Vox Machina
Banned
Pretty sure they're making games too
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Pretty sure they're making games too
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
But wouldn't that be unfair to other companies now?
Regulators allowed Microsoft to acquire two of the biggest independent publishers and then put a stop to it when other companies jumped in to balance the scales.
graywolf323
Gold Member
yeah if regulators were going to put a stop to it then ABK was the time to do that
Ar¢tos
Member
Too expensive for a single studio. 5 billion for Kadokawa just get From and then deciding what to do with the rest of it (visual novel studios, magazine publishing, merchandise and real estate business).
It would be more expensive than MS buying Zenimax just for Skyrim (and it's multiple variations: Skyrim online, upcoming Skyrim in space, upcoming Skyrim 2).
laynelane
Member
That's something I was thinking of just recently. A precedent has been set. As a person who is very much against consolidation, I'm now quite reluctant to rely on regulators to manage the issue.
Clintizzle
Lord of Edge.
Topher
Identifies as young
Obviously I wished they had stopped MS but further consolidation in the industry isn't going to make that right.
Pretty sure those games are multiplat. Once they get gobbled up by a platform owner, that is no longer necessarily the case. Bethesda comes to mind.
When regulators can't shut down the biggest third party purchase possible they have absolutely no chance with the little ones. Unfortunately 'enough is enough' wouldn't stand up in court.
Topher
Identifies as young
No, I imagine the arguments would be based on the fact that after ABK the landscape would be greatly different. MS won't be able to claim to be the underdog any longer. Sony never was. The arguments that more consolidation are going to lead to significant lessening in competition become stronger. That's probably an idealistic viewpoint, but it's still my view.
MS can still claim to be an underdog as can Nintendo or Sony by concentrating on specific markets. After ABK the landscape would be in favour of consolidation by other players, not less so.
MS made an argument that they are the underdog when they already had more studios than Nintendo and Sony combined, after having just bought Zenimax. There is no argument that the regulators can make that would stick for lesser publishers.
Topher
Identifies as young
Perhaps.....we will see.
Zok310
Banned
Cant close that door after letting ms in…. Markets like cloud, mobile and streaming Sony and Nintendo are tiny in, considering these markets regulators are going to have a hard fucking time finding a law saying that Sony or Nintendo cant buy to get a 5% foothold in these markets.
The best way forward was to have block this acquisition, now the flood gates are open, regulators closing it now would be them picking winners.
Sony is getting ready;
Sony is gearing up for a new cloud gaming push amid rumors of a PlayStation handheld
Do we really think the “Q Lite” won’t run PlayStation Now?
www.theverge.com
Wont be shocked if nintendo announce something similar with the switch 2.
Followed by them both announcing a pub acquisition.
Last edited:
Schmick
Member
Wouldn't it be likely any acquisition that may happen in the future that the purchaser would have to take into account the numerous deals that MS had to put forward to appease the regulators? Proposals like the 10 year non-exclusivity deals might be something of a turn off for a company like Sony. Could be worse, divestiture maybe required.
Granted Sony accepted the terms from Bungie, but buying Bungie wasn't about making exclusive games, the purchase was about bringing the expertise to produce GaaS type games.
I'm assuming here that the reason for all this talk of further acquisitions is to "..stick it to the man"? How is anyone (Sony) going to do that when the same deals will likely have to be made? And can Sony afford to take on a sizable acquisition and keep games multi-platform or have to make structural changes?
One way to look at it is, is Sony will go on the defensive rather than offensive. Making an acquisition will be about preservation. Acquisition will secure their future by not allowing someone like MS to take something away. And so accepting to have to make these deals would be worth it.
Further more perhaps from a fans point of few. All the die hards only wanting acquisitions for exclusives may have to realise that's not what is going to happen although after 10 years..... who the fuck knows.
Granted Sony accepted the terms from Bungie, but buying Bungie wasn't about making exclusive games, the purchase was about bringing the expertise to produce GaaS type games.
I'm assuming here that the reason for all this talk of further acquisitions is to "..stick it to the man"? How is anyone (Sony) going to do that when the same deals will likely have to be made? And can Sony afford to take on a sizable acquisition and keep games multi-platform or have to make structural changes?
One way to look at it is, is Sony will go on the defensive rather than offensive. Making an acquisition will be about preservation. Acquisition will secure their future by not allowing someone like MS to take something away. And so accepting to have to make these deals would be worth it.
Further more perhaps from a fans point of few. All the die hards only wanting acquisitions for exclusives may have to realise that's not what is going to happen although after 10 years..... who the fuck knows.
Last edited:
Damigos
Member
The inevitable buyout of Activision-Blizzard by Microsoft, that apparently is happening, will probably begin a domino effect of everyone buying out everyone else until there is nothing left to buy.
At the very end Microsoft will probably buy Sony gaming division and at the very very end Apple will mass-buy all of them (insert google or amazon where you like).
So, How exactly do fan boys see this as a good thing for the consumer ? (They dont care as long as their team "wins").
Do they not understand that buying out IPs and studios is not the same as developing games ? (Apparently not).
Cant people understand that monopolies is the worst thing possible as the quality can get to bottom and prices to the skies without consequences ? (Surely they cant).
Are all of you cheering for the buyout cousins of mr Kottick, are you CEO of the company making his yacht or do you all have stocks of Acti-Blizz ? (Dont answer this)
The same thing goes for the other companies of course. Sony moneyhatting exclusives like FF16, is also damaging for everyone.
Moneyhatting and buying out everything is the worst solution to a problem companies themselves created. No one asked for billions of dollars productions, no one asked for 10 years+ development cycles, no one asked for endless generic sequels, no one asked for countless microtransactions, cosmetic shops, battle pass boosters and all that sh!t..
Dont fanboy any company, they are not your friend. They just want your money. And personally i am happy to give them mine, as long as they deliver the quality my money deserves. And if this keeps on happening i wont be able buy anything of value.
If you dont care about yours or about the quality of your games, try to care about mine
At the very end Microsoft will probably buy Sony gaming division and at the very very end Apple will mass-buy all of them (insert google or amazon where you like).
So, How exactly do fan boys see this as a good thing for the consumer ? (They dont care as long as their team "wins").
Do they not understand that buying out IPs and studios is not the same as developing games ? (Apparently not).
Cant people understand that monopolies is the worst thing possible as the quality can get to bottom and prices to the skies without consequences ? (Surely they cant).
Are all of you cheering for the buyout cousins of mr Kottick, are you CEO of the company making his yacht or do you all have stocks of Acti-Blizz ? (Dont answer this)
The same thing goes for the other companies of course. Sony moneyhatting exclusives like FF16, is also damaging for everyone.
Moneyhatting and buying out everything is the worst solution to a problem companies themselves created. No one asked for billions of dollars productions, no one asked for 10 years+ development cycles, no one asked for endless generic sequels, no one asked for countless microtransactions, cosmetic shops, battle pass boosters and all that sh!t..
Dont fanboy any company, they are not your friend. They just want your money. And personally i am happy to give them mine, as long as they deliver the quality my money deserves. And if this keeps on happening i wont be able buy anything of value.
If you dont care about yours or about the quality of your games, try to care about mine
Horseganador
Member
Years ago MS took over the balance of the industry, the normal thing was for each company to work their first, some temporary exclusive and then the multi-publishers working for all, it was the current model for 40 years and it worked, at this point where MS has been allowed to buy dozens of studios, publishers and hijack multi-IPs this train cannot be stopped, of course I don't see any benefit for the user in the future if the industry is concentrated in a few hands.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
I understand that. But there's an argument that allowing others to acquire now will help mitigate the advantage that Microsoft has built through consolidation.
I totally get your point that it will lead to further consolidation, which was always my fear and reason for not supporting this deal. But if others are stopped at this point, Microsoft essentially "wins" despite being the catalyst of this negative trend, while others "lose" even if they did the right thing by not participating in consolidation at this point.
This itself will set a very wrong precedent and encourage other companies to be the first to partake in potentially negative practices that are likely to be prohibited down the road.
SportsFan581
Member
All large acquisitions should be looked at individually. The potential SLCs would different depending on who is buying and what is being bought. Sony isn't nearly as likely to have issues with cloud SLCs as Microsoft, but on the flip side they would be much more likely to have SLC issues in the console space in comparison to MS. There aren't a lot of CoD like games to acquire though, most studios/ips wouldn't trigger this level of scrutiny to begin with.
Thirty7ven
Banned
FTC argued this in court using market theory and case precedence and yet the judge waved it away. Dems the breaks, can't create new precedence and then go back right after just because it's a different entity.
Every regulator and a US judge have said taking the biggest franchise yearly exclusive would be no problem, and have almost no effect. Can't then turn around and say well Sony can't because they ASIAN.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Similar 10-year deals may be needed if Sony is buying an IP like Call of Duty. This isn't applicable to all IPs or studios they purchase.
Remember that there are no deals by Microsoft for Zenimax games or any other non-COD Activision-Blizzard games.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Only IP like COD are Fortnite, FIFA… and?
Well that didn't take too long. Tencent just gobbled Techland (dead island and dying light) and Tencent are the biggest games company by revenue.
Maybe GTA?
Last edited:
Schmick
Member
What I'm seeing is posts here talking about buying EA Games or T2 both of which have huge IP's.
Topher
Identifies as young
Because they Asian? Who said that?
Thirty7ven
Banned
Nobody I was just trying to say that after ABK, considering everything that was presented and dismissed to regulators and the US court, that the only reason why Sony could be stopped from a big acquisition that will always be smaller than ABK would be by politically driven jingoism with no legal weight to it.
Ar¢tos
Member
Sony doesn't have the money to afford making those games exclusive. However for them, because of install base size, having marketing rights and even extra exclusive content (skins, minor dlc, etc) might be more than enough.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Admittedly I don't know what size we're dealing with when it comes to GTA online. Could be worth a ten year contract.
It would be interesting to see what 'IP' means here considering EA had to create a new football IP this year.
Topher
Identifies as young
Do regulators get involved when a corporation buys up majority stock in another company?
Rubim
Member
Passive is a weird word on this context.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
More than 10%, yes.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Take-Two, I agree because of GTA.
EA, no. I don't think they have any IP that is even remotely close to GTA or COD. Battlefield is a struggling shooter at best. Apex Legends is big, but that's already on all platforms, so that'll likely stay that way. And FIFA is no longer FIFA. EA Sports FC is a new IP.
MarkMe2525
Banned
Tencent doing Tencent things.
I don't think they are publicly traded in those jurisdictions anyway. As far as I remember Techland is private but I could be wrong.
Vox Machina
Banned
How, exactly, does MSFT "win" when Tencent will still be the largest publisher and is still out there acquiring content?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
They were private until 2021, I believe. Joint stock company in Poland (similar to a UK filing).
It Looks Like Dying Light 2 Developer Techland Is Going Public
The company's registration index shows a big change.
www.thegamer.com
Which then Tencent acquired the majority stake, but Techland supposedly still' "owns their IPs and creative freedom"
Techland's next chapter and the road ahead
Exciting news that will mark the start of a new chapter of Techland’s history.
techland.net
Schmick
Member
EA may have had to create a new IP due to the loss of FIFA but I doubt very much that EA have lost gamers because of it. There is no FIFA game. And so there is still only two (of note) football games for consoles. PES and EA's new IP EA Sports FC. Regulators wont look at the age of an IP but at the number of gamers affected by the acquisition of EA.
Punished Miku
Gaslighter Pro: 16.7 Fireflops
A lot of the people in this thread pushing "jingoism" don't live in the US and they're lying to you, or themselves about their actual views on acquisitions. Jingoism isn't even the correct word to describe what's happening. This gets purely into politics and isn't really an appropriate conversation for the thread anyway.
Industries being based in a certain country has always had a large element of national security consideration since the beginning of nations existing. For the last 30 years, corporate lobbying convinced politicians to try a decades long experiment called "globalization." It was argued that profits would increase with access to more markets, more freedom of labor movement, etc. It was also argued that the soft power element of spreading western products across the world would gradually increase the spread of western values and western democracy, weaken authoritarianism and promote world peace. Turned out that whole theory was completely untrue, and we've seen authoritarian states instead utilize every corporation they own purely as an extension of the state, and use their growing market influence to push authoritarian values instead of changing to western liberal values.
Most US politicians are so unconcerned with the well being of their own country that this hasn't mattered for 30 years. Western corporations couldn't care less either, and they're all transnational, and would hollow out the US to make a buck. The only thing that's changed things is that it's gotten so bad and so lopsided that even US politicians are forced to acknowledge that letting critical and important industries get purchased by foreign corporations is finally presenting a security risk in terms of economic influence, technological influence, and the spread of authoritarian influence through soft power. We've seen the faintest hints of US politicians talking about decoupling from China, reversing farmland and tech acquisitions, many UK real estate acquisitions from Chinese investors are being rethought as well.
None of that is jingoism. It's governments actually thinking about the welfare of their own country for a brief moment, when they normally don't and let anything be for sale. Most of the people in this thread trying to push "jingoism" as a one word dismissal of any geopolitical concerns live in countries that can't create their own critical industries and want their country to buy it, just like they supposedly hate MS doing. It's all bullshit. Just because you own the same console as someone doesn't mean you have the same interests as them. You should think for yourself and think about the interests of your own country. Free trade has to be balanced with national interests as well. Japan has always done this. China does this to an insane degree. People gaslight nonstop if the US even slightly looks after its own soil instead of just putting everything up to the highest bidder. None of them would be fine selling critical industries in their own country.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
EA has FIFA (now that newly branded soccer game). It can be argued FIFA is a better bet than COD because it is more reliable and EA does hardly changes to their soccer game. So unless EA FC tanks, it's a cash cow. At least for COD some games do great (MW and BO), but sometimes they miss (WWII, vanguard, insinuate warfare etc)
Last edited:
Vox Machina
Banned
Tencent's Foreign Game Studio Investments:
Funcom - 100%
Leyou - 100%
Riot Games - 100%
Sharkmob - 100%
Sumo Group - 100%
Turtle Rock Studios - 100%
Wake Up Interactive - 100%
Inflexion Games - 100%
Fulqrum Publishing - 100%
Supercell - 84%
Grinding Gear Games - 80%
Epic Games - 40%
Pocket Gems - 38%
Don't Nod - 22.63%
Bloober Team - 22%
Sea Ltd - 20%
Marvelous - 20%
Shift Up - 20%
Net Marble - 17.66%
From Software - 16.25%
Krafton - 13.6%
Kakao - 13.54%
Ubisoft - 9.99%
Frontier - 9%
Kadokawa - 6.86%
Paradox - 5%
Remedy - 3.8%
Tequila Works - Majority
Klei Entertainment - Majority
10 Chambers Collective - Majority
Yager Development - Majority
Fatshark - Majority
Miniclip - Majority
Techland - Majority
Source:
Funcom - 100%
Leyou - 100%
Riot Games - 100%
Sharkmob - 100%
Sumo Group - 100%
Turtle Rock Studios - 100%
Wake Up Interactive - 100%
Inflexion Games - 100%
Fulqrum Publishing - 100%
Supercell - 84%
Grinding Gear Games - 80%
Epic Games - 40%
Pocket Gems - 38%
Don't Nod - 22.63%
Bloober Team - 22%
Sea Ltd - 20%
Marvelous - 20%
Shift Up - 20%
Net Marble - 17.66%
From Software - 16.25%
Krafton - 13.6%
Kakao - 13.54%
Ubisoft - 9.99%
Frontier - 9%
Kadokawa - 6.86%
Paradox - 5%
Remedy - 3.8%
Tequila Works - Majority
Klei Entertainment - Majority
10 Chambers Collective - Majority
Yager Development - Majority
Fatshark - Majority
Miniclip - Majority
Techland - Majority
Source:
They didn't do this for ABK so why would they for EA? The number of gamers who played COD was something like 60% of all console owners yet it centred on IP rights and it was passed and waved away as "just one video game". Not on the studios who may release a popular game yearly by any other name and not on the number of affected gamers. I actually do think the game will take a hit due to the name change but how significant I'm not sure yet. Fifa also has a potential new game coming but it may be lost in translation.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
I'm going all in on Tencent stock
All hail the CCP
All hail the CCP
Vox Machina
Banned
Dying Light 2 must have bombed commercially
Dick Jones
Banned
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Last edited:
Vox Machina
Banned
I could be wrong. Didn't follow along with that game at all. Was it a financial success?
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Ya it's at like 10 million or something now
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Vox Machina
Banned
Ah, thanks. My b!
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Because Tencent isn't taking games off of competing platforms. Microsoft is purchasing and making shit exclusive to further their goals and "outspend Sony."
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked