Support NeoGAF

[DenchDeckard]

I'm pretty sure MS never planned to make COD full exclusive. It's just too much money they would have to pass on. Also Minecraft is still multi and Dungeons and Legends too.

Exactly. Just put it on PlayStation forever.

 

[Jimmyisback]

Bobby is right though.

 

[splattered]

No shit. That's not the point I was making. Just like Sony would swoop up Activision if they could, Microsoft would be the childish brat if the shoe was on the other foot

This pedestal you're putting on Microsoft of all companies is embarrassing

I'm not putting Microsoft on a pedestal... I'm refusing to put Sony on a pedestal. For me, no company is worthy of that. If Microsoft were to start throwing fits like this trying to block things Sony were trying to accomplish i would be just as critical of Microsoft. Both have the means to accomplish their goals without trying to screw the other over. If Sony announced tomorrow they are in talks to purchase Capcom i wouldn't bat an eye because i am a grown man with money and i can buy whatever system i want/need to. I didn't cry when Street Fighter went PS4 exclusive. I've been playing videogames since the days of Atari and long ago realized you actually CAN enjoy more than one console at a time.

 

[Loxus]

It's hilarious to me that these Xbox fanboys overlook Playstation, a company that has been handing Xbox their ass for 2 decades. So much so, that they had to resort to fire sales, cheap consoles, insane promotions and giving away their products for free, only to STILL get their ass handed to them.

Wake the fuck up and stop being so fucking delusional. When you have 20+ studios requiring Activision/Blizzard to compete, means you've already lost.

I know right.
I would be questioning why their dropping 70 billion on a franchise I all ready have access to, instead of investing that into high quality AAA games.

 

[Cheezewizz]

It's such a tiny % of people that care about this aspect that it is absolutely not worth it to disrupt the market for.

~30% of Xbox console users are Game Pass subscribers. ~70% of Xbox console users do not even care enough to subscribe to Game Pass. They'd rather buy their games. On top of that, Game Pass has the fewest subscribers of the multi-game subscription services offered by console manufacturers anyway.

Are you sure these numbers are correct? I just woke up, so don't hold me to my math, but if roughly 30% of xbox owners subscribe to Gamepass, and Gamepass has 30 million subscribers... Wouldn't that result in somewhere around 100 million Xbox consoles out there?

'Sips coffee'. I suppose some of those Gamepass subscribers are only on pc, which would help the math work out. But not completely. I can't imagine half of Gamepass users are only on pc.

It's also important to note that Gamepass has the fewest subscribers of the multi-game subscription services on console because it's the only standalone subscription service on consoles. Nintendo has no equivalent, and Sony's flopped so bad, they boxed theirs up and threw it onto PS+.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I'm pretty sure MS never planned to make COD full exclusive. It's just too much money they would have to pass on. Also Minecraft is still multi and Dungeons and Legends too.

I think the issue with that is Microsoft can afford to lose that money. It really depends what they care about more. The lost revenue from PlayStation systems or the gain in market share/gamepass subscriptions

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I'm not putting Microsoft on a pedestal... I'm refusing to put Sony on a pedestal. For me, no company is worthy of that. If Microsoft were to start throwing fits like this trying to block things Sony were trying to accomplish i would be just as critical of Microsoft. Both have the means to accomplish their goals without trying to screw the other over. If Sony announced tomorrow they are in talks to purchase Capcom i wouldn't bat an eye because i am a grown man with money and i can buy whatever system i want/need to. I didn't cry when Street Fighter went PS4 exclusive. I've been playing videogames since the days of Atari and long ago realized you actually CAN enjoy more than one console at a time.

if Sony were to go out and buy Square Enix or Embracer tomorrow Microsoft wouldn't say a word other than "congratulations!"

This you very clearly putting them on a pedestal, and a delusional one at that

 

[Gavon West]

Because Call of Duty is ridiculously popular, that's why. Plenty of FPS games exist out there. There is only one Call of Duty franchise. If it were just about being associated with a FPS then there are much cheaper options than the COD deal.

Agreed!

That doesn't mean there aren't other massively successful FPS out there. It hasn't stopped anyone else from making ass loads of cash in the video game space. Sony could have their own after this long.

