Microsoft to buy Activision Blizzard

I'd rather not see Microsoft buy this company. But if they do, I suppose CoD may remain multi platform. Player count and micro transactions are what matters. I assume Microsoft will make the grind even more of a hell than it already is. Single player games? Most probably not going to come on Playstation.
 
GotNoRice said:
This just seems insane to me. You have massive un-checked monopolies such as Google for example. You have people who are using a Google/Android phone, a Google/Android tablet, a Google/Android TV, a Chromebook as their computer, running Chrome browser, using Google search to search for anything on the internet, purchasing all of their apps/games through the Google Play store, using a Google Internet connection, using Google Maps for navigation, using Gmail for their email, storing their files in Google Cloud, using Google Docs to type documents, using Google Pay to pay for stuff, watching videos on Youtube (owned by Google) all day, using Google Assistant for voice inquiries, all while being blasted by ads served by Google, etc, etc. Literally the worst monopoly that this planet has ever seen, where a single company can control every facet of your entire life....

....but the government puts their resources toward stopping Microsoft from trying to buy a game company instead... View attachment 532839
Click to expand...

I mean google doesn't force you to use their mail, maps, chrometv, google tv, browser etc. While I don't care if microsoft gets them cuz I will probably get free games with my game pass lol. I think its a wrong argument to make because google is not really forcing you use their eco system only. You have other apps that you can use that do the same thing. if they were blocking those then you would have an anti competitive issue.
 
Flogger23m said:
I'd rather not see Microsoft buy this company. But if they do, I suppose CoD may remain multi platform. Player count and micro transactions are what matters. I assume Microsoft will make the grind even more of a hell than it already is. Single player games? Most probably not going to come on Playstation.
Click to expand...
Just play a different generic, multiplayer, military shooter. There is nothing that CoD offers that is remotely unique or interesting. If CoD dies on PS, something else will take its place.
 
What they need to do is acquire a team of debuggers to fix their broken games.
 
NKD said:
I mean google doesn't force you to use their mail, maps, chrometv, google tv, browser etc. While I don't care if microsoft gets them cuz I will probably get free games with my game pass lol. I think its a wrong argument to make because google is not really forcing you use their eco system only. You have other apps that you can use that do the same thing. if they were blocking those then you would have an anti competitive issue.
Click to expand...

It's not about being forced to use their services, it's about having dominance in too many different areas at the same time. The company should be split up. They were already the #1 search engine, and started pushing Chrome on people who visited Google.com, which is almost certainly why Chrome became the #1 browser. They use data extracted from all of their services for targeted advertising, giving them an advantage in that market. Youtube videos are favored in Google searches. The list goes on.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Again, I don't think any of this matters (see my long post above), but Sony does have a point about IP purchases being a way to gate content (even if said content is garbage and doesn't really matter). The irony is I think that Sony overestimates how much cross-platform CoD sales matters to the future of their consoles. And doesn't see the opportunity to make a similar title using Unreal Engine, purchased assets, and hiring/consulting people to do balancing as well as map designing.
If they made such an IP and crossplayed it themselves with Microsoft/Nintendo/PC, they could reap all of the money and likely the support of all the gamers. And also likely make a game better than the CoD trash that has been coming out and likely could spin-up a studio to make said title within 2 years. With most of that time probably going towards mechanics and game design. Everything on top being "generic".
Click to expand...
Sony does this all the time, but the FTC doesn't care about that. 6-12 month platform exclusivity, PlayStation exclusive DLC, etc. Let's not pretend Sony is the good guy, here.
schoolslave said:
Sure, but when's the last time Google tried to purchase two industry powerhouses (Zenimax/Bethesda + Activision/Blizzard) in a relatively short period of time - let alone a single acquisition for $69 billion? Google is a huge problem itself don't get me wrong, but lets not pull a whataboutism here. This is about Microsoft trying to outright control a huge chunk of the "gaming" market and just maybe the FTC can actually stop it. Legislating Google requires anti-trust busting and insane political capital which sadly will not happen in the USA any time soon. Blocking this acquisition is preemptive and therefore "cheap" and only a net positive for consumers. Nothing "insane" about it unless you're an M$ executive.

EDIT: It's $75B now?
Click to expand...
Activision Blizzard generates $8-9 billion in sales annually. The entire video game market is approaching $200 billion annually. Activision Blizzard at 0.5% of the market is not the powerhouse you think it is. The only thing they have that makes any appreciable money anymore is Call of Duty. If they didn't have that golden goose, the company would go under quickly.
 
GotNoRice said:
It's not about being forced to use their services, it's about having dominance in too many different areas at the same time. The company should be split up. They were already the #1 search engine, and started pushing Chrome on people who visited Google.com, which is almost certainly why Chrome became the #1 browser. They use data extracted from all of their services for targeted advertising, giving them an advantage in that market. Youtube videos are favored in Google searches. The list goes on.
Click to expand...
It’s about hurting competition. People
Have made tons of money through apps and Google. Monopoly if they were only making you use their stuff and had no access to anything else. It was all goggle apps and google devices. They are big is not the only reason. How is being number 1 search engine their fault? Cuz it’s good? No chrome became popular because of brand and recognition not adds. You still have to download it in most cases. Every browser has adds and targeting. Ban them all?
 
Armenius said:
Sony does this all the time, but the FTC doesn't care about that. 6-12 month platform exclusivity, PlayStation exclusive DLC, etc. Let's not pretend Sony is the good guy, here.

Activision Blizzard generates $8-9 billion in sales annually. The entire video game market is approaching $200 billion annually. Activision Blizzard at 0.5% of the market is not the powerhouse you think it is. The only thing they have that makes any appreciable money anymore is Call of Duty. If they didn't have that golden goose, the company would go under quickly.
Click to expand...
Oh wow I should’ve researched that better - didn’t realize how insignificant Activision/Blizzard is these days (or how large the gaming market has grown). My next question then is where does this ridiculous valuation come from?
 
schoolslave said:
Oh wow I should’ve researched that better - didn’t realize how insignificant Activision/Blizzard is these days (or how large the gaming market has grown). My next question then is where does this ridiculous valuation come from?
Click to expand...
When it was discovered that Microsoft was looking to buy them the stock price shot up. In actually A/B is worth half that but the talent pool they have is worth a significant chunk of change. Say what you will about Activision and Blizzard's management, but the IP, artists, and programmers are among the better ones currently out there.
 
Last edited:
schoolslave said:
Oh wow I should’ve researched that better - didn’t realize how insignificant Activision/Blizzard is these days (or how large the gaming market has grown). My next question then is where does this ridiculous valuation come from?
Click to expand...
I think that valuation though is a bit skewed. The reason why CoD is a big chunk of "all the money" is precisely because of the type of title it is.

There's a new one every 2 years or so. It's filled with microtransactions. And it's more or less designed in every way shape and form from the bottom to the top to be monetized.

Blizzard on the other hand traditionally, or even until now, has had VERY long development cycles (Diablo 4 being the most recent was announced several years ago and Diablo 3 came out over 10 years ago). They tend to update and give content to their titles for a very long time. It's a very different model. Because of Activisions pushing, Blizzard has become more monetized (all of Hearthstone, Overwatch gatcha mechanics), but that isn't the way Blizzard started or was intended to be. Honestly I'm surprised to a certain degree that they are even 9%, considering the size of id and Bethesda's catalog. Let alone Activisions CoD or the rest of their catalog. It's pretty hard to express just how many IP's are inside of this merger. It's a lot.

That gives me miniscule hope that Blizzard can either split off or be bought by someone else, unlikely though that may be. I think every gamers dream is that Blizzard would again become independent. Just not likely to ever happen.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
I think that valuation though is a bit skewed. The reason why CoD is a big chunk of "all the money" is precisely because of the type of title it is.

There's a new one every 2 years or so. It's filled with microtransactions. And it's more or less designed in every way shape and form from the bottom to the top to be monetized.

Blizzard on the other hand traditionally, or even until now, has had VERY long development cycles (Diablo 4 being the most recent was announced several years ago and Diablo 3 came out over 10 years ago). They tend to update and give content to their titles for a very long time. It's a very different model. Because of Activisions pushing, Blizzard has become more monetized (all of Hearthstone, Overwatch gatcha mechanics), but that isn't the way Blizzard started or was intended to be. Honestly I'm surprised to a certain degree that they are even 9%, considering the size of id and Bethesda's catalog. Let alone Activisions CoD or the rest of their catalog. It's pretty hard to express just how many IP's are inside of this merger. It's a lot.

That gives me miniscule hope that Blizzard can either split off or be bought by someone else, unlikely though that may be. I think every gamers dream is that Blizzard would again become independent. Just not likely to ever happen.
Click to expand...
My fear is who then buys up the parts if it does get split out like that, none of the circling vultures look particular appealing.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Just play a different generic, multiplayer, military shooter. There is nothing that CoD offers that is remotely unique or interesting. If CoD dies on PS, something else will take its place.
Click to expand...

It has player count and graphics. The other AAA military shooters can be counted on one finger:

Battlefield.

And both CoD and BF are more like quasi military these days. Something they do (although varies from game to game) is offer smooth gameplay and optimization. The AA offerings, the 1-2 that are still alive, don't work too well. Rising Storm Vietnam had constant stutters throughout gameplay.
 
Flogger23m said:
It has player count and graphics. The other AAA military shooters can be counted on one finger:

Battlefield.

And both CoD and BF are more like quasi military these days. Something they do (although varies from game to game) is offer smooth gameplay and optimization. The AA offerings, the 1-2 that are still alive, don't work too well. Rising Storm Vietnam had constant stutters throughout gameplay.
Click to expand...
I'd still rather play CS.

FPS titles aren't exactly unique or special. Although you could argue the other shooters don't necessarily qualify as being military (and as you note really none of them are, quasi at best, certainly not Rainbox 6 from the 90's level of verisimilitude) there are a ton of "competitive shooters" in general.

Rainbow 6 Siege most notably. But anyone could also pickup Valorant or Overwatch 2.

However the real point I'm making is that even if CoD and Battlefiled were the only option, if PS was to lose CoD, some other generic shooter could just as easily take its place. If Microsoft made CoD exclusive, all that would do is simply make CoD sell less copies. It's the reason why CoD was/is multi-platform to begin with. While that might work as a short term to long term strategy, again, Sony themselves could easily make a multi-platform generic military shooter in place of CoD bailing out.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
I'd still rather play CS.

FPS titles aren't exactly unique or special. Although you could argue the other shooters don't necessarily qualify as being military (and as you note really none of them are, quasi at best, certainly not Rainbox 6 from the 90's level of verisimilitude) there are a ton of "competitive shooters" in general.

Rainbow 6 Siege most notably. But anyone could also pickup Valorant or Overwatch 2.

However the real point I'm making is that even if CoD and Battlefiled were the only option, if PS was to lose CoD, some other generic shooter could just as easily take its place. If Microsoft made CoD exclusive, all that would do is simply make CoD sell less copies. It's the reason why CoD was/is multi-platform to begin with. While that might work as a short term to long term strategy, again, Sony themselves could easily make a multi-platform generic military shooter in place of CoD bailing out.
Click to expand...
Check out Darktide, its current lack of a "crafting system" aside it's a solid game.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
However the real point I'm making is that even if CoD and Battlefiled were the only option, if PS was to lose CoD, some other generic shooter could just as easily take its place. If Microsoft made CoD exclusive, all that would do is simply make CoD sell less copies. It's the reason why CoD was/is multi-platform to begin with. While that might work as a short term to long term strategy, again, Sony themselves could easily make a multi-platform generic military shooter in place of CoD bailing out.
Click to expand...

Doubt it. There is more money in the Overwatch/Fortnite crowd. If Microsoft does restrict access from Playsation they'll make it up by making the grind more (more micro transaction sales). Microsoft is that stupid. They design games based around technology and use it as a selling point. Like the most recent Crackdown game was based around some oddball cloud technology, which was pointless.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
I think that valuation though is a bit skewed. The reason why CoD is a big chunk of "all the money" is precisely because of the type of title it is.

There's a new one every 2 years or so. It's filled with microtransactions. And it's more or less designed in every way shape and form from the bottom to the top to be monetized.

Blizzard on the other hand traditionally, or even until now, has had VERY long development cycles (Diablo 4 being the most recent was announced several years ago and Diablo 3 came out over 10 years ago). They tend to update and give content to their titles for a very long time. It's a very different model. Because of Activisions pushing, Blizzard has become more monetized (all of Hearthstone, Overwatch gatcha mechanics), but that isn't the way Blizzard started or was intended to be. Honestly I'm surprised to a certain degree that they are even 9%, considering the size of id and Bethesda's catalog. Let alone Activisions CoD or the rest of their catalog. It's pretty hard to express just how many IP's are inside of this merger. It's a lot.

That gives me miniscule hope that Blizzard can either split off or be bought by someone else, unlikely though that may be. I think every gamers dream is that Blizzard would again become independent. Just not likely to ever happen.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, Blizzard hasn’t been truly an independent company since before they were named Blizzard and thus before Warcraft was released. Perhaps their continued successes gave them more autonomy than most studios from their parent companies. I do recall reading stories of them being overruled at times though. Hellfire comes to mind as one example of them being forced to go along with something.
 
Armenius said:
The CMA (UK's FTC) says around 75% of the 2,100 people who responded to their request for comment support the merger. Among the 25% who strongly disapprove of the merger, there was no clear view expressed as to why they do so. Those who are against it seem to be expressing their fee-fees rather than logic.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...sponses_to_Issues_Statement_MS_Activision.pdf
Click to expand...


I support the merger, I want more games and exclusives on microsoft because then there is a bigger chance more titles will appear on pc at the same time as xbox. Spiderman on pc would not take as long if it was cross platform on consoles or a microsoft exclusive, but since it's sony and the playstation is all they have it makes the desired games inherently more likely to be locked down.
 
tybert7 said:
I support the merger, I want more games and exclusives on microsoft because then there is a bigger chance more titles will appear on pc at the same time as xbox. Spiderman on pc would not take as long if it was cross platform on consoles or a microsoft exclusive, but since it's sony and the playstation is all they have it makes the desired games inherently more likely to be locked down.
Click to expand...
Sure and if the studios/publishers remain independent then every viable platform gets a port which is better for pretty much everyone except Kotick and M$.
This logic of M$ buying up game studios leading to more PC releases is pure fantasy. What M$ is more likely doing is gathering as many gaming franchises as possible and converting them into exclusive subscription/rent-seeking properties.
 
Armenius said:
The CMA (UK's FTC) says around 75% of the 2,100 people who responded to their request for comment support the merger. Among the 25% who strongly disapprove of the merger, there was no clear view expressed as to why they do so. Those who are against it seem to be expressing their fee-fees rather than logic.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...sponses_to_Issues_Statement_MS_Activision.pdf
Click to expand...
The reasons pro-merger read like bot-farm email submissions (which btw, what sort of braindead government agency invites public comment via unsigned email in 2022?) whereas the anti-merger comments actually seem logical for the most part.

Example of fact-based and logical anti-merger sentiment:
Microsoft will make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox, just as it did with Bethesda after it acquired ZeniMax Media;
Click to expand...

Example of corporate-drivel pro-merger sentiment:
consumers could revert to buying games on a buy-to-play basis if Microsoft were to raise the price of Game Pass post-Merger;
Click to expand...
 
GotNoRice said:
Why would Microsoft ignore the huge market of Windows gamers? One of their main focuses with gaming in Windows 11, etc, has been toward bringing Windows gaming and XBox gaming closer together, not further apart.
Click to expand...
I think the argument is referring to MS not releasing titles for any other platform besides Xbox and Windows. People are losing their shit that the games may no longer be made for the PlayStation, if I am reading the situation correctly. MS buys every game studio these days that EA hasn't.

And apparently some people are thinking they won't release on windows (after digging deeper), that's just retarded. The Xbox is essentially a cheap Windows PC with decent graphics and a decent Ryzen CPU.
 
GotNoRice said:
bringing Windows gaming and XBox gaming closer together, not further apart.
Click to expand...
Which I would hate.

My position is not really pro-merger, but fuck Sony. I hate all the involved parties, but if somebody is going to buy ActiBlizz, MS is probably the least bad prospect. Sony whining about potential exclusivity is the height of irony.
 
jfreund said:
Which I would hate.

My position is not really pro-merger, but fuck Sony. I hate all the involved parties, but if somebody is going to buy ActiBlizz, MS is probably the least bad prospect. Sony whining about potential exclusivity is the height of irony.
Click to expand...

Sony is bringing over all their games to PC though. I think that have a point in a way. Blizzard/Activision have some of the biggest online games out there currently. Probably not enough of an impact for anti trust laws to kick in though. As long as EA, Valve and Ubisoft are independent I assume they would provide similar enough products.
 
schoolslave said:
Sure and if the studios/publishers remain independent then every viable platform gets a port which is better for pretty much everyone except Kotick and M$.
This logic of M$ buying up game studios leading to more PC releases is pure fantasy. What M$ is more likely doing is gathering as many gaming franchises as possible and converting them into exclusive subscription/rent-seeking properties.
Click to expand...
I am not 100% sure of that (I am not sure if an human brain is able to calculate that parallel world), would Gran Turismo player would have been better off without Sony ever supporting that franchise ? Would they get that 5 years of massive development without an interested party to make a flagship product for a new console, the downside of the exclusive game are obvious, but I imagine that amount of capital and wars between giant has also upsides.

Has for the Microsoft buying up game studios leading to more PC release being pure fantasy, that seem a bit odd, when was the last time a microsoft studio game did not get a pc release ?

Call me stupid but I would assume Microsoft would make an effort in the gamepass, play everywhere, continue to try to keep the better for gaming to be on Windows alive, what the downside for a microsoft owned game studio to make a PC release, is the Xbox One DX12 that different to be an issue ?

Why subscription and rent-seeking properties would not have a PC release has well ?
 
Marees said:
Cloud gaming kills the Xbox-actvision merger ??
Click to expand...

That and apparently the doubts of Call of Duty running reasonably well on a Switch. Its a fair comment, but I doubt that 10 year deal was created between Microsoft and Nintendo for the current gen Switch (which the rumors mill have the next gen Switch around the corner...you know if rumors are true).
 
JavaLava said:
That and apparently the doubts of Call of Duty running reasonably well on a Switch. Its a fair comment, but I doubt that 10 year deal was created between Microsoft and Nintendo for the current gen Switch (which the rumors mill have the next gen Switch around the corner...you know if rumors are true).
Click to expand...

Nintendo could solve that problem by launching a console that isn’t underpowered. Then again, is anyone buying a Switch to play COD? There are several platforms for it already, all of which are better. The only motivation I have for owning a Nintendo console is for their first party studio properties. This appears to be a case of a regulator making decisions impacting an industry they don’t actually understand.
 
HockeyJon said:
Nintendo could solve that problem by launching a console that isn’t underpowered. Then again, is anyone buying a Switch to play COD? There are several platforms for it already, all of which are better. The only motivation I have for owning a Nintendo console is for their first party studio properties. This appears to be a case of a regulator making decisions impacting an industry they don’t actually understand.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say it was underpowered at launch, and to some degree it's still fine; it's really a handheld system that you can dock. The issue is more that it's six years old, and Nintendo clearly has to put out a new system if the COD deal is going to carry any meaning.

I suspect this may be the first time in a long while that Nintendo doesn't substantially rethink its console design between generations. Many would be happy if Nintendo just made a faster Switch with a nicer screen and maybe improvements to portability and battery life (and no risk of Joy-Con drift).
 
Aurelius said:
I wouldn't say it was underpowered at launch, and to some degree it's still fine; it's really a handheld system that you can dock. The issue is more that it's six years old, and Nintendo clearly has to put out a new system if the COD deal is going to carry any meaning.

I suspect this may be the first time in a long while that Nintendo doesn't substantially rethink its console design between generations. Many would be happy if Nintendo just made a faster Switch with a nicer screen and maybe improvements to portability and battery life (and no risk of Joy-Con drift).
Click to expand...

If the Joy-Cons did not drift, they would neither bring you Joy, nor be a Con. :)
 
It's still not over yet. Microsoft will be appealing the decision.

Microsoft and Activision say they will appeal merger obstruction - Microsoft remains "fully committed to this acquisition"
https://www.gamesradar.com/microsoft-and-activision-say-they-will-appeal-merger-obstruction/

Microsoft's guy went on a melodramatic tirade against the UK over the matter.

Microsoft President Blasts UK Regulator Over Blocking Activision Deal: "Darkest Day" - Microsoft's Brad Smith says, "This decision, I have to say, is probably the darkest day in our four decades in Britain."
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/m...ing-activision-deal-darkest-day/1100-6513630/
 
Aurelius said:
I wouldn't say it was underpowered at launch, and to some degree it's still fine; it's really a handheld system that you can dock. The issue is more that it's six years old, and Nintendo clearly has to put out a new system if the COD deal is going to carry any meaning.

I suspect this may be the first time in a long while that Nintendo doesn't substantially rethink its console design between generations. Many would be happy if Nintendo just made a faster Switch with a nicer screen and maybe improvements to portability and battery life (and no risk of Joy-Con drift).
Click to expand...
Yes it was under powered on launch. It use a mobile SoC that was already a couple years old. They need to axe the portable aspect of the switch and put it more towards the power. But this is Nintendo will always Nintendo. They don't follow what everyone else is doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top