Not really but if that's what you want to take from it sure. I don't have the kind of money needed to make that work and don't know enough to make it work for me, but I do know that if Sony is dependent on game developers and hardware suppliers and they both announce their shipments are delayed a few months, that essentially leaves Sony with nothing to sell, and an entertainment company with nothing to entertain is going to take a beating in the stock market, but once they again have products to move they are guaranteed to move all of them so yay big numbers.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Microsoft to buy Activision Blizzard
- Thread starter HockeyJon
- Start date
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,084
Vanguard was the #1 selling game in 2021 after having only been out for two months. Cold War was the #1 until Vanguard came out at the beginning of November, and that game came out at the end of 2020. I don't think COD is in any danger of bleeding players.
https://www.npd.com/news/entertainment-top-10/2022/top-10-video-games/
Taking Vanguard as an example their initial sales were great, but player drop-off has been greater. Every CoD launch has been great, they are consistently the #1 selling title except for the odd time they have gone up directly against something else bigger, such as RDR2 and GTA 5. But right now Vanguards player engagement is below that of LoL, GTA5, CSGO, Valorant, Apex Legends, DOTA 2, Rainbow Seige, and Lost Ark.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,084
COD only shoots for the engagement in between annual releases. Those other games you listed are in it for the long haul.
League of Legends: 12 years, 2 months, 22 days
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive: 9 years, 4 months, 28 days
DOTA 2: 8 years, 6 months, 9 days
Grand Theft Auto Online: 8 years, 4 months, 1 day
Rainbow Six: Siege: 6 years, 1 month, 17 days
Lost Ark: 3 years, 1 month, 7 days
Apex Legends: 2 years, 11 months, 14 days
Valorant: 1 year, 6 months, 16 days
If you have access to Vanguard player numbers, please share. Activision does not share those numbers beyond giving us "100 million total players" and other marketing nonsense.
I don't have their active players but a number of sites try to guestimate it sites like cod.tracker who tracks player progression and rankings has it just north of 363,000 active players, but other sources as well such as Twitch/youtube engagement and such show far fewer people engaging with the brand. And yes those games are more in it for the long haul as you say as opposed to annual releases, investors don't care about that. Actual game sales make up a very small portion of the expected returns on a title, and it is all the incremental sales of DLC, Lootboxes, and Skins that are what is going to make them happy, and Activision's investor reports fall far short there of what they initially expected.
DukenukemX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 7,933
I think as the market is right now, the Xbox Playstation and PC markets are evenly divided in America, with Playstation and PC having a greater market share world wide. That hasn't always been the case historically. It's not like the PS2 era where porting games to GameCube and Xbox was something you could ignore easily. Making games exclusive to one platform means losing out on 2/3 of potential sales. This is why Microsoft is merging Windows gaming with Xbox because that's a 2/3 market that developers can't easily ignore. Also studios under Microsoft and Sony aren't happy losing out on 2/3 of the market because of exclusivity. Developers will do a Bungie and leave to sell their games on all platforms. The future of console gaming will depend on who can grab the PC market share. PC gaming isn't beholden to Valve, to Microsoft, or anyone. It's open to anyone who can make a launcher.
Console gaming is only relevant because of exclusives. Microsoft is proving me right with them buying up studios left and right. If console hardware was enough to get sales then why is Microsoft buying up Activision Blizzard? Don't be surprised that future new Activision Blizzard titles don't end up on Playstation anymore. Sure Valve is doing the right thing by making PC gaming more console like with the Steam Deck, but Valve also needs to make exclusives. They need to make new games and start counting to three. As big as Steam is, without exclusives it won't always be able to hold onto players forever. Epic with their purchase of exclusives is proving to be effective.
Sure, for Indie developers it makes sense but not for AAA. How many AAA gaming companies don't have their own store on PC?
To be fair CDPR doesn't have enough games to warranty their own store. They have Cyberpunk 2077 and the Witcher series. If Nintendo actually brought their games to PC, they would definitely have their own store.
As a small studio this makes sense. As a giant company like EA and Valve then it makes more sense to have your own store. Why you think Valve hasn't been proactive in making games for the past decade? They make bank on other peoples games.