If they even had a title like Apex, they'd be in a MUCH better, and more desirable position than they are now. I guarantee Sony wishes they did at this point. They chose not to do so. To reiterate: THEY CHOSE not to. Think about it this way, even if Microsoft loses the ABK deal, they're in a much better position with a title that can at least compete with, with their own popular title that makes ass loads of cash. Halo is worth billions now. This didn't just happen. It's happened over a period of decades to get where it is now, regardless of it's current state or if you're a fan.

Sony can't say any of that if they lose CoD. That was THEIR choice.

 

[Secret of Evolution]

Bobby whining cuz he nervous about not getting some huge payout on top of his billions and wants to lay blame at someone else's feet. So sad, wow.

 

[Gavon West]

Because you're not just buying some oranges you're buying the orange farm that a town relies on and selling it in another town only.

Not a town. That's false. More like borrower to purchaser of the orange farm.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

He is right .. Sony should work from their strengths .. seems they are not confident of their own ability to create their future .

What Sony now does, is what losers do ..

Not very industry leader like .

I think you're describing the wrong company there, bud. Who's trying to buy ABK, again?

 

[Forsythia]

Why yes Bobby, of course Sony wants to block this deal, they would be stupid not to.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Bobby Kotick is an all time great now that I think about it all the good cod games came out under his belt.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Spoiler: NSFW

Name of the model doing the shakey-shakey dance?

 

[mrmustard]

I think the issue with rust is Microsoft can afford to lose that money. It really depends what they care about more. The lost revenue from PlayStation systems or the gain in market share/gamepass subscriptions

I think if they don't pass on the Minecraft money, they won't pass on the much more COD money. We are talking about hundreds of millions each year.

Exactly. Just put it on PlayStation forever.

The problem with forever is, it's forever. Nobody makes forever contracts. 10 years is a good offer. Who knows what will be in 10 years? Mabe COD is dead until then. Also i really think that Sony not even would be ok with forever. COD is an excuse, they simply don't want the deal.

 

[Lunatic_Gamer]

In January 2022, the Wall Street Journal reported that sources said to be familiar with Kotick's plans told the outlet they expected the controversial CEO to leave.

While it has still to be definitively confirmed whether this is actually the case, Fox Business now claims Kotick will stay as CEO if the deal breaks down.

The publication claims that, according to "sources close to the situation", Kotick "will absolutely remain at the gaming giant to run the company" should regulators derail the planned takeover.

Despite reports suggesting that Kotick is expected to leave Activision Blizzard once the deal is done, the company claimed in a report to shareholders in April 2022 that Kotick hadn't discussed his plans before the acquisition announcement, and still hadn't up to that point.

"No discussions or negotiations regarding post-closing employment arrangements with Microsoft occurred between Microsoft and Mr Kotick prior to the approval and the execution of the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, or have occurred subsequent to such approval and execution, through the date hereof," the report claimed.

Bobby Kotick ‘will absolutely remain’ Activision CEO if Microsoft deal fails, it’s claimed | VGC

Previous reports suggested Kotick planned to leave following the deal…

www.videogameschronicle.com

 

[Elios83]

About the sabotage thing:

Sony is not sabotaging it. They want it to be blocked 100% with no subtlety.
They clearly stated it's an anticompetitive attempt by MS to buy victory using money from other dominant positions and as such these deals should be killed.

Bobby is nervous because he knows that Microsoft must be seriously considering to drop the whole thing atm, he's going to lose a lot of money and his position as the top dog at Activision will come out seriously weakened.

Ultimately everyone is doing their own interests like it's normal in business. Bobby wants the money and his golden parachute, Microsoft wants to buy victory, Sony wants to defend their position.

 

[Unknown?]

Cool so it'll remain a terrible company regardless of outcome!

 

[Topher]

Agreed!

That doesn't mean there aren't other massively successful FPS out there. It hasn't stopped anyone else from making ass loads of cash in the video game space. Sony could have their own after this long.

If they even had a title like Apex, they'd be in a MUCH better, and more desirable position than they are now. I guarantee Sony wishes they did at this point. They chose not to do so. To reiterate: THEY CHOSE not to. Think about it this way, even if Microsoft loses the ABK deal, they're in a much better position with a title that can at least compete with, with their own popular title that makes ass loads of cash. Halo is worth billions now. This didn't just happen. It's happened over a period of decades to get where it is now, regardless of it's current state or if you're a fan.

Sony can't say any of that if they lose CoD. That was THEIR choice.

Maybe that's one of the reasons Sony bought Bungie then. Doesn't really matter. Owning Destiny doesn't change the fact that the Call of Duty marketing deal is massively lucrative for whoever owns it.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I think if they don't pass on the Minecraft money, they won't pass on the much more COD money. We are talking about hundreds of millions each year.

I think with Minecraft it was a lot more difficult for them to take that away since it already existed on those platforms. Same could be said about COD but new releases can always be limited to one ecosystem.

As I said earlier I don't think they would make it exclusive unless it gives them a ton of market share.

The problem with forever is, it's forever. Nobody makes forever contracts. 10 years is a good offer. Who knows what will be in 10 years? Mabe COD is dead until then.

I think wanting them to split off COD is a way to make it forever or at least not dependent on a 10 year agreement. Plus I read that regulators have issues with those sorts of agreements because if they are broken a trillion dollar company can easily afford to pay the fines.

 

[Ar¢tos]

How the hell did mods merged threads so fast?
How many years is GAF mod training?

 

[DrFigs]

No one cares about the Activision scandals anymore. He's been head of Activision during this whole acquisition talk and lots of people became fans of the company in the meantime.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I'm pretty sure MS never planned to make COD full exclusive. It's just too much money they would have to pass on. Also Minecraft is still multi and Dungeons and Legends too.

Perhaps that really is true. But no one is going to believe Microsoft, and rightly so, after the stunt they pulled with the European Commission during the Zenimax acquisition.

They used this exact argument that it wouldn't make financial sense to make Zenimax games exclusive. And they made them exclusive as soon as the ink dried.

Phil Spencer even proudly proclaimed that it was always about exclusive games literally 2 days after they closed the acquisition.

Even the CMA also mentioned Microsoft's stunt with the EC during their provisional findings.

They are only reaping what they sowed.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I think if they don't pass on the Minecraft money, they won't pass on the much more COD money. We are talking about hundreds of millions each year.

Minecraft Legends and Dungeons aren't bringing in much compared to say, any other Bethesda title. The difference is the purpose of the brand

 

[DeepEnigma]

The guy already booked the island that he gonna buy and build his little empire until Jimbo "came" in.

Did the island start with an E?

 

[ToadMan]

That doesn't mean there aren't other massively successful FPS out there. It hasn't stopped anyone else from making ass loads of cash in the video game space. Sony could have their own after this long.

If they even had a title like Apex, they'd be in a MUCH better, and more desirable position than they are now. I guarantee Sony wishes they did at this point. They chose not to do so. To reiterate: THEY CHOSE not to. Think about it this way, even if Microsoft loses the ABK deal, they're in a much better position with a title that can at least compete with, with their own popular title that makes ass loads of cash. Halo is worth billions now. This didn't just happen. It's happened over a period of decades to get where it is now, regardless of it's current state or if you're a fan.

Sony can't say any of that if they lose CoD. That was THEIR choice.

Yep. This sums up why the deal had to be blocked.

Well done regulators - they're keeping the competition even.

 

[SneakersSO]

They can't negotiate good faith deals if they don't have control over Activision... there are lots of multiplayer/multiplatform games within the Acti stable that make a TON of money and make sense to keep on multiple platforms. Just like Minecraft. Fallout 76. Yes, Microsoft would have added some single player experience type exclusives to their console but would have kept other multiplatform games open especially where it made financial sense. COD. Diablo. Maybe even WoW on both consoles. Now Sony will be lucky if they get anything at all if this deal goes through and if other publishers are willing to work deals with them when Sony has openly shown they dont care about anyone but themselves. There is no reality where Microsoft was getting outbid on something it REALLY wanted. You don't think Sony was "winning" these bids due to pre-existing positive relationships forged during previous generations? They are throwing all of that positivity down the drain right now and it might get even worse as we get closer to final decisions here in a few months.

Yeah, you're living in a straight-up delusion.

With where the deal is at right now, there is a 0% chance that this deal passes and that CoD doesn't remain multiplatform, if not almost all of the slate that comes with this purchase. The CMA and FTC will get these concessions as part of whatever merger agreement they approve. They have stated their issues enough and are willing to block the deal.

As for other publishers - I can't really express to you how much other publishers just don't really care about this fight, one way or another. Publishers aren't working with Sony because they like them - they are working with Sony because their software makes more money on Playstation than it does on any other console right now. It doesn't matter who the publisher is in this regard. You think MS is going to start signing deals after this? When its been proven, both in this battle and through MS' quarterly reports, that software sold on the Xbox platform is tanking?

While you may think, even now, that MS has this unlimited financial warchest to spend, but they do indeed have a budget. Right now, almost all deals MS will sign has to come with a GP contract, whether its a multiplatform marketing deal or a straight up timed exclusive. This is a mandate from their higher-ups. Every publisher has hard data from multiple places that putting their game into GP lowers sales, full-stop. This is why Sony has been getting these deals, almost by default in some cases.

 

[DeepEnigma]

We will always remember this time period. February 2023, we witnessed a real miracle! Phil Spencer was silent!

 

[Hendrick's]

Yep. This sums up why the deal had to be blocked.

Well done regulators - they're keeping the competition even.

The deal isn't blocked yet. All the premature celebration could backfire hard for you all. I'm just waiting to rub it in.

 

[The_Mike]

Any tl: dr atm?

A few pages ago I got the understanding that the deal was dead and done for, and other saying that Microsoft and cma/ftc are still in the talks?

Also people saying Kotic is afraid of not getting a shit load of money.
What's stopping him from pulling some money from the company and then just bail?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I'm just waiting to run it in.

Lulu has already said no

 

[Heisenberg007]

Show me an acquisition of the same size and scope as this one. Did Sony object to Bethesda? Obsidian? Ninja Theory.....the rest? No they didn't.

Again, if Microsoft saw a deal that they felt threatened by then hell yes, they would step in and object. If they didn't their stockholders would be throwing a fit. It is pointless to ask if Microsoft has ever objected to a Sony acquisition when there has never been a comparable acquisition attempted at all.

Yes. And to add to this:

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/s...sion-blizzard-deal-announcement/1100-6499761/

This acquisition by Microsoft directly hurts Sony's bottom line and poses a risk to the company's future. And that's why Sony has an issue with it, and rightly so.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Any tl: dr atm?

A few pages ago I got the understanding that the deal was dead and done for, and other saying that Microsoft and cma/ftc are still in the talks?

Also people saying Kotic is afraid of not getting a shit load of money.
What's stopping him from pulling some money from the company and then just bail?

Nothing new yet. Deal's not dead for certain but they aren't getting the full package.

They'll either abandon it or accept structural remedies. Depends on Microsoft now.

 

[Hendrick's]

Lulu has already said no

Nah, she is just busy teaching the CMA about the industry like teaching a slow adult to tie their shoes.

 

[Three]

Name of the model doing the shakey-shakey dance?

Looks like CGI to me.

 

[gothmog]

Agreed. In fact, if this deal falls through I suspect Microsoft will be much more aggressive moving forward (though that's bound to happen anyway) feelings-to-facts: there aren't many mega corps out there that can match Microsofts spending power. Things may get much worse for Sony if Microsoft doesn't land this deal, maybe worse than if they complete the ABK deal. Could be a case of Sony having to chose between the lesser of two evils at this point. We'll see though ..

This won't happen. Microsoft needs to move consoles, and until they do the price for any exclusive deal needs to incorporate sales lost on the much bigger Sony and Nintendo platforms.

Money is powerful but it can only get you so far.

 

[NonPhixion]

Nah, she is just busy teaching the CMA about the industry like teaching a slow adult to tie their shoes.

Haha Lulu's industry knowledge is:
"If ATVI sells to MSFT me make a lot of money"

 

[gothmog]

Perhaps that really is true. But no one is going to believe Microsoft, and rightly so, after the stunt they pulled with the European Commission during the Zenimax acquisition.

They used this exact argument that it wouldn't make financial sense to make Zenimax games exclusive. And they made them exclusive as soon as the ink dried.

Phil Spencer even proudly proclaimed that it was always about exclusive games literally 2 days after they closed the acquisition.

Even the CMA also mentioned Microsoft's stunt with the EC during their provisional findings.

They are only reaping what they sowed.

AKA Phil and company can't stop talking. Their lawyers probably spend half of their days facepalming on meetings.

 

[ToadMan]

The deal isn't blocked yet. All the premature celebration could backfire hard for you all. I'm just waiting to rub it in.

I'll bet you're just waitin'

 

[thismeinteil]

I hate bobby kotick but the salt in this thread from the sony drones is hilarious lmao

Only salt I see is from those who less than a year ago were bragging about COD going exclusive to Xbox, since the deal was as good as done, no concessions. Then changed their tune to how great MS was to want to keep COD on PS, and definitely didn't want to make it exclusive once Sony's deal was up, as soon as they see that's what MS's PR strategy is to try and get this deal done with no concessions. Hell, some buying (read pretending to buy) that this had nothing to do with COD, and was all about King. To bashing the regulatory bodies for being PS fanboys when it was looking like they were going to want concessions. Now, they're going in full panic/bash Sony mode as the regulators aren't buying MS's empty PR and want heavy concessions to ensure MS isn't just buying up the industry.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Haha Lulu's industry knowledge is:
"If ATVI sells to MSFT me make a lot of money"

She smart.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Nah, she is just busy teaching the CMA about the industry like teaching a slow adult to tie their shoes.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

If the deal falls through what's to stop Microsoft from establishing/co-owning a special COD studio group with Activision? In some hypothetical scenario couldn't they have a co-owned partnership with Activision to create platform exclusive COD content; similar to the way other exclusive 3rd party studio's games are funded but with shared interest (partial ownership) in a new developer group? Say Microsoft shoulders more than 50% the costs/risk somehow on paper, then Acti gets money coming in and to further spread COD's growth into service and cloud platforms, and Microsoft gets most of what they want too.

Seems if full ownership of COD is off the table that's fine, because Microsoft don't need to own all of COD, they just need it to stand out above their competitor to draw folks to their platform. I view it as a step above a marketing deal.

Personal note- I know fuck all about how businesses like this work. What is and isn't allowed. Etc. So if this is not something that can be done consider this a thought experiment and I stand corrected.

So you're saying Microsoft should co-fund COD content similar to how Sony co-funded SFV or Bloodborne? I suppose in theory, that could work, but in practice? How would ABK allot the resources to develop that content while still maintaining the usual multiplatform COD games, content and support for those? They already have a big amount of their teams working around the clock to keep COD up-to-date with features and content as-is.

Either they scale back on that and partition resources to Microsoft's own content, or they have to hire like crazy or partner up with a ton of support studios (or outright buy them) in order to provide MS their content without cutting into the regular content volume. The former is effectively no different than what you get with a marketing deal, and the latter would potentially lead to more consolidation anyway. Which in the case of buying up resources & support "just" to create more COD stuff, would seem like a net negative IMO.

And in both cases, it's still promoting the concept of trying to gain favoritism in the market for a 3P game through exclusivity features; wouldn't it be better to leave that to the actual 1P games or 1P-funded 3P exclusive (as in the whole game, not exclusive content for an otherwise multiplat, unless it's a game that would not exist without the platform holder funding it but for whatever reason they still decide to let it stay multiplatform).

Basically they don't trust Phils words is how I interpret it.

Nor should they. For one he's not the one really calling the shots on what happens with the content so should the deal get approved, even if he heads Xbox. Otherwise we wouldn't have seen Satya Nadella, Brad Smith, and other non-Xbox Microsoft corporate come out to talk about the deal.

Plus, I've barely seen Phil say anything on the deal for like the past two or three months. Seems like they have him on a short leash.

Just because the deal is going to fall through and suddenly blue members flock to this topic to gloat doesn't mean that it isn't true what I'm saying. This has been said since the beginning that it's mostly about mobile. Obviously the rest doesn't hurt but it's mobile where the biggest growth is and where Microsoft has nothing.

No worries you can still play cod with your bro's

If it's really mainly about mobile then why are so many people, even Microsoft potentially, against the idea of divesting COD & Activision out from the rest?

I've copied the above from the CMA Merger remedies guidance. The CMA have already stated that Divesture and or prohibition are feasible in the case and that a behavioural remedy is not appropriate in this case as the primary remedy. I don't understand how people are thinking a 10 year COD deal is enough.

What would prohibition look like in this case? Would those be like behavioral remedies but more as clauses stating what Microsoft cannot do with certain assets purchased?

 

[gothmog]

If the deal falls through what's to stop Microsoft from establishing/co-owning a special COD studio group with Activision? In some hypothetical scenario couldn't they have a co-owned partnership with Activision to create platform exclusive COD content; similar to the way other exclusive 3rd party studio's games are funded but with shared interest (partial ownership) in a new developer group? Say Microsoft shoulders more than 50% the costs/risk somehow on paper, then Acti gets money coming in and to further spread COD's growth into service and cloud platforms, and Microsoft gets most of what they want too.

Seems if full ownership of COD is off the table that's fine, because Microsoft don't need to own all of COD, they just need it to stand out above their competitor to draw folks to their platform. I view it as a step above a marketing deal.

Personal note- I know fuck all about how businesses like this work. What is and isn't allowed. Etc. So if this is not something that can be done consider this a thought experiment and I stand corrected.

Why would Activision even entertain this? It's already a massive undertaking to get a game out yearly with constant updates as well as Warzone which plugs in with every recent COD.
The only reason they want this deal to go through is because of the amount of money offered for the deal. If that goes away Microsoft is back to being the platform that doesn't pay the bills like Playstation does.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Nor should they. For one he's not the one really calling the shots on what happens with the content so should the deal get approved, even if he heads Xbox. Otherwise we wouldn't have seen Satya Nadella, Brad Smith, and other non-Xbox Microsoft corporate come out to talk about the deal.

Plus, I've barely seen Phil say anything on the deal for like the past two or three months. Seems like they have him on a short leash.

Well after making some of those promises that he might not be able to keep it's better he stays quiet until he can actually confirm something.

Pretty sure the PR department had enough of his twitter nonsense.

 

[thismeinteil]

No shit. That's not the point I was making. Just like Sony would swoop up Activision if they could, Microsoft would be the childish brat if the shoe was on the other foot

This pedestal you're putting on Microsoft of all companies is embarrassing

And let's be honest, MS would be MUCH more obnoxious about it. It's ironic with how some idiots tried to whine about Sony looking bad or childish for how they handled this situation, when all they did was make a couple of public statements and let things happen behind the scenes. Pretty reserved if you asked me. Now, imagine if MS was in Sony's spot. They'd be sending their fanboy/shill army after the regulators to kill the deal. Talking about it constantly on social media and to reporters. They wouldn't shut up about it.

Ultimately, the way both companies handled this case didn't do any favors for MS. In fact, I believe it hurt them. Imagine if Spencer had not been bragging like the deal had been finalized for weeks, talking about all the new studios the own, now, and what they're going to do with them. Or instead of blasting Sony for not taking the shitty 3 year deal, while pretending the deal was better than it was, kept it private. Or hadn't had their paid shills and fanboys (including people within their own company) attack the regulators, with MS themselves claiming they were done with peace, like an internet troll. I'd say there would have been a much higher chance of the deal going through, with minor concessions. Instead, MS played this like exactly how they try to win the gaming industry without a steady supply of good 1st party games, childish PR battles.

 

[DeepEnigma]

And let's be honest, MS would be MUCH more obnoxious about it. It's ironic with how some idiots tried to whine about Sony looking bad or childish for how they handled this situation, when all they did was make a couple of public statements and let things happen behind the scenes. Pretty reserved if you asked me. Now, imagine if MS was in Sony's spot. They'd be sending their fanboy/shill army after the regulators to kill the deal. Talking about it constantly on social media and to reporters. They wouldn't shut up about it.

Ultimately, the way both companies handled this case didn't do any favors for MS. In fact, I believe it hurt them. Imagine if Spencer had not been bragging like the deal had been finalized for weeks, talking about all the new studios the own, now, and what they're going to do with them. Or instead of blasting Sony for not taking the shitty 3 year deal, while pretending the deal was better than it was, kept it private. Or hadn't had their paid shills and fanboys (including people within their own company) attack the regulators, with MS themselves claiming they were done with peace, like an internet troll. I'd say there would have been a much higher chance of the deal going through, with minor concessions. Instead, MS played this like exactly how they try to win the gaming industry without a steady supply of good 1st party games, childish PR battles.

Running around trying to make deals before it even closed, lol.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

No, they don't, you have both macOS and Linux distros on desktop and laptops, and when it comes to servers you will find a high volume of Linux servers in all mid-sized and enterprise companies.

LOL this guy went to the same school as that other business genius in this thread.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Most people aren't fanatics who want the other side to suffer, they just want things to be better for them. Getting a game they usually buy and other games they might try to be on a service they pay for is good for them. It's pretty whiny and entitled to point at people who would like a better deal with gamepass as making you a victim, as if that is the main motivator. You could buy an Xbox or sub gamepass on PC. It's not like there aren't people who buy Playstations just for the damn exclusives when they prefer to game on other platforms.

Full disclosure. I am a PC gamer and gamepass subscriber. I have been enjoying the service, especially the riskier AA games I would skip otherwise. I don't play COD, but I would like to see AB acquired by MS if it means they would be given the freedom to create some unique smaller games like Pentiment or Hi-Fi Rush. I dont think this will happen if they stay as independent publishers. I don't give a fuck where else their games are available, I just want good games for a good deal. If MS needs to make a deal to keep COD on all platforms then I want that if it means I might get a few gems on GP. I also have a PS5 & Switch for exclusives and used to buy Xboxes for exclusives.

You do realize HiFi Rush was in development well before Microsoft acquired Zenimax, right?

I don't get why Microsoft doesn't take everything bar call of duty. That would be so much more appealing.

Keep it multi plat and open to any cloud service etc and just put all the blizzard games and more on game pass?

When it comes to the cloud service aspect, it gets murky because for Microsoft, xCloud is still tied to Game Pass. I don't think there are any cloud-exclusive Game Pass games; in other words it just provides cloud access to games which are available on Game Pass for native download.

If Microsoft kept COD, and allowed any cloud service or subscription service to put new releases on it Day 1, that still puts Sony at a disadvantage because they're leaving a LOT of direct sales revenue on the table, plus they'll create the expectation among their customers to expect even more big 3P AAA games Day 1 AND Sony marquee 1P AAA games Day 1, else people may cancel their subs because heightened expectations aren't being met.

In other words, if Sony does try to play that game, they're bleeding potential revenue and net profits away leaving so much on the table, and sub growth would probably not be enough to offset those losses. For a company where gaming actually contributes significantly to their financial bottom line, that's business suicide. For Microsoft, it's a write-off, because gaming contributes very little to their bottom line. They can sustain leaving all that direct sales revenue on the table, because their real money comes from other areas in the company.

It would basically create a potential scenario similar to fostering a market for predatory pricing.

Makes sense for them at this point. They'd still get a big boost in content for GP and make it more likely to clear regulation.

Are you talking about Microsoft keeping COD but somehow managing to argue it stays multiplat in perpetuity with behavioral remedies (which presents a lot of loopholes and problems as others have mentioned), or divesting COD off but keeping the rest of the Activision, Blizzard & King content (which at that point, might as well divest most of the other Activision IP too because MS wouldn't have that many internal teams freely available to do anything with those IP)?

 

[Banjo64]

The difference is that Sony didn't took away a lot of franchises from their console, which is what MS is now doing with both Bethesda and ABK.

I mean read your own post and think again.

People are laughing at you but it's true.

Microsoft's past conduct re: Zenimax is biting them in the ass.

Also, it's not just the cost of the acquisitions but the money they generate. If Sony pulled Destiny from Xbox it would probably mean Xbox lose out on £20m-£30m a year (if that). If Xbox pull CoD from PS it will cost PS £100s and £100s of millions a year. One obviously can cause significant harm to the business, the other can't.