Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Jez Corden too lol.
That was 24 hours go. Why hasn't MS closed it since that if UK isn't relevant lmao.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
That was 24 hours go. Why hasn't MS closed it since that if UK isn't relevant lmao.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
They did offer to put it on PS+. But Jim Ryan correctly denied that offer. Why would Sony give up the 30% cut of the game selling on the PS store? But if Phil wanted us to really believe his fake talking point, they would have offered COD on PS in perpetuity.
But of course, they didn't. They only offered a 10-year deal.
RickMasters
Member
MTXs, battlepasses etc. hat stuff don't come with gamepass. You still have to buy that all separately.
havoc00
Member
wait until this deal is done and Bobby joins MS they gonna be ruthless as fuck with no apologies
Games Bookstore
Member
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Stop with the marketing. They are investing in areas where their competitors aren't strong in. PC and mobile. That' strategy isn't bigger than Nintendo or Sony. It's very smart on MS' part though. And again.......Xbox was not a small side project of Microsoft's. They were trying extremely hard to compete in the gaming space. Overall they did well, but not as good as they obviously had hoped for. So, they played their last big Joker. They are now throwing money at with the hopes the money with fix "the issue". But it was always an important pillar to MS.
Time will show if this strategy will make it difficult for their competitors to compete.
Apple isn't a gaming company and you know what we are saying.
MS is pitching marketing gimmick PR talk to you. Stop believing literally everything Phil says. Of course gaming is bigger than just selling consoles. But it would help if you guys stopped acting like actually anything of sale other than subscriptions doesn't matter anymore. IF MS was able to sell 100 million consoles with their Xbox One strategy they wouldn't haven't bought Bethesda, Zenimax, Activision, Blizzard, and KING. Because why spend $80 Billion if you don't have to?
Regardless of what lies Phil may say to us in the media, they obviously care about selling their consoles, because a strong console base matters a lot!
There is a reason why everyone's correcting you, because we know you're trying to set up a narrative here.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
What would a ruthless as F Bobby do at MS exactly? Paint the picture for me, I'm curious.
No, I think it has more to do with the fact that you all aren't sure if these acquisitions over the last 3 years will be successful for MS or not. Yall are trying to act as if MS doesn't have targets and real goals to achieve post the ABK acquisition. To think this is mainly about the cloud is insanity.
And some don't want to hold MS accountable for anything. No hard markers, hardware sales don't matter, software sales don't matter, and the only thing that matters is GP subscription numbers. And I'm sorry, but that's just not the reality.
:-/
Rykan
Member
This isn't about the "Xbox Brand" in terms of consoles. Again, this acquisition isn't about selling consoles, something which becomes blatantly obvious at even the slightest bit of scrutiny.
AB can be split up in 3 large pillars:
King
Blizzard
Call of Duty (this includes every studio working on CoD)
King is self-explanatory. It's mobile.
Blizzard is primarily a PC developer. They do release console games, which sell well but are hardly system sellers. They've recently released Diablo 4 and Overwatch 2. Those are multiplatform games. Jez is fairly convinced that Blizzard is working on Starcraft 3. Strategy games are useless on consoles, so that's a PC game first and foremost. WoW is PC exclusive. So all that's left is their survival game that they could potentially make Xbox console exclusive.
And then there is Call of Duty.
Call of Duty could indeed be a huge system seller if it was made exclusives, but we already know that Microsoft intents to keep it multiplatform, even more multiplatform than before, for the foreseeable future.
So what does that tell you? It should tell you that it is blatantly obvious that this acquisition isn't meant to move hardware. It's about building a large stable of developers so that they can release a barrage of games once streaming games becomes the norm. At least, that's where Microsoft is clearly convinced the industry is heading to. The goal for the immediate future isn't to become a hardware leader. They want to become the Netflix of Games. That is the end game.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
why people don't use their brains but instead keep parroting the talking points from executives and influencers?. they become PR/Marketing minions.
Rykan
Member
Feel free to elaborate on where you think I'm wrong.
These "Oh they're just talking point of executives and influences" accusations are absurd. None of you can successfully make a case on how the intention is supposedly to move systems while keeping CoD multiplatform. None. It makes no sense at all.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Not to be "THAT GUY" but are you or have you ever been paid by Microsoft? I ask because there's no way a regular GAF member that's just a normal gamer would really think if Microsoft sold 55 million Xbox series consoles by the end of this generation, that Microsoft would be okay with that. My obvious point is gamers that buy an Xbox console are more likely to buy GamePass over a PC gamer or a mobile-only gamer.
Plus did you actually pay attention to the court case? Even MS acknowledged that console streaming at the moment is super small and not a big priority. And if MS wants Xbox to be the Netflix of gaming, that would be a HORRIBLE thing for them because gamers aren't asking for that or even wanting that.
The only way MS can even think of being the Netflix of gaming would be to make all of their games exclusive to their hardware only! Or any hardware that has GamePass on it.
havoc00
Member
Be more ruthless in gamepass deals trying to acquire other pieces not negotiate with competitors at all, make stuff exclusive hold grudges etc be public about it just be cutthroat.
havoc00
Member
Bobby just wants to win he would be an asset anywhere he goes, he sucks as a person but if I had a company I'd want him on the teamI wonder if REE will be cheering when Kotick is in charge of Xbox. They'd ban all conversations regarding Xbox and thier games right?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Gotcha! Yeah, I can see that happening if MS thinks they need to take a different approach going into next gen. I think MS will give Phil a minimum of 3 full years to "get it right" or they could call up ol' Bobby. If Phil can't turn around Xbox by the end of 2026, then he should get fired. Not sure Bobby Kotick is who MS should go with next to run the show, but I agree with you that if they did he would go scorched Earth on everybody.
Rykan
Member
You are absolutely being "That guy". Your implication that anybody who disagrees with you is "paid off" is, frankly, pathetic and insulting. It's even more pathetic when you realize that my post isn't "pro MS" at all. It simply described the purpose of the acquisition and clarifies that using consoles sold as a metric for success is pointless because that's not the goal, as is evident by the fact that Call of Duty remains multiplatform.
Literally everything you have posted here has been addressed in the very post you're quoting.
This is unrelated to the acquisition. The acquisition isn't intended to move hardware on the short term (This generation). Something that is blatantly obvious. What is really going to change with this acquisition in the short term, say, current gen? Nothing. Blizzard games are mostly multiplats. Call of Duty will remain multiplat. Nothing is changing in the short term for consumers, So why would anyone expect a short term market shift? It makes no sense at all.
Addressed this in the very post you're quoting. Yes, streaming games is very small right now. But Microsoft clearly expects that it is going to grow substantially. Whether you personally like that or not, is irrelevant to the discussion: The POINT is that MICROSOFT thinks that's where gaming is headed, and they are making business and acquisition decisions accordingly.
That doesn't even make any sense.
Last edited:
ToadMan
Member
That tweet draws the comparison with DirecTV. The difference there is that DirecTV didn't increase in value during the acquisition contract period, while I believe ATVI has, and significantly so.
Yes the contract can be extended (or at least not terminated) - without a shareholder vote I believe - but equally on Tuesday it can be terminated within the scope of the contract terms.
It just comes down to the CMA arrangement. If that pushes out beyond the 18th, then what the ATVI board believe is in their best interest will decide things until that CMA decision anyway.
I don't think the ATVI decision will solely rest on money - but that will clearly be a big part of it. I personally don't think ATVI will walk now unless the financials improve enough (if I had to put a number on it? ~30% I think would be too much to leave on the table. ATVI would need to believe their share price gets to $120+ this year) to offset the other risks and downsides of terminating the acquisition.
Obviously ATVI can see their revenue and know what's in their pipeline so they can reasonably predict what will happen to their share value absent this merger.
Last edited:
Banjo64
cumsessed
Sorry.
X-Wing
Member
Yeah, they have "embraced" it. We all know what comes next... I mean the acquisition of GitHub speaks for itself together with using code without author's permission to train co-pilot. Microsoft hasn't changed, they just put more effort into pretending they did.
Last edited:
havoc00
Member
But Phil is a nice guy
GetInTheRobot
Banned
Has there been any update on Sony and the 10 year contract? Does MS just not give them one since they never signed or do they give up the leverage for the CMA? Interesting situation with them not signing it.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
I don't believe Sony has signed any contract and really the reason for Microsoft giving out contracts is over.
Microsoft needed to appease regulators whose major concern was a substantial lessening of competition in the console space. The CMA and EC both dropped the console SLC and focused on cloud concerns. The FTC still majorly focused on console concerns, but the FTC's case has been shown to be weak and Microsoft doesn't need to extend a contract to Sony to appease the FTC. Not that a contract between Microsoft and Sony would have appeased the FTC anyway.
So my bet is that Microsoft doesn't give Sony a contract, but they continue to release CoD on Playstation regardless. Doing so not only generates a metric fuckton of revenue for Microsoft, but it would be something Microsoft can point to in future acquisition endeavors to say "We stuck true to our word of releasing CoD on Playstation even when we were not contractually obligated to".
Ar¢tos
Member
Or just because COD would die if they stopped releasing it on PlayStation now... Without the PlayStation income the cost of making the game would be unbearable.
Thick Thighs Save Lives
NeoGAF's Physical Games Advocate Extraordinaire
Dayum that's a great CoD collection and it looks almost complete! Like the steelbooks too!This is my thoughts as well.
COD isn't the reason PlayStation is market leader.
Most COD players would stay on PlayStation anyways. Especially if one of Sony's FPS live service games has the same high quality of their 1st party games and if Sony decides to market and assist in Battlefield's development.
But reality is still sad to see the legacy of a longtime franchise on PlayStation coming to an end.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
is not the fact that what you saying is wrong or not. is the fact that what you and others keep saying is just parroting what executives and influencers say.
when you look at the situation outside the little bubbles of the imposed narratives, things look way more uncertain.
Console, PC and Mobile = Gaming Industry.
but clearly, as you illustrate:
Console ≠ PC ≠ Mobile. each of these market segments has their own idiosyncrasies, expectations and business realities.
People keep talking about this "End Game", this "master plan" that Phil has come up to achieve its "Final, Perfect Form"...But the reality of the situation is that it was an act of desperation and survival...because when you look at xbox over the years (especially in the xbox one gen) no one can deny that they were trying to compete as hard as possible:
Putting emphasis in exclusivity, variety of games as well as making sure of having hardware Superiority, pushing its ecosystem with Backwards Compatiblity, Free Enhanced games and of course Game Pass and Streaming. and let's not forget the increase of studios acquisition since 2018.
and none of the above helped Xbox to gain markets share....in fact it got worse. Game Pass Growth got stagnant too.
when you say that ABK acquisition goes beyond consoles, that is not about consoles sells or "move hardware" and then follow with:
" It's about building a large stable of developers so that they can release a barrage of games once streaming games becomes the norm"
"They want to become the Netflix of Games. That is the end game"
things simply don't add up, because:
1.Is clear that having a lot developers it does not equate to a more/constant and timely release of games.
2. Game Pass/Streaming dont satisfy the idiosyncrasies of each of the market segment; is more like an add-on/add value to the core experience.
3. WoW, Overwatch 2, CoD (Free to play), and King are games with business models that negates the benefits of its inclusion to Game Pass.
MS just spent 70B to acquired revenue and MAU growth as a whole. this is actual end game:
To make the Xbox business as big as other MS businesses.
and to accomplish that, "The Netflix of gaming is not going to be enough"
Xbox should excel in each of the market segments they want to exploit.
Kuwitzzer
Member
I mean, if Phil actually had a master plan from the start, he could have reversed the situation with the Xbox One and then came into next gen with the acquisitions of Bethesda and ABK.
Zathalus
Member
Microsoft is the second largest contributor of open source code in the world. It is also the owner of the largest open source repository in the world. On top of that they have the second largest Linux cloud platform and the development of WSL shows they are serious about Linux integration. Heck they are one of the largest contributors to the Linux kernel as well.
Sure they have tons of proprietary software, but so does basically all the other major tech companies.
Looking into it the author of that article, Roy Schestowitz, is a bit of a loon and certainly seems to have an axe to grind.
Xbox has ben trying to make Xbox a subscription service where they print free money doing nothing since 2002. Get out of here with this
Last edited:
Mozza
Member
Did I suggest they were not?, just saying the FTC had to consider the impact on mobile gaming, and not just the deals impact on Sony.
The Pleasure
Gold Member
I would love to see Warhawk and MAG come back to push Phil Spender's wig back.
Last edited:
skit_data
Member
It's actually crazy this is the first time I've ever heard him called Phil Spender.
The Pleasure
Gold Member
Not gonna lie. If I could spend someones money for a decade and bring nothing but failure, I would change my last name to Spender too.
Edmund
is waiting for Starfield 7
The Pleasure Spender sounds great!
The Pleasure
Gold Member
Ar¢tos
Member
I would love something like MAG, but with a management side too (some players could dedicate themselves to the management, others to the shooting part).
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Not really. Your targets and goals isn't MS's targets and goals.
Rykan
Member
But saying: "That's just parroting what executives and influences say" isn't an argument in itself. What I have posted is a completely logical conclusion that is firmly based on the facts available to us. What you have posted below, which I will address, does not.
Okay, so let's explore that for a moment. Let's run with the idea that Microsoft buying Activision is a sheer act of desperation. They want to move more hardware, get a larger piece of market share. So they spend a lot of money to buy Activision Blizzard.
Now what? What happens next? What's the plan to use Activision Blizzard to sell more consoles?
Use King? Nope. They are a mobile developer.
Use Blizzard? Blizzard mostly makes live service games. They just released two of them, and they are all multiplatform. Most of their focus is on maintaining these live service games. They won't be able to produce exclusive content for a very long time.
Call of Duty? They absolutely could use this to sell more console. If they wanted to sell more hardware, they'd have made this exclusive. But it is clear Microsoft intends to keep this multiplatform, even expanding on the platforms it's available, for the foreseeable future.
So what is the battle plan here? How are they actually using AB to sell more consoles? They don't. Because otherwise, what they are doing makes absolutely no sense. You don't buy Activision Blizzard with the intent to move more hardware, and then make the biggest hardware seller of all, Call of Duty, Multiplatform. There's no logic there.
Yes it does. Having more developers means you can release more games. I know what point you're trying to make here: Xbox hasn't released a lot of first party content yet, so that shows more developers does not equate to more content. But the fact is that Microsoft went on a spending spree for a few years now, and most of the developers that they have purchased had just released games before being acquired, or they are newly established studios. The games are coming.
That's what streaming is right now. But Microsoft is looking way, way ahead. There's a reason why so many companies want to get into game streaming early and get a foothold in it, despite the fact that game streaming is a miniscule market right now. The idea is that, in the future, many years from now, decades even, we'll all be consuming games the same way we consume video content: through streaming and a subscription service. When the technical hurdles are cleared and that becomes a reality, Microsoft will be ready with a large stable of developers to release content exclusively to their subscription and they will have the infrastructure to support it with Azure. Want to play Call of Duty? Only on Gamepass's streaming service.
That is the plan. That is where Microsoft sees itself in the future. And when you see it in that context, the AB acquisition makes perfect sense.
Only a part of CoD is Free: Warzone. The actual CoD games are still paid for games. King is an entirely different subject: It's not there to break into gamepass/game streaming. It's there to get a foothold on mobile gaming.
Last edited:
There's absolutely no credible scenario where Microsoft would turn to Bobby Kotick to head Xbox, given his baggage. Not to mention what seems to be the internal succession plan to put Sarah Bond forward.
Kotick could also operate the way he did because he was the main decision maker at Activision. Any acquisitions would have to go to the Microsoft board, and there's no indication at the moment that their success criteria includes going 'scorched earth' on anyone.
Feels really weird that you - sitting in your bedroom - plan to 'hold Microsoft accountable' for an acquisition made with their own cash.
On what basis? You're a major Microsoft shareholder?
The key metric will be significantly expanded revenues at their earnings calls. Not exactly rocket science.
Bungie
Member
There's a lot of casual CoD players that usually wait to get the game used or cheaper. $10 a month to access all of the CoDs plus the latest one. It's too good of a deal, you can cancel anytime & stick to the free to play version as well. Gamepass is a easy win for these kind of players or the type who just enjoy CoD for like a week and move on aka Me. Hardcore CoD fans will still buy the game because they are likely to have early access with-in the deluxe/ultimate version of the game.
At the end of the day it will drive up subs for the ones just there's to get the newest Cod for only $10. It doesn't feel like spending that huge amount of money when it's monthly & there's so much variety. People usually bank on Betas to try out the newest CoD, now you have Gamepass.
Not sure why this always comes down to playstation, if this data is valid (it's based on koticks testimony) it's obvious microsoft are chasing this for other reasons than the ones continually claimed in here.
""The bulk of players are playing on phones. Then you have probably 25% on PC, and then there's probably say 15-16% play on PlayStation, 7-8% that play on Xbox," Kotick said in his testimony."
www.tweaktown.com
""The bulk of players are playing on phones. Then you have probably 25% on PC, and then there's probably say 15-16% play on PlayStation, 7-8% that play on Xbox," Kotick said in his testimony."
Call of Duty has 70 million daily active users, more than Roblox
Based on testimony from Activision CEO Bobby Kotick, the Call of Duty franchise has 70 million daily active users, which is 4 million more than Roblox.
www.tweaktown.com
LoveCake
Member
Your last paragraph is why it's anti-competitive.
Rykan
Member
Sure, but my post wasn't intended to take a stance on that. I didn't post it saying it's good or bad or whether it's anti - competitive or not. I'm just clarifying why MS purchased AB and why insisting on console sales of this generation as a metric of whether the purchase was successful or not, is absurd.
Chukhopops
Member
You can see in the yearly ABK reports that 38% of total revenue comes from Apple + Google versus around 22% for Sony + MS. So the COD numbers from the article are probably close to reality.Not sure why this always comes down to playstation, if this data is valid (it's based on koticks testimony) it's obvious microsoft are chasing this for other reasons than the ones continually claimed in here.
""The bulk of players are playing on phones. Then you have probably 25% on PC, and then there's probably say 15-16% play on PlayStation, 7-8% that play on Xbox," Kotick said in his testimony."
Call of Duty has 70 million daily active users, more than Roblox
Based on testimony from Activision CEO Bobby Kotick, the Call of Duty franchise has 70 million daily active users, which is 4 million more than Roblox.
feynoob
Banned
That is not anti competitive.
The approach of your business makes you anti competitive.
The CMA didn't stop MS because of Activision. They did it because they own azure. That gives MS insane advantage compared to other players.
Then there is the money part, which makes them the top food chain. The money they have can make them afford anything. This purchase is 67b.
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
This is finally done with then? Whatever are we going to talk about now?
feynoob
Banned
Pixel wars, who has bigger dick energy, and whose daddy is most attractive.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked