Microsoft's deal to buy Activison/Blizzard for $67 billion - likely to happen, few obstacles left

erek said:

UK CMA Provisionally Approves Microsoft's Proposed Acquisition of Activision Blizzard​


Some movement
Click to expand...
I love that they conclude that taking CoD platform exclusive would result in a monumental loss in every real world scenario.

The most significant new evidence provided to the CMA relates to Microsoft's financial incentives to make Activision's games, including Call of Duty (CoD), exclusive to its own consoles. While the CMA's original analysis indicated that this strategy would be profitable under most scenarios, new data (which provides better insight into the actual purchasing behaviour of CoD gamers) indicates that this strategy would be significantly loss-making under any plausible scenario. On this basis, the updated analysis now shows that it would not be commercially beneficial to Microsoft to make CoD exclusive to Xbox following the deal, but that Microsoft will instead still have the incentive to continue to make the game available on PlayStation.

The EU’s provisional approval is almost 100% related to streaming and cloud services. Nothing much there with consoles now.
 
Lakados said:
I love that they conclude that taking CoD platform exclusive would result in a monumental loss in every real world scenario.

The most significant new evidence provided to the CMA relates to Microsoft's financial incentives to make Activision's games, including Call of Duty (CoD), exclusive to its own consoles. While the CMA's original analysis indicated that this strategy would be profitable under most scenarios, new data (which provides better insight into the actual purchasing behaviour of CoD gamers) indicates that this strategy would be significantly loss-making under any plausible scenario. On this basis, the updated analysis now shows that it would not be commercially beneficial to Microsoft to make CoD exclusive to Xbox following the deal, but that Microsoft will instead still have the incentive to continue to make the game available on PlayStation.

The EU’s provisional approval is almost 100% related to streaming and cloud services. Nothing much there with consoles now.
Click to expand...
Sony board meeting:

"Wait, so making CoD exclusive would cost Microsoft money? Sue them to make it happen!"
 
UnknownSouljer said:
https://arstechnica.com/?p=1923472

UPDATE 3: Sony explains why it wants the merger blocked: they don’t trust Bethesda.


and



UPDATE 2: Turns out the FTC is also blocking the merger now.

https://www.ign.com/articles/ftc-xbox-playstation-activision-blizzard-cma-merger-analysis




https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-t...erger-offer-remedies-at-eu-hearing-next-week/

UPDATE: Microsoft to propose remedies to the EU Commissions in private meeting.

So, the merger was stopped cold in its tracks by the EU commission, Microsoft is obviously trying to do what they can do to salvage it.


https://www.gov.uk/government/news/microsoft-activision-deal-could-harm-uk-gamers




Part of the problem for mega-corps is that they have to go through multiple international bodies. It was almost a certainty that Microsoft wouldn't be able to pass scrutiny from all the international bodies necessary for the merger. I'm not a corp expert/lawyer, but I would assume that it's impossible or near impossible for Microsoft to continue with the merger now.

My commentary is: the only remaining move(s) might be to buy parts or studios/IPs, but not necessarily all of it. The best gamers can hope for is Blizzard breaks off and becomes independent again and Sony/Microsoft split-up and buy the rest (with perhaps other big companies buying parts like Square-Enix, or Ubisoft, or whatever). It's likely that Activision/Blizzard still wants to sell. Their market is up, their IP is as valuable as it can be, but their management sucks. Better to sell out now before they crash the ship. That was ultimately the big thing that Microsoft would've given them, which was getting rid of poor management (and money, but the business itself obviously makes money).

If you didn't catch the initial announcement/discussion, here is the previous forum thread on the subject relating to when Microsoft started the process of attempting to obtain Activision/Blizzard: https://hardforum.com/threads/microsoft-to-buy-activision-blizzard.2017006/

(Edits are: spelling/grammar, not content)
Click to expand...

Microsoft’s $69 Billion Activision Deal Wins EU Approval​

  • EU says commitments would solve concerns over cloud gaming
  • Earlier UK veto means takeover still faces massive obstacles

Microsoft Corp.’s $69 billion takeover of Activision Blizzard Inc. won European Union approval, just weeks after the UK’s merger regulator delivered a shock decision to veto the gaming industry’s biggest ever deal.

The European Commission said its own analysis showed the deal wouldn’t hurt competition after Microsoft vowed to let cloud rivals offer blockbuster titles such as Call of Duty on their own platforms

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...approval?srnd=premium&leadSource=uverify wall
 
Comixbooks said:
How does Europe fit in? Isn't Microsoft and Activision American?
Click to expand...
When every you announce a merger, all the worldwide regulators look to see if they should deny it. Some of them can be ignored, but US, EU, and UK generally can't, because even if you aren't headquartered there or have no presence there, a lot of your customers are there, and their regulators can always pass fines to your customers. Microsoft has operations all over the place though, so clearly subject to all the regulators; I'm not sure about Activision (but Vivendi was French, so if any of that lives on, there's some European presence at least).
 
toast0 said:
When every you announce a merger, all the worldwide regulators look to see if they should deny it. Some of them can be ignored, but US, EU, and UK generally can't, because even if you aren't headquartered there or have no presence there, a lot of your customers are there, and their regulators can always pass fines to your customers. Microsoft has operations all over the place though, so clearly subject to all the regulators; I'm not sure about Activision (but Vivendi was French, so if any of that lives on, there's some European presence at least).
Click to expand...
At this point Microsoft, deserved or not, can’t wipe its ass with out 6 different regulatory bodies inspecting the contents for a reason to sue. And needs to flush before a dozen others invent a new thing to blame them for.
 
Last edited:
UK MPs are questioning the CMA on why they blocked the deal when the EU approved it (with conditions). The EU commissioner explains that the only way the CMA could come up with their estimate of Microsoft's share of the cloud gaming market was due to lumping the totality of Game Pass subscribers in Microsoft's cloud gaming market segment, vastly overstating the numbers. Cloud gaming on console is only available with the Ultimate tier, and not all subscribers play games through the cloud service.

https://archive.md/M8lDD (Source: Financial Times)
Archived due to paywall.

The UK Parliamentary hearing can be played back here:
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/625b836d-971f-47ee-b4b5-e537eca5d70f
 
The request for preliminary injunction to prevent the merger from going forward by the FTC has been denied, removing a large roadblock in Microsoft's acquisition of Activision.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/11/23779039/microsoft-activision-blizzard-ftc-trial-win

Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision has been described as the largest in tech history. It deserves scrutiny. That scrutiny has paid off: Microsoft has committed in writing, in public, and in court to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation for 10 years on parity with Xbox. It made an agreement with Nintendo to bring Call of Duty to Switch. And it entered several agreements to for the first time bring Activision’s content to several cloud gaming services. This Court’s responsibility in this case is narrow. It is to decide if, notwithstanding these current circumstances, the merger should be halted—perhaps even terminated—pending resolution of the FTC administrative action. For the reasons explained, the Court finds the FTC has not shown a likelihood it will prevail on its claim this particular vertical merger in this specific industry may substantially lessen competition. To the contrary, the record evidence points to more consumer access to Call of Duty and other Activision content. The motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore DENIED.

The FTC can appeal the ruling before the end of the day on July 14.
 
It's ridiculous that every country except for what the US, UK and Canada are allowing this merger?
I don't know why they are fighting so hard against this.
 
wizzi01 said:
It's ridiculous that every country except for what the US, UK and Canada are allowing this merger?
I don't know why they are fighting so hard against this.
Click to expand...
Ultimately it will be bad for consumers. Microsoft has a vested interest in making Windows the only PC platform. And there is little to prevent Microsoft from making XBox the definitive and only choice for consoles if you want those titles.

There is nothing preventing them at all from hobbling performance, withholding features, or doing any number of other problematic things on other platforms. So they could "meet the requirement" of porting CoD to PS and Switch, while making both effectively shovel-ware if they so chose. And Microsoft is definitely not above that behavior.

I really see this battle though as being at attempt to wrench control away from Valve and Steam far more than consoles though. It's obvious that Valve wants to not be shackled by Microsoft's terrible OS, and this is an "easy way" to make a huge set of IP that at lot of gamers care about exclusive to Windows - at least ensuring that they can be dominant through the Windows store if not 'just' the Windows platform for at least the next decade.

The best case scenario for gamers would honestly be Activision-Blizzard getting broken up and either spinning off devs or splitting up and being sold in pieces or some combination thereof. Other wise it's almost 100% ensured that we'll end up with less choice.
 
wizzi01 said:
It's ridiculous that every country except for what the US, UK and Canada are allowing this merger?
I don't know why they are fighting so hard against this.
Click to expand...
None of this will be good for us. They are buying it to turn it into a giant profit, so you gotta think where will that come from and what will they have to change to create that? IMO likely it comes from cutting costs of development or exclusivity to move more people to xbox.
 
wizzi01 said:
It's ridiculous that every country except for what the US, UK and Canada are allowing this merger?
I don't know why they are fighting so hard against this.
Click to expand...
Maybe because MS has a track record of straight up lying and ignoring courts to get what they want. Somehow they keep getting away with it. There is absolutely no good for the consumer in the letting them do it so fuckem!
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Ultimately it will be bad for consumers. Microsoft has a vested interest in making Windows the only PC platform. And there is little to prevent Microsoft from making XBox the definitive and only choice for consoles if you want those titles.

There is nothing preventing them at all from hobbling performance, withholding features, or doing any number of other problematic things on other platforms. So they could "meet the requirement" of porting CoD to PS and Switch, while making both effectively shovel-ware if they so chose. And Microsoft is definitely not above that behavior.

I really see this battle though as being at attempt to wrench control away from Valve and Steam far more than consoles though. It's obvious that Valve wants to not be shackled by Microsoft's terrible OS, and this is an "easy way" to make a huge set of IP that at lot of gamers care about exclusive to Windows - at least ensuring that they can be dominant through the Windows store if not 'just' the Windows platform for at least the next decade.

The best case scenario for gamers would honestly be Activision-Blizzard getting broken up and either spinning off devs or splitting up and being sold in pieces or some combination thereof. Other wise it's almost 100% ensured that we'll end up with less choice.
Click to expand...
Exactly the same arguments the FTC was making in their argument for injunction that was just denied. Interesting.

What incentive would Microsoft have in kneecapping their own games? If they do that out in the open, Microsoft would hurt nobody but themselves in doing that.

