bitbydeath
Member
The EU Xbox market isn’t big enough to fight Microsoft. They should just copy Australia and say they will agree with what the UK comes up with.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
splattered
Member
Yeah maybe... gonna run up to the last second and implode
Zok310
Banned
Like hell it wont.
HoofHearted
Member
nah - we'll miss him - understand why he's doing it though..Edit. Nvm i thought you were trolling
You do understand he requested this ban
Barakov
Gold Member
Jeez. Look at those mutant ears.did someone mention money?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
did someone mention money?
Last edited:
The Pleasure
Gold Member
I love the character creator from the original Ultima Trilogy. I chose Fuzzy or was it Bobbit?
Unknown Soldier
Member
MS really thinks playing hardball with CMA is the winning strategy. Even the newest deal on the table, the 15 years of Ubisoft deal, isn't an actual divestiture, it's still a timed deal. CMA has demanded a divestiture, not yet another timed deal with another 5 years tacked on. So I don't know what MS is doing but it's obvious they aren't willing to divest and for $70 billion spent it's not hard to imagine why.
After the disastrous performance of Starfield, it's obvious that MS is not going to get any value back from the $7 billion they spent on Zenimax/Bethesda. So I question how much Satya Nutella really, really wants to spend the $70 billion on ABK knowing they will get zero value back from it. It's an even worse acquisition in terms of financials than Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter and that is saying A LOT. Satya might actually breathe a sigh of relief if this deal falls through in October.
Schmick
Member
Is that all it takes? Enjoy one Xbox 1st party game makes you a Xbot shill? This place!This needs to ramp up in a big way so I can shed this Xbot shill rep I've gained for being a fan of Starfield.
The Pleasure
Gold Member
Nutella is probably still pissed that he let Phil Spender get access to money. Phil Spender probably expenses his food to Nutella's bank account.
freefornow
Gold Member
FTC related news
"The indie devs' brief stands out (we've heard from some of these other parties before)Indies say MS buying Activision helps Game Pass and GP helps indies get their games discovered- iam8bit: Escape Academy had 1.5m+ players via GP- Curve: Human Fall Flat had 14.2m GP users"
"The indie devs' brief stands out (we've heard from some of these other parties before)Indies say MS buying Activision helps Game Pass and GP helps indies get their games discovered- iam8bit: Escape Academy had 1.5m+ players via GP- Curve: Human Fall Flat had 14.2m GP users"
Last edited:
Schmick
Member
Are they they all on MS' side?
Last edited:
freefornow
Gold Member
Pretty much.
KingT731
Member
Was anything less expected? All the organizations that would stand to benefit in some way financially, Front or back end, are going to do that.
PaintTinJr
Member
I get the feeling that Microsoft have intentionally complicated the offer (ex-cloud) to be virtually incomprehensible for any CAT judge to truly understand so that they can appeal a phase 1 block of the new ex-cloud merger saying it should have had a second phase investigation, and then use that as a angle to get to argue that the CMA divestment ask is disproportionate.
I suspect the CMA will anticipate this and either approve or start a phase 2, tomorrow maybe with the latter anticipated to have the deal fall apart, like you suggest, because of the raised breakup fee price for ATVI and with still no assurance of the deal passing.
The recent gate keeper decision feels like a major win for Microsoft, despite being listed, as it guarantees them access to Apple devices with their own store tax free, and that I assume is why they desperately don't want to divest CoD in any shape or form, as it will be the tentpole game to launch a Windows store on iDevices.
Topher
Identifies as young
Nah, not really. Just one guy called me an Xbox fanboy and we were all having some fun with it.
Last edited:
NickFire
Member
Didn't we have a thread in the last few weeks about indie devs claiming they are already getting less money from subscriptions as time goes on?
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I can't see how this merger possibly helps indie devs overall. If current year COD hits GP, it is going to eat a much larger percentage of "minutes played by GP subscribers" than possibly any prior game to date. And that will make smaller indie games far less important for the service, which will correlate to even smaller payouts.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Topher
Identifies as young
At a dev conference last year, Piers Harding-Rolls said indie support for Game Pass would diminish greatly as Microsoft's first party increases output.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
And the fanboys will no longer like Indies, those "not real games"... again.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
To be fair, Piers is an analyst, not an indie game developer.
More often than not, indie developers have had nothing but positive comments about game pass.
And while getting Activision's stuff would increase game pass' portfolio for the bigger AAA caliber games, I don't see MS investing in a lot of small first party indie games outside of a Pentiment here and there. I don't think the greater indie developer share will lose out the benefits they get from the ID@ programs and the like.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
NickFire
Member
It's simple common sense. The importance of someone / something correlates to how much its worth.
Topher
Identifies as young
I didn't say Piers was an indie developer. Yes, he's an analyst. That's where his insight comes from. Indie devs are certainly going to have great things to say about any service that pays. The point is those pay days are probably going to be rare at the point MS feels they are not reliant on them. Not talking about ID@.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I think it's gonna be a long while, if at all, where MS/Xbox feels like it doesn't need to pay and get as much content on their systems as possible. At least, I don't see that happening before the start of a new generation.
Topher
Identifies as young
Hinges greatly on the ABK acquisition. If it fails (which I doubt) then Indies will have a GP lifeline for a while. If it doesn't then I see that funding drying up really quick. That's just my guess though.
MarkMe2525
Banned
Disastrous in what context?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Have we all not seen the 2+ years of GWG before they dissolved it? When their focuses shift, they are noticeable and felt. Eventually your shareholders are going to want to see big gains and results. Funding had to shift from GWG into GP. The same shift will happen if they get Activision, being $70b in the hole.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I don't know if that's an accurate equivalency. With Activision, the money making content will be shipping to all the same, and more, platforms so they will be double fisting the money back. I don't think that part is gonna be a problem post-merger.
To be at a point where they completely neglect indies, they would need to be in a much more favorable situation in terms of market share than they are right now.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Negotiator101
Member
Don't take this poster seriously please.
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
We’re 5 weeks away from the deadline.
I suppose things are going to heat up soon.
I suppose things are going to heat up soon.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Indeed, you should only take the blatant MS influencers and shills seriously!
You can check the names of people who reacted with
LOL on my post for the latest list of current shill accounts BTW
Last edited:
Negotiator101
Member
And?
PaintTinJr
Member
Asking Bing (ChatGPT) : "did the msft atvi breakup fee increase to $4.5 billion today?"
returns
:"
According to a recent regulatory filing by Activision, if the Microsoft-Activision deal fails to close by September 15, 2023, the breakup fee could increase to $4.5 billion 1. The previous breakup fee was $3 billion 1. However, as of today, there is no news of any increase in the breakup fee.
I hope this helps!"
So even the mighty ChatGPT has no clue if the deal is cancelled, today or still in phase 1. It would be pretty surprising if Microsoft chopped the deal just before the end of, today in the US, as for future courtesy reasons with the CMA you would have expected them to have made that decision before the close of the business day, here in the UK IMO. So I would guess it has gone up.
Last edited:
If CMA goes into phase 2 and Microsoft/Activision have to extend again it will be a master troll event.
In any case the deal has considerably changed shape compared to the early 2022 version.
It has basically become 70 billions to put games on Gamepass + King.
If Microsoft knew how it would end they would have executed on a different strategy imo.
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Member
Microsoft / Activision Blizzard (ex-cloud streaming rights) merger inquiry
The CMA investigated the anticipated acquisition by Microsoft Corporation of Activision Blizzard, Inc. (excluding Activision Blizzard, Inc.’s non-EEA cloud streaming rights).
Where I thought phase 2 might be triggered, today according to the new (ex-cloud merger page at the CMA) the phase 1 deadline goes all the way to 18th October 2023, so I now think they would need a good reason to start the phase 2 before that date.
I'm not sure how the ATVI extension lines up for ATVI with the phase 1 deadline, but I assume if the ATVI deadline falls after the end of phase 1 deadline, and the CMA block, then Microsoft requiring a judicial appeal, and it to be in progress, to fight on would need ATVI to willingly extend at that point, whereas an active phase 2 extension across the ATVI deadline I believe obligates ATVI to accept a similarly improved extension, again.
bitbydeath
Member
Looks like they intentionally made the renewal date the same date as the end of phase one. Good chance it’s setup to die on that date as they won’t get time to get a result and renew at the same time.Microsoft / Activision Blizzard (ex-cloud streaming rights) merger inquiry
The CMA investigated the anticipated acquisition by Microsoft Corporation of Activision Blizzard, Inc. (excluding Activision Blizzard, Inc.’s non-EEA cloud streaming rights).www.gov.uk
Where I thought phase 2 might be triggered, today according to the new (ex-cloud merger page at the CMA) the phase 1 deadline goes all the way to 18th October 2023, so I now think they would need a good reason to start the phase 2 before that date.
I'm not sure how the ATVI extension lines up for ATVI with the phase 1 deadline, but I assume if the ATVI deadline falls after the end of phase 1 deadline, and the CMA block, then Microsoft requiring a judicial appeal, and it to be in progress, to fight on would need ATVI to willingly extend at that point, whereas an active phase 2 extension across the ATVI deadline I believe obligates ATVI to accept a similarly improved extension, again.
Embearded
Member
Indeed, you should only take the blatant MS influencers and shills seriously!
You can check the names of people who reacted with
I do not own an xbox or GPU subscription and am against this acquisition, but i also don't see this "disastrous" release.
I was given the impression it does really well and even above expectations with all those early access sales etc.
How can that be disastrous?
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
With Sony signing the 10 year deal and this 15 year deal, I'm pretty confident that the CMA will bend on this. There has been a lot of political heat on this from Microsoft, and I think the CMA will look to take the off ramp on this. It's still a major concession. 15 years is a really long time and once they carved out the concern as for cloud gaming, that really does give competitors a chance to compete.
Imagine where gaming was 15 years ago in 2008. Online gaming for consoles was barely out of infancy.
I don't think it's anywhere close to the disaster of a purchase that was Twitter, but I would say that if this deal does ultimately fall through, which I highly doubt, Spencer will be gone within a year and if that is the case GamePass isn't going much further.
I think the deal goes through with the new concession, Microsoft absorbs ABK, and Spencer gets 1 more generation to prove value.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Just checking my notes, and apparently It didn't get a metacritic of 94, is not regarded as the Game Of The Generation and has not led to PS5s being thrown into the street so PlayStation players can make room for Series X consoles being delivered.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
If that happens (unlikely, at this point), I think Game Pass will continue, and the next Xbox leader will take the logical action of not viewing PlayStation and Nintendo as competitors but as partners -- just like EA does.
- Make a first-party-only Game Pass tier and put that everywhere: Xbox, PC, Nintendo, PlayStation, Mac, Android phones, iPhones, refrigerators, etc.
- That'll allow them to gradually phase out Xbox, which is a loss-leading HW platform.
- Replace that division with a mobile gaming company, in parallel with XGS in its current format, which has a very high ROI potential. Phil Spencer had the right idea when he discussed about erecting a mobile gaming division in Xbox in a leaked email.
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
PlayStation and Nintendo will never allow GamePass in any form on their platforms, whether it is limited to 1st party or otherwise.
They allow these deals with EA, because EA is a 3rd party developer. As a platform holder, this would be them advertising for Microsoft. Moreover, a 5-dollar-a-month first-party subscription for Microsoft would absolutely destroy their studios. Impossible for them to afford that and 10 dollars is pretty much DOA.
Microsoft does not want to phase out Xbox and GamePass can't exist without it.
Shifting to mobile at this point is going to be a massive undertaking. I don't see it happening.
Zathalus
Member
No other console manufacturer is going to allow Gamepass on thier platform and the mobile gaming division was never a serious suggestion that anyone gave any thought to.
Microsoft is obviously going to stick the course, considering the amount of money they are making, especially after the deal closes.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
I believe these console manufacturers will be more than happy to take Game Pass if it is a first-part-only tier. It'll be exactly the same as EA.
And I think that'll be a win-win for everyone. PS and Nintendo get to eliminate a competitor; Xbox gets a bigger audience by going third-party and increasing their ROI like EA and ABK.
It won't be day-one releases though. If that ever happens, I reckon the model would be very similar to EA.
Zathalus
Member
Win-win for everyone except for consumers. And first party only tier is not Gamepass, nor would it attract enough subscribers to be worthwhile.
Microsoft is making tens of billions with its current strategy, with most of it coming not from Gamepass, but from games (and MTX) selling on the Xbox console. Giving up the majority of its income seems to be counterintuitive to making money.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
It's pretty weird to read about regulators opposing the deal wanting more competition and innovation but having complete blinders on where or how that competition emerges.
It's not just the games being made, it's the tech, the platforms and more. Which gaming platform company is more risk friendly? MS, Nintendo, Sony, Tencent, Steam, Apple, Google, other?
To me MS had the balls to enter the console business, decades of PC support, push console online broadband required, multiplayer/matchmaking, a cohesive ecosystem, Kinect (games sucked, tech was awsome), support for parents and monitoring, hololens, party chat quality, app integration...Windows has had DOS games, direct X, certified drivers program, massive hardware support etc.
Current day we see Gamepass, crossplay, ergo controllers, Adaptive controller, xCloud, ID @ Xbox and more. Devs, indies, studios, publishers are overwhelmingly in support; financially and greenlit games/talent.
It's a pretty damning perspective when you consider what Apple, Google, Amazon, Sony have done historically. Nintendo at least have really beaten their own drum, mad respect. Steam has much of the same love over the decades, respect.
What are regulators thinking when Google invested fuck all and drop kicked a division right quick? What are they thinking when they're directly responsible for Apple dominating a duopoly through shit vision?
Compared to MS staying power of PC, windows, Direct X, Xbox etc. Let alone unifying and opening gaming further and cheaper for devs and gamers alike. I welcome this purchase, pretty disappointed with what the regulators focus on. They could provide a framework for industry but it's really hindrance at this point.
It's not just the games being made, it's the tech, the platforms and more. Which gaming platform company is more risk friendly? MS, Nintendo, Sony, Tencent, Steam, Apple, Google, other?
To me MS had the balls to enter the console business, decades of PC support, push console online broadband required, multiplayer/matchmaking, a cohesive ecosystem, Kinect (games sucked, tech was awsome), support for parents and monitoring, hololens, party chat quality, app integration...Windows has had DOS games, direct X, certified drivers program, massive hardware support etc.
Current day we see Gamepass, crossplay, ergo controllers, Adaptive controller, xCloud, ID @ Xbox and more. Devs, indies, studios, publishers are overwhelmingly in support; financially and greenlit games/talent.
It's a pretty damning perspective when you consider what Apple, Google, Amazon, Sony have done historically. Nintendo at least have really beaten their own drum, mad respect. Steam has much of the same love over the decades, respect.
What are regulators thinking when Google invested fuck all and drop kicked a division right quick? What are they thinking when they're directly responsible for Apple dominating a duopoly through shit vision?
Compared to MS staying power of PC, windows, Direct X, Xbox etc. Let alone unifying and opening gaming further and cheaper for devs and gamers alike. I welcome this purchase, pretty disappointed with what the regulators focus on. They could provide a framework for industry but it's really hindrance at this point.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked