Support NeoGAF

[Heisenberg007]

Convince is going to be really difficult especially with how they handled Bethesda.

True. Behavioral remedies are also extremely tough. Only 1 out of 42 acquisitions got the behavioral access remedies approved by the CMA, and none of those acquisitions was as big as this one.

 

[RickMasters]

Basically Microsofts only choice is to concede or drop the deal. It doesn't sound like they can get ABK without any concessions.

I dont think conceding COD is a bad idea at all. They could do a lot more with the rest of the IP anyway. especially blizzard IP and the remaining non COD IP and studios. But I dont think ABK is worth 70Bn without COD. thats a discussion between MS and ABK. But ABK may not want to let go of COD and the shareholders want that 70Bn. If COD is truly off the table and divestment of COD is the only way forward, the price has to be lower. Im in favour, but then Im not then Im not the buying or selling, and neither are any of us.


Im curious to know the value of COD, IW and treyarch combined, minus the rest of ABK. If its worth that much maybe this deal might only be worth half of what its worth... 40-50Bn at best?

 

[Heisenberg007]

I dont think conceding COD is a bad idea at all. They could do a lot more with the rest of the IP anyway. especially blizzard IP and the remaining non COD IP and studios. But I dont think ABK is worth 70Bn without COD. thats a discussion between MS and ABK. But ABK may not want to let go of COD and the shareholders want that 70Bn. If COD is truly off the table and divestment of COD is the only way forward, the price has to be lower. Im in favour, but then Im not then Im not the buying or selling, and neither are any of us.


Im curious to know the value of COD, IW and treyarch combined, minus the rest of ABK. If its worth that much maybe this deal might only be worth half of what its worth... 40-50Bn at best?

Just FYI - MS did submit the separate value of Activision in the documents. So they had already ascertained its value when the acquisition started.

It's redacted in the CMA documents, so we just don't know what the value is.

 

[Pelta88]

My favourite era member swimming in cope

 

[RickMasters]

Arent almost all of if not all of Activision core studios working on COD? And isn't that why the CMA says "divest COD and the dev structure" but how? All of these Activision studios work on it? "Divesting Activision is an option" but then it's almost worthless from a core gaming aspect! "Divesting AB also works for us" but then we only get mobile!? "Mr Phil Spencer?"

yeah most of em. as far as IP, I think whats left is crash bandicoot, spyro and tony hawks....and long dead IP like prototype (which could actually be a descent superhero style game if they wanted to reboot) and pitfall. they could make some descent single player exclusives out of those. WoW and starcraft would be good for gamepass on a new teir that would probably also include the monthly pass for ESO and fallout..throw in battle passes for overwatch while there at it?) single player games set in WoW and starcraft universes. But thats not worth 70Bn.....ill take a guess and say 40. What they would get would be blizzard,King, and the remaining activision IP and devs for those games assuming they are not tied up in COD too. so maybe as far as activision all they get is the IP, and activision becomes just the COD company (which is what they basically are anyway) like 343i is the halo company...IW and trey arch the devs..locked into making COD for everything perpetually until they or the game dies, no less...whats that worth and who is allowed to buy it?

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

No the FTC are just stalling things by going through an internal judge. The same judge who Microsoft informed that they would consummate the deal should it be approved elsewhere before it even goes before him.

The FTC needs to go to a federal court and win to block anything. They were just stalling in the hope that other regulators block it so that they wouldn't even need to go to a federal court.

Thats not true, even if FTC rejects the deal, MS can go to court, they could win and the FTC must rescind the decision.

 

[GHG]

Just FYI - MS did submit the separate value of Activision in the documents. So they had already ascertained its value when the acquisition started.

It's redacted in the CMA documents, so we just don't know what the value is.

Yep they will have done that during the pre-acquisition due diligence process.

Every single business unit will have a valuation attached to it, somewhat like an itemised bill.

 

[RickMasters]

Just FYI - MS did submit the separate value of Activision in the documents. So they had already ascertained its value when the acquisition started.

It's redacted in the CMA documents, so we just don't know what the value is.

So they know the answer. sort of. Guess they better start internal negotiations for a new deal. or walk away from it. Maybe 70Bn was a silly number to begin with....and the idea of a platform holder owning COD freaks people out too much. Maybe they should have considered these worst case options (using the perspective of the buyer, in this case MS) where they dont get the whole thing and what that might be worth. I dont know how these things work, but I still think that even without COD ABK has some value. just not 70Bn. And if Ms decides to back out and just pay the 3Bn which is still less than the 70 they would have paid with a tonne of strings attached or simply ended up attached. Going forward...if I was the purchaser, Id settle for ABK, minus COD. I wonder if it had been discussed between them as a potential outcome before going through all of this. Maybe they have but are still fighting for their best possible outcome

 

[MasterCornholio]

So they know the answer. sort of. Guess they better start internal negotiations for a new deal. or walk away from it. Maybe 70Bn was a silly number to begin with....and the idea of a platform holder owning COD freaks people out too much. Maybe they should have considered these worst case options (using the perspective of the buyer, in this case MS) where they dont get the whole thing and what that might be worth. I dont know how these things work, but I still think that even without COD ABK has some value. just not 70Bn. And if Ms decides to back out and just pay the 3Bn which is still less than the 70 they would have paid with a tonne of strings attached or simply ended up attached. Going forward...if I was the purchaser, Id settle for ABK, minus COD. I wonder if it had been discussed between them as a potential outcome before going through all of this. Maybe they have but are still fighting for their best possible outcome

It seems like Microsoft was caught off guard with this. They definitely were not expecting this much resistance. No idea why they thought this would be easy given their PR statements.

 

[harry mason 1989]

My favourite era member swimming in cope

I think some of these are just trolling and pretending to be pro acquisition they're are actually mocking the shills in that thread

 

[Heisenberg007]

So they know the answer. sort of. Guess they better start internal negotiations for a new deal. or walk away from it. Maybe 70Bn was a silly number to begin with....and the idea of a platform holder owning COD freaks people out too much. Maybe they should have considered these worst case options (using the perspective of the buyer, in this case MS) where they dont get the whole thing and what that might be worth. I dont know how these things work, but I still think that even without COD ABK has some value. just not 70Bn. And if Ms decides to back out and just pay the 3Bn which is still less than the 70 they would have paid with a tonne of strings attached or simply ended up attached. Going forward...if I was the purchaser, Id settle for ABK, minus COD. I wonder if it had been discussed between them as a potential outcome before going through all of this. Maybe they have but are still fighting for their best possible outcome

They will first attempt behavioral access remedies, one last time. Once that fails, they will likely walk away from the deal.

I don't see them utilizing the divestiture option.

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

Microsoft said they would release COD on PlayStation as long as it exists. They shouldn't have an issue meeting CMAs requirements since making COD exclusive was never a priority for them.

Thats not totaly true, MS has been flipfloping like a rabit, first it was idd as long as PS exist, then for some reason it was 5 years, now it is 10 years...its called flipflopping when they need to....

 

[Rac3r]

I keep seeing people talk about how Microsoft will go nuclear if this deal doesn't pass. I thought Gamepass was them going nuclear. Later I heard it was Bethesda. Currently it's ABK. If this deal fails it'll be Japanese publishers like Sega + Capcom. Shit is ridiculous.

 

[Banjo64]

'

My favourite era member swimming in cope

'We'll be getting arse fucked by Britain in the New Year'

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

I keep seeing people talk about how Microsoft will go nuclear if this deal doesn't pass. I thought Gamepass was them going nuclear. Later I heard it was Bethesda. Currently it's ABK. If this deal fails it'll be Japanese publishers like Sega + Capcom. Shit is ridiculous.

As far as I am aware, as a foreigner you can't buy or do an hostile takeover of a japanese company, even if its stock traded.

Well it is not impossible but seems quite hard to get it done compared to most over countries.

 

[gothmog]

Mom said no. Dad said no. The grandparents said no. But there's still a chance they're just joking.

 

[IFireflyl]

They said:
https://gamerant.com/players-ps5-call-of-duty-exclusive-games/

You didn't read that article properly.

A significant majority of gamers who took part in the survey (89%) stated that they opted for purchasing the PlayStation 5 due to the availability of one or more games. Of that 89%, almost three quarters (73%) stated that they bought their PlayStation 5 unit in order to play Call of Duty.

Call of Duty wasn't the ONLY game that people said they bought a PlayStation 5 for. If Call of Duty was the only game they were looking for it wouldn't matter whether they bought an Xbox Series X or a PlayStation 5 as the game is on both platforms. That's common sense.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

You didn't read that article properly.



Call of Duty wasn't the ONLY game that people said they bought a PlayStation 5 for. If Call of Duty was the only game they were looking for it wouldn't matter whether they bought an Xbox Series X or a PlayStation 5 as the game is on both platforms. That's common sense.

Also of the 40k Call of Duty gamers polled, get this: One of the games they bought their console for was Call of Duty. Shocking.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

I keep seeing people talk about how Microsoft will go nuclear if this deal doesn't pass. I thought Gamepass was them going nuclear. Later I heard it was Bethesda. Currently it's ABK. If this deal fails it'll be Japanese publishers like Sega + Capcom. Shit is ridiculous.

When you put 69 billions on the table for a business that do not make that much money in a generation (Xbox consoles do not have that much revenue in the cumuled years of Xbox one operation) there is only a few things that can happen: it works or it do not work. If it does not work as it seems that the CMA has refused the deal as initialy proposed by Microsoft and asked for big changes, then they either try more or go out of the market.

Global Xbox gaming software revenue 2025 | Statista

In 2020, gaming software revenue for Microsoft's Xbox console series amounted to 4.79 billion U.S.

www.statista.com

Not the best source and obviously bullshit numbers but better than nothing.

They can't go out of the gaming business after buying Zenimax recently and telling investors that gaming can and will be a big pillar to Microsoft in the future. So they have to try even harder if the deal fail. I can see that logic from a fan/ Xbox supporter point of view.
That's probably why you can see people in this thread talking about Microsoft quiting the gaming market : a failed merger will probably lead to the firing of the executives that pushed for it. In this case Phil Spencer at the minimum, and of his team. Like the Xbox One failure led to the end of Don mattrick at Microsoft. Both of those are not really on the cards right now, but Microsoft will have to answer and tell their plans soon. Microsoft can and did quit markets that they were invested in (Windows phone, and more recently Mixer not long after a big deal that they made with the streamer Ninja). At the same time they can simply use more money and try to make it work.

In my opinion a hungry Xbox like they were under Peter Moore is the best that we can hope for. The funny thing for me is that it would take years for the merger to be effective. And we already lost months in the most important years of a console. Buying Zenimax was a good play that gave them time and lessened the pressure. This is becoming not a good move that will hurt Xbox competitors and help them to their objectives but a simple question: will they or will they not? And that is sad when they need to be all in on the competition they have right now with Sony and Nintendo. They are third and losing market share. Game pass needs consoles to sell and the transition from Xbox one to Xbox Series seems to be slower than the PS4 to PS5. A lot of the big games presented in 2020 ( Avowed, Fable, Project dark and Hellblade 2) are still not showing any progress when that would be a killer conference to have them seen with gameplay. In comparison all of Sony first party games in their conference(GOW Ragnarok, Demon's souls,HZD2, Ratchet, Returnal...) have been put on the market to critical and commercial success. Only a few exclusives like Kotor are missing in action.
I am a gamer. I want good games to play. If Fable is good I will naturaly go buy it and play it. And if this game and others from Xbox are good it will make me think of buying the next Xbox console. That is what they should do. Make games. I hope that they continue to do so and that we will have good news at this E3.

 

[gothmog]

When you put 69 billions on the table for a business that do not make that much money in a generation (Xbox consoles do not have that much revenue in the cumuled years of Xbox one operation) there is only a few things that can happen: it works or it do not work. If it does not work as it seems that the CMA has refused the deal as initialy proposed by Microsoft and asked for big changes, then they either try more or go out of the market.

http://[URL]https://www.statista.com/statistics/200035/xbox-gaming-software-revenue-global/

[/URL]
Not the best source and obviously bullshit numbers but better than nothing.