Microsoft releases all of their first-party games simultaneously on Steam. Gabe Newell himself trusts Microsoft.

https://kotaku.com/microsoft-activision-call-of-duty-nintendo-switch-steam-1849862479

Microsoft offered and even sent us a draft agreement for a long-term Call of Duty commitment but it wasn’t necessary for us because a) we’re not believers in requiring any partner to have an agreement that locks them to shipping games on Steam into the distant future b) Phil and the games team at Microsoft have always followed through on what they told us they would do so we trust their intentions and c) we think Microsoft has all the motivation they need to be on the platforms and devices where Call of Duty customers want to be."
If Activision had its studios spun off, then all of them would die except maybe Blizzard.
Darunion said:
None of this will be good for us. They are buying it to turn it into a giant profit, so you gotta think where will that come from and what will they have to change to create that? IMO likely it comes from cutting costs of development or exclusivity to move more people to xbox.
Click to expand...
Business is in business of doing business to expand their business. I'm shocked, I tell you!

I find it absolutely ridiculous how people act like Sony is a saint in all of this. Exclusivity is fine for Sony, but Microsoft better not try it.

A number of exclusives that people praise Sony for come from independent developers that Sony acquired.
  • 2001 - Naughty Dog (Crash Bandicoot, The Last of Us, Uncharted)
    • Crash Bandicoot developed and released before acquisition.
  • 2005 - Guerilla Games (Killzone, Horizon)
    • Killzone developed and released before acquisition.
  • 2010 - Media Molecule (LittleBigPlanet)
    • LittleBigPlanet developed and released before acquisition.
  • 2011 - Sucker Punch Productions (Infamous, Ghost of Tsushima)
    • Infamous developed and released before acquisition.
  • 2019 - Insomniac Games (Ratchet & Clank, Spyro the Dragon, Marvel's Spider-Man)
    • Everything prior to 2019 including Marvel's Spider-Man was developed and released before acquisition.
 
I'm honestly surprised I did a ctrl-F for micro$oft/M$ and got nothing on all 3 pages

200.gif
 
Armenius said:
Business is in business of doing business to expand their business. I'm shocked, I tell you!

I find it absolutely ridiculous how people act like Sony is a saint in all of this. Exclusivity is fine for Sony, but Microsoft better not try it.

A number of exclusives that people praise Sony for come from independent developers that Sony acquired.
  • 2001 - Naughty Dog (Crash Bandicoot, The Last of Us, Uncharted)
    • Crash Bandicoot developed and released before acquisition.
  • 2005 - Guerilla Games (Killzone, Horizon)
    • Killzone developed and released before acquisition.
  • 2010 - Media Molecule (LittleBigPlanet)
    • LittleBigPlanet developed and released before acquisition.
  • 2011 - Sucker Punch Productions (Infamous, Ghost of Tsushima)
    • Infamous developed and released before acquisition.
  • 2019 - Insomniac Games (Ratchet & Clank, Spyro the Dragon, Marvel's Spider-Man)
    • Everything prior to 2019 including Marvel's Spider-Man was developed and released before acquisition.
Click to expand...

Fair points. When you had nintendo and sega battling it out, no one even muttered the word exclusive for sonic or mario, it's just how it was, wanted to play that game? Buy that console.

Then you were either a forza fan or gran turismo fan, and still not upset about why they only existed on their own platforms.

And microsoft exclusivity will still include pc so not even that impactful.

I think we are just programmed to hate Microsoft while using windows on our pc lol.
 
Darunion said:
None of this will be good for us. They are buying it to turn it into a giant profit, so you gotta think where will that come from and what will they have to change to create that? IMO likely it comes from cutting costs of development or exclusivity to move more people to xbox.
Click to expand...
Uh, all companies are in for profit.
 
wizzi01 said:
It's ridiculous that every country except for what the US, UK and Canada are allowing this merger?
I don't know why they are fighting so hard against this.
Click to expand...
Sony $$$

I've said it before: it's disgusting how many mega-mergers have been approved, then the FTC draws the line at video games.

Comcast/NBC
Disney/Fox
Warner/Discovery
AT&T/DirecTV

And coming soon, perhaps most damaging: Safeway/Kroger

Fuck the food supply, but goddammit the FTC is going to step in and protect consumers so they can play CoD.
 
Won't someone think of the precious pre-existing loot boxes, skins, annual releases like clockwork to meet earnings targets, and DLCs! We need to save them!

If the argument is Microsoft will make it worse, I genuinely want to see how. So let them have it.
 
Darunion said:
And microsoft exclusivity will still include pc so not even that impactful.
Click to expand...
They are virtually not have been any Xbox exclusive in a long time it seem to me (maybe some fringe game but not a Xbox-X gen come to mind, gpt cannot find any when asked), they seem to have become Microsoft exclusive (than again I imagine they offer you to stream them on non Microsoft device-os as well). And in not that long, a PC strong enough to run a Xbox X well enough will be pretty banal. a 12GB 6700xt at $310 right now.

In general it is hard to predict, Xbox was a new player in that space, TikTok (and now Threads) has shaked up social media, new digital ads revenues seemed all Facebook-Google (90%+) not so long ago and now they have no growth almost peaked around 50% of the market share and will be going down to what like 35% of the market (with Amazon,Disney, walmart, spotify, apple, Netflix and other giant competitor)
 
Last edited:
Armenius said:
Exactly the same arguments the FTC was making in their argument for injunction that was just denied. Interesting.

What incentive would Microsoft have in kneecapping their own games? If they do that out in the open, Microsoft would hurt nobody but themselves in doing that.
Click to expand...
To drive specific platform adoption. I literally stated that in my post.

You know how many comparative performance posts there are online? Tons. Heck, even in the demise of Sega thread, there is a post showing off X-Men vs Street Fighter on Saturn and PS1. Short version: if you want to play that game, the Saturn was the only arcade perfect version available and reviewers of the day noted it was the best option.

This has happened so many times I can't even count. CP2077 had so many visual comparison on "next gen" consoles vs PC. I've seen them for RE4 on PS2 vs GC. And on and on.
Armenius said:
Microsoft releases all of their first-party games simultaneously on Steam. Gabe Newell himself trusts Microsoft.

https://kotaku.com/microsoft-activision-call-of-duty-nintendo-switch-steam-1849862479

Microsoft offered and even sent us a draft agreement for a long-term Call of Duty commitment but it wasn’t necessary for us because a) we’re not believers in requiring any partner to have an agreement that locks them to shipping games on Steam into the distant future b) Phil and the games team at Microsoft have always followed through on what they told us they would do so we trust their intentions and c) we think Microsoft has all the motivation they need to be on the platforms and devices where Call of Duty customers want to be."
If Activision had its studios spun off, then all of them would die except maybe Blizzard.

Business is in business of doing business to expand their business. I'm shocked, I tell you!
Click to expand...
I have no comment about Gabe's views. But I'll say that if the other studios get spun off they'll be fine.
Armenius said:
I find it absolutely ridiculous how people act like Sony is a saint in all of this. Exclusivity is fine for Sony, but Microsoft better not try it.

A number of exclusives that people praise Sony for come from independent developers that Sony acquired.
  • 2001 - Naughty Dog (Crash Bandicoot, The Last of Us, Uncharted)
    • Crash Bandicoot developed and released before acquisition.
  • 2005 - Guerilla Games (Killzone, Horizon)
    • Killzone developed and released before acquisition.
  • 2010 - Media Molecule (LittleBigPlanet)
    • LittleBigPlanet developed and released before acquisition.
  • 2011 - Sucker Punch Productions (Infamous, Ghost of Tsushima)
    • Infamous developed and released before acquisition.
  • 2019 - Insomniac Games (Ratchet & Clank, Spyro the Dragon, Marvel's Spider-Man)
    • Everything prior to 2019 including Marvel's Spider-Man was developed and released before acquisition.
Click to expand...
The difference is scale and platforms to begin with.
The fact that Microsoft already own and controls Zenimax with all of it's subsidiaries such as id Software, Bethesda, and Arkane, not to mention numerous other smaller devs is by scale totally different.

The scale of Sony's acquisitions compared to Zenimax and Activision is paltry. Sony bought companies that were relatively small and with portfolios that only covered a few IP's. The purchase of Activision-Blizzard in terms of sales and simply scale is a totally different league.

Naughty Dog employs "400+ people". Activision-Blizzard employs over 17,000. All of Sony's acquisitions combined don't equal the scale of either the Zenimax or AB acquisition. Combining all of the incomes from all of Sony's acquisitions also don't equal either of these Microsoft acquisitions. This is the difference between a bank buying the credit union down the street, vs acquiring a national bank chain. It's very obvious that one of those two acquisitions should have more scrutiny. It's not the "number of acquisitions" it's the size of the acquisition in question that matters. Buying 10 single location credit unions is totally different from buying "just one" bank chain with 50 billion in assets and 500 billion in deposits. While I'm exaggerating the scale in this example, the point is: ignoring scale is folly.

I'm not a fan of exclusives in general. Or mergers in general. These mergers have systematically given me less games to play. That's right, less. Before Blizzard was gutted by Activision they were a reliable macOS porter. As was id Software before their purchase by Bethesda. And Obsidian. And the scraps of Interplay purchased by Bethesda. But after acquisition those sections of their respective companies that "make less", in the face of shareholders and always needing to make all of the money instead of a reasonable amount of money meant two major game devs with relevant IP's stopped supporting other OS'. In my mind these companies have already consolidated control and actively chosen to support less and fewer.

Microsoft has zero interest in supporting Linux or macOS and it's more or less guaranteed that they will not with any of their subsidiaries. And also despite what you're saying they have zero interest in supporting hardware that isn't theirs either, namely Sony or Nintendo. 10 years is short in corporate land, after that I 100% guarantee the doors will close on anyone who ain't them. This has already happened with Black Isle and Obsidian. Two gens of consoles from now (roughly 10 years) CoD will magically launch as an XBox exclusive title. If you don't see this writing on the wall, I don't know what to tell you.

That and Sony is starting to release its exclusives to PC, on to the Windows platform. Microsoft's platform. TLOU2 arguably being the biggest headlining title that Sony owns in all of those subsidiaries you listed and it received "definitive edition" type treatment on PC. As did God of War Ragnarok, Horizon, and Spider-Man. It's more or less expected that Ghost of Tsushima will end up on PC eventually. Though not confirmed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this
UnknownSouljer said:
To drive specific platform adoption. I literally stated that in my post.

You know how many comparative performance posts there are online? Tons. Heck, even in the demise of Sega thread, there is a post showing off X-Men vs Street Fighter on Saturn and PS1. Short version: if you want to play that game, the Saturn was the only arcade perfect version available and reviewers of the day noted it was the best option.

This has happened so many times I can't even count. CP2077 had so many visual comparison on "next gen" consoles vs PC. I've seen them for RE4 on PS2 vs GC. And on and on.

I have no comment about Gabe's views. But I'll say that if the other studios get spun off they'll be fine.

The difference is scale and platforms to begin with.
The fact that Microsoft already own and controls Zenimax with all of it's subsidiaries such as id Software, Bethesda, and Arkane, not to mention numerous other smaller devs is by scale totally different.

The scale of Sony's acquisitions compared to Zenimax and Activision is paltry. Sony bought companies that were relatively small and with portfolios that only covered a few IP's. The purchase of Activision-Blizzard in terms of sales and simply scale is a totally different league.

Naughty Dog employs "400+ people". Activision-Blizzard employs over 17,000. All of Sony's acquisitions combined don't equal the scale of either the Zenimax or AB acquisition. Combining all of the incomes from all of Sony's acquisitions also don't equal either of these Microsoft acquisitions. This is the difference between a bank buying the credit union down the street, vs acquiring a national bank chain. It's very obvious that one of those two acquisitions should have more scrutiny. It's not the "number of acquisitions" it's the size of the acquisition in question that matters. Buying 10 single location credit unions is totally different from buying "just one" bank chain with 50 billion in assets and 500 billion in deposits. While I'm exaggerating the scale in this example, the point is: ignoring scale is folly.

I'm not a fan of exclusives in general. Or mergers in general. These mergers have systematically given me less games to play. That's right, less. Before Blizzard was gutted by Activision they were a reliable macOS porter. As was id Software before their purchase by Bethesda. And Obsidian. And the scraps of Interplay purchased by Bethesda. But after acquisition those sections of their respective companies that "make less", in the face of shareholders and always needing to make all of the money instead of a reasonable amount of money meant two major game devs with relevant IP's stopped supporting other OS'. In my mind these companies have already consolidated control and actively chosen to support less and fewer.

Microsoft has zero interest in supporting Linux or macOS and it's more or less guaranteed that they will not with any of their subsidiaries. And also despite what you're saying they have zero interest in supporting hardware that isn't theirs either, namely Sony or Nintendo. 10 years is short in corporate land, after that I 100% guarantee the doors will close on anyone who ain't them. This has already happened with Black Isle and Obsidian. Two gens of consoles from now (roughly 10 years) CoD will magically launch as an XBox exclusive title. If you don't see this writing on the wall, I don't know what to tell you.

That and Sony is starting to release its exclusives to PC, on to the Windows platform. Microsoft's platform. TLOU2 arguably being the biggest headlining title that Sony owns in all of those subsidiaries you listed and it received "definitive edition" type treatment on PC. As did God of War Ragnarok, Horizon, and Spider-Man. It's more or less expected that Ghost of Tsushima will end up on PC eventually. Though not confirmed.
Click to expand...
Yes, argue that Sony is releasing games for pc also without saying that it takes years for it to release on pc after being released on playstation.
I mean Starfield is going to be released on pc the same day as xbox.
 
wizzi01 said:
Yes, argue that Sony is releasing games for pc also without saying that it takes years for it to release on pc after being released on playstation.
Click to expand...
and?

They're still taking the time and development resources to do it. And not only port it but optimize it well on the PC platform. That can't be understated when noting how many console ports run like garbage.
wizzi01 said:
I mean Starfield is going to be released on pc the same day as xbox.
Click to expand...
Yes, Microsoft is going to release a title on both of its own platforms. Call me back when it's on someone else's platforms. Coming to PS5? Nope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this
UnknownSouljer said:
and?

They're still taking the time and development resources to do it. And not only port it but optimize it well on the PC platform. That can't be understated when noting how many console ports run like garbage.

Yes, Microsoft is going to release a title on both of its own platforms. Call me back when it's on someone else's platforms. Coming to PS5? Nope.
Click to expand...
lol, you really have no argument do you? I mean let me know when Spider man, The Last of Us, God of War, Gran Turismo and all those other exclusives get on xbox. I mean do you work for sony, because this is a joke.
 
wizzi01 said:
lol, you really have no argument do you? I mean let me know when Spider man, The Last of Us, God of War, Gran Turismo and all those other exclusives get on xbox. I mean do you work for sony, because this is a joke.
Click to expand...
What have I said that is incorrect?
Who controls Windows and who controls XBox? Is Windows a Sony platform? Seriously?
I don't think you even understand your own argument. Microsoft is not supporting anyone other than themselves in the title you just brought up whereas Sony is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this
wizzi01 said:
lol, you really have no argument do you? I mean let me know when Spider man, The Last of Us, God of War, Gran Turismo and all those other exclusives get on xbox. I mean do you work for sony, because this is a joke.
Click to expand...
Why are you so pro merger? What skin do you have in it? Do you work for Microsoft?
 
UnknownSouljer said:
What have I said that is incorrect?
Who controls Windows and who controls XBox? Is Windows a Sony platform? Seriously?
I don't think you even understand your own argument. Microsoft is not supporting anyone other than themselves in the title you just brought up whereas Sony is.
Click to expand...
And sony is only supporting playstation users for years until they decide to milk pc users with their old games.
 
I would argue that anything that brings more titles to PC is a good thing, Microsoft is going to do what Microsoft wants, and Sony is going to do what Sony wants.
The lot of us exist as numbers on a chart to them, if Sony can financially justify keeping something exclusive they will, they have shareholders to answer to, and Microsoft will do the same.
Microsoft has a well-earned reputation for being a shitter, they worked hard for that title and they will have to wear that badge for a good while I think, but the gaming space as a whole is a mess.
Xbox is floundering, it's well known the division as a whole is a loss leader, Vavle is hot on their heals, Vulkan is in a really good place, and every year Microsoft's hold on gaming slips further and further away.
Time is finite, and that time is more and more that gaming time is going to Android, iOS, Sony, Linux, Nintendo, etc...

Honestly, Microsoft is not in a position to fuck this up by doing a lot of the things people are afraid of them doing, because if they do, we have options. Should they fuck up Activision EA would LOVE to take that customer base, the bad publicity would only help Sony and Nintendo and further weaken their already precarious position in the gaming community. And with the huge increase of developers getting licenses for Unreal 5 Microsoft has to watch itself, Unreal 5 natively supports Vulkan, and it works well in Linux and I would argue it works better on a PS5 than it does on an Xbox.

Activision itself is also in a rough place, the only side there making any decent gaming progress of late is Blizzard, but Management is old and tired across Activision and Blizzard, they are in retirement mode and it shows, they can bring in all the middle management they want but they are bleeding ideas, talent, and failing to keep pace with the realities of the gaming market place.

I see this as Microsoft trying to get itself into a position where it can continue to offer something to people who don't know what Windows is and may not actually ever use it, I mean how many people here would even install Windows if Linux was more compatible with their games? Because we aren't alone in that thought, Microsoft knows it, hell a lot of people I know who work at Microsoft feel that same way, Microsoft teats Windows as a gateway to their other services, but they are losing the consumer market more and more every year, and business uses what their employees know, for decades that has been Microsoft because everybody knows how to use Windows right? But K-12 Schools use it less and less, University students use it less and less, what happens when the workforce isn't trained on how to use Windows from day 1 and they have to start training people on how to use that when they do know iOS, Android, or ChromeOS? Everything is an App, or a Website, don't need Windows for that, Microsoft knows it, and they are positioning themselves for 10 years from now should that come to pass.

Maybe it's the Microsoft Store, and it's a side load for Android, iOS, and a launcher like Steam for Linux, PC, and Mac, who knows maybe Aliens invade, take pitty on our shit internet infrastructure and give us 10TBps full-duplex connections to implants in our brain where we can play the games directly by closing our eyes, doesn't matter really, but if they did Microsoft would want to have a storefront there too.

The era of Windows being the default is coming to an end, not sure what that looks like exactly, but Microsoft knows it can't depend on it being there forever.
 
I still play CoD MW2 (2009). Someone set up a server that runs 24/7 in my area, if the server isn't already packed, you just jump in and run around for a bit and within 5 mins the server is full.

It's great for a bit of fast paced FPS goodness, and I know the maps like the back of my hand. Buggered if I'm paying over $100.00 for a newer variant of something similar.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
To drive specific platform adoption. I literally stated that in my post.

You know how many comparative performance posts there are online? Tons. Heck, even in the demise of Sega thread, there is a post showing off X-Men vs Street Fighter on Saturn and PS1. Short version: if you want to play that game, the Saturn was the only arcade perfect version available and reviewers of the day noted it was the best option.

This has happened so many times I can't even count. CP2077 had so many visual comparison on "next gen" consoles vs PC. I've seen them for RE4 on PS2 vs GC. And on and on.

I have no comment about Gabe's views. But I'll say that if the other studios get spun off they'll be fine.

The difference is scale and platforms to begin with.
The fact that Microsoft already own and controls Zenimax with all of it's subsidiaries such as id Software, Bethesda, and Arkane, not to mention numerous other smaller devs is by scale totally different.

The scale of Sony's acquisitions compared to Zenimax and Activision is paltry. Sony bought companies that were relatively small and with portfolios that only covered a few IP's. The purchase of Activision-Blizzard in terms of sales and simply scale is a totally different league.

Naughty Dog employs "400+ people". Activision-Blizzard employs over 17,000. All of Sony's acquisitions combined don't equal the scale of either the Zenimax or AB acquisition. Combining all of the incomes from all of Sony's acquisitions also don't equal either of these Microsoft acquisitions. This is the difference between a bank buying the credit union down the street, vs acquiring a national bank chain. It's very obvious that one of those two acquisitions should have more scrutiny. It's not the "number of acquisitions" it's the size of the acquisition in question that matters. Buying 10 single location credit unions is totally different from buying "just one" bank chain with 50 billion in assets and 500 billion in deposits. While I'm exaggerating the scale in this example, the point is: ignoring scale is folly.

I'm not a fan of exclusives in general. Or mergers in general. These mergers have systematically given me less games to play. That's right, less. Before Blizzard was gutted by Activision they were a reliable macOS porter. As was id Software before their purchase by Bethesda. And Obsidian. And the scraps of Interplay purchased by Bethesda. But after acquisition those sections of their respective companies that "make less", in the face of shareholders and always needing to make all of the money instead of a reasonable amount of money meant two major game devs with relevant IP's stopped supporting other OS'. In my mind these companies have already consolidated control and actively chosen to support less and fewer.

Microsoft has zero interest in supporting Linux or macOS and it's more or less guaranteed that they will not with any of their subsidiaries. And also despite what you're saying they have zero interest in supporting hardware that isn't theirs either, namely Sony or Nintendo. 10 years is short in corporate land, after that I 100% guarantee the doors will close on anyone who ain't them. This has already happened with Black Isle and Obsidian. Two gens of consoles from now (roughly 10 years) CoD will magically launch as an XBox exclusive title. If you don't see this writing on the wall, I don't know what to tell you.

That and Sony is starting to release its exclusives to PC, on to the Windows platform. Microsoft's platform. TLOU2 arguably being the biggest headlining title that Sony owns in all of those subsidiaries you listed and it received "definitive edition" type treatment on PC. As did God of War Ragnarok, Horizon, and Spider-Man. It's more or less expected that Ghost of Tsushima will end up on PC eventually. Though not confirmed.
Click to expand...
Love this. This is a good understanding of the situation. Furthermore I think the FTC really screwed the pooch because it did not include PC and it's numbers in this anti-trust case. That was massively stupid. Sony is fighting a console war. Microsoft is fighting a war of API's. Just take a look at XBOX Series X it's technically more powerful than the PS5 but you wouldn't know it. Microsoft has released zero games other than Starfield that pushes their console in any kind of way and it's not an exclusive. Hellblade 2 won't be either. Take the release of the latest Halo game, a title that was known to push boundaries in the graphical area previously. Latest release? It looks like a PS4 game just barely. Why? Because Microsoft wasn't focusing on it's most expensive console it was just focusing on number of total units (which includes PC) and that came through in its release.

If you're on Mac, Linux and I would even include mobile games in that mix the power that Microsoft will have to shape the entire gaming industry of just about every electronic device is just ungodly huge with this acquisition. It's like marrying Visa, MasterCard and American Express with Bank of America. The FTC's inability (or the court system) to understand this type of acquisition is really sad. This isn't about Microsoft vs Sony. It's Microsoft (Azure/Directx) vs Android, iOS, Sony, Linux, Steam, etc.

Gabe Newell didn't say anything negative because well he couldn't. What's coming after Steam is streaming and Valve has absolutely nothing in that space, nor could it ever get there.
 
Last edited:
If Microsoft completes the purchase, I think there's a significant danger that Microsoft will pull its games from Steam and other platforms again. Microsoft will then own Blizzard's app, which is already the home of Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo, and Call of Duty, and Blizzard has had the most success in standing strong and being profitable using its own client out of all the non-Steam clients. Now add Microsoft's massive publisher library to the list, including Bethesda's titles. If Microsoft went exclusive to the store app they'll own, with all those IPs, they likely would have no problem being a successful competitor to Steam while not having their games on Steam.

So, while I like the idea of Microsoft owning certain low-effort, low-quality studios, like Bethesda, as their games can likely only get better as a result, I'm concerned Microsoft's commitment to publishing on multiple platforms, including Steam, might disappear once this deal goes through. And, personally, I don't want to put the trust for my games and my perpetual, long-term access to them in Microsoft's hands.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
You know how many comparative performance posts there are online? Tons. Heck, even in the demise of Sega thread, there is a post showing off X-Men vs Street Fighter on Saturn and PS1. Short version: if you want to play that game, the Saturn was the only arcade perfect version available and reviewers of the day noted it was the best option.

This has happened so many times I can't even count. CP2077 had so many visual comparison on "next gen" consoles vs PC. I've seen them for RE4 on PS2 vs GC. And on and on.
Click to expand...
The PlayStation port of X-Men vs. Street Fighter was different due to technical limitations of the console compared to the Saturn. The Saturn's strength was in 2D graphics since that is what it was originally designed for, while the PlayStation was stronger with 3D. There are only outliers that went the other way like Symphony of the Night because Konami didn't put the resources into adapting it to the Saturn's unique hardware configuration. If they had, the Saturn version of SotN may very well have been the definitive version of the game.

The technical limitations of the gen 8 and gen 9 consoles is obvious. I don't understand why you're bringing up Cyberpunk 2077 as an example as purposeful degradation for platform favoritism when all of them ran like shit on release.

The same explanation for Resident Evil 4: The Gamecube was technically superior to the PlayStation 2. Compromises needed to be made to get it to run acceptably on the PS2.
UnknownSouljer said:
The difference is scale and platforms to begin with.
The fact that Microsoft already own and controls Zenimax with all of it's subsidiaries such as id Software, Bethesda, and Arkane, not to mention numerous other smaller devs is by scale totally different.

The scale of Sony's acquisitions compared to Zenimax and Activision is paltry. Sony bought companies that were relatively small and with portfolios that only covered a few IP's. The purchase of Activision-Blizzard in terms of sales and simply scale is a totally different league.

Naughty Dog employs "400+ people". Activision-Blizzard employs over 17,000. All of Sony's acquisitions combined don't equal the scale of either the Zenimax or AB acquisition. Combining all of the incomes from all of Sony's acquisitions also don't equal either of these Microsoft acquisitions. This is the difference between a bank buying the credit union down the street, vs acquiring a national bank chain. It's very obvious that one of those two acquisitions should have more scrutiny. It's not the "number of acquisitions" it's the size of the acquisition in question that matters. Buying 10 single location credit unions is totally different from buying "just one" bank chain with 50 billion in assets and 500 billion in deposits. While I'm exaggerating the scale in this example, the point is: ignoring scale is folly.
Click to expand...
Sony doesn't have the capital to make these kinds of acquisitions. I'm sure if Sony could match Microsoft's cash reserves that they would jump at the chance to buy out large publishing houses like Zenimax and Activision.
UnknownSouljer said:
I'm not a fan of exclusives in general. Or mergers in general. These mergers have systematically given me less games to play. That's right, less. Before Blizzard was gutted by Activision they were a reliable macOS porter. As was id Software before their purchase by Bethesda. And Obsidian. And the scraps of Interplay purchased by Bethesda. But after acquisition those sections of their respective companies that "make less", in the face of shareholders and always needing to make all of the money instead of a reasonable amount of money meant two major game devs with relevant IP's stopped supporting other OS'. In my mind these companies have already consolidated control and actively chosen to support less and fewer.
Click to expand...
This is ridiculous. Businesses streamline all the time. MacOS is not widely supported by game developers because the customer base isn't there. 60% of the global operating system market is on Windows, and 90+% of gamers are on Windows. Why waste resources developing a version of your game for an audience that isn't going to give you any return on that investment?
UnknownSouljer said:
Microsoft has zero interest in supporting Linux or macOS and it's more or less guaranteed that they will not with any of their subsidiaries. And also despite what you're saying they have zero interest in supporting hardware that isn't theirs either, namely Sony or Nintendo. 10 years is short in corporate land, after that I 100% guarantee the doors will close on anyone who ain't them. This has already happened with Black Isle and Obsidian. Two gens of consoles from now (roughly 10 years) CoD will magically launch as an XBox exclusive title. If you don't see this writing on the wall, I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...
None of Sony's PC ports support Linux or MacOS, either. Sony also doesn't support hardware other than their own. The only first-party game released on Xbox consoles is a baseball game that was ported at the demand of the license holder.
UnknownSouljer said:
That and Sony is starting to release its exclusives to PC, on to the Windows platform. Microsoft's platform. TLOU2 arguably being the biggest headlining title that Sony owns in all of those subsidiaries you listed and it received "definitive edition" type treatment on PC. As did God of War Ragnarok, Horizon, and Spider-Man. It's more or less expected that Ghost of Tsushima will end up on PC eventually. Though not confirmed.
Click to expand...
It's "definitive" because Sony is holding their games back for 1-2 years from PC. And why are they holding them back? To sell more PlayStation consoles. Jim Ryan explicitly stated as such.
UnknownSouljer said:
What have I said that is incorrect?
Who controls Windows and who controls XBox? Is Windows a Sony platform? Seriously?
I don't think you even understand your own argument. Microsoft is not supporting anyone other than themselves in the title you just brought up whereas Sony is.
Click to expand...
Sony doesn't make their own PC operating system, and going back to the above, more than 90% of all gamers use Windows. You go where the customers are, and Sony has happily reported on the success of their move of putting games on PC.

Again, you're trying to make a distinction between Sony and Microsoft that doesn't exist. Sony is supporting themselves to make more money, just like Microsoft. Neither Microsoft or Sony are going to start widely supporting the competing console because then nobody would have a reason to choose one over the other. It's a different market and business compared to PC gaming. Encompassing both business under the umbrella of video gaming is missing nuance in the difference between the customer bases and market.
Delicieuxz said:
If Microsoft completes the purchase, I think there's a significant danger that Microsoft will pull its games from Steam and other platforms again. Microsoft will then own Blizzard's app, which is already the home of Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo, and Call of Duty, and Blizzard has had the most success in standing strong and being profitable using its own client out of all the non-Steam clients. Now add Microsoft's massive publisher library to the list, including Bethesda's titles. If Microsoft went exclusive to the store app they'll own, with all those IPs, they likely would have no problem being a successful competitor to Steam while not having their games on Steam.

So, while I like the idea of Microsoft owning certain low-effort, low-quality studios, like Bethesda, as their games can likely only get better as a result, I'm concerned Microsoft's commitment to publishing on multiple platforms, including Steam, might disappear once this deal goes through. And, personally, I don't want to put the trust for my games and my perpetual, long-term access to them in Microsoft's hands.
Click to expand...
A lot of baseless assumptions are being made, here. Microsoft came back to Steam as most publishers do because that is where most of the customers are, and Steam has had continued growth ever since it was launched in 2004. Microsoft's revenue would drop through the floor if they ditched Steam again, even with the powerhouse publishing houses they now own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top