-
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
Topher
Identifies as young
Hopefully he has got that out of his system now.
GHG
Gold Member
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.
Well this is the crux of the whole thing, they are essentially playing by their own rules. For example they had a verbal agreement with ATVI to get their games on gamepass at some point prior this acquisition on the condition that they could get the financial side of things to align (5th paragraph down in Phil's email) :
Needless to say they couldn't come to an agreement that made sense for both parties with Activision so what happens next? Scandals at Activision conveniently leak and make headlines and the stock comes under attack from 3rd party activist firms (sound familiar?).
Lo and behold, look who swoops in to take what they previously couldn't get via mutually agreeable terms. As Phil said, "the long game".
Last edited:
bender
What time is it?
GHG
Gold Member
In this business a "career moment" should be overseeing the creation of games that leave a positive and influential mark on the industry.
That should be his legacy, but he clearly has other ideas.
Too late
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Thank god the full leaked document set is available; got it downloaded and it will come in handy very much in the future
I don’t see the appeal in an EA acquisition. At least with Activision MS had elements they desperately wanted.
EA? Not so much.
Weird thing to say when they were perfectly happy keeping some of Activision’s biggest games multiplatform.
We’ve had access to reams of internal MS documents and none of them align with this view.
Certainly they’ve acquired studios to boost their first party pipeline for GP content, but a huge part of the ABK deal is King, for Mobile.
bitbydeath
Member
I think what got it through (could be wrong), the cloud requirement was a lot bigger than we knew because their next Xbox (from the FTC leak) showed it was entirely cloud based. Meaning (and again, I could be wrong) that for COD to be used on the next Xbox it will now need to go through Ubisoft.
MarkMe2525
Banned
Well, that surely is a theory
The CMA says they reserve the right to extend so…
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Banjo64
cumsessed
Probably one of the shrewdest men ever in this industry.How does he keep winning bros?
If I was MS I’d be offering him big money to head the division.
Last edited:
sainraja
Member
We'll just have to wait and see.
Possible, but again, we'll just have to wait and see. As I said, it will be an interesting thing to learn now, given that it will be put on Game Pass. Will people switch to paying more to play COD? Will they sign up only during the release months for a specific amount of time? Will they simply keep paying $70-$100 or whatever the cost of the deluxe version is. How many will actually switch to a completely different ecosystem?
It's going to be interesting no matter what happens. But I have no idea...
Not to mention whatever MS/Activision will do going forward to promote COD with Game Pass, as that will influence things too but how much, that is the question.
Last edited:
For a ton of people, it kinda translates to paying less to play COD.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Well this is the crux of the whole thing, they are essentially playing by their own rules. For example they had a verbal agreement with ATVI to get their games on gamepass at some point prior this acquisition on the condition that they could get the financial side of things to align (5th paragraph down in Phil's email) :
Needless to say they couldn't come to an agreement that made sense for both parties with Activision so what happens next? Scandals at Activision conveniently leak and make headlines and the stock comes under attack from 3rd party activist firms (sound familiar?).
Lo and behold, look who swoops in to take what they previously couldn't get via mutually agreeable terms. As Phil said, "the long game".
"Long term con" is more like it. It's not MS's desire to be #1 I dislike; it's their mentality and methodology in going after it. That just so happens to correlate with the sheer amount of money they can spend, too.
Come to think of it, didn't the MOU between Sony and Microsoft back in 2019 cause a massive influx in Sony's stock prices at the time? The idea there was Sony would use Azure for PlayStation cloud infrastructure. Obviously at some point those plans changed, and they went with Amazon. Does anyone know when that choice was made? Because I get a feeling Microsoft might've been spurred to pull the trigger on ABK due to the change in those plans, but if I'm Sony, of course I'd rather not line the pockets of a competitor who wants to squeeze me out of the room with my biggest 3P partners.
I almost wonder if the original MOU was a long-term strategic operation by Microsoft to pin Sony into a corner of either accepting their 3P acquisition spree with no pushback (and get preferential Azure cloud treatment as a result), or call the bluff and walk away from that agreement while suffering a big hit to their stocks when MS went ahead with their next big 3P acquisition (ABK). It probably sounds like a heavy conspiracy theory, but so was the idea of MS using a 3P investment firm partner to buy shares into another platform holder to sway influence in selling themselves to Microsoft in the future.
