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

Do you believe the deal will be approved?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
The series will see more platforms because Microsoft and Nintendo have jointly announced that it's coming to more platforms.

No speculation needed. It's been announced. Call of Duty didn't used to be on Nintendo hardware, and now it will be.


Microsoft cannot make a deal on behalf of CoD or ATVI until this deal is sealed - this agreement is essentially MS offering a concession and remedy, all contingent that this deal should go through. ATVI is ultimately the one who can decide, in the here and now mind you, on whether Nintendo will ever see CoD support again. MS just wants Nintendo to sit out of this legal fight. Its why they offered everyone within the market this deal (Sony/Nintendo/Valve), hoping that this would ease any potential opposition any of them may have (besides Sony).
 
If the deal fails then I presume MS can sign a deal with Activision once the Sony deal expires to bring Call Of Duty to Gamepass day one going forward.
Absolutely. And this was always an avenue MS has had available to them. The notion that MS needed to get this deal done in order to get a single ATVI title into GP is pure hogwash.
 
For this deal to go forward the writing on the wall suggests CoD will remain on existing platforms and future platforms, in perpetuity.

This is what I suspect also. However, and at this point, Microsoft would walk away from the deal. Their PR at the beginning was that the COD series was an afterthought. But if they're presented with a COD in perpetuity situation, they'll pay the 2/3 Billion and call it a day.
 
If the deal fails then I presume MS can sign a deal with Activision once the Sony deal expires to bring Call Of Duty to Gamepass day one going forward.

As has always been the case.

There's also the chance that Activision might not want to if the terms are not deemed to be mutually beneficial. But that's for them to work out at the negotiating table.
 
Uh but you know, who wrote that? Is that a random post????

Hilarious replies though, some people are just dumb as fuck it defies belief. "MS spent all this time building a fortune why is it not fair they can spend it however they want" is just peak peanut pudim brain.

It's an era post. But I don't think OP is going to last much longer.
 
This is what I suspect also. However, and at this point, Microsoft would walk away from the deal. Their PR at the beginning was that the COD series was an afterthought. But if they're presented with a COD in perpetuity situation, they'll pay the 2/3 Billion and call it a day.
MS is trying to pivot and claim that they also need a stronger mobile strategy now, and I think one of the concessions towards this the CMA will offer is to have ATVI spin-out King and sell it to MS. MS' trying to spin CoD's importance in this is just hysterical; there is no way ATVI is worth even half of the $69b price tag without CoD. Absolute foolishness on their part.
 
That's not Sony's fault.

That's what it means to play in the big leagues. There is a reason why Nintendo doesn't pay for this big exclusives anymore. They'll sometimes go for smaller ones like Octopath Traveler. More targeted.
Then that logic should be it's not Microsoft fault they are capable of buying publishers. It's a slippery slope conversation.
 
If the deal fails then I presume MS can sign a deal with Activision once the Sony deal expires to bring Call Of Duty to Gamepass day one going forward.
That's fair play. More power to MS and GP users if MS strikes a deal like this.

Nobody loses anything. And GP subscribers get more benefits.
 
You really think those games weren't coming to PS5 given development on both started LOOOOONG before MS purchased Bethesda? Come on dude.
We know that Hi-Fi rush was in development since 2017, and never had a target console until the acquisition of Microsoft. Nothing was promised for anyone it's all assumptions.
 
That's not how this shit works.

Publishers notify platform holders years in advance. Unless of course... You think Bethesda would only have notified Sony when the game went gold?
Pssst. Come here for a second.
We're whispering now.
Friendly advice - never try rationalizing with someone who thinks there was a chance Starfield would have skipped PS even if the publisher was not acquired.
 
We know that Hi-Fi rush was in development since 2017, and never had a target console until the acquisition of Microsoft. Nothing was promised for anyone it's all assumptions.
You are being purposefully obtuse if you actually believe that either Hi Fi Rush or Starfield weren't going to be on a Sony console without MS purchasing Zenimax/Bethesda.
 
Pssst. Come here for a second.
We're whispering now.
Friendly advice - never try rationalizing with someone who thinks there was a chance Starfield would have skipped PS even if the publisher was not acquired.
Starfield, a game who we factually know Sony was on the brink of having an exclusivity deal signed for prior to the MS buyout being announced, was never going to be on PS? Amazing.