They can't go out of the gaming business after buying Zenimax recently and telling investors that gaming can and will be a big pillar to Microsoft in the future. So they have to try even harder if the deal fail. I can see that logic from a fan/ Xbox supporter point of view.
That's probably why you can see people in this thread talking about Microsoft quiting the gaming market : a failed merger will probably lead to the firing of the executives that pushed for it. In this case Phil Spencer at the minimum, and of his team. Like the Xbox One failure led to the end of Don mattrick at Microsoft. Both of those are not really on the cards right now, but Microsoft will have to answer and tell their plans soon. Microsoft can and did quit markets that they were invested in (Windows phone, and more recently Mixer not long after a big deal that they made with the streamer Ninja). At the same time they can simply use more money and try to make it work.

In my opinion a hungry Xbox like they were under Peter Moore is the best that we can hope for. The funny thing for me is that it would take years for the merger to be effective. And we already lost months in the most important years of a console. Buying Zenimax was a good play that gave them time and lessened the pressure. This is becoming not a good move that will hurt Xbox competitors and help them to their objectives but a simple question: will they or will they not? And that is sad when they need to be all in on the competition they have right now with Sony and Nintendo. They are third and losing market share. Game pass needs consoles to sell and the transition from Xbox one to Xbox Series seems to be slower than the PS4 to PS5. A lot of the big games presented in 2020 ( Avowed, Fable, Project dark and Hellblade 2) are still not showing any progress when that would be a killer conference to have them seen with gameplay. In comparison all of Sony first party games in their conference(GOW Ragnarok, Demon's souls,HZD2, Ratchet, Returnal...) have been put on the market to critical and commercial success. Only a few exclusives like Kotor are missing in action.
I am a gamer. I want good games to play. If Fable is good I will naturaly go buy it and play it. And if this game and others from Xbox are good it will make me think of buying the next Xbox console. That is what they should do. Make games. I hope that they continue to do so and that we will have good news at this E3.

Zenimax really did save them. This year would be just Forza and Minecraft without them?

I still don't understand why people think there's no mismanagement over at Xbox. Even if it was Covid that completely ripped the studios sideways everyone else seems to have righted the ship. Arkane and a few of the others seem to have fared better than the rest, but it's not enough.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

still don't understand why people think there's no mismanagement over at Xbox.

Mismanagement is a harsh word. You can never know what happened in private at Microsoft. When I try to put myself on Phil shoes, I have a lot of respect for him. When Microsoft saw Don Mattrick fail the Xbox one launch, they did not have the confidence and support that they have now for the division.
Phil did some hard moves in that generation, he cut the Kinect relatively fast, aligned the Xbox one with the Ps price. And made moves for the Xbox hardcore fans.
It was a hard choice to go and make emulation in software of the Xbox 360 a free proposition when they knew that it was not planned before launch. And he choose to make the One X, when he knew that the high price and a year later launch than the PS4 Pro would kill its chanced to be as successful. Those decisions helped the brand in my opinion. Going Pc too was a hard decision. He tried to make games too but a certain number failed( crakdown3, Recore, Scalebound...)
With Gamepass he convinced Microsoft to go all in in Xbox. For a big company as Microsoft this is not a easy thing to do. After the failure of Tomb Raider exclusivity I can understand that he refused to try again and go for studios instead. But time is running out. I hope that some good games arrives soon.

 

[SneakersSO]

My favourite era member swimming in cope

Whats hysterical about this is that these same folks in that Era thread were, back in like October, they were all saying that MS was estimating the deal would close by December. In fact, I know for a fact MS NEVER anticipated the FTC suing to block the deal. So yeah, they are morons.

 

[IFireflyl]

Zenimax really did save them. This year would be just Forza and Minecraft without them?

I still don't understand why people think there's no mismanagement over at Xbox. Even if it was Covid that completely ripped the studios sideways everyone else seems to have righted the ship. Arkane and a few of the others seem to have fared better than the rest, but it's not enough.

Agreed. Freaking Avalanche Software dropped a bombshell with Hogwarts Legacy. They have never made a AAA game before, and development didn't begin until 2017 or 2018. If they can do it, Microsoft with its giant leg up in resources can do it, too. The only thing stopping them, in my opinion, is their mismanaging of their studios.

I do, however, hope that Microsoft pulls their head out of their ass so they can turn things around. I am not a nihilist that wants to see Sony with virtually no competition. I am against this acquisition because I oppose Microsoft buying their way into competition instead of improving their already vast number of studio's quality, but if Microsoft could improve first-party output while maintaining a healthy third-party library? Well that's good for everyone. It would force Sony to stay on their A-game. It would give Microsoft more revenue. It would give PC gamers (that would be me) more day-one release content. And it would give me a peace of mind that some of the IPs that Microsoft owns (like Fable and Halo) aren't at risk of being put out to the pasture.

 

[DryvBy]

I'm kind of curious if you're an Xbox fan, why do you want this to go through? Is it so you can claim "we have games!" now? If I was a fan, I still wouldn't want them owning the franchises given they have the most studios and the least amount of AAA blockbusters.

You have Bethesda right now and I'm really curious what they're going to do when Todd leaves and it's up to Microsoft to fully manage them. Starfield and ES6 isn't even really their product or idea. I have a feeling it's going to be another Rare where it took them 10 years to put out a title that did any numbers.

I won't even argue, of course these are my opinions mixed with some facts above, but if Sony or Nintendo was doing a yearly "this is gonna be our biggest year ever" and they have less to show for that year than the Jaguar on year 2, I would be furious if they're were buying a company that knows how to put out a product.

 

[Banjo64]

Agreed. Freaking Avalanche Software dropped a bombshell with Hogwarts Legacy. They have never made a AAA game before, and development didn't begin until 2018. If they can do it, Microsoft with its giant leg up in resources can do it, too. The only thing stopping them, in my opinion, is their mismanaging of their studios.

I do, however, hope that Microsoft pulls their head out of their ass so they can turn things around. I am not a nihilist that wants to see Sony with virtually no competition. I am against this acquisition because I oppose Microsoft buying their way into competition instead of improving their already vast number of studio's quality, but if Microsoft could improve first-party output while maintaining a healthy third-party library? Well that's good for everyone. It would force Sony to stay on their A-game. It would give Microsoft more revenue. It would give PC gamers (that would be me) more day-one release content. And it would give me a peace of mind that some of the IPs that Microsoft owns (like Fable and Halo) aren't at risk of being put out to the pasture.

That 2018 thing isn't correct. Gameplay footage leaked in 2018 (this is a copy)

 

[SneakersSO]

Mismanagement is a harsh word. You can never know what happened in private at Microsoft. When I try to put myself on Phil shoes, I have a lot of respect for him. When Microsoft saw Don Mattrick fail the Xbox one launch, they did not have the confidence and support that they have now for the division.
Phil did some hard moves in that generation, he cut the Kinect relatively fast, aligned the Xbox one with the Ps price. And made moves for the Xbox hardcore fans.
It was a hard choice to go and make emulation in software of the Xbox 360 a free proposition when they knew that it was not planned before launch. And he choose to make the One X, when he knew that the high price and a year later launch than the PS4 Pro would kill its chanced to be as successful. Those decisions helped the brand in my opinion. Going Pc too was a hard decision. He tried to make games too but a certain number failed( crakdown3, Recore, Scalebound...)
With Gamepass he convinced Microsoft to go all in in Xbox. For a big company as Microsoft this is not a easy thing to do. After the failure of Tomb Raider exclusivity I can understand that he refused to try again and go for studios instead. But time is running out. I hope that some good games arrives soon.

Mismanagement is actually too nice a label to put on whats been happening at Xbox since about 2008, which coincidentally is when Phil Spencer took on the head of Xbox 1st party. Its very easy to lay the blame of the X1 on Mattrick's feet, but the real test of the X1 generation is what their software output turned into after the launch period. Even when the PS3 and the Wii U fell flat, you can see that their platform holders focused on ensuring really strong production pipelines for their software, to prepare them for their next generations. Sony's turnaround on PS3 sw was so strong that they actually took the marketshare lead from 360 WW before that generation was well and truly over. So many of the Wii U titles and output turned into an incredible year 1 & 2 software slate for the Switch. So what did Xbox One look like from 2014 - 2018; it was some of the worst years of the division in terms of exclusive output. The best thing that happened was Spencer convincing Nadella of his business plan in 2017 and thus 'saving' Xbox from basically getting spun out and sold.

The slate has been inconsistent at best, irrelevant at worst since 2011. As for Gamepass, convincing Microsoft to go all in on a new service is precisely what SAVED the Xbox division in 2017. From my colleagues at MS back then, I know the conversations that were had about Xbox devolved into 'Why are still trying to be a HW company? We have dropped almost all of our HW positions outside of Surface and even that has become a very selective audience we are catering towards. Why is this business plan still happening?'. The answer was to transition Xbox from hardware focused to Software & Services, which is precisely how the most lucrative Microsoft divisions operate.

Microsoft still secured timed exclusives after Tomb Raider. Spencer still tried - Dead Rising 4 happened AFTER Tomb Raider, for example. The reason why MS was unable to secure even more deals is because the price for them kept increasing. As the sales split kept growing in Sony's favor, the cost kept going up, and their budget expansion didn't really kick in until 2018.

The common denominator throughout all of this is how anemic and poorly managed the projects were turning out. Even the Xbox One X - tremendous waste of time and resources. The best selling launch of HW they had last generation was the X1S, by far. The X1X delayed their start of 'next-gen' by years, all so they could 'get the power crown' from Sony, a title which has helped them exactly 0 times when trying to compete against Sony, either last gen or this one.

Spencer gets roped into the worst narratives and decisions possible, and the fans bend over backwards to excuse him for it. The only silver lining I have about this deal, again, after having had some very recent convos with MS colleagues, is that Spencer and his crony management group is currently not set to survive should the deal get blocked. Its part of the reason why they have been radio silent this week. I know, take with a grain of salt and all that, but its just what i've heard. I think some of the growing mountain of complaints from regulators essentially stemming from comments Spencer has made are winding up acting as ammo to sink the deal. If I sunk nearly $20b into a division, almost sunk another $70b, and that still isn't giving me a position to actually compete in the markets i'm participating in, i'd probably axe the management group as well, no matter how well curated his support and PR is.

 

[IFireflyl]

That 2018 thing isn't correct. Gameplay footage leaked in 2018 (this is a copy)

Even if it isn't correct, it's only possible for it have to begun development in 2017 or 2018. Avalanche Software was acquired by Warner Bros. in 2017, and Warner Bros. has the licensing rights to Harry Potter.

Harry Potter RPG possibly in works by Avalanche Software

Warner Bros. Interactive's Avalanche Software may be working on a new triple-A Harry Potter RPG.

www.tweaktown.com

That pretty much confirms that development would have started no earlier than 2017. I went ahead and edited my post to say "2017 or 2018" just to avoid any confusion. Thanks for the heads up, by the way.

 

[Banjo64]

Even if it isn't correct, it's only possible for it have to begun development in 2017 or 2018. Avalanche Software was acquired by Warner Bros. in 2017, and Warner Bros. has the licensing rights to Harry Potter.

http://[URL]https://www.tweaktown.c...-possibly-works-avalanche-software/index.html

[/URL]

That pretty much confirms that development would have started no earlier than 2017. I went ahead and edited my post to say "2017 or 2018" just to avoid any confusion. Thanks for the heads up, by the way.

No worries, I didn't realise they were acquired in 2017.

I agree with your sentiment. Since 2018 (when MS acquired a load of studios) the output has been horrendous. 5 years is ample time.

 

[Helghan]

This year alone could be a pure bloodbath. We could be looking at 30m PS5s sold to 10m or under xbox series sold.

What indicates a 3-1 split in sales? This wasn't even the case with PS4…

I'm kind of curious if you're an Xbox fan, why do you want this to go through? Is it so you can claim "we have games!" now? If I was a fan, I still wouldn't want them owning the franchises given they have the most studios and the least amount of AAA blockbusters.

More games on GP day 1. That's why I want this to go through. I don't care if any of those games launch on PlayStation or not.

 

[Iced Arcade]

I'm kind of curious if you're an Xbox fan, why do you want this to go through? Is it so you can claim "we have games!" now? If I was a fan, I still wouldn't want them owning the franchises given they have the most studios and the least amount of AAA blockbusters.

I want it to go through WITH a high level of contracted behavior remedies.

Because:
- I want more games on both gamepass and PS Plus services. I'm not paying $100 for your annual games anymore.

- if forced to sell off the COD and studios... Its a very high probability that they will be picked up by a players like Apple or Amazon and then none of us Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo fans will get them... The arguments of potential monopoly in gaming won't work against Apple or Amazon.

 

[GHG]

Spencer gets roped into the worst narratives and decisions possible, and the fans bend over backwards to excuse him for it. The only silver lining I have about this deal, again, after having had some very recent convos with MS colleagues, is that Spencer and his crony management group is currently not set to survive should the deal get blocked. Its part of the reason why they have been radio silent this week. I know, take with a grain of salt and all that, but its just what i've heard. I think some of the growing mountain of complaints from regulators essentially stemming from comments Spencer has made are winding up acting as ammo to sink the deal. If I sunk nearly $20b into a division, almost sunk another $70b, and that still isn't giving me a position to actually compete in the markets i'm participating in, i'd probably axe the management group as well, no matter how well curated his support and PR is.

It would actually end up being somewhat poetic if it ultimately ends up being his constant fetish for PR which ends up being his downfall. In the case of this activision deal it's quite literally becoming a case of him falling on his own sword.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

Mismanagement is actually too nice a label to put on whats been happening at Xbox since about 2008, which coincidentally is when Phil Spencer took on the head of Xbox 1st party. Its very easy to lay the blame of the X1 on Mattrick's feet, but the real test of the X1 generation is what their software output turned into after the launch period. Even when the PS3 and the Wii U fell flat, you can see that their platform holders focused on ensuring really strong production pipelines for their software, to prepare them for their next generations. Sony's turnaround on PS3 sw was so strong that they actually took the marketshare lead from 360 WW before that generation was well and truly over. So many of the Wii U titles and output turned into an incredible year 1 & 2 software slate for the Switch. So what did Xbox One look like from 2014 - 2018; it was some of the worst years of the division in terms of exclusive output. The best thing that happened was Spencer convincing Nadella of his business plan in 2017 and thus 'saving' Xbox from basically getting spun out and sold.

The slate has been inconsistent at best, irrelevant at worst since 2011. As for Gamepass, convincing Microsoft to go all in on a new service is precisely what SAVED the Xbox division in 2017. From my colleagues at MS back then, I know the conversations that were had about Xbox devolved into 'Why are still trying to be a HW company? We have dropped almost all of our HW positions outside of Surface and even that has become a very selective audience we are catering towards. Why is this business plan still happening?'. The answer was to transition Xbox from hardware focused to Software & Services, which is precisely how the most lucrative Microsoft divisions operate.

Microsoft still secured timed exclusives after Tomb Raider. Spencer still tried - Dead Rising 4 happened AFTER Tomb Raider, for example. The reason why MS was unable to secure even more deals is because the price for them kept increasing. As the sales split kept growing in Sony's favor, the cost kept going up, and their budget expansion didn't really kick in until 2018.

The common denominator throughout all of this is how anemic and poorly managed the projects were turning out. Even the Xbox One X - tremendous waste of time and resources. The best selling launch of HW they had last generation was the X1S, by far. The X1X delayed their start of 'next-gen' by years, all so they could 'get the power crown' from Sony, a title which has helped them exactly 0 times when trying to compete against Sony, either last gen or this one.

Spencer gets roped into the worst narratives and decisions possible, and the fans bend over backwards to excuse him for it. The only silver lining I have about this deal, again, after having had some very recent convos with MS colleagues, is that Spencer and his crony management group is currently not set to survive should the deal get blocked. Its part of the reason why they have been radio silent this week. I know, take with a grain of salt and all that, but its just what i've heard. I think some of the growing mountain of complaints from regulators essentially stemming from comments Spencer has made are winding up acting as ammo to sink the deal. If I sunk nearly $20b into a division, almost sunk another $70b, and that still isn't giving me a position to actually compete in the markets i'm participating in, i'd probably axe the management group as well, no matter how well curated his support and PR is.

Its a shame then. You think that instead of the One X they could have worked towards the next gen earlier than the series S/X that we got?
It is true that the time of the current leadership of Xbox is running out if the deal does not happen. We will see that soon anyway.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Spencer gets roped into the worst narratives and decisions possible, and the fans bend over backwards to excuse him for it. The only silver lining I have about this deal, again, after having had some very recent convos with MS colleagues, is that Spencer and his crony management group is currently not set to survive should the deal get blocked. Its part of the reason why they have been radio silent this week. I know, take with a grain of salt and all that, but its just what i've heard. I think some of the growing mountain of complaints from regulators essentially stemming from comments Spencer has made are winding up acting as ammo to sink the deal. If I sunk nearly $20b into a division, almost sunk another $70b, and that still isn't giving me a position to actually compete in the markets i'm participating in, i'd probably axe the management group as well, no matter how well curated his support and PR is.

Ironic that if this deal gets blocked it's because of Xbox, a product that doesn't even make sense for MS anymore. I bet you if they could end Xbox HW division without facing a shit storm from their fanbase monster they created and getting this deal through, they would.

 

[GHG]

- if forced to sell off the COD and studios... Its a very high probability that they will be picked up by a players like Apple or Amazon and then none of us Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo fans will get them... The arguments of potential monopoly in gaming won't work against Apple or Amazon.

This is an incorrect assumption that I keep on seeing repeated in this thread.

Finding another buyer for the COD (and related) business units is actually the least likely scenario if they decide to go down the route of divestment. Regulators preference will be for those business units to remain independent rather than have to go through an entirely new investigative process in the event that another big business attempts to pick them up.

The most likely scenario is that they are simply spun off into a new independent business entity.

 

[Sanepar]

Ironic that if this deal gets blocked it's because of Xbox, a product that doesn't even make sense for MS anymore. I bet you if they could end Xbox HW division without facing a shit storm from their fanbase monster they created and getting this deal through, they would.

They would not shut down. They would sell to someone.

 

[SneakersSO]

Agreed. Freaking Avalanche Software dropped a bombshell with Hogwarts Legacy. They have never made a AAA game before, and development didn't begin until 2017 or 2018. If they can do it, Microsoft with its giant leg up in resources can do it, too. The only thing stopping them, in my opinion, is their mismanaging of their studios.

I do, however, hope that Microsoft pulls their head out of their ass so they can turn things around. I am not a nihilist that wants to see Sony with virtually no competition. I am against this acquisition because I oppose Microsoft buying their way into competition instead of improving their already vast number of studio's quality, but if Microsoft could improve first-party output while maintaining a healthy third-party library? Well that's good for everyone. It would force Sony to stay on their A-game. It would give Microsoft more revenue. It would give PC gamers (that would be me) more day-one release content. And it would give me a peace of mind that some of the IPs that Microsoft owns (like Fable and Halo) aren't at risk of being put out to the pasture.

Okay, I wanna chime in on this, because I feel most folks on forums are completely missing the state of the traditional console market and where the industry is moving. For starters, the way that most of the big platform holders conduct business has largely evolved, at least wrt Sony/MS. Nintendo is doing their own mobile/hybrid thing, but the reason I don't really count them in this discussion is that all of their revenue is almost entirely generated by them selling their own software, which isn't the case with PS or MS.

So the quick thing here that must be understood is that: Sony and MS are indirectly competing with one another, but there is no reality in which MS poses direct threat to Sony, at least in so far that MS, outside of consolidating the market, can force Sony to act. This is primarily why Spencer is opting for consolidation: there isn't really anything else they can do to force Sony to directly compete with them. But Sony is also evolving its business plan, its just doing it in a way where they can sustain their current gains while increasing gains elsewhere, aka, launching software on Steam, and investing in launching more MP titles that will target console/PC on day 1.

Right now, all of the platform holders still primarily rely on making income through software sales. Unfortunately, MS' plan really shot their ability to sell software in the foot; the goal was to have the increase in service revenue from GP offset the loss of SW sales in an ongoing basis. The SW sales losses are far outpacing the growth in service/sub revenue however. To add to that, their HW sales are also tanking right now. But this has been the case with them since about.... 2018/2019? New HW launch really helped them paper over the problem spots of their business plan, but now that we are decidedly out of that launch window, the issues are glaring.

For Sony, much of their SW is selling great on both console and PC, which means their competition isn't just MS - its now anyone making content on either PS or Steam, much in the same way that Nintendo directly views any SW producer/published on the Switch as competition for their own SW. This, in turn, forces both Nintendo and Sony to invest and continue focusing on making their software output the highlight of their respective platforms, and in the case of Sony, to make their SW output a highlight of when they are released on Steam (this is why 2 of Sony's buys were excellent PC port houses). What has massively helped Sony in this regard is that where they have largely operated and built up their capabilities towards, delivering world-class Single Player titles, is something 3rd parties increasingly and ultimately largely abandoned in the 360 & X1 generation. With Sony being one of the few really delivering compelling SP SW, this allowed them to build a massive audience.

Sony operates in the gaming space much in the same way Apple now operates in the mobile/tech space - they focus their efforts on innovation and experiences, instead of competition. Sony will always be on its 'A-game' because they have largely positioned SIE to act increasingly as a 3rd party publisher in some ways, and in doing so, they open the door of competition. As Sony's revenue split between console and PC begins to even out in the next 4 or 5 years, you will see Sony have the PS console act as their living room experience, while the 'need' to sell as much HW as they currently need to just starts going away completely.

 

[Sanepar]

I want it to go through WITH a high level of contracted behavior remedies.

Because:
- I want more games on both gamepass and PS Plus services. I'm not paying $100 for your annual games anymore.

- if forced to sell off the COD and studios... Its a very high probability that they will be picked up by a players like Apple or Amazon and then none of us Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo fans will get them... The arguments of potential monopoly in gaming won't work against Apple or Amazon.

Lol keep dreaming gamepass will stay cheap with abk on ms hands and a bill of $69bn

 

[Iced Arcade]

Ironic that if this deal gets blocked it's because of Xbox, a product that doesn't even make sense for MS anymore. I bet you if they could end Xbox HW division without facing a shit storm from their fanbase monster they created and getting this deal through, they would.

Man you get such weird hard on for hating Xbox lol

This is an incorrect assumption that I keep on seeing repeated in this thread.

Finding another buyer for the COD (and related) business units is actually the least likely scenario if they decide to go down the route of divestment. Regulators preference will be for those business units to remain independent rather than have to go through an entirely new investigative process in the event that another big business attempts to pick them up.

The most likely scenario is that they are simply spun off into a new independent business entity.

Well if that's ends up the case, its not such a big deal then. Would probably be the best resolution.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I don't think it's equivalent to divestment. They get the profit and some control. They'd be able to decide the release schedule and put those developers on other projects. They wouldn't have to maintain the current Call of Duty pipeline (yearly release). They could have those studios collaborate with and give their expertise to other studios under Microsoft. There are tons of reasons to keep go the hard route of behavioral over divestment. One is Call of Duty on Gamepass. It just would have to be available to all other game subscription services at FRAND terms.

I think they view that as a path worth trying for.

There are holes in this approach:

-Put Devs On Other Projects: This could lead to less COD content because not enough hands are available to produce it, which goes into the other issue...

-Rid Current COD Pipeline: This basically means MS reduces the annual revenue ABK brings in, because if they aren't bringing out a new COD annually, that's a year's worth of a new COD release's revenue not getting met. They can't guarantee that a singular release every two years can bring in the same revenue as a regular annual pipeline. It'd also contradict a talking point MS have used in supposed reasoning for not making COD exclusive or even putting it in Game Pass: it makes too much revenue. Well, if you change the release pipeline to where you're skipping every other year, now you run the risk of halving the revenue (theoretically). Does that create an impetus to therein actually make COD exclusive?

MS already kind of argued something like this with TES6, saying it's a "smaller scale" game and is the reason it'll be exclusive to Xbox on console. So this already suggests they're either going to make it smaller than Skyrim, or are breaking it up in chunks for the service, or something along those lines. Moving COD to a one-every-two-years release schedule could be similarly argued as a scale-down of the IP and it can be argued MS would use that reduced scale of release frequency to justify exclusivity in the future since it could result in notably less revenue.

-Have Studios Collaborate: It can be argued they don't need to buy ABK to facilitate this. The Initiative are collaborating with Crystal Dynamics right now on Perfect Dark, and CD are owned by Embracer Group. MS are working with Avalanche on Contraband, and have Playground working with Eidos Montreal on Fable as well as 343i with Creative Assembly (and potentially quite a few others) on Halo Infinite. Microsoft doesn't own any of those external studios, but they are obviously helping to provide expertise with the MS studios they're working with.

Again, MS can try going the route of behavioral remedies but if those examples are the best they have, they won't get very far.

You do realise that if Microsoft wants to make other acquisitions of this size the CMA will be looking at how they reacted to this one correct?

Not just this size; any size. Microsoft could buy a $500 restaurant; if they ignore the CMA's ruling on ABK, CMA would shut that $500 restaurant acquisition down.

This is an incorrect assumption that I keep on seeing repeated in this thread.

Finding another buyer for the COD (and related) business units is actually the least likely scenario if they decide to go down the route of divestment. Regulators preference will be for those business units to remain independent rather than have to go through an entirely new investigative process in the event that another big business attempts to pick them up.

The most likely scenario is that they are simply spun off into a new independent business entity.

Ah, I was hoping this is the case. Had been told otherwise earlier ITT, basically that they had to sell it to another company.

If MS are forced to spin off COD & Activision into their own thing, I mean there would be publishing folks they could spin off with them and have them operate independently. The only thing I'm curious about from there is if MS can retain partial ownership in the divested entity. If they're able to act as a moderate minority shareholder, but the company operates independently regardless.

There were some other things I had in mind with such a divestiture but some of those would have to be decided upon by the divested asset itself (as an independent company).

 

[IFireflyl]

<wall of text>

Why did you respond to me? Your response to my post had nothing to do with my actual post.

 

[Iced Arcade]

Lol keep dreaming gamepass will stay cheap with abk on ms hands and a bill of $69bn

Oh I said multiple times I expect Microsoft have channel subscriptions within the gamepass subscription like Amazon does.

"Base Gamepass to include Microsoft studio games, additional sub for the Bethesda channel, Activision channel etc"

Personally think it's terrible and gross but won't shock me.

 

[demigod]

I want it to go through WITH a high level of contracted behavior remedies.

Because:
- I want more games on both gamepass and PS Plus services. I'm not paying $100 for your annual games anymore.

- if forced to sell off the COD and studios... Its a very high probability that they will be picked up by a players like Apple or Amazon and then none of us Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo fans will get them... The arguments of potential monopoly in gaming won't work against Apple or Amazon.

So you want to pay $180 a year instead of paying $70 for yearly CoD, what a brilliant idea. Drop the act, we know which company you are batting for.

 

[SneakersSO]

They would not shut down. They would sell to someone.

I also want to clear this up as well - there is no scenario, and I hope no one ever truly entertains this idea - that Microsoft would get out of gaming. Thats nonsense, and i'm going to spell out why in this post (strap-in!).

So, lets start with how MS and specifically Azure have been creating a suite of cloud services *tailor-made* for gaming. Like, I know it can look like that I am anti-MS or Xbox, but i'm really not; I am unapologetically anti-Spencer and think his shit management is precisely why Xbox has been in and continues to be in the positions they are. But with that said, things like Azure Playfab are AMAZING for gaming, and are, imo, a far better solution for videogame network engineering than AWS currently is. Azure caught up in a big way. Have any of you tried Capcom's SF6? Their entire Cloud infra is built in Azure. Even some of Sony's upcoming titles will be built and hosted in Azure. Its truly great stuff.

Microsoft's development tools, whether we're talking about the build tools or just Visual Studio, whether its full VS Pro or even Visual Studio Code, integrates into almost any engine or dev resource out there, is also yet another reason why MS will always be in gaming, that says nothing about how big Github is increasingly becoming in the game dev space (although P4 is still ruling the source control roost there due to being able to have it host full uncompressed assets for some of the biggest files in gaming - audio/textures). When we talk about things on the GL API side, they are still the foundation of PC gaming with DirectX, despite having solid alternatives out there.

Okay, what about outside of the gaming development side? The thing with games is that SW are still fantastic revenue generators. The biggest problem facing the Xbox division right now is that Spencer, and factually know that this is Spencer's call, really wants to compete in the console/HW space. Imagine, for a moment, that MS truly didn't give a fuck about selling HW - they'd be releasing games for all the studios they just purchased on anything that can run it - Nintendo/Sony/Mobile - they could expand xCloud to any platform that could want it. They'd see incredible returns on SW; the biggest thing keeping them afloat right now is SW revenue from Steam of all things! Without the HW focus, MS would be able to expand GP to any platform they wish, scale it back so that they weren't putting Day 1 AAA into it (this is killing them and is intended to be a console pushing move but it isn't working thus far).

If Nadella finally realizes what is holding back Xbox, axes Xbox leadership, and transitions them from being a HW-led business plan to truly being a SW/service division like he actually wanted them to be, they'd probably wind up being the biggest publisher in gaming by revenue, and they probably hit that within 24 months or so. Imagine titles like Grounded or Redfall dropping day 1 on Switch and PS - that is where Nadella wants them to be, not this fight over selling Xbox hw that Spencer seems to be obsessed with.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Not just this size; any size. Microsoft could buy a $500 restaurant; if they ignore the CMA's ruling on ABK, CMA would shut that $500 restaurant acquisition down.

As I mentioned earlier people are going crazy with what Microsoft can actually do. Microsoft won't pull out of Xboxs biggest market. Its just an insane situation to fantasise over. Regulation is there to protect competition and consumers. If their decisions mean nothing then large firms can do whatever they want in any market. They have to have power in order to protect the markets. Microsoft can't just ignore their decisions.

 

[SneakersSO]

Why did you respond to me? Your response to my post had nothing to do with my actual post.

it was what you were mentioning about how MS needs to be this big player in order to keep Sony in check, when my post is essentially detailing that the thing now keeping Sony in check is the quality of software on the platforms they are releasing software into, and no longer other HW producers.

 

[Topher]

So you want to pay $180 a year instead of paying $70 for yearly CoD, what a brilliant idea. Drop the act, we know which company you are batting for.

Iced Arcade is a level headed guy. I don't think he is battling for any company. He wants this to benefit him personally, as he should.

 

[adamsapple]

So you want to pay $180 a year instead of paying $70 for yearly CoD, what a brilliant idea. Drop the act, we know which company you are batting for.

It's not 180 if you use gold conversion, and base game pass is not 180 even at full price. Second, there's a lot more to either service than CoD. The user said more 'games'.

Relax.

 

[splattered]

I also want to clear this up as well - there is no scenario, and I hope no one ever truly entertains this idea - that Microsoft would get out of gaming. Thats nonsense, and i'm going to spell out why in this post (strap-in!).

So, lets start with how MS and specifically Azure have been creating a suite of cloud services *tailor-made* for gaming. Like, I know it can look like that I am anti-MS or Xbox, but i'm really not; I am unapologetically anti-Spencer and think his shit management is precisely why Xbox has been in and continues to be in the positions they are. But with that said, things like Azure Playfab are AMAZING for gaming, and are, imo, a far better solution for videogame network engineering than AWS currently is. Azure caught up in a big way. Have any of you tried Capcom's SF6? Their entire Cloud infra is built in Azure. Even some of Sony's upcoming titles will be built and hosted in Azure. Its truly great stuff.

Microsoft's development tools, whether we're talking about the build tools or just Visual Studio, whether its full VS Pro or even Visual Studio Code, integrates into almost any engine or dev resource out there, is also yet another reason why MS will always be in gaming, that says nothing about how big Github is increasingly becoming in the game dev space (although P4 is still ruling the source control roost there due to being able to have it host full uncompressed assets for some of the biggest files in gaming - audio/textures). When we talk about things on the GL API side, they are still the foundation of PC gaming with DirectX, despite having solid alternatives out there.

Okay, what about outside of the gaming development side? The thing with games is that SW are still fantastic revenue generators. The biggest problem facing the Xbox division right now is that Spencer, and factually know that this is Spencer's call, really wants to compete in the console/HW space. Imagine, for a moment, that MS truly didn't give a fuck about selling HW - they'd be releasing games for all the studios they just purchased on anything that can run it - Nintendo/Sony/Mobile - they could expand xCloud to any platform that could want it. They'd see incredible returns on SW; the biggest thing keeping them afloat right now is SW revenue from Steam of all things! Without the HW focus, MS would be able to expand GP to any platform they wish, scale it back so that they weren't putting Day 1 AAA into it (this is killing them and is intended to be a console pushing move but it isn't working thus far).

If Nadella finally realizes what is holding back Xbox, axes Xbox leadership, and transitions them from being a HW-led business plan to truly being a SW/service division like he actually wanted them to be, they'd probably wind up being the biggest publisher in gaming by revenue, and they probably hit that within 24 months or so. Imagine titles like Grounded or Redfall dropping day 1 on Switch and PS - that is where Nadella wants them to be, not this fight over selling Xbox hw that Spencer seems to be obsessed with.

Sure, except without other HW consoles for Sony to compete with their prices will skyrocket. Sony HAS to have healthy competition even in the hardware space otherwise we all seriously suffer.

 

[SneakersSO]

Sure, except without other HW consoles for Sony to compete with their prices will skyrocket. Sony HAS to have healthy competition even in the hardware space otherwise we all seriously suffer.

Do you truly believe the reason why the PS5 is $499 is because of Xbox? Do you think the reason why Apple now routinely charges $1000 for an iPhone is due to Google/Android? Do you think Nintendo felt any pressure to cut the price of the Switch (they have yet to do this btw) when MS announced they were launching a next-gen machine at $299?

Sony will set prices along what they feel their value proposition is and what they know consumers are willing to pay. The days of Sony going for some crazy tech config that completely throws their pricing strategy out the window a la PS3 are done. The console market and console users are delicate - if they feel the value proposition is off, they simply just don't buy it; this is exactly what happened to the Wii U despite it not really having a competitor in that HW space. Consumers just opted to not buy the Wii U, and instead hopped right back in with the Switch 4 years later - we didn't see a massive spike in 360/PS3 sales around when Wii U sales fell completely flat. This now applies doubly so for Sony because SIE consumers now have 2 places they can play SIE SW - Steam and PS.

 

[splattered]

Do you truly believe the reason why the PS5 is $499 is because of Xbox? Do you think the reason why Apple now routinely charges $1000 for an iPhone is due to Google/Android? Do you think Nintendo felt any pressure to cut the price of the Switch (they have yet to do this btw) when MS announced they were launching a next-gen machine at $299?

Sony will set prices along what they feel their value proposition is and what they know consumers are willing to pay. The days of Sony going for some crazy tech config that completely throws their pricing strategy out the window a la PS3 are done. The console market and console users are delicate - if they feel the value proposition is off, they simply just don't buy it; this is exactly what happened to the Wii U despite it not really having a competitor in that HW space. Consumers just opted to not buy the Wii U, and instead hopped right back in with the Switch 4 years later - we didn't see a massive spike in 360/PS3 sales around when Wii U sales fell completely flat. This now applies doubly so for Sony because SIE consumers now have 2 places they can play SIE SW - Steam and PS.

Sure, just like they priced themselves out of the computer market? I have a friend that lost his long time job at Sony because they sold "a more elegant solution" to the point that people just stopped putting up with their shit and they had to shut it down. An unchecked Sony is an insanely arrogant Sony and that's the worst case scenario for all of us. No, they don't give two fucks how "delicate" we are, they will push and push and gouge as much as they think they can get away with. If you don't believe this to be the case then I don't know what to tell you. Look at the price of everything they sell. TVs, cameras, etc. All super expensive and it would be even worse if they didn't have solid competition from other companies out there. They priced the ps5 at $500 because they didn't want to be undercut by Microsoft, not because they gauged the market and decided to do us all a favor.