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

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
ChorizoPicozo said:
this is another thing i have seen. the idea of 'not paying for games' (let's be honest here folks) when people talk about this...they are talking about AAA games.

the affordability of accessing games has never being lower.

you can wait for a discount/promotion.
you can take advantage of giveaways like the Epic Store for example....and game pass as a concept is not even new. (you pay money then you get access to games). is just an evolution of previous services.

and there are millions of cheap and good games out there.

So, this promise that Phil did: "Day One First Party games" is the carrot in the stick; is the promise land.

and if the value of GP is tied to this idea/expectation.... things are going to get rough.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you are complaining about. If MS wants to provide customers with their first party games as part of a subscription let them. I don't see this 'game affordability' you are talking about unless you are talking mobile titles. Sony and Nintendo titles have never been more expensive and I'm glad to see a high end developer make bigger titles more accessible and affordable. If you don't want to subscribe to Game pass, don't. You can still purchase games at full retail if it makes you feel better.
 
Tiago Rodrigues said:
Are they changing strategies any time soon? Or people still think Phil Spencer to change things? Guy's been CEO for 10 years.

It's weird the way he always gets a pass.

If Xbox wasn't from MS it would've been closed down for years. How people still like the guy is beyond me.
Click to expand...
We don't fully know what they are planning. We have speculation and the worlds of a man who many of you say can't be taken at face value…. Starting a counter point with his words is probably not the best way to start a counter point. Especially on the gaf.
 
RickMasters said:
People said that about this the chances of this deal happening. Things are being said very differently now. Ten years of industry change can bring unforeseen things…. Don't count your chickens too early.
Click to expand...

What "people" said about the chances of this happening has zero to do with the possibility of the Xbox brand being a golden goose for Microsoft.
 
feynoob said:
Why people want MS to buy more studios?

Shouldn't they build their own studios after Activision purchase?
Wouldn't that be better than going again and buying another studio.
Click to expand...
It's about sending a message nothing more nothing less. It's like the Joker said" look what all I did with a couple of barrels of gasoline and some sticks of dyno mite." In this case MS used millions of dollars to turn the videogame industry on its head.

Money GIF


Jim and friends won't think MS is kicking can anymore!

Also, yes it's time to start building from organic development. One more Japanese purchase should be the end of publisher buying. (Only because MS has no footing in Japan at all.)


Why did MS do all this, probably because they got tired of hearing about what they could and couldn't do in this industry!
 
Last edited:
Ozriel said:
None of what you wrote in your first two paragraphs is relevant. There's no need re-litigating how they ended up with their respective market shares. all that matters is the market situation at the moment, and outlook in the near to mid future.
Click to expand...
It matters when it gives a company the ability to make large-scale moves using that money to change its position in the market either via influence or outspending. It's not completely irrelevant. Sure, you can make the argument that it is fair game, it is their money to invest, however they see fit, but this isn't a story of "poor little Microsoft," because they are anything but little, and their position in the market (in relation to gaming) changed simply due to their own actions or inaction.

The only thing a regulator should concern themselves with is whether or not the merger/acquisition provides a significant lessening in competition and causes significant harm to consumers.
Click to expand...

OK? And?

Did you watch the clip shared in the post I was responding to?

Simply put, the FTC is not out to protect Sony. Agree with their take or not, and as you just pointed out, their concern should be AND is with the merger/acquisition and its potential impact to competition and/or harm to consumers. They may not find anything to be wrong, or they might find somethings to be wrong or concerning. My post was in response to the person I quoted.

Anyway, why are you lot still concerned about this? It is going through so just chill and relax lol
 
Last edited:
DarkMage619 said:
I am not sure what you are complaining about.
Click to expand...
i am not complaining, i am making an observation.
DarkMage619 said:
If MS wants to provide customers with their first party games as part of a subscription let them.
Click to expand...
and that is what Phil promised.
DarkMage619 said:
I don't see this 'game affordability' you are talking about unless you are talking mobile titles. Sony and Nintendo titles have never been more expensive and I'm glad to see a high end developer make bigger titles more accessible and affordable
Click to expand...
see? you prove my point. Its about AAA games.

DarkMage619 said:
If you don't want to subscribe to Game pass, don't. You can still purchase games at full retail if it makes you feel better.
Click to expand...
i am not talking about me. I am taking from a point of view of analysis of the situation, an observation of narratives and arguments around this topic.

Marketing/PR is one hell of thing. People expect AAA games to be delivered by MS/Xbox Day One on Game Pass and this is how Xbox had positioned that service....Quality and Scope take time and money, the more time Xbox takes to deliver games of that caliber the value of GP is going to suffer.












 
People saying the FTC is out to protect Sony, like they said about the CMA before the flip flop and sudden newfound praise for them, are lost in the console war fanatical sauce.
 
DeepEnigma said:
People saying the FTC is out to protect Sony, like they said about the CMA before the flip flop and sudden newfound praise for them, are lost in the console war fanatical sauce.
Click to expand...

Just like how CADE was the champion of people for asking inquires but then suddenly we shifted to how corrupt Brazil is after a certain point last year.


kids-spinning.gif
 
feynoob said:
Why people want MS to buy more studios?
Click to expand...
I could probably argue that I want MS to buy more games or IP from other publishers. The more games that they can add to GamePass the better. (Note that I didn't say exclusively on GamePass).

I know MS can just pay these publishers to add their games on GamePass but I'd imagine that's more risky for new IP as it could totally fail and they'd have no control over the messaging, quality and exclusive features on other platforms.

I'd imagine it's foolish to approach publishers like ABK and asking only to buy the Call Of Duty IP Etc so a total buyout is a more clear strategy.

Idk though. I know nothing about how this billion dollar companies work.
 
You understand jim doesn't work for Microsoft right? his job is to attempt to beat the fuck out of them. Phil's job is to do the same. He's just been not successful. When this deal goes through sony will just devise new ways to do that, that's how this works.
 
DeepEnigma said:
People saying the FTC is out to protect Sony, like they said about the CMA before the flip flop and sudden newfound praise for them, are lost in the console war fanatical sauce.
Click to expand...

Just like those who defended the decency and good work of the CMA until it became a shameful example of an incompetent, corrupt regulator paid by MS ?

Or how CADE went from being a serious regulator to a criminal organization in a corrupt country.

The regulators of Serbia, Chile, Arabia.... ??Where are they located on the world map??

That is, the pretentious thing is to want to make believe that doing flip flops is only a thing of green rats.
 
Darsxx82 said:
Just like those who defended the decency and good work of the CMA until it became a shameful example of an incompetent, corrupt regulator paid by MS ?

Or how CADE went from being a serious regulator to a criminal organization in a corrupt country.

The regulators of Serbia, Chile, Arabia.... ??Where are they located on the world map??

That is, the pretentious thing is to want to make believe that doing flip flops is only a thing of green rats.
Click to expand...
If You Say So Shrug GIF
 
ulantan said:
You understand jim doesn't work for Microsoft right? his job is to attempt to beat the fuck out of them. Phil's job is to do the same. He's just been not successful. When this deal goes through sony will just devise new ways to do that, that's how this works.
Click to expand...

Yes, no one is expecting Sony to close shop if the deal goes through, just like how no one is expecting MS to stop doing business in the UK if CMA declines it.
 
ChorizoPicozo said:
this is another thing i have seen. the idea of 'not paying for games' (let's be honest here folks) when people talk about this...they are talking about AAA games.

the affordability of accessing games has never being lower.

you can wait for a discount/promotion.
you can take advantage of giveaways like the Epic Store for example....and game pass as a concept is not even new. (you pay money then you get access to games). is just an evolution of previous services.

and there are millions of cheap and good games out there.

So, this promise that Phil did: "Day One First Party games" is the carrot in the stick; is the promise land.

and if the value of GP is tied to this idea/expectation.... things are going to get rough.
Click to expand...
I want more free games and i want them now! Give me Diablo 4 + my wow sub.
 
HerpDerpstreit said:
I have zero doubt that if the deal is approved by the big 3 before June 6th that Diablo 4 will be on gamepass day one. It will be on there day 1 after the deal is approved, regardless of when that finally comes.
Click to expand...

Waiting for a May miracle, haven't pre ordered the game just for that lol.
 
ChorizoPicozo said:
this is another thing i have seen. the idea of 'not paying for games' (let's be honest here folks) when people talk about this...they are talking about AAA games.

the affordability of accessing games has never being lower.

you can wait for a discount/promotion.
you can take advantage of giveaways like the Epic Store for example....and game pass as a concept is not even new. (you pay money then you get access to games). is just an evolution of previous services.

and there are millions of cheap and good games out there.
Click to expand...
I don't think I would have ever played Slay the Spire if it wasn't in Gamepass, nor Grounded. Grounded especially, as it's way harder to convince friends to jump into a new game for $40 USD and hope it's good.

Deathloop doesn't look like a game I would ever willingly buy, but hey.. if it's available on Gamepass I'm much more likely.

Gamepass takes away that leap of faith you need to try something new out. I don't have to research a game's metacritic score to wonder if it's worth the $20-40. I can just play it if it's intriguing to me.

ChorizoPicozo said:
So, this promise that Phil did: "Day One First Party games" is the carrot in the stick; is the promise land.

and if the value of GP is tied to this idea/expectation.... things are going to get rough.
Click to expand...
How are things going to get rough? Something's perceived value doesn't equal it's cost. Gamepass' value rising doesn't mean prices will rise equally.

Gamepass becomes financially viable when subscriber count grows. As subscriber count grows, revenue grows while expenses stay roughly the same. One way to keep subscriber count growing is by adding value to the service.
 
mrmustard said:
Why not? Would push the GP numbers and the price is almost the same.
Click to expand...
I've wondered if they would add that one or not. I'm still on the fence, but leaning towards it not being included. I doubt they'd lose any WoW customers if it was included, and it could be a great GP hook. But on the other hand, they'd basically be giving one service away for free based on current prices for each, and there has to be some overlap between WoW subs and Gamepass subs I think. So at least some revenue would be immediately lost if true.
 
ChorizoPicozo said:
this is another thing i have seen. the idea of 'not paying for games' (let's be honest here folks) when people talk about this...they are talking about AAA games.

the affordability of accessing games has never being lower.

you can wait for a discount/promotion.
you can take advantage of giveaways like the Epic Store for example....and game pass as a concept is not even new. (you pay money then you get access to games). is just an evolution of previous services.

and there are millions of cheap and good games out there.
Click to expand...

Man, this is the most illogical thing I've read in this thread, and believe me that's a high bar to cross.

I pay for a subscription already. I'm now supposed to turn away from games that come to that service and pay extra elsewhere? Or play 'millions of cheap and free games' instead of what I really want to play?



ChorizoPicozo said:
So, this promise that Phil did: "Day One First Party games" is the carrot in the stick; is the promise land.

and if the value of GP is tied to this idea/expectation.... things are going to get rough.
Click to expand...

Family Feud Lol GIF by Steve Harvey



Yeah, if Day One AAA games on GP is something you loathe, things are certainly going to get rough for you, down the line
 
Last edited:
sainraja said:
It matters when it gives a company the ability to make large-scale moves using that money to change its position in the market either via influence or outspending. It's not completely irrelevant. Sure, you can make the argument that it is fair game, it is their money to invest, however they see fit, but this isn't a story of "poor little Microsoft," because they are anything but little, and their position in the market (in relation to gaming) changed simply due to their own actions or inaction.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't matter as long as their large scale moves doesn't constitute an SLC.

It certainly isn't a story of 'poor little Sony' like you lot depict.

sainraja said:
and their position in the market (in relation to gaming) changed simply due to their own actions or inaction.
Click to expand...

Biggest inaction on their part was letting their first party pipeline to stagnate.
Now they're investing heavily to fix this and you're complaining.


sainraja said:
Simply put, the FTC is not out to protect Sony. Agree with their take or not, and as you just pointed out, their concern should be AND is with the merger/acquisition and its potential impact to competition and/or harm to consumers. They may not find anything to be wrong, or they might find somethings to be wrong or concerning. My post was in response to the person I quoted.

Anyway, why are you lot still concerned about this? It is going through so just chill and relax lol
Click to expand...

I've never said they were out to protect Sony. The way I see it, Lina Khan and her folks don't like big acquisitions and are deeply suspicious of Big Tech.

I do think you're showing much more concern about this than I am 😃
 
POKEYCLYDE said:
I don't think I would have ever played Slay the Spire if it wasn't in Gamepass, nor Grounded. Grounded especially, as it's way harder to convince friends to jump into a new game for $40 USD and hope it's good.
Click to expand...
exalcty, that is the value of a sub-service. (weird,small, out of your wheel house) games.

and even you are pointing out another fucked up issue:

consumers see a $40 game as a lesser product; the irony.

POKEYCLYDE said:
Deathloop doesn't look like a game I would ever willingly buy, but hey.. if it's available on Gamepass I'm much more likely.
Click to expand...
That is my point.

POKEYCLYDE said:
Gamepass takes away that leap of faith you need to try something new out. I don't have to research a game's metacritic score to wonder if it's worth the $20-40. I can just play it if it's intriguing to me.
Click to expand...
to you.

i am not talking about individual behaviour.


POKEYCLYDE said:
How are things going to get rough? Something's perceived value doesn't equal it's cost. Gamepass' value rising doesn't mean prices will rise equally.
Click to expand...
Because of expectations.

again:

Phil Spencer/Xbox sold game pass with the promise of "First Party Day One Games"

what is the expectation...we are taking about Xbox (Play Station's direct competitor backed by a triple trillion dollar company with 20+ years in the industry)?


answer: AAA games.


look for the narrative IF redfall is a 70 on meta...


POKEYCLYDE said:
Gamepass becomes financially viable
Click to expand...
I am not talking about financial viability.
POKEYCLYDE said:
when subscriber count grows. As the subscriber count grows, revenue grows while expenses stay roughly the same. One way to keep the subscriber count growing is by adding value to the service.
Click to expand...
1 AAA game is more valuable than 1000 Indies:
uPldgDz.jpg

i asked this and no one gave me an answer:

why, if Game Pass is such an amazing value is not having anattachement rate of closer to 90% of its install base?

because you need those AAA games. those are the ones that are going to drive up subscribers.

but those AAA games take longer to make and are far more expensieve to produce...if you dont deliver.....your brand, your product, your sevice is going to suffer...and we are seeing this in real-time.
 
Ozriel said:
Man, this is the most illogical thing I've read in this thread, and believe me that's a high bar to cross.

I pay for a subscription already. I'm now supposed to turn away from games that come to that service and pay extra elsewhere? Or play 'millions of cheap and free games' instead of what I really want to play?


Yeah, if Day One AAA games on GP is something you loathe, things are certainly going to get rough for you, down the line
Click to expand...
again. i am not talking about you.

i am talking about the whole picture; the market behaviour.

Game Pass in its current state, is not in the position xbox and consumers expected to be.
 
ChorizoPicozo said:
uPldgDz.jpg

i asked this and no one gave me an answer:

why, if Game Pass is such an amazing value is not having anattachement rate of closer to 90% of its install base?

because you need those AAA games. those are the ones that are going to drive up subscribers.

but those AAA games take longer to make and are far more expensieve to produce...if you dont deliver.....your brand, your product, your sevice is going to suffer...and we are seeing this in real-time.
Click to expand...
that is true stephen colbert GIF by Obama
 
Sony acquired Firewalk, which helped in the development of Call of Duty and Apex, they already had a parnership for an exclusive MP GaaS announced in 2021

blog.playstation.com

Welcoming Firewalk Studios to the PlayStation Studios family

Learn more about this talented team and their plan to connect players in new and innovative ways in their ambitious upcoming multiplayer game.
blog.playstation.com blog.playstation.com

Funny enough, wouldn't that mean Sony was developing their own COD competitor before Microsoft announced its ABK acquisition deal?
 
Last edited:
Dane said:
Sony acquired Firewalk, which helped in the development of Call of Duty and Apex, they already had a parnership for an exclusive MP GaaS announced in 2021

blog.playstation.com

Welcoming Firewalk Studios to the PlayStation Studios family

Learn more about this talented team and their plan to connect players in new and innovative ways in their ambitious upcoming multiplayer game.
blog.playstation.com blog.playstation.com

Funny enough, wouldn't that mean Sony was developing their own COD competitor before Microsoft announced its ABK acquisition deal?
Click to expand...
I believe they're the rumored SOCOM studio.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
2K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
6K
MDSLKTR replied
Microsoft, Activision Deny Report Regarding Financial Performance
Business Hardware  2 3
131
11K
Jaybe replied
What happened to all the people that were cheering over that MS Activision acquisition?
Drama  5 6 7 8 9
414
18K
GateofD replied
Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
98K
MasterCornholio replied
Top Bottom