Then Wednesday happened
.Well, EA has the sports teams, and I don't think any of MS's internal teams are suited to making sports games, which are big money. Even if EA don't have the license for things like FIFA, I'm sure MS wouldn't mind paying up for that license and just let EA use that stuff again.
That's right; key word: some. AKA only stuff like COD (because they've been forced into it), and mostly GaaS titles which are already on other systems currently. Like with Zenimax, expect any new ABK games outside of maybe one or two GaaS to be console-exclusive to Xbox.
The CMA and EC already said full console foreclosure wasn't a concern. An absolutely idiotic conclusion from them both in light of even more leaked documents showing MS's long-term intentions in the gaming market are all about foreclosing on other direct competitors, or hoping to buy them in a weakened enough financial state. Therefore, they have zero incentive to put the next Crash, Spyro, Lego or anything that isn't more COD content basically on platforms like PlayStation, even if that would be leaving tons of money on the table while potentially resulting in few consoles sold or GP growth (therein violating conditions they explicitly mentioned to the EC in the Zenimax acquisition).
Just look at what they chose to do for Starfield.
You know who else they could've bought to boost mobile if that was really their only, major concern? Zygna, or Rovio. Or any number of other big mobile game developers not owned by ABK.
Mobile is important to them for growth in gaming but it's also been a smokescreen of sorts to mask that getting 100% control of Activision and Blizzard content (and using that to foreclose in one way or another on competitors, or force the threat of foreclosure to get competitors to comply with agreements that unfairly benefit Microsoft) is at least as big if not a bigger motivation for Microsoft buying ABK.
Too many of the leaked emails, internal memos and documents prove this.
sainraja
Member
Pretty insane if that is how it transpired and kinda shows how ugly a company like MS can get, if this is true.Well this is the crux of the whole thing, they are essentially playing by their own rules. For example they had a verbal agreement with ATVI to get their games on gamepass at some point prior this acquisition on the condition that they could get the financial side of things to align (5th paragraph down in Phil's email) :
Needless to say they couldn't come to an agreement that made sense for both parties with Activision so what happens next? Scandals at Activision conveniently leak and make headlines and the stock comes under attack from 3rd party activist firms (sound familiar?).
Lo and behold, look who swoops in to take what they previously couldn't get via mutually agreeable terms. As Phil said, "the long game".
sainraja
Member
A recurring monthly cost which is a higher yearly cost vs. a one-time payment, or if you really want to be annoying about it, then a yearly payment?
People who are buying the full deluxe edition will likely still have to buy that with game pass.
I don't see how it will be less. You might want to explain that.
Last edited:
Sanepar
Member
MS strategy as a whole is not let consumers to own license of any software. They wanting u renting, paying every month a fee to access their products.
In terms of games to have this model as mandatory they will need to buy a lot of studios and publishers yet. After that nothing stop them to charge u a full game per month for rent.
Sanepar
Member
U guys math has serious problem.
They could purchase Ubisoft anytime before 10yrs with the CMA's permission. Which would be required anyway in the regulatory process. Only way I could see that happening is if Ubisoft went bankrupt or an activist hostile takeover.
Last edited:
If you’re already on the sub? You’re saving $70 yearly
Last edited:
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
NickFire
Member
The X is the Pro model. Regardless if you share that view or not though, I think we can safely assume that MS will not be allowing versions that look better on PS5 pro. But I doubt they will gimp the PS5 version to be fair.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?
Iced Arcade
Member
well there it is.
casuals are going to gobble up series S with gamepass subs for COD.
casuals are going to gobble up series S with gamepass subs for COD.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
I think if they can manage to give gamepass subs special skins (Like Sony did this past year for COD) and possible jump starts to battle passes that really moves the needle as well.
sainraja
Member
You'd be paying more yearly for the sub lol.
You are acting like they are not going to be paying the cost of the sub, which will cost in the range of $131.88 to $203.88 depending on the plan they choose — an amount that is more than $70 yearly.
I think you are looking for an argument here. I am not saying this will or won't happen. I am using the expectation that people have of those who only play COD, the ones that are paying $70 right now, will they switch to a sub service and pay more to play the same game?
Sure, Xbox Game Pass offers more games, but will they care, if COD is all they care about playing?
If you are simply speaking of people who already have a Game Pass sub checking out COD then I am confused as to why you quoted me. I know people who haven't checked out COD all these years will check it out once it is on Game Pass. That does not need explaining, lol.
Last edited:
ComputerBlue
Member
I thought this as well, but then you have to pay an additional $60 to play online, so it may or may not be cheaper depending on whether or not subscription and game prices change.
Dick Jones
Banned
M&A are the career moments for Microsoft Corp.
Hard work paid off for Phil Spencer, the future creator of Call of Duty, Crash Bandicoot and Sypro The Dragon.
Negotiator101
Member
Who's sad exactly?
ManaByte
Member
COD is like Madden or FIFA. It’s a yearly title with a 12 month lifespan. Being able to access the campaign and normal MP (Warzone is always F2P) without having to pay $70-$100 a year for it moves the needle.
Topher
Identifies as young
Remains to be seen. I'd bet most COD gamers will want to own their games outright.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Imagine the incredible bank they'll make by having 1 week early access ala Starfield where Game Pass subs can pay $25 or so to play early and get the first content pack included, while the other versions have to buy a more expensive $100 version.
Sanepar
Member
And this point is nonsense since gamepass costs $130 at minimum per year and for people who only cares about cod.
SportsFan581
Member
I doubt we seen any console-exclusive content out of ABK proper. For one, they couldn't really make it exclusive because Sony/Nintendo could just release them as streaming only titles and negotiate with Ubi. MS would probably rather just work directly with Sony/Nintendo and hope that most of the sales were just traditional (skipping the middle man).
Pop
Member
I don't believe this
Will system sales shoot up initially, sure. But why pay $17(soon to be $20) a month when you can just buy the game outright like normal at $70. You would be losing money subbing to GP if you only cared about COD
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Topher
Identifies as young
Yeah....doesn't make a lot of sense to me. On console you'll pay (regular price)
Last edited:
Have you seen this years COD lol.
The truth is Kotick knows he put too many eggs in one basket and the house of cards is about to fall which is why it was time to sell.
I honestly think Microsoft would have been better off with any other public publisher since they were gonna have to keep COD multiplatform to make back the purchase even without regulation
Last edited:
sainraja
Member
Yeah, that is a good point. Game Pass Ultimate should be the most attractive in that case, which is $16.99, or $203.88 a year, compared to $130 if you play on Xbox and just buy game and online access or $140 if you are PlayStation.
It’s still cheaper to buy and play if you only care for COD. We’ll just have to wait and see.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
That business model completely loses me as a customer. I don't even like it for productivity software, but at least that is software you use to generate your own income, and depending on where you work, is a requirement to do the job.
We'll see if Game Pass has that much of an effect among casuals. Because before COD, it was Starfield. And before Starfield, it was Halo Infinite.
And those were exclusives (to Xbox). COD will still be multiplat for 10-15 years.
Phil Spencer's narcissism is sad.
This is a nice idea to have in concept, but in practice they will at the very least tie perks to Game Pass subscribers, like they've gotten with VALORANT and other games from that dev on PC Game Pass. Perks that will not be made available (in terms of value) to customers on Sony & Nintendo platforms.
Again from a business POV that is a good move by Microsoft. I just bring it up to show how much the CMA and EC have screwed up by stating full console foreclosure is a non-factor; they have given the OK for Microsoft to do that and much more if they wish. If Microsoft's long-term goal is to spend Sony out of business, and weaken Nintendo to where they'd consider selling to Microsoft, then you 100% bet they will do things like make COD and other ABK content that is console-exclusive to Xbox.
And for people already blinding by their good guy facade, they'll be none-the-wiser as MS will find a way to make it seem like a pro-consumer/pro-union/pro-developer move. The chicken-head shills will regurgitate it in the media to crowd out dissent.
Sanepar
Member
It impress me people thinking is smart to pay $200 for rent to own nothing... Plus people paying for upgrades for games they don't own like early access.
Remember casual players 95% of this market buy an average of 6-8 games per generation, not because price, because is a hobby like many others on their lifes.
For MS to achieve success with their plan(gamepass only option to access games) PC will be the last stronghold, they will need to buy Valve and shutdown Steam or this plan will never work on PC.
Jigsaah
Gold Member
Seen it. I own it. The Premium edition. The real problem is that people think this is as bad as it can get.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked