Support NeoGAF

[Jemm]

So when does this now realistically OFFICIALLY close?

 

[Mr Reasonable]

They don't just want the content though they want the developers and studios and IPs so they can continue to create games and pump out content for GP. They are going for the Netflix model trying to make as much stuff in house as they can. It will save them money in the long term. On top of that Activision actually makes money and is profitable so just buying the company will also help them slowly start making their money back.

I agree that they want the IP, that's really what the sale is. To some degree they also get the developers, the pipeline, etc, etc. But the developers can all leave today if they want, so they're not buying that. It's impossible to buy that. They are buying a profitable business that owns a couple of the biggest IPs in the world. Those games will still come to other platforms, the numbers don't work for that to not be the case.

But to be clear, you just said "it is about Gamepass" and it absolutely is not primarily about gamepass.

 

[Heisenberg007]

So when does this now realistically OFFICIALLY close?

Oct. 18 at the latest.

 

[mayham2199]

I agree that they want the IP, that's really what the sale is. To some degree they also get the developers, the pipeline, etc, etc. But the developers can all leave today if they want, so they're not buying that. It's impossible to buy that. They are buying a profitable business that owns a couple of the biggest IPs in the world. Those games will still come to other platforms, the numbers don't work for that to not be the case.

But to be clear, you just said "it is about Gamepass" and it absolutely is not primarily about gamepass.

Then what is it primarily about? To me it's about Game pass.. All of Microsoft's business is moving to subscription services. I have a hard time believing that gaming is the one spot where they aren't focused on subscription services while at the same time being the first company to offer subscription services in gaming (the way they are doing it anyways).

 

[Bernoulli]

The full list of remedies proposed by MS, addressing also the "residual concerns" from the CMA (I don't think it was posted):

1) Ubisoft may not grant Microsoft an exclusive licence to the Activision Games, and any such purported licence would be null and void.

2) Ubisoft may not offer Microsoft preferential pricing nor material preferential treatment with respect to Cloud Streaming Rights not made available to third parties.

3) Microsoft must offer the Activision Games to Ubisoft at a price that is no higher than the wholesale price for digital download and retail sales of PC and console versions of the same content (whichever is lower); [REDACTED].

4) Microsoft must provide Ubisoft with the Activision Games in a standard executable format sufficiently in advance to allow Ubisoft to release them on the same date as they are released on console and PC.

5) Microsoft will ensure that the quality, content, features and performance of any Activision Game delivered to Ubisoft will be materially similar to the non- streaming version of that Activision Game. Microsoft will not design PC versions of Activision Games, or any other versions which are or are planned to be available on multiple cloud streaming services, to be solely optimised for its own cloud streaming service.

6) Microsoft must port Activision Games to non-Windows OS following a request from Ubisoft. Ubisoft may also request that Microsoft perform technical modifications, including to ensure that the Activision Games support emulators like Proton. Microsoft must carry out this work at its regular pace and at a quality and standard which is customary in the gaming industry. Microsoft can only charge Ubisoft for the reasonable costs incurred for this work. Microsoft is also required to provide Ubisoft with development and porting plans for the Activision Games reasonably in advance.

7) Ubisoft will compensate Microsoft for the Activision Streaming Rights through a one-off payment and through a market-based wholesale pricing mechanism, including an option that supports pricing based on usage. This will allow Ubisoft to license out the Activision Streaming Rights under any business model of its choosing, including buy-to-play, multi-game subscription services, or any other model that may arise.

8) Microsoft will offer technical support to Ubisoft for Activision Games [REDACTED]. It will also offer reasonable technical support for Ubisoft's sublicensees, provided these cover Microsoft's reasonable costs.

Add to that:

"A Monitoring Trustee to oversee the Parties' compliance with the Proposed Undertakings, if required by the CMA. The Parties will also be required to provide annual compliance reports to the CMA setting out the steps taken to ensure compliance with the undertakings. The Proposed Undertakings require the Parties to comply with the dispute resolution provisions included in the Ubisoft Divestment Agreement, encompassing a fast-track escalation process and arbitration, and require the Parties to keep the CMA informed of any dispute referred to the fast- track escalation process".

 

[Dane]

The full list of remedies proposed by MS, addressing also the "residual concerns" from the CMA (I don't think it was posted):

1) Ubisoft may not grant Microsoft an exclusive licence to the Activision Games, and any such purported licence would be null and void.

2) Ubisoft may not offer Microsoft preferential pricing nor material preferential treatment with respect to Cloud Streaming Rights not made available to third parties.

3) Microsoft must offer the Activision Games to Ubisoft at a price that is no higher than the wholesale price for digital download and retail sales of PC and console versions of the same content (whichever is lower); [REDACTED].

4) Microsoft must provide Ubisoft with the Activision Games in a standard executable format sufficiently in advance to allow Ubisoft to release them on the same date as they are released on console and PC.

5) Microsoft will ensure that the quality, content, features and performance of any Activision Game delivered to Ubisoft will be materially similar to the non- streaming version of that Activision Game. Microsoft will not design PC versions of Activision Games, or any other versions which are or are planned to be available on multiple cloud streaming services, to be solely optimised for its own cloud streaming service.

6) Microsoft must port Activision Games to non-Windows OS following a request from Ubisoft. Ubisoft may also request that Microsoft perform technical modifications, including to ensure that the Activision Games support emulators like Proton. Microsoft must carry out this work at its regular pace and at a quality and standard which is customary in the gaming industry. Microsoft can only charge Ubisoft for the reasonable costs incurred for this work. Microsoft is also required to provide Ubisoft with development and porting plans for the Activision Games reasonably in advance.

7) Ubisoft will compensate Microsoft for the Activision Streaming Rights through a one-off payment and through a market-based wholesale pricing mechanism, including an option that supports pricing based on usage. This will allow Ubisoft to license out the Activision Streaming Rights under any business model of its choosing, including buy-to-play, multi-game subscription services, or any other model that may arise.

8) Microsoft will offer technical support to Ubisoft for Activision Games [REDACTED]. It will also offer reasonable technical support for Ubisoft's sublicensees, provided these cover Microsoft's reasonable costs.

Add to that:

"A Monitoring Trustee to oversee the Parties' compliance with the Proposed Undertakings, if required by the CMA. The Parties will also be required to provide annual compliance reports to the CMA setting out the steps taken to ensure compliance with the undertakings. The Proposed Undertakings require the Parties to comply with the dispute resolution provisions included in the Ubisoft Divestment Agreement, encompassing a fast-track escalation process and arbitration, and require the Parties to keep the CMA informed of any dispute referred to the fast- track escalation process".

Funny that they didn't want a monitoring trustee because they tough it was too much work.

 

[MadPanda]

I'd like to know how much ubisoft paid for this? It must be in billions. I guess around 2-3 billions?

 

[LordBlodgett]

Ubisoft won't be delivering cloud streaming. They'll just be handling the licensing required for ABK games to appear on all cloud services as a hedge against Microsoft hoarding ABK games for their own service. Microsoft will have to license ABK games for cloud just like everyone else.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. They already have a subscription service in Ubisoft+. My bet is that they add streaming to it now just so they can add all Activision- Blizzard games to their subscription plan to make it more attractive. The funniest thing would be if they spun up streaming using Azure

 

[LordBlodgett]

+50M GP subs.

I laugh, and yet it's probably true

 

[XesqueVara]

I'd like to know how much ubisoft paid for this? It must be in billions. I guess around 2-3 billions?

The liscense will be per game.

 

[Heisenberg007]

The full list of remedies proposed by MS, addressing also the "residual concerns" from the CMA (I don't think it was posted):

1) Ubisoft may not grant Microsoft an exclusive licence to the Activision Games, and any such purported licence would be null and void.

2) Ubisoft may not offer Microsoft preferential pricing nor material preferential treatment with respect to Cloud Streaming Rights not made available to third parties.

3) Microsoft must offer the Activision Games to Ubisoft at a price that is no higher than the wholesale price for digital download and retail sales of PC and console versions of the same content (whichever is lower); [REDACTED].

4) Microsoft must provide Ubisoft with the Activision Games in a standard executable format sufficiently in advance to allow Ubisoft to release them on the same date as they are released on console and PC.

5) Microsoft will ensure that the quality, content, features and performance of any Activision Game delivered to Ubisoft will be materially similar to the non- streaming version of that Activision Game. Microsoft will not design PC versions of Activision Games, or any other versions which are or are planned to be available on multiple cloud streaming services, to be solely optimised for its own cloud streaming service.

6) Microsoft must port Activision Games to non-Windows OS following a request from Ubisoft. Ubisoft may also request that Microsoft perform technical modifications, including to ensure that the Activision Games support emulators like Proton. Microsoft must carry out this work at its regular pace and at a quality and standard which is customary in the gaming industry. Microsoft can only charge Ubisoft for the reasonable costs incurred for this work. Microsoft is also required to provide Ubisoft with development and porting plans for the Activision Games reasonably in advance.

7) Ubisoft will compensate Microsoft for the Activision Streaming Rights through a one-off payment and through a market-based wholesale pricing mechanism, including an option that supports pricing based on usage. This will allow Ubisoft to license out the Activision Streaming Rights under any business model of its choosing, including buy-to-play, multi-game subscription services, or any other model that may arise.

8) Microsoft will offer technical support to Ubisoft for Activision Games [REDACTED]. It will also offer reasonable technical support for Ubisoft's sublicensees, provided these cover Microsoft's reasonable costs.

Add to that:

"A Monitoring Trustee to oversee the Parties' compliance with the Proposed Undertakings, if required by the CMA. The Parties will also be required to provide annual compliance reports to the CMA setting out the steps taken to ensure compliance with the undertakings. The Proposed Undertakings require the Parties to comply with the dispute resolution provisions included in the Ubisoft Divestment Agreement, encompassing a fast-track escalation process and arbitration, and require the Parties to keep the CMA informed of any dispute referred to the fast- track escalation process".

 

[Ozriel]

People who already subscribe to GP are not who MS cares about with this one. If that’s all it did, maintain the status quo, yikes.

You’ll have a very hard time convincing anyone you truly believe COD on GP won’t drive subscriber growth.
I’m also not sure why you keep moving goalposts.

No way did they buy Activision purely to bolster Gamepass. I can't believe that people are still saying it.

Nobody is saying that. At all

 

[sainraja]

Oh shit.....I forgot we are all supposed to be "melting down". Damn....sorry. Um....

There.....got that out of the way.

Haha, this thing has dragged out for soo long that anyone hoping for drama would be left a little disappointed but if you really think about it, how sad is it that some people take pleasure, not at what the decision is, but at how it **might** make others feel over something, that no one has direct influence over, outside of just choosing the company that it benefits.

Just crazy, lol.

Ok, going back to what we are supposed to do: "melt down."

For me, the craziest have been those who left when it wasn't going their way only to return when they thought it was, and now, well, it is the end → the finale and so shall they all return.

 

[SportsFan581]

If their primary aim was wanting to bring more people in from other platforms, as I said in my post earlier (and in this one), they could have made Gamepass far, far, far more attractive to the public with $70bn than by buying COD and Candy Crush. They could have secured 10+ giant multiplatform games for gamepass for 10 years for that. As Jim Ryan says, they could have spent $5bn to get 3 years of COD. How about 10Bn for most of the generation? And Assassin's Creed, and FIFA, and Madden, and Battlefield, And Star Wars, and Resident Evil, and Street Fighter, etc. And all the first party stuff. And all the third party deals they're doing anyway. That would make Gamepass absolutely indispensible and would cost less than $70Bn. If Microsoft decided to make gamepass the default way for people to play games, they could do it for long enough that their competitors couldn't compete for less money.

Microsoft will get the benefit of putting the games they acquired on Gamepass, of course, but that definitely is not the primary driver.

The glaring issue with that logic though is that there is no guaranteed result from any of that and Xbox would probably never get the $ for any of it from the MS board.

On the flip side, buying a business with a consistent history of $2b+ profits per year (about a 3% yearly return on the total investment) with $70b they had on hand is something a lot easier for them to approve. Not to mention they own the IPs now, they didn't rent them.

 

[sainraja]

You’ll have a very hard time convincing anyone you truly believe COD on GP won’t drive subscriber growth.

I think that is what will be most interesting to see, will people who only play COD yearly, pony up more money to keep playing it vs paying $70?
And even more interesting, how much do we think they are currently paying yearly for COD that they might pivot?

I don't know the answer, but now we will find out.

 

[L*][*N*K]

Very true, here you go:

Yeah it is Microsoft’s fault Redfall sucked, sure.

 

[adamsapple]

Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard deal gets preliminary approval from UK regulator

This is the final regulatory hurdle for the $69 billion deal.

www.theverge.com

 

[Mr Reasonable]

The glaring issue with that logic though is that there is no guaranteed result from any of that and Xbox would probably never get the $ for any of it from the MS board.

On the flip side, buying a business with a consistent history of $2b+ profits per year (about a 3% yearly return on the total investment) with $70b they had on hand is something a lot easier for them to approve. Not to mention they own the IPs now, they didn't rent them.

Exactly, I agree, they're buying a business, not propping up gamepass.

 

[mansoor1980]

"hard work"

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Look at the date of when this thread was started

 

[mansoor1980]

Look at the date of when this thread was started

 

[MarkMe2525]

It has. Even subscription services and xCloud rights are up for bidding by Ubisoft. Sony/Amazon can get it just as easily as Microsoft can.

At this point, it could be a win-win deal for most -- except for the gaming industry that will continue to be consolidated and be worse.

I have been curious about this idea. Let's say Nintendo or Sony make a deal with Ubisoft to allow the streaming of this catalog. What are the mechanisms that they could employ to make money with this? They receive none of the mtx transactions, so would they just have an additional subscription bundle that is paid separately. Maybe I am thinking if this wrong, and I am missing something.

 

[SportsFan581]

Exactly, I agree, they're buying a business, not propping up gamepass.

I think they are propping up GP and the gaming division as a whole in the most realistic way possible for a division operating within MS.

 

[MadPanda]

The liscense will be per game.

Doesn't it say they will pay an upto fee and then per game?

 

[Ozriel]

I think that is what will be most interesting to see, will people who only play COD yearly, pony up more money to keep playing it vs paying $70?
And even more interesting, how much do we think they are currently paying yearly for COD that they might pivot?

I don't know the answer, but now we will find out.

how are you ever going to find out? the bulk of COD players most likely play other games too. And the number of COD players will go up courtesy of GP.

All you’re really going to see is an inflection in GP subscriptions.

Exactly, I agree, they're buying a business, not propping up gamepass.

…basically what most people are saying?

 

[SportsFan581]

It has. Even subscription services and xCloud rights are up for bidding by Ubisoft. Sony/Amazon can get it just as easily as Microsoft can.

At this point, it could be a win-win deal for most -- except for the gaming industry that will continue to be consolidated and be worse.

I think the subscription service deals Ubi can negotiate are streaming only. MS won't have an advantage in cloud streaming, no, they will have a big advantage in download based subscriptions though. They don't have to negotiate with Ubi on those, the ABK games just won't necessarily be included on Xcloud. Not all GP games are anyway.

 

[havoc00]

Bobby always win baby

 

[MarkMe2525]

Week long avatar bet if you're prepared to back up your loose talk.

Que the excuses...

No excuses here. I'll take that bet.

Dang... double post

DM me so I don't forget.

It will not let me DM you. It states "You may not start a conversation with the following recipients: Pelta88."

Anyhow, I drew up an agreement.

To avoid any misunderstanding, we should reiterate the wager. I bet that if the deal goes through, there will not be a provision that blocks MS ability to offer CoD on gamepass for however long the concession to Sony is. Example, if MS signs a 5 year licensing deal with Sony for CoD, they shall not offer CoD on gamepass for those 5 years. This does not include any current marketing deals in place between Activision and Sony. This means I believe at the current end of the marketing agreement (2024 I believe?) MS will have CoD on gamepass if, of course, the deal goes through.

The winner of this wager has the privilege of picking out an avatar for the loser of said wager. Loser will have to use this avatar for 7 days. Honestly, I would prefer to spice it up a little and go for 2 weeks, but that is up to you.

Do you see any issues? If not, do you agree to these terms?

Pelta88 we should wait until the dust has settled before anointing a winner, but I like my chances.

 

[DntMesArnd]

In about 5 years Microsoft will buy Ubisoft, so this shouldn’t be much of an issue.

 

[RedC]

In about 5 years Microsoft will buy Ubisoft, so this shouldn’t be much of an issue.

I don't think Microsoft will buy any Western publishers anytime in the near future and will focus on acquiring a Japanese publisher.

In terms of studios, I definitely think Microsoft will buy Crystal Dynamics from Embracer.

 

[Sanepar]

I don't think Microsoft will buy any Western publishers anytime in the near future and will focus on acquiring a Japanese publisher.

In terms of studios, I definitely think Microsoft will buy Crystal Dynamics from Embracer.

They will buy all of them. EA and Ubi are next.

 

[havoc00]

How does he keep winning bros?

 

[Ozriel]

They will buy all of them. EA and Ubi are next.

You’re already wrong. You clearly haven’t read through the list of remedies

They can’t buy Ubisoft for the next 10 years, and any purchase attempt for EA would face stiff regulator pushback.

 

[splattered]

You’re already wrong. You clearly haven’t read through the list of remedies

They can’t buy Ubisoft for the next 10 years, and any purchase attempt for EA would face stiff regulator pushback.

They can't purchase Ubisoft for 10 years yet their cloud deal with them is for 15 years?

 

[Mr Reasonable]

…basically what most people are saying?

I'm only responding to people telling me it's the wrong take.

 

[Kilau]

Of course game pass subs will go up. You have to have some form of game pass to play paid CoD online.

 

[fred420170]

So when does this now realistically OFFICIALLY close?

Most likely 10/6 according to the CMA.

 

[X-Wing]

This was the expected outcome. Big spoiled baby gets its way. I think it’s very positive for Ubisoft though and probably the only positive out of this. Ubisoft will be a much more important third party when Activision gets absorbed, so they kinda need the edge this licensing deal brings with it.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Since Sony was so worried about future Call of Duty games having parity with Xbox what happens with the PS5 Pro and no Pro Xbox console?

 

[Heisenberg007]

I have been curious about this idea. Let's say Nintendo or Sony make a deal with Ubisoft to allow the streaming of this catalog. What are the mechanisms that they could employ to make money with this? They receive none of the mtx transactions, so would they just have an additional subscription bundle that is paid separately. Maybe I am thinking if this wrong, and I am missing something.

1. Ubisoft will get money/fees from cloud companies (including Sony) who want ABK content on their services.
2. Ubisoft will also offer ABK games on their own Ubisoft+ services, propping their subscription and revenue.

These are the 2 benefits I could think of, but there may be more.

 

[X-Wing]

Since Sony was so worried about future Call of Duty games having parity with Xbox what happens with the PS5 Pro and no Pro Xbox console?

Xbox holds PlayStation back, as it always has.

 

[Topher]

They can't purchase Ubisoft for 10 years yet their cloud deal with them is for 15 years?

The cloud deal is permanent. The affected games are new ones in the next 15 years along with current games.

 

[mansoor1980]

How does he keep winning bros?

i hope he gets phil spencer fired and takes his place as head of the xbox division
BELIEVE

 

[Thirty7ven]

Since Sony was so worried about future Call of Duty games having parity with Xbox what happens with the PS5 Pro and no Pro Xbox console?

Dynamic resolution and 120 fps mode already a win for the PS5.

But hey the more games they play with the PlayStation audience, the bigger their loss. People aren’t ready for the look back in a few years. Call of Duty has nowhere to go.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Don't know what's worst: tropical storm making landfall or the CMA's cucked decision.

Actually, MS spamming the Windows 11 upgrade on my laptop might be worst than both. I'm gonna be a Linux kid when I grow up, Phil Spencer.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

You’re already wrong. You clearly haven’t read through the list of remedies

They can’t buy Ubisoft for the next 10 years, and any purchase attempt for EA would face stiff regulator pushback.

Until MS "conveniently" find grounds that satisfy the concerns creating the pushback, and said pushback fades away.

At this point out of those two, the only one truly off the table is Ubisoft. EA is 50/50 even with that language, considering the outcome we're seeing with ABK.

Exactly, I agree, they're buying a business, not propping up gamepass.

The Game Pass model is not sustainable unless they buy big 3P publishers (and therein, reduce the size of the 3P free market/reduce choice of 3P for competitors and customers on competing platforms).

So no, this is them trying to prop up Game Pass. The whole reason they resorted to this strategy was because they didn't like the prices 3P were asking for Day 1 of their AAA releases into the service over the long-term (to make up for lost B2P sales revenue), and didn't like that competitors could still negotiate open business terms with 3P partners simultaneously. To gain full control over both of those things, they've turned to acquisitions.

It just happens to incidentally, also result in buying a business.

 

[Jibran#one]

The amount of hate people have here for microsoft is mindboggling
Yes big corporations are bad but is Sony any better ? Or apple any better ? Why so much hate towards Xbox and Microsoft ?

 

[GHG]

Until MS "conveniently" find grounds that satisfy the concerns creating the pushback, and said pushback fades away.

At this point out of those two, the only one truly off the table is Ubisoft. EA is 50/50 even with that language, considering the outcome we're seeing with ABK.

Nothing is off limits after this ruling.

Having just seen painkiller it's harrowing to see and read up on what US mega-corps are willing to do to get their way.

Anyone who can be compromised will be.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Nothing is off limits after this ruling.

Having just seen painkiller it's harrowing to see and read up on what US mega-corps are willing to do to get their way.

Anyone who can be compromised will be.

They're already trying to compromise Nintendo through ValueAct so, yeah, anything's possible sadly.

Thank god the full leaked document set is available; got it downloaded and it will come in handy very much in the future .

 

[BiohazardX95]

The amount of hate people have here for microsoft is mindboggling
Yes big corporations are bad but is Sony any better ? Or apple any better ? Why so much hate towards Xbox and Microsoft ?

Because Microsoft has much more money, they are they only company of the Big 3 which can purchase companies as Big as activision, they also have history of ruining things in the past (like Windows phone). Also with all that money they were able to mis manage their studios and not release anything worthwhile in a lot of time despite having bethesda already. That and Many more and more clownery and lies from Phil Spencer.