sure of your point?

 

[Three]

Activision went directly to Facebook, after MS made the offer.
Once Facebook declined, they went back and accepted MS offer.

Yeah that was the rumour. No formal offer was made otherwise they would have had to put it in the SEC filing. Instead the SEC filing states


"In addition, the Activision Blizzard Board of Directors and senior management from time to time have been approached by third parties expressing an interest in exploring a potential strategic combination with or acquisition of Activision Blizzard, but, since the reduction of Vivendi’s ownership stake in Activision Blizzard in 2013, no such discussions have advanced beyond preliminary discussions gauging each party’s respective interest in pursuing a transaction or resulted in any specific proposal on price, structure or other material terms."

" On November 19, 2021, in the course of a conversation on a different topic between Mr. Spencer and Mr. Kotick, Mr. Spencer raised that Microsoft was interested in discussing strategic opportunities between Activision Blizzard and Microsoft"

So it seems if the rumour is true that Activision was given a proposal by MS. Did his due diligence of seeking to see interest by other companies, got no formal offers of interest (otherwise it would have legally been in the SEC filing) then negotiated with MS on the price.

https://www.economicliberties.us/pr...th-is-no-different-than-any-other-monopolist/









This seems little bit extreme

He gave peace a chance, now he's a terrorist.

 

[Three]

No formal offers being made doesn't mean ABK weren't looking for a buyer, it means that they didn't find one until MS.



ABK haven't put content on subscription services or switch because they think they'll get more money not doing those things than doing them.
MS would do those things because they think they'll get more money doing those things than not doing them.

It's all about money.

Still not sure of your point?

Read my post above and the SEC filing. They weren't actively looking for buyers and haven't had discussions on any buyout/price prior to MS proposal since 2013. MS just came in with an offer and Kotick did what any smart director would do. Seeked any better offers, formally got none, and returned to MS to negotiate price. That's even assuming the rumour is true.

 

[zzill3]

Read my post above and the SEC filing. They weren't actively looking for buyers and haven't had discussions on any buyout/price prior to MS proposal since 2013. MS just came in with an offer and Kotick did what any smart director would do. Seeked any better offers, formally got none, and returned to MS to negotiate price. That's even assuming the rumour is true.

Can see how you could come to that conclusion, though I get a different one from reading the same text.

"In addition, the Activision Blizzard Board of Directors and senior management from time to time have been approached by third parties expressing an interest in exploring a potential strategic combination with or acquisition of Activision Blizzard, but, since the reduction of Vivendi’s ownership stake in Activision Blizzard in 2013, no such discussions have advanced beyond preliminary discussions gauging each party’s respective interest in pursuing a transaction or resulted in any specific proposal on price, structure or other material terms."

Is very different from

"In addition, the Activision Blizzard Board of Directors and senior management from time to time have been approached by third parties expressing an interest in exploring a potential strategic combination with or acquisition of Activision Blizzard, but Activision Blizzard had no interest in being acquired at the time and so no further discussion took place.

 

[feynoob]

Yeah that was the rumour. No formal offer was made otherwise they would have had to put it in the SEC filing. Instead the SEC filing states


"In addition, the Activision Blizzard Board of Directors and senior management from time to time have been approached by third parties expressing an interest in exploring a potential strategic combination with or acquisition of Activision Blizzard, but, since the reduction of Vivendi’s ownership stake in Activision Blizzard in 2013, no such discussions have advanced beyond preliminary discussions gauging each party’s respective interest in pursuing a transaction or resulted in any specific proposal on price, structure or other material terms."

" On November 19, 2021, in the course of a conversation on a different topic between Mr. Spencer and Mr. Kotick, Mr. Spencer raised that Microsoft was interested in discussing strategic opportunities between Activision Blizzard and Microsoft"

So it seems if the rumour is true that Activision was given a proposal by MS. Did his due diligence of seeking to see interest by other companies, got no formal offers of interest (otherwise it would have legally been in the SEC filing) then negotiated with MS on the price.

The SEC filing is talking about offers made to Activision, not the companies which Activision approached. So the Facebook rumor doesn't fall in that category.
Both can be true.

 

[Three]

Can see how you could come to that conclusion, though I get a different one from reading the same text.



Is very different from

"but Activision Blizzard had no interest in being acquired" is not even a thing for a publicly traded company. Nobody is saying that. Getting an offer from Microsoft however is different to "Activision wants to be bought so if this fails it will sell to another". Surely you can see the difference. If they were actively looking for a buyer surely they would have discussed proposals with those that approached them.

The SEC filing is talking about offers made to Activision, not the companies which Activision approached. So the Facebook rumor doesn't fall in that category.
Both can be true.

Yes exactly, but if Facebook had shown any interest and made a formal proposal Activision could not legally say they have had no discussions/proposals on price since 2013 outside of the ones with MS. Even if ABK approached Facebook, Facebook would be the one making a formal offer so it makes no difference.

 

[feynoob]

Yes exactly, but if Facebook had shown any interest and made a formal proposal Activision could not legally say they have had no discussions on price since 2013 outside of the ones with MS. Even if ABK approached Facebook, Facebook would be the one making a formal offer so it makes no difference.

This might be the reason why.

Bloomberg(opens in new tab) reports that "Kotick and the board weren't sold on Microsoft as the acquirer" and initially pursued deals with at least two other companies, one of them being Meta Platforms, according to sources privy to private conversations. As we now know, these talks didn't bear fruit, so Activision came back to the table with Microsoft, with the two companies apparently working over the 2021 holiday season to draft up the deal.

 

[Three]

This might be the reason why.

Yeah Ive read that. That's what I mean.

If the rumour is true the board did what they should have done once they got a MS proposal. See if anybody else big is interested before you sell off your company forever. According to the FTC filing seems nobody else was and they put in no proposals on price or anything whatsoever. That doesn't mean Activision actively want to be bought or in financial trouble though.

 

[DenchDeckard]

It only benefits MS, because they are the ones who will own the company.

Your benefits depends on them.

What? It benefits all game pass subscribers and you don't just have to have an xbox

Yup. Only the owner of the deal benefits it, and his userbase.

unless the game hits ps+ day1, it only benefits MS ecosystem with their gamepass.

Activision can do that. They dont need MS for that.

Like I said it benefits all game pass subscribers. Be it on pc, xbox, x cloud or all.

That's a good win for all gamepass customers.

 

[feynoob]

Yeah Ive read that. That's what I mean.

If the rumour is true the board did what they should have done once they got a MS proposal. See if anybody else big is interested before you sell off your company forever. According to the FTC filing seems nobody else was and they put in no proposals on price or anything whatsoever. That doesn't mean Activision actively want to be bought or in financial trouble though.

The issue is that those buyers didnt agree with activision term. Only MS was willing to pay what they wanted.
MS intially offered around $80 per share. Activision went to other parties in order to make that price higher. Other companies didnt agree with Activision valuation. MS resumed later, which MS agreed with the $95 per share.

Also Activision were in trouble due to those recent lawsuit, and the board wanted to get out. That is the only reason they were in the market.

 

[solidus12]

I’ve seen some tweets about Microsoft and Bloodborne on twitter.

What the hell?

 

[Topher]

on twitter;

I believe I've spotted the problem

 

[KingT731]

Read my post above and the SEC filing. They weren't actively looking for buyers and haven't had discussions on any buyout/price prior to MS proposal since 2013. MS just came in with an offer and Kotick did what any smart director would do. Seeked any better offers, formally got none, and returned to MS to negotiate price. That's even assuming the rumour is true.

This seems to be the common sense take and in conjunction with the number MS gave ABK...who was really going to outbid them?