There hasn't been a good Star Wars film since 1983 but The Mandalorian show proves that it can be done right. People still make fan art and films about Star Wars and usually get a cease and desist from Disney lawyers. Blizzard has a lot of good IP that people loved when it was good, but ruined it with a lot of bad ideas from developers who actually don't play their own games. Everyone says that the developers need to be fired from the company and they needed to hire new talent.
Which is why having Microsoft buy their company is actually a good thing. Immediate good thing but long term bad thing. I doubt Microsoft plans to leave these companies alone to continue as business as usual. Firing Bobby Kotick is the first big step to fixing Activision Blizzard along with hopefully more firing and hiring. Which thankfully sounds like will happen once the deal is final. Then Bobby can go to Jeffrey Epstein's Island and take his place since he was a frequent visitor there. This is their CEO, which should give you an idea of how bad things were running in that company.
The root issue is that Capitalism has devolved into industries dominated not by lots of small companies competing, but instead two or three corporate giants who will eagerly eat any upstart just to acquire their IP portfolio. And always with the implicit agreement not to compete on price, since price wars are bad for business.
Classic example: About a decade ago one of the airlines (I want to say Southwest, but I don't recall offhand) added a new fee for a second checked bag. Within a week, literally EVERY major airline followed suit. Highlighting why excessive mergers are bad.
The argument shouldn't be "well, we're still not as large as EA so the deal should go through"; that form of logic is what's gotten us here. The argument should be strictly about competition, not relative size. And reducing the number of players in the market, especially for the benefit of the largest players, is a lose-lose proposition. It shouldn't be companies merging to challenge the industry leaders, it should be the industry leaders being broken up back to a more reasonable size.
This isn't sustainable, and one day the entire thing will cave on itself. One day, an entire industry will go under, and the choice will be either trillions in new debt, or economic calamity. All because we want to stock numbers to go up.
chameleoneel
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,586
Console gaming is relevant, because of the hardware price. A whole PS5 digital at MSRP, costs the same as an RTX 3060 ti at launch MSRP.
And the Switch is relevant because they provide an affordable, portable experience. which no one tried to touch. And backed it with excellent games.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,084
That is Corporatism, not Capitalism. Won't go any deeper since this isn't Soapbox.
StormNobleheart
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2017
- Messages
- 185
This^
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
I feel like Gerald from Core A has a great response to game devs in general about this topic.
I recommend his channel in general if you like great analysis, especially about fighting games.
Well, in truth this one has been a problem for a long time. Basically as he notes, the console race is based around improving visuals and not improving story. I've been complaining about this for basically the past two decades.
I think it's kind of a waste of time to discuss though. As I've more or less figured out - real visionaries create excellent games/art, and all the corps are just there to make populist games and make a buck. The time is better spent on finding good games and ignoring everything else - because this will never change. Anymore than it will change other similar industries like the movie industry.
Seems like the smart play would be to buy the dip. This is all just getting affected due to sentiment. It's pretty likely they'll just get the market cap back.
There is a lot of reductionism here. People don't want everyone's launchers and it's a market that is already saturarted. EA spent years trying to develop Origin and it turns out no one wanted it. Even their golden goose Bioware with the Mass Effect series wasn't enough to convert people. So they were more or less forced to start using Steam again just to do this thing called make money. And as you keep ignoring and I'll keep reminding you throughout this post, basically everyone is cross posting their content on every 'launcher'. And they wouldn't do that if exclusivity was good enough to ensure sales.
No. Console gaming is relevant because not every gamer is tech savvy. It's also relevant because people don't necessarily want to keep upgrading a system and want the longer cycles of consoles and a level of guarantee that they'll be able to play new releases for 5+ years with zero thought. There is also the price aspect. There is also the community aspect of it. And there is also a good portion of the population that wants to play games without the hassles of PC gaming. Not everyone is you. Not everyone visits the Hardforum.
So I'd say there are many reasons for consoles to exist and your short list is very reductive. I do think that IP matters and people buy their particular console of choice based around IP, but also community (what are my friends on?), and also brand preference.
For the same reason anyone buys any business? Because they want to make money with their product and they believe they can leverage their resources better.
Yes synergy matters. But it's not the only thing that matters.
That is their prerogative. But they will essentially lose a lot of money that certain titles of Activision's were making by not being exclusive. CoD being the big and obvious one. But other titles as well.
Valve and Steam is all about first mover advantage. They have the storefront that everyone for the most part likes and wants. They don't actually ever have to produce anything that they don't want to, short of continuous improvement on their store front. Because you don't seem to see this, they for lack of a better analogy are the Amazon of game distribution. Yeah you can buy your clothes, games, food, whatever from most companies direclty, but Amazon has it all and makes it easy on the consumer side. And that's why we shop there. And that's why Amazon is the 800lbs gorilla. That's what Steam really is, and that's why they get a 30% cut. And that's why everyone lists on their platform.
And this is why Epic will never be successful in the same vein as Steam - which ironically argues against your idea that all devs make the most money with exclusivity. Because at the end of the day, the consumers dictate the format and who wins. Even if you have the superior product (which Epic does not), consumer demand decided Betamax vs VHS and HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray.
If all consumers want Steam, which for the most part they do by a wide margin, then exclusivity counts for nothing. Hence why Epic also lists its games on Steam (other than Rocketleague and Fortnite).
They all do. But you missed the point, they all still sell on everyone else's platforms. The only ones that have tried to make their platforms exclusive have been in the minority. They make more money being everywhere rather than being inclusive. If the 30% cut mattered all that much they wouldn't cross list. This is something you're either unwilling or unable to address.
They do have their own store. They own GOG.
This is conjecture. I'll say it's 'likely', but their major competitors such as Capcom, Konami, BandaiNamco, and Sega do not. Microsoft does, but they also list their games on other stores (along with all of their subsidiaries, at least for the time being). Sony is choosing to be on Steam.
Again: address why every company other than basically Blizzard, Valve, and Epic (although Epic has basically only made 2 new games in almost 10 years, which are Fortnite and Rocket league, their older titles 2013 and before are on Steam like BulletStorm and the Unreal series) have cross listed everything. Your argument doesn't have merit when basically you're only citing exceptions and not what the vast majority are doing.
2k, Activision, Capcom, EA, Disney, Bethesda, idSoftware, SquareEnix, BandaiNamco, Paradox, THQnordic, Doublefine, Larian, Obsidian, Konami, Ubisoft, CDPR, to name but a few are all listed on every platform. In fact it takes FAR less time to list the devs that AREN'T multi-platform (or "multi-launcher" if that helps you) than the ones that are. Triple A or otherwise.
Good or bad is yet to be seen. I'm a big fan of Brian Fargo, Tim Cain, and Chris Avellone (controversy aside) as well as Leonard Boyarsky. Basically Interplay and Obsidian in general. So, some of my favorite devs are actively working at Microsoft now. If the genius' are left alone to do what they do then it will be good. If it's all about killing the golden geese like it has been for Activision it will be bad. But to me it's bad not because of the quality possibility that can come from this, but rather because of the contraction in the market place. Hence why I said what I said in the beginning of this chain: I hope they go full capitalist. Even though I think that "hope" is likely in vain.
Last edited:
I agree with basically all of this but a few key points, your assertion on StarWars ignores Rogue One which was a badass movie. I also don't think that Microsoft is going to push too many exclusives on the console, timed exclusives perhaps but I would expect to see most of the titles hit all the devices possible, as much as I shit on it CoD sells too many copies on the PS to just let that go, you aren't going to see that audience suddenly buy an Xbox or a PC to play it. But I do suspect it will do great things for crossplay which unless they get cheating under control does more to piss off the console players than not. Also if Nintendo were to offer games to the PC I think not only would they have their own store but I am pretty sure the games would be installed encoded on the local machine tied to that machine through the store which would then run their proprietary emulator inside said store also in some sort of encrypted fashion. They would first and foremost lock that behind so many layers of DRM it would make most users cry.
Last edited:
Nerf Arena Blast was so much more fun than it had any right to be"nerf arena blast" was actually really fun back in the day...
quite but thought you might have more to say on it
![Zarathustra[H]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1707758471){kind=avatar}
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,857
That's fair.
Honestly I forgot about consoles there for a moment in my assessment. I don't think about consoles much at all, but it makes sense this could be an attempt to marginalize Sony.
If so, it seems dangerously close to anti-competitive practices.
which is why I expect regulators to watch this very very closely, I wouldn't be surprised if they put language in there specifically to put those fears at ease.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,857
I think it's just a matter of the cycle repeating itself.
We will see boring cash-cow games for a few years as the monopolists get fat an lazy, and then some indie studio will come along and release the next big thing and upend the market again.
I'm not a fan of it either, but these things go in waves.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,857
Are these figures any better than they used to be? Last I looked into it Steam was not the only digital game store, but certainly by far the largest, and they didn't release sales figures, so the data was based on brick and mortar retail figures only which were slowly becoming less and less relevant.
I have no knowledge about how game sales figure reporting has changed since then.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,857
You might be right, but if so, it disgusts me.
I would like to see an end to all exclusive content, whether it be by platform, by storefront or by geographic region. It is nothing but harmful to the consumer. I wish we could get some sort of regulation to end the practice.
These have been dark days with Epic being the vanguard for exclusives that harm the consumer, but I thought we might be turning the corner with some previous Playstation exclusives starting to become available on the PC.
Lock-ins, lock-outs and exclusives are harmful and need to be banned at every level of all industries.
Microsoft could use this as a turning point, what if instead of games being "Console Exclusive" they were simply Microsoft Exclusive, in that they "required" a Microsoft OS, then as an extra step they spin those titles up in their cloud gaming service and make the app available for free in the Sony store? Possibly tie that in with Game Pass or some variation of it call it Game Pass Pro. Now they are exclusively non-exclusive.
Note:
I put "required" in quotes because we all know that the linux peoples are gonna linux it.
I could be wrong in general and/or in particular to video game but I am not exactly sure that it is that easy.
Would a company would have put the effort into Flight Simulator (with access to the bing giant data/machinery) without the motivation of being a flagship title that do not need to directly make is money back quick to be considered a success ?
Would all the HBO shows ever made would have been made without the exclusivity windows of being on HBO alone, did the war of exclusive made it so that less money is spend making product for gamers or in reality more ?
Would Gran Turismo happen (and have 5 year's of development) without a Sony behind it and does a Sony behind it happen without the added benefit of exclusive.
In my market Netflix (and the exclusive) seem like a plus not a minus for me has a consumer.
It could be, but I am not sure it is that obvious (specially the nothing but harmful, just thing about the streaming content war, it almost certainly created a situation in which more content do exist and made with more resource than in a world where it exist either only one streaming service or many but with no exclusive).
Last edited:
I think that is already a turned point, what was the last XBox exclusive without a PC release ?
I am quite out of the gaming world, but I thought it was quite the common wisdow that if you had a nice gaming PC setup in your living room, it is a non brainer to buy a PS5 over an XBOX because XBOX exclusive games do not exist anymore.
Exclusives have their pro's and con's, entertainment development is; time-intensive, labor-intensive, and subsequently expensive. Funding has to come from somewhere, and the people providing funding are going to want to see returns so the problem is primarily with how funding is raised not the exclusive content in itself.
That is certainly more the case now but wasn't for a long while, but it is the logic I used. I have my gaming PC which I am happy with and I have my PS5 which I am liking more and more. Microsoft should use the XBox platform as an entry point for the lowest common denominator for gaming in whatever generation of the console is current.
Purchases are how both of them have filled out the majority of their exclusive titles. I imagine Activision is a bigger buy then just xbox exclusives. I'm sure they are also looking for game pass content ect. But ya at 70 billion it would take a couple decades for them to recoup their investment without some big synergies. I can see them looking to level up Xpass, adding basic WOW subs to it could help stop some bleeding there if they want to continue it. But hey they should have got a WOW 2 out the door long long ago... perhaps MS starts pushing things that way with a WOW2 launch in 3-4 years on PC and Xbox.
I am pretty sure even with Activision Microsoft is still smaller then Sony in terms of game revenue. Now if Microsoft starts sniffing around EA... then it might be time to start worrying about Microsoft becoming the one game company to rule them all.
Best time to buy is usually black friday/Holiday sales. Always stack up on them every other year or every 2 years. I didn't know 3 years was a limit, I already had a year but I ended up hooking my nephew up for a year lol. They usually have a limit 2 per customer. But I snagged 2 from Target, 2 From BestBuy and another retailer I can't remember.
I both love and hate WoW, I really hope that Shadowlands is the last expansion and they just reboot it from here basically let this be Cataclysm 2.0 and start it from scratch. The universe was unmade and remade and blam here we are. Microsoft can afford that development, the IP has a rabid fan base, with the right team of writers and solid leadership it should be a slam dunk money press.
DukenukemX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 7,933
Lets be honest but nobody is going to stop using Windows. Not even Mac users with the M1 SOC. I also hate the metaverse. It's the new cloud AI bullshit terminology.
That's not my point. As consumers we'd like games on as many platforms as possible. Microsoft buying Activision Blizzard is taking away those choices. The fact Sony's stock drop after this shows that people are away that Playstation users aren't getting future titles from Activision Blizzard.
The sale isn't even approved yet, Microsoft has made no announcements about taking anything exclusive, as of yet Microsoft hasn't made anything exclusive so no choices have been taken away. Given the amount of regulatory scrutiny Microsoft has undergone for past purchases and the current US Administrations' stance on tech mergers, if this purchase isn't denied outright I would almost be certain they will want some clause in there about exclusivity and such.
The stock drop has more to do with Square delaying 2 major titles for the PS5 and AMD was only able to deliver 16M units of the 23M units Sony ordered so while Sony has managed to sell 100% of the units produced they are still 7M units short of where investors expected them to be at this time.
Last edited:
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,447
GO GO MLB THE SHOW. It was a treat playing it on xbox last year, hopefully it comes to PC. It's been since MLB2k12 that we've had a good baseball game on PC.
chameleoneel
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,586
They didn't pay 70 billion for Call of Duty, to not make it exclusive.
When MS bought Bethesda, they tried to speak around exclusivity issues. But eventually, they finally revealed that indeed, the next Elder Scrolls will not be on Playstation. And with that, there is zero reason to believe any of it will not be exclusive to Xbox/PC. Unless they explicitly outline that they must honor some prior agreements for multi-platform publishing. Which is part of how they initially distracted, when they bought Bethesda.
---------------
Microsoft is doing this because they haven't been good at creating original IP and their smaller acquisitions haven't really panned out for much, either.
Sony is good at original IP and/or fostering devs who are good at that and bringing them under the Sony umbrella. If not outright acquiring them.
I mean think about it. Since Gears of War....the last things from Microsoft's umbrella which were important was probably Ori and Killer Instinct on Xbone. Annnnd....they let KI dissappear. Right as it literally redefined the fighting game world and fighting games went on to reach all time highs in popularity-----Killer Instinct wasn't there.
They have fumbled Halo for years, until they recently started re-working all of it and seemingly found somewhere in there, What HALO should still be.
Microsoft has no consistent sense of how to direct talent towards meaningful games.
Sony kind of always has known how to do that. But as the games industry has been strained to many breaking points----Sony's skill in this area, has really been highlighted over the past decade.
So....MS bought a quarter of the games industry. And now you will have to own Xbox or have insanely priced PC hardware, to play any of that.
MS does understand big picture stuff and has the money and infrastructure to get something like gamepass going. So....now they will feed gamepass with this acquisition and likely lock Sony out of the IPs which they just acquired. PC hardware is insane and will be for a couple more years. So....people will be buying more Xboxes. And certain sequels will probably get blank checks to bolster their development, so that MS can have "exclusives" sooner than later.
It will be kind of weird in 2 years, when Sony doesn't get ports of Diablo 4, whatever new Call of Duty, the next Elder Scrolls, Fallout, etc. And that will certainly be felt. But long term, IMO this doesn't mark a down turn for Sony. And it might even cause them to be more aggressively creative, than ever.
It also might cause them to finally make a big multiplayer shooter again. Someone mentioned that Sony lacks an appealing multiplayer title.
Multiplayer apples don't fall far from the Sony tree. They just....have to do it. Warhawk and Resistance are obvious choices which have been away long enough, they would feel fresh. There's also Killzone.
They've also got the 1st/2nd party talent to just....make something new.
*with battlefield being so bad right now and only ok previously with BFV-----dang, a good Warhawk could fill some gaps.
Last edited:
zamardii12
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2014
- Messages
- 3,414
Found this... like... damn... lol
That's padding a bit with the CoD studios, ZeniMax and Xbox Game Studios Publishing, but that's still a lot.
My bigger issue is with the not-so-sunny parts of Microsoft's game history... the company wouldn't want to brag about owning the developers of We Happy Few, for example. It gives me flashbacks to the bad old days of Xbox One exclusives when we were supposed to get excited about utterly bland exclusives like Crackdown 3 and ReCore when virtually every Sony exclusive was a hit.
zamardii12
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2014
- Messages
- 3,414
Definitely agree. Although I think under Phil Spencer's leadership Activision/Blizzard in particular will get better, and yeah there have been disappointments but even before this acquisition Microsoft Studios are working on 60 exclusive games so I am only thinking in a gaming mindset that this can only be a good thing... especially for the increased value of Game Pass. Microsoft/Xbox is obviously all-in to the future of gaming being a streaming model and I think with the success of all the streaming services out now especially since COVID that subscription-based services for gaming IS the way forward. Not saying I am a fan of that future myself b/c I still love buying physical games, but until we have a way to sell our digital titles then i'll always prefer physical.
DukenukemX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 7,933
Really? Because Microsoft hasn't said anything? I guarantee you the sale will be approved because there's no reason not to. People said that Microsoft didn't announce anything about Zenimax games and here we are with announcements that future Zenimax games aren't going to Playstation. This isn't hard to figure out ya know.
Sounds like someone is taking copium.
Seems kinda odd that just as this happened the stock dropped.
There isn't enough creativity in the world that Sony can summon to fix this. This is a battle of the exclusives and the winner depends on who has the most. Considering the amount of IP Microsoft has been buying I'd say that so far that Microsoft is winning. Good chance that Microsoft isn't even done yet. What this means is that consumers are going to be forced to buy both Xbox and Playstation consoles in order to play their favorite games they've been able to do on one machine. Though with PC being the neutral platform, we could see a shift to PC gaming being the only platform you'll need to play games. Though I doubt Microsoft will continue forever to release games on PC and Xbox at the same time. Sony might even pull out of porting their games to PC to avoid this potential future. One things for certain is that Microsoft buying all these studios is not good for the consumer long term.
Well now Microsoft has said something.
“It’s not our intent to pull communities away from that platform and we remained committed to that,” Spencer told Bloomberg.
“Our vision is for a river of entertainment, where the content and commerce flow freely, driving a renaissance across the entire industry to make games more inclusive and accessible to all,” Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said
Sony has made it clear that for the foreseeable future they don’t expect Microsoft to pull any of the shared titles.
In regards to the stock drops it’s happened to almost all game studios as reports of the 2021 year being over inflated and the game boom being over in 2022.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...appear-in-2022-11640820086?mod=article_inline
Last edited:
Yeah typical M&A talk to appease the crowd and regulators, give it time and the true intention will come about. In normal M&A's its about a year of transition 'everything will be status quo' to 'your department is being downsized due to redundancy'. In this instance they will probably launch what they are required to launch on PS systems and once that is complete we will be 12-24months out and evrything will change
Their intension is on the wall, its to gate everything into their ecosystem(s) of xbox, pc, and gamepass. If gamepass makes its way onto sony systems, then sony gets microsoft content, if not then no soup for you (thats my bet, we will find out).
While yes, M&A's have a pretty strong track record of how things progress, and this is starting no different.