Support NeoGAF

[Ar¢tos]

I think at this point Sony needs to have a plan B(try to buy a big publisher to counter(EA or Take2) or buy small jap publishers like(capcom and square) besides that i don't how they will compete on the long term. Because if they deal goes on Microsoft will not gonna stop there.

Sony can't buy any of those, they are too expensive. EA is completely out of the question, Take Two is worth around 30bn and Sony has a max of 10bn to spend. Square goes over that limit and Capcom is around 6bn, too much to spend for Street Fighter.
Kadokawa would be a possibility, around 3bn, put the game studios under Playstation, the anime/manga magazines business goes to Sony Pictures/Music (with Crunchyroll) and the real estate business maybe with Sony Insurance.
But paying 3bn just for From Software, no.

-Sony can:
- Continue building relationships with small independent studios that might lead to acquisitions.
-Grow their bigger studios to multiple teams
- Expand the studio incubation project to all their bigger studios instead of just SSM.
-Hire Sumo digital to make multiple games instead of a single game every now and then since they have many studios.
-Light a fire under Media Molecule's ass so they start producing.... something...
- Make a partnership with EA to improve Battlefield, bring it to PSVR2 and get exclusive content and marketing rights (bundles, etc)
- Be more aggressive with marketing deals, exclusive content and timed exclusivity.
- Expand XDev and offer more support to 3rd parties

 

[X-Wing]

I think people are underestimating Sony's capacity to adapt (in case the deal goes through) and underestimating Microsoft's ability to mismanage Activision to the point that CoD will become irrelevant.

 

[TheGodfather07]

How will Microsoft get past regulators though? Going by what Brad Smith said, that's the only thing stopping the deal. Meaning it's not looking good for them. FTC want to block and CMA are suggesting solutions that don't suit Microsoft. Cod is the meat. Without it there's no point to this deal for Microsoft. So where do they go from here to complete the deal and how long will all that take?

 

[Fess]

And I would be fine with that statement as well. The point is there's zero evidence that I am so heavily biased that I'm incapable of changing my mind, or that I am lying. I skipped PS3 for years because of how expensive it was. Then Xbox 360 raised the price of Live and started talking TV, PS+ came out with the free games model and free online and I jumped to Sony again. Skipped Xbox One because nothing interested me, and it was the more expensive one. Then they sold me on the Gamepass initiative which is pretty similar to what drove me to PS+ initially on PS3. I literally have gone back and forth depending on how they're doing. The one I'm most consistently in favor of is Nintendo, and even then, I didn't get a Wii for like 4 years, but I did get a Wii U. How many people can say that?

Do any of you guys have anything in your bio that showcases that kind of open mindedness in regards to console brands? I also got a fucking Quest 2 when RE4 came out after hating Facebook and never touching social media my whole life. I even got a NeoGeo Pocket, Saturn, Dreamcast and Wii U.

If anyone wants to call me a console warrior, they can look in the mirror first and start by telling us about their past.

Thirty7ven you can go first.

Great post

I buy everything but for me it’s still perfectly normal to sway between platforms depending on the games output.
Definitely had a Xbox preference early on this generation, from enjoying Gamepass and PC license and save syncing. Today I play much more on PS5 though, simply because that’s where the biggest games are. A platform holder is never better than their games output for me.

 

[jm89]

How will Microsoft get past regulators though? Going by what Brad Smith said, that's the only thing stopping the deal. Meaning it's not looking good for them. FTC want to block and CMA are suggesting solutions that don't suit Microsoft. Cod is the meat. Without it there's no point to this deal for Microsoft. So where do they go from here to complete the deal and how long will all that take?

Bon Jovi - Livin' On A Prayer

 

[feynoob]

Will Punished Miku and Thirty7ven confess their love to each other, instead of playing games and hints.
Stop it with this high school flirting.

 

[Banjo64]

And I would be fine with that statement as well. The point is there's zero evidence that I am so heavily biased that I'm incapable of changing my mind, or that I am lying. I skipped PS3 for years because of how expensive it was. Then Xbox 360 raised the price of Live and started talking TV, PS+ came out with the free games model and free online and I jumped to Sony again. Skipped Xbox One because nothing interested me, and it was the more expensive one. Then they sold me on the Gamepass initiative which is pretty similar to what drove me to PS+ initially on PS3. I literally have gone back and forth depending on how they're doing. The one I'm most consistently in favor of is Nintendo, and even then, I didn't get a Wii for like 4 years.

Do any of you guys have anything in your bio that showcases that kind of open mindedness in regards to console brands? I also got a fucking Quest 2 when RE4 came out after hating Facebook and never touching social media my whole life. I even got a NeoGeo Pocket, Saturn, Dreamcast, PSP, Vita and Wii U.

If anyone wants to call me a console warrior, they can look in the mirror first and start by telling us about their past.

Thirty7ven you can go first.

Dude you don’t have to go in that hard to defend yourself

 

[Varteras]

I agree, but you also have to infer as to why Microsoft is willing to make all these expensive acquisitions. Their long term strategy views gaming as a core pillar to their overall growth in the future.

It would be naive to believe Microsoft would back off of their long term goals because they hit a roadblock (the roadblock being the ABK acquisition being blocked).

I agree Microsoft wouldn't be spending $70B outside of this acquisition on gaming and they're only spending this much because of the golden opportunity that was presented. However, even a fraction of the $70B can do a lot in terms of acquisitions.

I've spouted this fact before, but Microsoft could buy Kadokawa, Capcom and Square Enix at double what they're currently worth and that would roughly only be worth HALF what this ABK acquistion is worth. (This isn't a revenge fan fic, it's just to show how staggeringly expensive ABK is in comparison to other major publishers, and how much Microsoft is willing to invest into their gaming future).

So I agree that Microsoft isn't eager to spend every last dime of their cash reserves on gaming, but there is a reason why they're going so hard in the first place, and this acquisition getting blocked (as much as some would like to believe) doesn't mean they'll stop pursuing acquisitions. Gaming is minor to their business currently, but it has the potential to be a major part of their business. That potential is why you're seeing so much investment from Microsoft.

There is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft has a long-term strategy to grow in gaming. The question is how much are they actually willing to spend outside of this golden opportunity in the short term for a division that has struggled for over 20 years to achieve PlayStation and Nintendo's success?

One would think that Microsoft would have already done as you suggested prior to trying to buy Activision. Offering to buy Square Enix or Capcom for double their values. Either that didn't happen or they tried and both companies said no. Because maybe they don't actually want to be bought. Japanese companies seem especially different to deal with than most Western companies. Microsoft didn't, or wasn't able to, even invest in FromSoft the way Sony and Tencent did. Sony was able to negotiate several deals to keep Final Fantasy, SE's biggest property, off of Xbox. Microsoft surely could have offered them more. Maybe they just didn't see the value?

After all, they did buy Zenimax for more than a lot of people felt they were worth. And that was a struggling publisher, according to people like Jeff Grubb. It might very well be that most companies Microsoft approached just don't want to sell or maybe even specifically don't want to sell to them. I mean, Sony bought Bungie where Microsoft didn't or couldn't. That was a deal Sony had been working on for supposedly many months before Microsoft and Activision even spoke.

Now, I fully agree with you that it would be foolish beyond measure to just sit around and wait for Microsoft to make its next big move. They've clearly already shown that they are indeed willing to spend a fuck ton of money given the right opportunity. I don't think Sony is just sitting there. They are more active in growing their first-party than they have ever been and I believe they absolutely see the threat for what it is.

I just don't think Sony has the stomach to make a huge purchase that would almost certainly see them standing in front of regulators the way Microsoft is now. I think the strategy is to look for talent that you can mold and grow that isn't going to cost you an arm and a leg upfront where if it fails you just blew a ton of money. Smaller companies are much easier to integrate and influence. Instead of buying a huge company with 20 or 30 studios when you're only interested in 5 of them for the games they make, you can target independent companies who make similar games and get them without all the added baggage.

I think the only big company Sony has its eye on is Square Enix. That would be a $5.5 billion purchase at current market cap. At a 30% premium you're looking at over $7 billion. Certainly a doable sum for Sony, but that assumes SE is even willing to sell.

 

[KungFucius]

At the absolute best, 50/50. Realistically, 20% chance, probably 15%. But really, its all speculative. No one knows how the EC really felt about yesterday's presentation, or how the CMA feels about the NVidia deal.

The Nvidia portion does speak to some of the objections both regulators had on the emerging Cloud market, but it doesn't answer the question that both entities wanted a remedial solution for, which is 'what remedy can you offer to ensure new market participants, besides those who are already in Cloud right now, can compete should they decide to entire it'. This is a key concern due to how young the emerging cloud market is, and both regulator's concerns is that ATVI & CoD represent such a distinct advantage that no one would try to enter the cloud market to compete since MS is already the dominant player in that space and this move would just entrench it further. The solution the CMA suggested was a perpetual licensing agreement for a fair market wage for anyone in the cloud or subscription services market to gain access to CoD should they want it.

Enabling a Cloud market competitor like Nvidia doesn't really address that concern. They also didn't really provide any behavioral remedies yesterday regarding the objections both the CMA and EC raised regarding the affects the deal would have in the console space. And unlike the CMA, the EC also had objections regarding what this transaction would do for gaming subscriptions, which again, MS didn't seem to offer anything for that yesterday.

Is that even a legitimate concern though? FFS both Google and Amazon have tried to do streaming services and failed. It's not very likely that anyone else will want to try unless they are huge and have something substantial. COD will certainly give them an advantage, but the failure rate of streaming game services is already a huge deterrent.

 

[Yoboman]

Why do people think like this? Companies can fire thousands of people when the market turns but are expecting them to solidify a business deal for more than a decade? Content arrangements that long are not the typical way of doing business

The latest NFL broadcasting deal is 10 years and covers several outlets, is that really their limit? Geez they showed their ass on that one.

The latest NBA deal was 9 years, is that really their limit? Geez they showed their ass and left nut on that one.

Twitch signs streamers to undisclosed length but multiyear contracts, is that really their limit? Geez they should have showed their ass on that one but hid it.

Netflix does a lot of 100M + agreements but the content output is not disclosed. Disney signed Favreau to an "insane" deal that is probably much less than 10 years. Paramount signed a contract with the producer of Star Trek and other shows to 5.5 years.

The few examples of content agreements I found are all 10 years or less, yet you people are magically expecting something longer and unprecedented because why? Because you think the owner of your favorite platform deserves a longer period without needing to renegotiate a deal than any other platform owners in recent history?

If you were running a company and had the opportunity to sign a long term deal or a super long term deal what factors would make you choose one over the other? Simplistically if you think you can get a better deal by either signing again in the future or finding an alternative, you would take the shorter deal. If 10 is too short, what is long enough?

None of your examples are companies buying the biggest 3rd party company in their industry and being told by regulators to divest part of it though are they? Its not about whether they are offering an above average deal, it's whether what they are offering had enough scope to meet the requirements outlayed by regulators

You did mention NFL and NBA though, and Disney were required to divest the Fox Sports part of their deal when buying them. This is more likely Disney then offered to lease sports programming to other networks for 10 years rather than actually divesting

 

[Warablo]

I think people are underestimating Sony's capacity to adapt (in case the deal goes through) and Microsoft's underestimating ability to mismanage Activision to the point that CoD will become irrelevant.

Sony will be fine, but it is concerning they are focusing so many studios for online games this gen. Obviously that is where the biggest money to be made is, but those third person story action games are what set Sony up to where they are now.

The player base could be cannibalized between each other with that many online games. They will certainly need a decent online game for the PS+ subs to keep going, especially if they lose CoD.

 

[Hendrick's]

parody account

Strange, I thought there were no PS fanboys on Twitter.

 

[Thirty7ven]

So you can't answer the question? I can appreciate a joke as much as anyone, but don't start insinuating shit about me if you can't even answer the same thing about yourself. I didn't start it. You did. Now you can't even answer.

You're the one so interested in my past and if I ever disagreed with Xbox. Pathetic response, genuinely. Complete hypocrisy for everyone to see, except a few of the usual suspects laughing along with you - and everyone knows who it is.

Don’t lose your shit now. Your whole “I go where I can save the most money, don’t care about the games” story was a joke so I wrote a funny one. And then you buy a quest 2? Where’s the value in that?

I’ve owned all consoles since PS1 days aside from Xbox One because it sucked and I won’t bother with the Series. This is my hobby, some people jump out of airplanes I play video games.

What’s the lesson you’re trying to teach here? That you want MS to own all this IP just so you can save a few bucks? ok

 

[X-Wing]

Sony will be fine, but it is concerning they are focusing so many studios for online games this gen. Obviously that is where the biggest money to be made is, but those third person story action games are what set Sony up to where they are now.

The player base could be cannibalized between each other with that many online games. They will certainly need a decent online game for the PS+ subs to keep going, especially if they lose CoD.

They are kinda being forced into that direction… Sony resisted last gen and kept pushing single player games while Microsoft moved to subscriptions + GAAS. There is demand for a subscription service on PlayStation but that won’t be viable without GAAS to generate revenue, Sony can’t afford to put first party single player games at loss on Plus.

 

[mansoor1980]

Strange, I thought there were no PS fanboys on Twitter.

used to be an xbox fan then turned
(as pointed above)

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Punished Miku , Thirty7ven

 

[Punished Miku]

What’s the lesson you’re trying to teach here?

It's literally at the top of the last page, where you started this, and now lie about not knowing what I'm talking about.

The only thing you agree with is MS hoarding IP and rewriting history. Don’t think I’ve ever seen you take MS to task on anything.

You decided to imply that I'm an Xbox fanboy to the point that I can't even be trusted to have a valid opinion. Your evidence was you claiming I've never "taken MS to task on anything."

How do you suggest I respond to that? Do I explain that it isn't true, and give you an honest explanation of my motives? That's what I did.

I don't want to drag this out, so let's just move on. But it just annoyed me. It's one thing to disagree with what I say, but to basically undermine my ability to even have an opinion and be believed as being genuine annoys me. How about we just trust that the other person isn't lying and talk about videogames?

 

[HerpDerpstreit]

None of your examples are companies buying the biggest 3rd party company in their industry and being told by regulators to divest part of it though are they? Its not about whether they are offering an above average deal, it's whether what they are offering had enough scope to meet the requirements outlayed by regulators

You did mention NFL and NBA though, and Disney were required to divest the Fox Sports part of their deal when buying them. This is more likely Disney then offered to lease sports programming to other networks for 10 years rather than actually divesting

The Fox Sports divestment was because Disney already owned ESPN and ABC. For that to be relevant in this deal, M$ will have already needed to own other big publishers. In the sports world in the US at least there are only 4 big names, ESPN/ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox.

Activision, EA, Ubisoft, Take 2 are the gaming equivalents for the big 3rd party publishers.

And ESPN is the market leader in the sports broadcasting world, hence the divestment HAD to be made there. This situation is not equal. I fully expect that IF the deal closes, it will be without divesting COD or anything else.

 

[Varteras]

Punished Miku , Thirty7ven

 

[SneakersSO]

Is that even a legitimate concern though? FFS both Google and Amazon have tried to do streaming services and failed. It's not very likely that anyone else will want to try unless they are huge and have something substantial. COD will certainly give them an advantage, but the failure rate of streaming game services is already a huge deterrent.

Funny you mention that - the CMA specifically attributes the demise of Stadia (and Google backed that up in their findings) due to the dominant market position that MS is already in in that sub-market with xCloud, and thats before the impact of the Bethesda acquisition has even been allowed to be felt within the Cloud submarket.

I have a lot of thoughts on Cloud as an entry-point for users to the core-gaming market in general, but in the eyes of the regulators, thanks in large part to how many industry analysts and with even Microsoft themselves claiming Cloud gaming to be a major growth point for the industry in the future (nevermind the fact that many have been predicting this supposed growth spike since 2011), CoD and ATVI's library (CMA mentioned WoW when discussing this, so its not just CoD fyi) might be far too big a factors to allow new players to compete in the Cloud sub-market.

This is why CMA's overall and preferred remedy to get this deal through is divestment of CoD and its associated studios. The thing with Cloud is, despite there being strong players in this arena, there are still tons of innovation that can and will occur in this field, the likes of which could very well be in the hands of teams that aren't MS or any current player in the Cloud gaming market. Allowing a content monopoly to start at this point in the Cloud market is, in my opinion, a valid concern. Also, Amazon is still an active player in Cloud gaming, as is Sony. Just because they aren't the market leader in this sub-market now doesn't mean they couldn't become that in future, and in the eyes of the CMA, CoD represents an unfair advantage when competing in this sub-market.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Microsoft keep pretending they can’t compete despite having the largest number of 1st party studios, a huge war chest, leverage of the PC market, and the largest cloud network. The fact that they’ve underperformed is down to their own poor management, and now it’s sad that they have reverted to form and are trying to buy their way to success rather than earn it.

And the same can be said about Sony. Their gaming division makes $3B profit per year, have tons of partnership deals (including COD as we speak!), have a ton of studios, and used to make tons of shooter games 10 years ago. So it's not like they have zero experience making shooter games. They also just bought Bungie who have Destiny. And even got lots of GAAS games in dev including Factions 2.

Instead of hoarding $3B profits per year fo the past 3-4 years, put $100M into making a good shooter, and bank $2.9B.

So instead of whining about it, put some resources into another Killzone or SOCOM and make it multiplatform like COD, Fortnite, Apex, Minecraft or Skyrim. And it could be a giant success.

 

[Yoboman]

The Fox Sports divestment was because Disney already owned ESPN and ABC. For that to be relevant in this deal, M$ will have already needed to own other big publishers. In the sports world in the US at least there are only 4 big names, ESPN/ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox.

Activision, EA, Ubisoft, Take 2 are the gaming equivalents for the big 3rd party publishers.

And ESPN is the market leader in the sports broadcasting world, hence the divestment HAD to be made there. This situation is not equal. I fully expect that IF the deal closes, it will be without divesting COD or anything else.

Cool. Too bad the CMA have indicated that is their desired outcome

 

[Badlucktroll]

why they boop the kittehs

 

[SneakersSO]

Why do people think like this? Companies can fire thousands of people when the market turns but are expecting them to solidify a business deal for more than a decade? Content arrangements that long are not the typical way of doing business

The latest NFL broadcasting deal is 10 years and covers several outlets, is that really their limit? Geez they showed their ass on that one.

The latest NBA deal was 9 years, is that really their limit? Geez they showed their ass and left nut on that one.

Twitch signs streamers to undisclosed length but multiyear contracts, is that really their limit? Geez they should have showed their ass on that one but hid it.

Netflix does a lot of 100M + agreements but the content output is not disclosed. Disney signed Favreau to an "insane" deal that is probably much less than 10 years. Paramount signed a contract with the producer of Star Trek and other shows to 5.5 years.

The few examples of content agreements I found are all 10 years or less, yet you people are magically expecting something longer and unprecedented because why? Because you think the owner of your favorite platform deserves a longer period without needing to renegotiate a deal than any other platform owners in recent history?

If you were running a company and had the opportunity to sign a long term deal or a super long term deal what factors would make you choose one over the other? Simplistically if you think you can get a better deal by either signing again in the future or finding an alternative, you would take the shorter deal. If 10 is too short, what is long enough?

There are a variety of issues with the current 10 year deal that is semi-exclusive to games that doesn't affect other entertainment arenas.

For example, a 10-year deal doesn't affect or stop MS from creating an original, new IP using half or all of the current CoD workforce and making this brand new spiritual successor IP fully exclusive to Xbox. I've said it before, but gaming is an entertainment industry where successfully guiding an audience around business interests/contracts/legal frameworks is quite simple, and a 10-year deal doesn't eliminate that - Demon's Souls -> Dark Souls is a perfect example of what i'm referring to here.

What exactly defines 10 years of CoD support? Does that mean that CoD must release every year for those 10 years? Does that mean that no other new IP by those teams that are in the same creative vein as CoD will not be developed? Is there a technical threshold that must be met in order to ensure that support does come along? Does those 10 years include things like 'must integrate an Xbox login' clause, for example? There are loads of details here that change the value of worth of this 10 year deal that have never been quite answered.

The CMA even specifically states in their findings that a licensing agreement does not exclude the possibility that the new entity (Microsoft after the purchase) won't be able to create some pathway to circumvent the intended behavioral remedy should they desire. This is why the CMA ultimately opted for structural remedies first and foremost.

 

[HerpDerpstreit]

Cool. Too bad the CMA have indicated that is their desired outcome

I understand that. Difference between stated desires and what actually happens can be worlds apart, can we agree on that?

There are law suits and challenges from commissions all the time and as with anything, there will be positions stated, arguments made, and ultimately concessions on both sides to come to terms or the disillusionment of whatever the two sides can't agree on.

With this much money and the players involved I don't see the deal not going through, nor do I see divestment happening. Just what I think, could be wrong, may be right. Not gonna lose sleep over it either way.

 

[Yoboman]

I understand that. Difference between stated desires and what actually happens can be worlds apart, can we agree on that?

There are law suits and challenges from commissions all the time and as with anything, there will be positions stated, arguments made, and ultimately concessions on both sides to come to terms or the disillusionment of whatever the two sides can't agree on.

With this much money and the players involved I don't see the deal not going through, nor do I see divestment happening. Just what I think, could be wrong, may be right. Not gonna lose sleep over it either way.

Which is why I made the point that MS needed to do more to move the needle than reiterate the same deal they had on the table before. Why would the CMA be compelled by something they shrugged off already?

And posters with more expertise than me have already laid out why their isn't much you can do in the way of recourse if the CMA shut down the deal

 

[ToadMan]

And I would be fine with that statement as well. The point is there's zero evidence that I am so heavily biased that I'm incapable of changing my mind, or that I am lying. I skipped PS3 for years because of how expensive it was. Then Xbox 360 raised the price of Live and started talking TV, PS+ came out with the free games model and free online and I jumped to Sony again. Skipped Xbox One because nothing interested me, and it was the more expensive one. Then they sold me on the Gamepass initiative which is pretty similar to what drove me to PS+ initially on PS3. I literally have gone back and forth depending on how they're doing. The one I'm most consistently in favor of is Nintendo, and even then, I didn't get a Wii for like 4 years.

Do any of you guys have anything in your bio that showcases that kind of open mindedness in regards to console brands? I also got a fucking Quest 2 when RE4 came out after hating Facebook and never touching social media my whole life. I even got a NeoGeo Pocket, Saturn, Dreamcast, PSP, Vita and Wii U.

If anyone wants to call me a console warrior, they can look in the mirror first and start by telling us about their past.

Thirty7ven you can go first.

Honestly…

Your gaming history is kinda limited.

Actually it explains a lot about the views you’ve expressed in this acquisition process…

And no - I still cant be bothered to have a list war.

But the fact you think that opposition to this acquisition is down to brand support is a little bit scary.

Maybe consider why we pay for MS word and yet internet explorer is free.

And having thought about that, read this…

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/microsoft-antitrust.asp

While it’s not gaming, it is MS attempting to do what MS does. Acquire a coercive monopoly, and then monetise the market without competition.

Perhaps you think a future where MS is the only gaming platform is pleasant. I think its bleak.

Which game I play today and where, is irrelevant to that opinion.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

There is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft has a long-term strategy to grow in gaming. The question is how much are they actually willing to spend outside of this golden opportunity in the short term for a division that has struggled for over 20 years to achieve PlayStation and Nintendo's success?

One would think that Microsoft would have already done as you suggested prior to trying to buy Activision. Offering to buy Square Enix or Capcom for double their values. Either that didn't happen or they tried and both companies said no. Because maybe they don't actually want to be bought. Japanese companies seem especially different to deal with than most Western companies. Microsoft didn't, or wasn't able to, even invest in FromSoft the way Sony and Tencent did. Sony was able to negotiate several deals to keep Final Fantasy, SE's biggest property, off of Xbox. Microsoft surely could have offered them more. Maybe they just didn't see the value?

After all, they did buy Zenimax for more than a lot of people felt they were worth. And that was a struggling publisher, according to people like Jeff Grubb. It might very well be that most companies Microsoft approached just don't want to sell or maybe even specifically don't want to sell to them. I mean, Sony bought Bungie where Microsoft didn't or couldn't. That was a deal Sony had been working on for supposedly many months before Microsoft and Activision even spoke.

Now, I fully agree with you that it would be foolish beyond measure to just sit around and wait for Microsoft to make its next big move. They've clearly already shown that they are indeed willing to spend a fuck ton of money given the right opportunity. I don't think Sony is just sitting there. They are more active in growing their first-party than they have ever been and I believe they absolutely see the threat for what it is.

I just don't think Sony has the stomach to make a huge purchase that would almost certainly see them standing in front of regulators the way Microsoft is now. I think the strategy is to look for talent that you can mold and grow that isn't going to cost you an arm and a leg upfront where if it fails you just blew a ton of money. Smaller companies are much easier to integrate and influence. Instead of buying a huge company with 20 or 30 studios when you're only interested in 5 of them for the games they make, you can target independent companies who make similar games and get them without all the added baggage.

I think the only big company Sony has its eye on is Square Enix. That would be a $5.5 billion purchase at current market cap. At a 30% premium you're looking at over $7 billion. Certainly a doable sum for Sony, but that assumes SE is even willing to sell.

I don't think Microsoft would offer to pay double what a publisher is worth (possibly they would during a recession where value has plummeted for a time period, afterall they're only after ABK because of their stock price plummeting), but they can't while they're tied up in their current acquisition.

I find that there haven't been very many gaps between Microsoft's gaming acquisitions. They've been going at a steady pace since 2018. It might be premature to think that Microsoft has tried to acquire but companies said no, especially if a company is publicly traded.

I believe Bungie shopped itself around and Microsoft wasn't willing to accept their terms (basically independence).

I could see Sony buying Square Enix, makes sense, especially if ABK goes through. However, if they're willing to sell, I don't think they get to pick their buyer. Fiduciary duty would require them to get the best price possible. Which would mean shopping themselves around. There are ways around this, having the majority of the stock and deciding where your company ends up, but generally a publicly traded company has to get the best price possible.

I agree that Sony probably doesn't want regulator scrutiny, which is why they probably haven't made huge acquisitions like Microsoft is attempting. There is a downside to being the clear market leader.

Regardless, I wasn't remarking on Sony's strategy, just that Microsoft will (even if this ABK acquisition is blocked) continue to pursue gaming acquisitions. But I think we agree that they won't use $70B like some fanboys seem to think.

 

[Gamer_By_Proxy]

Which is why I made the point that MS needed to do more to move the needle than reiterate the same deal they had on the table before. Why would the CMA be compelled by something they shrugged off already?

And posters with more expertise than me have already laid out why their isn't much you can do in the way of recourse if the CMA shut down the deal

That was my first reaction. I was like, didn't they already know companies like Nintendo were on board?

 

[3liteDragon]

Did Microsoft do enough to convince Europe to let them buy Activision Blizzard? | Opinion

This article has been updated and edited for clarity, plus a correction over the timing of a tweet from an Activision B…

www.gamesindustry.biz

For all the fluff and spin, Microsoft made a strong case in Europe. But the real challenge is with the UK.

During Microsoft’s press briefing yesterday, the firm’s Brad Smith pulled out an envelope with a contract in it. “I walk around with an envelope that contains the definitive agreement that we sent to Sony two days before Christmas, I am ready to sign it at any time.” It was a theatrical flourish which, apparently, he also did within the closed European Commission hearing earlier that day. There was something a tiny bit Trumpian and performative about the moment, and it sort-of sums up the entire regulatory battle over whether this deal gets over-the-line.

Earlier in the day, the US union Communication Workers of America issued a statement about why the deal would be a good thing. A group that has absolutely no bearing on the regulators’ decision over whether the acquisition goes ahead. During the press briefing, Smith referred to the union’s statement, which suggests that this was also a carefully co-ordinated PR move. Valve and Nintendo, two companies who have been dragged into the conversation, have been promised Call of Duty for ten years. Nintendo signed a contract over the proposed deal. Microsoft announced that in a release ahead of the hearing. The suggestion is that Nintendo supports the deal, but really, it just supports getting a game on its console. Valve doesn’t oppose the deal, but Gabe Newell dismissed the ten-year contract as unnecessary.

This whole thing is a little bit of a performance. These are moves designed to prove Microsoft's good intentions. Call of Duty is already on Steam. There’s already nothing to stop Activision Blizzard putting Call of Duty on Switch. But regardless, these contracts, and public statements of support from third-party organisations, are effective. They counter some of the concerns and doubts well.

The big repeated statement from Smith was how this gives 150 million more people (or devices) the chance to play Call of Duty, should the deal go through. It’s proof that the acquisition is good for players. The 150 million number is over-stated, of course. After all, many of those 150 million players either already have the ability to play the game, or simply don't want to. But the sentiment behind the number is true. If this deal goes through, Call of Duty will be available in more places to more people.

The Nvidia GeForce Now announcement was more significant in my eyes. The regulators have two issues, the first is around the console market, and the other is around where the games industry is heading with subscriptions and streaming. Microsoft has made a behavioural concession around Call of Duty on console, but (until now) it hasn’t offered anything to placate concerns that it will become dominant in this possible future where all games are streamed and paid for via subscription. The GeForce Now deal is that concession. Not only is Microsoft offering to put Call of Duty on the game streaming service, but all Xbox games that are currently on PC, too. It’s a big win for Nvidia, and gives rival streaming services a chance to flourish (although, frankly, Microsoft is clearly the biggest player in this space).

Maybe I’m too cynical, but the ten-year timespan on the Nvidia deal doesn't feel significant enough. Streaming is a nascent distribution model for video games. It actually makes sense for Microsoft to support its competitors in an effort to drive users to this space. How long will it take before streaming becomes significant? Five years? Ten years? And will Microsoft renew the deal then?

Even so, it is a counter to the one part of regulators’ concerns that Microsoft had, up until now, not had an answer to.

So there is an improved argument from Microsoft in Brussels, even beneath the spin. Although I've not even mentioned one of the arguments, which was the 80/20 pie-chart that Xbox used to show how dominant PlayStation is in Europe. There was a lot of talk about that on social media. It’s actually not wrong, it just leaves out every other platform (including Nintendo). It’s hardly in-keeping with the company’s previous insistence that there are more games platforms out there than just Xbox and PlayStation. But the point was to show that in Europe, the one company objecting to the deal already has a commanding lead.

Microsoft wants the regulators to see PlayStation as the big business. And Google, and Apple. Oh and, Activision Blizzard is worried about Tencent (it’s always good to have a Chinese opponent in these conversations, I’m sure). There is truth to Microsoft’s view on some areas of the games market and the dominance of certain players, but I cannot see them successfully painting themselves as the underdog.

The whole thing has become a seemingly endless circus of hyperbole. Yet, I suspect, to political journalists this is all quite normal. This is part of the game. If Microsoft is playing politics when it comes to Sony and the regulators, Activision Blizzard isn’t being so moderate. Its statement against PlayStation and the European Commission yesterday was far less even-handed. Fresh from obliterating its relationship with Netease, you have to wonder how Activision and PlayStation will be able to renew their relationship should this deal not go ahead.

Bobby Kotick issued a stinging attack on the UK sector, warning the country would become ‘death valley’ in terms of big tech if the regulator blocks the deal. Kotick’s experience in the UK has come largely from buying studios, failing to make them work and closing them again. And if he thinks a statement like that is going to, in any way, convince the UK regulator to approve the deal, then he clearly has no notion of UK culture and its political leaders.

Meanwhile, the company’s EVP Corporate Affairs and CCO Lulu Cheng Meservey, fresh from her interview with Axios, tweeted this meme out during yesterday’s hearing. Just to stress, this is an executive vice president at one of the biggest and most powerful entertainment companies on the planet.

Activision is turning this circus into one that’s run by a bunch of six-year-olds high on sugar. This sort of rhetoric might have won Donald Trump a huge audience, but this isn’t the US and it isn’t the court of public opinion. You have to wonder how Microsoft feels about their approach to the situation. So another moment in this very long and very public acquisition saga has been and gone. It’s not over yet. Not even nearly. There are more claims, counter-claims, hyperbole, spun numbers and redeployed arguments to come.

Will the deal go through? Microsoft may have won over the European Commission. The regulators in Brussels are perhaps more willing to accept Xbox's proposed remedies. It will require policing, of course. But Brad Smith and his Microsoft team have been working the halls of the European Commission for years, and have made previous arrangements like this work.

Where the true challenge lies, however, remains the UK and the CMA. The CMA requested Microsoft make 'structural remedies' (selling off parts of the business, such as Call of Duty) to satisfy their concerns. Microsoft has rejected that option this week. Now they have just two weeks to convince the UK -- or 'Death Valley' if you prefer -- that there is another way forward. The CMA was always viewed as the biggest obstacle in the path of this deal getting completed. And that remains the situation today.

 

[HerpDerpstreit]

Which is why I made the point that MS needed to do more to move the needle than reiterate the same deal they had on the table before. Why would the CMA be compelled by something they shrugged off already?

And posters with more expertise than me have already laid out why their isn't much you can do in the way of recourse if the CMA shut down the deal

Absolutely true. Microsoft have to take these steps in order. The CMA initial hearing has come and gone and M$ have heard what the CMA would like to see happen. Then they had the EU meeting. Now that the big commissions have each had a chance to say their piece, M$ now have to take all of that information, discuss what they can do to appease the 2 that haven't filed suit and attempt to convince them that this deal will not be a bad thing. Which does not have to equal being a good thing, let's be clear on that.

 

[Punished Miku]

Honestly…

Your gaming history is kinda limited.

Actually it explains a lot about the views you’ve expressed in this acquisition process…

[...]

Which game I play today and where, is irrelevant to that opinion.

1. My exhaustive attempts to explain my gaming history owning virtually every major gaming device release in North America except for an Xbox One show that I'm limited, and explain that I want a MS monopoly.
2. You saying what you prefer to play on is irrelevant.

Just defies explanation. I don't get it.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I have no idea at this point. But maybe I'm retarded.

 

[GHG]

 

[BennyBlanco]

It really is a shitshow. Not sure what this has to do with Donald Trump tho. Nobody is running for president here or personally attacking people.

 

[Kokoloko85]

I think regardless it will go through. I don’t like the way the industry is now having Platforms buying huge Publishers, but it is what it is.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Down with big tech oligarchies.

 

[Varteras]

It really is a shitshow. Not sure what this has to do with Donald Trump tho. Nobody is running for president here or personally attacking people.

Mostly the juvenile meme posting of an Activision executive over the deal and Kotick using grossly hyperbolic scary language to equate his not getting his golden parachute to the UK tech sector's demise.

 

[j.k.2021]

If this deals gets blocked then it will only be due to politics.PlayStation is the clear dominant player in gaming and regulators shouldn't protect it.

 

[K2D]

A ten year agreement is a band-aid you have to walk around with for ten years. Better to risk it all now.

Seems people don't remember Xbox of the 360 days or Microsoft of the 90's...

 

[Ronin_7]

CMA will book.

EC is a clown show if they took that conference seriously lmao

CMA on the other hand won't be fooled that easily.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Mostly the juvenile meme posting of an Activision executive over the deal and Kotick using grossly hyperbolic scary language to equate his not getting his golden parachute to the UK tech sector's demise.

Fair enough but still a weird comparison.

A ten year agreement is a band-aid you have to walk around with for ten years. Better to risk it all now.

Seems people don't remember Xbox of the 360 days or Microsoft of the 90's...

Sony should be operating under the assumption that if they sign that 10 year deal they will lose access to COD in 10 years. Phil Spencer out here saying he will ship to PS as long as a PS console exists is meaningless, all they have to say is “plans change” and Phil will be long gone by then.

 

[Fess]

What’s the lesson you’re trying to teach here? That you want MS to own all this IP just so you can save a few bucks? ok

Sorry to be such a selfish prick but yeah that’s essentially how I think. I already have all consoles and a 4090 PC, I’ve done my part regarding platform investments. Now I just want games. And MS acquiring a studio is the best scenario for me until there is console-PC save and license syncing on Steam. And Sony acquiring a studio is the worst scenario for me as long as they delay PC versions and PS+ releases. Well, no, Nintendo buying a studio is worse, or Apple.

 

[MarkMe2525]

It's hard to say. Like it or not, the opinions offered up and quotes selected for the article, are coming from a place of bias. This isn't because the journalist isn't good at their job, it's because they are human.

Many of times, context and nuance of the arguments presented are lost during the transcription into an article such as this.

I happen to find MS arguments presented here compelling, but I might feel differently if I were sitting in on the precedings.

Sony should be operating under the assumption that if they sign that 10 year deal they will lose access to COD in 10 years. Phil Spencer out here saying he will ship to PS as long as a PS console exists is meaningless, all they have to say is “plans change” and Phil will be long gone by then.

The question then becomes, does Sony have a "fair" amount of time to produce a product that fills the void that would be left if COD was not distributed on their platform.

I understand MS unwillingness to put anything longer than 10 years down on paper. While unlikely, imagine a scenario where Sony increases their store cut to 50%, or the PS6 or PS7 is extremely difficult to port COD over due to bespoke and exotic architecture. The future is unknown, and an indefinite distribution deal would love MS vurnerable to too many unknown variables.

 

[GHG]

And I would be fine with that statement as well. The point is there's zero evidence that I am so heavily biased that I'm incapable of changing my mind, or that I am lying. I skipped PS3 for years because of how expensive it was. Then Xbox 360 raised the price of Live and started talking TV, PS+ came out with the free games model and free online and I jumped to Sony again. Skipped Xbox One because nothing interested me, and it was the more expensive one. Then they sold me on the Gamepass initiative which is pretty similar to what drove me to PS+ initially on PS3. I literally have gone back and forth depending on how they're doing. The one I'm most consistently in favor of is Nintendo, and even then, I didn't get a Wii for like 4 years.

Do any of you guys have anything in your bio that showcases that kind of open mindedness in regards to console brands? I also got a fucking Quest 2 when RE4 came out after hating Facebook and never touching social media my whole life. I even got a NeoGeo Pocket, Saturn, Dreamcast, PSP, Vita and Wii U.

If anyone wants to call me a console warrior, they can look in the mirror first and start by telling us about their past.

Thirty7ven you can go first.

This is at least the second gaming life story we've had to endure in this thread. Funny that, especially considering the conditions have been exactly the same.

I don't understand why so few people want to admit to being Xbox fans when they clearly are. It's not as dirty as you think it is, Phil won't disown you (despite his "fanboy bad" nonsense, probably because he doesn't have enough to call his own). The "I'm not a fanboy" charade immeriately falls flat on it's face upon further observation. Everyone has preferences, own it, don't be disingenuous and we will all get along.

And MS acquiring a studio is the best scenario for me until there is console-PC save and license syncing on Steam. And Sony acquiring a studio is the worst scenario for me as long as they delay PC versions and PS+ releases. Well, no, Nintendo buying a studio is worse, or Apple.

How about nobody buys anyone?

 

[feynoob]

We need finale act badly.
No more teasing people with final outcome.

 

[Punished Miku]

This is at least the second gaming life story we've had to endure in this thread. Funny that, especially considering the conditions have been exactly the same.

I don't understand why so few people want to admit to being Xbox fans when they clearly are. It's not as dirty as you think it is, Phil won't disown you (despite his "fanboy bad" nonsense, probably because he doesn't have enough to call his own). The "I'm not a fanboy" charade immeriately falls flat on it's face upon observation. Everyone has preferences, own it, don't be disingenuous and we will all get along.

Let you incorrectly dictate my thoughts to others and paint me into a corner so you can dismiss what I say, when I know for a fact your claims are incorrect - "and we will all get along." How about we just don't get along then? I'm fine with that. You guys can kiss my ass.

 

[Yoboman]

They made the offer multiple times months before it was even reported about. Sony turned it down.

You think that's because MS is so altruistic? Or because their deal is getting shut down if they don't make those offers at a bare minimum?

You can guarantee if this wasn't running into regulatory issues there would be no 10 year deals for anyone

 

[bluecowboys]

It is getting approved. Sony is just delaying hoping to get a better deal.

No single IP should be a factor when you consider the fact MS at any time could just buy the COD IP from activision and contract the games out to Activision studios to make.

 

[soulbait]

I am really confused by the Donald Trump comment. I am not a fan of Trump at all and I am for criticism for him, but why on earth was he brought up in this? Also, I do no see how what Microsoft did was anything like what Trump has done in the past.

Microsoft had to show they are willing to make deals and not silo off COD, so that is what they did. Whether or not it is successful or not is still up for debate along with the question of "is this how desperate MS is or was this their plan all along?".

Leave politics out of this. We get enough of that shit on the daily elsewhere.