Support NeoGAF

[fart town usa]

Against. It's just lazy.

Certain acquisitions make sense, but this Activision one just screams, "I want to beat Sony and will just gobble up everything in order to do so"

Just incredibly lazy to me.

 

[BadBurger]

I've given this topic frighteningly little thought since it first became news. I guess I just don't care.

 

[mxbison]

I'm against it and I say that as someone who has a PC and XSX with 3 years of GamePass.

Absolutely not worth that much money IMO. Diablo 4 looks pretty cool, don't really care about any of the other stuff.

I hope that it fails so MS brings a lot of other stuff to GamePass to make up for it.

 

[Ar¢tos]

Imagine suddenly buying a huge publisher of which you know basically nothing of how it internally works.
You either spend a ton of extra money restructuring it and making teams to supervise its studios or you leave it to operate independently, but the studios no longer report to the same upper management and know the new management is "hands off" and as a result corruption inside the studios increase and results decrease.

I honestly think it would be much better and more effective to use those 70bn in a long term plan to incubate new studios inside the current ones (as new teams) and let them grow naturally learning from the main team until they can operate on their own.

 

[yamaci17]

How is this different to how things work now? Xbox decide what is on GamePass but it's unclear how these deals are made in terms of what the devs get paid.

Similarly Sony would be going through a process where they decide what is on PS Plus and what the commercials look like with the devs.

I get the "MS is bad. They have a lot of money. Lots of money is bad" narrative - but let's not all pretend the shit Nintendo and Sony do to be competitive is better than what Xbox do.

at least nintendo and sony proved time and time again they can make great games that push the medium forward

all xbox did lastgen and this gen is a successfull forza and mediocre everything else. they're incapable of pushing a goty tier (look, not even have to be goty. i mean goty tier) game outside.

i can understand if their goal is simply being the mediocre game maker. if so, they do not to buy studios such as bethesda/abk and pull them down to their own level. it just hurts business. bungie will hit peaks that they'd never imagine do with the assist/steering of Sony. this alone will prove how incompetent xbox game division and how competent playstation division is

if they were smart: they'd spend that cash on their existing studios to upgrade their engines, increase budgets, team sizes and such. then maybe they'd hope for some great games.

 

[Clintizzle]

at least nintendo and sony proved time and time again they can make great games that push the medium forward

all xbox did lastgen and this gen is a successfull forza and mediocre everything else. they're incapable of pushing a goty tier (look, not even have to be goty. i mean goty tier) game outside.

i can understand if their goal is simply being the mediocre game maker. if so, they do not to buy studios such as bethesda/abk and pull them down to their own level. it just hurts business. bungie will hit peaks that they'd never imagine do with the assist/steering of Sony. this alone will prove how incompetent xbox game division and how competent playstation division is

if they were smart: they'd spend that cash on their existing studios to upgrade their engines, increase budgets, team sizes and such. then maybe they'd hope for some great games.

 

[Wizz-Art]

For of course. I would be thief of my own wallet if I would be against otherwise!

 

[RGB'D]

As activision was actively seeking to be purchased, the only decent option of suitors is microsoft (apple/google/amazon/tencent). Microsoft also offers the cheapest and widest accessibility options. To miss out on their products takes a level of fanatical brand loyalty to Sony given the multiple avenues that Microsoft content can be consumed (samsung tv, mobile, PC, Series S, or Series X for enthusiasts). Microsoft has had good first party content after studio acquisition (AOE4, FH5, Hifi Rush, Grounded, Pentiment, Deathloop) and while their genres may not appeal to everyone, there quality is there. They are hardly the only company that struggles to put out games as SONY first party suffered delays as well (HFW, GOWR originally slated 2021, GT7). As I have all three consoles, I am enthusiastically for this acquisition.

 

[IFireflyl]

As activision was actively seeking to be purchased, the only decent option of suitors is microsoft (apple/google/amazon/tencent).

This lie needs to stop being perpetuated. Activision was not seeking to be purchased. Microsoft approached Activision with an acquisition offer out of the blue. Activision was legally obligated to take this to their board of directors to decide if they would accept or not. Activision reached out to other companies to see if someone would make a better offer. They didn't find a better offer so they accepted the Microsoft offer.

 

[RGB'D]

This lie needs to stop being perpetuated. Activision was not seeking to be purchased. Microsoft approached Activision with an acquisition offer out of the blue. Activision was legally obligated to take this to their board of directors to decide if they would accept or not. Activision reached out to other companies to see if someone would make a better offer. They didn't find a better offer so they accepted the Microsoft offer.

Umm... stop making stuff up.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ventur...anted-to-sell-so-it-approached-microsoft/amp/

https://www.gamesradar.com/activisi...ut-before-selling-to-microsoft-report-claims/

 

[IFireflyl]

Umm... stop making stuff up.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ventur...anted-to-sell-so-it-approached-microsoft/amp/

https://www.gamesradar.com/activisi...ut-before-selling-to-microsoft-report-claims/

The Venture Beat article got it wrong, and there are no sources that confirm where they got this information. The Games Radar article confirms that Activision didn't want to go to Microsoft and looked for a better article. Also, there's this:

https://www.ign.com/articles/micros...al-acquisition-days-after-bobby-kotick-report

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_acquisition_of_Activision_Blizzard_by_Microsoft

https://www.theverge.com/22941636/microsoft-activision-blizzard-acquisition-sec-filing-came-together

All of these articles state that Microsoft is the one who approached Activision. Furthermore, these aren't just claims that it occurred this way, but they are actually part of the SEC filing which is a legally binding document that Microsoft and Activision would face penalties for if the information contained in the filings were not accurate. There is no reason that Microsoft and Activision would have to lie to the SEC about this.

Based on SEC filings related to the merger, Microsoft approached Activision Blizzard again in the days immediately following the November 2021 Wall Street Journal report regarding a buyout. While Kotick had been hesitant about selling the company, the board had gone ahead with the deal as they continued to fear the ongoing impact of the lawsuit while Kotick had remains on the board. The buyout would provide a graceful exit for Kotick in the future, ranging in $252.2-292.9 million over most scenarios.

So... stop making stuff up.

 

[RGB'D]

Did you read your articles?

"One thing I found interesting was that Activision Blizzard was in touch with four other companies and one individual about some sort of deal in addition to Microsoft. Disappointingly, they are only named as companies A, C, D, and E, and the individual is named as "Individual B," so we don't know who else could have ended up owning Call of Duty."

 

[Chronicle]

Who or what is ABK?

Since I'm not allowed to respond to a post: Here I'll respond just cause. I can't stand it when posters just can't give the definition of an acronym. Rule number one in writing: don't treat your audience like they're idiots. To the poster I responded to, thanks that was my initial question as well.

 

[Schmick]

Since I'm not allowed to respond to a post: Here I'll respond just cause. I can't stand it when posters just can't give the definition of an acronym. Rule number one in writing: don't treat your audience like they're idiots. To the poster I responded to, thanks that was my initial question as well.

Apologies.

I did add an edit to rectify the confusion early on.

I didnt realise that ABK wouldnt be understood.

 

[DenchDeckard]

A world where gamepass is in a dominant position is a world in which gamers refuse to buy games anymore.

It means a world where MS gets to be the sole arbiter of what games gets in, how much they get paid, and how much exposure they get. It's a fucking nightmare world. The death of every creators who aren't randomly in the good graces of MS.

Acquiring huge IPs like CoD would make them closer to that shit future. And I say fuck that, and I have absolutely no pitty for gamepass sycophants not getting anymore games for their expensive rental service.

I'm still buying games like crazy.

As long as a steam deck exists I'll be buying shit loads of games on my pc and steam account.

I still buy good 4k movies on disk but also sign up to multiple streaming services.

They can all co exist imo.

 

[IFireflyl]

Did you read your articles?

"One thing I found interesting was that Activision Blizzard was in touch with four other companies and one individual about some sort of deal in addition to Microsoft. Disappointingly, they are only named as companies A, C, D, and E, and the individual is named as "Individual B," so we don't know who else could have ended up owning Call of Duty."

I did. This is what I stated originally:

Activision reached out to other companies to see if someone would make a better offer. They didn't find a better offer so they accepted the Microsoft offer.

That information was also in the SEC filing. I'm not sure if you thought you got me somewhere, but you didn't.

 

[RGB'D]

I did. This is what I stated originally:



That information was also in the SEC filing. I'm not sure if you thought you got me somewhere, but you didn't.

I guess I have no idea what your point is? You responded to my post regarding the lie of MS seeking ABK. Whether MS approached ABK first or not, the point is the ABK was willing to sell and of the potential suitors, MS is better. If ABK was willing to sell, what is the difference if Tencent approached ABK first or MS did? You are arguing over semantics.

 

[IFireflyl]

I guess I have no idea what your point is? You responded to my post regarding the lie of MS seeking ABK. Whether MS approached ABK first or not, the point is the ABK was willing to sell and of the potential suitors, MS is better. If ABK was willing to sell, what is the difference if Tencent approached ABK first or MS did? You are arguing over semantics.

The lie was that Activision approached Microsoft, and that Activision was looking to sell. That is not what happened. Microsoft approached Activision. Any acquisition offer has to be brought up to the board of directors. So after Microsoft approached Activision, Activision took Microsoft's offer to Activision's board of directors. The board of directors said, "Well, maybe someone else can make us a better offer." Activision then approached other companies to see if anyone would make a better offer. Nobody did, so Activision accepted Microsoft's offer.

If Microsoft hadn't made the initial offer Activision would not be looking to sell. They weren't looking to sell before Microsoft made the offer, they just accepted Microsoft's offer after Microsoft approached them.

 

[RGB'D]

Nothing forced ABK to sell to MS. MS approached discord as well to sell and they refused. The choice implies a willingness to sell.

The lie was that Activision approached Microsoft, and that Activision was looking to sell. That is not what happened. Microsoft approached Activision. Any acquisition offer has to be brought up to the board of directors. So after Microsoft approached Activision, Activision took Microsoft's offer to Activision's board of directors. The board of directors said, "Well, maybe someone else can make us a better offer." Activision then approached other companies to see if anyone would make a better offer. Nobody did, so Activision accepted Microsoft's offer.

If Microsoft hadn't made the initial offer Activision would not be looking to sell. They weren't looking to sell before Microsoft made the offer, they just accepted Microsoft's offer after Microsoft approached them.

 

[sachos]

Im mostly against it so i voted against. Only positive thing i could see happening with acquisitions like this one is if the buyer actually do something with the IPs they bought or if they significally improve on them, so if MS revives some old IPs or put some of those CoD devs to develope some new IPs it may end up being ok and pretty cool but i doubt it, specially when we take into account Xbox's track record when managing their devs. Im also worried for the even bigger acquisition arms race the could happen if it goes through.
It also just looks like such a loser move to me, having to buy whole third party publishers to compete.

 

[IFireflyl]

Nothing forced ABK to sell to MS. MS approached discord as well to sell and they refused. The choice implies a willingness to sell.

Looking to sell =/= willing to sell.

 

[//DEVIL//]

Nothing forced ABK to sell to MS. MS approached discord as well to sell and they refused. The choice implies a willingness to sell.

Nothing is called "refused"
the more accurate term is " the price was not right/suitable"

the deal was almost going to close. but something happened and stopped it. maybe they thought they were worth more? maybe they had some terms that MS didn't agree on or vice versa "

Everything has a price.

Let's say Sony as a whole is worth 110B $ ( I think I am right or close to it). Now I understand some Japanese companies are protected by the government and can't be sold ( at least not outside Japan ). Not sure if Sony is one of these companies.

But let's assume a Japanese X company offered 200B$ worth . or maybe it was a western company and Sony is allowed to be bought by western companies,

Do you think sony will flat-out refuse a 200B$?

will go to the board, will vote on it, and if the company has a majority shareholder by some individual that needs approval, etc.

But everything can be sold when it comes to companies at least.

 

[Pallas]

I don't really care, I just want to watch the world burn(or in this sense neogaf) when it approves or gets denied.

Just a funny observation though, seeing who is against and for it.

I can see why it's bad for the industry to see ABK being sold but you also have to look at the fact that ABK wants to be sold and if you look at the very select few corporations able and willing to put up the huge amounts of money to buy it, Microsoft isn't the worst.

 

[ACESHIGH]

I am against acquisitions, because I wouldn't like Sony countering this. But having all those Activision games on gamepass would be amazing. I always wanted to play those COD campaigns on the cheap. And also would like to see this through just to see Sony whine. Those guys are god tier hypocrites. They try to paint this narrative of the little mom and pop store vs the evil conglomerate... ffs.

As if Sony didn't play the acquisition game... folks believe they built their studios taking kids from the streets and teaching them how to code... OrGAnIc GrOwTh!!!!

 

[FF:Enhanced_Reality]

So, this is a topic I've wanted to respond too for a long time now. I've been thinking about my points for some time and finally decided to share them. I'm not going to lie; I do prefer PlayStation and it's always been my main form of gaming and entertainment. Previously before owning a house and having bills to pay, it was one of my many options, not the only option. So please understand that I am open to other platforms and services, but I simply can only afford one eco-system. Here goes.

• If Microsoft really wanted Game Pass to be the defacto standard of subscription gaming, then they should drop out of the console space. I said this when Steam Machines came out. Steam was the wrong company to do it. I think XBOX would be an incredible success if they let third parties licence the XBOX brand and make their own hardware. Open up the streaming service to everyone, with no exclusives. Admittedly, this would still hurt pay to play sales, but it would definitely make the odds fairer.
• A lot of what you've been told is bullshit. The owners of Activision stand to earn a lot of money from this. Microsoft stand to gain a lot of IP and development power. This hardly seems like fair competition after their acquisitions of studios and Bethesda. I'd actually be pissed off if I was Bethesda. Microsoft are paying well above the value of ABK and they know others can't afford it but they didn't do that with Bethesda and they arguably are a big loss to the wider market.
• If the idea is to bring more games to gamers, then ABK do NOT need Microsoft for that. It's the biggest load of shit I've heard. The owners of ABK are going to make silly money from this deal. They can re-invest that money where they want. These people in most cases are not gamers and don't really care about gamers, just profit. Vis-à-vis exploiting Call of Duty as much as possible. If there was any truth in bringing more games to gamers, ABK could do that better independently where they don't have to make anything exclusive and they more than have enough money and influence to reach out to other platforms and services.
• Microsoft have shown with Bethesda that they will make content exclusive. A 10 year licence is not a lifetime licence and that is only for Call of Duty, not the wider ABK catalogue which is huge. Microsoft would have incredible influence over competition if they owned Call of Duty, considering they also own MineCraft. These are two huge franchises and definitely affect pulling power. If the deal was successful and Microsoft became more dominant in the market, they'd just wait until market share was closer and then make them exclusive. It'd really hurt Sony. Nintendo, not so much because their power is in their IP.
• This isn't just about Call of Duty. People are so focused on this. But PlayStation and Nintendo, more PlayStation, have a strong history with Crash Bandicoot, Spyro the Dragon and Tony Hawk. These are three big franchises that just wouldn't make sense if they eventually became exclusive to Microsoft platforms. I couldn't wait until my son was old enough to play these games that I played as a child. He loves Crash and Spyro. I have no idea how to tell him that he won't be able to play them on our PlayStation anymore if they become exclusive to Microsoft. Plus that would just be a huge kick in the dick to Sony, without Sony, they might have died years ago.
• The finances involved here mean that Sony couldn't have competed in this deal regardless. Microsoft last year turned over $139 billion dollars in gross profit. By comparison, Sony in 2021 over just $32 billion. Nintendo in 2022 just $8.40 billion. The profit Microsoft made alone would allow them to acquire Sony at their current net market value of $110.51 billion. Nobody would ever finance the debt for Sony at nearly 2/3 of their worth to be able to compete in this deal. Even if Sony met the asking price, Microsoft can pay more. Fact.
• This sets a precedence going forward that would allow the consolidation of the gaming market as well as over inflation which could seriously hurt the gaming market. Microsoft could continue to acquire publishers such as EA, Ubisoft etc and just continue to argue Sony have more market share. Even though Microsoft are currently the fourth biggest gaming entity, the way they are trying to get this deal through is by pulling the victim card. Claiming Sony is the winner, Microsoft is the loser, they can't compete and need a bigger toy. It's not a fair or accurate reflection at all.
• This affects more than just Sony and Nintendo. Google, for example, didn't have the best or most appealing service, but they were giving it a go. They've since closed Stadia but cited the Bethesda acquisition as a contributing factor. But equally, Activision in 2020 entered into a partnership with Google. Microsoft acquiring ABK with a direct competing service to Google just took a major customer away. Given the money Microsoft are throwing around, I think Google just politely said fuck this and went back to making cuts from being a service provider.
• It does affect new and existing entrants into the market, more-so when Microsoft would own so much 'must have IP' and when one of their stipulations would likely be not to support a competing entity if they used their service. Microsoft have already turned down in the past cross platform play when Sony put the concept many moons ago, Microsoft then changed sides, made Sony out to be the bad guy, meanwhile not explaining that Microsoft want either XBL to be integrated to do so or users to have a Windows account. Turn your competitor's product into your advertising device? Don't think so.
• Microsoft haven't even leveraged the studios they acquired before Bethesda, let alone ABK. When their studio spree started, I did originally support the idea. Because I wanted to see Microsoft develop a strong first party line up. I wanted franchises to be established and Microsoft to have a really good and diverse offering. Many of those studios have released very little or in some cases nothing. Hellblade 2, a game announced in 2019 isn't even out yet and that was supposed to be huge for XBOX. Yet their acquisitions since the impressive announcement almost makes it meaningless.
• I mean now they own Doom, Wolfenstein, Elder Scrolls, Prey, Fallout, Starfield, Quake, The Evil Within and they'll soon own Blur, Call of Duty, Candy Crush, Crash Bandicoot, Diablo, Guitar Hero, Overwatch, Prototype, Spyro the Dragon, StarCraft, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, True Crime, World of Warcraft. That isn't even including smaller IP they own. I mean Sony have a catalogue, sure. But that's IP that like Nintendo with Pokémon, Mario, Zelda etc. Has always, primarily and predominantly been on their respective platforms. Not well established, multi-platform franchises. And this is why this deal is so complicated. If Sony acquired, Konami, Square Enix and Capcom and took all their games from Microsoft, they'd be pissed.

There is so much more that I could say, but this, I think, is enough for now. I would respect Microsoft so much more if they admit they dropped the ball, let go of the deal and started to build a proper first party portfolio. Honestly though, I can see this deal going through then they go after Embracer for their studio count and IP. After that, it's not worth it anymore. But this deal has been so disruptive and to me, it's the biggest thing to happen in the gaming industry since SEGA left the hardware business. I can't see Microsoft fighting an honest battle here. They have the cash and the influence to make this whole ordeal just a set back. But I think the only real move there for Sony is to acquire which will further consolidate the market. Ideally, acquiring 2K and SquareEnix for the purposes of owning a flagship RPG franchise and a must have IP like GTA. The fact that nobody really wants to acquire Ubisoft is a laugh because they've been the face of mediocrity for years. But this industry is tiny compared to the 16 bit and 32 bit days. Costs change, budgets, companies go bust. The fact that larger scale games are massively downsizing in releases is evidence that you can't make a game for a modest budget anymore for say a £/$1 million, sell 250,000 copies and make a profit. But the subscription model will eventually make developers rely on it when pay to play sales are cannibalised and it'll hurt the market. It's not like films and TV. I can see it now.