Microsoft to buy Activision Blizzard?

[phil bottle 9,769]

According to this tweet from Jason Schreirer at least

 

https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1483428774591053836?t=iOxXYxEdlwfqyFqEDbyW9Q&s=19

[phil bottle 9,769]

70 billion is the figure being touted

[phil bottle 9,769]

In theory, Bobby Kotick will continue to be CEO of Activision, so lol at that 🙃

[The3rdWalker 1,271]

Microsoft to acquire Activision Blizzard to bring the joy and community of gaming to everyone, across every device - Stories

 

[Antpool84 1,109]

Is this is all going ahead this seems pretty big. After aquiring Bethesda, getting Activision is another huge get for Xbox since the COD games are still so huge. I can't see them doing what they did with Skyrim though and making the next one an Xbox only game

[J4MES OX4D 10,039]

Well it looks like fat bastard Bobby will get a fat payday and still run the show for the time being. His contract is up soon though apparently. Thankfully there is one person above his head now. I think this is pretty risky from Microsoft - $70bn invested could have built a Goliath studio with a clean slate reputation. Activision may have a few stale IP's but the studio is covered in controversy and is a shadow of its former self in regards of innovation and quality games. Maybe Microsoft will be able to swing it but a lot needs to change. 

I'm pretty sure it was only a couple of months back Phil Spencer was slating the studio. Maybe he got himself a discount🤣

[Plumbers Crack 4,062]

I just can't understand the logic of this

[The3rdWalker 1,271]

2 hours ago, Plumbers Crack said:

I just can't understand the logic of this

Money

[J4MES OX4D 10,039]

2 hours ago, Plumbers Crack said:

I just can't understand the logic of this

Microsoft have infinite money at their disposal but they have lost every battle with Sony in the console space. They have always lacked significant in-house development studios to produce exclusive titles which are major system sellers, so the next best thing is to monopolise the industry for themselves and stifle direct competition in the process. The more multi-platform AAA games they draw to their own system through acquisitions, the more reliant Sony will be in creating their own titles, whilst mainstream gamers may be forced to buy into Xbox just to play popular games they would've played on the rival. 

 

MS probably wont ever profit from this buyout but taking away users from Sony could be priceless and this is the only way they can do it. Without the likes of Bethesda and the other smaller acquisitions, they'd still be in the dark days on Kinect. 

 

Hopefully this will be the end of Battlenet on PC though and it would be great to see Activision titles back on Steam. It'll probably take many years for this move to have any real impact in terms of games though. 

[cyberninja2601 1,106]

29 minutes ago, J4MES OX4D said:

Microsoft have infinite money at their disposal but they have lost every battle with Sony in the console space. They have always lacked significant in-house development studios to produce exclusive titles which are major system sellers, so the next best thing is to monopolise the industry for themselves and stifle direct competition in the process. The more multi-platform AAA games they draw to their own system through acquisitions, the more reliant Sony will be in creating their own titles, whilst mainstream gamers may be forced to buy into Xbox just to play popular games they would've played on the rival. 

 

MS probably wont ever profit from this buyout but taking away users from Sony could be priceless and this is the only way they can do it. Without the likes of Bethesda and the other smaller acquisitions, they'd still be in the dark days on Kinect. 

 

Hopefully this will be the end of Battlenet on PC though and it would be great to see Activision titles back on Steam. It'll probably take many years for this move to have any real impact in terms of games though. 

 

I believe this is to increase their GamePass and cloud gaming.  A lot of people are working on making consoles disappear so having a solid porfolio is Key. They have Bethesda, EA, Activision now. I can forsee them having various tiers for the subscriptions and getting a constant revenue stream by not charging for the games and charging for in game content. Companies were already making a shitload of money that way. The $69 for the game is not what companies are after these days. 

I have their gamePass and generally speaking I am happy with it. All the games are older games but I don't give a shit. Most of them are fun to play. Been playing Doom, Battlefield, Skyrim, Oblivion all for an extra $4 on top of the gold membership. Most of the time I am playing off my laptop on the cloud. Much better experience than Vanguard or 2042 has to offer

[The3rdWalker 1,271]

1 hour ago, cyberninja2601 said:

 

I believe this is to increase their GamePass and cloud gaming.  A lot of people are working on making consoles disappear so having a solid porfolio is Key. They have Bethesda, EA, Activision now. I can forsee them having various tiers for the subscriptions and getting a constant revenue stream by not charging for the games and charging for in game content. Companies were already making a shitload of money that way. The $69 for the game is not what companies are after these days. 

I have their gamePass and generally speaking I am happy with it. All the games are older games but I don't give a shit. Most of them are fun to play. Been playing Doom, Battlefield, Skyrim, Oblivion all for an extra $4 on top of the gold membership. Most of the time I am playing off my laptop on the cloud. Much better experience than Vanguard or 2042 has to offer

 

On top of this their cross play and cross saving features between PC and Xbox make it a huge seller.

[LordBaguette 841]

Its time to buy a PC or Xbox. Sony can’t compete here unfortunately  

[J4MES OX4D 10,039]

12 hours ago, cyberninja2601 said:

 

I believe this is to increase their GamePass and cloud gaming.  A lot of people are working on making consoles disappear so having a solid porfolio is Key. They have Bethesda, EA, Activision now. I can forsee them having various tiers for the subscriptions and getting a constant revenue stream by not charging for the games and charging for in game content. Companies were already making a shitload of money that way. The $69 for the game is not what companies are after these days. 

I have their gamePass and generally speaking I am happy with it. All the games are older games but I don't give a shit. Most of them are fun to play. Been playing Doom, Battlefield, Skyrim, Oblivion all for an extra $4 on top of the gold membership. Most of the time I am playing off my laptop on the cloud. Much better experience than Vanguard or 2042 has to offer

Game Pass is a terrible deal for developers so the only way Microsoft can expand their game range for that is by directly acquiring the developers/publishers for themselves. It's definitely a good deal for gamers but some developers are walking away with under 50 cents an install as opposed to up to $60 licence ownership to the consumer minus any distribution cuts. Not every game has additional revenue streams either. Just like the Epic Games Store, the pass once hosted older games that already reached peak revenue potential but now MS want newer titles straight on there and the only way they can do that without stumping up lump sum fees is by owning the publishers themselves. Centralising gaming like this could reduce output quality going forward and increase already tight internal competition so I really hope that it doesn't have a negative affect on newer releases that may go on there. Could also increase bullshit like NFT's to mitigate any reduced revenue as we've already seen with STALKER 2 who are already confirmed to be on the pass day one. 

[phil bottle 9,769]

The thing with the gamepass is that it is a really good mix of games. Some old but also some new. I've played Forza Horizon 5, Halo Infinite campaign and a few others that in the past i might have bought. Stalker 2 is going to be on gamepass, that's right up my street.

The only PS5 game I'm willing to spend full price on is GT7 and I don't see myself spending £70 on any other game unless it is exclusively Sony, and decent.

[Antpool84 1,109]

[cyberninja2601 1,106]

On 1/19/2022 at 4:19 AM, J4MES OX4D said:

Game Pass is a terrible deal for developers so the only way Microsoft can expand their game range for that is by directly acquiring the developers/publishers for themselves. It's definitely a good deal for gamers but some developers are walking away with under 50 cents an install as opposed to up to $60 licence ownership to the consumer minus any distribution cuts. Not every game has additional revenue streams either. Just like the Epic Games Store, the pass once hosted older games that already reached peak revenue potential but now MS want newer titles straight on there and the only way they can do that without stumping up lump sum fees is by owning the publishers themselves. Centralising gaming like this could reduce output quality going forward and increase already tight internal competition so I really hope that it doesn't have a negative affect on newer releases that may go on there. Could also increase bullshit like NFT's to mitigate any reduced revenue as we've already seen with STALKER 2 who are already confirmed to be on the pass day one. 

 

"Centralizing game like this could reduce output Quality"? , How do you see the quality being any worse than it already is? BF/COD are amongst the largest franchises and have completely screwed the pooch and have been ridiculed for their quality (lack their of). People love to hate MS, but they do have quality standards as well as employment guidelines. I am hoping to see some improvement

 

 

[J4MES OX4D 10,039]

11 hours ago, cyberninja2601 said:

 

"Centralizing game like this could reduce output Quality"? , How do you see the quality being any worse than it already is? BF/COD are amongst the largest franchises and have completely screwed the pooch and have been ridiculed for their quality (lack their of). People love to hate MS, but they do have quality standards as well as employment guidelines. I am hoping to see some improvement

 

 

I was speaking in terms of the broader pass concept and not the actual acquisition. Microsoft snapping more and more studios and then planting them on a cloud-based structure would likely see revenues heavily squeezed for developers and morale depleted among studios. Imagine spending 3 years to make a game and then receiving a 13 cent cut just because someone installed your game and you can't measure if it was curiosity or an 'intended purchase'. We've already seen a few of their Indie studios disappear with staff being moved around where needed whilst other developers are left in limbo.

 

I do think the the Activision acquisition will boost the publisher no-end especially under improved ethics and a new direction - it can't get much worse after all but this aggressive stance Microsoft are taking in the industry which mimics that of Tencent may have knock-on affects in other areas that aren't apparent yet. The Game Pass has been very successful for gamers but for devs, not so a bit like how Spotify is to musicians and this could worsen the more Microsoft aim to grow their Cloud and subscription services. It may help them sell more Xbox units now but the long-term consequences may be worse for the industry especially with independent developers. 

[cyberninja2601 1,106]

3 hours ago, J4MES OX4D said:

I was speaking in terms of the broader pass concept and not the actual acquisition. Microsoft snapping more and more studios and then planting them on a cloud-based structure would likely see revenues heavily squeezed for developers and morale depleted among studios. Imagine spending 3 years to make a game and then receiving a 13 cent cut just because someone installed your game and you can't measure if it was curiosity or an 'intended purchase'. We've already seen a few of their Indie studios disappear with staff being moved around where needed whilst other developers are left in limbo.

 

I do think the the Activision acquisition will boost the publisher no-end especially under improved ethics and a new direction - it can't get much worse after all but this aggressive stance Microsoft are taking in the industry which mimics that of Tencent may have knock-on affects in other areas that aren't apparent yet. The Game Pass has been very successful for gamers but for devs, not so a bit like how Spotify is to musicians and this could worsen the more Microsoft aim to grow their Cloud and subscription services. It may help them sell more Xbox units now but the long-term consequences may be worse for the industry especially with independent developers. 

 

 

There is no money to be made in selling gaming platforms. XBOX sales at a loss. The margins are shit. With regards to the devs, once they are part of MS they become part of the bigger picture and $.13 cuts is not an issue for the MS group. They will be recognized based on gaming revenue. Just like I get recognized for datacenter revenues at Intel but work on probably less than 5% of the product offering and have absolutely zero to do with the CPU business. That's how these massive companies work. Intel is $78 Billion. My paycheck is based on Intel achieving better than $78 Billion this year. People don't count each of our products and brake it down, I suspect MS will do the same. They won't care how much Skyrim or COD puts into the business. They will care on how profitable the gaming business is. If a game isn't they likely will more people around and put them on the next project. The job market is extremely competitive these days. I don't for a minute believe that the developers won't end up ahead with this deal

 

 

 

 

[J4MES OX4D 10,039]

2 hours ago, cyberninja2601 said:

 

 

There is no money to be made in selling gaming platforms. XBOX sales at a loss. The margins are shit. With regards to the devs, once they are part of MS they become part of the bigger picture and $.13 cuts is not an issue for the MS group. They will be recognized based on gaming revenue. Just like I get recognized for datacenter revenues at Intel but work on probably less than 5% of the product offering and have absolutely zero to do with the CPU business. That's how these massive companies work. Intel is $78 Billion. My paycheck is based on Intel achieving better than $78 Billion this year. People don't count each of our products and brake it down, I suspect MS will do the same. They won't care how much Skyrim or COD puts into the business. They will care on how profitable the gaming business is. If a game isn't they likely will more people around and put them on the next project. The job market is extremely competitive these days. I don't for a minute believe that the developers won't end up ahead with this deal

 

That's the problem - small developers making a minuscule difference to the bottom line of a big company is a great way to kill morale and growth in smaller studios especially if developers are being moved around to more recognised studios. All them promises Epic made to put small devs in the limelight with exclusives has failed and Microsoft's smaller acquisitions have been shadowed by Bethesda who will be releasing 1 game in the next 4 years.  The greater quantity Microsoft undertake, the harder it will be for developers to progress in a centralised monopoly. Their moves just stink of PR to get ahead of Sony and stem Tencent, and they've made no credible case as to what they can bring to the table for acquisitions the same way Epic can't justify their aggressive loss-making exclusive chase. Indie games have boomed and even outshone high-budget AAA games in recent years and nobody wants to see this negatively impacted by saturation and bloat. 

 

I think the pass is great for gamers but moves Microsoft are making could be seen as short-sighted and let's not forget this is a company that abandoned PC gaming for 15 years, thought Kinect would take over the world and just 2 months ago said they were 'reevaluating their relationship' with Activision.  

[JungleHeart 82]

On 1/22/2022 at 12:47 AM, J4MES OX4D said:

I think the pass is great for gamers but moves Microsoft are making could be seen as short-sighted and let's not forget this is a company that abandoned PC gaming for 15 years, thought Kinect would take over the world and just 2 months ago said they were 'reevaluating their relationship' with Activision.  

I like this sentiment about the move being a short-sighted one in the sense that it has immediate benefits and returns for everyone; first, Game Pass, then second, reviving old properties which are not exclusive to Xbox, so yes this is for everyone. But then there would be repercussions down the line.

 

Sorry I know links can be removed but I was just intrigued that the short sighted aspects to this was also raised by this writer:

 

The Growing Integration of the Games Industry, or, Why the Free Hand of the Market isn’t Working

BLOG.PLAYERAUCTIONS.COM

---

The video games industry has been woefully underregulated for decades and this has led to a wild-west as far as business practices...

 

So yeah, it could be a real concern. I just hope we're wrong and this is actually intended to support Phil's vision of gaming for everybody or something along those lines.

[GazzaGarratt 11,056]

On 1/18/2022 at 1:42 PM, phil bottle said:

In theory, Bobby Kotick will continue to be CEO of Activision, so lol at that 🙃

 

Even if he gets the inevitable payout, it sounds like he will go which can only be a good thing.

 

On 1/19/2022 at 7:09 AM, LordBaguette said:

Its time to buy a PC or Xbox. Sony can’t compete here unfortunately  

 

I don't think changes anything straight away, imo. Immediate positives through a few games on GamePass but longer term i have my doubts. But thats also gaming in general.

 

On 1/18/2022 at 9:07 PM, cyberninja2601 said:

 

I believe this is to increase their GamePass and cloud gaming.  A lot of people are working on making consoles disappear so having a solid porfolio is Key. They have Bethesda, EA, Activision now. I can forsee them having various tiers for the subscriptions and getting a constant revenue stream by not charging for the games and charging for in game content. Companies were already making a shitload of money that way. The $69 for the game is not what companies are after these days. 

I have their gamePass and generally speaking I am happy with it. All the games are older games but I don't give a shit. Most of them are fun to play. Been playing Doom, Battlefield, Skyrim, Oblivion all for an extra $4 on top of the gold membership. Most of the time I am playing off my laptop on the cloud. Much better experience than Vanguard or 2042 has to offer

 

100% agree with the money model is not after $69, which is the more slightly concerning issue here in general.

 

On 1/18/2022 at 10:51 PM, The3rdWalker said:

 

On top of this their cross play and cross saving features between PC and Xbox make it a huge seller.

 

Agreed again. Culture is changing and people seem to want this as a feature as they don't want to change allegiances in platforms. Although, I think this has become a glorified bonus personally as many won't/don't want to play with crossplay on in an FPS game.

 

 

I think for me the gaming industry has shifted already. We've talked before on how consumers gorge content like no tomorrow and waiting 7 years for an original AAA masterpiece is very difficult to wait for these days. I think many games won't be at the same quality if we keep forcing consumers down a rental service. Movie industry is a prime example that has seen this impact. Over time, the real winners will be the games that keep alive via Live Service, or can create sequels that are essentially add-ons. In a weird sense, could be fantastic news for Overwatch 2. Release smaller content drops more regularly. People want to play all the games and don't want to be held down to one anymore by Game Producers.

 

We'll see how quick they can actually churn out AAA games to match what Sony have produced in the last 5 years. I think they can, but could take another 5 years to come side by side.

 

[JM 1,609]

 

Not happening.

[phil bottle 9,769]

If it makes Bobby poorer then I won't shed a tear.

I wonder how much money etc Sony promised in bribes,  because the reason is complete bullshit 😅

[phil bottle 9,769]

Lol at Microsoft though, chucking their toys out the pram. Saying today this is going to hurt Britsin and they're going to focus more on business with the EU.

Oh well, seems you boys were greasing up the wrong palms 😅

 

They're appealing, but does look like this merger is dead and buried.

[cyberninja2601 1,106]

3 hours ago, phil bottle said:

Lol at Microsoft though, chucking their toys out the pram. Saying today this is going to hurt Britsin and they're going to focus more on business with the EU.

Oh well, seems you boys were greasing up the wrong palms 😅

 

They're appealing, but does look like this merger is dead and buried.

 

I don't quite understand. The UK population is like 67 Million. How can the UK prevent a merger with two USA based companies?

 

I don't see why Microsoft simply doesn't tell the UK to suck it and don't buy our stuff if you don't like it.  Then tell them to go run Linux and google docs and see how long that lasts