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.
While that is a possibility (of course), it's extremely unlikely that COD will choose Xbox as its partner if we (and ABK) think about it rationally (instead of emotionally):
  • COD is the leading FPS in the market. They want to be associated with the leading console platform, which is PlayStation.
  • An Xbox marketing agreement may also open the possibility of a Game Pass inclusion on day one. Activision has stated that they do not want to do subscriptions on day one currently, so there is already a misalignment in the broader vision between Activision and Xbox.
  • Xbox gamers do not buy games as much as PlayStation gamers do. So there is a possibility that the net sales decrease would be the result for Activision if they choose Xbox as their marketing partner.
  • Xbox also does not market games as effectively and as extensively as PlayStation does. PlayStation's game marketing is just top-notch as we have seen consistently for years.
  • More importantly, if Activision goes with Xbox, PlayStation would go with Battlefield. As of now, Battlefield is pretty much dead and poses no serious competition to Call of Duty. With this flip, Battlefield may get another chance at revival and may very well become a serious competition once again with the help of PlayStation. ABK will not risk that.

Yep, good points. Particularly noting where most of the sales revenue comes from. Microsoft would have to pay ABK SO much money to offset revenue loss from direct sales being cut into by Game Pass, it likely would not be worth the upfront cost.

Especially since that isn't even guaranteed to increase Game Pass revenue by massive amounts, considering all the deals and loopholes that exist. Those just get more popular by the day, each day they remain around. And also true ABK wouldn't want to leave an opportunity for Sony to favor EA over them for pushing a big marquee FPS on their console, particularly if they can't count on a marketing deal with Microsoft having the same punch.
 
While that is a possibility (of course), it's extremely unlikely that COD will choose Xbox as its partner if we (and ABK) think about it rationally (instead of emotionally):
  • COD is the leading FPS in the market. They want to be associated with the leading console platform, which is PlayStation.
  • An Xbox marketing agreement may also open the possibility of a Game Pass inclusion on day one. Activision has stated that they do not want to do subscriptions on day one currently, so there is already a misalignment in the broader vision between Activision and Xbox.
  • Xbox gamers do not buy games as much as PlayStation gamers do. So there is a possibility that the net sales decrease would be the result for Activision if they choose Xbox as their marketing partner.
  • Xbox also does not market games as effectively and as extensively as PlayStation does. PlayStation's game marketing is just top-notch as we have seen consistently for years.
  • More importantly, if Activision goes with Xbox, PlayStation would go with Battlefield. As of now, Battlefield is pretty much dead and poses no serious competition to Call of Duty. With this flip, Battlefield may get another chance at revival and may very well become a serious competition once again with the help of PlayStation. ABK will not risk that.
You know what the sad thing is? Xbox gamers had the highest attach rate for 7th gen when the 360 was way ahead. Now thanks to phil since xbox one they bought less. Even less now thanks to gamepass.
 
As unlikely as it is, you forgot that the CMA has left the door open to be convinced to accept behavioral remedies. This is what most in favour of the deal are banking on (I'm of the opinion it won't happen, and the deal is dead, but it's still a possibility)
The door is open but extremely small to squeeze through. As you said, it likely won't happen.

This needs to be seen in full context. I am adding some excerpts that would show how slim the chances are that the CMA will accept any promises or deals by Microsoft (behavioral remedies).

JCwa2xY.jpg
MNQLLiP.jpg
6zjeYyF.jpg
k5c37GN.jpg
 
Last edited:
Microsoft has made waaaay more big purchases. Also this is the biggest purchase for the FAANG companies by a mile.

Yeh this one purchase by MS costs more than all the other Big Tech's last purchase combined it's like in a new stratosphere altogether. Outside of them this costs far more even than Nvidia wanted to buy ARM for.
 
Oops, you are right! Apologies, everyone for jumping the gun. In my defense, it was 2 AM 😄 and I went immediately to sleep after posting this.

I didn't see the following page and got confused by the language that said, "the motion is GRANTED and hereby ORDERED that:"

And I believe SenjutsuSage SenjutsuSage got confused by the same thing in the other doc. So neither was right, and we were both wrong at the same time, and the judge has yet to make the decision.
Tagging SenjutsuSage SenjutsuSage as well since you both basically did the same thing: It's a common practice for lawyers when making a motion to draft up a judge approval of the motion in case the optimum case happens and the judge approves wholeheartedly. That way he/she can just sign with minimal time wastage. Here Sony and MSFT both made motions and created a formatted notice to be signed in case they succeed.

If the judge is somewhere in the middle of those motions or has a completely different action in mind, then they gets his clerk to type up a form of their own to sign.
 
Look, here's the thing. There are even things I currently want gaming-wise but can't justify for one reason or another, whether because I have to budget money, or see if I'd even have the time to get enough use out of it. PSVR2 is one them. But what I'm not doing, is calling companies anti-consumer just because myself specifically may not be able to get something. If that's the case, then I just have to wait until I can get it, simple as that.

Some of the people who want this deal to pass just to get things for "free" in Game Pass, genuinely feel they are entitled to those games, even if they don't want to pay for them Day 1 or even wait a bit until they drop down in price for a sale. No one is entitled to entertainment, but I think the current environment surrounding subscription services, or better I should say the current narrative, has deluded some people into believing it. And I can say with certainty that there is at least some portion of people in favor of the acquisition specifically because it means they get all that content in Game Pass Day 1, let's not pretend otherwise.

No problem if they would like that as a perk; it's the select ones among them who demonize paying for games, or demonize other companies for not putting all their games Day 1 into a subscription service, as being anti-consumer, or worst yet trying to make a case for subscription gaming to empower "marginalized people" to have more access to games (as if all minorities are poor or haven't been able to buy games before...and yes this was actually a talking point with some pro-Game Pass people on Twitter last year, especially with some Ambassadors), when it's really about themselves, who poison the well.

Also no the industry is not going the Game Pass route. You do know that subscription services in gaming are like 5% of all gaming revenue, right? Game Pass has been here since 2017; PS Now before that. It might be the big talk but it's not pulling in that much money compared to direct sales in gaming; even Microsoft have said this (and they've probably used it in talks with regulators to try downplaying worries around subscription services in gaming).



I didn't say paying for a subscription makes you less of a gamer; that's conflation. What I said is, some of these people who want this deal to pass, seemingly care about these games so much yet don't seem willing to pay for them. And personally, I think that's kind of funny. I want a Ferrari, doesn't mean I can't expect to get one for cheap if I REALLY want one. I'm also not out here hoping they get acquired by someone who can promise to give me Ferraris for free/super cheap, because that would just be dumb. I know that business model can't really work, just like how we're getting proof from the court documents that Game Pass as it currently is, doesn't really work as a business model.

And ultimately who's going to pay the price for that? Microsoft, because they lose money on it. The industry, because even if Microsoft get ABK, if they still want to push Game Pass aggressively with that content they either bleed more money or scale back funding or even fire employees to save costs. And us, the customers, because companies like Microsoft aren't going to spend $70 billion on a huge acquisition and not make up the costs down the line; that's what services price increases are for.

They'd probably look to cut down or eliminate the loopholes, too. Then we can see how much the diehards who champion Game Pass (the ones saying the most extremely stupid and aggressive things and literally praying the deal gets approved) actually value the service.
"I didn't say paying for a subscription makes you less of a gamer; that's conflation. What I said is, some of these people who want this deal to pass, seemingly care about these games so much yet don't seem willing to pay for them. And personally, I think that's kind of funny. I want a Ferrari, doesn't mean I can't expect to get one for cheap if I REALLY want one. I'm also not out here hoping they get acquired by someone who can promise to give me Ferraris for free/super cheap, because that would just be dumb. I know that business model can't really work, just like how we're getting proof from the court documents that Game Pass as it currently is, doesn't really work as a business model."


Honestly this reminds of the free coffee analogy. and it just doesnt work, here. you cant compare the price or financing involved in of a ferrari (or any car) to a 70 dollar game thats has one time fee (do you pay road tax and insurance on a game?) . Im sure if ferrari made a affordable finance plan you buy one (assuming it was in your budget, in the first place) The option is available if you can afford it, or in the very least make it managable. its that simple. A bit like ....how subscription services give access to lots of games that some people probably would not be able to afford at once. only they dont have to worry about the aditional cost that TRULY make ferrari ownership expensive (hence why this is just a poor comparison..games cost nothing to own outside of what you pay for them....there are people who can afford to spend 80K on a car but not the running costs over a year, gamers dont have this issue.)



For what its worth.....I own over 700 digital titles spanning 4 generations of xboxs (added more when they added OG BC too) long before GP came along. right now I have that huge backlog plus GPU subscription games. I doubt im the only GPU subscriber that still buys games. Im sure many of us still buy games that are not on GPU yet on xbox, all the same. I know I do. I know Im not the only one. When ill ever find the time to play them all is a whole other question, but I digress


"Also no the industry is not going the Game Pass route. You do know that subscription services in gaming are like 5% of all gaming revenue, right? Game Pass has been here since 2017; PS Now before that. It might be the big talk but it's not pulling in that much money compared to direct sales in gaming; even Microsoft have said this (and they've probably used it in talks with regulators to try downplaying worries around subscription services in gaming)."

Still early days, all things considered. I remember when people said digital downloads will never overtake physical sales...beating their chests about gamers wont stand for it...look how that worked out..... happened to music...happened to movies. its happening to gaming, right now. Tomorrows consumers wont care about owning games any more than todays consumers care about owning an album on CD or buying a movie on blue ray. We care because thats our generations thing. Ultimately...consumer habits will decide this question long term, but I think the music and movie industries have already shown what consumers will choose



Funny thing is even the music and movie industries...proffesionals are subscribing to the likes of waves, plug in alliance and pro tools for their tools, and we used to fight the idea of not owning the tools we use...nowadays we dont care because they make more than we can keep up with to buy eveyrthing. So this is something I realise about human consumption habits...if you give them a buffet, they will come and pay to eat. the internet, itself...itunes......hbo max, disney plus...... only thing missing here is the gaming subs..... but we are going to get to that. saying this as a fan of owning my digital backlog
 
Some of the people who want this deal to pass just to get things for "free" in Game Pass, genuinely feel they are entitled to those games, even if they don't want to pay for them Day 1 or even wait a bit until they drop down in price for a sale. No one is entitled to entertainment, but I think the current environment surrounding subscription services, or better I should say the current narrative, has deluded some people into believing it. And I can say with certainty that there is at least some portion of people in favor of the acquisition specifically because it means they get all that content in Game Pass Day 1, let's not pretend otherwise.

This is a weird take. I think you are projecting too much feelings about people who subscribe in general. these services exist. people are paying for them. They are not getting anything for free.


" No one is entitled to entertainment"

Thats why it all has a price tag on it. not sure where you are going with this.
 
The door is open but extremely small to squeeze through. As you said, it likely won't happen.

This needs to be seen in full context. I am adding some excerpts that would show how slim the chances are that the CMA will accept any promises or deals by Microsoft (behavioral remedies).

JCwa2xY.jpg
MNQLLiP.jpg
6zjeYyF.jpg
k5c37GN.jpg
Transparency is good is all I'm saying. As much as we can read into what the CMA will do and assign the likelihood of each action, behavioral remedies is still a path. Even if you believe behavioral remedies have 0 chance, if someone asks what's the next step? And you don't include this avenue as a way they could go is misleading.

I think divestment is a non-starter for Microsoft, and the CMA left the door open for behavioral remedies, so Microsoft is heavily pursuing those.

Again, I think that's highly unlikely to happen. But it's not impossible. Excluding a possibility because it's highly unlikely just doesn't sit right with me when people are looking for information.
 
Well at least irs all been entertaining. The comments you get from both sides has been gold.

Do any of us actually have any idea of which way its going to go?
 
Re the ABK and Sony relationship post this deal, I think an interesting factor is that Sony may have a game that is extremely similar in terms of genre/style via Deviation Studios.

I do wonder how much they would be spending in marketing for that game (Deviation) .

They are probably committed to a certain level of spend for COD until 2026 but afterwards, they (Sony) may want to naturally reduce that commitment.

It's going to be an interesting couple of years.
 
Last edited:
Re the ABK and Sony relationship post this deal, I think an interesting factor is that Sony may have a game that is extremely similar in terms of genre/style via Deviation Studios.

I do wonder how much they would be spending in marketing for that game. They are probably committed to a certain level of spend until 2026 but afterwards, they (Sony) may want to naturally reduce that commitment.

It's going to be an interesting couple of years.
Yeah, Sony's own live-service shooter games (+ Destiny) may cannibalize some of the marketing and COD.

For Deviation specifically, however, there is a possibility that the Deviation's game is a sci-fi one set on Mars, so it can just be different enough to co-exist with COD.
 
Yeah, Sony's own live-service shooter games (+ Destiny) may cannibalize some of the marketing and COD.

For Deviation specifically, however, there is a possibility that the Deviation's game is a sci-fi one set on Mars, so it can just be different enough to co-exist with COD.
Yeah haven't paid too much attention to the Deviation game but yeah, if it isn't a military shooter then yeah, may be okay to co-exist without a huge concern about inefficient marketing ROAS.
 
No problem if they would like that as a perk; it's the select ones among them who demonize paying for games, or demonize other companies for not putting all their games Day 1 into a subscription service, as being anti-consumer, or worst yet trying to make a case for subscription gaming to empower "marginalized people" to have more access to games (as if all minorities are poor or haven't been able to buy games before...and yes this was actually a talking point with some pro-Game Pass people on Twitter last year, especially with some Ambassadors), when it's really about themselves, who poison the well.


Ive never heard of anybody demonizing paying for a game. Not even to justify a subscription service. That must be a GAF thing.

Also being a minority does not equate poor. plenty of white people living below the breadline too, so we both should no better than to digest the ignorance of a few vocal gamers with agendas. This does not change the fact however that there is a cost benefit to GP for people on lower incomes (regardless of race) in the same that that netflix great is for people who cant afford satalite TV. nobody wants to be bored at home no matter how poor. Im british-jamaican but happen to be doing well enough that I have homes in london and florida aswell, here in jamaica where im typing from right now. and yes the internet is great (a legit 200 Mbps, according to download speeds on my xbox...not bad for a 'third world country' eh?) )

and I can tell you..... GP would make a killing out here and on the other islands, if they would take markets like the carribean and latin america more seriously. Funny thing is there is a local arcade/game room/VR space here in kingston (jamaica) with hooked up series S's. you pay 1000 jamaican dollars and you can play whatever for an hour. local kids always in there playing forza and whatnot with their friends. GP has been great for that little business (the owner is from england but fell in love with the island some years ago...as people do, before they up and move here) I wish to see more of those around the island for these kids. affordable gaming for all! Im all for THAT. And this island needs it for these kids, I Couldnt care less about console wars. I can see the benefits of subs in general. I see gaming subs the same way I see gaming subs.



You guys do realise the even creative professionals are subscribing their software tools these days, right? and for far more than the cost of any of these entertainment subs too....
 
Phil is a conman. I don't want to see anyone quote him again like they are quoting Jesus or something. Everyone shits on Jim Ryan for being a shady character (rightfully so) but Phil is on par and even arguably worse than Jim and people eat up every bullshit he says.

Dude, come on.. We all know Phil's a gamer so we're morally obligated to let those things go.
 
  • I'll acquire Lulu

Creeping Parks And Recreation GIF
Lmao, you guys definitely make me laugh harder than era.
Well at least irs all been entertaining. The comments you get from both sides has been gold.

Do any of us actually have any idea of which way its going to go?
Precedent says the CMA won't accept behavioral remedies. Opinions are that Microsoft won't accept divestment. The CMA says they're open to behavioral remedies. Microsoft says this deal was mainly for PC and mobile.

So I don't think anyone knows 100% what's going to happen. Microsoft could say fuck it, we'll divest Activision because it really was about King and Blizzard. OR the CMA could say, those are some easily enforceable behavioral remedies, we'll let is pass. AND Lulu could come into this thread, like the cut of Heisenberg's jib and start an illicit love affair that turns him into an Xbot. :P
 
You guys do realise the even creative professionals are subscribing their software tools these days, right? and for far more than the cost of any of these entertainment subs too....

Yes, and that's why I've switched my entire business over to Affinity suite in the last couple of years. One time purchase for each of my team memebers and they provide discounts if you order the licences in batches.

This "service" world that big tech is trying to make everyone sleepwalk towards is not good for anyone and will ultimately end up costing people more in the long run.
 
Well at least irs all been entertaining. The comments you get from both sides has been gold.

Do any of us actually have any idea of which way its going to go?
Really no. But, it was hilarious seeing the people who were so confident that this would go through with absolutely no problem and no concessions.
 
Transparency is good is all I'm saying. As much as we can read into what the CMA will do and assign the likelihood of each action, behavioral remedies is still a path. Even if you believe behavioral remedies have 0 chance, if someone asks what's the next step? And you don't include this avenue as a way they could go is misleading.

I think divestment is a non-starter for Microsoft, and the CMA left the door open for behavioral remedies, so Microsoft is heavily pursuing those.

Again, I think that's highly unlikely to happen. But it's not impossible. Excluding a possibility because it's highly unlikely just doesn't sit right with me when people are looking for information.

They left the door open to help themselves in court to say, we listened to them and it wasn't sufficient.

I don't see what behavioral remedies are going to get this thing across the line. A 20+ year commitment to parity across consoles and equal access on cloud and subscription services (but at what cost)?

Even this might be a bridge too far for Microsoft and I think that would be the bare minimum the CMA would agree to.
 
You guys do realise the even creative professionals are subscribing their software tools these days, right? and for far more than the cost of any of these entertainment subs too....

Exactly, and it has been like that for many years. Not only productivity solutions moved from perpetual licenses to pay-as-you-go or software as a service, but also security solutions, ERPs, development tools, creativity tools (Adobe..), storage, etc.. heck even AI services are pay-as-you-go, OpenAI is monetized by usage of tokens, it's not a perpetual license. For gaming it all started with online gaming subscriptions and it has extended to cloud gaming or gaming subscriptions.

The change from perpetual ownership to rental can't be stopped, and as an example you can have a look to other entertainment subscriptions out there such as Netflix, HBO Max, or Prime Video for movies and tv shows, and Netflix, Tidal, Deezer, or Apple Music when it comes to music. Has any of those services stopped people from buying movies in DVD or Bluray formats? Nope, you can still buy them (with few exceptions of movies released exclusively on Netflix or Amazon), the same can be said about music, the music industry is still selling a lot of albums, heck, even the vinyl format is selling exceptionally well since several years ago.

I understand people have doubt or concerns because of drastic changes in their gaming habits, but it's better to accept the direction this industry took a few years ago.
 
I bought a Series X after the purchase announcement, as it showed how serious Microsoft was about gaming. Absolutely no regrets, I've been SO impressed with the ecosystem, the backcompat, the library, indie support in Gamepass, etc.
Is this a subtle attempt to make you appear more credible, or less biased? I only because...
And I want this deal to fail. The year since its announcement has shown that the Sony approach of building studios, cultivating talent, and investing in quality is the right approach. Microsoft's plan to buy their way to global parity hasn't worked, and there's no sign yet that it will.
This is literally a 180° from before. You bought a Series X specifically because they announced the acquisition. Yet the year since has shown you that the "Sony approach" of...

• "Building Studios". Where are all these home grown studios that Sony has built. Have they built any in the last year, which would cause you to completely reverse your thinking from a year prior?

• "Cultivating Talent". This is largely a catchphrase at this point. But just to be fair. Could you please provide these specific examples of cultivated talent that Sony is currently producing?

• "Investing in quality". Is this doublespeak for Sony buying Bungie or Haven?

And to be fair, there is at least one sign that Microsoft's plan will work. Because isn't that the very reason you bought your Series X to begin with?
Frankly, Phil and Microsoft need to be humbled. They have done SO much right in building an ecosystem. Now they have to do the rest. Their current strategy feels like DCEU dropping Justice League WAY too early in an effort to catch the patient Marvel.
So Phil and Microsoft need to be humbled because "they've done SO much right in building an ecosystem."? How does this even make sense? Even if we go looking for context in the next sentence, "Now they have to do the rest" doesn't really clarify why you believe they should be humbled.
If they want to truly compete with Sony, a company a tiny fraction of their market cap, they need to earn it. Games, not Office 365 money, should be the pathway to success.
Yeah, this is just regurgitated fanboy logic you're citing here. There's a million reasons why this logic fails. Personally, I'd be embarrassed to use it, but seeing as you obviously aren't...

You say "earn it" in a futile attempt to portray a disparity in how Sony and MS compete in the gaming industry. As if by some nondescript morally superior manner, Sony has "earned" it's position, while MS has somehow cheated by using "office 365 money".

It's a flawed argument because basically no company starts out using "earned" money. If you follow this failed logic far enough, you'll quickly conclude that basically nothing has ever been earned. Should Sony abandon VR, because they didn't properly "earn" the funds used to launch PSVR? Surely you wouldn't consider ever buying a Sony TV because that division alone has lost money for years, and almost broke the entire company. In your attempt to play one company against the other, you conveniently forget that you're basically excluding any and every other company not named Nintendo from ever competing in the console market.

Fanboys, diehards, whatever you want to call them exist in just about every industry. I've seen people talk about a brand of car as though it was something it wasn't. I've seen people exaggerate one beer, while completely dismissing another. But I have never seen people jump through so many hoops trying to convince others that company A has gained massive marketshare due to completely to it's morally righteous tactics. While Company B should be despised and "humbled" because of it's underhanded and undeserving tactics.
 
I'm trying to imagine Amazon executives shouting "What do you mean we can't duplicate it and undercut the seller? Look, this thing sells like hotcakes! Did you hear me... hotcakes! I don't care what it takes, go learn to code and get to it. If we're to get a bonus this quarter, it's gotta be up and listed by next Thursday. So I'm not saying you gotta work the weekend or anything, but we need to get on it."
NGL I would totally try Amazon Studios War of Honor Presented by Twitch and Amazon Basics just to see how it was....
 
While that is a possibility (of course), it's extremely unlikely that COD will choose Xbox as its partner if we (and ABK) think about it rationally (instead of emotionally):
  • COD is the leading FPS in the market. They want to be associated with the leading console platform, which is PlayStation.
  • An Xbox marketing agreement may also open the possibility of a Game Pass inclusion on day one. Activision has stated that they do not want to do subscriptions on day one currently, so there is already a misalignment in the broader vision between Activision and Xbox.
  • Xbox gamers do not buy games as much as PlayStation gamers do. So there is a possibility that the net sales decrease would be the result for Activision if they choose Xbox as their marketing partner.
  • Xbox also does not market games as effectively and as extensively as PlayStation does. PlayStation's game marketing is just top-notch as we have seen consistently for years.
  • More importantly, if Activision goes with Xbox, PlayStation would go with Battlefield. As of now, Battlefield is pretty much dead and poses no serious competition to Call of Duty. With this flip, Battlefield may get another chance at revival and may very well become a serious competition once again with the help of PlayStation. ABK will not risk that.
People confusing their personal desire for vengeance with the realities of business

Fact is Sony and Activision Blizzard have a great business relationship that has benefited both parties over the past decade, and if this deal fails Activision will want to return to business as usual and ensure they are still growing revenue

Aligning themselves with Xbox through a marketing deal in 2025 at the peak of PS5 sales is risky, when they will want to reduce risk, and they frankly won't have all that much reason to be cosy with MS as that path of acquisition will close for good
 
They left the door open to help themselves in court to say, we listened to them and it wasn't sufficient.

I don't see what behavioral remedies are going to get this thing across the line. A 20+ year commitment to parity across consoles and equal access on cloud and subscription services (but at what cost)?

Even this might be a bridge too far for Microsoft and I think that would be the bare minimum the CMA would agree to.
Yup the behavioural remedies would have to be cast iron - 25-30 years in length, no wriggle room in terms of absolute parity on release date/dlc/content, third parties having a reserve set price for CoD on subscription services e.g £10m for 12 months of the latest CoD on PS Plus day 1, a commitment to release the games on future competing platforms as and when they rise.

It may as well be divestiture at that point.

Like you say, it's just a formality to say 'we will listen' so MS can't claim undue process later down the line.
 
Lmao, you guys definitely make me laugh harder than era.

Precedent says the CMA won't accept behavioral remedies. Opinions are that Microsoft won't accept divestment. The CMA says they're open to behavioral remedies. Microsoft says this deal was mainly for PC and mobile.

So I don't think anyone knows 100% what's going to happen. Microsoft could say fuck it, we'll divest Activision because it really was about King and Blizzard. OR the CMA could say, those are some easily enforceable behavioral remedies, we'll let is pass. AND Lulu could come into this thread, like the cut of Heisenberg's jib and start an illicit love affair that turns him into an Xbot. :p
You know the NFL? No Fun League. Era is the NFF.
 
They left the door open to help themselves in court to say, we listened to them and it wasn't sufficient.

I don't see what behavioral remedies are going to get this thing across the line. A 20+ year commitment to parity across consoles and equal access on cloud and subscription services (but at what cost)?

Even this might be a bridge too far for Microsoft and I think that would be the bare minimum the CMA would agree to.
Have they left the door open for behavioral remedies in every case that wasn't an outright block? I thought the CMA's process essentially made it so that the court's opinion doesn't matter, it goes back to the CMA if Microsoft wins in court. The whole reason why everyone assumes this is over is because Microsoft doesn't have an avenue to win the right to have it passed in court.

I don't know what behavioral remedies would be sufficient either, I think the main difference between where we stand is a few percentage points. You may think this deal has a 0-1% chance of passing with behavioral remedies, where as I'm around 5%. I'm taking the CMA at their word and not their minds are made up on this.

When you're open to all possibilities it does wonders for your mind. I mean, just look at the meltdown some pro-acquistion people are having. If somehow Microsoft manages to convince the CMA to except behavioral remedies and you think it's an impossibility, you'll be left feeling something.
 
Exactly, and it has been like that for many years. Not only productivity solutions moved from perpetual licenses to pay-as-you-go or software as a service, but also security solutions, ERPs, development tools, creativity tools (Adobe..), storage, etc.. heck even AI services are pay-as-you-go, OpenAI is monetized by usage of tokens, it's not a perpetual license. For gaming it all started with online gaming subscriptions and it has extended to cloud gaming or gaming subscriptions.

The change from perpetual ownership to rental can't be stopped, and as an example you can have a look to other entertainment subscriptions out there such as Netflix, HBO Max, or Prime Video for movies and tv shows, and Netflix, Tidal, Deezer, or Apple Music when it comes to music. Has any of those services stopped people from buying movies in DVD or Bluray formats? Nope, you can still buy them (with few exceptions of movies released exclusively on Netflix or Amazon), the same can be said about music, the music industry is still selling a lot of albums, heck, even the vinyl format is selling exceptionally well since several years ago.

I understand people have doubt or concerns because of drastic changes in their gaming habits, but it's better to accept the direction this industry took a few years ago.

No your understanding of the gaming market is a bit confused or you're twisting it so it fits your argument.

The creative/dev tools subscriptions trend can be equated to subs to individual games (a thing that has been around for a while) not Gamepass, which is like a different thing altogether.

For Adobe I sub to a focused suite of software. Stuff I want/need to use. Gamepass is a thing with limited 'utility' as it's a subscription service to things I don't want to use (play).

So yes one trend is paying/subbing to game (a single game/Gaas), where gamers choose where they want to spend their time and money. Gamepass is in an awkward spot as it is very probable that the games you want to play are not on there.

You can say this is how Netflix works. Lots of content not necessarily of your choosing. But this is how TV has always operated. TV is one and done, you consume the film/show in one day then on to the next thing. Gaming, especially Gaas, or single player games are the opposite in this respect.

So that is why we see Gamepass subs have hit a ceiling. It has limited appeal (I've always argued, what professional values their very limited free time so little that they fill it playing games they didn't choose? Far more likely that those people will buy a handful of games a year or sub to a couple of Gaas type games that they really want to play).
 
Have they left the door open for behavioral remedies in every case that wasn't an outright block? I thought the CMA's process essentially made it so that the court's opinion doesn't matter, it goes back to the CMA if Microsoft wins in court. The whole reason why everyone assumes this is over is because Microsoft doesn't have an avenue to win the right to have it passed in court.

I don't know what behavioral remedies would be sufficient either, I think the main difference between where we stand is a few percentage points. You may think this deal has a 0-1% chance of passing with behavioral remedies, where as I'm around 5%. I'm taking the CMA at their word and not their minds are made up on this.

When you're open to all possibilities it does wonders for your mind. I mean, just look at the meltdown some pro-acquistion people are having. If somehow Microsoft manages to convince the CMA to except behavioral remedies and you think it's an impossibility, you'll be left feeling something.


"
Mergers in the tech or life sciences space can create ecosystem concerns, in particular, when the merger gives the acquirer privileged access to a set of commercially valuable data or an ability to leverage from one product/service area into another. Where does the CMA stand on the use of behavioural remedies such as promises to grant fair and equal access, rather than business divestitures, to resolve competition concerns?

The CMA has conducted a significant amount of analysis on the success of merger remedies (PDF, 512KB), conducting a detailed evaluation of over 18 case studies on an ongoing basis over the last 15 years, spanning structural remedies such as divestiture, behavioural remedies such as price controls and vertical separation, as well as intellectual property and licensing remedies. We are quite unique globally in the amount of ex post analysis we have done on merger remedies to learn from previous experience and refine our approach. This gives us proper standing globally in the discussions about appropriate remedies in merger control.

In relation to behavioural remedies, the CMA has stated together with the ACCC and Bundeskartellamt in the joint statement on merger control that in dynamic markets – like in the tech or life sciences space – it favours structural remedies over behavioural remedies. This is not a change to our standard for assessing remedies but reflects our long-held view, as articulated in our Mergers Remedies Guidance, that behavioural remedies are less likely to effectively address competition concerns, supported by the ex post research we have done as mentioned earlier. The case against behavioural remedies is empirical, and pragmatic. Our starting point is to consider what we have learned across many proceedings in implementing complex and behavioural remedies. That experience shows that the complexity of some markets and transactions renders behavioural remedies less suitable in a number of ways. Behavioural remedies create continuing economic links and are unlikely to create the same level of pre-merger competitive intensity between the merging firms. Behavioural remedies can become quickly outdated or unsuited to remedying issues as markets, products and customer desires change. Structural remedies are more likely to avoid these pitfalls and preserve competition. In our view, where no divestment is available, agencies should not be afraid of prohibiting a merger. Preserving competition is in the best interests of consumers. For example, in Meta/GIPHY, we rejected behavioural remedies proposed by Meta that essentially involved a time-limited commitment to provide continued access to GIPHY. In light of the dynamic and fast-changing nature of the relevant markets, a static behavioural remedy would not have been effective in addressing the competition concerns. A number of problematic deals have been abandoned in the last few years where we did not accept behavioural remedies, for example, Illumina/PacBio, Crowdcube/Seedrs, TopCashback/Quidco. So, advisors should consider the inherent challenges of behavioural remedies before proposing remedies of this nature to resolve competition concerns."
 
Because the Microsoft deal might fail i thought it would be fun to discuss about possible consequences if Microsoft completey leaves the gaming market after this gen.

Will there be any consequences for Nintendo and their customers?
I don't think so

Will there be any consequences for Sony and their customers?
- Unless Nintendo is making a >10 TF home console i think no more timed exclusivity and extra content, no more super expensive AAAs, less marketing, day one Pc releases and probably no disc drive in the PS6.

What will happen to the PlayStation warriors? Who are they gonna hate?
Nintendo

What will happen to the Xbox warriors? What team will they join?
Most of them Pc

What will happen to Microsofts first party studios? Who would be sold to Sony, Tenscent or Embracer and who would be disbanded or become independent? What ips would die?
I have no idea


What do you guys think?
 
Re Mibu: That statement looks bleak for behavioral remedies, but I still don't think that outright means they're impossible. Again, my opinion is that the deal is in all likelihood dead. I doubt Microsoft is willing to divest, and I don't think the CMA will accept behavioral remedies (based on precedent).

This all stemmed from someone saying they don't really pay attention and was asking what could happen next. The person who replied didn't include the option that behavioral remedies could be accepted. Not giving complete information is what I had a gripe with. You can editorialize the information all you want so long as all the information is given.

That's fair, right? Like, if Microsoft pulls off a miracle and passes the deal without divestment, that person who asked for the information is going to be confused. Because they were told the only avenues forward were divestment. It's better to give a full account of what could happen even if you don't believe something will happen.
 
Because the Microsoft deal might fail i thought it would be fun to discuss about possible consequences if Microsoft completey leaves the gaming market after this gen.

Will there be any consequences for Nintendo and their customers?
I don't think so

Will there be any consequences for Sony and their customers?
- Unless Nintendo is making a >10 TF home console i think no more timed exclusivity and extra content, no more super expensive AAAs, less marketing, day one Pc releases and probably no disc drive in the PS6.

What will happen to the PlayStation warriors? Who are they gonna hate?
Nintendo

What will happen to the Xbox warriors? What team will they join?
Most of them Pc

What will happen to Microsofts first party studios? Who would be sold to Sony, Tenscent or Embracer and who would be disbanded or become independent? What ips would die?
I have no idea


What do you guys think?

Going to address each scenario you have looked at here.

No impact to Nintendo? I actually think Nintendo is way more likely to release a competitive home console to Sony if Microsoft abandons the market. Nintendo initially left that segment because it was crowded out, not by Sega, but by Microsoft. the Gamecube was the last console of this segment.

As for your thoughts on Sony, I think they miss the mark as well. I think with diminished competition in the console market, Sony shifts its focus to make inroads in the PC market. With additional money left over from exclusivity deals to block Xbox, I think sony moves to gain exclusivity for a PC launcher. Either outright game exclusivity or content exclusivity. I think you are correct about your assessment of day 1 releases being more likely. I think Sony continues with their AAA games. I think they maintain a disc drive as the disc drive is less about Microsoft and more about keeping regulators at bay and 3rd party marketplaces off of PlayStation.

I think you then see "console wars" shift to ecosystem wars between PlayStation and Steam. With many consumers picking up a PlayStation and some returning to PC, but a split PC market.

Microsoft was a publisher before, and they'll probably continue to be in the future. I think they'll divest from some studios that are no longer profitable and they'll keep their IP.
 
Going to address each scenario you have looked at here.

No impact to Nintendo? I actually think Nintendo is way more likely to release a competitive home console to Sony if Microsoft abandons the market. Nintendo initially left that segment because it was crowded out, not by Sega, but by Microsoft. the Gamecube was the last console of this segment.

As for your thoughts on Sony, I think they miss the mark as well. I think with diminished competition in the console market, Sony shifts its focus to make inroads in the PC market. With additional money left over from exclusivity deals to block Xbox, I think sony moves to gain exclusivity for a PC launcher. Either outright game exclusivity or content exclusivity. I think you are correct about your assessment of day 1 releases being more likely. I think Sony continues with their AAA games. I think they maintain a disc drive as the disc drive is less about Microsoft and more about keeping regulators at bay and 3rd party marketplaces off of PlayStation.

I think you then see "console wars" shift to ecosystem wars between PlayStation and Steam. With many consumers picking up a PlayStation and some returning to PC, but a split PC market.

Microsoft was a publisher before, and they'll probably continue to be in the future. I think they'll divest from some studios that are no longer profitable and they'll keep their IP.
Some interesting ideas, but i don't see Nintendo trying to compete with Sony unless Switch 2 will be a disaster like Wii U .
 
Yes, and that's why I've switched my entire business over to Affinity suite in the last couple of years. One time purchase for each of my team memebers and they provide discounts if you order the licences in batches.

This "service" world that big tech is trying to make everyone sleepwalk towards is not good for anyone and will ultimately end up costing people more in the long run.
I get something similar with pro tools. Music production can be pretty expensive if you want to always be able to use the latest plug ins and stay on top of software updates. Initial cost was £800 a few years back but the updates every year are £300. ON top of that I buy cubase, reason and ableton live updates every year (thats another 500 bucks) yearly plug in alliance sub=300 bucks for 17K worth of software plug ins.... solid state logic yearly sub..thats another 250....Autotune pro yearly sub is another 250. And that dont include my usual 5 year refresh of the gear in the studios. To be honest these devs make so much plug ins its ridiculously expensive. To buy everything UAD makes for example would set you back 5000 bucks...but they also offer a subscription service where you get access to all of it for 15 bucks a month. These things have been popular in music production because it gives amatuers/hobbyists and budget minded professionals alike the opportunity to use tools immediately that they may not be able to afford right now. subs generally have a positive view in the music production space.

and perhaps its this in addition to the fact that I have an itunes account...which used to be sacrilege if you are a musician, but I think its necessary to understand consumer habits...plus we have all come to accept that we cant sell 15 dollar albums anymore...maybe thats why I feel the way I do..if we adapted in the music biz...and the film biz adapted too...then sooner or later the proffesional side of the gaming industry will have to adapt aswell. when the music biz was seeing sharp declines in profits it killed off a lot of big studio and gave birth to smaller ones that threw out the 250K mixers in favours of software.... engineers became producers and vice versa..the internet killed of the A&R roles in the music biz..but people adapted. streamlined and transferred their skills to other parts of the industry

in the movie space people did something similar. we have independent studios making compelling movies with handy cams and M2 macs, where it used to be these big costly film studios... and also doing all the negotiating with netflix/HBO etc.

I dont know how much dev kits cost but I would imagine they are not cheap. plus all the other cost involved in making gaming. It may get more expensive and they offset the cost to gamers with more price hikes in the future, which will drive people to subs sooner or later anyway, even if the sub price goes up. I dont think rising game prices are gonna be do end users any favours in the long term. I know some games with their DLC cost nearly 200 bucks but what happens when we are paying nearly that much for the standard version because the game required 600 plus people to make it plus outsourcing and runs on unreal engine 8, for example?

ON a side note:
There is this one company called waves...they sell you their plug ins for 30 bucks a pop....then hit you with the cost to update it (can be 100 bucks or more depending on what you ought from them) or you can subscribe and get the lot for 10 bucks a month. I would dread if video game companies ever operated like waves, but I see this situation where the cost of single game is more than a years sub . at that point they will consume games the same way they consume their music and movies.
 
What will happen to Microsofts first party studios? Who would be sold to Sony, Tenscent or Embracer and who would be disbanded or become independent? What ips would die?
Xbox will continue business as usual, same with studios just without the incompetet leadership of Phil Spencer & Matt Booty as both of them will 💯 get the booty of the company (hopefully aaron controllerberg follows them as well, it's about we had actual good xbox mainstream marketing)

I just hope they rehire J Allard and/or Peter Moore, they knew what were they doing
 
Re Mibu: That statement looks bleak for behavioral remedies, but I still don't think that outright means they're impossible. Again, my opinion is that the deal is in all likelihood dead. I doubt Microsoft is willing to divest, and I don't think the CMA will accept behavioral remedies (based on precedent).

This all stemmed from someone saying they don't really pay attention and was asking what could happen next. The person who replied didn't include the option that behavioral remedies could be accepted. Not giving complete information is what I had a gripe with. You can editorialize the information all you want so long as all the information is given.

That's fair, right? Like, if Microsoft pulls off a miracle and passes the deal without divestment, that person who asked for the information is going to be confused. Because they were told the only avenues forward were divestment. It's better to give a full account of what could happen even if you don't believe something will happen.

I agree all information should be presented. The deal as of today has not been blocked.

The CMA is open to hearing behavioral remedies but based on precedence and their general stance on behavioral remedies part of having all the information is understanding and communicating that those behavioral remedies are unlikely to be adopted by the CMA just as they weren't with Facebook/Giphy. Ultimately the CMA ordered divestiture, which Microsoft could in theory accept, but again that's unlikely to happen either.

They'll force them to divest from CoD and probably Infinity Ward and Treyarch as primarily CoD companies. They'd have to find a buyer and set a price to those assets. Amazon, Google, and Apple will be the primary bidders along with Tencent and maybe Netflix.

Microsoft overpaid for Activision BECAUSE of CoD, that isn't a remedy they'll accept. They don't care about the rest of ABK.
 
Some interesting ideas, but i don't see Nintendo trying to compete with Sony unless Switch 2 will be a disaster like Wii U .

Nintendo can have their cake and eat it too. If they think they can get significant market share from Microsoft, it becomes worth it to release a more powerful system, especially with how successful their software has been of late.

The Switch is already more expensive than the XSS and outselling it. The question is how much are they willing to take a loss on hardware in order to gain significant market share, which could give them a significant boost in 3rd party royalties.

Nintendo is perfectly positioned to step in.
 
I agree all information should be presented. The deal as of today has not been blocked.

The CMA is open to hearing behavioral remedies but based on precedence and their general stance on behavioral remedies part of having all the information is understanding and communicating that those behavioral remedies are unlikely to be adopted by the CMA just as they weren't with Facebook/Giphy. Ultimately the CMA ordered divestiture, which Microsoft could in theory accept, but again that's unlikely to happen either.

They'll force them to divest from CoD and probably Infinity Ward and Treyarch as primarily CoD companies. They'd have to find a buyer and set a price to those assets. Amazon, Google, and Apple will be the primary bidders along with Tencent and maybe Netflix.

Microsoft overpaid for Activision BECAUSE of CoD, that isn't a remedy they'll accept. They don't care about the rest of ABK.
I agree 100%, and the bolded part is why I said you could editorialize all you want. I always state that I think it's highly unlikely behavioral remedies will be accepted.
 
I agree all information should be presented. The deal as of today has not been blocked.

The CMA is open to hearing behavioral remedies but based on precedence and their general stance on behavioral remedies part of having all the information is understanding and communicating that those behavioral remedies are unlikely to be adopted by the CMA just as they weren't with Facebook/Giphy. Ultimately the CMA ordered divestiture, which Microsoft could in theory accept, but again that's unlikely to happen either.

They'll force them to divest from CoD and probably Infinity Ward and Treyarch as primarily CoD companies. They'd have to find a buyer and set a price to those assets. Amazon, Google, and Apple will be the primary bidders along with Tencent and maybe Netflix.

Microsoft overpaid for Activision BECAUSE of CoD, that isn't a remedy they'll accept. They don't care about the rest of ABK.
Couldnt they just sell the COD IP to one of them? If COD is whats its all about..... I feel like having the talent would be a better catch than the IP itself. They could task IW to make another FPS...just dont call it COD. put treyarch back to work on on tony hawks or an orignal IP. Of course that might effectively kill COD....... and amazon or whoever can do whetever with COD.
 
Xbox will continue business as usual, same with studios just without the incompetet leadership of Phil Spencer & Matt Booty as both of them will 💯 get the booty of the company (hopefully aaron controllerberg follows them as well, it's about we had actual good xbox mainstream marketing)

I just hope they rehire J Allard and/or Peter Moore, they knew what were they doing

If we know anything it's that Microsoft will not continue BAU.

Either they'll look to make a different buy or set of buys or they'll leave the market.

Despite what many people are telling you, GamePass isn't working nor is it on a path of sustainability.

Microsoft desperately needs to increase its market share AND increase its subscriber base.

The question then becomes who can they target next that would make a near term impact and there's really no good answer there.

There is no GTA3 on the horizon in gaming at the moment. The nearest thing to it would have been Cyberpunk as we envisioned it in 2020. And I don't even think that would have done it.

They'd need to go on a buying spree of minor studios with games coming out in 2022 and 2023. And I mean CDPR size studios, but even if you look at CDPR they won't have the witcher remake or witcher 4 out for a few years.

The CMA probably. wouldn't let them buy T2 with their history of exclusivity.
 
Couldnt they just sell the COD IP to one of them? If COD is whats its all about..... I feel like having the talent would be a better catch than the IP itself. They could task IW to make another FPS...just dont call it COD. put treyarch back to work on on tony hawks or an orignal IP. Of course that might effectively kill COD....... and amazon or whoever can do whetever with COD.

Comes down to what the CMA see as the COD brand. If they see those two studios as intrinsically tied to the brand, they'll have to sell them as well. Could be easily argued that the engines and studios behind it are as much a part of the brand as the name.

They didn't tell Facebook they could sell the giphy name but keep the employees and tech...
 
Because the Microsoft deal might fail i thought it would be fun to discuss about possible consequences if Microsoft completey leaves the gaming market after this gen.

Will there be any consequences for Nintendo and their customers?
I don't think so

Will there be any consequences for Sony and their customers?
- Unless Nintendo is making a >10 TF home console i think no more timed exclusivity and extra content, no more super expensive AAAs, less marketing, day one Pc releases and probably no disc drive in the PS6.

What will happen to the PlayStation warriors? Who are they gonna hate?
Nintendo

What will happen to the Xbox warriors? What team will they join?
Most of them Pc

What will happen to Microsofts first party studios? Who would be sold to Sony, Tenscent or Embracer and who would be disbanded or become independent? What ips would die?
I have no idea


What do you guys think?
This discussion may be a bit premature at this stage, as Xbox will likely continue operating (though they become third-party in a few years, but that's a different prediction of mine).

Just to answer these hypothetical questions, however:
  • I think we might see a new entrant, like Apple, which could be good competition for Sony.
  • Most of the Xbox studios will be picked up by other companies: EA, Sony, Tencent, Embracer, etc. Sony might go for studios like Obsidian, Arkane, Tango, and Bethesda.
  • Bigger XGS like Mojang could stay independent.
  • There won't be any noticeable consequences for Nintendo.
  • For Sony, it may mean changes -- positive and negative -- but I can't predict what those would be at the moment.
  • The industry, overall, will see higher game sales etc. Fewer console ports will also mean better and less expensive game launches.
 
Last edited:
I think what is most likely at this point is that the deal gets blocked, which will lead to the end of Phil Spencer and Bobby Kotick.

I think the end of Phil Spencer marks the end of GamePass and I think the end of GamePass marks the end of Xbox.

I think there will be an arms race to fill the void Xbox leaves behind. I think you could see a scenario in which someone else buys Activision for considerably less and creates their own console built around the CoD brand (exclusive).

I think you then see anyone who lost out on Activision maybe look at buying T2 and doing the same around Red Dead and GTA.

Tencent would love to have a console that would sell extremely well in China, but market it globally. Apple, Amazon, and Google definitely want to be in this space as does Netflix.
 
Re the ABK and Sony relationship post this deal, I think an interesting factor is that Sony may have a game that is extremely similar in terms of genre/style via Deviation Studios.

I do wonder how much they would be spending in marketing for that game (Deviation) .

They are probably committed to a certain level of spend for COD until 2026 but afterwards, they (Sony) may want to naturally reduce that commitment.

It's going to be an interesting couple of years.

Yeah, Sony's own live-service shooter games (+ Destiny) may cannibalize some of the marketing and COD.

For Deviation specifically, however, there is a possibility that the Deviation's game is a sci-fi one set on Mars, so it can just be different enough to co-exist with COD.

Yeah haven't paid too much attention to the Deviation game but yeah, if it isn't a military shooter then yeah, may be okay to co-exist without a huge concern about inefficient marketing ROAS.

Hell, we're not even thinking about whatever game Firewalk is making for PlayStation. Based on the background of a lot of its devs, they could quite easily be working on an FPS as well
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom