Nothing1234
Banned
Buying stocks always has risks attached, only buy what you can afford to lose. If you went heavy on stock because you thought it would pass easily that is on you.
The way they use him as a puppet to be on TV for interviews, i doubt they are booting him.Propaganda. Kotick is stooping low, but not surprising from him.
These are the death throws of a man who's gone either way. His fear, no golden parachute.
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.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.
The door is open but extremely small to squeeze through. As you said, it likely won't happen.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)
Microsoft has made waaaay more big purchases. Also this is the biggest purchase for the FAANG companies by a mile.
TaggingOops, you are right! Apologies, everyone for jumping the gun. In my defense, it was 2 AMand 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 believeSenjutsuSage 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.
Won't somebody think of the poor investors in all of this?
"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."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.
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.
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.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).
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Of course. It's pretty simple, actually.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?
Yeah, Sony's own live-service shooter games (+ Destiny) may cannibalize some of the marketing and COD.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 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.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.
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.
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.
Of course. It's pretty simple, actually.
- Sony will acquire Activision for COD
- Microsoft will acquire CMA for future acquisitions.
- I'll acquire Lulu
![]()
Lmao, you guys definitely make me laugh harder than era.
- I'll acquire Lulu
![]()
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.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?
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....
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.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?
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.
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....
Is this a subtle attempt to make you appear more credible, or less biased? I only because...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.
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...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.
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.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.
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...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.
NGL I would totally try Amazon Studios War of Honor Presented by Twitch and Amazon Basics just to see how it was....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."
People confusing their personal desire for vengeance with the realities of businessWhile 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.
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.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 know the NFL? No Fun League. Era is the NFF.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.![]()
I don't believe you. I believe you'll have enough incentive to foreclose after your acquisitionOnly after I have had my way with her! She's too crazy to keep but worth it for the short term "investment'
![]()
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.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.
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.
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."
That, plus with that plan you still have to deal with the competition. In the buyout scenario the competition will disappear. Hence the conserns.You do realise that people are required to develop those games? You don't just inject $70bn into your existing studios and magically get 140 AAA games.
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?
Some interesting ideas, but i don't see Nintendo trying to compete with Sony unless Switch 2 will be a disaster like Wii U .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.
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.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.
Xbox will continue business as usual, same with studios just without the incompetet leadership of Phil Spencer & Matt Booty as both of them willWhat 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?
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.
Some interesting ideas, but i don't see Nintendo trying to compete with Sony unless Switch 2 will be a disaster like Wii U .
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.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.
Xbox will continue business as usual, same with studios just without the incompetet leadership of Phil Spencer & Matt Booty as both of them willget 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
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.
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).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 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.