By this standard, then Ghostwire Tokyo and DeathLoop weren't gonna be on PS until Sony got deals for those games signed. Or FFXVI was gonna be a PC exclusive until Sony got a deal signed for PS, right?

Folks are being supremely disingenuous just so they can handwave criticism of their favorite plastic-covered PC manufacturer, huh?
 
Last edited:
Starfield, a game who we factually know Sony was on the brink of having an exclusivity deal signed for prior to the MS buyout being announced, was never going to be on PS? Amazing.
The most ardent warriors show their low IQs constantly.

They use "Sony was going to lock it down for a permanent exclusive" as ammo for their takeaway worship, and in the same breath they say that "it was never announced going to be on PlayStation," because Bethesda hates money and does not want to sell games to the largest console userbase.

youtube lol GIF
 
Last edited:
It's an era post. But I don't think OP is going to last much longer.

Quoting era lol that thread is full of hypocrites crying about hyper capitalism and then crying for hyper capitalism in the same breath. I mean why shouldn't MS be able to buy the market whole sale, so what am I rite? Now let me cry about a game that would only sell 500k on Xbox not coming to Xbox because Sony is evil. I'm entitled to every game coming to gamepass. Lick my tears now
 
Last edited:
If the deal fails then I presume MS can sign a deal with Activision once the Sony deal expires to bring Call Of Duty to Gamepass day one going forward.

That's a possibility. But it depends on how much Microsoft wants to compensate Activision for lost day one sales. COD still sells a lot on Xbox.
 
You are being purposefully obtuse if you actually believe that either Hi Fi Rush or Starfield weren't going to be on a Sony console without MS purchasing Zenimax/Bethesda.

With the whole Zenimax deal.

Before that Zenimax released their games on PlayStation. Now they don't.

But that probably wouldn't be the case if they were still relying on sales from PlayStation. Now they don't have to because they are owned by Microsoft and must do what they are told.

What I'm saying is that if the next Elder Scrolls doesn't come to PlayStation its because of Microsoft. Something that probably wouldn't happen if Bethesda still relied on sales from PlayStation to stay in business.

Microsoft owns Bethesda so they can choose what platforms they release their games on. But before the deal Bethesda had to rely on sales from PlayStation.
 
Last edited:
Severance, The Boys, Sandman as well.

This argument is rather tired by now but people can't move on.

I think it's a result of there just being more options and thus more bad stuff. But there's also more good stuff. Same can be said for games, there are a lot more than there used to be. That means there are more uninspired junk but also more quality content.

Never heard of Sandman, I'll have to check it out.
 
Microsoft only thought of giving assurances once regulators showed concerns, which Microsoft absolutely was not expecting by the way.

Either kill the deal or tell them to kill the hardware business. Either works out for the industry.

They said they will keep CoD on Playstation beyond the agreements all the way back in Feb '22, just days after the acquisition was first announced, including the point about bringing the franchise back to Nintendo platforms.

This is long before CMA, EU or the now-forgotten CADE were deemed the champion of the people, mind you.

 
Last edited:
They said they will keep CoD on Playstation beyond the agreements all the way back in Feb '22, just days after the acquisition was first announced, including the point about bringing the franchise back to Nintendo platforms. This is long before CMA, EU or the now-forgotten CADE were deemed the champion of the people, mind you.

The same day the deal was announced, there were pieces in a variety of business-centered media wondering out loud if this deal should be heavily challenged; they had the CFO on MSNBC or Fox Business within days of the announcement saying that MS was going to treat this closer to Minecraft than they were Bethesda. Some investor groups gave the likelihood of this deal passing a 50/50 shot, even on day 1.

In my opinion, its fair to say that MS severely underestimated how much regulatory resistance they were going to face on this deal going into it; they were just dog-walked through a variety of acquisitions, including Bethesda, without so much as a peep from anyone. I think their quick defense in Feb '22 was merely to try and dissuade anyone, in this case Sony really, from making too much of a stand before things really got underway.
 
Quoting era lol that thread is full of hypocrites crying about hyper capitalism and then crying for hyper capitalism in the same breath. I mean why shouldn't MS be able to buy the market whole sale, so what am I rite? Now let me cry about a game that would only sell 500k on Xbox not coming to Xbox because Sony is evil. I'm entitled to every game coming to gamepass. Lick my tears now
Actually that thread has been fun to read the last few days. The people that used it before are now crying because a lot of people showed up that are against deal. I would recommend reading the last few pages.
 
I susoect the argument is that its bad for consumers to have a reduction in choice of where and how to consume content.
Also the when of consuming content.

Let's make an example to illustrate: Ordinarily, the holiday season would see releases from various big publishers, you would see Activision releasing COD, Microsoft releasing their new Halo games, Bethesda releasing DOOM or Fallout etc.

Now if both Bethesda and Activision are under MS, then all their IP is now impacting a single ROI, rather than multiple competing ones, meaning that MS will most definitely have to reduce the amount of games they release every month, both to ensure "cadence" for Gamepass/XBox as a whole, and to limit self-cannibalization of the consumer dollars that change hands in said season. This essentially means they can't release a Doom and a COD together in the same launch window, because there is intersection in their appeal, and one will invariably cannibalize the other leading to limited full-price sales (i.e. a customer will likely buy one immediately, and wait for the other to drop price), this is a direct example of how these big corpo mergers directly affect the consumer's choice, and it's relatively platform-agnostic (as in it doesn't really matter if both franchises are released on PS5 or Switch, the commercial decision will likely remain the same).

Big mergers are a major waste of resources that could go to appeasing the consumer (just think how many brand-new high-quality AAA franchises could be funded with 70b, all additive to the gaming space and pushing the craft forward), they also reduce the choice of consumers across multiple axes as well.
 
Last edited:
Also the when of consuming content.

Let's make an example to illustrate: Ordinarily, the holiday season would see releases from various big publishers, you would see Activision releasing COD, Microsoft releasing their new Halo games, Bethesda releasing DOOM or Fallout etc.

Now if both Bethesda and Activision are under MS, then all their IP is now impacting a single ROI, rather than multiple competing ones, meaning that MS will most definitely have to reduce the amount of games they release every month, both to ensure "cadence" for Gamepass/XBox as a whole, and to limit self-cannibalization of the consumer dollars that change hands in said season. This essentially means they can't release a Doom and a COD together in the same launch window, because there is intersection in their appeal, and one will invariably cannibalize the other leading to limited full-price sales (i.e. a customer will likely buy one immediately, and wait for the other to drop price), this is a direct example of how these big corpo mergers directly affect the consumer's choice, and it's relatively platform-agnostic (as in it doesn't really matter if both franchises are released on PS5 or Switch, the commercial decision will likely remain the same).

Big mergers are a major waste of resources that could go to appeasing the consumer (just think how many brand-new high-quality AAA franchises could be funded with 70b, all additive to the gaming space and pushing the craft forward), they also reduce the choice of consumers across multiple axes as well.
Interesting post. Cheers for bringing something fresh to consider.
 
Also the when of consuming content.

Let's make an example to illustrate: Ordinarily, the holiday season would see releases from various big publishers, you would see Activision releasing COD, Microsoft releasing their new Halo games, Bethesda releasing DOOM or Fallout etc.

Now if both Bethesda and Activision are under MS, then all their IP is now impacting a single ROI, rather than multiple competing ones, meaning that MS will most definitely have to reduce the amount of games they release every month, both to ensure "cadence" for Gamepass/XBox as a whole, and to limit self-cannibalization of the consumer dollars that change hands in said season. This essentially means they can't release a Doom and a COD together in the same launch window, because there is intersection in their appeal, and one will invariably cannibalize the other leading to limited full-price sales (i.e. a customer will likely buy one immediately, and wait for the other to drop price), this is a direct example of how these big corpo mergers directly affect the consumer's choice, and it's relatively platform-agnostic (as in it doesn't really matter if both franchises are released on PS5 or Switch, the commercial decision will likely remain the same).

Big mergers are a major waste of resources that could go to appeasing the consumer (just think how many brand-new high-quality AAA franchises could be funded with 70b, all additive to the gaming space and pushing the craft forward), they also reduce the choice of consumers across multiple axes as well.

I never thought of that before. Plus Microsoft would want to space things out so gamepass is constantly fed with content.
 
None of those games were announced for PlayStation.
I see some still sticking with this BS narrative, idk abt Hi-Fi Rush but Starfield was always gonna come to PlayStation pre-acquisition until Microsoft got involved.

Pete Hines - Exclusivity was never a consideration until we got acquired by Microsoft.
 
If the deal fails then I presume MS can sign a deal with Activision once the Sony deal expires to bring Call Of Duty to Gamepass day one going forward.

I doubt it. Look at the moneyhat deals MS has been signing the last 3-4 years. They are clearly focusing on smaller games that cost less money. CoD is huge on Xbox just like it is on PlayStation. The cost to get it on GamePass would be quite large.

Which is likely why MS decided to just buy it. I know warriors want MS to pay exorbitant amounts of money piece by piece to sign exclusive games, because they know it's bad business that Microsoft wouldn't want to engage in long term. It makes more sense for MS to spend a huge sum of money and get not just CoD and more importantly, King.

Buying ABK is a smart investment for MS, just like Minecraft. Paying for the biggest franchise on PlayStation to come to GamePass is basically throwing money down the drain.
 
I doubt it. Look at the moneyhat deals MS has been signing the last 3-4 years. They are clearly focusing on smaller games that cost less money. CoD is huge on Xbox just like it is on PlayStation. The cost to get it on GamePass would be quite large.

Which is likely why MS decided to just buy it. I know warriors want MS to pay exorbitant amounts of money piece by piece to sign exclusive games, because they know it's bad business that Microsoft wouldn't want to engage in long term. It makes more sense for MS to spend a huge sum of money and get not just CoD and more importantly, King.

Buying ABK is a smart investment for MS, just like Minecraft. Paying for the biggest franchise on PlayStation to come to GamePass is basically throwing money down the drain.

I didn't say anything about being exclusive, I said on Gamepass day one, big difference.
I don't see it as money down the drain, most people would be happy to pay for Gamepass for a yearly franchise as the vast majority of the playerbase moves to the new game every year.
 
ThAts HoW eNgLisH wOrKs 😆😆😆

I guess, if you've never heard of a comma. You're also using a shitty example to make a comparison. Rich can be relative. Profitable is not relative. It either makes money or it doesn't. By your silly definition, everything MS does that isn't Azure is profitable, for them.

Not to mention Spencer is bound to shareholders and would need to prove these things he's saying.

Like I said, sad, but entertaining.
It is relative depending on the terms, and there is no lying involved so stop going to that excuse.

ThAts HoW eNgLisH wOrKs
 
With the whole Zenimax deal.

Before that Zenimax released their games on PlayStation. Now they don't.

But that probably wouldn't be the case if they were still relying on sales from PlayStation. Now they don't have to because they are owned by Microsoft and must do what they are told.

What I'm saying is that if the next Elder Scrolls doesn't come to PlayStation its because of Microsoft. Something that probably wouldn't happen if Bethesda still relied on sales from PlayStation to stay in business.

Microsoft owns Bethesda so they can choose what platforms they release their games on. But before the deal Bethesda had to rely on sales from PlayStation.
TBF Bethesda has always worked with Microsoft/Xbox first. The first elder scrolls game on console was on xbox. As far as unannounced games go they have every right to keep it in their eco system, the same way Sony does with theirs.
 
This is getting heated. Only a handful of days before we should get some actual news on where this deal is heading. Even then I'm sure both sides will twist the news to mean one thing over the other, be it good or bad news.
 
I think it's a result of there just being more options and thus more bad stuff. But there's also more good stuff. Same can be said for games, there are a lot more than there used to be. That means there are more uninspired junk but also more quality content.

Never heard of Sandman, I'll have to check it out.
Yeah, think it's largely an issue of just much more stuff (also true for video games and the crap that makes it onto all the store platforms) as well as rose tinted glasses. There was plenty of crap in the old days of tv and movies but we just forget about them.
 
This is getting heated. Only a handful of days before we should get some actual news on where this deal is heading. Even then I'm sure both sides will twist the news to mean one thing over the other, be it good or bad news.
News should come this week. But this thread has 8 weeks to a year worth of traction left on the tires. No matter what happens this week, MS will not withdraw offer before they are close to a fee escalation date, and at least one jurisdiction will still be fighting if the news is favorable to MS. So buckle up and hang onto your butts. 🪗
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom