Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Ar¢tos
Member
They are still available to be hired to make games. They made Sackboy after being bought by Tencent.
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
graywolf323
Gold Member
that didn't stop them from assisting with development on Hogwarts Legacy, why wouldn't someone be able to contract them for work just because Tencent owns them? they're not a platform holder so they don't seem to care
reinking
Gold Member
That first part is what I originally replied to you about. You said they acquired them to create content in a quick time frame. I was saying they acquired them to acquire content in a quick time frame. Of course they will have to continue to maintain and develop that content but that will take time.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I don't see him rooting, I see him making an observation or a declarative statement based on the perception and actions that have been taken in this thread and others like it.
How about we expect better quality posts from those types, no?
Last edited:
Varteras
Gold Member
Rooting for bans over a difference of opinion is the REEEEEEE way. Wanting the forum cleaned up a bit because some posters are really just trash and don't actually offer anything of value except inflammatory remarks and warrior shenanigans? Anyone should want those gone.
The simple answer is that MS don't want studios, so this isn't really a shortcut for being able to get xbox output quicker than establishing a studio, as RedC suggests.
They want to rule over known IPs and get a shortcut to established audiences. That's what people can't justify as easily.
They let the talented Sumo Digital get acquired by Tencent for a fraction of the cost. They let the studio behind Killer Instinct get acquired by Amazon for a tuppence. Sony bought the supernaturally talented Insomniac for just 300M. If you needed studios that's what you would have gone for but those studios didn't own any well established IP so they didn't. That should show it's not really about needing studios for content. It's about acquiring established audiences and forcing them onto your platform.
Roxkis_ii
Banned
What's this? Cancelled?
Maybe that will clear up the confusion some have about how games that "don't exist" can still be cancelled.
Damn that's sad. The first was a decent game too.
GHG
Member
Who said I'm rooting for it?
But if people are incapable of having sensible conversations and conducting themseves appropriately that's not my problem.
A wise man once said, don't save hoes.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Varteras
Gold Member
What's this? Cancelled?
Maybe that will clear up the confusion some have about how games that "don't exist" can still be cancelled.
It was one of those games that just felt like it got drowned out by everything else around it. A lot of people didn't know what it was and any comparisons made just usually had it as the lesser game.
tryDEATH
Member
For someone that isn't into the whole console warrior thing you sure tend to interject yourself in what you deem console warrior-ish nonsense a lot, to the point that I think you quite enjoy console warring.
Roxkis_ii
Banned
So I was just show this video:
So that got me thinking, maybe I should try to steelmanning the Xbox side of this Deal.
Positives of this deal.
That's the positives I can think of.
Negatives of this Deal.
I would be interested in seeing what ever people think are positives or negatives of this deal, steel manning the other side.
So that got me thinking, maybe I should try to steelmanning the Xbox side of this Deal.
Positives of this deal.
- Activision games come to gamepass. (access their gamer cheaper)....
- Removal of Activision single player games from Playstation
- May upset some Playstation fans
- Activision single player games likely will be Xbox exclusive.
That's the positives I can think of.
Negatives of this Deal.
- Accelerated consolidation of the gaming industry. (likely bad for everyone)
- Activision single player games likely will be Xbox exclusive.
- Activision IP going to waste after Xbox fails to capitalize on them.
- Activision stops making as many games as they do now. (seems to be a trend for studios bought by Microsoft
I would be interested in seeing what ever people think are positives or negatives of this deal, steel manning the other side.
Last edited:
Varteras
Gold Member
I enjoy debating ideas. Situations. Pointing out bad logic. Sorry you can't tell the difference.
IFireflyl
Gold Member
The Pleasure
Gold Member
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Can't see anything positive about this deal though -- except that older COD campaigns will be available to rent. But if someone wasn't interested enough to buy those campaigns even after years, is it really that big of a plus for them?
The negatives, on the other hand, are too many for Xbox fans and gamers in general:
- Game Pass will get expensive.
- Fewer third-party games on Game Pass.
- Xbox does not get any new games. They will get ABK games that they would have gotten either way.
- This will propel the industry into an accelerated consolidation mode.
- Sony will likely buy studios and publishers in the future as a result of this acquisition and make those games exclusive. So fewer games releasing on Xbox.
- Sony will make more timed exclusivity deals to compensate for the loss ABK (and Zenimax) games. Fewer games on Xbox.
- Xbox management will run into even more problems than ever before. The same management couldn't handle 5 studios and ran into significant problems when they had to manage 23 studios. Now those problems will be amplified even more that they will have to manage 30+ studios.
- Xbox console and PC games will suffer as ABK's move will propel them to focus more on mobile games.
Rubim
Member
So a few points:
1) Yes, Game Pass wil get more expensive as the time goes on. We can't for sure tell that it is because of Activistion. We don't know.
2) Fewer Third-Party Games on Game Pass, how so?
3) They do get access to the IPs. Meaning, Coalition for example can do a Starcraft Shooter.
4) Maybe!?
5) They will do it regardless.
6) They will do it regardless.
7) There's no management, that's why Redfall was like that.
8) That was the intention all along, Bobby an another developer that i dont remember even stated that they plan to move to full mobile.
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
Is this a part of the sensible conversation?
ChorizoPicozo
Member
it could be.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
havoc00
Member
What's the next date big news could come out? I forget
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
August 9th I think, that's when the CMA said they should have a provisional draft ready.
PaintTinJr
Member
Am I the only person that thinks that tweet by the CEO seems odd by it looking totally redundant - unless CMA news is due that suggests things have hit a snag or a full phase one do-over is being seriously considered ?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Every post you've made in this topic is about either Apple yanking Activision from under Microsoft, Google doing the same or everything anyone ever says being a sign of a do-over being considered.
Yes, I believe you're the only one who thinks that.
PaintTinJr
Member
What is the purpose of - an intelligent person - telling people at a random timing things that they know that everyone else already knowns - unless it is to counter new news that brings in to question what people already know, and this pre-emptively reaffirms what they know?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Maybe he was, and bear with me cause this might sound radical .. maybe he was just answering someone's question ?
shocker I know.
PaintTinJr
Member
Well you posted the tweet, was that the case?
/edit:
are you suggesting that it is the responsibility of those reading the soundbite to go and find the context of the soundbite?
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Member
We are in a society that wants updates or people go crazy, case in point look at this thread the last few days with no updates
I think he was just assuring people its still on
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Yes, he said it in the middle of the quarterly earnings webcast.
PaintTinJr
Member
Still seems odd that he wouldn't have sent Lulu or Brad or Phil to do it, instead.We are in a society that wants updates or people go crazy, case in point look at this thread the last few days with no updates
I think he was just assuring people its still on
For a nothing Tuesday to the deal for the CEO to post a redundant tweet still looks suss IMO.
/edit/
Had you said it was from a quarterly earnings report from the start the context would have been clear.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
PaintTinJr
Member
Okay, so maybe next time, instead of trying to paint a narrative like something had shifted in favour of the deal, either don't post it to that effect, or post the context which then communicates how nothing and redundant the tweet is, and how redundant you posting it was (IMHO).
bender
What time is it?
havoc00
Member
PaintTinJr
Member
I'm still struggling with this one, because it looks like our UK top level regulator of regulators has become an unprofessional joke when this deal goes through - doing Microsoft's full bidding -, and I'm still holding on to idea that just isn't possible, as irrational as that now seems.
havoc00
Member
Varteras
Gold Member
I know. It's pretty wild. No one realistically saw this coming. But really, at this point, it's best to assume that the reality is that the CMA buckled for reasons we may never know and Microsoft will own Activision. If something changes, okay. But it's better to put this out of your mind. Focus on other things.
SirTerry-T
Member
PaintTinJr
Member
Are all these old images deep fakes? They look nothing like the snowy 240p images of the vhs copy of copy I remember at a friend's house back in the day on his massive 20" TV
Last edited:
ReBurn
Gold Member
It is possible
splattered
Member
Or maybe just maaaaybe Microsoft actually sat down with the CMA, asked them what it would take to get the deal through, bit the bullet and compromised, and now here we are with the regulator "satisfied" and the deal is about to go through.
HoofHearted
Member
They've been painting themselves into a corner ever since they dropped consoles from the equation…
Add to this - with every other country approving this deal in some form or fashion, they obviously needed to further re-evaluate their position…
This isn't about doing Microsoft's "bidding" - if this is truly about the gamers and cloud - there still is ample opportunity for CMA to work to a solution that advances the deal while also implementing appropriate regulations to address noted concerns.…
Though IMHO, I've yet to see any of the regulatory groups from any of the countries involved throughout this prolonged process actually promote valid recommendations that would truly change the market positively for the better in support of a true and open competitive market, regardless of which platform or plastic box currently leads the market today…
freefornow
Member
Is that 1600 posts I see looming on the horizon?! Need more tweets from Lulu to get things fired up around here!
Dudes suit is almost NeoGaf colors
Last edited:
The fact it's mercy is also kinda funny, are you implying some people in here need mercy?Is that 1600 posts I see looming on the horizon?! Need more tweets from Lulu to get things fired up around here!
Dudes suit is almost NeoGaf colors
yurinka
Member
Yes, Sony -and basically any other company who makes an acquisition- pays for talent retention. Yes, the workers had a big chunk of the stocks, so even without the retention bonuses many of them made a lot of money selling the company.
I assume proportional to the amount they were in the company and their rank within the company they had more or less stocks, so to they earned more or less money. This is how normally works in companies that give stocks to the employees.
The special thing here is that Sony publicly mentioned the amount of money spent on it, something that normally is kept secret, even inside the acquired company. And in that case, it was a huge chunk of money. Because they had to pay retention bonuses to a lot of people, and a high one because were stockholders, meaning that pretty likely they took part in the negotiation and had a good power position to negotiate for a good chunk of money for themselves. And well, Sony was ok with paying it.
Normally in an acquisition these retention bonuses are only paid to some executives plus to some key talent in the company like the leads and directors. And since workers normally aren't stockholders of their own company they aren't part of the negotiation. Only the top execs negotiate, so they ask money for themselves, not for the random employees. And the acquirer normally ask to retain the people they identify as key individuals (normally execs, directors, leads and some senior people).
Jimbo paid a lot of money to buy the 100% of Bungie, but now he has full control over the company and secured that the Bungie workers won't run away with the money, they'll stay there at least for some years, whatever they signed for each employee. I worked in a studio that got acquired twice, as I remember in one acquisition they asked to remain for 2 years and in the other one 3 years. The bonus to stay wasn't so high for a middle manager (around a month of salary), the penalty for leaving before the milestone was pretty big (around a year of salary). For the higher ups I assume they got way more money.
I assume by the end of next year they will be somewhere close around alpha, let's hope we can see some gameplay from the game around then.
What's this? Cancelled?
Maybe that will clear up the confusion some have about how games that "don't exist" can still be cancelled.
It's a rumor. The game maybe existed, or maybe not. If ever existed, it could have been one of the few games they cancelled some months ago. Or not, maybe exists and continues under development.
But I'd say sounds realistic, I could see this game existing and being one of the canned ones.
Well, this regulator raised some concerns. MS offered some bullshit concesions with nobody cloud platforms, but they weren't enough and killed the deal.
Now MS signed another deal, the important one: with Sony. MS will start again showing new conditions for the deal, that will be investigated again by the regulator and this time may be enough to appeal the regulator and in several months in the future may receive the approval, or not.
Sounds ok to me.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked